災害 · サンフランシスコ川サンフランシスコ川はグレンウッド下流で水位低下、ただし洪水位を上回る執筆 2026年11月2日 6:47 UTC視聴文字起こし0:07The 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.記事を読むストーリーの時系列HeyDex
