The origins of paleoflood hydrology in the United States can be traced back to the beginning of the 19th century, when windgaps and watergaps in the Applachians were believed to have been eroded by extraordinary floods as large lakes that were ponded behind the ridges rapidly drained. Sediment evidence for extraordinary floods was evoked several decades later when glacial sediments in New England were interpreted as deposits from the great Biblical deluge, and estimates of the depth and velocity of the great flood were attempted. The popularization of the glacial origins of drift by Agassiz by 1840 resulted in strong beliefs in uniformitarianism and waning interests in paleoflood investigations. The documentation of the origins of the channeled scablands in eastern Washington by catastrophic glacial outbreak floods, begun by Bretz in the early 1920s, led to renewed interest in paleoflood hydrology. Subsequent efforts to reconstruct hydraulic variables of past floods used conventional open channel flow equations applied to other enormous Pleistocene floods. The elevation of sediments was used as a paleostage estimator in the 1880s, and botanical techniques for estimating paleoflood frequency and magnitude were well documented by the mid‐1960s. Since 1970, an exponential expansion has occurred in the recognition and use of paleoflood hydrology in the United States.

Thirty flood peak discharges determine the envelope curve of maximum floods documented in the United States by the U.S. Geological Survey. These floods occurred from 1927 to 1978 and are extraordinary not just in their magnitude, but in their hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics. The reliability of the computed discharge of these extraordinary floods was reviewed and evaluated using current (2007) best practices. Of the 30 flood peak discharges investigated, only 7 were measured at daily streamflow-gaging stations that existed when the flood occurred, and 23 were measured at miscellaneous (ungaged) sites. Methods used to measure these 30 extraordinary flood peak discharges consisted of 21 slope-area measurements, 2 direct current-meter measurements, 1 culvert measurement, 1 rating-curve extension, and 1 interpolation and rating-curve extension. The remaining four peak discharges were measured using combinations of culvert, slope-area, flow-over-road, and contracted-opening measurements. The method of peak discharge determination for one flood is unknown.Changes to peak discharge or rating are recommended for 20 of the 30 flood peak discharges that were evaluated. Nine floods retained published peak discharges, but their ratings were downgraded. For two floods, both peak discharge and rating were corrected and revised. Peak discharges for five floods that are subject to significant uncertainty due to complex field and hydraulic conditions, were re-rated as estimates. This study resulted in 5 of the 30 peak discharges having revised values greater than about 10 percent different from the original published values. Peak discharges were smaller for three floods (North Fork Hubbard Creek, Texas; El Rancho Arroyo, New Mexico; South Fork Wailua River, Hawaii), and two peak discharges were revised upward (Lahontan Reservoir tributary, Nevada; Bronco Creek, Arizona). Two peak discharges were indeterminate because they were concluded to have been debris flows with peak discharges that were estimated by an inappropriate method (slope-area) (Big Creek near Waynesville, North Carolina; Day Creek near Etiwanda, California). Original field notes and records could not be found for three of the floods, however, some data (copies of original materials, records of reviews) were available for two of these floods. A rating was assigned to each of seven peak discharges that had no rating.Errors identified in the reviews include misidentified flow processes, incorrect drainage areas for very small basins, incorrect latitude and longitude, improper field methods, arithmetic mistakes in hand calculations, omission of measured high flows when developing rating curves, and typographical errors. Common problems include use of two-section slope-area measurements, poor site selection, uncertainties in Manning's n-values, inadequate review, lost data files, and insufficient and inadequately described high-water marks. These floods also highlight the extreme difficulty in making indirect discharge measurements following extraordinary floods. Significantly, none of the indirect measurements are rated better than fair, which indicates the need to improve methodology to estimate peak discharge. Highly unsteady flow and resulting transient hydraulic phenomena, two-dimensional flow patterns, debris flows at streamflow-gaging stations, and the possibility of disconnected flow surfaces are examples of unresolved problems not well handled by current indirect discharge methodology. On the basis of a comprehensive review of 50,000 annual peak discharges and miscellaneous floods in California, problems with individual flood peak discharges would be expected to require a revision of discharge or rating curves at a rate no greater than about 0.10 percent of all floods.Many extraordinary floods create complex flow patterns and processes that cannot be adequately documented with quasi-steady, uniform one-dimensional analyses. These floods are most accurately described by multidimensional flow analysis.Within the U.S. Geological Survey, new approaches are needed to collect more accurate data for floods, particularly extraordinary floods. In recent years, significant progress has been made in instrumentation for making direct discharge measurements. During this same period, very little has been accomplished in advancing methods to improve indirect discharge measurements. Greater use of paleoflood hydrology could fill many shortcomings of U.S. Geological Survey flood science today, such as enhanced knowledge of flood frequency. Additional links among flood runoff, storm structure, and storm motion would provide more insight to flood hazards. Significant improvement in understanding flood processes and characteristics could be gained from linking radar rainfall estimation and hydrologic modeling. Additionally, more could be done to provide real-time flood-hazard warnings with linked rainfall/runoff and flow models.Several important recommendations are made to improve the flood-documentation capability of the U.S. Geological Survey. When very large discharges are measured by current meter or hydroacoustics, water-surface slope should be measured as well. This measurement would allow validation of roughness values that can significantly extend the discharge range of verified Manning's n for 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional flow analyses. At least two of the floods investigated may have had flow so unstable that large waves affected the interpretation of high-water marks. Instability criteria should be considered for hydraulic analysis of large flows in high-gradient, smooth channels.The U.S. Geological Survey needs to modernize its toolbox of field and office practices for making future indirect discharge measurements. These practices could include, first and foremost, a new peak-flow file database that allows greater description and interpretation of flow events, such as stability criteria in high-gradient, smooth channels, debris flow documentation, and details of flood genesis (hurricane, snowmelt, rain-on-snow, dam failure, and the like). Other modernized practices could include (a) establishment of calibrated stream reaches in chronic flash flood basins to expedite indirect computation of flow; (b) development of process-based theoretical rating curves for streamflow-gaging stations; (c) adoption of step-backwater models as the standard surface-water modeling tool for U.S. Geological Survey field offices; (d) development and support for multidimensional flow models capable of describing flood characteristics in complex terrain and high-gradient channels; (e) greater use of the critical-depth method in appropriate locations; (f) deployment of non-contact instruments to directly measure large floods, rather than attempting to reconstruct them; (g) increased use of paleoflood hydrology; and (h) assurance that future collection of hydro-climatic data meets the needs of more robust watershed models.

