waterfalls and fjords

[seth rusth111]

1. Are Rainbow and Christina Falls (where is Graham River) both exactly 67 m & are Brandywine and Spahats Creek Falls both exactly 61 m ?

2. Are Observatory and Bute Inlets both exactly 66 km?

If they are, why are they in this numeric order? They not in alphabetical order.

[howard white]

The folowing letter was submitted by TomG:

On pg 90 of EBC you indicate Brandywine Falls at 61 m "the fourth highest waterfall in BC"

On pg 326 you indicate - "Helmcken Falls 137m - - - fifth highest falls in BC"

If Helmcken Falls is higher than Brandywine Falls and presumably the highest waterfall in BC is more than 137 m - how can Brandywine Falls be 'higher' than Helmcken???

Or is it just me not understanding what it is you mean by 'highest waterfall'

Shannon Falls just outside of Squamish at 1100 ft. is 'supposed to be' the '5th highest waterfall in the world' and the 3rd highest waterfall in BC.

Can you explain what is considered a 'waterfall' as I see other 'waterfalls' in the area around Squamish that appear to me to be higher than Shannon Falls.

Just look around at Frys Creek, and up the Squamish Valley at the end of the pavement
and see falls that appear much 'higher' than Shannon Falls. How are waterfalls measured? >From what top point to what bottom point? Do the 'Falls' have to be in one
continous cascade like Brandywine Falls, or in multiple falls like Shannon falls?

Please do not take this as a criticism of your EBC. It is more for my own education as I run a motorcycleing touring business and stop by both Shannon Falls and Brandywine Falls and 3 'Falls' in the upper Squamish Valley.

I am always curious because of the Multnomah Falls in Oregon that are 610 ft. high in one
cascade certainly look taller than the Shannon Falls.

Thank you for your time and consideration in regards to my query.

Regards, TomG gwmctrs@mntn.net

[howard white]

The measuring of inlets and waterfalls is an inexact science and the EBC got caught in some of the inconsistencies. Some inlets branch and others consist of main stems coupled with segments that run between islands, etc. Different measurers begin and end their calculations at different places. Likewise waterfalls. Some measure only the longest unimpeded drop of water, while others include the initial and final cascades. This is the case with Shannon falls. If only the longest single drop is considered, it doesn't rank in the top 10, but if the whole series of cascades is considered, it does.

Found this post via Google, and I'd just like to toss out some clarification.

- Shannon Falls is officially 335 meters tall, making it, based on the "official" data touted by the Canadian Government, 2nd tallest in BC. There is no "cascades" to add or subtract from the height of this fall. It is a continuous waterfall. If Shannon Falls is to be considered Cascades, then Della Falls, commonly cited as the tallest in Canada, would also have to be considered cascades and would be stripped of its title. If the list published in the online encyclopedia is a measure of true free-falls, then again, several of the entries would be nullified because they are not free-fall waterfalls (Della, Kinuseo, Rainbow, Christina).

- Hunlen Falls is 374 meters tall, not 253 as the Encyclopedia claims
- Brandywine Falls is 61 meters
- Helmcken Falls is 141 meters
- Rainbow Falls is nowhere near 67 meters tall.
- Christina Falls in all liklihood is more like 6.7 meters tall.

To those interested, a more accurate (but by no means complete or final) list of the tallest waterfalls in British Columbia can be found at this address:

http://www.world-waterfalls.com/data...=height%20DESC

-----
Bryan Swan
World Waterfall Database

[Rocky]

Good data base, obviously should be added to the online version of the encyclopedia, but really all this proves is that arguing about the height of waterfalls is a mug's game. Everybody wants their favourte falls to be the tallest and find ways to make their claim stick. Obviously there needs to be two categories, one for free fall of water and another to include cascades. But cascades would require some technical definition, say anything over an average 45% incline. Then you could nail it down. Until then, its just arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I trust the editor used some authoritative government source for his original article.