Geospatial data about El Paso County, Texas Historic Districts. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Map Layers on the first tab:

Note the data in orange display different sites depending on the maps zoom level. So more zoomed in will show more data points rather than zoomed all of the way out1 Current Warnings: Current National Weather Service Warnings. Clicking on the warning in the map will bring up more information and a link to the official text product.2) NWS County Warning Areas: Areas of responsibility for each NWS weather forecast office. Clicking within an office’s warning area will bring up a pop – up that has a link to that offices 7 day forecast. Just scroll through the text product to find the area of interest.3) Storm Reports: Reports from the past 24 hours will sit in this data layer. Clicking on each icon will show a pop-up that gives more information on that specific report (time, location, remarks, and magnitude). Traffic: Current traffic on all major roads and highways. 5) USA Counties: The counties within NMDOT district one.6) Wind gusts: The current observed wind gusts. See legend for color scale7) Wind Speeds: The current sustained wind speeds. See legend for color scale8) Current Temperature: The current temperature, see legend for color scale9) Current Dew Point Temperature: The current dew point temperature, see legend for color scale10) Weather Hazards Outlooks: Shows Temperature, Precipitation, and Wildfire/Drought hazard outlooks for 3-7 days out and 8-14 days out.11) Lightning Strike Density Imagery (Recent Satellite Emulated Lightning Strike Density Imagery (NOAA)): 15 minute lightning strike density. Deeper colors show more strikes per area and time. A good measure of intense storms.12) Radar: The most current radar image is shown. Image refreshes every 4 minutes.13) Weather Watches and Advisories: Current NWS Watches and Advisories. Click Here for a Link to the Full Story Map

Polygons displaying the two Public Improvement Districts in the City of El Paso created for the purpose of taxation and financing the costs of improving said districts.

