A CHRONOLOGY OF NATURAL DISASTERS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALIFORNIA

A Chronology of Events Compiled from the Historic Record

A Senior Thesis

by

Michael D Oehrli

Submitted to the Department of Environmenta1~Studies

and Thesis Sponsor Gary B Griggs in Partial Fulfillment

~ of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts

I i

University of California Santa Cruz

May 1981

1 shy G

1

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my Thesis Sponsor and Professor

of Earth Sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz

Gary B Griggs for his guidance and assistance in helping to

make this paper middotpossible

I would also like to thank John Williams Professor of

Geology at San Jose State University for sharing his knowledge

about the tsunami history of the San FranciscQ Bay region

Lastly I would like to thank Paul Stubbs and Carol

Champion of Special Collections at the University of California

Santa Cruz for -their assistance and permission to copy photoshy

graphs from the local disaster collection

CONTENTS

I Introduction 1

II Abstract 2

III Earthquakes 4

IV Tsqrtamis bull bull bull bull 34

v Floods 40

VI Major Storms bullbullbullbull 79

VII Snowstorms 86

VIII Droughts 91

IX Conclusion bull bull bull bull bullbull 94

X References 96

INTRODUCTION

Choosing a thesis topic is not an easy task especially

when so many topics of interest have already been researched

However despite the many setbacks encouragements and discoushy

ragements that I encountered in this pursuit my initial inte~est

in hist~ric earthquakes led me to the local history collection

at the UCSC Library There I found bits and pieces of inforshy

mation on local earthquakes as well as other aisastersisH was

also interested in a collection of unassembled disastersphotos

kept in Special Colle ctions bull

After my initial search was completed I discovered that

much of the information anrJlocal disasters was scattered bits

and pieces oCmiddotdata with ofewoomplete-cRlIonolegies of events

Thus in combination with the unassembled disaster photos I

decided to put together a complete and concise omronology of

natural disasters using as much information as I could find

on local events I then arrived at a title for this paper

A CHRONOLOGY OF NATURAL DISASTERS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALI~~

FORNIA

1

ABSTRACT

This report is divided into six sections one for each

type of natural disaster most likely to affect Santa Cruz County

They appear in the following order Earthquakesf Tsunamis

Floods Major Storms Snowstorms and Droughts

Earthquakes are the most common natural event likely to

affect Santa Cruz County Most of the population is located

on loosely compacted alluvial soils thus ground shaking and the

potential for liquefaction is high in these areas In the

higher elevations of the county and closer to most of the fault

traces landsliding and surface rupture is a real threat

Tsunamis are observed here very infrequently and their

approach is often preceeded by ample warning However a tsushy

nami generated by a local quake is likely to cause more damage

and pose a greater threat to human life than one generated

by a distant earthquake The waves originating from an earthshy~

quake in the Monterey Bay would probably be higher and not

preceeded by ample public warnings

Floods have damaged the downtown sections of Santa Cruz

Soquel Capitola and Watsonville many times in the past and

are responsible for causing the largest amount of property

damage The rainfall causing these events often reaches an

intensity here comparable to any of the highest intensities

seen in the United States

Major storms are common in the winter months and if they

dont result in flooding they often do cause heavy wave damage

2

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my Thesis Sponsor and Professor

of Earth Sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz

Gary B Griggs for his guidance and assistance in helping to

make this paper middotpossible

I would also like to thank John Williams Professor of

Geology at San Jose State University for sharing his knowledge

about the tsunami history of the San FranciscQ Bay region

Lastly I would like to thank Paul Stubbs and Carol

Champion of Special Collections at the University of California

Santa Cruz for -their assistance and permission to copy photoshy

graphs from the local disaster collection

CONTENTS

I Introduction 1

II Abstract 2

III Earthquakes 4

IV Tsqrtamis bull bull bull bull 34

v Floods 40

VI Major Storms bullbullbullbull 79

VII Snowstorms 86

VIII Droughts 91

IX Conclusion bull bull bull bull bullbull 94

X References 96

INTRODUCTION

Choosing a thesis topic is not an easy task especially

when so many topics of interest have already been researched

However despite the many setbacks encouragements and discoushy

ragements that I encountered in this pursuit my initial inte~est

in hist~ric earthquakes led me to the local history collection

at the UCSC Library There I found bits and pieces of inforshy

mation on local earthquakes as well as other aisastersisH was

also interested in a collection of unassembled disastersphotos

kept in Special Colle ctions bull

After my initial search was completed I discovered that

much of the information anrJlocal disasters was scattered bits

and pieces oCmiddotdata with ofewoomplete-cRlIonolegies of events

Thus in combination with the unassembled disaster photos I

decided to put together a complete and concise omronology of

natural disasters using as much information as I could find

on local events I then arrived at a title for this paper

A CHRONOLOGY OF NATURAL DISASTERS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALI~~

FORNIA

1

ABSTRACT

This report is divided into six sections one for each

type of natural disaster most likely to affect Santa Cruz County

They appear in the following order Earthquakesf Tsunamis

Floods Major Storms Snowstorms and Droughts

Earthquakes are the most common natural event likely to

affect Santa Cruz County Most of the population is located

on loosely compacted alluvial soils thus ground shaking and the

potential for liquefaction is high in these areas In the

higher elevations of the county and closer to most of the fault

traces landsliding and surface rupture is a real threat

Tsunamis are observed here very infrequently and their

approach is often preceeded by ample warning However a tsushy

nami generated by a local quake is likely to cause more damage

and pose a greater threat to human life than one generated

by a distant earthquake The waves originating from an earthshy~

quake in the Monterey Bay would probably be higher and not

preceeded by ample public warnings

Floods have damaged the downtown sections of Santa Cruz

Soquel Capitola and Watsonville many times in the past and

are responsible for causing the largest amount of property

damage The rainfall causing these events often reaches an

intensity here comparable to any of the highest intensities

seen in the United States

Major storms are common in the winter months and if they

dont result in flooding they often do cause heavy wave damage

2

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

CONTENTS

I Introduction 1

II Abstract 2

III Earthquakes 4

IV Tsqrtamis bull bull bull bull 34

v Floods 40

VI Major Storms bullbullbullbull 79

VII Snowstorms 86

VIII Droughts 91

IX Conclusion bull bull bull bull bullbull 94

X References 96

INTRODUCTION

Choosing a thesis topic is not an easy task especially

when so many topics of interest have already been researched

However despite the many setbacks encouragements and discoushy

ragements that I encountered in this pursuit my initial inte~est

in hist~ric earthquakes led me to the local history collection

at the UCSC Library There I found bits and pieces of inforshy

mation on local earthquakes as well as other aisastersisH was

also interested in a collection of unassembled disastersphotos

kept in Special Colle ctions bull

After my initial search was completed I discovered that

much of the information anrJlocal disasters was scattered bits

and pieces oCmiddotdata with ofewoomplete-cRlIonolegies of events

Thus in combination with the unassembled disaster photos I

decided to put together a complete and concise omronology of

natural disasters using as much information as I could find

on local events I then arrived at a title for this paper

A CHRONOLOGY OF NATURAL DISASTERS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALI~~

FORNIA

1

ABSTRACT

This report is divided into six sections one for each

type of natural disaster most likely to affect Santa Cruz County

They appear in the following order Earthquakesf Tsunamis

Floods Major Storms Snowstorms and Droughts

Earthquakes are the most common natural event likely to

affect Santa Cruz County Most of the population is located

on loosely compacted alluvial soils thus ground shaking and the

potential for liquefaction is high in these areas In the

higher elevations of the county and closer to most of the fault

traces landsliding and surface rupture is a real threat

Tsunamis are observed here very infrequently and their

approach is often preceeded by ample warning However a tsushy

nami generated by a local quake is likely to cause more damage

and pose a greater threat to human life than one generated

by a distant earthquake The waves originating from an earthshy~

quake in the Monterey Bay would probably be higher and not

preceeded by ample public warnings

Floods have damaged the downtown sections of Santa Cruz

Soquel Capitola and Watsonville many times in the past and

are responsible for causing the largest amount of property

damage The rainfall causing these events often reaches an

intensity here comparable to any of the highest intensities

seen in the United States

Major storms are common in the winter months and if they

dont result in flooding they often do cause heavy wave damage

2

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

INTRODUCTION

Choosing a thesis topic is not an easy task especially

when so many topics of interest have already been researched

However despite the many setbacks encouragements and discoushy

ragements that I encountered in this pursuit my initial inte~est

in hist~ric earthquakes led me to the local history collection

at the UCSC Library There I found bits and pieces of inforshy

mation on local earthquakes as well as other aisastersisH was

also interested in a collection of unassembled disastersphotos

kept in Special Colle ctions bull

After my initial search was completed I discovered that

much of the information anrJlocal disasters was scattered bits

and pieces oCmiddotdata with ofewoomplete-cRlIonolegies of events

Thus in combination with the unassembled disaster photos I

decided to put together a complete and concise omronology of

natural disasters using as much information as I could find

on local events I then arrived at a title for this paper

A CHRONOLOGY OF NATURAL DISASTERS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALI~~

