Chuyển đến nội dung
Hiện tại

Thiên tai · Salt River flooding

Salt River tops flood stage near Chrysotile; forecast dip offers no all-clear

An 18.7-foot observation triggered a minor-flood warning Sunday evening. Forecasters expected a temporary fall below the threshold, then a return to flood stage.

Đã viết 4 phút đọc · 17 nguồn

HeyDex

Có bằng tiếng Anh

The Salt River near Chrysotile was forecast to slip below flood stage Sunday evening—and then reach the threshold again before the night was over. That made the predicted dip no all-clear: the river had already crossed into minor flooding, prompting the National Weather Service in Phoenix to replace an advisory with a flood warning.⁠1⁠2

The observation behind the warning was 18.7 feet at 6:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on November 1, 2026. That was seven-tenths of a foot above the listed 18-foot flood stage for this stretch of river in Arizona’s Gila County. The weather service issued the warning ten minutes later, at 6:40 p.m.⁠1

18.7 feetObserved stage at 6:30 p.m. Sunday 1
18 feetListed flood threshold 1
0.7 feetAbove the threshold at that observation 1

This was an observed river-flood development, not simply a prediction that rain might produce flooding. But the measurement also has a limit: it establishes the river’s reported height at 6:30 p.m., not its exact height through the rest of the evening. No later observation has been independently established here.

The federal monitoring station is USGS 09497500, Salt River Near Chrysotile, Arizona. River stage is height measured at a gauge; an 18.7-foot stage does not mean water is 18.7 feet deep on a nearby road or property. There is no verified, stage-specific account identifying roads, buildings or access routes affected at 18 to 19 feet.⁠13

The warning classified the flooding as minor. That is the supported severity—not evidence of major flooding, widespread destruction or an evacuation order at Chrysotile. The warning reproduction published by Forth also identifies minor flooding and explicitly says the warning replaces a river flood advisory.⁠1⁠2

A dip is not a cancellation

Forecasters expected the river to fall to 17.1 feet that evening, below flood stage, before returning to the 18-foot threshold late that evening. A decline was forecast for the remainder of the period. Those were predictions, not a sequence of confirmed measurements. Whether the river actually followed that path remains unverified.⁠1

An earlier display on floodriskhere.com showed 17.16 feet at 4:35 p.m. MST Sunday. That reading preceded the warning’s 6:30 p.m. observation; it was not a later correction or evidence that the river had already receded. The display and warning have not been reconciled into a continuous gauge series, so subtracting one from the other to announce a rate of rise would imply more certainty than the evidence supports.⁠4⁠1

The warning’s timing requires a similar distinction. Its headline gave a scheduled end of 10 a.m. MST Monday, November 2, matching the event-end field of 17:00 UTC. A separate product-expiration field listed 13:45 UTC—6:45 a.m. MST—which was also the time expected for the next statement.⁠1

Those fields do not amount to two competing all-clears. The earlier product-expiration time does not establish that the warning was canceled at 6:45 a.m.; the stated 10 a.m. event end does not establish that an extension could not follow. A subsequent statement or cancellation is needed to settle the warning’s later status.

The next scheduled assessment, at 6:45 a.m. Monday, was therefore consequential: it could establish a new river observation and whether the warning needed to continue. No subsequent Chrysotile update has been verified here, so neither the forecast decline nor the scheduled end should be presented as an observed resolution.⁠1

The record claim does not hold

A separate inconsistency sits in the historical comparison. The alert account cites an 18.3-foot crest on January 8, 1993, while describing the new level as approaching that record. But 18.7 feet is four-tenths of a foot higher than 18.3 feet, not lower. Forth’s warning excerpt likewise carries the description that this “approaches the flood of record.”⁠1⁠2

The arithmetic exposes a problem; it does not establish a new record. The historical height, record ranking and comparability of the gauge reference have not been independently verified. Without those checks, it would be unsound either to declare record flooding or to repeat that an 18.7-foot observation was merely approaching an 18.3-foot mark. The available USGS material does not settle that historical comparison.⁠13

The firm conclusion is narrower, and useful enough: the Salt River near Chrysotile had exceeded its listed flood threshold, an advisory had become a warning, and a forecast dip did not settle the hazard because a return to flood stage was still expected. What happened next requires another observation and an updated warning status—not an assumption that the river followed the forecast.