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence

This is my second input on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map, based this time on the census numbers that were released in mid-August. These additional comments again use on Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA), which has the current data for counties and precincts. As of this writing, the commission’s tool did not seem to have the current data loaded. My revised draft alternative is at https://davesredistricting.org/join/b26ec349-27da-4df9-a087-ce77af348056. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. Description of Draft Alternative My process started by identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. A second principle I adopted was to prioritize keeping counties intact over municipalities. County boundaries are fixed, unlike municipal boundaries, and do not interlock based on annexation patterns. Precincts and census blocks do not overlap counties, but they may overlap municipal boundaries. Furthermore, county lines more often correspond to other layers of government than do municipal boundaries. This most matters along the western border of Weld County, which several municipalities overlap while also being rather entangled with each other. I was not able to find a particularly elegant alternative to using the county line that would not then require other communities of interest to be divided.I started with El Paso County, which exceeds the ideal district population (721,714) by 8,681 or 1.2%. It therefore must be split among different districts. El Paso, where I have lived for these past 20 years, is itself a coherent community that should remain as intact as possible – no plan that split it into two large pieces would comply with the commission’s mandate. The best options for moving population into other districts would be on the eastern and western edges. The northern part of El Paso County – Palmer Lake, Monument, Woodmoor, and Black Forest – is much more closely tied to the rest of El Paso County than it is to Douglas County. The small population along I-25 in southern El Paso County is also more closely tied to Fort Carson and the Fountain Valley than it is to Pueblo. The eastern parts of El Paso County, on the other hand – Ramah, Calhan, Yoder, Rush, Truckton – have far more in common with Lincoln County and the Eastern Plains than they do with Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, there is not enough population in the easternmost precincts to bring the county within the population limits. Once you get as far west as Peyton, you are reaching the edge of the Colorado Springs exurbs; once you get to Ellicott, you are reaching communities around Schriever Air Force Base that are part of the community of interest associated with the military. Rather than divide the community of interest there, it would be better to link the precincts in Ute Pass, the Rampart Range, and along the southern part of Gold Camp Road with Woodland Park and Teller County. While I will not claim that they are part of the Colorado Springs community, they are more linked to the larger town to their west than the northern and southern edges of El Paso County are to their neighboring counties. The use of census block data, not yet available on DRA, might allow more fine-tuning of this split that creates District 5 out of all but the western and eastern edges of El Paso County. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain District 3, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County and the necessary additions of Lake, Chafee, Park, and Teller Counties. The preliminary commission map would exclude most of the San Luis Valley (all but Hinsdale) from the Western Slope district. Based on the revised census numbers, a district that did this would need to add all of Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Fremont Counties to the Western Slope along with the small part of El Paso County. On its face, this maintains county integrity very well and would be a better map than the preliminary commission map that groups parts of Boulder County into the Western Slope. However, there are two problems with such a design. One would be that it breaks up communities of interest to the east: Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties are more associated with the Denver Metro, and Canon City with Pueblo, than any of them are with the Western Slope. The second problem is that it means any district centered in the North Front Range would need to take on arbitrary parts of neighboring Broomfield and Weld County or an even less-logical division of Arvada or Golden in Jefferson County. The draft alternative map submitted with these comments places the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope. To complete the required population, it adds western El Paso County (as described above), western Fremont County, Custer County, and Huerfano County to the Western Slope district. Certainly, arguments can be made about dividing communities of interest here as well, but ties do exist along the Wet Mountain Valley and across La Veta Pass. Throughout the map – throughout any map – tradeoffs must be made among which communities remain together. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes eastern Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo County, Las Animas County, the Lower Arkansas Valley, and parts of far eastern El Paso County. In the north, this includes all of Weld and Elbert Counties, retaining them as intact political subdivisions. It does not extend into Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, or Douglas Counties. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is approximately the right size to form a district, but the complexities of interlocking communities make it sensible to include Bow Mar and a small piece of southern Lakewood in this district and exclude the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. A great place for a boundary among these three districts that does not split communities of interest is in the area of low population to the northeast of Denver International Airport. District 7 in this numbering (which is arbitrary) would include all of Adams County to the west of the airport: to name only the largest communities, Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld), Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster. It would also include the City and County of Broomfield, and Arvada and the rest of Westminster in Jefferson County. District 6 would include all of the City of Aurora and the parts of Adams and Arapahoe Counties to its east. It would also include Parker, Stonegate, and Meridian in Douglas County; Centennial, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village in Arapahoe County; and the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods in Denver. District 8 would include the rest. It would include all of Jefferson County from Golden and Lakewood south (except for small parts of southeastern Lakewood and western Bow Mar) It would include the rest of Douglas County, including Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Castle Pines, and The Pinery. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.28% (2,038 persons). This is well within the courts’ guidelines for population equality, without even considering that errors in the census data likely exceed this variation, the census data are already a year out of date, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†It may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. Contiguity The draft alternative map meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3. Voting Rights Act The draft alternative

Polygons displaying the boundaries of the twenty-seven Historic Districts within the County of El Paso.

I thank the commission for their work in producing a preliminary map. However, I think there are some serious issues that must be resolved.

The proposed map from the commission would produce 3 solid democrat

districts, 1 lean democratic district, 3 solid republican districts, and 1 slight republican district. Given that CO is a lean democrat state (when compared to the nation as a whole), this map is a bit biased toward republicans, which a number of commenters have noted. It would usually produce an equal 4 rep-4 dem split even when democrats receive 9% more votes statewide. Further, a 51 dem-49 rep statewide environment could realistically produce a 5 rep-3 dem split (since district 8 has a similar partisan lean to the state overall), which would be an anti-majoritarian result. Additionally, the map does not promote much competition, which I think is unfortunate because an explicit goal for the commission is to "maximize the number of politically competitive districts." Under this map, only 2 districts are realistically competitive (districts 7 and 8).

I have drawn a modified version of the map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/16862e17-faa4-4302-93a9-d208e6fa1f57.

This map would produce 3 solid democrat districts, 1 lean democratic

district, 2 solid republican districts, 1 lean republican district, and 1 slight republican district. Under this map, 3 districts are now competitive (3, 7, and 8) with 1 favoring democrats and 2 favoring republicans. Additionally, district 8 moves to be slightly left of the state as a whole reducing the likelihood of an anti-majoritarian result in either direction. Finally, this map would be a bit more proportional than the commission's map.