FORNIA

1

ABSTRACT

This report is divided into six sections one for each

type of natural disaster most likely to affect Santa Cruz County

They appear in the following order Earthquakesf Tsunamis

Floods Major Storms Snowstorms and Droughts

Earthquakes are the most common natural event likely to

affect Santa Cruz County Most of the population is located

on loosely compacted alluvial soils thus ground shaking and the

potential for liquefaction is high in these areas In the

higher elevations of the county and closer to most of the fault

traces landsliding and surface rupture is a real threat

Tsunamis are observed here very infrequently and their

approach is often preceeded by ample warning However a tsushy

nami generated by a local quake is likely to cause more damage

and pose a greater threat to human life than one generated

by a distant earthquake The waves originating from an earthshy~

quake in the Monterey Bay would probably be higher and not

preceeded by ample public warnings

Floods have damaged the downtown sections of Santa Cruz

Soquel Capitola and Watsonville many times in the past and

are responsible for causing the largest amount of property

damage The rainfall causing these events often reaches an

intensity here comparable to any of the highest intensities

seen in the United States

Major storms are common in the winter months and if they

dont result in flooding they often do cause heavy wave damage

2

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

ABSTRACT

This report is divided into six sections one for each

type of natural disaster most likely to affect Santa Cruz County

They appear in the following order Earthquakesf Tsunamis

Floods Major Storms Snowstorms and Droughts

Earthquakes are the most common natural event likely to

affect Santa Cruz County Most of the population is located

on loosely compacted alluvial soils thus ground shaking and the

potential for liquefaction is high in these areas In the

higher elevations of the county and closer to most of the fault

traces landsliding and surface rupture is a real threat

Tsunamis are observed here very infrequently and their

approach is often preceeded by ample warning However a tsushy

nami generated by a local quake is likely to cause more damage

and pose a greater threat to human life than one generated

by a distant earthquake The waves originating from an earthshy~

quake in the Monterey Bay would probably be higher and not

preceeded by ample public warnings

Floods have damaged the downtown sections of Santa Cruz

Soquel Capitola and Watsonville many times in the past and

are responsible for causing the largest amount of property

damage The rainfall causing these events often reaches an

intensity here comparable to any of the highest intensities

seen in the United States

Major storms are common in the winter months and if they

dont result in flooding they often do cause heavy wave damage

2

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

to beachfront properties Strong onshore surges high waves

high tides and small winter beaches combine to produce seashore

property damage almost annually

Snowstonns are rare but they do occurorl occasiontdn the

higher elevations of the county The heavy burden of snow

when placed upon the relativelyunsupportive limbs of redwood

trees causes them to topple Personal property and communi

cation lines are particularly suceptible in light of the rapidly

increasing population of the Santa Cruz Mountains

And finally drought can place a severe economic burden

on the county which is heavily dependent upon agriculture Also

limited water supplies cannot sustain an ever increasing popushy

lation if an extended drought occurs bull

1 jtr 1 1bull

3

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

EARTHQUAKES

Santa Cruz County is located in one of the most seisshy

mically active regions of the world Numerous faults cut

through the county-namely the San Andreas which can produce

earthquakes exceeding a Richter magnitude of 80 Other lesser

known faults such as the San Gregorio are capable of generating

destructive magnitude 72 - 79 earthquakes The Butano Ben

Lomond Zayante Corralitos and Sargent faults are also capshy

able of destructive earthquakes though Qf lesser magnitudes

The potential for surface rupture is high in these fault

zones and care must be exercised when allowing construction

there Landsliding is also common and often induced by a

seismic disturbance in these areas Extensive alluvial deposhy

sits and high ground water tables in downtown Santa Cruz Watshy

sonville Capitola and Soquel serve to intensify ground

shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction These ~

areas are the most damage prone locations of the county and

are often the most heavily urbanized

The seismic record of Santa Cruz County although relashy

tively short has shown time and time again that most damage

occurs in urbanized lowlands built on loosely compacted allushy

vial soils with high ground water tables As urbanization of

these areas continues the potential for serious damage increases

Lesser magnitude quakes can now cause as much damage as some

of the larger quakes of the past merely due to higher popula~

tion densities and occasionally poor construction practices

4

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

The chronology that follows shows that indeed the damage

potential is increasing Only damage producing earthquakes

are listed Many more quakes have been felt but are not listed

as the resulting chronology would be far too extensive to be

included in this report

October 11-3111800

Major earthquakes w~re recorded at Mission San Juan Baushy

tista on the 11th and the 18th The most severe shock was on

the 18th and others occurred at a maximum rate of six per day

from the 11th to the 31st There was a considerable amount of

damage at the mission and all the buildings were declared damshy

aged and uninhabitable A deep fissure opened along the Pajaro

River and the October 11th shock was accompanied by a deafening

noise In Santa Cruz the historical record of Villa Branci~

forte makes no mention of this earthquake

1813 or 1815

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity IX or X occurred in

the Santa Clara Valley John Gilroy stated that all buildingsq

in the region shook down Had Santa Cruz been more heavily ~NJtP

at the time andearthquake of that intensity would have almost

certainly caused some damage heremiddot

A historical account of Mission Santa Cruz written by

Paul Johnson states that bullmiddot a series of earthquakes bull caused So

much damage that it took years of labor to repair the buildings

6

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

June 9-10 1836

An earthquake estimated to have a Mercalli Intensity of

IX or X occurred along the Hayward fault It created fissures

in the earth and shocks continued for a month IThequake

apparentlycaused great havoc in Monterey and Santa Clara

The intensity was VII in Monterey f A quake of this intensity

would probably have caused damage in Santa Cruz had it been

more heavily populated at the time

June 1838

A major earthquake of Mercalli Intensity X severely dam

aged the San Francisco San Jose and Santa Clara Missions

Buildings cracked and crockery and glassware broke at Monterey

(January 16-18 1840) Four sources state that an earthquake destroyed the Santa

Cruz Mission and a tidal wave carried many tiles to the sea

This story however has been discounted by the Santa Cruz

Historical S-ociety which stated in October of 1973

rr eOneof the bells cracked on its initial sound and one broke When the towercollapsed in 1840 No rain or earthquake happened on that date No excuse except poor material or workmanship

There is also no record of this quake in the History of Villa

Branciforte although it is thought that a severe storm did

occur

July) 1841

Within a period of two months 120 shocks were felt in

the Monterey area and some were felt at sea On July 3rd j

there was a possible severe shock in Monterey Ba~ This may

also be the same event which reportedly caused damage to

Mission Santa Cruz in 1845

7

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

January 9 and 20 l85

A major earthquake struck the Fert Tejon area of Southern

California on January 9th It was felt from the Northern

Sacramento Valley south to San Diego Two of the shocks were

felt in Santa Cruz and one is deemed responsible for the

collapse of the front wall of the mission which was already

weakened by its construction on water-logged soil Another

quake--(maybe local in origin) on January 20th had a Rossishy

Forell Intensity of middotV ~andfurther weakened the structure

Thirty-eight days later the southwest corner of the building

fell without the aid of any further earthquakes

October 8 1865

The most sever~ shock since the annexation of the terrishy

tory occurred on this date in 1865 The quake was probably

centered on[~the San Andreas poundaul t in the Santa Cruz Mountains

and is known as one of the five largest quakes to strike the

San Francisco Bay region in historic t~mes The Richter Magshy

nitude was estimated at 70-73~~and dam~ge in the City of San

Francisco amounted to $500000

The first dispatch from Santa Cruz stated that every

brick building here is ruined Total losses in the City of

Santa Cruz were estimated at $10000 In Watsonville $2000

in damage was done $1500 of which occurred at the Pajaro

Flouring Mills It was stated that every merchant in town lost

between $10 and $150 in crockery and glassware Well construcshy

ted buildings or those built on solid ground suffered little

or no damage Cracks appeared on the banks of the Pajaro River

ranging from 10-15 inches wide and hundreds of yards long

8

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Highest intensities were felt in the Santa Cruz Mountains

between Santa Cruz and San Jose bull Chimneys fell along Santa

Cruz Gap Road and landsliding boulders blocked the highway

There were broken water mains and gas pipes along with a deep

crevice in one street At Mountain Charley~s along the same

road steam and water were thrown up through cracks and dust

clouds were ejected from drier soils

Wells and streams in Santa Cruz County were markedly

affected as many of their volumes doubled Water also boiled

up from the ground for half an hour after the shock This

was observed at the old Mission orchard

In Monterey Bay the quake was also felt as a fisherman

of Captain Davenports Whaling Company saidthat the wave motion

was rough a~d cross-cutting Immediately after the sea was

calm as a mill pond bullwhile the bay was full of little bubbles

rising to the surface Near Soquel the sea was reported to

be rising and ~alling with convulsive throbs carrying some of

the high cliffs into the sea

Personalaccounts describe the shock as one of great

force but doing little major damage Large objects were moved

about l8inches in some cases Many coal-oil lamps were not

btokerit)~but set spinning from the jolting motion as they were

knocked off of mantles The ground settled along the San Loshy

renzo River cracking the soil along its banks several inches

wide Somelsmall cracks emitted jets of water two to four feet

high for several minutes

October 21 1868

On this date a great earthquake claimed 30 lives ~d

9

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

caused $350000 worth of property damage in the City of San

Francisco In Santa Cruz thequake had a Rossi-Forel 1_ Intenshy

sity of VIII and brick buildings were cracked but none toppled

The quake was believed to have been centered on the Hayward

fault with an estimated Richter Magnitude between 70 and 73

In Santa Cruz the chimneysmiddot that toppled were often the

ones that fe~~l before in 1865 ~ The Court House experienced

some cracking of plaster and a 50-foot wide debris landslide

at Eagle Glen carried rocks and trees 1000 feet In Soquel

a few chimney~ were dislocated and plastering suffered in

Watsonville

March 30 HB83

Nine shocks were felt in Watsonville and three in Santa

Cruz Slight damage was reported in Watsonville and Santa Cruz

Some clocks stopped in Watsonville

March 30 1885

A strong earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VI in Monterey

op~ned cracks along the Pajaro River

April 24 ~ 1890

An earthquake of Mercalli Intensity VII to IX shook the

Monterey Bay region on this date Damage was very light in

Santa Cruz but many chimney~ _- were thrown down in Watsonville

Ground fissures opened in the San Andreas fault ~one near

Chittenden and the railroad bridge over the Pajaro River there

was displaced 18 inches Landslides closed the railroad and

highway at Chittenden Pass~ Walls cracked plaster fell and

some windows broke but damage was not as great as in 1868

At Glenwood the ground cracked in several places and at Boulder

lO

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Creek babies were rolled out of their cradles clocks were

stopped and any amount of dishes were broken Shocks conshy

tinued for quite some time and on May 14 six mo~shocks W9~

felt but no additional damage was caused

January 2 1891

A sharp earthquake of ten seconds duration was felt on

this date In Santa Cruz only very slight damage resulted

There were reports of one broken window cracked plaster and

fallen clocks pictures and vases According to the Santa

Cruz Sentinel the greatest damage was done at the Model Drug

Store where many items were thrown to the floor The damage

at the store will not exceed ten dollars

(November 13 1892)

No damage was caused by this earthquake but the account

of it is interesting

This time it is a political earthquake and a pure Democratic one Such a shake Such laughterEven the Republicans joined in the laugh

April 30 1899

This quake was not reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel

as apparently no damage was caused here In Watsonvill~ a

window was broken and some~nimneys toppled Crockery broke

in the surrounding areas and at Green Valley chimeneys and

cemetery monurnentswere damaged

July 6 1892

Another earthquake occurred during the same year in the

Watsonville area Some middotchimneys fell but most of the damage

was centered outside the county in Salinas where several lamps

and windows were broken

11

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

I

Figure 2 Early Seismograph Tracings 1892

12

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

April 18 1906

Although the epicenter of this earthquake was near Olema

north of San Francisco it carried with enough energy to be

felt over an area of 350000 square miles from Coos Bay-Oregon

to los Angeles Ground rupture was observed for 270 miles

along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Baushy

tista

County was along the Pajaro River where a railroad bridge was

offset three and a half feet This was undoubtedly the most

damaging earthquake to affect Santa Cruz County in the historic

record

In the City of Santa Cruz damage was worse on the flat

than on the hills surrounding The~ourthouse probably sufshy

fered most of all when the cupola fell through the building into

the basement All along Pacific Avenue plate glass windows

were broken and some brick structures fell Mail service was

cut off formiddot four days isolating the city and causing many rumors

to start One of the rumors being circulated in San Jose spoke

of Santa Cruz being carried into the sea by a tsunami

It was estimated that one-third of the rcllimneys in town

were damaged and all bridges were declared unsafe Cracks in

the earth appeared near the depot and at the corner of Front

and Soquel Streets The road near the Riverside Hotel dropped

several inches All telegrap~lines between Santa Cruz and

points north were thrown down keeping the city uninformed of

the destruction in San Francisco for two days

Watsonville also being built on alluvial soils suffered

even more damage than Santa Cru~ An estimated nine out of

13

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Figure 3 Isoseismals of the April 18 ~1906 San Francisco EarthquakeRossi-Forel Scale

14

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

ten chimeneys were toppled a fire destroyed the Moreland Notre

Dame Academy many windows were broken and buildings downtown

suffered severe structural damage~ In the Pajaro Valley numshy

erous fissures opened some of them deep and extending for

several feet At the Granite Rock Company a rock crusher topshy

pled onto a train wrecking several cars Water tanks fell and

the Pajaro Bridge approach dropped three feet below the bridge

level Between Ellicotts and Watsonville the roadbed sunk

from ten to fifteen feet

Perhaps the most devastating and tragic events which ocshy

curred in the county were the landslides triggered by the quake

On Hinckley Creek nine men died as they slept in their bunkshy

houses and_the Loma Prieta Mill was burried by a mass of earth

100 feet deep The slide also dammed up Hinckley Creek creating

a lake SO to 60 feet deep Two men were killed by a slide oneshy

half mile long at Deer Creek and opposite Boulder Creek a slide

dammed up the San Lorenzo River Other slides were reported

at Corralitos Creek Henry Creek and Alma Residents above

Henry Creek stated that the quake rolled boulders as big as

a cottage into the creek and snapped off cottonwoods about 20

feet above the ground

Elsewhere in the county damage reports were as follows

Capito1a - Broken windows and Chimneys

Felton - Nearly all chimneys downed wires snapped~ and roads closen

Boulder Creek - All plate glass windows of businesses were broken

Bonny Doon - Clocks were stopped milk was spilled books tumbled from shelves eggs in incubators

17

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

were turned over and a general shaking up was given to everything

Scotts Valley - Fifty shocks were felt Chimneys were twisted or broken

Grovers Gulch - One home was destroyed by fire alongBates Creek above Soquel

Santa Cruz Mountains - Crowns of redwoods were snapped off at the summit Narrow gauge railroad tunnels caved in cuttingoff railroad service for three years

In general the disruption caused by this quake was severe

It sparked considerable interest in earthquake research and I~

data collection However at the time of the quake our limishy

ted knowledge of such phenomena may have allowed much valuable

information to slip by An example of -this limited knowledge

was even demonstrated by the so-called experts of the time as

reyealedstBQtb~ fcllOwlngl(lu~t~tiion by Dr JF Frisbee (an

e~pert on seismic disturbances) appearing in the Santa Cruz

Sentinel

Earthquakes form on the border of sea and land Earthquakes of an explosive variety~(referring to the April 18 event) are caused by the production of steam deep down in the earth