In the early evening of Saturday, July 31, 1976, a large stationary thunderstorm released as much as 7.5 inches of rainfall in about an hour (about 12 inches in a few hours) in the middle reaches of the Big Thompson River Basin and to a lesser extent in parts of the Cache la Poudre River Basin. In steep mountain terrain with thin or no soil, this large amount of rainfall in such a short period of time produced a flash flood that caught residents and tourists by surprise. The sudden flood that churned down the narrow Big Thompson Canyon scoured the river channel that night, caused over $35 million in damages (1977 dollars) to 418 homes and businesses, many mobile homes, 438 automobiles, numerous bridges, paved and unpaved roads, power and telephone lines, and many other structures. The tragedy claimed the lives of 144 people, including two law enforcement officers trying to evacuate people in danger, and there were 250 reported injuries. Scores of other people narrowly escaped with their lives. More than 800 people were evacuated by helicopter the following morning. This fact sheet presents a summary of the hydrologic conditions of the 1976 flood, describes some of the advances in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood science as a consequence of this disaster, and provides a reminder that extreme floods like the 1976 Big Thompson flood have occurred in other locations in Colorado in the past and will occur again.

Floods are among the most powerful forces on earth. Human societies worldwide have lived and died with floods from the very beginning, spawning a prominent role for floods within legends, religions, and history. Inspired by such accounts, geologists, hydrologists, and historians have studied the role of floods on humanity and its supporting ecosystems, resulting in new appreciation for the many-faceted role of floods in shaping our world. Part of this appreciation stems from ongoing analysis of long-term streamflow measurements, such as those recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) streamflow gaging network. But the recognition of the important role of flooding in shaping our cultural and physical landscape also owes to increased understanding of the variety of mechanisms that cause floods and how the types and magnitudes of floods can vary with time and space. The USGS has contributed to this understanding through more than a century of diverse research activities on many aspects of floods, including their causes, effects, and hazards. This Circular summarizes a facet of this research by describing the causes and magnitudes of the world's largest floods, including those measured and described by modern methods in historic times, as well as floods of prehistoric times, for which the only records are those left by the floods themselves.

