US /
7 Numbers That Show How Nuts Colorado Flood Was
'Christian Science Monitor' calls it a 1K-year flood
By Arden Dier, Newser Staff
Posted Sep 19, 2013 7:53 AM CDT
A farm is surrounded by floodwaters near Crook, Colo., on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2013. The floods that ravaged Colorado this past week also took a toll on the state's agricultural communities..   (AP Photo/Chris Schneider)

(Newser) – To say it's been a wet month in Boulder, Colorado, may just be the understatement of the century—or the millennium. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "the numbers tell a tale of a thousand-year flood," and backs up that statement with some pretty stark figures. Here are seven that stand out:

  1. The storm dumped 15 inches of rain, obliterating the May 1969 record of 7.37 inches.
  2. And there's an even bigger gulf between the total amount of rain Boulder has seen this month (17.17 inches) and what it usually logs in September (1.5 inches).

  1. Some 9.08 inches fell last Wednesday alone, nearly doubling the previous record of 4.8 inches of rain in one day—from 1919.
  2. The size of the flooded area has been estimated at 4,500 square miles, which is easy to visualize—just picture Connecticut.
  3. 1,502 homes have been destroyed and another 17,494 damaged.
  4. Between 50 and 100 bridges were completely washed out or hit hard.
  5. Six major roads have been closed for the "foreseeable future."
Click for more numbers, including one related to the biggest airlift operation since Katrina.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
7 Numbers That Show How Nuts Colorado Flood Was is...
3%
16%
17%
2%
60%
2%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 44 comments
julianpenrod
Sep 19, 2013 7:33 PM CDT
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } For some this may be an affirmation of climate change, but there are details to consider. To be sure, it does represent an all but anomalous and all but certainly aberrant weather event, which can be consistent with wilder weather predicted with global warming. But, in that, too, it is suspicious, because it is so large. During a time of changing climate, it does not seem likely that a single massive event such as this would take place marking it, rather than a sequence of stronger than usual weather events, perhaps building in intensity. For all the effects of such an event to forestall until one moment means there were also incredibly strong effects preventing the development of such a system, and that is not considered part of the effects of climate change! In fact, for its unnaturally extreme ferocity, the event in Colorado seems very much like “Hurricane” Sandy. Sandy seems to have been a normal nor'easter with fabricated effects caused by power companies deliberately shutting off power, upland areas opening floodgates unnecessarily to inundate lowland areas, bulldozers destroying land supposedly physically torn up and oil companies agreeing to withhold the flow of gasoline even when roadways were clear. The very fact that this was so immense suggests it was engineered rather than natural. That does not eliminate the reality of climate change. And the fact that climate is changing not from fossil fuels but from chemtrailing. But oit does suggest, as with New Jersey, that there is a craven, economic project at work here against the well being of the public, like buying up land for pennies on the dollar.
Scaramouche
Sep 19, 2013 1:58 PM CDT
Well, all those melted glaciers have to go somewhere.
RockyAugustus
Sep 19, 2013 12:26 PM CDT
The biggest danger is all the flooded fracking wells leaking out toxic chemicals all over the land and into the rivers. Downstream is in trouble too- Nebraska and Kansas. I'd only drink bottled water and know the source, unless you can do distillation or reverse osmosis, but I don't know if that can get rid of the radioactivity of fracking water.