FORESTS AND STREAMFLOW 



OISGUSSION of the relation of forests and streamflow is neither new 

 nor peculiarly American. Engineers, foresters and hydrologists in 

 Europe have been debating it for many years with the result that while 

 controversy continues as to the precise relation of the forest on the watershed 

 to the flow of the stream, European opinion has accepted as settled the opinion 

 that forests are necessary to the maintenance and equability of streamflow, 

 and has acted upon it. 



In this country practice, since we took up forestry, has followed the same 

 conclusion, but when the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives 

 gave its opinion that the proposed Appalachian national forest legislation must 

 stand or fall by its effect upon navigation, the whole question was thrown 

 open to be debated with some heat and some scientific thoroughness. This 

 controversy is recent history. Several printed papere were contributed to it, 

 the first being that of Lieutenant Colonel Chittenden, of the army engineer 

 corps, who argued ably and forcibly against the accepted view. His position 

 was substantially that held, so it is undei-stood, by a majority, though not all, 

 of the army engineers. Colonel Chittenden was answered by Prof. George N. 

 Swain and others. Outside of those whose preconception was supported by 

 the views of the army engineers, there was an unwillingness to regard the 

 army men as the only engineers in the country, and when eminent civil 

 and electrical engineers controverted their views, and the great national 

 organizations — the Society of Civil Engineers, and the Institute of Electrical 

 Engineers — were put on record ofQcially as believing in the beneficial effect of 

 forest cover on streamflow and the actual need of such cover to protect water- 

 sheds, the normal judgment of the layman seemed to be restored to its 

 former basis. 



Then came the report of the Chief of the United States Weather Bureau, 

 issued something over a year ago as a congressional document and widely 

 distributed. This raised a distinct issue between two bureaus of the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture — the Forest Service and the Weather Bureau; but the 

 restraint of department discipline prevented a rejoinder by the Forest Service, 

 and the controversy was carried on outside, the weightiest contributions 

 to it as opposed to the Weather Bureau's position being the articles by able 

 specialists published in American Forestry for April, 1910. 



These steps in the controversy are recalled because it is reviewed at some 

 length and with an intelligent understanding of its animus in the Indian 

 Forester for March and April, 1911. The Indinn Forester quotes an editorial 

 from the Allahahad Pioneer referring to the controversy and then publishes a 

 letter from one of its correspondents calling attention to the Pioneer article 

 and suggesting that "the whole makes very interesting reading and tho.se 

 who live for tariff reform and similar many-sided questions and are in need 

 of something new would be well advised to add this subject to their list as it is 

 one not likely to be exhausted in their time." The Forester then states the 

 two contentions of the American Weather Bureau as follows: (1) that forests 

 have no effect upon the amount of rainfall; (2) similarly, that forests have 

 no effect upon the severity of floods; and it is concluded that no case can 

 be shown where deforestation has augmented drought or flood. To the dis- 



408 



