Open AccessReply [to “Comment on ‘Assessing flood hazard on dynamic rivers’”]
Author(s) -
Pinter Nicholas,
Thomas Russell,
Wlosinski Joseph H.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
eos, transactions american geophysical union
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.316
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 2324-9250
pISSN - 0096-3941
DOI - 10.1029/2002eo000295
Subject(s) - flood myth , assertion , hazard , river flood , computer science , operations research , history , archaeology , engineering , chemistry , organic chemistry , programming language
We welcome the comments by D. M. Goldman, J. R. Olsen, and S. K. Nanda of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on our analyses of flood trends on the Middle Mississippi River (MMR) and on our assertion that historical stage data can be utilized in flood‐frequency analysis. In some cases, the comments by the Corps authors point out legitimate limitations in the technique presented in our original article—limitations that we also have pointed out (for example, to funding agencies) as directions for future refinement. In other cases, Goldman et al. repeat arguments that have been used for decades to stymie attempts to link river engineering activities to worsening flood behavior. We welcome the opportunity to review these arguments under the spotlight of rigorous analysis. Finally, a major purpose of the Pinter et al . [2001] paper was to show that historical stage data represent an underutilized resource that has promise as a supplement to, and an independent test of discharge‐based, model‐driven analyses of flood frequency.