Sources

National Weather Service Phoenix, November 1 Chrysotile flood warning.⁠1 Forth, reproduction of the Chrysotile warning.⁠2 Weather Alert Watch, Gila County flood advisory.⁠3 floodriskhere.com, Chrysotile river-level display.⁠4

National Weather Service warning summary by location.⁠5 NWS Gila County flood-warning text.⁠6 Weather Alert Watch, Gila and Maricopa counties advisory.⁠7 iAlert, Gila County advisory.⁠8 NWS Gila/Pinal flood-warning text.⁠9 NWS flash-flood-watch text.⁠10

National Water Prediction Service, Chrysotile gauge pages.⁠11⁠12 USGS, Salt River Near Chrysotile station.⁠13 USGS WaterWatch.⁠14 Atmostorm, Chrysotile river page.⁠15 USGS, Chrysotile current-condition graphs.⁠16 Drought.gov, National Water Prediction Service overview.⁠17

Nguồn9

Trong các nguồn được trích dẫn, iAlert Weather đăng tin đầu tiên, trước khi bản tin này lên sóng 13 giờ. 2 cơ quan báo chí khác đăng tin sau đó.
  1. iAlert Weather
  2. National Weather Service
  3. Weather Alert Watch
  4. HeyDay News

1 bài viết cũ được tham khảo để tìm hiểu bối cảnh.5 cơ quan báo chí không ghi ngày:NOAAAtmostormDrought.govfloodriskhere.comforth.news

Tất cả nguồn, theo cơ quan báo chí

17 nguồn từ 9 cơ quan báo chí· Trích dẫn nhiều nhất trước

Như đã phát sóng
  1. The river near Chrysotile stood seven-tenths of a foot above flood stage.
  2. Minor flooding prompted a warning for this stretch of the Salt River, replacing an earlier advisory. A temporary dip is forecast, but will the river stay below flood stage?
  3. The warned stretch runs near Chrysotile in Arizona's Gila County. The National Weather Service in Phoenix issued the warning Sunday evening, November first, after the river crossed its listed flood threshold.
  4. The measurement was taken at six-thirty that evening, ten minutes before the warning was issued. It captures the river's height at that moment. The warning classified the flooding as minor.
  5. The river measured 18.7 feet against a flood stage of 18 feet. That's seven-tenths of a foot above the threshold, and it's the observation behind the change from an advisory to a warning.
  6. River stage measures height at a gauge. It doesn't tell you how deep water is on a nearby road or property. The federal monitoring station here is called Salt River Near Chrysotile.
  7. An earlier river-level display showed 17.16 feet at four-thirty-five Sunday afternoon. That earlier snapshot came before the warning's above-threshold observation. The two readings haven't been reconciled into a continuous series that would support a reliable rate of rise.
  8. Forecasters expected the river to cross the threshold again after falling below it. That makes the predicted dip only part of the outlook. A lower reading for a time wouldn't, by itself, mean the warning had ended.
  9. The forecast called for a fall to 17.1 feet that evening, then a return to the 18-foot flood threshold late that evening. After that, forecasters expected a decline. Those changes were predictions; they still needed later measurements.
  10. The historical comparison contains a separate problem. An alert account described the river as approaching a record crest of 18.3 feet from January eighth, 1993. But the new observation was already numerically higher.
  11. 18.7 feet is four-tenths of a foot above 18.3. Calling this a record would require checking the historical height and whether both measurements use the same gauge reference. The figures alone can't settle that.
  12. The warning's timing also needs care. Its headline and event-end field both gave ten Monday morning as the scheduled end. Another field listed six-forty-five that morning, matching the time expected for the next statement.
  13. The six-forty-five timestamp belonged to the product-expiration field. It didn't cancel the warning. Ten a.m. was the stated event end, and an extension could follow if conditions required one. All those times are Mountain Standard Time.
  14. Forecasters expected a return to flood stage after the dip. We don't yet know whether the river followed that path or whether the warning was continued. The next statement was scheduled for six-forty-five Monday morning to reassess the river and warning status.

Phát sóng gần đây