March 10 1910=

An earthquake of Merca1li Intensity VI in Santa Cruz

shook the entire Monterey Bay area In the central region it

was described as 2a slow rocking motion of alarming force

The3focus was much deeper than normal for earthquakes in this

region andS it was felt over a large area

Most of the damage was centered at Chittenden east of

Watsonville where houses cracked and bottles were thrown off

of shelves In Santa Cruz one window broke plaster fell and

20

I

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

some articles fell off of shelves in the lower parts of town

No damage was reported in the upper levels of town The town

clock bell rang with the shock

November 8 1914

The epicenter of this quake was placed at Laurel 1 mile

southwest of the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Some onimn~ysc fell and articles were thrown off of shelves in

the epicentral area where the Merca1li Intensity reached VIII

October 5 1220

Two shocks of long duration were reported on this date

The only damage caused was a broken plate glass window in Watshy

sonville

October 22 1926

Two shocks of Richter magnitude 61 shook the Monterey

Bay region Damage in Santa ClUZ consisted of toppled chimneys t

craeked plaster broken masonry tiles brokeni glass and strucshyt

tural weakening of brick buildings Most of the damage was

centered in the business section along Pacific Avenue At Aptos

and Davenport shelved merchandise fell

Februar 15 1922

A quake centered near Santa Cruz cracked some plaster

and threw articles f~om shelves No other county damages were

reported

December 30 1934

A quake on this date caused very slight damage in the

City of Santa Cruz Most of the damage amounted to cracked

plaster Apparently~ slight damage occurred in weakly built

structures and numerous slides were observed on Waddell Beach

21

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

---

Figure 4 Isoseismals of tbe Laurel EarthquakeNovember 8 1914

-------------------------~~----------

Figure 51

~1 fiU_ O MihhtU INTpoundNI1iamp ACORDUiG To $llEfUj~

REHIIENC[ Io~e i~ITlltn$ eorThfVQllte at43Som

H 5350m __ _

FvltJines (FrornpJcre Z V(JJ1D 8SSfR) ~~w

POIn1$ whare tiny or Gil tJl J jhcc f(~ W-(I _It bull

~ hltt11 WQI Ipllrtd Itot 1lt bull uti Qnd 3rd 5hvll

_II J Iho( It w -9shyLocaTions of $QI~moqtJPh storiOf74 bull stlE KI~0l1ERs ~~ l~ ~ I L middotc

uomiddot

J 22

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

February 12 1938

One violent shake of 35 seconds duration was centered

in the Monterey Bay southwest of Santa Cruz The only damage

reported was in the City of Santa Cruz where a chimney fell

and a window cracked

June 22 1947

Most damage reports from this quake came from Watsonville

where small objects fell plaster cracked and one chimney

toppled There were a few broken windows inSanta Cruz

December 16 1953

Damage caused by this earthquake was very slight and

located in Watsonville

April 22 1954

This quake was the first of two shocks occurring three

days apart Damage was light during this tremor where plaster

fell dishes broke and walls cracked at Aptos

April 25 1954

This shock was slightly stronger than the one on April

22 but did considerably more damage East q

of Watsonville

several homes were seriously damaged the ground cracked

landslides occurred cHimneys fell and windows broke Conshy

siderable damage occurred5iin the City of Watsonville where a

water main snapped irrigation lines broke plaster cracked

pictures and lamps fell a flagpole toppled the ground cracked

and concrete fell off of the face of one building Power

failures were also numerous

Other county damages consisted of fallen pictures dishes

and grocery items in Aptos fallen merchandise in Capitola~)

23

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Nbull N o

oo o o Sacramento

o

o

CALIFORNIA o Stockton

44 o o00

o

o

o

o o

o

o 4

IV

U S Coast and Geodetic Survey EARTHQUAKE

25 April 1954 123327 PST

~E~~lcO==~~~c===~~~o Scale of Miles

o

2 o 5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o o

o

1 Figure 6 Isoseismals of the April 25 1954 earthquake

24

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond cracked plaster and chimneys

in Freedom and only one instance of cracked plaster in Santa

Cruz

March 2 1959

The SantaCruz Sentinel reported this quake to be the

joltingest to strike the area since 1906 Damage was very

slight in Santa Cruz but in Watsonville and the south county

therebwas more A few windows were broken and $500 worth of

merchandise was lost in one store in Aptos In Watsonville

a 20-foot crackappeared in the floor and a 15-foot crack

appeared in the ceiling of the Cityen Hall A six-foot crack

was also noticed in the wall of a bakery on Cedar Street

On Chittenden Pass a landslide was observed

September 14 1963

This fairly strong quake caused no damage in Santa Cruz

and only a few reports of damage from Watsonville The foot- J

ings of a bridge over the Pajaro River were damaged and some

pipes cracked A small landslide occurred and chlmney~ cracked

as did plaster and concrete

November 15 1964

This quake caused very minor damage in Santa Cruz and

Watsonville ~n Corralitos objects were thrown from shelves

and middotchimneys cracked c

October 14 1966

The magnitude of this quake was small (Richter 42) and

the only damage reported was cracked plaster in Watsonville

September 7 1962

Damage caused by this quake was limited to fallen store

25

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

CALIfORNIA

38l-fL~~~----It---7i~-===-+--=----------+----~ 38

limits of Felt Area

-

bull bull 2

bullbull bull 2

14 September 1963 114617 PST

I I 40 50

L----J Ld

bullbull bull bull

2 0

bull

123 122 121

3737

()

Vemiddot ~ -to

~ degemiddotltgt V4shy

3636

o 10 20 30

STATUTE MIUS

123 122 121

Figure 7 Isoseisma1s of the September 14 1963 Chittenden Earthquake

26

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

merchandise and other small objects

December 18 1962

Occurring only seven days before Christmas this quake

toppled many Chrisjmas trees but caused no severe material damshy

age other than cracked plaster damaged~nimrieys and broken

windows in Watsonville

March 30 1970

The only damage in the countymiddot resulting from this quake

was some fallen store objects in Boulder Creek ltAugust 3 1920

i~ihe epicenter of this quake was at the southern end of

Monterey Bay on the Continental Shelf The only local damages

reported were cracked plaster in Santa Cruz and the breakage

of a smoke detection head at Cowell College on the UCSC campus

April 16 1921

At Big Basin State Park cracks in a ceiling widened

but there was no other material damage reported in the county

from this quake

August 6 1929

A strong earthquake centered on the Calaveras Fault did

minor damage in Santa Cruz One woman in the San Lorenzo Valley

suffered a broken leg being knocked down by the quake Mateshy

rial damage consisted of broken windows cracked walls and

separated support beams in the County Buildingmiddot~which is built

on an old river bed There were numerous reports of animals

behaving strangely prior to the quake

April 25 1981

A small earthquake registering only 40 on the Richter

27

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

bull bull

bull bull

38

37

36

122 121

Earthquake Epiunter o Earthquake was feltbull bull Earthquake was not lelt

Small figure beside open circle indicates intensitybull is dillerenl hom lone designation -bull

bull CALIFORNIA

bullbull O 0 bullbull o I bullSon Jobullbull bull

I-IV

bullbull0 o 0

1

bull ~ Limits of felt area

o o

bull los lono

31

o

I-IV

bull o

36Aug 3 1970 2014214 PST o Mag 47 (m bl

o 10 20 30 AO 50 I I I I

Statute Miles o 20 AO 60 I E3 F+3 e===3

Kilometers

122 121

Figure 81 Isoseisma1s of the August 3 1970 Monterey Bay Earthquake

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Scale caused some minor damage in the Corralitos area At the

fire station there a large crack opened in the concrete floor

and there was damage done to a ceiling joist Some grocery

items were knocked off of shelves alsobull

Indicates that the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

bull(Date) - Indicates that the events occurrence is questionable

29

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

TABLE 1 DAMAGE PRODUCING EARTHQUAKES

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ~ t~l~ (1r~ J~i_Tgtj_-~ ~-

u~--rO i Mrfl)E ( Date Epicenter Magni tud County Damages j lX~f(1~

1011-311800 ~an Juan Bautistamiddots IX~X Pajaro River area

1813 or 1815 Santa Clara Valley IX-X

1825 Santa Cruz

0609-101836 Hayward Fault IX-X

06 - la38 San Andreas Fault X)~

(0116-181840)Occurrence disputed

07 031841 Monterey -shy

0109+201857 Fort Tejon X-XI Santa Cruz

10 081865 Santa Cruz Mtns VIIIIX Countywide

10 211868 Hayward IX-X Countywide

03 301883 Hollister VII Santa Cruz Watshysonville

03 301885 SE of Hollister VII Pajaro River

04 241890 Monterey Bay VII Countywide

01 021891 Mt Hamilton VI Santa Cruz

04 301899 Watsonville VII Watsonville

07 061899 Watsonville -- Watsonville

04 181906 Olema XI-(83) Countywide

03 101910 Monterey Bay ~i VI Santa Cruz Watshysonville

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Date Jpicenter Magnitude County Damages

02 121938 SW of Santa Cruz VII-(4 bull5) Santa Cruz

06 221947 Gilroy VI-(50) Santa Cruz Watshysonville

12 161953 Watsonville VI-(46) Watsonville

04 221954 E of Watsonville VI-52) Aptos

04 251954 E of Watsonville VIII-53) Countywide

0) 021959 Gilroy VI-5) Watsonville

09 14196) Chittenden VII-(54) Watsonville

11 151964 N of Watsonville VII-(5) Santa Cruz Watshysonville Corrashylitos

10 141966 Watsonville VI-(42) Watsonville

09 071967 Corralitos VI-(47) Corralitos

12 181967 Corralitos VI-(52) Watsonville Corshyralitos

- 0) 301970 Gilroy-Hollister V-(47) Boulder Creek-~

08 0)1970 Carmel Valley VI-(47) Santa Cruz

04 161971 Monterey Bay V-(45) Big Basin

08 061979 Hollister VII-(59) Countywide

04 25l~8l Santa Cruz Mtns v-(40) Corralitos

Magnitudes are listed as Mer~lli Intensity followed byby the Richter Magnitude Af~~~f93l Modified Mercalli Intenshysities are used ~-----

5dUU) ~((tctPitU1 Q(rrt1L(101l (-lfLQ

Indicates +hat the earthquake was of close proximity or of sufficient intensity to cause damage in Santa Cruz County had the area been more populated at the time

(Date) Indicates that the eventmiddots occurrence is questionable

r

) 31

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Figure 9

ROSSI-FOREL SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES

I Microseismic shock recorded by a single seismograph or by seismographs of the same model but not by several seismoshygraphs of different kinds the shock felt by an experienced observer

II Extremely feeble shock recorded by several seismographs of different kinds felt by a small number of persons at ret

III Very feeble shock felt by several persons at rest strong enough for the direction or duration to be appreciable

IV Feeble shock felt by persons in motion disturbances of movshyable objects doors windows creaking of ceilings

V Shock of moderate intensity felt generally by everyone di~shyturbance of furniture beds etc ringing of swinging bells

VI Fairly strong shock general awakening of those asleep genshyeral ringing of house bells oscillation of chandeliers stopshyping of pendulum clocks visible agitation of trees and shrubs some startled persons leave their dwellings

VII Strong shock overthrow of movable objects fall of plaster ringing of church bells general panic without damage to

buildings

VIII Very strong shock fall of chimneys cracksmiddot in walls of buildshyings

IX Extremely strong shock partial or total destruction of some buildings

X Shock of extreme intensity great disaster buildings ruinerl disturbance of the strata fissures in the ground rock-fans from mountains

32

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931Figure la (Abridged)

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances

II Felt only by a few persons at rest especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing

III Felt quite noticeably indoors especially on upper floors of buildings but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck Duration estimated

IV During the day felt indoors by many outdoors by few At night some awakshyened Dishes windows doors disturbed walls made cracking sound Sensashytion like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noshyticeably

V Felt by nearly everyone many awakened Some dishes windows etc J broken a few instances of cracked plaster unstable objects overturned Disturbshyance of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop

VI felt by all many frightened and run outdoors Some heavy furniture moved a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys Damage slight bull

VII Everybodyruns outdoors Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures conshysiderable in poorly built or badly designed structures some chimneys brok~n Noticed by persons driving motor cars

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys factory stacks columns monuments walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Disturbed persons driving motor cars

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations ground badly cracked Rails bent Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks

XI Few if any (masonry) structures remain standing Bridges destroyed fissures in ground Underground pipe lines completely out of service slumps and land slips in soft ground Rails bent greatly

Broad Earth

XII Damage total Waves seen on ground surfaces Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown upward into the air

