LET’S START WITH THE DEFINITION OF A WATERFALL

“A cascade of water falling from a height, formed when a river or stream flows over a precipice or steep incline.”
“A perpendicular or very steep descent of the water of a stream.”
“An artificial waterfall (as in a hotel lobby or nightclub).”
“Something resembling a waterfall.”
“A waterfall is any point in a river or stream where water flows over a vertical drop or a series of steep drops. Waterfalls also occur where meltwater drops over the edge of a tabular iceberg or ice shelf.”
“An artificial waterfall is a water feature or fountain which imitates a natural waterfall.”
“Water, especially from a river or stream, dropping from a higher to a lower point, sometimes from great height.”
“A steep fall or flow of water in a watercourse from a height, as over a precipice; cascade.”
“A waterfall is a steep descent of a river or other body of water over a rocky ledge.”
“A flow of water over the edge of a cliff.”

Okay, now that we have that settled.

There is no “official” definition of the word “waterfall.” The only objective characteristic is that it is composed of falling water, so take your pick. The most liberal definition would be to take the word literally and say that any falling water is a waterfall. Every time it rains you’d have a jazillion waterfalls all over the place, and each time you went to the bathroom, you’d create another one.

I don’t know anyone who would accept such a broad definition, but to me, it seems nearly as illogical to say that a waterfall must be, say, 10 feet high to be valid, a figure I’ve seen stated more than once. What if it’s 9’ 11” high?

Here’s my definition: WATER FLOWING OVER A PRECIPICE. The precipice must be there, else, the rain and bathroom thing—or crying, as Coldplay suggests.

Really, defining a waterfall is meaningless. What matters is what you choose to visit, and in the case of book and website authors, what you choose to publish. I totally get it that some people disagree with my definition and think I’m nuts for including dams and rapids on this site. Well, I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

I have to say, I get a chuckle at some sites that go into all manner of detail about what qualifies as a waterfall or not. Again, there is no official definition, so you can take the word legitimate out of the vocabulary you use for describing waterfalls.

And furthermore, I would suggest that refusing to visit a “waterfall” because it doesn’t fit your definition can sometimes cause you to miss out on a delightful experience.

DOES IT HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A WATERFALL?

Not to me. And not to any dictionaries, encyclopedias, or geologists—at least none that I’ve found. The only place you’ll find someone saying that a waterfall must be a certain height is on Facebook posts or personal websites and blogs.

DOES IT HAVE TO BE ON A CREEK OR RIVER?

Some of the definitions listed above say nothing about where the water comes from. We use the term waterfall for all sorts of falling water features. We can use qualifiers such as “natural” or “artificial,” but we still use the waterfall in the definition. We don’t say, “artificial construction of water flowing over a precipice.” We say, “artificial waterfall.”

CLASSIFYING WATERFALLS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE DROPS

Continuing the subjectivity theme are cases where two or more individual drops are close together, divided by flat or cascading, or cases where the waterway splits and forms two or more individual drops separated by islands of rocks or trees. North Carolina has few of the latter type but hundreds of the former.

Is it one waterfall with two or more sections, or are the sections separate waterfalls? I tend to favor the former, especially if the distance between them is only a few hundred feet. I take it on a case-by-case basis and decide based on what feels right for that waterfall. Remember, though, there are no official criteria, so you can classify them however you like.

I do get a chuckle sometimes at the thought of splitting every individual drop into a separate waterfall, as some do. Imagine tackling the waterfalls of Alaska or Hawaii, where, once finished, the total number of waterfalls in the states would certainly double, if not triple. And then there are waterfall like Iguazú, on the border of Argentina and Brazil, which by itself could add some 300 waterfalls to the country list depending on the finickiness of the observer and the water level at the time it was classified.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF WATERFALLS?

A quick search reveals dozens of waterfall classifications based on their design. A few are obvious and mostly objective, but for the most part, it’s impossible to place most North Carolina waterfalls into tidy categories as there is simply too much variety and overlap in their design.

Here are some of the waterfall classifications I use when describing North Carolina waterfalls.

Cascade. Broken flow that is generally not very high, although I often say things like, “a long, high series of cascades and slides.”

