My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD08154
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD08154
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:13:48 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:25:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Adams
Community
Westminster
Stream Name
Big Dry Creek
Basin
South Platte
Title
Master Drainageway Planning Study
Date
3/1/1973
Prepared For
Westminster
Prepared By
UDFCD
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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 />10. Any project undertaken by the DIstrict must b,. desIgned and con- <br />structed so as to not Injure the rights of the IrrIgators. <br /> <br />A I ternates <br /> <br />1. Flood Plain Zoning. There Is no liability from a failure to act <br />and It Is desirable from a legal standpoint. Existing artificial <br />Impediments such as Sheridan Boulevard and th,e Union Pacific Rail- <br />road would not cause the DistrIct to assume r,esponslblllty If <br />this alternate was adopted. Relative to structures constructed <br />by the various entities, the structures should be designed for <br />natural flows as well as increased flows that can be anticipated. <br /> <br />2. Flood Plain Zoning wIth Select,ed and Limited Structural Improvements. <br />The liabIlity responsibilities are as described for Alternate 1. <br /> <br />3. Geometric, Lined Open Channel. The exposure to liability for the <br />various entities Is greater than for Alternates I and 2. There <br />cannot be any damage done which would have been done had the channel <br />been left In Its original condition. Reopons Iblllty for maintenance <br />lies with the governing entities. <br /> <br />4. Underground, Closed ConduIt. The potential problems of I lability <br />make this alternate unattractive from a legal standpoInt. Such <br />problems as Inappropriate (difficult) designs and plugging could <br />result In severc'llablllty and would not dImInish the responsIbility <br />of the governmental entities to make certaIn that the channel Is <br />maIntained In an open and obstruction free condition. <br /> <br />5. pondlng - ThIs alternate considers the addition of pondlng over and <br />above that which presently and/or naturally occurs. Liability <br />for these features Is the same as for previous alternates. In ad- <br />ditIon, Intentionally ponded areas outside of the flood plain must <br />have easements or must be purchased. <br /> <br />6. Deep Tunnel. ThIs alternate has essentially the same liabilities <br />as does Alternate 4. <br /> <br />Recommendations. <br /> <br />Alternates 1 and 2 "are more desirable from 'J legal standpoint than <br />alternates Three, Four or Six." In addition, "once It Is Instituted, the <br />DIstrict must maintain survey lance of the system to insure that: It functions <br />properly. <br /> <br />'1.,2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.