33

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

TSUNAMIS

Tsunamis are large ocean waves which are generated by

earthquakes submarin~ landsliding or volcanic activity

They are characterized by their excessively long wavelengths

and high speed of travel which may reach up to 500 miles per

hour Tsunamis originating in the Gulf of Alaska Japan or

Chile are the ones most likely to reach our shoreline however

due to the long distance they must travel residents of the

Santa Cruz coastline usually receive a warning five to six

hours in advance of their approach The tsunami originating

from the Alaska Earthquake of 1964 was the largest in local

recorded history and Santa Cruz residents were warned well in

advance of the danger

Local events however may pose an even greater threat to

our coastline In a discussion I had with John Williams of

San Jose State University he stated that due to the deep water

unstable geology and high seismic activity of the Monterey

Submarin Canyon a tsunami coula originate within Monterey Bay

and inundate coastal areas with even higher waves and give

little if any advance warning of its approach Based on his O~ tIel- (W

data he states that the 100-year event has a wave height of -_ j ~l j bull

19 meters and a runup height of 10 meter He also warns I

I

that his data is based on the short tidal gage records of j

Fort Point in San Francisco which may have not recorded any

Monterey Bay tsunamis

Other researchers have worked out lOO-year event figures

34

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

ranging from 20 to 43 meters at San Francisco with runup

heights ranging from 10 to 22 meters Taking into account

the possibility of a local tsunami Santa Cruz County has preshy

pared inundation maps based on a runup height of 20 feet

The local tsunami record is even more sparse that that

of San Francisco and is largely based on visual observations

Thereforeby combining local observations and the tidal records

of Fort Point I have compiled the following chronology of events

Deoemoen 21 1812

A major earthquake apparently centered off the coast

between Santa BarbaraoandlltPointGConception created a large

tsunami at Refugio lin Santa Barbara County In San Francisco

one resident stated that the earthquakes in 1812 were so

severe as to cause tidal waves which covered the ground where

the plaza now is It can only be inferred from these two

reports that the tsunami prmiddotobably affected Santa Cruz County

although local records do not mention it

1830s Paul Johnson a Santa Cruz historian stated that after

the earthquakes of 1825 butresses were constructed to support

the badly weakened Mission walls in the 1830s

No sooner were the repairs completed than a tidal wave surged up river undermining sev~ralmiddot buildings and toppling the bell tower shattering two ancient bells

This event is highly questionable as the story soundsvery

similar to the erroneous earthquake and tidal wave story of 1840

April 1 1946

Two waves the first at 1015 am and the second at

35

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

1151 am were reported Estimates of their height ranged from

12 to 15 feet~and they pushed water many feet up the San Lorenzo

River At the wharf lines and buoys used to fasten fishing

boats suddenly went tau~and ladders down the pier into the

water were lifted to a vertical position as the swell passed

Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing Corporation reported that

a strong undertow continued to agitate the Santa Cruz fishing

Karbor the following day preventing boat owners from anchoring

their boats

The tsunami claimed one victim ane1derly Santa Cruz

manwho was pulled into the surf around the point fromCowe11ts

Beach No property damage was reported in the county The

origin of the disturbance was off of the Western tip of the

Aleutian Islands

March 28 1964

Several successive surges caused the water in the Santa

Cruz Harbor to rise lO~feet above sea level As the water reshy

ceeded the harbor was drained and boats were left resting on bull

the sand Damage was light The harborS floating dredge was

carried out to sea and never recovered and a 38-foot boat

disintegrated and sank 2GO yards from the shore

Several warnings were given to the public before the c~

tsunami Beach areas were evacuated and street traffic was

cleared Water came up to the Boardwalk steps and also surged

over the Esplanade seawall in downtown Capitola Water reshy

ceeded two-thirds of the way out under the Capitola Wharf No

damage was reported there The origin of the disturbance was

an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska measuring 85 on the Ric~ter

Scale 37

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Since IB50 19 tsunamis have been recorded by the tide

gage at Fort Point San Francisco Most of these were visually

undetectable and only four of them were mentioned by Santa Cruz

newspapers One of these did damage in Santa Cruz County and

one claimed a life as mentioned before The other tsunamis

which were observed but did no damage occurred on June 15 1896

and May 23 1960 The IB96 tsunami consisted of two surges

the first one raising the water five feet The 1960 tsunami

was generated by anB6magnitude ear~hquake centered in the

Chilean ~rench and caused a succession of five-foot waves here

beginning at 1025 in the morning Also worth mentioning for

clarification is that a local tsunami long reported to have

occurred here between January 16th and IBth 1840 has largely

been dismissed as an error in translation It is believed

that a heavy storm was resposible for generating the large

waves observed on this date bull

38

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

Figure 121 Coast and Geodetic Survey tide gage records of Tsunamis since 1850 Fort Point San Francisco

39

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

FLOODING

Flooding has historically been the cause of most property

damage in santa Cruz County Ma~ factors are responsible for

this perhaps the most important being construction on the

floodplain The entire downtown sections of Santa Cruz Soquel

Watsonville Capitola Boulder Creek and Ben Lomond are located

on floodplains and it is a little late to suggest that these

cities move elsewhere The high intensity rainfalls that this

county experiences combined with relatively steep topography

and small drainage basins has often produced flooding with

little advance warning Logging practices in the mountains inshy

creases the chance of log-jams and bridge washouts and mining

practices increase the basins sediment yield thus serving to

choke the river channels with silt

Following the disastrous 1955 flood in the City of Santa

Cruz levees were built and the river channel was straightened

in an attempt to mitigate the hazard The buildings damaged

by the flood waters~were cleared and the entire area was redeshy

veloped rather than left for park land open space or low-risk

usage In recent years the channel itself hasnt been adeshy

quately dredged and sediment has significantly decreased chanshy

nel volume to a point where the likelihood of flooding is as

great now as it was before the flood control measures were carshy

ried out Therefore ~ltbe flood threat remains with us Simple ecoshy

nomics tells us that the cost of dredging is too high to be

40

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

considered practical and it now may be cheaper to let the city

flood Of course there are other alternatives but they are

costly also We must now look at the threat from a different

perspective and deal with it as a fact of life and a natural

result of ongoing physical processes There are some areas I II

which cannot protect from flooding however in light of the con-I

tinuing rapid urbanization of the county it is not too late

to learn from the lessons of the past The historical record

can tell us a lot and it iswith this thought in mind that

the following nood~ehr9nology was prepared

1292 or 1793

On August 28 1791 Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen

planted a cross 500 feet from the San Lorenzo River where the

Santa Cruz Mission was to be built A crudely built chapel

was then constructed there in September of 1791 According to

Phyllis B Patten (San~a Cruz historian) two years later the

hastily built chapel was collapsed by a flood due to heavy rains

After this happened the mission site was moved to a higher

level and the cornerstone of the second church was laid in

February of 1793 on Mission Hill

January 1805

Major flooding occurredin the Sacramento Valley

December 1849

Major flooding occurred in the San Francisco Bay area

January 1850

Major flooding occurred in the Central Valley of California

Winter 1852

The Santa Cruz Sentinel did not begin publication until

41

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

1856 and local populations were so small that data on pre-1856

events is lacking Works by local historians such as ES

Harrison in the 19th century are the main sources o~ data Mr

Harrison talked of the 1852 event as follows

The winter rains had fairly set in for two weeks there had been a steady downpour the creeks that a short time previous were dry were now running full and torrents of water were coming from the mountains and rushing withgreat velocity filling up the various ravines and creeks rendering them for a time impassableWork was pretty much suspended and about all o~ the population were assembled at the only tavern in the place

After publication of the Sentinel began anarticle in

the January 6 1862 edition made a reference t~ the 1852 event

It stated that the San Lorenzo River in 1862 reached a point

three feet higher than the high water mark of 1852 In 1972

a paper by David Casterson concluded from this in~ormation that

the 1852 event might be considered a natural though possibly

not normal winter flood for the San Lorenzo River

February 1861

Following a severe winter the dam of the San Lorenzo

Paper Mill collapsed on the San Lorenzo eight miles upstream from Santa c~uz According to Thomas and Alice Reedy the reshy

suIting wall of water descended upon the papellIlill apron and

all butmiddot destroyed it completely It is not known whether or

not the flood resulted from or preceeded the dams collapse

January 11 1862

The winter of 1861-62 proved to be an especially severe

one not only in Santa Cruz but throughout the state (San Franshy

cisco rainfall - 4927 normal 20) Devastating floods occurshy

red in the Sacramento Valley during the entire month of Decemshy

ber pernaps the worst ever experienced in California history

42

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

During January the storm track apparently shifted south and

Santa Cruz County was pelted by a series of heavy~storms for

nearly three weeks

The first serles of storms occurred during the second

week of January causing the San Lorenzo River to reach its

highest point (three feet higher than the high water mark of

1852) at 600 am Saturday morning January 11th According to

the Sentinel all dams on the river were swept away along with

numerous barns and large trees A two-story wagon shop was

reported to be surrounded by water several feet deep

I~ Tnis week damage amounted to $60000 in Santa Cruz and

surrounding areas It is not known whether this figure includes

damage done in Soquel where water was four feet deep in town bull

All dams on Soquel Creek were lost and some land was washed

away In the Pajaro Valley the entire towerportion was under

water Orchards buildings dams and mills were destroyed

along Corralitos Creek and a large number of livestock were

drowned Thirty four years later a publication by Phil Francis I

stated that old reslidents remember the winter of 1861-62 as I

the severest ever known since the settlement of the country

by Americans

The January 30th edition of the Sentinel spoke of incesshy

sant rains also during the third week of the month Considershy

ing the sparse population of the county in 1862 and the very

non-sensational newspaper reporting at the time the artibles

printed about the flood indicate that damage must have been inshy

credible

The 60unty of Santa Cruz has suffered considerable

43

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

loss from the devastations of the late flood and were it not for the general and extensive damage sustained throughout the state the destruction of property here would be considered enormous~

The storms of the third week of January resulted in conshy

tinued flooding of the Pajaro Valley while the San Lorenzo

experienced high levels although not as high as the peak flood

of January 11th Considerable amounts of land along the rivershy

bank were swept to sea and the river itself changed course and

ran several hundred feet nearer town than it did previous to

the freshet All roads leading into Santa Cruz were damaged

or destroyed as were the bridges The San Lorenzo Paper Mill

which was washed away in 1861 was again destroyed by this flood

A popular local ballad was even written describing the great

disaster

Attention all good people prayAnd listen to me what I sayIll try to tell you all the news About the flood at Santa Cruz

I then arose with all my mightAnd went down to see the sightOf all the sights upon that dayThe paper ~ill dam had washed away

December (23)1866

On December 20th a strong southwesterly gale brought

heavy rains to Santa Cruz By the next morning the Sentinel

reported that

The San Lorenzo River was booming full of water and driftwood was filling the channel from bank to bank At four~omiddotclock in the morning the current was within two inches of running over the bulkhead north of the foundry and at the low place where water Street crosses the bank was submerged

The paper mill dam was again washed away suspending opeshy

rations there until June of 1867bull Many roads were washed out

44

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

along with a bridge at the Powder Mill Numerous landslides

occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains especially along the mounshy

tain road from Santa Cruz to Santa Clara which was rendered

impassable

This event caused so much disruption in Santa Cruz that

for the first time the construction of levees was considered

In an article appearing in the Sentinel of February 7 1862

titledemiddotlhelnundatiJon and the Remedy the following was said

Doubts have been expressed by some in reference to the financial scheme or rais~ng means to build a levee With the protection afforded by the embankment no such risks need be run The land now worthless

February (10) 1862

During the second week of February discharge of the San

Lorenzo River reached bankfull stage Water went over the bulkshy

head north of the foundry and flowed across many parcels of land

carrying debris with it All houses along the stream were

flooded and an island east of Front Street was covered with

water up to five feet deep There were homes built on this

island and many of the families living on them had to be resshyI

cued by boat Log jams occurred in many places and one of them

destroyed part of the footbridge at the Riverside crossing to

Branciforte Numerous landslides occurred again on the mounshy

tain road to San Jose

December 24 1872

The stage of the San Lorenzo River during this flood was

l8t inches higher than during the flood of l862ltbut surprisingly

only $10000 worth of property damage was done One-third of

the 240-foot San Lorenzo River Bridge was carried away but other

than that- details are sketchy Rainfrul records for the

45

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

10-day period of December 14-24 show that 28 inches of rain

fell in the Santa Cruz area

February (14) 1828

The Sentinel of February 23rd stated that

Monday the rivers were at flood-tide but not as high as the previous Thursday Between ten and eleven oclock in the morning the tide full rolled in across the Santa Cruz Railroad doing considerable damage