Cataract. I rarely use this term for North Carolina waterfalls, as it is typically used to describe waterfalls on large rivers, and often those that have a greater width than height. The few waterfalls we have on large rivers are cascades or they are only a few feet high. However, it is a commonly used term for waterfalls of the world, so I wanted to include it for reference.

Chute. The waterway squeezes into a narrow channel.

Freefall. When the water doesn’t touch the rock

Multilevel. More than one obvious section. I usually use this to describe waterfalls that have at least three distinct sections.

Overhang. A freefalling waterfall that has a grotto behind the falls.

Rapid. A disturbance in the waterway. Water does not flow over a precipice in a rapid, but rather the flow is disturbed by rocks under the water.

Roostertail. When the water hits a rock and shoots up and out.

Shoal (typically “shoals”). Historically used as an indiscriminate term for a waterfall, large or small, whether on a tiny creek or large river. The name has been applied to many North Carolina waterfalls but is rarely used today except to describe small cascades or river rapids.

Slide. The water hugs the rock.

Sliding cascade (or cascading slide). A very common waterfall type in North Carolina, applied when you don’t know if it's more sliding or more cascading.

Wet rock. When there isn’t enough water to fill a water bottle.

CLASSIFYING THE BEAUTY OF A WATERFALL.

The Understanding Listings page discusses my approach to rating the beauty of waterfalls. I’m repeating that discussion here.

Ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 10 or whatever I decide to write. Beauty is subjective, and ratings reflect external conditions that might not apply to your visit. A waterfall’s beauty changes according to how you feel, how difficult it is to get there, how photogenic it is, preconceived notions, and many other factors.

Some people like freefalling waterfalls best, while others prefer cascading falls. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible. Waterfalls rated from 1 to 3 probably aren’t worth visiting unless conditions are optimal or you happen to be close by. Those rated from 4 to 6 are definitely worth the effort and might be quite nice in optimal conditions. Falls rated from 7 to 9 always look good and are spectacular in the right conditions. The few falls rated 10 have qualities that elevate them above all others, no matter the viewing conditions.

I’m prepared for backlash regarding the ratings. (I’ve been getting it for the past 30 years!) People tend to be defensive about “their” waterfalls, and I expect some of the ratings will step on a few toes. I don’t mean to do that. I’ve tried to be objective and to take all North Carolina waterfalls into consideration when making ratings.

It has been interesting to experience how my beauty ratings have changed since 1994, when I published the first edition of North Carolina Waterfalls. Back then, I tended to rank waterfalls much lower than I do now, but there are a few exceptions.

I’m aware of some of the ratings systems devised by other waterfallers. Most of them are based on calculating combinations of factors. I don’t feel that these systems work well. When you define beauty by inputting data, you remove the most important aspect, which in my opinion is simply how does the waterfall make you feel—how beautiful do you think it is.

My rating system is simple. I look at the waterfall and write down what I think. Granted, this is a very subjective exercise, while the authors of ratings systems are attempting, I assume, a more objective approach. But that’s where we diverge. There are simply too many variables and differences in opinions to achieve any sort of objective determination.

With the above said, I should add that there is one factor I feel should be considered as an objective assessment. Waterfalls should be evaluated based upon the region in which they exist. For example, if one were rating all the waterfalls in the United States on the same scale, most of the ones in states like Texas and Louisiana would get a 1 rating when compared to those in Hawaii and California. For North Carolina waterfalls, my ratings are influenced by whether the waterfall is in the mountains, foothills, piedmont, or coastal plain, while also considering that they all are in the same state.

Finally, I feel that if one provides a beauty rating for a waterfall, they should see the falls in person with their own eyes. Otherwise, you’re removing feeling from the equation and using only data inputs.

THE FOLLOWING TERMS REFER TO THE FLOW OF THE STREAM AND ARE MOSTLY OBJECTIVE.

Ephemeral. Now you see it, now you don’t. Ephemeral waterfalls only exist after a precipitation event, such as rainfall or snowmelt. Ephemeral streams are not fed by groundwater.

Intermittent. A stream that has a predictable flow but dries up at times. Intermittent streams are fed by groundwater primarily.

Perennial. A stream that flows year-round and never stops.