Reply to Comment by Fred L. Ogden et al. on Beyond the SCS-CN Method: A Theoretical Framework for Spatially Lumped Rainfall-Runoff Response

Though Ogden et al. list several shortcomings of the original SCS-CN method, fit for purpose is a key consideration in hydrological modelling, as shown by the adoption of SCS-CN method in many design standards. The theoretical framework of Bartlett et al. [2016a] reveals a family of semidistributed models, of which the SCS-CN method is just one member. Other members include event-based versions of the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model and TOPMODEL. This general model allows us to move beyond the limitations of the original SCS-CN method under different rainfall-runoff mechanisms and distributions for soil and rainfall variability. Future research should link this general model approach to different hydrogeographic settings, in line with the call for action proposed by Ogden et al

Framework for Event-based Semidistributed Modeling that Unifies the SCS-CN Method, VIC, PDM, and TOPMODEL

Hydrologists and engineers may choose from a range of semidistributed rainfall-runoff models such as VIC, PDM, and TOPMODEL, all of which predict runoff from a distribution of watershed properties. However, these models are not easily compared to event-based data and are missing ready-to-use analytical expressions that are analogous to the SCS-CN method. The SCS-CN method is an event-based model that describes the runoff response with a rainfall-runoff curve that is a function of the cumulative storm rainfall and antecedent wetness condition. Here we develop an event-based probabilistic storage framework and distill semidistributed models into analytical, event-based expressions for describing the rainfall-runoff response. The event-based versions called VICx, PDMx, and TOPMODELx also are extended with a spatial description of the runoff concept of ‘‘prethreshold’’ and ‘‘threshold-excess’’ runoff, which occur, respectively, before and after infiltration exceeds a storage capacity threshold. For total storm rainfall and antecedent wetness conditions, the resulting ready-to-use analytical expressions define the source areas (fraction of the watershed) that produce runoff by each mechanism. They also define the probability density function (PDF) representing the spatial variability of runoff depths that are cumulative values for the storm duration, and the average unit area runoff, which describes the so-called runoff curve. These new event-based semidistributed models and the traditional SCS-CN method are unified by the same general expression for the runoff curve. Since the general runoff curve may incorporate different model distributions, it may ease the way for relating such distributions to land use, climate, topography, ecology, geology, and other characteristics

Stochastic Rainfall-runoff Model with Explicit Soil Moisture Dynamics

Stream runoff is perhaps the most poorly represented process in ecohydrological stochastic soil moisture models. Here we present a rainfall-runoff model with a new stochastic description of runoff linked to soil moisture dynamics. We describe the rainfall-runoff system as the joint probability density function (PDF) of rainfall, soil moisture and runoff forced by random, instantaneous jumps of rainfall. We develop a master equation for the soil moisture PDF that accounts explicitly for a general state-dependent rainfall-runoff transformation. This framework is then used to derive the joint rainfall-runoff and soil moisture-runoff PDFs. Runoff is initiated by a soil moisture threshold and a linear progressive partitioning of rainfall based on the soil moisture status. We explore the dependence of the PDFs on the rainfall occurrence PDF (homogeneous or state-dependent Poisson process) and the rainfall magnitude PDF (exponential or mixed-exponential distribution). We calibrate the model to 63 years of rainfall and runoff data from the Upper Little Tennessee watershed (USA) and show how the new model can reproduce the measured runoff PDF

The Authority of Illinois Lawyers to Settle Their Clients' Civil Claims: On Principles Not Quite Settled

The Illinois laws guiding lawyer civil claim settlement authority are not well settled and should be reexamined to provide lawyers with clear standards when they agree to a settlement on behalf of their clients. A comprehensive rule making initiative pursued by the Illinois Supreme Court is the best vehicle to settle the principles of lawyer conduct. In undertaking such an initiative, the Illinois Supreme Court should clarify issues of actual authority, apparent authority, burdens of proof, and open court presumptions. Furthermore, the Illinois Supreme Court should address other laws directly impacting upon, but unrelated to, lawyer settlement authority, including laws regarding choice of law, separation of powers, required writings, compelled attendance and judicial enforcement issues. The principles governing civil claim settlements will become clear and settled only after such a comprehensive revision is complete

