Pueblo chieftain., 1921-08-23
FIRMS REPORT TO
ITYONFL0OD PREVENTION
Carefully Prepared Data From Two Sources With
Proposition In Figures By One
Firm

Albany. New York. dated Colorado
| Springs, August IS. and addressed 10
President j. l.. Lovern of the city com
mission, was received yesterday:
Mr.. James L. Lovern.
President of Council.
| Pueblo, Colorado.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to your request, by tele-
gram of August 8. 1921, we went 10
| Pueblo-Saturday last-and on sub
seauent days examined the flood and
stream channel conditions. water
sheds and dam sites in the vicinity.
This was done with a view to advising
the city and county commissions and
| the various committees as to the ne
cessary steps to be taken to secure
adequate flood relief. and to advise
you as to the probable cost of sur
veys and engineering work necessary
to formulate a definite, feasible plan
and program for carrying out such
work At the request of the commit
| tee of twelve. we submit herewith a
brief memorandum of our sugges-
tions, which we trust you will trans
nit TO the various officials and COM
= mittees interested:
I We have directed our attention,
more especially. to the problems con-
corning the city of Pueblo itself. but
having in mind, also, the broader
| pTppltl1 Oh Ilopu pTpN'tllpil hipHS 'ip
| entire course of the Arkansas river in
eastern Colorado.
| As between the various modes OF
| flood protection, such as widening OF
channels, construction of dikes and
levees. use of detention reservoirs
with permanent outlets. or use OF
| storage reservoir with outlet control.
we cannot. of course. advise you at
| this time.
We submit. however. the followin s
propositions:
/. 1t appears that in any event a
considerable amount of stream chan
mel improvement will be needed In
and closely adjacent to the city of
Pueblo.
>. This channel Improvement
should be carried out with a view not
only to carrying the flood water thru
the city, but, also, getting them away
from the city without damage. this
involves consideration of Fountain
and Salt Creeks. especially at and
near their functions with the Arkan.
sas river.
,. There is a feasible reservoir site
on the Arkansas river at Rock gorge
and possibly, also. others, both on
the Arkansas river and on Fountain
creek. II appears certain that dam
should be built at the Rock gorge site
! that would be absolutely safe and
permanent under any flood contin-
sency and not be menace to the
city.
On account of the location of this
site. inme ediately upstream from the
city, n dam at that location should be
designated with factors to safety and
stability greater than those sometimes
used elsewhere.
4. As a basis of estimates of cost
and of the determination OF the rels-
| tive value and advantages of different
methods or combinations OF flood
control. there should be prepared. at
once, a detailed topographic map-on
suitable scale-coverinE the Arkansas
valley bottom from a point at least
one mile upstream from the western
city limit to appoint at least one mile
| DOWNS stream from the mouth OF
Fountain creek. and also extending
two TO three miles up Fountain creek
valley. Fhis map should include
| cross-sections and soundings OF
stream channels, also test borinEs.
etc, showing depth and character OF
taken at frequent intervals and their
elevations also shown. The field
survey should be well monumented
SO that the resulting map will serve
not only as a basis of preparation of
plans. but. also. for laying out future
construction work on the ground. In
addition. suitable topographic surveys
should be made on Rock gorge and
Fountain creek reservoir sites. II is
our opinion that these surveys could
be carried out in sixty to ninety days
time. depending upon weather condi-
tions, and the actual gross cost OF
field work would be $4,000 to S1s.-
600, including cost of supervision.
| .. With the resulting maps before
va as basis for plans and estimated.
We would prepare n report and submit
plan for flood relief. this report
would involve two main features:
A. Cost estimates and full details Of
alternative flood relief plans proposed;
submitting the advantages and disad.
vsntages OF each such plan-both rels.
tive to local and general situations In
tho Arkansas valley. This would in
clude consideration Of the degree OF
flood relief afforded and estima ed
property benefits derived therefrom.
Il. After considering the cost and
all other factors affecting the merits
of the different alternative PROPOSE.
tions. we would submit plan OF
plans. which. after considering all fea-
lures Of the situation, appear most
feasible and mcritorious. Such plan or
plans would be accompanied by de-
tailed cost estimates. also by maps and
drawings showing structures and i'm.
provefnents proposed. and their ioca
ticns relative to the present physica
situation.
II is not to he understood that this
includes detailed plans and specifca.
tions for fnai construction work. hu
does include everything necessary for
submission of tho matter TO the peo
pie for adoption.
Our report would he thorough anc
| comprehensive. and would he accom-
panied by exhibits of the essents
data II would require three to foui
months for its compiction-after com
pletion Of the surveys.
6 We estimate the Erors cost of sur
veys outlined under Item No. T. al
ii5.ooo to SIS II is possible that thu
surveys necessary To he made unde