ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Storm causes flooding in Mitchell, more rain on the way

A downpour of rain Thursday night hit Mitchell, flooding city streets and dropping 1.11 inches of rain in about a two-hour span. Between 10 p.m. and midnight, sheets of rain were dropped on the city. Early Friday morning, another six-hundredths f...

A lightning bolt Friday over Lake Mitchell. (Luke Hagen/Republic)
A lightning bolt Friday over Lake Mitchell. (Luke Hagen/Republic)

A downpour of rain Thursday night hit Mitchell, flooding city streets and dropping 1.11 inches of rain in about a two-hour span.

Between 10 p.m. and midnight, sheets of rain were dropped on the city. Early Friday morning, another six-hundredths fell in Mitchell to bring the total amount in the 24-hour span to 1.17 inches, but more much-needed precipitation is forecast to come.

The National Weather Service says showers and thunderstorms are likely before 3 p.m. in Mitchell, with a 60 percent chance of precipitation and new rainfall amounts between a tenth and a quarter of an inch.

Tonight, there's a chance of showers and thunderstorms before midnight and another chance between midnight and 4 a.m.

A corridor along Interstate 90 from Brule County east to the Minnesota-South Dakota border is recognized on the U.S. Drought Monitor as an area that's abnormally dry, the weakest category of drought on the five-stage drought monitor.

Related Topics: WEATHER
What To Read Next
“We see that when things happen in the coastal areas, a few years later, they start trending toward the Midwest,” said Rep. Ben Krohmer, serving his first term in the House.
“This is sensationalism at its finest, and it does not deserve to be heard in our state capitol,” Rep. Erin Healy, a Democrat and one of 10 votes against the bill in the 70-person chamber, said.
Members Only
Prior to be sentenced to prison, a Mitchell man blamed the winter weather and slick roads for his DUI charge and said he wouldn't have been pulled over had it not been for the "crazy weather."
Proponents say legislation would prevent land damage; opponents say it would disadvantage non-landowners