FLOOD08888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the existing town lies in the flood plain, zoning is not a practical solution to the flood problem. A well-written and properly enforced building code can effectively rf'duce damages to buildinf,s in the flooel plain during flood periods. Nevertheless, building codes can only be of assistance to nel' buildings and the existing buildings will continu" to be damaged by floods. Flood proofing measures can be applied effec- tively to both existing and future structures. These may include ele- vation of the structures, site adjustments, and structural design chanr,e. Since the majority of the community lies within the flood plain, the cost of flood proofing the existing structures would be prohibitive. Urban redevelopment can be used in changing areas to floodways that are a drain on the community's economy. However, in the town of Holly this method of flood control would be infeasible because the flood plain is so large the entire town would hsve to be redeveloped. Although non- structursl flood plain management techniques are not recommended as a solu tion to the flood problems, local officials should cons ider such measures to augment any flood protection plan. Protection against flooding at Holly can be provided by Btorage of floodwaters at reservoir sites. Single purpose flood control reservoirs were considered on wild Horse Creek, Two Butte Creek, and the Arkansas River at the sites shown on Plate 2. preliminary investigations re- vealed that to provide standard project flood control, project firs t COB ts wou Id be $8,200,000 for the wild Horse si te, $20,200.000 for the Two Butte site and $48,000,000 for the Arkansas River site. TheBe hil:h costs included further consideration of the sites. In addition to the high costs, unless all three sources of flooding are controlled, the town of Holly would remain vulnerable to flooding from those not con- trolled. }lultiple-purpose development of the reservoirs to satisfy the irrigation and recreation needs of the area was also considered. However, local interests do not presently have rights to store additional water for recreation purposes, and the ability to store irrigation waters at the tributary sites is questionable. Although irrigation storage is possible in the main stem reservoir, only the area downstream from !lolly would d~rive benefits. Based on the above reasons, reservoirs are not considered to he a feasible solution. Increased protection could be provided by improving the existing channel capacities of Two Butte and Wild Horse Creeks and the Arkansas River. Channel improvement for the Arkansas River would cause severe negative environmental impacts, including a reduction of wildlife hab- itat and populations and an alteration of present ecosystems. Improve- ments of the IHld !lorse Creek channel as shown on Plste 3, to provide Standard Project Flood protection to Holly would require excavation of B channel about 1,000 feet wide and lenp.thening two railroad bridges and highway bridr,e about 750 feet. Also, even though the improvement was constructed, Holly would remain vulnerable to flooding from the Arkansas River. Consequently, chsnnel improvement is not considered to be a viable solution. 10 ~