Dilettantism in hydrology: Transition or destiny?

The unsatisfactory state of hydrology is, in the final analysis, the result of the dichotomy between the theoretical recognition of hydrology as a science in its own right and the practical impossibility of studying it as a primary discipline but only as an appendage of hydraulic engineering, geography, geology, etc. As a consequence, the perspectives of hydrologists tend to be heavily biased in the direction of their nonhydrologic primary disciplines and their hydrologic backgrounds have wide gaps which breed a large variety of misconceptions. This state of affairs often paralyzes hydrologists' ability to differentiate between hydrology and water management, hydrology and statistics, facts and assumptions, science and convenience, etc., with consequent dangers both to scientific development of hydrology and to its practical utility. The danger increases with the proliferation of computerized “hydrologic” models whose cheaply arranged ability to fit data is presented as proof of their soundness and as a justification for using them for user‐attractive but hydrologically indefensible extrapolations. These points are illustrated, among other things, by discussion of flood frequency analysis. The paper concludes with some thoughts concerning minimum standards for the testing of hydrologic simulation models that would ensure at least a modest level of credibility, and with a few suggestions for ingredients of a long‐term cure that can prevent hydrology from joining alchemy and astrology in the annals of dilettantism.