Should Bulletin 17B be used for regulated watersheds (peak discharges differ by more than 15 percent from natural peaks), and if so, what skew value should be used?

Bulletin 17B can be used for regulated watersheds if the logarithms of the regulated peak discharges are reasonably consistent with a Pearson Type III distribution. A graphical comparison of the plotting positions to the computed frequency curve should be used to judge the reasonableness of using Bulletin 17B. However, if the basin is regulated by a reservoir that is generally quite effective at reducing damaging flood peaks, then there may be a problem in assuming log-Pearson Type III shape.

If the reservoir is quite effective, the upper middle range of flood magnitudes will be lowered relative to the unregulated condition, but the extreme upper tail, corresponding to overtopping of the reservoir, will be back up at the same magnitude as the unregulated flows. The resulting frequency curve will have the following general shape: This is not an L-P-III shape. Moreover, the actual observed data are likely to show only the lower and middle (flat) segments, not the steep upper segment, ... more.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.