The largest changes to the map would be as follows: Greeley and Windsor are

added to district 2 given that many commenters from these cities suggested they had a shared community of interest with Fort Collins. Erie and Mead are added to district 8 in order to be grouped with similar nearby small towns and cities such as Frederick and Firestone. Milliken and Johnstown are added to district 4 because they are geographically, demographically, and culturally similar to much of northern/eastern Weld county. Much of western Boulder and Larimer counties are added to district 3 since these areas share common economic and cultural interests with the other slope-centric regions throughout district 3. Hinsdale, Archuleta, and Fremont are added to district 5 to maintain population parity and because these districts have the most in common with other counties in district 5. Teller county is also added to district 5 since it is part of the Colorado Springs metro area. Eastern El Paso county is added to district 3 for population parity and because of regional similarity. I urge the commission to consider this proposal because it improves competitiveness and proportionality while maintaining communities of interest.

Dear Commission: I have attached the GeoJSON data for a revised version of the Congressional map that I originally submitted to the Commission in early July 2021. This revised map takes into account the recently-released granular 2020 US Census results. You can also view this new map on Dave's Redistricting website at:https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::61ea57de-e691-47ad-aa1a-0f4b5eb39eb7I became interested in this process as a mapping and community nerd (rather than a political guru), after becoming aware that the initial preliminary plan cut my home city of Boulder off from the western part of Boulder county. I don't think that is a good idea -- Boulder is so linked to the communities to the west in the foothills up to the Continental Divide, and vice versa. So, I wanted to put my GIS background to work and help the Commission and staff envision alternate configurations of districts which solve that issue.In this new map based on the 2020 Census, I took much greater care to not split municipal boundaries between different districts. All Congressional districts are within +/1 person of the target population. Also, after reviewing a number of the public comments here and ones made during hearings, I put in my best effort to capture several communities of interest in this revised map:1) SLV counties kept whole and associated with district 3 2) Multiple El Paso County military installations all kept together in district 5 3) Continental Divide used as natural boundary for much of the northern Front Range (keeping Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek counties together in district 2 along with all of Larimer Co.)4) Arkansas River valley kept together below Salida (running downslope/east through Pueblo County, etc)5) Northern Douglas County allocated to a southern/western Denver metro district (7th district)6) 7th district is made to be extremely competitive (within 1 point based on the 2016-2020 composite competitiveness score) 7) New 8th district centered solidly in north Denver metro (northern JeffCo, Broomfield, western Adams, far southwestern Weld) 8) Denver City/County kept whole with only minor population-balancing nibblesThank you for your continued work and consideration.Sincerely,Laura J. Westerfield

Plan Information Plan name: Alt. North, East, Southwest, Central Description: Alternate version of my North, East, Southwest, Central map. This creates "high country", "northeast", and "southeast" rural + front range districts, a "south and west" district, and districts centered on Colorado Springs, Denver, Aurora, and Jefferson County with tweaks around the edges to balance population.This map has more split counties than my first "North, East, Southwest, Central" map but provides better regional affinity for Moffat, Baca, and Las Animas Counties.Plan ObjectivesCreates four districts with rural and front range counties as constituents, which I hope will increase collaboration across political divides.This is an alternate version of my "North, East, Southwest, Central" plan which creates more cohesive western slope and eastern plains districts by allowing for more intra-county divisions. Municipalities and Census-Designated Places are kept in single districts with the exception of Denver (too populous) and a few exclaves.The districts in this plan could be characterized as:CD 1: DenverCD 2: High country plus northwest metroCD 3: Western slope, San Luis Valley, and greater PuebloCD 4: Northeast Colorado and the north I-25 corridorCD 5: El Paso CountyCD 6: Southeast Colorado and south metroCD 7: West metroCD 8: Aurora and north metro

Southeast Colorado House Preliminary Plan Colorado Independent Congressional & Legislative Redistricting Commission Public Hearing - Lamar, CO July 9th, 2021 [Via Zoom]

