FOREST LANDS FOB THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 95- 



Viewed in the light of the foregoing exposition, the weakness of the reser- 

 voir scheme as a measure of flood control or for improving navigation is at 

 once apparent. The question is, Will the ends justify the means? If the ends 

 sought could be attained in no other way possibly they might; but they can be, 

 and for a small fraction of the reservoir cost. Consider the estimate already 

 given of $500,000,000. Take $40,000,000 and reinforce the entire levee system 

 of the Mississippi. That will make it impregnable as safe as any of the pro- 

 posed reservoir dams. Take $60,000,000 and revet the banks of the Mississippi 

 wherever necessary from Cairo to the Gulf. The reservoir project does not 

 touch this important matter at all. Devote whatever sum is necessary to the 

 protection of the bottom lands of the Ohio basin. Give Cincinnati and Pitts- 

 burg each $10,000,000 to assist in local changes necessary for complete flood 

 protection. Devote a sum to navigation such as our engineers have never 

 dared dream of, and the Government will still save more than Mr. Leighton's 

 estimate of the whole cost of the reservoir system. The more closely this reser- 

 voir proposition is scrutinized as a scheme for flood prevention the more im- 

 practicable it appears. It is only a trade-off at best. It is giving up to per- 

 petual overflow valuable lands to save others from occasional and even rare 

 overflow for short periods. Now if at less cost these low lands can be better 

 protected by other means, thus leaving both the valley lands and reservoir sites 

 open to productive use, how much better it will be. 



If the author were to venture a criticism on Mr. Leighton's attitude in this 

 matter, it would be that he has not fully appreciated his responsibility in bring- 

 ing forward again this old proposition without fuller consideration of its organic 

 defects. This is well illustrated in the opening paragraph of his paper, in 

 which he says : 



" This report will be confined to a statement of possibilities. There will be 

 no attempt to prescribe methods for treatment of each local modifying condi- 

 tion that will be encountered in the prosecution of the plan here proposed. 

 Such features are merely collateral, and their proper disposition is a matter of 

 ordinary engineering." 



This is a complete reversal of his obligation in the matter. The "possibili- 

 ties " of reservoir control have long been recognized. The logic of the plan is 

 well understood. It has always appealed to the popular mind. In particular, 

 reservoir control of the Ohio floods has been advocated for more than sixty 

 years, and its possibilities have often been investigated. The plan has been 

 uniformly rejected on one ground, viz, that as a scheme for flood control and 

 navigation improvement its benefits would not justify its cost. It is, therefore, 

 incumbent upon whoever revives the scheme to come well fortified upon this 

 particular feature. He must give some study to the treatment of " local mod- 

 ifying conditions." It makes a difference whether he can go to a great natural 

 lake like Winnibigoshish and store 40,000,000,000 cubic feet of water for a mere 

 trifle, or whether he must evict whole villages, disturb railroads and highways, 

 absorb valuable lands, and possibly subject communities to serious risk. These 

 are the questions upon which the success or failure of the scheme depends. Yet 

 Mr. Leighton brushes them aside, as it were, with a wave of the hand, as 

 " merely collateral " features, matters of " ordinary engineering " only. Here 

 is the weak point of his project. Weighed in the balance of practical accom- 

 plishment, either for flood control or navigation, it will be found utterly want- 

 ing, and the development of the system, as has always been held, will have to 

 be based primarily and mainly on its value for industrial use. For the same 

 reasons that the development of a great reservoir system in the far West is 

 justified by its industrial value its use for irrigation so a reservoir system 

 for the Ohio, or any other rivers, except in a few unusual cases, must depend 

 primarily upon its industrial value the development of power. 



In pursuing his criticism further, the author would not be understood to be 

 " knocking," as current slang goes, the feature of the reservoir system just 

 mentioned, because, in his judgment, there is no one thing in the present move- 

 ment for the conservation of our natural resources that is more important than 

 storing the flood waters of our streams for power development. It stands in 

 the same category with the preservation and extension of our forests. It stands 

 on even a surer basis, for man, either willfully or through neglect, can destroy 

 the forests, but he can never diminish in the smallest degree the power of run- 

 ning water. It is a great solar engine, perennial and perpetual in its action. 



a Report Mississippi River Commission, 1896, p. 3457. 



