Catastrophes · Crue de la rivière SaltLa rivière Salt dépasse le seuil de crue près de Chrysotile ; la baisse prévue ne signifie pas que tout danger est écartéRédigé 2 novembre 2026 à 03:39 UTCRegarderTranscription0:07The river near Chrysatile stood seven tenths of a foot above flood stage.0:11Minor flooding prompted a warning for this stretch of the Salt River, replacing an0:14earlier advisory.0:15A temporary dip is forecast, but will the river stay below flood stage?0:19The warned stretch runs near Christotile in Arizona's Gila County.0:23The National Weather Service in Phoenix issued the warning Sunday evening, November0:27first, after the river crossed its listed flood threshold.0:30The measurement was taken at six thirty that evening, ten minutes before the warning0:34was issued.0:35It captures the river's height at that moment.0:37The warning classified the flooding as minor.0:39The river measured eighteen point seven feet against a flood stage of eighteen feet.0:43That's seven tenths of a foot above the threshold.0:46And it's the observation behind the change from an advisory to a warning.0:49River stage measures height at a gauge.0:51It doesn't tell you how deep water is on a nearby road or property.0:55The federal monitoring station here is called Salt River near Christotile.0:58An earlier river level display showed seventeen point one six feet at four thirty1:03five Sunday afternoon.1:04That earlier snapshot came before the warnings above.1:06Threshold observation.1:08The two readings haven't been reconciled into a continuous series that would support1:12a reliable rate of rise.1:13Forecasters expected the river to cross the threshold again after falling below it.1:17That makes the predicted dip only part of the outlook.1:20A lower reading for a time wouldn't by itself mean the warning had ended.1:23The forecast called for a fall to seventeen point one feet that evening, then a1:27return to the eighteen foot flood threshold late that evening.1:30After that, forecasters expected a decline.1:33Those changes were predictions.1:34They still needed later measurements.1:36The historical comparison contains a separate problem.1:38An alert account described the river as approaching a record crest of eighteen point1:42three feet from January eighth, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three.1:46But the new observation was already numerically higher.1:49Eighteen point seven feet is four tenths of a foot above eighteen point three.1:53Calling this a record would require checking the historical height and whether both1:56measurements use the same gauge reference.1:59The figures alone can't settle that.2:00The warning's timing also needs care.2:02Its headline and event and field both gave ten Monday morning as the scheduled end.2:07Another field listed six forty five that morning, matching the time expected for the2:11next statement.2:12The six forty five timestamp belonged to the product expiration field.2:16It didn't cancel the warning.10 A.2:18M.2:19was the stated event end, and an extension could follow if conditions required one.2:23All those times are mountain standard time.2:25Forecasters expected a return to flood stage after the dip.2:29We don't yet know whether the river followed that path or whether the warning was2:32continued.2:33The next statement was scheduled for six forty five Monday morning to reassess the2:37river and warning status.Lire l’articleChronologie de l’histoireHeyDex