On Tuesday Pacific Avenue was flooded and any man that

has attempted to wade through bull at any time during the past

forty days is lost to society lost

January 25 1890

The winter of 1889-90 produced a remarkable 6319 inches

of rain in Santa Cruz and 120 inches at Boulder Creek Surprishy

singly only one flood occurred this was on January 25th Some

older citizens compared it to the floods of 1862 in magnitude

Nearly all of downtown Santa Cruz was underwater Many bridges

were destroyed and the city was completely cut off from railroad

communication Many persons were stationed on bridges to guard

against log jams by dislodging obstructions Damage was very

widespread but not severe in nature

The Pajaro River and Soquel Creek also flooded on the

same date Damage there consisted of washed out bridges and

raods and flooded merchandise in the downtown sections of Watshy

sonville and Soquel The Pajaro River rose at a rate of 4t inches per hour

January 18 1895

In a paper written in 1972 David Casterson reports a

flood in Santa Cruz similar to the 1866 event in intensity

The Sentinel of January 19th however does not mention a local

46

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

flood although it reported that Monterey was partly flooded

by heavy rains

March 23 1899

Disaater~JJepor~ampng1became poetic during this flood as seen

in the March 24th edition of the Sentinel

The booming San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek were on a wilder rampage Thursday than they had displayedin years They had indulged in a sort of turbulent gaietywhich would not be restrained From quiet placid streams they developed into bold aggressive defiant rivers They had become expansionists with a vengeance From a quiet sleep they had awakened to become wild angryroaring reckless impetuous masses of water which bulkshyheads and sandbanks could not restrain They leaped over their banks with the agility of acrobats and in their caresses embraced orchards gardens fences and houses

The water apparently did not reach Pacific Avenue because

the land between the avenue and the river had been filled in

Lower portions of downtown were underwater and the railroad

bridge there was displaced three inches by a log jam A young

boy fell from this bridge and drowqed in the current Some

homes were flooded on Soquel Avenue and a bridge was damaged at Big Creek

t~ovember 22-23) 1900

A log jam occurred on the San Lorenzo River this year

The exact date of the event is not certain but may have been

on November 22 or 23 when the most severe storm of the year ~

took place It is not known whether or not a flood occurred

January (21-23) 1909

Minor flooding was reported along Soquel Creek where themiddot

Justice Court Annex was surrounded by water Flooding also

occurred in Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley was reported to

have looked like a vast inland sea The Sentinel does not

it

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

mention whether the flood waters were due to the heavy rains

that fell during the week or from the Pajaro River jumping its

banks The main railroad line between Santa Cruz and Pajaro

was also disrupted by a washout occurring in the lowlands west

of Watsonville

March 7 1911

rThe San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek both left

their banksafte~ a heavy storm hit the area the night before

The San Lorenzo rose seven inches in half-an-hour and overshy

flowed its banks all along the line w Water overflowed onto

lower Pacific Avenue flowed down Spruce Street and flooded

all of the flats bordering the river Most of the material

damage caused consisted of the loss of land bordering the river

damaged bridges and downed communications lines The latter

two of these combined to isolate Santa Cruz from the rest of

the world for about three days by interrupting mail train and

telegraph service

Residents along Branciforte Creek claimed that the floodmiddot

waters hadnt been this high in years Water overran the Bershy

keley Way Bridge and flowed down Market Street to River Street

flooding the whole flat and forcing people to evacuate

There was little warning of the flood as one resident reported

that the water was high but not dangerously so at 1100 pm

By 11115 the water had overflowed the banks and surrounded

their barn forcing them to move their horses to hgher ground

Soquel Creek did not flood but the Pajaro River in Watshy

sonville was reported to be at its highest flood in memory

Water overflowed the banks and extended outward for three miles

52

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

in every direction Bridges and railroad lines were washed out

and the Pajaro Valley was again reported to resemble a vast

inland sea

January 1-4-18 1914

During the entire month of January Santa Cruz county

was pelted by storms Different areas of the county were affecshy

ted at different times and although the San Lorenzo did not

flood Pacific Avenue damage was widespread On January 1st

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the residential

section along the stream The same was true of Branciforte

Creek after 500 inches of rain fell in the San Lorenzo Valley

and adjacent areas A high tide also occurred at midnight

forcing the San Lorenzoc~to flow ove r its banks in the lower

sections of the city

The second flood occurred in Watsonville on the 18th

The area inundated was even more extensive than that of 1911

In some sections water was six feet deep and the entire section

of the Pajaro Valley from Watsonville to the beach was flooded

Storms continued to lash the area and floodwaters didnt begin

to receede until January 27th Damage was not severe because

residents were prepared and expected the flood

Jrf Jl~OnJahUahy 24th the San Lorenzo River reached its peak

high water mark of the season This time there was no high -

tide and no flooding occurred There was extensive wave damshy

age at the Boardwalk and a 200 foot section was ripped out

Extensive landsliding also occurred throughout the county

February 13 1926

A stormof record size and force moved inland on this

53

-

date causing extensive wave damage and sending the Pajaro River

over its banks in downtown Watsonville Flood damage was very

light however in Capitola the high waves destroyed many seashy

walls damaged the wharf undermined some buildings and sent

water flowing into the downtown section In Santa Cruz many

seawalls were also destroyed

March 27 1928

In some sections of Central California 18 inches of

rain fell in only four days Branclforte Creek was running

bankfull onthe 24th and reached a level within one foot of

the Berkeley Way Bridge One home was washed away and a 30

foot section of one property was lost On March 27th the

Pajaro River jumped its banks and flooded Watsonville doing

very little damage

December 27 193~

On Christmas Eve 658 inches of rain fell in Ben Lomond

in 24 hours No local flooding was anticipated but in Soquel

a large tree fell across Soquel Creek and sent wateroverthe

bank The flow of water was diverted and a 35 foot channel

was created across adjacent land The tree could not be moved

and dynamite was used to dislodge it No serious damage was

done

Three days later another storm forced Soquel Creek over

its banks In downtown Soquel the flood waters were the highest

in 20 years and covered a large area from the highway bridge

to the library on Porter Avenue Wooden cottages at the Willow-

brook Villa camp were pushed off of their foundations

and one

of the cottages $loated downstream lodging against the highway

bridge and damming up a considerable amount of driftwoood 54

The obstruction was later dynamited to keep the water flowing

All of the stores in Capitola were flooded and the Italian

Gardens near Paradise Park were damaged when the San Lorenzo

River jumped its banks there

February 211936

At 5s00pm February 21st the San Lorenzo River began to

rise and a rate of six inches per hour was reached at BOOpm

as the heaviest storm in 25 years hit the San Lorenzo Valley

All creeks were reported to be overflowing but the San Lorenzos

discharge remained entirely within its banks A series of

storms had been affecting the area since February 11th when

a record 12 of an inch ofJrain fell in 21 minutes

February 13 1937

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and reached its highest

water level since 1931 Both downtown sections of Capitola

and Soquel were flooded although damage was minimal due to an

effective sandbagging effort A 24-hour rainfalllof SB5 inches

at Boulder Creek caused a rapid rise of the San Lorenzo but no q

flooding occurred

December 10 1937

The heaviest l2-hour rainfall ever to occur in the recorshy

ded history of Santa Cruz brought 335 inches of rain to the

city on this date In 36 hours time B46 inches fell in

Santa Cruz and a record 24-hour total of 904 inches fell at

Ben Lomond This deluge sent both the San Lorenzo River and

Soquel Creek over their banks The San Lorenzo overflowed

below the Riverside Avenue Bridge probably because of high tide

Along Soquel Creek one_cabin was washed into the stream and

51

destroyed Five bridges costing $50000 were washed out in

the south county

February 11-12 1938

Following 14 consecutive days of rain two floods hit

the San Lorenzo River within 24 hours Lowland sections along

East Cliff Drive were entirely flooded but there were no reports

of the San Lorenzo River jumping its banks in downtown Santa

Cruz Totaldamage in the ci~y amountedto $100000 although

the majority of this was due to severe wind damage done by the

accompanying 70 mile-per-hour gale

In Watsonville the PajaroRiveroverflowed its banks and

flooded 20 blocks of land The entire town of Pajaro was undershy

water also On the 12th anadditional 20 blocks were flooded

as the main Watsonville levee gave way marooning 1000 people

Total damages were not as great as might have been expected

(December) 1239

High water resulted in the loss of two Paradise Park

properties along the San Lorenzo River Information is sparse

February 27 1940

In 17 hours 875 inches of raan fell at Boulder Creek

causing the San Lorenzo River to surge past flood stage Most

of the damage was done to summer cabins from Boulder Creek to

Paradise Park Total losses in the City of Santa Cruz amounted

to $105329 and 320 acres of land were inundated One hundred

people were evacuated from their homes and many of them had to

be rescued by motorboat from the Garfield Street lowlands

Four foot bridges were lost and the Soquel and Water Street

Bridges were badly ~amaged On Zayante Creek six out of nine~

58

bridges were lost A total of 320 homes were damaged by the

flood with losses averaging $50 each

High water caused damage along the San Lorenzo River at

Paradise Park this year Information is sparse

November 18 1950

Water topped the banks of the San Lorenzo and flooded

most lowland sections along the river from Boulder Creek to

the ocean The damage caused was minimal however since many

crews were out breaking up log jams and the flood of very short

duration

On Branciforte Creek_the Boy Scout Cabin Grounds were

flooded at the end of Josephine Street Twenty days later

another heavy storm threatened local flooding but none materi shy

alized

January 12 1952

Minor flooding was reported on this date in the lowest

lying sections of the City of Santa Cruz Seventy five persons

were evacuated from their homes on Josephine Blaine Garfield

Burnett and River Streets which are usually the first areas

of the city to experience flood waters On Janu~ry 14th the

stage of the San Lorenzo reached 11 feet and further evacuations

were ordered but no flooding occurred The fact that no major

flood occurred may be due to the effectiveness of street departshy

ment crews which broke up log jams

December 23 1955

The worst disaster in the history of Santa Cruz occurred on this night following a three day deluge thathdropped 890

63

inches of rain on Santa Cruz and 1827 inches on Boulder Creek

Flooding began on the 22nd in the lowland areas of the city

and in Soquel six homes along Riverview Avenue were two inches

deep in water At first it appeared that this was the worst

that the flood waters would get until the forecast of more

heavy rain materialized By 9a)0 pm the San Lorenzo River

overtopped its banks along nearly its entire length and flooded

downtown Santa Cruz with up to 10 feet of water Dam~ge was

extensive and initial reports listed )0 persons missing Branshy

ciforte Creek also jumped ~ts banks and downtown Soquel was

inundated by the rampage of Soquel Creek

The San Lorenzo River reached a peak stage 10 feet higher

than the flood level in downtown Santa Cruz The Chamber pf

Commerce claimed that 410 acres of the city were underwater

and had the flood occurred during a high tide all of the more

than 500 acres of lowlands would have been flooded Total

damage in the watershed amounted to $8700900 and_ sevenpersons

were killed A total of 28)0 persons were displaced by the q

flood andlOOthomes were completely destroyed in the San Lorenzo

Valley some of them completely swept off of their foundations

Soquel Creek exceeded bankfull capacity for 18 hours and

discharge increased from 2000 to 12000 cubic-feet per second

in only four hours Downtown Soquel was inundated by five feet

of water and damage totaled $10)9000 Damage in Watsonville

was described as moderate resulting from the overflow of the

Pajaro Riyer

Some--years after this flood levees were constructed

~ following many years of debate

67

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

The obstruction was later dynamited to keep the water flowing

All of the stores in Capitola were flooded and the Italian

Gardens near Paradise Park were damaged when the San Lorenzo

River jumped its banks there

February 211936

At 5s00pm February 21st the San Lorenzo River began to

rise and a rate of six inches per hour was reached at BOOpm

as the heaviest storm in 25 years hit the San Lorenzo Valley

All creeks were reported to be overflowing but the San Lorenzos

discharge remained entirely within its banks A series of

storms had been affecting the area since February 11th when

a record 12 of an inch ofJrain fell in 21 minutes

February 13 1937

Soquel Creek overflowed its banks and reached its highest

water level since 1931 Both downtown sections of Capitola

and Soquel were flooded although damage was minimal due to an

effective sandbagging effort A 24-hour rainfalllof SB5 inches

at Boulder Creek caused a rapid rise of the San Lorenzo but no q

flooding occurred

December 10 1937

The heaviest l2-hour rainfall ever to occur in the recorshy

ded history of Santa Cruz brought 335 inches of rain to the

city on this date In 36 hours time B46 inches fell in

Santa Cruz and a record 24-hour total of 904 inches fell at

Ben Lomond This deluge sent both the San Lorenzo River and

Soquel Creek over their banks The San Lorenzo overflowed

below the Riverside Avenue Bridge probably because of high tide

Along Soquel Creek one_cabin was washed into the stream and

51

destroyed Five bridges costing $50000 were washed out in

the south county

February 11-12 1938

Following 14 consecutive days of rain two floods hit

the San Lorenzo River within 24 hours Lowland sections along

East Cliff Drive were entirely flooded but there were no reports

of the San Lorenzo River jumping its banks in downtown Santa

Cruz Totaldamage in the ci~y amountedto $100000 although

the majority of this was due to severe wind damage done by the

accompanying 70 mile-per-hour gale

In Watsonville the PajaroRiveroverflowed its banks and

flooded 20 blocks of land The entire town of Pajaro was undershy

water also On the 12th anadditional 20 blocks were flooded

as the main Watsonville levee gave way marooning 1000 people

Total damages were not as great as might have been expected

(December) 1239

High water resulted in the loss of two Paradise Park

properties along the San Lorenzo River Information is sparse

February 27 1940

In 17 hours 875 inches of raan fell at Boulder Creek

causing the San Lorenzo River to surge past flood stage Most

of the damage was done to summer cabins from Boulder Creek to

Paradise Park Total losses in the City of Santa Cruz amounted

to $105329 and 320 acres of land were inundated One hundred

people were evacuated from their homes and many of them had to

be rescued by motorboat from the Garfield Street lowlands

Four foot bridges were lost and the Soquel and Water Street

Bridges were badly ~amaged On Zayante Creek six out of nine~

58

bridges were lost A total of 320 homes were damaged by the

flood with losses averaging $50 each

High water caused damage along the San Lorenzo River at

Paradise Park this year Information is sparse

November 18 1950

Water topped the banks of the San Lorenzo and flooded

most lowland sections along the river from Boulder Creek to

the ocean The damage caused was minimal however since many

crews were out breaking up log jams and the flood of very short

duration

On Branciforte Creek_the Boy Scout Cabin Grounds were

flooded at the end of Josephine Street Twenty days later

another heavy storm threatened local flooding but none materi shy

alized

January 12 1952

Minor flooding was reported on this date in the lowest

lying sections of the City of Santa Cruz Seventy five persons

were evacuated from their homes on Josephine Blaine Garfield

Burnett and River Streets which are usually the first areas

of the city to experience flood waters On Janu~ry 14th the

stage of the San Lorenzo reached 11 feet and further evacuations

were ordered but no flooding occurred The fact that no major

flood occurred may be due to the effectiveness of street departshy

ment crews which broke up log jams

December 23 1955

The worst disaster in the history of Santa Cruz occurred on this night following a three day deluge thathdropped 890

