Search for: All records

Abstract Cycles of wildfire and rainfall produce sediment‐laden floods that pose a hazard to development and may clog or overtop protective infrastructure, including debris basins and flood channels. The compound, post‐fire flood hazards associated with infrastructure overtopping and clogging are challenging to estimate due to the need to account for interactions between sequences of wildfire and storm events and their impact on flood control infrastructure over time. Here we present data sources and calibration methods to estimate infrastructure clogging and channel overtopping hazards on a catchment‐by‐catchment basis using the Post‐Fire Flood Hazard Model (PF2HazMo), a stochastic modeling approach that utilizes continuous simulation to resolve the effects of antecedent conditions and system memory. Publicly available data sources provide parameter ranges needed for stochastic modeling, and several performance measures are considered for model calibration. With application to three catchments in southern California, we show that PF2HazMo predicts the median of the simulated distribution of peak bulked flows within the 95% confidence interval of observed flows, with an order of magnitude range in bulked flow estimates depending on the performance measure used for calibration. Using infrastructure overtopping data from a post‐fire wet season, we show that PF2HazMo accurately predicts the number of flood channel exceedances. Model applications to individual watersheds reveal where infrastructure is undersized to contain present‐day and future overtopping hazards based on current design standards. Model limitations and sources of uncertainty are also discussed. 

Abstract Extreme flooding events are becoming more frequent and costly, and impacts have been concentrated in cities where exposure and vulnerability are both heightened. To manage risks, governments, the private sector, and households now rely on flood hazard data from national‐scale models that lack accuracy in urban areas due to unresolved drainage processes and infrastructure. Here we assess the uncertainties of First Street Foundation (FSF) flood hazard data, available across the U.S., using a new model (PRIMo‐Drain) that resolves drainage infrastructure and fine resolution drainage dynamics. Using the case of Los Angeles, California, we find that FSF and PRIMo‐Drain estimates of population and property value exposed to 1%‐ and 5%‐annual‐chance hazards diverge at finer scales of governance, for example, by 4‐ to 18‐fold at the municipal scale. FSF and PRIMo‐Drain data often predict opposite patterns of exposure inequality across social groups (e.g., Black, White, Disadvantaged). Further, at the county scale, we compute a Model Agreement Index of only 24%—a ∼1 in 4 chance of models agreeing upon which properties are at risk. Collectively, these differences point to limited capacity of FSF data to confidently assess which municipalities, social groups, and individual properties are at risk of flooding within urban areas. These results caution that national‐scale model data at present may misinform urban flood risk strategies and lead to maladaptation, underscoring the importance of refined and validated urban models.