14:56 Jan 8 

Flood is not normal but it is described as a flood 'level'. A level can be normal or not. Personnally, I would have opted for "typical" to convey 'caractéristique'. I would probably have said "typical flood level" or "typical high water (level)". We would probably have come up with a number of different solutions and not opted for the same one in the end!

14:42 Jan 8 

Rachel, I would still disagree with flood and prefer high waters. How can flood be normal???

14:38 Jan 8 

Thank you for getting back to us, even if your client didn't get back to you. ;-)

11:55 Jan 8 

I used "normal flooding level" finally, though I still have not heard back from the document originator - thanks again :-)

15:32 Jan 6 

Hello, thanks for all the suggestions and discussion. I'm waiting to hear from the document originator and will update this page as and when.

00:23 Jan 2 

Yes, I found "nnn-day discharge/flow" for the most part on Japanese sites.

The "10-day discharge" would be the discharge (equaled or?) exceeded on 10 days per year – which is, I think, our term here: the débit caractéristique de crue.

EDIT: You're right, Nikki... I meant to write that I had found "355-day discharge" on various websites. (Oops.)

00:05 Jan 2 

355 I suppose ;-), although sources for the 355-day discharge seem to be in reference to drought, based in Japan, or Eastern European countries, thus perhaps not EN first language sources.

23:23 Jan 1 

Taking a different tack, and based on looking at the use of "255-day discharge" in various texts, I think a case can be made for "10-day discharge." Of course that depends on how other stats are defined and/or handled in the text.

22:11 Jan 1 

Getting to quite like the term 'discharge' now. Seems to be a little bit of a debate over it. In any event, the issue of whether there is a word-for-worder on this one is pretty much up in the air. Whether flow or dishcarge is to be preferred, we have nothing yet, as far as I am aware, which sticks to the French definition of 10 days etc.

21:58 Jan 1 

Interesting - thanks for the discussion and links :-)

20:19 Jan 1 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806001.pdf
The term “ordinary high” water mark can be confusing. Often the ordinary component is emphasized and the high component is ignored. In terms of stream flow, ordinary implies average stream discharge or water stage4. However, “high” indicates that water elevation or stage associated with the ordinary high water mark is higher than those characteristics associated with the average stream discharge.

19:50 Jan 1 

http://www.erudit.org/revue/cgq/1957/v2/n2/020027ar.html

Précisions au sujet des termes de débit, d’écoulement et de ruissellement en hydrologie

Louis-Edmond Hamelin
Abstract

Hydrology, one of the most neglected branches of geography, is primarily the study of flowing waters derived from precipitations. Hence, the words « discharge » , « flow » and « run-off » are at the core of research in this field. There is much confusion about these terms which are not given the same meanings by the various authors. The best definitions would be the following : « discharge » means the quantity of water that flows ; « flow » concerns rather the action of flowing, and « run-off » is the part of the rainfall that flows, or the quantity of rainfall using streams when leaving a region.

19:06 Jan 1 

Each of these terms can be reported in total volumes (such as acre-feet) or time rates (such as cubic feet per second or acre-feet per year). The differentiation between runoff as a volume and streamflow as a rate is not accepted.

Not enough space to post the full thing in one go! So yes, rate can be read into the idea of discharge. Definition of "flood" here useful too, "A relatively high flow as measured by either gage height or discharge quantity. (Jarvis and others, 1936, p. 463.)"

19:05 Jan 1 

Note I put a question mark hoping indeed it would opent he discussion for clarification.

http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#D

Discharge. In its simplest concept discharge means outflow; therefore, the use of this term is not restricted as to course or location, and it can be applied to describe the flow of water from a pipe or from a drainage basin. If the discharge occurs in some course or channel, it is correct to speak of the discharge of a canal or of a river. It is also correct to speak of the discharge of a canal or stream into a lake, a stream, or an ocean. (See also Streamflowand Runoff.)

The data in the reports of the Geological Survey on surface water represent the total fluids measured. Thus, the terms discharge, streamflow, and runoff represent water with the solids dissolved in it and the sediment mixed with it. Of these terms, discharge is the most comprehensive. The discharge of drainage basins is distinguished as follows:

Yield. Total water runout or crop; includes runoff plus underflow.
Runoff. That part of water yield that appears in streams.
Streamflow. The actual flow in streams, whether or not subject to regulation, or underflow.

18:36 Jan 1 

discharge is the volume rate of water flow
How is the notion of rate not inherent?

18:34 Jan 1 

Seen lots of refs to discharge in hydrology, not just limited to outlet but to flood analysis nd flood predicition modeling. However, "flow" seems to fit the idea of "débit" a little more tightly than "discharge", the idea of "rate" being inherent to the first two but less to the latter?

18:22 Jan 1 

18:21 Jan 1 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_(hydrology)
http://www.ecologydictionary.org/DISCHARGE_(HYDROLOGIC)

18:04 Jan 1 

Just had a meeting on Karst networks in Cassis and discharge coresponds to overflow or safety outlet, certainly not "débit de crue". And crue is NOT synonymous with flood, it just means high waters. www.rivieresmysterieuses.org/

17:52 Jan 1 

17:49 Jan 1 

Am checking this out - I would not presume "débit" is "flow" - see "discharge"
http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/db/glossary/glu/FR/GF03...

Nor would I presume "crue" is "flood" - peak discharge?

A different tree to bark up?

Possibly of relevance (although authors are Swiss):
http://echo2.epfl.ch/VICAIRE/mod_1b/chapt_9/main.htm

15:45 Jan 1 

Thanks for all your prompt answers:-)