Accurate measurement of flow in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California, is vital to a wide range of Federal and State agencies, environmental interests, and water contractors. The U.S. Geological Survey uses a conventional stage-discharge rating technique to determine flows at Vernalis. Since the flood of January 1997, the channel has scoured and filled as much as 20 feet in some sections near the measurement site resulting in an unstable stage-discharge rating. In response to recent advances in measurement techniques and the need for more accurate measurement methods, the Geological Survey has undertaken a technology demonstration project to develop and deploy a radar-based streamflow measuring system on the bank of the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California. The proposed flow-measurement system consists of a ground-penetrating radar system for mapping channel geometries, a microwave radar system for measuring surface velocities, and other necessary infrastructure. Cross-section information derived from ground penetrating radar provided depths similar to those measured by other instruments during the study. Likewise, surface-velocity patterns and magnitudes measured by the pulsed Doppler radar system are consistent with near surface current measurements derived from acoustic velocity instruments. Since the ratio of surface velocity to mean velocity falls to within a small range of theoretical value, using surface velocity as an index velocity to compute river discharge is feasable. Ultimately, the non-contact radar system may be used to make continuous, near-real-time flow measurements during high and medium flows. This report documents the data collected between April 14, 2002 and May 17, 2002 for the purposes of testing this radar based system. Further analyses of the data collected during this field effort will lead to further development and improvement of the system.

Stream flow information is essential for many important uses across a broad range of scales, including global water balances, engineering design, flood forecasting, reservoir operations, navigation, water supply, recreation, and environmental management. Growing populations and competing priorities for water, including preservation and restoration of aquatic habitat, are spurring demand for more accurate, timely, and accessible water data. To be most useful, stream flow information must be collected in a standardized manner, with a known accuracy and for a long and continuous time period. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates over 7000 stream gauges nationwide, which constitute over 90% of the nation's stream gauges that provide daily stream flow records, and that are accessible to the public. Most stream flow records are not based on direct measurement of river discharge, but are derived from continuous measurements of river elevations or stage. These stage data, recorded to 3‐mm accuracy are then converted into discharge by use of a stage/discharge relation (rating) that is unique for each stream gauging location. Because stream beds and banks are not static, neither is the stage discharge rating. Much of the effort and cost associated with stream gauging lies in establishing and updating this relation. Ten years ago, USGS personnel would visit stream gauging stations 8 to 10 times a year to make direct measurements of river depth, width, and velocity using mechanical instruments: a sounding rod or cable, a tagline, and a current meter. From these data, flow rates were computed.The range of measured flow and concurrent river stages were then used to build the rating curve for each site and to track changes to the rating curve.

Earth Surface Processes and LandformsVolume 29, Issue 4 p. 531-532 Book Review Inland flood hazards: human, riparian and aquatic communities edited by Ellen E. Wohl, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. No. of pages: 498. ISBN 0 521 62419 3 John E. Costa, John E. Costa US Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this author John E. Costa, John E. Costa US Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 April 2004 https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1046Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume29, Issue4April 2004Pages 531-532 RelatedInformation

The spatial distribution of large gaged floods throughout the United States shows that the locations of most of the largest flows are related to specific combinations of regional climatology, topography, and basin size. Key factors include the general northward trend of decreasing atmospheric moisture, proximity to oceanic moisture sources such as the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and orientation of topographic features relative to directions of moisture flow, with the largest flows being at locations where topographically high areas are oriented perpendicular to directions of moisture flow. Additionally, the largest flows in large river basins are primarily caused by persistent climatologic conditions such as seasonal snowfall. In contrast, the largest flows in smaller basins are most commonly the result of intense precipitation due to convective storms.

