PRECIPITATION IN SOUTHERN NEVADA 3

Discussion by Clayton L. Hanson, 7 M. ASCE

The author h a s presented potentially useful precipitation characteristic

information for southern Nevada. The intensity/duration relationships
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

are of particular interest to hydrologists and engineers. However, t h e

writer does have questions about the selection of sites in each zone, data
analyses, a n d the relationship b e t w e e n Eq. 4 a n d the curves presented
in Figs. 5 a n d 6.
The author divided the study area into three zones a n d listed the sta-
tions by zone in Table 1. Five of the stations listed as deficit stations in
Table 1 are s h o w n as being in the excess or transitions zones in Fig. 1.
The writer would like to k n o w w h y stations D-4 a n d D-7 were not u s e d
in the analysis as excess stations, a n d w h y stations D-8 , D-10, and D-
11 were not u s e d in the transition zone analyses. A regression analyses
of the remaining ten stations in the deficit zone s h o w that there is little
or n o relationship b et ween m e a n a n n u a l precipitation and elevation, es-
pecially w h e n the Death Valley, California station is not included. The
writer would also like to k n o w if the author m a d e any adjustments to
the annual amounts for stations that h a d short record lengths, such as
E-8 in the excess zone a n d the 19 stations that h a d less than 10 yr records
at the Nevada test site.
There is also a question on the presentation of Eq. 4 because the writer
was unable to obtain the curves s h o w n in Figs. 5 a n d 6 from the pa-
rameter values for § and T given in Table 4.

Closure by Richard H. French,8 M. ASCE

The writer will answer t h e discusser's questions in t h e order in which

they were posed. The discusser raised a question as to w h y Stations D-
4 and D-7 were not u s e d as excess stations, a n d w h y Stations D-8, D-
10, and D - l l were not u s e d in the transition zone analysis. All stations
were classified as either excess or deficit stations, a n d there w a s no ex-
plicit transition zone analysis. As noted in the paper, the transition zone
is " a n indefinite region b et ween the excess and deficit z o n e s . " Stations
D-4, D-7, D-8, D-10, a n d D - l l were classified as deficit stations on the
basis of their plotting positions in Fig. 4. In retrospect, D-10 should have
been treated as a n excess station. It w o u l d b e a grave error to a s s u m e
or believe that the lines defining the three precipitation zones in Fig. 1
are either straight or precisely in the locations s h o w n . The portion of
Nevada shown in Fig. 1 is approximately 33,000 sq mi (85,000 km 2 ). Thus,
in the area considered, there is approximately one precipitation record
"July, 1983, by Richard H. French (Paper 18098).
7
Agri. Engr., USDA-ARS, Northwest Watershed Research Center, 270 South
Orchard, Boise, Idaho 83705.
8
Research Prof, and Assoc. Executive Dir., Water Resources Center, Desert Re-
search Inst., Las Vegas, Nev. 89109.
1179

J. Hydraul. Eng., 1984, 110(8): 1179-1180

 per 1,000 sq mi (2,600 km2). This density of precipitation records can
hardly be considered sufficient to accurately define the three precipita-
tion zones shown in Fig. 1. However, there are sufficient records to sup-
port the hypothesis that there are three zones.
The discusser also claimed that if Stations D-4, D-7, D-8, D-10, and
D-11 were removed from the deficit station data base, there would be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

little or no relationship between mean annual precipitation and eleva-

tion. Given the ease with which the linear regression analysis can be
performed, the writer is surprised that the discusser did not present his
results. If the five stations are removed, and a regression analysis per-
formed, the result is
(Deficit) log (p) = (4.30 X 10~S)E + 0.475; cr = 0.0797; r = 0.704.... (5)
A comparison of Eqs. 5 and 2 demonstrates that a better fit is achieved.
If the Death Valley station (D-3) is also removed, the result is
(Deficit) log (p) = (1.62 X 10"5)E + 0.618; CT = 0.0790; r = 0.188.... (6)
Thus, the discusser is correct in that the Death Valley station is im-
portant to the analysis; the writer noted explicitly in the paper that the
Blythe and Death Valley stations were included in the analysis because
they "greatly extend the range of elevations considered and they belong
to the same meteorologic province as the other stations."
All the deficit and excess stations listed in Table 1 were corrected. The
Nevada Test Site stations were not corrected.
Finally, the writer carefully checked the lines in Figs. 5 and 6, using
Eq. 4 and the coefficient values in Table 4. No errors were found. The
discusser is in error regarding this matter.

1180

J. Hydraul. Eng., 1984, 110(8): 1179-1180