63

inches of rain on Santa Cruz and 1827 inches on Boulder Creek

Flooding began on the 22nd in the lowland areas of the city

and in Soquel six homes along Riverview Avenue were two inches

deep in water At first it appeared that this was the worst

that the flood waters would get until the forecast of more

heavy rain materialized By 9a)0 pm the San Lorenzo River

overtopped its banks along nearly its entire length and flooded

downtown Santa Cruz with up to 10 feet of water Dam~ge was

extensive and initial reports listed )0 persons missing Branshy

ciforte Creek also jumped ~ts banks and downtown Soquel was

inundated by the rampage of Soquel Creek

The San Lorenzo River reached a peak stage 10 feet higher

than the flood level in downtown Santa Cruz The Chamber pf

Commerce claimed that 410 acres of the city were underwater

and had the flood occurred during a high tide all of the more

than 500 acres of lowlands would have been flooded Total

damage in the watershed amounted to $8700900 and_ sevenpersons

were killed A total of 28)0 persons were displaced by the q

flood andlOOthomes were completely destroyed in the San Lorenzo

Valley some of them completely swept off of their foundations

Soquel Creek exceeded bankfull capacity for 18 hours and

discharge increased from 2000 to 12000 cubic-feet per second

in only four hours Downtown Soquel was inundated by five feet

of water and damage totaled $10)9000 Damage in Watsonville

was described as moderate resulting from the overflow of the

Pajaro Riyer

Some--years after this flood levees were constructed

~ following many years of debate

67

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

destroyed Five bridges costing $50000 were washed out in

the south county

February 11-12 1938

Following 14 consecutive days of rain two floods hit

the San Lorenzo River within 24 hours Lowland sections along

East Cliff Drive were entirely flooded but there were no reports

of the San Lorenzo River jumping its banks in downtown Santa

Cruz Totaldamage in the ci~y amountedto $100000 although

the majority of this was due to severe wind damage done by the

accompanying 70 mile-per-hour gale

In Watsonville the PajaroRiveroverflowed its banks and

flooded 20 blocks of land The entire town of Pajaro was undershy

water also On the 12th anadditional 20 blocks were flooded

as the main Watsonville levee gave way marooning 1000 people

Total damages were not as great as might have been expected

(December) 1239

High water resulted in the loss of two Paradise Park

properties along the San Lorenzo River Information is sparse

February 27 1940

In 17 hours 875 inches of raan fell at Boulder Creek

causing the San Lorenzo River to surge past flood stage Most

of the damage was done to summer cabins from Boulder Creek to

Paradise Park Total losses in the City of Santa Cruz amounted

to $105329 and 320 acres of land were inundated One hundred

people were evacuated from their homes and many of them had to

be rescued by motorboat from the Garfield Street lowlands

Four foot bridges were lost and the Soquel and Water Street

Bridges were badly ~amaged On Zayante Creek six out of nine~

58

bridges were lost A total of 320 homes were damaged by the

flood with losses averaging $50 each

High water caused damage along the San Lorenzo River at

Paradise Park this year Information is sparse

November 18 1950

Water topped the banks of the San Lorenzo and flooded

most lowland sections along the river from Boulder Creek to

the ocean The damage caused was minimal however since many

crews were out breaking up log jams and the flood of very short

duration

On Branciforte Creek_the Boy Scout Cabin Grounds were

flooded at the end of Josephine Street Twenty days later

another heavy storm threatened local flooding but none materi shy

alized

January 12 1952

Minor flooding was reported on this date in the lowest

lying sections of the City of Santa Cruz Seventy five persons

were evacuated from their homes on Josephine Blaine Garfield

Burnett and River Streets which are usually the first areas

of the city to experience flood waters On Janu~ry 14th the

stage of the San Lorenzo reached 11 feet and further evacuations

were ordered but no flooding occurred The fact that no major

flood occurred may be due to the effectiveness of street departshy

ment crews which broke up log jams

December 23 1955

The worst disaster in the history of Santa Cruz occurred on this night following a three day deluge thathdropped 890

63

inches of rain on Santa Cruz and 1827 inches on Boulder Creek

Flooding began on the 22nd in the lowland areas of the city

and in Soquel six homes along Riverview Avenue were two inches

deep in water At first it appeared that this was the worst

that the flood waters would get until the forecast of more

heavy rain materialized By 9a)0 pm the San Lorenzo River

overtopped its banks along nearly its entire length and flooded

downtown Santa Cruz with up to 10 feet of water Dam~ge was

extensive and initial reports listed )0 persons missing Branshy

ciforte Creek also jumped ~ts banks and downtown Soquel was

inundated by the rampage of Soquel Creek

The San Lorenzo River reached a peak stage 10 feet higher

than the flood level in downtown Santa Cruz The Chamber pf

Commerce claimed that 410 acres of the city were underwater

and had the flood occurred during a high tide all of the more

than 500 acres of lowlands would have been flooded Total

damage in the watershed amounted to $8700900 and_ sevenpersons

were killed A total of 28)0 persons were displaced by the q

flood andlOOthomes were completely destroyed in the San Lorenzo

Valley some of them completely swept off of their foundations

Soquel Creek exceeded bankfull capacity for 18 hours and

discharge increased from 2000 to 12000 cubic-feet per second

in only four hours Downtown Soquel was inundated by five feet

of water and damage totaled $10)9000 Damage in Watsonville

was described as moderate resulting from the overflow of the

Pajaro Riyer

Some--years after this flood levees were constructed

~ following many years of debate

67

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

bridges were lost A total of 320 homes were damaged by the

flood with losses averaging $50 each

High water caused damage along the San Lorenzo River at

Paradise Park this year Information is sparse

November 18 1950

Water topped the banks of the San Lorenzo and flooded

most lowland sections along the river from Boulder Creek to

the ocean The damage caused was minimal however since many

crews were out breaking up log jams and the flood of very short

duration

On Branciforte Creek_the Boy Scout Cabin Grounds were

flooded at the end of Josephine Street Twenty days later

another heavy storm threatened local flooding but none materi shy

alized

January 12 1952

Minor flooding was reported on this date in the lowest

lying sections of the City of Santa Cruz Seventy five persons

were evacuated from their homes on Josephine Blaine Garfield

Burnett and River Streets which are usually the first areas

of the city to experience flood waters On Janu~ry 14th the

stage of the San Lorenzo reached 11 feet and further evacuations

were ordered but no flooding occurred The fact that no major

flood occurred may be due to the effectiveness of street departshy

ment crews which broke up log jams

December 23 1955

The worst disaster in the history of Santa Cruz occurred on this night following a three day deluge thathdropped 890

63

inches of rain on Santa Cruz and 1827 inches on Boulder Creek

Flooding began on the 22nd in the lowland areas of the city

and in Soquel six homes along Riverview Avenue were two inches

deep in water At first it appeared that this was the worst

that the flood waters would get until the forecast of more

heavy rain materialized By 9a)0 pm the San Lorenzo River

overtopped its banks along nearly its entire length and flooded

downtown Santa Cruz with up to 10 feet of water Dam~ge was

extensive and initial reports listed )0 persons missing Branshy

ciforte Creek also jumped ~ts banks and downtown Soquel was

inundated by the rampage of Soquel Creek

The San Lorenzo River reached a peak stage 10 feet higher

than the flood level in downtown Santa Cruz The Chamber pf

Commerce claimed that 410 acres of the city were underwater

and had the flood occurred during a high tide all of the more

than 500 acres of lowlands would have been flooded Total

damage in the watershed amounted to $8700900 and_ sevenpersons

were killed A total of 28)0 persons were displaced by the q

flood andlOOthomes were completely destroyed in the San Lorenzo

Valley some of them completely swept off of their foundations

Soquel Creek exceeded bankfull capacity for 18 hours and

discharge increased from 2000 to 12000 cubic-feet per second

in only four hours Downtown Soquel was inundated by five feet

of water and damage totaled $10)9000 Damage in Watsonville

was described as moderate resulting from the overflow of the

Pajaro Riyer

Some--years after this flood levees were constructed

~ following many years of debate

67

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

inches of rain on Santa Cruz and 1827 inches on Boulder Creek

Flooding began on the 22nd in the lowland areas of the city

and in Soquel six homes along Riverview Avenue were two inches

deep in water At first it appeared that this was the worst

that the flood waters would get until the forecast of more

heavy rain materialized By 9a)0 pm the San Lorenzo River

overtopped its banks along nearly its entire length and flooded

downtown Santa Cruz with up to 10 feet of water Dam~ge was

extensive and initial reports listed )0 persons missing Branshy

ciforte Creek also jumped ~ts banks and downtown Soquel was

inundated by the rampage of Soquel Creek

The San Lorenzo River reached a peak stage 10 feet higher

than the flood level in downtown Santa Cruz The Chamber pf

Commerce claimed that 410 acres of the city were underwater

and had the flood occurred during a high tide all of the more

than 500 acres of lowlands would have been flooded Total

damage in the watershed amounted to $8700900 and_ sevenpersons

were killed A total of 28)0 persons were displaced by the q

flood andlOOthomes were completely destroyed in the San Lorenzo

Valley some of them completely swept off of their foundations

Soquel Creek exceeded bankfull capacity for 18 hours and

discharge increased from 2000 to 12000 cubic-feet per second

in only four hours Downtown Soquel was inundated by five feet

of water and damage totaled $10)9000 Damage in Watsonville

was described as moderate resulting from the overflow of the

Pajaro Riyer

Some--years after this flood levees were constructed

~ following many years of debate

67

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

Fig

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

February 19 1958

After seven inches of rain fell in Boulder Creek overshy

night the San Lorenzo River rose to a stage of 138 feet at

the Water Street Bridge or approximately one to two feet above

flood level In downtown Santa Cruz the river rose to within

inches of the top of the bank but in other areas actually

slipped over causing slight damage Jihe first place where

fl~od waters topped the bank was at Burnett Street where most

houses had already been moved out by a redevelopment project

Other areas where flood waters spilled were at Broadway Laurel

and Garfield Streets Some undermining of foundations occurred

at these locations but noserousrdamage resulted

1 l

The rains continued making the 1958-59 season the third

wettest in Santa Cruz history Rainfall totaled 4956 inches

in Santa Cruz 8691 inches in Boulder Creek and 7273 inches

in Scotts Valley by the seventh of April In a 24-hour period

on April 2 63 inches o~rain fell at Boulder Creek and that

storm sent the San Lorenzo River over its banks The rivers

stage reached 165 feet and caused considerable damage all along

its course One hundred and twenty five homes and 25 businesses

suffered water damage amounting to $20OOOO~ Car dealers along

Auto Row were forced to move several hundred cars to highergt

ground many streets were closed and power outages were numershy

ous Countywide about 250 persons were forced to evacuate their

homes and their was one fatality

Public warnings were very effective during this storm

Many county agencies pooled their efforts and cooperation among

74

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

TABLE 2 PEAK DIS CHARGES

STREAMS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (Water Years 1956 and 1959)