Accurate measurement of flow in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California, is vital to a wide range of Federal and State agencies, environmental interests, and water contractors. The USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) uses conventional stage-discharge rating techniques to gage flows at Vernalis. These techniques, however, are poorly suited to the gaging of extremely unstable alluvial channels due to the frequent migration of bed forms and the scour and fill of the channel. The channel at Vernalis has scoured and filled as much as 20 feet in some sections since the flood of January 1997. These processes alter the relation between river stage and flow, diminish the accuracy and reliability of the resulting flow records, and hamper the real-time management of the water resource. Similar conditions exists at other gaging stations throughout the United States. In response to the need for more accurate measurement methods, the USGS has undertaken a technology demonstration project to develop and deploy a radar-based streamflow measuring system at Vernalis. Ultimately, the radar systems may be used to make continuous, near-real-time flow measurements during high and medium flows. The proposed flow-measurement system consists of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) for mapping channel geometries, a micro-wave radar system for measuring surface velocities, and supporting infrastructure. This paper discusses efforts to develop and test this system.

From a global perspective, the magnitude, duration, and volume of riverine floods vary widely depending on source mechanism, global location, geology, and physiography. But despite this variance, there are real physical limits as to how large a flood can be. Meteorological floods result from individual storms of various types that deliver water volumes as great as 10(11) m(3) over a few days or weeks as well as from seasonally persistent climate patterns that deliver upwards of 10(12) m(3) over several weeks or months and cause peak discharges of as much as 10(5) m(3)/s within large, continental-scale basins. The fundamental limits to meteorologic flooding depend primarily on precipitation rates and volumes, and the efficiency with which distributed rainfall concentrates into channel networks. Global and U.S. flood records show that for basins primarily affected by individual storms, the largest flows are in areas where atmospheric moisture or storm tracks are intercepted by local topographic relief. For larger basins, the largest flows result from seasonably persistent climate patterns and, on a global basis, are generally in the tropical regions where there is more precipitable moisture. Especially notable is the contribution of high-relief topography to meteorologic flooding because of its double effect of (1) lifting of atmospheric moisture, thus increasing local precipitation, and (2) promoting faster concentration of flow into channels. Floods from dam failures and terrestrial freshwater sources such as lakes and ice caps involve similar total volumes as meteorological floods, up to 10(13) m(3), but with much larger discharges-as great as 2(.)10(7) m(3)/s. The largest well-documented dam-failure floods have been during Pleistocene ice ages when glaciers and changing hydrologic conditions deranged drainage systems, causing large lakes to breach ice dams and basin divides. The largest historic floods from terrestrial water sources have had discharges as great as 1.5.10(6) m(3)/s and include floods from volcanic-induced melting of ice caps and failures of ice and landslide dams. The fundamental limits to darn-failure floods primarily arise from the size of the outlet channel and the volume of the impounded waterbody.

Do you ever get angry at the price of a fascinating new book in your field that you would love to own, but really can't afford? Do you feel guilty slipping your librarian one more title that you would like to have on your shelf, but don't because it was published by a commercial press that sets high prices for the approval of shareholders, but not necessarily scientists? Read on, because you can do something to lower your stress and help fellow scientists as well as yourself. As a reward for reading further, at the end of this note, you will get a tip on how to get FREE electronic access to an AGU book that will be valuable to nearly every member.

We have conducted a series of proof-of-concept experiments to demonstrate whether it is possible to make completely non-contact open-channel discharge measurements. After an extensive evaluation of potential technologies, we concluded a combination of high-frequency (microwave) radar (for measuring surface velocity) and low-frequency radar (ground-penetrating radar) for measuring channel cross-section, had the best chance for success. The first experiment in 1999 on the Skagit River, Washington, using non-contact methods, produced a discharge value nearly exactly the same as from an ADCP and current meter. Surface-velocity data were converted to mean velocity based on measurements of the velocity profile (multiplied by 0.85), and radar signal speed in impure fresh water was measured to be 0.11–0.12 ft/ns. The weak link was thought to be the requirement to suspend the GPR antenna over the water, which required a bridge or cableway. Two contractors, expert with radar, were unsuccessful in field experiments to measure channel cross-section from the riverbank. Another series of experiments were designed to demonstrate whether both radar systems could be mounted on a helicopter, flown back and forth across a river, and provide data to compute flow. In Sept. 2000 and May 2001, a series of helicopter flights with mounted radar systems successfully measured surface velocity and channel cross-section of the Cowlitz River, Washington.