My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02234
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02234
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:50 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:42:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Hydrologic Aspects of Project Planning
Date
3/7/1972
Prepared For
US
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES: <br />ARE THEY RESPONSIVE TO PLANNING REQUIREMENTS? <br /> <br />Question, Mr. Auburg: There has been an artificial distinction between <br />"hydrologic engineering" and the planning process. The implication <br />is that hydrologic engineering is something above or separate from <br />other analyses required to complete the planning process. Would you <br />comment on that? <br /> <br />Reply, Mr. Fredrich: First, let me say that 1 don't think that the <br />distinction between hydrologic engineering and the planning process <br />is at all artificial. It seems to me that hydrologic engineering <br />is one of the many technical areas involved in the planning of <br />water resources development - a very important area and one that <br />is quite distinct from the planning process. There are numerous <br />hydrologic engineering functions that are not concerned in any way <br />with planning of water resources projects or systems. Hydrologic <br />studies for flood operation and flood forecasting are examples of <br />functions that are not planning-related. If 1 implied that <br />hydrologic engineering is "above" the other analyses, 1 did not <br />mean to do so. There is certainly no question as to the <br />importance of hydrologic engineering in water resources planning <br />since it is the field of endeavor that encompasses the various <br />types of studies that deal with the primary resource being dealt <br />with - water. However, 1 certainly wouldn't want to have my <br />remarks interpreted to imply that 1 feel that economics, found- <br />ation engineering, structural engineering, or any of the other <br />technical areas are subordinate to hydrologic engineering. <br /> <br />Comment, Mr. Harrison: In solving a complex planning problem, it is not <br />useful to categorize each individual rigidly within a field of <br />specialization in which he is expected to contribute to the plan. <br />What is useful is that each individual be identified according to <br />his particular expertise, and that he also share in the full <br />responsibility for defining the problem and contributing to the <br />final solution, including the report, the design and construction, <br />the construction, and the operation after construction. 1 think <br />this concept of shared responsibility will lead us to the solution <br />we seek. <br /> <br />Reply, Mr. Fredrich: I fully agree with the idea of shared respon- <br />sibility as described by Mr. Harrison. There is no doubt in my <br />mind that it is wrong to attempt to solve a complex planning <br />problem by limiting each individual to a narrow specific area of <br />work or by limiting the analyses for a given technical area to a <br />few specialists. 1 think we are talking about the difference <br />between multi-desciplinary and interdisciplinary, and the latter <br />seems to me to be the more productive - just as you suggest. <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.