Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C:J <br />(0' , <br />..... <br />w <br />~ <br />o <br /> <br />quantity and quality of historical records of basic hydrologic data, such <br />as the program outlined in the AWR report, it should be further recognized <br />tha~ such records probably will never be completely adequate to supply all <br />the needs. It is, therefore, necessary to develop certain factors such as <br />I18gnitudes and frequencies of flooda on what might be termed an empirical <br />basis. When this is necessary, the results are I18terially affected by the <br />choice of methods as well as I18tters of judgment in the applica~ion of the <br />methods. Hence, there is ground for honest differences of opinions be- <br />tween individuals as well as orSl!LIlizations. Unless the same factors are <br />assumed in the planning and designing of projects and programs that are <br />closely related hydrologically, it is impossible to arrive at a fully <br />integrated and coordinated plan for a watershed. This item caused a great <br />deal of controversy during ~he preparation of the AWR report. Various <br />special studies were set up to help resolve these controversies bu~ only <br />limited success was achieved. The importance of this item and the dif- <br />ficulty in solving the problem must be recognized. Various interests <br />have used different proced11res for I18ny years and have compiled a great <br />deal of information based on those procedures. Since these procedures <br />were developed on an individual agency or interest basis, they are <br />naturally quite dissimilar in many respects even though, as has been <br />found in I18ny instances, the procedures frequently give answers sur- <br />prisingly close ~ogether and well within the accuracy to be reasonably <br />expected of such procedures. A hydrologist should not be cri tic1zed <br />for questioning results obtained by procedures with which he is not <br />familiar or with which he does not agree. Procedures, at least as far <br />as the Federal agencies are concerned, are usually applied within the <br />framework of procedural guides, such as handbooks, which have been <br />adopted by the respective agencies for nation-wide use through admini- <br />strative action; therefore, the agencies working wi thin a specific <br />watershed are not free to ignore these national guides that have been <br />set up on an agency bas18. Considering the results of special studies <br />conducted in the AWR, as well as regional or watershed efforts that <br />have been attempted in other parts of the country, it does not seem <br />that the policy and procedural problems inherent in this item can be <br />resolved at field level or on a regional or river basin basis. The <br />former AWR CoIlUllittee recognized this fact and so reported to its parent <br />coIlUllittee, the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin CoIlUllittee in Washington. <br />Given the proper na~ional guidelines and administrative actions on the <br />policy and procedural questions, procedures to accomplish this item in <br />specific watersheda can be established. However, until such national <br />policy and administrative action is forthcoming, it is believed that <br />little progress on this item can be I18de at field level. <br /> <br />e. Establish uniform hydrologic factors for the watershed, such as <br />infiltration indices, times of runoff concentration, travel times, <br />channel losses, transportation losses, and evaporation. <br /> <br />The factors in this item are all important to the planning and <br />aesign of water use and control structures and programs. They are <br /> <br />c/1-4 <br />