My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06938
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD06938
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:10:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:36:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Nationwide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Storm Drainage and Urban Region Flood Control Planning
Date
10/1/1974
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The situation was typical in that a problem was identified by a local <br />jurisdiction (county) and a consultant was hired to prepare a master plan <br />that was subsequently adopted by the local jurisdiction. After preparation <br />.of contract plans and speci fi cati ons and just pri or to contract a~lard, <br />litigation ensued that charged the county with lack of consideration of <br />certain social values and cooperation with other governmental entities. <br />Settlement of litigation was obtained and cooperation was initiated between <br />the county and the Corps of Engineers. The Corps incorporated components <br />of the master plan within their plans for the Jordan River and obtained <br />authorization. The usual implementation by the Corps proceeded but was <br />soon halted by litigation which also halted the local jurisdiction from <br />implementation of other system components. The grounds for the litigation <br />against both the Corps and the local cases were, interesting enough, primarily <br />over design details. The overall concepts involved in providing relief from <br />overflow due to excessive storm runoff and the integration of storm drainage <br />with other components of the urban system were not disputed. In particular, <br />the proposed riprap slope protection for the channel improvement was objected <br />to by nearby residents. They perceived this as a destruction of the environ- <br />mental and visual values for which they had originally moved into the area. <br />The circular process seems to be that initially, ~he small streams <br />in their natural states were very attractive and people settled along <br />their banks. As a consequence, runoff began to increase. As the runoff <br />further increased, the streams were less and less able to provide adequate <br />conveyance capacity. Soon the channels began to degrade and the overflow <br />to cause damages. The downstream residents contended that the flood <br />problem was being caused by upstream development and the upstream dwellers <br />32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.