Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ad~ttt~nal reliability could be obtatned by adding ~~r~ observa- <br />tion net"'orks to each alternative. Tllble 21, however, indicates that <br />alter"attves 'iilthro<.lllhSEwould result tnfouralternativ'"Oleansof <br />fla.h flood detectlo(l, H :."..s forecasts and potentia, private spotter <br />oet",ork. are taken into account. <br /> <br />SELECTION <br /> <br />Succes3f<.l1 oper<ltlon of <I flash flood detection net"'ork is depen- <br />dent on 10cll1 interest and resources. Therefore, in the selection of <br />anillternattve, t<lrtmerCo<.lnty officiaIswere asked to comment on <br />alternatives 4 through 6. Comments "'ere also sOlicited from the SWS, <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the U.S. Forest Servi~e, and <br />fro~ personnel operating the existing flood warning gyste~ in Boulder <br />County. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />Larimer County has tak",n initial action on flood warning by <br />e",ploying a privatc "'enther ~ons"ltant .~Jth n rainfall SpOtt"-r net...ork <br />",ld " e~lor radar receiver, tocal ofHd...h ~f" not rM.dy 4t thU tin<. <br />to.elae:amoreeJ<ten$ivefloodwarnillgsyste:n. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />A flood "'arning 9ptem "liouId be developed consinent '~tth the <br />needs and reSOUrce" of the are<l. ~q" ipmen~ f or the i lood ",nrnlng <br />~y~t,.", 01","1.<:1 h~ ~"~~f"lly ~~l~n..d tn tn"'.'~~ rel1"blc ??c"~~~Q" ""d <br />r""sonahly cMventent 'Min~..n..nce. It is recommended that this r~purt <br />h" p"blishcd for the lnfor""~tlon of lac~l bt"rests. <br /> <br />-"").' <br />