Stream (1955-1956)

Discharge Stage (1958-1959)

Discharge Stage

Branciforte Creek 8100efs 2204ft 2450efs 1397ft

Pajaro River Chittenden

24OOOcfs 3246ft 23500cfs 3310ft

San Lorenzo River Big Trees

30400cfs 22 55ft 17200cfs 1776ft

San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

30400cfs 2)10ft 18500cfs 1847ft

Soquel Creek l5800cfs 2233ft 6250cfs l)24ft

Based on USGS data

r 75 I

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

the members of the community kept damage to a minimum High

water areas were well marked out by the~1955 flood and most

businesses were prepared to move basement and first floor stocks

to second floor levels Water levels were only two thirds of

those of 1955 and street crews broke up most of the log jams

before they could cause any problems

Surprisingly Watsonville escaped flooding and the Pajaro

River never reached the danger level Rainfall totals in this

city (2959 inches) were a full 20 inches below that of Santa

Cruz

January 31 1963

Over 850 inches of rain in Boulder Creek in 24 hours

failed to cause a flood on the San Lorenzo but the town of

Soquel was less fortunate Soquel Creek went over its banks

in downtown Soquel and water levels rose to within two feet of

the Soquel Bridge Damage amounted to $139000

76

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

~

1792-1793

01 1805

12 1849

01 1850

Winter 1852

02 1861

01 111862

12 (23)1866

02 (10)1869

12 241872

02 (14)1878

01 251890

01 181895

03 231899

(1122-23)1900

01(21-23)1909

03 07~911

0101+181914

02 131926

03 271928

12 271931

02 211936

02 131937

J

TABLE 3DAMAGING PLOODS

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Streams Affected

San Lorenzo River

Sacramento Valley

San Francisco Bay area

Central Valley

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Corralitos Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River County streams

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek

San Lorenzo River

Soquel Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Branciforte Creek Soquel Creek Pajaro River

Pajaro River

Pajaro River

San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

County streams

Soque1 Creek

77

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

Streams Affected~

12 101937 San Lorenzo River Soquel Creek

- 0211-121938 San Lorenzo River Pajaro River

(12) 1939 San Lorenzo River

02 271940 San Lorenzo River Zayante Creek

1946 San Lorenzo River

11 181950 San Lorenzo tiver I

Branciforte Creek

01 121952 San Lorenzo River

12 231955 San Lorenzo River Branciforte CreekSoquel Creek Pajaro River

02 191958 San Lorenzo River

0402-031958 San Lorenzo River

01 311963 Soquel Creek

1 - -v~ P l -p lf) I c-rgt 1 IJ r vtIhiJiI)- j~ ~J lt1 -- I -CG(Jl Iu J Ii) l-l-shy

l~-ve-0 llCJo9~

J 1-0 vA11JlNtrr4 CPtJYI ~0middotrr5

Indicates that the mentioned flooding may have affected Santa Cruz County

(Date) Indicates that the date is in question

78

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

MAJOR STORMS

Major storms are a regular winter occurrence in Santa

Cruz County Not all of these events result in flooding however

many of them pack sufficient amounts of energy to cause severe

erosion and wave damage along our waterfront Exposed rocks

along many of the countyisL~beaches- aremiddoteasily erodable and

subject to undercutting and collapse bull Rates of cliff retreat

range from six inches to two feet per year and in heavy storms

those figures are greatly exceeded The vulnerability of the

cliffs varies from year to year depending uporLmany factors

among the most important being combination of high waves and

high tides beach width and degree of cliff protection the

nature of the bedrock and the amount of runoff flowing over

the cliff face

Some wave damage occurs along the coast annually and

it is therefore tedious to list a chronol~gyr2of-Gtbese8vents

The major events thowever are worth noting as~ltmany of these

storms produced flooding and considerable disruption in the

communities of the county These storms are listed in the

flood chronology Those that are not listed in the flood

chronology are listed belowwith anasterisk

~T

sectJanuary 1840 February 1926 January 1952

January 1862 December 1937 December 1955

January 1890 February 1940 April 1958

March 1899 January 1943 January 1963

January 1914 November ])949 ~anuary 1969

February 1915 November 1950 Jnuary 1978

Vl$ cJ IOJ 08Qt 6 J EZ1 u Cc-w1fr - ~

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

SNOWSTORMS

Snow is a rare occurrence in Santa Cruz County When it

comes it often falls in the remote higher elevations of the

county However as development is encroaching upon these

lands the potential loss to life and property i1ncreases Also

the redwood lumber industry which is extremely important ecomiddot

nomically can lose many trees when the heavy burden of snow

is~~placed upon the redwood s unsupportive limbs

In Santa Cruz County nine significant snowfalls have

occurred since 1882 Of these nine three have caused damage

since 1935 Another four unusually heavy storms in the 1880s

and 1890s would no doubt have caused significant damage if

the areas affected were as populated as they are today A

chronology of these events follows

Decemb~r 31 1882

This event was referred to for many years as the New

Years Snowstorm According to the Sentinel snow fell in

almost every section of the state including three inches at

Redwood City and some in the City of San Francisco Locally

three inches fell atLLorenzo remaining there for two days and

up to six inches fell at Ben Lomond Two anonymous accounts

of the storm follow

The ~lush~lnrthe roiadsj- oigtthegreat SanLorenz o~ Valley has been oceans in quantitybull traveling has never been worse in that section

86

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

The fall of snow north of Santa Cruz was unusuallyheavy bull drifting in places to a depth of from one to four feet Not a flake of snow rell in Santa Cruz but the weather of almost the entire week would indicate the proxshyimity of an icehouse

