Home Page

5 concepts for Camp Creek flood control

       Attendees at a public meeting on Camp Creek Dec. 12 at Coronado High saw five conceptual options for flood prevention.
       Each would make it so nearby houses and businesses would be out of the 100-year flood plain (224 are in it now), according to information presented at the meeting by City Engineering and its hired consultant, Wilson & Company.
       Each concept assumes the city will fix the creek in basic ways, including sediment cleanup as needed at the north end of the Garden of the Gods (last summer's flooding left sediment over about a 4-acre area) and reconstructing the 1,200-foot-long culvert under 31st Street between Echo Lane and Fountain Creek.
       No proposal emerged as a consensus favorite - with the public or with the city and Wilson. One overriding concern with citizens is the long-term maintenance of anything that is built, based on a belief that the current concrete channel has not been especially well cared for.
       No cost estimates have been presented, although the two proposals for covered box culverts all the way through Pleasant Valley (Concepts D and E) would be more expensive than retaining an open channel.
       Another meeting (as yet unscheduled) is planned near the end of January.
       Here are capsules on each concept:
       Concept A - No upstream detention; keep open channel, 40 feet wide through Pleasant Valley neighborhood (between Chambers Way and Echo Lane), but make channel deeper and build walls several feet high on either side to handle a higher volume of water than at present.
       Concept B - Upstream detention in Rock Ledge Ranch parking area and at Gateway Road; keep open channel, 40 feet wide, through Pleasant Valley; make channel deeper and build wall on west side to handle more water; design could force narrower parkways for houses on east side of 31st; also, potential emergency-access issue on east side of 31st in a flood.
       Concept C - Upstream detention (same as in B); keep open channel, through Pleasant Valley but widen it to 52 feet and line it with grass; move bike lanes into a path along the channel (although “street crossings could be a safety risk”); make main part of channel deeper; build walls on both sides to handle water.
       Concept D - No upstream detention; replace open channel through Pleasant Valley with a buried culvert big enough for the full flow rate (not yet certain) and covered by a landscaped parkway; move bike lanes into parkway (but with same “safety risk” as in C).
       Concept E - Upstream detention in Garden of the Gods and near the park's northern boundary; replace open channel through Pleasant Valley with a buried culvert large enough to carry over half the full flow rate; move bike lanes into parkway (but same “safety risk” as in C).

Westside Pioneer article

Would you like to respond to this article? The Westside Pioneer welcomes letters at editor@westsidepioneer.com. (Click here for letter-writing criteria.)