|
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Location: Maricopa County. Arizona
<br />
<br />Project: Legislative Action, Tax Levy, Flood
<br />Controi District, Phoenix and Vicinity Fiood
<br />Control Project. Indian Bend Wash,
<br />Cassandro Dam Wash
<br />
<br />Techniques: Legislative Action, Tax Levy, Storm
<br />Drainpipes, Headwalls, Detention Basins,
<br />Grading, Landscaping, Multi-use
<br />Parks/Athletic Fields, Greenbelt.
<br />Channelization, Erosion Control. Conal
<br />Diversion Channel, Bonk Stabilization,
<br />Acquisition of Flowage Easements, Dams
<br />
<br />Contact: Vic Calderon, Arizona Division of
<br />Emergency Management.
<br />calderov@dem.state.az.us or 602-231-6327
<br />
<br />lIl~i:~'l I.:: v <.: ,
<br />;'zf:CYI/J l;.ruJ [~ A
<br />)l,i:l..?fuIM I'
<br />
<br />Maricopa C
<br />
<br />Background
<br />Maricopa County has been no stranger to disaster. Historically, flash
<br />floods and flooding are a frequent occurrence due to the topography and
<br />arid lands. I.ess than thirty years ago major stonns in I'hoenix caused
<br />flooding in the state capitol. Less than 20 years ago, there was flooding
<br />in the dOlvnto"11 district. The airport had heen closed at times due to
<br />flooding. Luke Air Force !lase had experienced flonding. Ironically, the
<br />very conditions that allow flooding have attracted an influx of hi-tech companies bringing increased population and new construction. This
<br />new migration creates on-going challenges for residents, businesses and public officials of Maricopa County.
<br />
<br />Once again, the County experienced flooding during October of 2000. A severe
<br />Cornall<' EslImate weather disturbance dumpcd four to six inches of rain in "estem Maricopa County
<br />and eastem La paz County causing flash floodiug in the upper part of the Centennial
<br />W",h watershed between the lIarcuvar and lIarquahala mountain ranges. The
<br />Wenden Area reported close to nine inches of f'Jin during the same period. Heavy
<br />rains flowed into the northeast part of the wash, producing a flash flood that surged
<br />through one unincnrporated town in La Paz County in addition to one unincorpo-
<br />rated town and the City of Wickenburg in Maricopa County.
<br />
<br />Flood control in the desert is not a simple task. The hazards and risks to bOUl incor-
<br />porated and unincorporated communities are clear. The comhined efforts of local,
<br />state and fedend agencies continue to be needed to minimize flood damage. Resuhs of their activities and the effectiveness of mitigation
<br />prnjects \\ill he descrihed in this story ,md "ill illustrate how Maricopa County has worked toward ntinimizing Ule risks by striving to build
<br />a sustainable community. A key clement for success is the integration of non-structural and structural mitigation efforts.
<br />
<br />~ 1>
<br />~~ ih
<br />-:~ ~~~
<br />~~ L1
<br />Q"H
<br />8- ~"o
<br />II dJ
<br />
<br />::;;
<br />
<br />Year
<br />
<br />Month
<br />
<br />January
<br />
<br />$38 million
<br />
<br />1903
<br />1980
<br />
<br />February
<br />
<br />$63.7 million
<br />
<br />1978
<br />
<br />December
<br />
<br />$51.8 million
<br />
<br />March
<br />
<br />S37mllllon
<br />
<br />1978
<br />1972
<br />1970
<br />1963
<br />1965-66
<br />
<br />June
<br />
<br />$10.6 million
<br />
<br />September
<br />
<br />$590.o:xl
<br />
<br />August
<br />
<br />$2.9 million
<br />
<br />Winter
<br />
<br />S6million
<br />
<br />PrOject Description, Legislative Action
<br />On August:\, 19R4, the Arizona State I.egislature, \\ith the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS 4R-:\609), enacted legislation requiring builders
<br />and devclopers to comply with strict s~mdards for Ilood contrnl and storm\Vatcr management of their projects. The statute includes resi-
<br />dential (built or mobilc homc), commercial and industrial properties. All buildings arc rcquircd to he huilt one foot above the base flood
<br />elevation. The statute also includes compliance languagc for failing to adopt the regulatious.
<br />
<br />Enforcement of bOUl Ule ARS and the NflP on developers in Maricopa County h", worked well to reduce disaster cost, to the communi-
<br />ties. A model is Manistee Ranch Housing Developmcnt in Glendale. This project consists of 410 lots, including a largc park area and sev-
<br />eral retention hasins. The system of stonu drainpipes, headwalls, detention hasins, grading work and landscaping installed during con-
<br />structiou was "tested" during the October 2000 stonus ,md all perfonued as planned. Thel.e was standing water in the detentiou basin,
<br />the grouud saturated and Ule dry wells saturated, indicating the large amount of water that was prevented from flooding the homes. This
<br />water percolates down and eventually adds to valuable grouod water resourccs. The residential community w'" protected.
<br />
<br />Other housing developers plan their project' to provide for controlling stormwater runoff. Attention has been paid to keeping the required
<br />flood control measures, such as detention basins and stonu drains, attractivc as well as functional. Many have parks and athletic fields
<br />that are multi-use, providing new recreation areas ,md serving a.5 catclmlent basins during flood conditions.
<br />
<br />Benefits Legislative Action
<br />
<br />. Stormwater managemeot in Ule newer housing developments has avoided the cost of displacement of residents duc to flooding, tempo-
<br />rary housing, repair and rebuilding of residences, loss of business, damagc to infrastructure such as roads and access, search/res-
<br />cue/emergency response and unemployment.
<br />. It is estimated that $45,469,000 in property value was protected hy $292,000 in builders cost of compliance "ith the statute. The aver-
<br />age value of each home is $110,900. This amount multiplied hy the 410 homes equals $45,469,000 in property value.
<br />
<br />Arizona / Mitigation Success Stories / 3
<br />
|