Naar inhoud
Nu

Rampen · San Francisco River

San Francisco River falls below Glenwood, but remains above flood stage

The San Francisco River below Glenwood fell in two late-Sunday readings but remained above flood stage. Conflicting warning and forecast times leave the end of flooding unresolved.

Geschreven 4 min leestijd · 18 bronnen

HeyDex

Beschikbaar in het Engels

The river had fallen, but it was still 0.4 feet above flood stage. At 10:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on Sunday, November 1, the San Francisco River below Glenwood measured 15.4 feet, with minor flooding still occurring in the Catron County reach, according to a National Weather Service alert record.⁠2

That was an improvement, not an all-clear. An earlier reading put the river at 15.7 feet at 9:45 p.m. Together, the observations show a drop of 0.3 feet in 45 minutes. Neither establishes what happened after the second reading, or whether the decline continued.⁠1⁠2

15.4 feetLatest reported stage, 10:30 p.m. Sunday 2
15.0 feetFlood-stage threshold 12
16.0 feetMaximum in preceding 24 hours 2

The distinction matters because the warning described flooding already happening—not merely a risk of flooding later. But the timing of its end is much less clear than the two reported measurements. The warning records contain conflicting expiration information and forecast language that cannot safely be turned into a reliable hour when the river will fall below flood stage.⁠1⁠2

This account rests on two NWS Albuquerque alert records and corroborating warning reproductions. The complete original warning documents could not be independently checked. Forth’s reproduction supports the report of ongoing minor flooding, and Defcon Level corroborates the earlier warning’s issuance and evening headline end; those excerpts do not independently confirm the precise stage readings or the later forecast wording.⁠3⁠4

A falling gauge is not clearance

The reported decline reduced the river’s height above its 15-foot flood threshold from 0.7 feet to 0.4 feet. That is a useful comparison over a short interval, not enough evidence to project a steady recession through the night. Extending that rate into an estimated end of flooding would assume the very thing that remains unconfirmed: that the water kept falling.⁠1⁠2

Both warnings listed a maximum stage of 16 feet in the preceding 24 hours. Those were overlapping observation periods, ending first at 9:45 p.m. and then at 10:30 p.m.; they do not describe two separate crests. The earlier record also listed a bankfull level of 12 feet, when water fills the river’s channel, distinct from the 15-foot flood threshold.⁠1⁠2

These figures describe river height at the gauge. They are not measurements of water depth across a road, in a yard or inside a building. Nor does the designation of minor flooding identify a particular damaged property or impassable route.

The warning has two timing problems

The first warning was issued at 10:11 p.m. MST Sunday, November 1, 2026. Its headline ran through 6 p.m. Monday, November 2—a schedule also carried by Defcon Level’s reproduction. But the alert record’s metadata listed an expiration of 10:15 a.m. Monday. Those are different fields with different times, and the available record does not explain their relationship. It would be wrong to select the morning time and declare that the river warning ended then.⁠1⁠4

The later record, issued at 10:56 p.m. Sunday, moved the headline end to 6:10 p.m. MST Monday. That is the newer stated schedule, ten minutes beyond the earlier evening end. It supersedes the earlier headline time, but does not resolve the mismatch in the earlier record. More importantly, a scheduled warning expiration is not a promise that flooding will have stopped.⁠2

The forecast introduces a separate uncertainty. The later record says the river should fall below flood stage Monday morning, without specifying an hour, while also giving a forecast level of 17 feet late that evening. Seventeen feet would be two feet above the flood threshold. A morning fall followed by an evening rise is possible, but the wording does not establish that sequence clearly.⁠2

The earlier forecast also awkwardly combined rising and falling language and allowed for additional rises. Taken together, these records do not support a dependable crest time or an all-clear forecast. The 17-foot figure must remain what it is: an unclear forecast statement, not an observed river level.⁠1⁠2

