The Pikes Peak Badger

Douglas County approves flood-risk study with $124,000 contribution

The 18-month study will examine flood risks beyond current federal maps and help guide future stormwater investments.

Published Douglas County
Flowchart showing the proposed flood-risk assessment process, from foundational datasets and hazard modeling through risk hotspots and project prioritization.
Flowchart showing the proposed flood-risk assessment process, from foundational datasets and hazard modeling through risk hotspots and project prioritization.

Douglas County commissioners approved an agreement Sept. 8 with the Mile High Flood District for an 18-month study of flood risks that may not appear on current Federal Emergency Management Agency maps. The county’s contribution was described at the meeting as approximately $124,000 toward an effort estimated at $260,000.

The commission meeting recorded the approval. The district will contribute at least as much as the county, with the possibility of providing more.

The study will examine smaller drainageways, storm-sewer and culvert problems, and other flood risks outside mapped areas. It will combine topography, building and infrastructure data with rainfall scenarios in two-dimensional models to estimate where water could flow.

The work will be completed by watershed in batches across multiple areas. The broader program aims to produce districtwide baseline flood-hazard and risk information by 2029, the program agreement says. The results could help the county identify flood hotspots, prioritize stormwater and other capital projects, support grant applications and evaluate mitigation work.

The initial program will not change federal regulatory floodplains or create new regulatory designations. The agreement describes the study as a screening-level planning tool, not a replacement for site-specific engineering, development permitting or storm-sewer design. It says the models could support future federal mapping or local regulatory decisions.

The meeting described the county contribution as approximately $124,000, while the posted agreement lists $129,100 and requires at least an equal contribution from the district. The records do not explain the difference.