Good evening - my name is Jack Johnston. I'm proud to be the CEO of

Southeast Colorado Power Association and its broadband subsidiary, SECOM. Southeast is an electric cooperative with the largest certificated territory in Colorado - over 13K sq. miles in all or parts of 11 counties. SECOM serves almost 9000 customers who wouldn’t otherwise have high-speed Internet access. Between our electric and broadband consumers, Southeast and SECOM understand, well, communities of interest and their differing needs throughout Colorado. I also understand that concept from a personal perspective as my family and I happily reside on a rural property in unincorporated Crowley County. While I like the preliminary plan and applaud the efforts to get to this point, I think I speak for many residents of southeast Colorado that we are not fond of the split to the Lower Arkansas Valley. I recreated the southeast House Districts in the Dave’s Redistricting website and would like to suggest a simple amendment to improve the maps for the southeast and northeast plains districts Please see the handouts being passed around by some neighbors and friends.
This amendment involves swapping territory between districts 40, 41, and 65. There are very small consequences to a couple of other districts but given the state constitution allows for a +/- 2.5% variance between the largest and smallest district, there shouldn’t be a problem adjusting a couple surrounding districts. Principally, you could place Crowley and the remainder of Otero County into HD 40. This creates a clean, population-balanced HD 40 consisting of the southeastern plains. This area is simply like a single piece of knitted fabric. The communities of southeastern Colorado have similar needs and challenges. To accomplish this request, you could remove Washington County and the El Paso County precincts from HD 40. This allows Washington County to go with the northeastern plains seat, where it has a more natural commonality. You could then balance out HD 41 in El Paso County, from the territory removed from HD 40. Lastly, by adding Washington County to HD 65, it should help eliminate a small split to the City of Aurora. HD 65 is the most easily adjusted because it contains multiple precincts/districts. Thank you for your time and commitment to achieving the best possible legislative districting.

Link to the map with suggested amendment

https://davesredistricting.org/join/7af327ce-e15b-4216-8587-8389f4d450cd

Creates four districts with rural county constituencies. Only splits counties near the Denver metro area, plus a portion of El Paso next to Woodland Park. Max deviance.My focus was on low deviation numbers, resulting in a few odd boundaries which could be adjusted:* D2 portion of El Paso County could switch to D5, adding ~2600 deviation.* D2 portion east of Brighton could shift west, adding <1000 deviation.* With higher deviation, the D1/D6/D7 boundaries near southwest Denver could more closely match county boundaries.* Moffat County might be better aligned with D3 than D2, but this would add 13,000 deviation. Maybe shift Baca & Las Animas Counties to D6 and extend D2 into southwest Douglas and west Fremont Counties?Plan Information Plan name: North, East, Southwest, Central Description: Creates four districts with rural county constituencies. Only splits counties near the Denver metro area, plus a portion of El Paso next to Woodland Park. Max deviance <1200. Non-Denver municipalities only split at exclaves.Plan Objectives(1) Keep population deviation as low as possible.(2) Only deviate from county boundaries around the Denver metro area, plus US-24 adjacent to Woodland Park.(3) Don't split municipalities or CDPs, except exclaves (to keep districts contiguous) and the edges of Denver (to keep within population target).A variation on this map could relax goal #2 in order to put Moffat in CD-3, Baca & Las Animas in CD-6, and extend CD-2 into western Fremont and southwest Douglas Counties.Area/perimeter ratio for CD-2 could be increased by putting Brighton in CD-4 and the Weld County I-25 corridor in CD-2. Alternatively, Brighton could be in CD-8 if Thornton was split between CD-8 and CD-2.

This map has counties within the Texas's Department of Transportation's El Paso District, and 1 hour precipitation estimates. The River Forecast Centers (RFC) produce the data using a multi-sensor approach utilizing NWS 88D radar estimates of precipitation, automated and manual precipitation gauges and satellite estimates of precipitation. These values are updated hourly. Click here to find out more about RFC data.Click Here for a Link to the Full Story Map