Unsettling Questions Regarding Lawyer Civil Claim Settlement Authority

While often presumed or declared to be quite settled, many of the guidelines on lawyer civil claim settlement authority are unsettled, leaving unresolved questions for lawyers, clients, and the courts. The upcoming publication and general circulation by the ALI of The Law Governing Lawyers will help, as may any attention directed toward settlements by the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, now at work considering possible alterations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Recent experience suggests that state and federal court rulings are not likely to settle much of the present uncertainty. Our review of the prevailing lawyer civil settlement guidelines suggests the need for certain new initiatives. First, the guidelines should predominantly originate in state supreme courts. At the very least, their general parameters should usually appear in written rules on the professional conduct of lawyers. For now, federal courts should defer to these state rules unless there are very significant federal interests. Second, as a starting point, state courts should carefully consider the ALI pronouncements in The Law Governing Lawyers. Lawyers generally are not like other agents nor are lawyer retainer and subsequent legal service agreements generally like other contracts. Unlike most other agents, the conduct of lawyers with third persons on behalf of clients is governed not only by the directives of clients, but also by mandatory professional conduct standards. Furthermore, unlike most other contracts, lawyer-client legal service agreements are constrained by public policies found in these same standards, including obligations on information disclosure (from lawyer to client) and on confidentiality (by the lawyer). Thus, lawyers should keep clients informed of settlement talks even if the relevant legal services agreement does not expressly indicate such an obligation. Moreover, lawyers should not reveal the nature of their delegated authority to the adversaries of their clients even when these adversaries have good reason to know. In employing the ALI pronouncements, sensitivity to terminology will be necessary. Distinctions between delegated and undelegated authority, as well as between the varying forms of both delegated and undelegated authority should be set forth. These distinctions need not appear in written laws, but rather may be recognized in accompanying commentaries (which hopefully will dispel any notions that clients always make the civil claim settlement "decisions"). Third, in civil claim settlement settings involving the interests of two or more American governments, issues of lawyer civil claim settlement authority should normally be resolved with the lawyer professional conduct laws of the state where the relevant civil claim is pending. Otherwise, the choice of law standards in Model Rule 8.5(b) should resolve this issue. Fourth, when the general written rule (or code) provisions on lawyer conduct are supplemented (and, at times, overridden), the general laws should cross-reference, to the extent feasible, the special laws so there can be appropriate integration of all applicable standards

A Power Variance Test for Nonstationarity in Complex-Valued Signals

We propose a novel algorithm for testing the hypothesis of nonstationarity in complex-valued signals. The implementation uses both the bootstrap and the Fast Fourier Transform such that the algorithm can be efficiently implemented in O(NlogN) time, where N is the length of the observed signal. The test procedure examines the second-order structure and contrasts the observed power variance - i.e. the variability of the instantaneous variance over time - with the expected characteristics of stationary signals generated via the bootstrap method. Our algorithmic procedure is capable of learning different types of nonstationarity, such as jumps or strong sinusoidal components. We illustrate the utility of our test and algorithm through application to turbulent flow data from fluid dynamics

The Substantive Elements in the New Special Pleading Laws

Recently there have emerged new special pleading standards applicable to discrete substantive law claims or to certain remedial requests. These norms often raise troubling procedure/substance questions in separation of powers and choice of law settings. The questions are especially difficult where the standards are hard to locate; to distinguish from nonpleading laws; and to differentiate by rationale(s). In the separation of powers setting, these questions must be approached only after undertaking a distinct and detailed analysis of each relevant government's allocation of lawmaking duties. American governments differ significantly in these allocations. In the choice of law setting, these questions can arise in circumstances involving Erie, reverse-Erie and choice of state law. The procedure/substance issues here must be approached only after undertaking a close look at functions, not labels; at the possibility of false conflicts; and without a parochial view as to the possible location or designation of the special pleading norms of other interested governments