February 4-5 1887

An intense winter storm brought 475 inches of ra~ to

Santa Cruz on these two days Snowfall in the adjacent mounshy

tains was heavier than that of 1882 In San Francisco nearly

a foot fell between the hours of 200 and 800 am and this

record still stands today Four inches fell at Redwood City

and even a trace fell at Los Angeles At 700 am February 5

it was 35 degrees in Santa Cruz and 31 degrees in Monterey

Local snowfall data is lacking

January 1890

In addition to the flooding that occurred this month

snow fell in Soquel and covered all of the local mountains

According to Walter Noble of Soquel snow covered the ground

like frost

March 3 1896

A record snowfall occurred in many sections of Northern

California namely the Sacramento Valley Locally snow fell

at Boulder Creek Glenwood and Laurel It accumulated to a

depth of one foot on John Morgans place at the head of

Rodeo Gulch Snow fell on the shoreline at Pacific Grove and

the cold caused extensive damage tQ agriculture in the San

Francisco Bay area High and low temperatures in San Franshy

cisco on March 3 were 47deg and 33deg

J~uary 19 1935

An extensive hail storm occurred on this day causing

87

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

numerous automobile accidents in Santa Cruz Snow rell at

Glenwood and Lorna Prieta and a landslide slid halfway across

the highway at the two Big Blue Rock Cuts north of Glenwood

On the next day a record low temperature of 20 degrees was

recorded at Santa Cruz

(January 4-13 19421

Two sieges of cold weather occurred within 10 days There

was snow on the coast at Eureka and Los Angeles but none here

The severe cold however caused extansive crop damage estimated

at $25000000 statewide during the first siege Temperatures

dropped to 200 in Santa Cruz on January 1

The second cold snap began on January 9 Temperatures

dropped to 100 at Riverside Grove and ice covered both banks

of the San Lorenzo leaving only a narrow channel for the water

in Sant Cruz Several water pumps froze and motor blocks

cracked Santa Cruz City low temperatures for the 10th through

the 13th were I 270 240 260 and 230 bull

March 22 1964

A snowstorm dropped rour inches of snow and caused drifts

up to two feet deep in the higher elevations of the county

There were a few power outages caused by tree limbs falling on

power lines and also numerous auto accidents

JanuarY 3 1274

This storm did a considerable amount or damage Estimates

of the amount of snow fallen range from four to nine inches

with drifts of up to three feet at the higher elevations

Although the storm was not as severe as those of 1882 and 1887

88

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

the much higher population ih these areas greatly increased

the amount of proper~y damage bull laquo

An estimated 10000 of PG and E s customers were withshy

ou~ ~i~bt~iampity and 3500 of these people remained in the dark

for three days Eight hundred persons were stranded at work

school and on Highways 9 and 17 which were closed for some

time by snow and fallen debris Two deaths occurred during the

storm One man suffered a heart attack clearing fallen trees

and one woman was crushed by a falling tree and buried in

the snow An estimated one million trees were toppled by the

snow snapping hundreds of communication lines As volunteer

fireman Jay Baker put it trees were allover the place as if

a hurricane had come through

Other unusual snowfalls occurred on January 13 1907 t~

and January 14 1932 but the amounts were too light to cause

damage

NIISltql--Ofmiddot t e75~ 7c ~NOtJ hL- AUJlJG eZ11ctt-- Au_ d V 12fL-

~()AhJTJW~

90

DROUGHTS

Droughts are infrequent disasters that are very hard to

obtain information about Since they are long-term events

finding data about them requires an extensive newspaper search

which often only reveals rainfall figures amounts of crop

damage and water rationing data Nevertheless they do occur

in Santa Cruz County and must be dealt with particularly since

urbanization is tapping our available water resources to their

limits The demand for water is continually increasing and

so is the potential for a crisis in the event of another

drought like that which occurred in 1976-77

The definition of the term drought varies and has difshy

ferent meanings to different branches of science Agriculture

may assess drought in terms of crop losses and topsoil erosion

geologists and hydrologists may assess it in terms of low

water tables and meteorologists may assess it in terms of q

prolonged below normal precipitation Therefore using all

of these factors together plus drought s impact on human

services we can get a picture of the severity of a prolonged

dry spelll

In terms of duration droughts in the Santa Cruz area

are generally short lived They rarely last for more than

two years however those of the Midwestern United States can

last for several years A chronology of Santa Cruz County

events follows

91

1820-1821

Santa Cruz Mission records state that the years 1816-17

were very wet and 1820-21 were very dry

1844

A pre-statehood letter addressed to the inhabitants of

Mission Santa Cruz speaks of Santa Cruz first water rationing

Water was to be used only by designated persons and only for

essential purposes

1850-1851

A severe drought occurred in Northern California Rainshy

fall in San Francisco was only 74 inches or 33 of normal

Sacramento received only 50 inches of rain during this period

In general rainfall over California was only one-third of

normal

1862-1864

Following severe statewide flooding in 1861-62 a severe

drought especially in Southern California put an end to the

states extensive cattle industry

1875-1876

A very low water year locally

Rainfall over the entir~ Western United States was only

79 of normal

1910

Rainfall over the entire Western United States was only

81 of normal

1924

Rainfall over the entire~Western United States was only

92

1928-1934

6

75 of normal The Santa Cruz rainfall total was 117 inches

the lowest ever recorded

During this period there were seven consecutive years of

below normal precipitation in the City of Santa Cruz (220

172 bull 215 bull 130 bull 276 bull 214 bull and 185 inches) The years

1928 and 1929 were very dry over all of the Western United ~

States with only 79 to 80~percent of normal precipitation

In 1929 the lowest four-month rainfall total ever recorded

in San Francisco was observed

1976-1977

A severe drought placed an extreme burden on local water

supplies Water rationing was instituted as annual rainfall

totaled 122 and 150 inches respectively

93

CONCLUSION

Most of the historic record of Santa Cruz County dates

back to the year 1791 with the establishment of Mission santa

Cruz bull Although existing information from those (early years is

sparse the first natural disaster to affect Santa Cruz was

a flood in 1192 This event was followed by a series of

strong earthquakes in October of 1800 centered near San Juan

Bautista

It was not until the middle of the 1800 sltwhen middotmore de

tailed records began to be kept In 1850 the statehood of

California and the organization of Santa Cruz as a county led

to more written information In 1865 the first edition of the

Santa Cruz Sentinel was published and since then it has proshy

vided a more or less continuous recordsof local events

OVer a span of approximately 180 years 38 earthquakes

and 34 floods have caused namage c-in)Santa(3rUz County These

two events are by far responsible for most of the property

damage reported In the 1800s a damaging earthquake occurred

on the average of once every 61 years and a flood every 17

years However so far in the 1900s a damaging earthquake

occurs every 35 years and a flood every 41 years These

lower figures do not represent an increase in the frequency of

events but do reflect a rapidly growing population that is

more thorough and accurate in its reporting techniques Also

more people are likely to be affected by similar magnitude

events due to todays higher population densities

In summation floods are likely to cause the most material

damage in the county however earthquakes can be expected more

frequently Major winter storms are likely in any year although

damage is fairly predictable and often confined to the shoreline

Tsunamis droughts and snowstorms are very infrequent- events

and too little data exists about them (also too few events have

occurred) to accurately predict their recurrence intervals

95

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

1820-1821

Santa Cruz Mission records state that the years 1816-17

were very wet and 1820-21 were very dry

1844

A pre-statehood letter addressed to the inhabitants of

Mission Santa Cruz speaks of Santa Cruz first water rationing

Water was to be used only by designated persons and only for

essential purposes

1850-1851

A severe drought occurred in Northern California Rainshy

fall in San Francisco was only 74 inches or 33 of normal

Sacramento received only 50 inches of rain during this period

In general rainfall over California was only one-third of

normal

1862-1864

Following severe statewide flooding in 1861-62 a severe

drought especially in Southern California put an end to the

states extensive cattle industry

1875-1876

A very low water year locally

Rainfall over the entir~ Western United States was only

79 of normal

1910

Rainfall over the entire Western United States was only

81 of normal

1924

Rainfall over the entire~Western United States was only

92

1928-1934

6

75 of normal The Santa Cruz rainfall total was 117 inches

the lowest ever recorded

During this period there were seven consecutive years of

below normal precipitation in the City of Santa Cruz (220

172 bull 215 bull 130 bull 276 bull 214 bull and 185 inches) The years

1928 and 1929 were very dry over all of the Western United ~

States with only 79 to 80~percent of normal precipitation

In 1929 the lowest four-month rainfall total ever recorded

in San Francisco was observed

1976-1977

A severe drought placed an extreme burden on local water

supplies Water rationing was instituted as annual rainfall

totaled 122 and 150 inches respectively

93

CONCLUSION

Most of the historic record of Santa Cruz County dates

back to the year 1791 with the establishment of Mission santa

Cruz bull Although existing information from those (early years is

sparse the first natural disaster to affect Santa Cruz was

a flood in 1192 This event was followed by a series of

strong earthquakes in October of 1800 centered near San Juan

Bautista

It was not until the middle of the 1800 sltwhen middotmore de

tailed records began to be kept In 1850 the statehood of

California and the organization of Santa Cruz as a county led

to more written information In 1865 the first edition of the

Santa Cruz Sentinel was published and since then it has proshy

vided a more or less continuous recordsof local events

OVer a span of approximately 180 years 38 earthquakes

and 34 floods have caused namage c-in)Santa(3rUz County These

two events are by far responsible for most of the property

damage reported In the 1800s a damaging earthquake occurred

on the average of once every 61 years and a flood every 17

years However so far in the 1900s a damaging earthquake

occurs every 35 years and a flood every 41 years These

lower figures do not represent an increase in the frequency of

events but do reflect a rapidly growing population that is

more thorough and accurate in its reporting techniques Also

more people are likely to be affected by similar magnitude

events due to todays higher population densities

In summation floods are likely to cause the most material

damage in the county however earthquakes can be expected more

frequently Major winter storms are likely in any year although

damage is fairly predictable and often confined to the shoreline

Tsunamis droughts and snowstorms are very infrequent- events

and too little data exists about them (also too few events have

occurred) to accurately predict their recurrence intervals

95

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

1928-1934

6

75 of normal The Santa Cruz rainfall total was 117 inches

the lowest ever recorded

During this period there were seven consecutive years of

below normal precipitation in the City of Santa Cruz (220

172 bull 215 bull 130 bull 276 bull 214 bull and 185 inches) The years

1928 and 1929 were very dry over all of the Western United ~

States with only 79 to 80~percent of normal precipitation

In 1929 the lowest four-month rainfall total ever recorded

in San Francisco was observed

1976-1977

A severe drought placed an extreme burden on local water

supplies Water rationing was instituted as annual rainfall

totaled 122 and 150 inches respectively

93

CONCLUSION

Most of the historic record of Santa Cruz County dates

back to the year 1791 with the establishment of Mission santa

Cruz bull Although existing information from those (early years is

sparse the first natural disaster to affect Santa Cruz was

a flood in 1192 This event was followed by a series of

strong earthquakes in October of 1800 centered near San Juan

Bautista

It was not until the middle of the 1800 sltwhen middotmore de

tailed records began to be kept In 1850 the statehood of

California and the organization of Santa Cruz as a county led

to more written information In 1865 the first edition of the

Santa Cruz Sentinel was published and since then it has proshy

vided a more or less continuous recordsof local events

OVer a span of approximately 180 years 38 earthquakes

and 34 floods have caused namage c-in)Santa(3rUz County These

two events are by far responsible for most of the property

damage reported In the 1800s a damaging earthquake occurred

on the average of once every 61 years and a flood every 17

years However so far in the 1900s a damaging earthquake

occurs every 35 years and a flood every 41 years These

lower figures do not represent an increase in the frequency of

events but do reflect a rapidly growing population that is

more thorough and accurate in its reporting techniques Also

more people are likely to be affected by similar magnitude

events due to todays higher population densities

In summation floods are likely to cause the most material

damage in the county however earthquakes can be expected more

frequently Major winter storms are likely in any year although

damage is fairly predictable and often confined to the shoreline

Tsunamis droughts and snowstorms are very infrequent- events

and too little data exists about them (also too few events have

occurred) to accurately predict their recurrence intervals

95

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

CONCLUSION

Most of the historic record of Santa Cruz County dates

back to the year 1791 with the establishment of Mission santa

Cruz bull Although existing information from those (early years is

sparse the first natural disaster to affect Santa Cruz was

a flood in 1192 This event was followed by a series of

strong earthquakes in October of 1800 centered near San Juan

Bautista

It was not until the middle of the 1800 sltwhen middotmore de

tailed records began to be kept In 1850 the statehood of

California and the organization of Santa Cruz as a county led

to more written information In 1865 the first edition of the

Santa Cruz Sentinel was published and since then it has proshy

vided a more or less continuous recordsof local events

OVer a span of approximately 180 years 38 earthquakes

and 34 floods have caused namage c-in)Santa(3rUz County These

two events are by far responsible for most of the property

damage reported In the 1800s a damaging earthquake occurred

on the average of once every 61 years and a flood every 17

years However so far in the 1900s a damaging earthquake

occurs every 35 years and a flood every 41 years These

lower figures do not represent an increase in the frequency of

events but do reflect a rapidly growing population that is

more thorough and accurate in its reporting techniques Also

more people are likely to be affected by similar magnitude

events due to todays higher population densities

In summation floods are likely to cause the most material

damage in the county however earthquakes can be expected more

frequently Major winter storms are likely in any year although

damage is fairly predictable and often confined to the shoreline

Tsunamis droughts and snowstorms are very infrequent- events

and too little data exists about them (also too few events have

occurred) to accurately predict their recurrence intervals

95

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

In summation floods are likely to cause the most material

damage in the county however earthquakes can be expected more

frequently Major winter storms are likely in any year although

damage is fairly predictable and often confined to the shoreline

Tsunamis droughts and snowstorms are very infrequent- events

and too little data exists about them (also too few events have

occurred) to accurately predict their recurrence intervals

95

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

REFERENCES

Anderson C L 1879 The Climate Botany Geology and Health of Santa Cruz and vicinity San Francisco W W Elliott

Barrows H D 1893 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California Chicago Lewis

Beach W R 1974 Earthquakes in the lives of Santa Cruzans Selected Papers on the History of Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Bernucci po~ 1969 The History of the Villa de Branciforte Masters thesis San Jose State University San Jose California

Blaisdell F L 1967 Santa Cruz in the Early 1900middots Intershyview iJUniversity of California Santa Cruz SpecialCollections

Bolt B A ltfornia

Press

Bonestell C 1974 San Francisco

The Golden Era of the Missions 1769-1834 Chronicle Books

Burton Rbull -E 1964 Par Excellence

Samuel Leask Transplanted Scot Citizen Felton California Village Print Shop

Bushee Chamberlain Guelich Selected Papers on the Historyof Santa Cruz County University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections 1968

California State of 1974 Joint Committee on Seismic SRfetySacramento California Legislature

California State of 1959 California Floods of 1958 Sacrashymento Department of Water Resources

Carder D s 1965 Investi ations in the Western ~U~n=i~t~e=d_S~t=a=t=e~s~~~~~~ U S Coast and Geodetic SU~~YI 1-2

Rainfall in Senior thesis

Coughanour A T 1974 The Impact of the January 3 1974 Snowstorm on the San Lorenzo Valley Region Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Cronise T F 1868 The Natural Wealth of California San Francisco H H Bancroft

) 96

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

Farrington R L 1974 Active Fault and Landslide Hazards Along the San Andreas Fault Zone Santa Cruz County Senior thesis University of Calirofnia Santa Cruz

Francis P 1896 Beautiful Santa Cruz County San Franciscof H S Crocker

Griggs G B 1973 Earthquake Activity Between Monterey and Half Moon Bay California California Geologybullv26

Harrison E S 1892 History of Santa Cruz County California San Francisco Pacific Press

Holden E S 1892 Earth~uakes in California 1890-91 U S Geological Survey Bul etin 95

Hoover M 1937 Historic spots in California Stanford I

Stanford University Press

Hoyt W Gbull 1955 Floods Princeton Princeton UniversityPress

Iacopi R 1971 Earthquake Country Menlo Parka Lane Books

International Seismological Centre Various issues 1964- Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes Edinburgh Scotland

Johnston P D 1966 Aptos and the Mid- Santa Cruz County Area From the 1890s Through WW II Interview Universityof C~lifornia Santa Cruz Special Collections

Jordan D S 1907 The California Earthquake of 1906 A M Robertson

Koch middot 1973 -SantaCruz CoUnty Parade oftiePast Fresno Valley Publishers

Koster G H 1975 The San Lorenzo River Yesterday Todayand Tomorrow Senior thesis University of California Santa Cruz

Lewis B 1976 Watsonville Memories That Linger Fresno Valley Publishers

Martin E 19l1~ History of Santa Cruz County LosAngelesHistoric Record

Mc Hugh T L Mc Hugh Scrapbooks University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Mitchell GD Sep1928 The Santa Cruz Earthquake of October 1926 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americ~ 118

National Earthquake Information Center Various issues Mar 1967- Earthquake Information Bulletin Rockville Maryland

97

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Various issues 1928- Earthguake History of the United States Boulder Colorado

Patten P B 1964 A Brief History of the Santa Cruz Mission Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce

Patten P B 1969 OhThat Reminds Me- Felton Big Trees Press

Perrine C D 1893-1899 Earthguakes in California 1892-1898 U S Geological Survey Bulletin 112

Perrine C D Keeler and Holden 1895 Pacific Coast Earthshyguakes 176~-1895 U S Geological SurveyBulletin Col~ lection of 1ssues

Reedy T L 1967 In the Be~innin~ A History of the Paradise Park Site Santa Cruz Paradise Park MasQnic Club

Rommel H 1973 The 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Interview Unishyversity of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

Rosenberg N J 1978 North American Droughts Boulder Coloshyrado Westview Press

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce 1956 The San Lorenzo River Flood December 22 1955 Santa Cruz Flood Conshytrol Committee

Santa Cruz County Officemiddotof Watershed Management August 1976 Preliminary Report on the San Lorenzo River Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Planning Department 1975 Seismic SafetyElement Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Public Hearing Draft January 1981 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Historical Society 1958-1974 News and Notes of the Santa Cruz Historical Society Santa Cruz

Tannehill I~ R 1947 Drought Its Causes and Effects ~ Princetonl Princeton University Press

Torchiana H A 1933 The Story of Mission SantaCruz San Francisco P Elder

University of California Agricultural Extension 1976 Climate of Santa Cruz County Watsonville

University of California Bulletin of the Seismographic Stations Various issues 1910- Berkeley university of paliforniaPress

98

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99

University of California Santa Cruz 1844 Pre-Statehood Documents Letter 517 University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections

U S Army Corps of Engineers 1966 Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes Soquel Creek San Francisco

U S Geological Survey 1956 Floods of December 1955 - Janushyary 1956 in the Far Western United States WashingtonWater Resources Division

U S Office of Emergency Preparedness 1970 Geologic Hazards and Public Problems Conference San Francisco 1969 Washington U S Government Printing Office

Watkins R C 1925 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counshyties Chicago S J Clarke

Williams J W 1978 Tsunamis and the San Francisco Ba Area Coastal Zone middot78 Symposium San Francisco March 1 -161978- -NewYork I American Society of Civil Engineers

Newspapers

Santa Cruz Sentinel Various issues January 1865 to present

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian Various issues 1868 to present

Photographs courtesy of Special Collections Mc Henry LibraryUniversity of California Santa Cruz

99