FLOOD07477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h a lot of LUCK, serious damages were avoided. There were twenty-one live ost, but they re all a result of water recreationists failing to take proper precautions ather than travellers d building occupants being caught by flooding. "- Since the)lood event of 1993, the Colorado Water Conservation I;k)ard (CWCB) has increased its snoWpack monitoring efforts. The experience with snowpacly/monitoring that was acquired in 1993 ptoyed very useful in 1995. Interestingly enough, at/the start of the 1995 snowpack monitoring etfort, the state's snowpack, which had actually Aleen below average until then, kept increasing at precisely the time when it actually should haye been decreasing (late April and early May). As a resu1t;,the CWCB moved into action and foIfried the state's first Flood Task Force. The Task Force brou~t state and federal agencies, private entities and the media together on a weekly basis for 8 weeks SQ they could collectively shareAnformation about flood conditions and about their response~ to thos~ conditions. The Task F<;>t'c~'s actio~s positively influenced the way governmental agencIes responiho floods and how th}lpubhc perceIves them. \" . Statewide awareness of "FloM Threat 95" provided potential flood victims with opportunities to implement flood mitig~tion and preparedness measures. Through the efforts of the Colorado Flood Task Force, weekly f<xecasts were provided to the state's emergency and floodplain managers as well as the news med;~.. . "- ." "- These forecasts were developedahd prepllted from real time data gathered from its 14- member agencies. The CWCB develo.tfed computeri" d planning tools for flood forecasting that gave state and local officials some al>ility to anticipate od peaks and respond accordingly. The CWCB staff developed snowmeltA'Iood forecast tools wi!" h utilized temperature and snowpack water equivalent to estimate off at 10 selected location These computerized tools proved useful in monitoring and ide IfYing "hot spots" across the st 's river basins. At this point the state's ability to predict the agnitude and timing of snowmelt flo d peaks is not as well refined as many local officials wou like. In a few locations the peak was 0 restimated or underestimated andlor the timing of e peak was different than what was predic d. By and large, in 1995 officials had more vance warning of the flood peaks that they coul xpect than they had ever / had before. / Wh,6the flooding was over, the state visited the flooded communities t hold local flood hazard mitIgation planning meetings. At these meetings, all of the counties and m icipalities in a particyJllr watershed were invited to consider preparing plans to identify problems e erienced in ~99 and to develop strategies for reducing damages and inconvenience the next ti similar fl ding occurs. It is hoped that the Flood Event of 1995 will prompt some of Co do's ommu~ities to make ~hanges that will make them even better prepared the next time rain an r snow bnng more floodmg. .v w,o(-.. . 0 CA"-~ ~ oJ" iN--'iUlLfSf ~ The 1995 flood event emonstrated,IJhe need for mitigation plans and projects. Many flood mitigation projects are eeded across the state. Following the spring flood season, the CWCB has b several communities which have an interest in preparing such a plan I prier to the n"xl Hesd lh""l ;" thdr eSlHlHlIHities. In e.r1y Julv, Clear Creek County, I Georgetown, Idaho Springs and Silver Plume began developing a local flood hazard riiITig1niOn ! plan following a planning "kiCK::Q1f'-meetingconducted by CWCB staff. In additio~,.Ahe : commurpties of Pitkin County, Aspen, Basalt, CarbO!lda1e;~:filenweOO=SpHngs-,~.. . . - unty, : FriscC!,~enrid~_~ihcrtlwrnc;~tezuma,Weld_CQl!l1.ty,--r"ogan County, Wiley and d Ju ction haveoegun to seriously attempt to reduce futurelloud---damages--throug the im ion of flood h.7'olrd mitigativu ,1Ilikl;;;"S. Other &Immunities in . are ceHsid..ring similar efforts. 0 c ..,., p " I /..."'-J I 7, / IV' ~;:... ""-~~ ~ 'fi.t HrM'r ~ ~wt~-~ ~ ull!"..... FMW,