Being such a narrow peninsula , a large hurricane can easily affect both coasts and with most development in low lying coastal areas, the potential
for extensive property damage and loss of life is possible anywhere in Baja, especially from Guerrero Negro south.
Unfortunately , it looks like more rain could be on its way to Baja . I think I remember reading it was in 1959 that it was reported that 60 ft. of
water came down the Mulege estuary. If that is true , then this last rain from "John" would pale in it's comparison and the potential damage of
another hurricane like in 1959 would be enormous. If another sixty footer rolls through I would think it could take out most of the town .
Any one know off hand what year the Mulege bridge was built?Cypress - 9-14-2006 at 11:16 AM
There's no rhyme or reason to Hurricane season. Momma nature is a tuff teacher. No mercy when the water rises and the wind blows.EngineerMike - 9-14-2006 at 12:16 PM
I have a hard time believing 60 feet. That's about 3x the height we saw, and maybe 5 or 6x the amount of rain to produce that level of runoff (the
channel cross section increases more percentage wise in area per percent of height of the flow, so more than 3x the rain required for 3x the flow
height; also the flow velocity would be greater for greater depth so more water flowing per second).
Not to say that runoff in amounts greater than we just saw are not possible. The flat area between the Oasis and the highway was formed by alluvial
deposit, several of them over the millenia; some material came from the arroyo across the highway. But the flat is in a backwater area of the Rio
Mulege, so deposition rates from river floods would be high compared to in the open channel, and several feet of water over the top of that flat would
be required, IMO, to do the deposition seen today. Some material was deposited there from this river flood.
Bridge is pretty recent, maybe 10-15 years? It was there before Marty, but I know plenty of folks whose Mulege interest preceeded the puente grande.Bruce R Leech - 9-14-2006 at 12:40 PM
I would put the 59 flood at around 38 feet at the area where the bridge is now
1959 vs 2006 floods
Karyn Ivie - 9-14-2006 at 12:57 PM
If 1959 flood was 38 feet at the bridge, how many feet was the 2006 at the same point?EngineerMike - 9-14-2006 at 01:37 PM
Bruce- What's your point of reference on that? If we could do a comp vs. 2006, I could calculate the relative runoff rate of the old storm, and
that'd give a method for calculating downstream water surface levels.Karyn Ivie - 9-14-2006 at 01:48 PM
Yeah Bruce, get right on that, you don't have anything else to doBruce R Leech - 9-14-2006 at 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by EngineerMike
Bruce- What's your point of reference on that? If we could do a comp vs. 2006, I could calculate the relative runoff rate of the old storm, and
that'd give a method for calculating downstream water surface levels.
Mike my point of reference on that is comparing the water level here in town against the records of Homearo Yee for the 59 flood. with out getting out
my transit and acutely doing it right I an estimating to get the 38 foot level but it should be close. now the deferences are the flood of 59 were
before the bridge and all of the major obstructions were built under the bridge these things chocked the river and caused the level to be artificially
higher and the velocity's grater than they should have been in the flood of 06
Hi KarynCypress - 9-14-2006 at 02:57 PM
Regarding the depth of the water. 29'? 35'? 20'? All those depths are way over my head, and over most single story roof top heights. What's the point?
Don't rebuild at ground level. :Bruce R Leech - 9-14-2006 at 02:58 PM
:
