Feds ID high-risk flood zones
Denver among 7 Front Range counties labeled
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Published June 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated June 20, 2008 at 8:28 a.m.
Photo by Ken Papaleo © The Rocky
John Bell and Becky Hesser relax in the South Platte River below Chatfield Dam on Thursday. Bell's dog, Greta, keeps an eye on things. FEMA is assessing flood risks in Colorado.
Photo by Ken Papaleo © The Rocky
A cyclist makes his way past the Cherry Creek Dam on Thursday. Seven Front Range counties, including five in the Denver area, are classified as high-risk flood zones.
Seven Front Range counties, including five in metro Denver, are classified as high-risk flood zones, according to a first-ever analysis by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The ranking doesn't mean flooding is imminent. It means the metro area has a high number of people living along waterways and in flood plains, officials said.
It also means flood insurance for homeowners may cost more and building restrictions in flood zones could increase.
Many major cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles, have high-risk rankings.
The Colorado project is part of a national effort after Hurricane Katrina to flood-proof communities.
"It's not something people should be alarmed about," said Kevin Houck, a state engineer working with FEMA on its flood-mapping and analysis project. "But it's really good information to have. It's easy to forget in Colorado that floods do happen."
The analysis comes as part of a $40.8 million, five-year project to examine and map, county by county, where Colorado's flood risks are, whether levees and dams are adequate, and how to make sure homeowners and businesses have adequate protection and insurance.
The counties FEMA has identified as flood hot spots are:
* Adams
* Arapahoe
* Boulder
* Denver
* El Paso
* Jefferson
* Larimer
"People need to know whether they are in a flood plain," said Nancy Steinberger, a regional hydraulic engineer for FEMA who is overseeing the mapping and assessment work in Colorado.
"They also need to see the nearest place where they could evacuate and where the nearest high ground is, in case streets are flooded," she said.
FEMA is also working with the Corps of Engineers to determine which levees, dikes and dams it built are unsafe. Two in Colorado - one near Creede and one just outside Granada - were deemed "in need of immediate repair."
Work is under way to fix the structures and ensure communities are protected.
"Every structure we have is being re-evaluated," said FEMA spokesman Jerry DeFelice.
But the cost is high to repair aging dams and levees and procure flood insurance.
The tiny community of Grenada had no cash on hand to fix the dike that protected it from the floodwaters of Wolf Creek, but it was able to get $131,000 in state grant money to do the work.
"The Corps of Engineers built the levy, but we were responsible for maintaining it," Grenada Mayor Jerene DeBono said. "They came down last year and said they would withdraw their backing of the project if we didn't fix it. That would have meant the town residents would have had a hard time getting flood insurance."
Insurance costs are high as well. Homes in some high-risk areas, such as those along South Boulder Creek, must pay as much as $2,700 a year for flood insurance, in addition to homeowner's insurance, according to the FEMA Web site floodsmart.gov/floodsmart.
Houck said the metro area's flood risk isn't any worse now than it was several years ago, but the maps and the assessment mean each community can be better prepared.
"It's hardest on communities in which the flood plain is expanded," Houck said. "People think, 'I've lived here all my life, and now you're telling me I need flood insurance?' "
"I try to look at it differently," Houck said. "These are risk identification tools. They're telling people 'you're at risk. You need to know that.' "
smithj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5474; Scripps Howard News Service contributed to this report.
