values of water as an element in the landscape have been lost 

 in many places. 



Another loss is the disappearance of small power sites, of 

 which many were developed, especially in the Northern 

 States, as settlement spread westward. For instance, in the 

 Muskingum, Ohio, drainage area alone, as reported by the 

 Dayton-Morgan Engineering Co., 16 in 1880 there were still 

 in existence 253 local water-power mills. 



Coincident with the development of the Ohio canals was the construc- 

 tion of water power saw mills and grist mills. Practically every stream 

 in the Muskingum basin at one time had one or more of these small power 

 plants for grinding flour and feed, for sawing wood, or operating a small 

 shop or factory. As the canals went into disuse these small water power 

 plants also were gradually abandoned, partly because of shortage of 

 water supply and partly because of the ready availability of coal. These 

 early plants were mostly low head, simple, direct connections of low cost. 



The disappearance of most of these local plants, even 

 without diminution of the water supply, would have been 

 brought about by the competition of large power plants and 

 large industrial enterprises, supported by efficient systems of 

 transportation; but it is quite as likely that in the long run 

 decentralized generation of power and decentralized industry 

 will have a new and important status in our economy, in 

 which case availability of a regular supply of water in reser- 

 voirs on small streams will again become of importance. 



There is difference of opinion among engineers as to the 

 influence of headwaters on floods and stream flow in the 

 main stems of great river systems. However, the general 

 opinion in the United States appears to be that while head- 

 water stream regularization through wide forestation can 

 have influence, regularization through creation and main- 

 tenance of ponds, backwaters, reservoirs, and lakes can have 

 little influence on the floods of main stems. A nonprofes- 

 sional analysis of their discussions leads to the strong im- 

 pression that they are thinking primarily in terms of flood 

 elimination rather than in terms of contribution to flood 

 control. There appears to be ground for the conclusions: 

 first, that headwaters control cannot eliminate floods; but 



16 Document issued by Ohio Department of Public Works, 1931. 



38 



