Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REGIONAL ANALYSES OF STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the erroneous assumption that the structure of the <br />model is revealed by a particular ~et of data. The <br />contribution that prior knowledge can make to under- <br />standing of the present problem or process is ex- <br />cluded by this practice, which also is inefficient and <br />the frequent cause of incorrect conclusions. By such <br />a practice man abdicates much of his responsibility <br />and the researeh process loses the crucial elements of <br />intelligence and logic that only man can contribute. <br /> <br />In general the extent of a region encom- <br />passed by a regional analysis should be limit- <br />ed to that in which the same variables are <br />considered effective throughout. For example, <br />Benson (1964) found it necessary to separate <br />the western Gulf of Mexico basins into two <br />parts, one dominated by thunderstorms and <br />widespread tropical storms, and another in <br />which snowmelt is the principal flood pro- <br />ducer. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Reliability of a regionalization <br /> <br />The reliability of a regional frequency re- <br />lation cannot be determined precisely but can <br />be approximated. Suppose we have thirty 10- <br />year flood records, that we define the 10-year <br />flood from each, that we relate these 10-year <br />floods to drainage area by regression, and <br />that the standard error of the regression is <br />0.2 log unit. Now let us estimate the 10-year <br />flood from this regression for a drainage area <br />that is the mean of all the drainage areas <br />used. What are the confidence limits of that <br />estimate? If we consider that we are estimat- <br />ing the 10-year flood that we would expect to <br />define from 10 years of record, then the 67 <br />percent confidence limits would be one stand- <br />ard error of regression, plus the standard <br />error of the mean, above and below the esti- <br />mate. But we assume the regression performs <br />a regionalization function; ideally that the <br />differences due to basin characteristics are <br />removed by drainage area and that the re- <br />maining variability is due to random errors <br />in defining the 10-year floods at each site. If <br />these assumptions are met, the estimate of <br />the true 10-year flood defined would have a <br />standard error of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />S Iv' N = 0.2 Iv' 30 = 0.037 log units, <br /> <br />equivalent to about 9 percent. <br />The standard error, based on regression, of <br />an estimated 10-year flood in the above exam- <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />pIe would be much greater than 9 percent <br />because (1) the 30 individual 10-year floods <br />used to define the regression are not entirely <br />independent, (2) the differences among 10- <br />year floods due to basin characteristics, are <br />not completely explained by drainage area <br />(nor would they be by any group of basin <br />variables), and (3) estimates for drainage <br />areas other than the mean drainage area <br />would have a larger theoretical error than <br />the estimate for the mean drainage area. <br />Even though the samples are random, it is <br />possible that they are also biased because the <br />weather experience in one 10-year period may <br />not represent long-term conditions. This addi- <br />tional source of error due to bias cannot be <br />stated statistically. <br />The above discussion should lead to the <br />conclusion that the standard error of an esti- <br />mate from a regional analysis lies somewhere <br />between the standard error, S. and S /v'N. <br />That the error is substantially less than S is <br />indicated by comparing Benson's (1960) re- <br />sults with Irza's (1966). Benson drew 100 <br />samples of 10 years each from one distribu- <br />tion and found that about 80 percent of the <br />10-year floods defined by those 10-year rec- <br />ords were within 25 percent of the true value <br />(actually Benson showed that 80 percent of <br />10-yr floods estimated from 8-yr records <br />would be within 25 percent of correct). Irza <br />related the 10-year flood, defined from 8 years <br />of record, to several basin characteristics and <br />found the standard error of regression to be <br />+ 100 percent and -49 percent, that is, 67 <br />percent of the items were within that range. <br />Benson's 100-sample study and Irza's re- <br />gional analysis are analogous if the regional <br />analysis is assumed to have removed the <br />variability of floods due to differences in <br />basin characteristics; that is, the standard <br />error of the 10-year flood (not the 10-yr flood <br />defined from 10 yr of record) from Irza's <br />equation is less than the computed standard <br />error. <br /> <br />Regionalizing Flood Stages <br /> <br />Flood stages corresponding to selected re- <br />currence intervals are needed for planning <br />