FOREST LANDS FOE THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 79 



upward of twenty years and inquiries from many sources fail to disclose any 

 such evidence. It would not, indeed, be surprising if some such result were 

 noticeable, for it would naturally seem that the cultivation of the soil has 

 facilitated to some degree the wash into the streams. If this is the case, 

 however, the rivers do not show it. They have a way of distributing their 

 burdens so as to meet their necessities and, except in rare cases, they do not 

 shoal appreciably more than formerly.^ 



The distinction between erosion actually resulting from cultivation and that 

 assumed to result from timber cutting is important to keep in mind, for it 

 fixes the burden of responsibility where it belongs. It shows that this erosion 

 or soil wash can be reduced only by the elimination or control of cultivation, 

 and the question at once becomes that of the extent to which such control or 

 elimination is practicable. For example, it is insisted that the suggested reser- 

 voir system of the Ohio, to be referred to later on, will be absolutely dependent 

 for its integrity and permanence upon keeping the watersheds above them 

 covered with forests. But it is understood not to be the policy to include in 

 the proposed forest reserves any lands that are fitted for agriculture. 6 As 

 elsewhere pointed out, that portion of these areas which is not reduced to 

 cultivation will not be subject to erosion more than at present by the mere fact 

 of cutting off the timber, for the natural growth on logged-off lands is just 

 as good a protection as the forests themselves. If the agricultural tracts are 

 still to be left open for occupancy, the source of sediment remains uncurbed 

 and the whole argument for forest reserves, on the ground of protecting the 

 reservoirs from sedimentation, falls to the ground. 



Some reference should be made to the real significance of- the alarming re- 

 ports which have been put forth concerning the washing of our soils into the 

 sea. Over and over during the past year has the statement appeared that 

 1,000,000,000 tons of our soil is annually carried by our rivers into the ocean. 

 This figure itself is quite conservative, but the conclusions drawn from it are 

 not at all so. Taking the results of silt observations on the Mississippi River 

 and its tributaries for 1879 and applying the Missouri rate to all western 

 streams outside the Mississippi basin and the Ohio rate to all eastern streams 

 outside the same basin, a total of about 1,100,000,000 tons is indicated. But 

 1879 was a low-water year in the Mississippi basin and the quantity for average 

 years may probably be 1,500,000,000 tons and for extreme years 2,000,000,000 

 tons. 



Let us look these prodigious quantities squarely in the face and see what 

 they mean. Where does this enormous volume of soil come from? Is it, as 

 one might infer from published references to the subject from our cultivated 

 fields an annual toll laid upon the precious fertility of our agricultural lands? 

 Not at all. Only a very small proportion comes from this source. Possibly 

 half of the total quantity of sediment goes down by the Mississippi. All 

 authorities agree that the greater portion of this comes from the Missouri. 

 From computations which the author has nfade he believes that fully two- 

 thirds of it conies from that source. The observations of 3879 indicate that 

 five times as much sediment comes from that stream as from the Ohio. 

 But where does the Missouri get it? Almost entirely from the most useless 

 areas of land with which any country was ever afflicted. The barren Bad 

 Lands are the principal source. Much comes from the mountains; much from 

 the sand hills; very little, relatively, from cultivated areas. Of the balance 

 of the soil wash of the United States, by far the greater portion comes from 



The absurd length to which this erosion argument has been carried is well 

 illustrated by the remark made in a recent address by one of the officials of the 

 Forestry Service: " This energy (of running water) is expended in rolling along 

 stones and gravel to finally build up the mouths or beds of the great rivers. 

 Next year there will be a bill introduced in Congress providing a forest reserve 

 in the Appalachian Mountains, so that the rocks from these mountains will be 

 kept from the Mississippi River!" 



6 Among references to the intention not to absorb agricultural lands in the 

 areas conserved by the reservoirs is the following from A. F. Horton, Assoc. M. 

 Am. Soc. C. E., in Engineering News, June 11, 1908: "The reader should not 

 lose sight of the fact that the conserved area is not rendered unfit for cultiva- 

 tion or other use, but that only a small portion of the conserved area (that 

 covered by the reservoir) is so utilized that its value for cultivation is de- 

 stroyed." 