Reserve is a separate warning location

A warning on the same river at Reserve ran from Sunday evening to Monday afternoon and replaced a river flood advisory, according to an NWS warning reproduced by Forth. That is a distinct named location from the reach below Glenwood. Its warning neither supplies a newer Glenwood gauge reading nor establishes damage there.⁠13

No specific Glenwood road closure, evacuation, injury or property damage was verified in the available reporting. That is a limit on what can be reported, not evidence that no consequences occurred. The warning’s general advice to avoid flooded roads should not be mistaken for confirmation that a particular road was flooded or closed.⁠1

The practical instruction remains straightforward: avoid flooded roads. The next decisive information is a later gauge observation confirming whether the river fell below 15 feet, alongside any revision or extension of the warning. Until then, the last reported measurement below Glenwood remains 15.4 feet—lower than before, but still above flood stage.⁠1⁠2

Bronnen7

Van de hier aangehaalde bronnen publiceerde Defcon Level als eerste, 14 uur voordat dit bericht werd uitgezonden. 2 andere media volgden.
  1. Defcon Level
  2. National Weather Service
  3. Warning Vector
  4. HeyDay News

4 media zonder datum:NOAAforth.newsfloodriskhere.comWTC

Alle bronnen, per medium

18 bronnen van 7 media· Meest geciteerd eerst

Zoals uitgezonden
  1. The river below Glenwood stayed above flood stage even as its level fell.
  2. Minor flooding was occurring along the San Francisco River in Catron County, New Mexico. The lower reading still left the river above its fifteen-foot flood threshold. The unresolved issue is when the flooding ends, with conflicting timing in the warning and forecast.
  3. The flooding below Glenwood concerns one named reach of the San Francisco River. Reserve has a separate warning on the same river. Its warning covers a different location, so the two places need to be kept separate when tracking water levels.
  4. The gauge read fifteen point seven feet, then fifteen point four feet forty-five minutes later. That reduced the height above flood stage from zero point seven feet to zero point four feet. Minor flooding was still occurring at the later observation.
  5. Those observations were taken late Sunday, November first. Together, they show a drop of zero point three feet. They don't tell us whether the river kept falling after the second reading.
  6. The bankfull level, when water fills the river's channel, is twelve feet. The flood threshold is fifteen feet. The river reached a maximum of sixteen feet in the preceding twenty-four hours. Both warnings gave that same maximum for their respective observation periods.
  7. These figures describe the river's height at its gauge. They don't measure water depth on a road or inside a building. The later twenty-four-hour maximum covers the period ending with the latest observation.
  8. The first warning went out Sunday night, with a headline running to six Monday evening. The later warning moved that headline end to six ten Monday evening, November second. It continued to describe minor flooding below Glenwood.
  9. Six ten is the newer stated schedule. A scheduled warning end doesn't tell residents that the river will be below flood stage by then. And the earlier warning carried a separate, conflicting expiration time.
  10. The earlier headline said six in the evening, while the alert's metadata listed ten fifteen in the morning. Those are different fields with different times. Their relationship is unclear, and the newer evening headline doesn't explain that earlier mismatch.
  11. The forecast creates another timing problem. It describes a fall below flood stage Monday morning, but also gives a much higher river level late that evening.
  12. Seventeen feet would put the river above the fifteen-foot flood threshold. A morning fall followed by an evening rise is possible, but the wording doesn't give a clear sequence. Seventeen feet is a forecast figure, and the river wasn't observed at that level.
  13. The earlier forecast also paired rising and falling language awkwardly and allowed for further rises. Taken together, those forecasts don't provide a reliable crest time or a clear hour when people can expect the flooding to end.
  14. At Reserve, the separate river flood warning replaced a flood advisory and ran from Sunday evening to Monday afternoon. That warning concerns the river at Reserve. It doesn't supply a newer reading for the gauge below Glenwood or describe damage there.
  15. For anyone traveling near the river, the safety instruction is to avoid flooded roads. A later gauge observation is needed to confirm a fall below fifteen feet, along with any warning revision or extension. The last reported reading below Glenwood was fifteen point four feet, still above flood stage.

Onlangs uitgezonden