Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PARSONS <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Memorandum To Larry Lang <br />January 18, 2002 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />hypotheses, and then proven. Even "off-hand," precedent-setting evidences <br />like the rejection of the Vermont study described in the second paragraph on <br />page I are valid. <br /> <br />General Observations <br /> <br />Regarding technical meteorological aspects, Mr. Reidel is partly right about <br />Hydrologists, and you should give more weight to Lou's and Nolan's responses. There is <br />no hydrology in the completed tasks, but the report describes scientific methods, and any <br />of us are competent to comment on them. <br /> <br />Now that all the background information has been provided by NWS, it would be <br />helpful if AWA would prepare a revised summary of the 1997 list of primary and <br />secondary potential "misconceptions" in the NWS report. Once such a list has been <br />compiled, subsequent work and reports would either prove or disprove the contentions, or <br />at least address the uncertainty level introduced by the alleged NWS oversights, leaving <br />CWCB with a clear basis for their final response to NWS and the Corps, and making it <br />easy for us to evaluate whether A W A has proven their case on an issue-by-issue basis. <br /> <br />If a revised list of issues is prepared, evidences affirming or refuting the contested <br />items should be presented, followed by an assessment of whether the contested item if <br />handled "correctly" would have made any difference (what is the sensitivity?). This is <br />somewhat accomplished by the conclusions listed in Task I and the "proofs" described in <br />Task 3, but better cross-links would be helpful. An overall conclusion is not provided, <br />probably because all the other tasks are still in progress. <br /> <br />In addition to the conclusions I found in Task 1, there are a number of other <br />"contentions" in the rest of the report. These appear to be the primary and secondary <br />issues, and it would help if each was assessed and some evaluation and conclusion made <br />regarding each. Then an overall "finding" regarding the thesis question could be written <br />after the other tasks are fmished. Some of the other contentions or hypotheses, stated or <br />implied, are: <br /> <br />. A storm has probably occurred that has a rainfall efficiency close to the <br />maximum possible (p. 5). <br /> <br />. Storm efficiency does not change if additional atmospheric moisture IS <br />available (p. 6). <br /> <br />. Very significant differences exist between the NWSSS and the historical <br />storms (p. 8), including preceding rainfall, rain volume between noon and 6 <br />p.m., and other differences proven on pp. 8-13. <br /> <br />. The NWSSS is driven by incorrect factors (p. 8). <br /> <br />022/ <br />