Laserfiche WebLink
(77) <br />records <br />at another location or as estimated at a station <br />site for <br />periods <br />prior to the beginning of a continuous discharge <br />record. Thus, <br />I <br />while the inclusion of runoff estimates in the table has <br />been made to <br />.Q <br />present <br />a general picture of the amount and distribution <br />of available <br />water, it is probable that in some cases the solution to <br />specific prob- <br />lems of <br />administration, design, and operation may require the establish- <br />ment of <br />some particular gaging station or the continuation of records <br />at some <br />point of collection. <br />Accuracy of data Due to the tendency of most streams in the south- <br />west to shift from one low -water channel to another, the records collected <br />at gaging stations are frequently classified with accuracy rating of poor. <br />The indicated error of daily records may exceed 15 -20%, but it is probable <br />that the monthly records are somewhat better and that the annual figures <br />are probably fairly representative of the true flow. <br />Records computed by comparison with records at some other site are <br />somewhat less accurate than an observed discharge, depending upon the <br />magnitude of the extrapolation. <br />Records presented as computed from rainfall runoff studies are <br />generally of an approximate nature. Such data are not intended to repre- <br />sent a chronologically historic flow for the calendar months shown; the <br />estimates have their significance in the premise that if a climatic <br />cycle similar to that of the past were to recur, on an average, the <br />- figures of estimated flow are representative of the flow that might <br />be expected. <br />3 -3 <br />