Top 10 most damaging floods in Colorado
Damage
June 1965 in Denver South Platte River $2.2 billion
June 1921 in Pueblo Arkansas River $760 million
May 1973 in Denver South Platte River $389 million
June 1965 in central Colorado Arkansas River Basin $205 million
July 1997 in Fort Collins and 13 eastern counties Spring Creek $169 million
July 1912 in Denver Cherry Creek $120 million
July 1976 in Larimer County Big Thompson River $85 million
May 1935 in Colorado Srpings Monument Creek $52 million
July 1982 in Estes Park Fall River $49 million
May 1995 in Trinidad Purgatoire River $36 million
Top 10 deadliest floods in Colorado
Deaths
July 1976 in Larimer County Big Thompson River 144
June 1921 in Pueblo Arkansas River 78
July 1896 in Morrison Bear Creek 27
May 1935 in Colorado Springs Monument Creek 18
June 1965 in central Colorado Arkansas River Basin 16
June 1983 in north central Colorado Colorado River 10
May 1973 in Denver South Platte River 10
May 1935 in Kiowa Kiowa Creek 9
June 1965 in Denver South Platte River 8
July 1997 in Fort Collins and 13 eastern counties Spring Creek 6
Determining a county's flood risk
* FEMA, as part of a new effort to more accurately map where flood zones lie, is assessing state by state, and county by county, which communities are at risk for flooding. The agency uses eight factors to determine a region's ranking:
1 Population (2000 census)
2 Change in population from 1990 to 2000 (to identify areas that are growing)
3 Number of housing units
4 Flood insurance policies
5 Single loss claims
6 Repetitive loss claims
7 Repetitive loss properties
8 Federally declared flood-related disasters
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 20, 2008
3:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brian1973 writes:
it'd be interesting to have someone re-play the 65 flood and assuming the same damage level, see how bad it would be today.
June 20, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoRick69 writes:
Maybe FEMA should have assessed the Midwest and given it a high-risk rating as well. Is there a rating higher than high-risk?
June 20, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elrey writes:
It would be more interesting to me to roll back the last eight years and see what our communities would be like if the money that was poured into Iraq had been used for visionary infrastructure updates and repairs instead.
Do you ever wonder what the price of fuel would be today if the 1.2 million barrels per month that is consumed in mili operations in Iraq were moved from the demand side of the price equation to the supply side? That's about five percent of the US consumption (21 million barrels per month). http://www.qurl.com/sq4bh
With six granddaughters scattered about now, I'm getting antsy about when their generation will start poking my generation about how we could have >just wasted< their inheritance of irreplacable resources.
June 20, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Meanwhile we will waste trillions ((trillions with a T!)in Bush's wars.
June 20, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
MereMortal writes:
Elrey:
Go back and read your link again. The USA uses 21 million barrels of oil a DAY, not a month. Oil use in Iraq is less than 2 tenths of a percent of USA oil use. USA oil demand is down over 4% in just the last 6 months. This means we have just lowered our oil consumption by 20 TIMES the total oil use in Iraq. Oil use in Iraq is a drop in the proverbial bucket.
June 20, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
Nice thought, Elrey, but do you really think if the gov had the money we were spending in Iraq any communities would see a penny? No, it would go to pork programs and taking care of the illegals.
June 20, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
boatracer writes:
You better BEWARE of the flood insurance boys. In Fla. I am paying $1377.00 a year for a house worth 120K for flood insurance. It has gone up 7 out of the last 12 months. This does not cover wind, rain or anything else. My house has not EVER seen water. They get whatever increase they want even though CHARLIE CRIST HAS PROMISED IN HIS CAMPAIGN THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. The insurance boys will run you right out of your home. I am forclosing now... Insurance has been predicted to go up 200% so nobody is buying houses. Check Sarasota FL. 45 miles away, Houses are going for $100.00 around 90 houses per day. BEWARE, THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT.
June 20, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
boatracer writes:
IF YOU ARE IN A FLOOD ZONE MOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 20, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
During the years I spent living Colorado the two things that stand out in my mind is that you don't build a house on top of a mountain nor do you build in a river basin. I've seen flash floods on the plains, terrible blizzards that have blocked low lying roads, forest fires burn uphill (this is natural, but if you have a home with a great view...)and snow drifted mountain roads. Not to mention the "douche effect" of the Big Thompson flood.
Now I live in the wide open Great Plains. Not a chance of a flood and snow piling up around the house is no biggy since the house is on a rise, pantry is stocked and we have a generator. The only downside to all this is tornadoes and some brutal thunderstorms.
The only suggestion Boatracer is that you put the house on pilings. At least you can motor around the house during a flood and tell your insurance agent to kiss you where the skin turns pink.