Desastres · Río San FranciscoEl río San Francisco baja aguas abajo de Glenwood, pero sigue por encima del nivel de inundaciónEscrito 2 de noviembre de 2026 a las 6:47 UTCVerTranscripción0:07The river below Glenwood stayed above flood stage even as its level fell.0:11Minor flooding was occurring along the San Francisco River in Catron County, New0:14Mexico.0:15The lower reading still left the river above its fifteen foot flood threshold.0:19The unresolved issue is when the flooding ends, with conflicting timing in the0:23warning and forecast.0:24The flooding below Glenwood concerns one named reach of the San Francisco River.0:28Reserve has a separate warning on the same river.0:30Its warning covers a different location, so the two places need to be kept separate0:34when tracking water levels.0:36The gauge read fifteen point seven feet, then fifteen point four feet forty five0:40minutes later.0:41That reduced the height above flood stage from zero point seven feet to zero point0:45four feet.0:46Minor flooding was still occurring at the later observation.0:49Those observations were taken late Sunday, November first.0:52Together, they show a drop of zero point three feet.0:55They don't tell us whether the river kept falling after the second reading.0:58The bankful level, when water fills the river's channel, is twelve feet.1:02The flood threshold is fifteen feet.1:04The river reached a maximum of sixteen feet in the preceding twenty-four hours.1:08Both warnings gave that same maximum for their respective observation periods.1:12These figures describe the river's height at its gauge.1:15They don't measure water depth on a road or inside a building.1:17The later twenty-four hour maximum covers the period ending with the latest1:22observation.1:23The first warning went out Sunday night, with a headline running to six Monday1:26evening.1:27The later warning moved that headline end to six ten Monday evening, November1:30second.1:31It continued to describe minor flooding below Glenwood.1:34Six ten is the newer stated schedule.1:36A scheduled warning end doesn't tell residents that the river will be below flood1:39stage by then, and the earlier warning carried a separate conflicting expiration1:43time.1:43The earlier headline said six in the evening, while the alerts metadata listed ten1:47fifteen in the morning.1:49Those are different fields with different times.1:51Their relationship is unclear, and the newer evening headline doesn't explain that1:54earlier mismatch.1:55The forecast creates another timing problem.1:57It describes a fall below flood stage Monday morning, but also gives a much higher2:01river level late that evening.2:03Seventeen feet would put the river above the fifteen foot flood threshold.2:06A morning fall followed by an evening rise is possible.2:09But the wording doesn't give a clear sequence.17 feet is a forecast figure, and the2:13river wasn't observed at that level.2:15The earlier forecast also paired rising and falling language awkwardly and allowed2:19for further rises.2:20Taken together, those forecasts don't provide a reliable crest time or a clear hour2:24when people can expect the flooding to end.2:26At reserve, the separate river flood warning replaced a flood advisory and ran from2:30Sunday evening to Monday afternoon.2:32That warning concerns the river at reserve.2:34It doesn't supply a newer reading for the gauge below Glenwood or describe damage2:37there.2:38For anyone traveling near the river, the safety instruction is to avoid flooded2:42roads.2:42A later gauge observation is needed to confirm a fall below fifteen feet, along with2:47any warning revision or extension.2:48The last reported reading below Glenwood was fifteen point four feet, still above2:52flood stage.Leer el artículoCronología de la historiaHeyDex
