FOREST LANDS FOB THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 115 



At the bottom of the same page Doctor Swain touches upon the real crux 

 of this whole question, and that is climatic or atmospheric conditions. Every 

 flood is produced by rain or snow. No flood was ever produced in which the 

 rain or snow did not descend in very considerable quantities. It is perfectly 

 demonstrable that the proportion of any precipitation (which is capable of 

 producing a flood in our large rivers) that can be held back or controlled by a 

 forest bed is relatively an insignificant quantity. It is this fact that the 

 heavy rains completely drown out and exhaust the storage capacity of the 

 forest bed that renders it nugatory in diminishing the height of the flood. It 

 no doubt has some influence when the first rains come, after a period of some- 

 what dry weather, but in a short time its capacity is to all practical purposes 

 exhausted and it cuts no figure whatever in restraining the subsequent run-off. 



The question, therefore, comes back to rainfall, and unless the forestry 

 advocates can show that deforestation has a direct and powerful influence 

 upon rainfall their whole position would seem to fall to the ground. I believe 

 that it is now well recognized the world over that climatic changes do not 

 result from the clearing of the land. I can produce pages of records of the 

 rainfall in our own country that would seem to prove this conclusively, and 

 I quote here an item which I happened to have at hand from Professor Abb of 

 the Weather Bureau, which is exactly in point. 



" There is no well-authenticated case of an appreciable change of climate 

 within the past two thousand years. The researches of Eginitis on the climate 

 of Greece seem to establish this principle beyond doubt. Neither is it possible 

 that any change on the surface of the earth due to man such as deforestation, 

 reforestation, agriculture, canals, railroads or telegraph lines can have had 

 anything more than the slightest local effect on climatic phenomena that 

 depend upon the action of the whole atmosphere." 



The examples cited by Doctor Swain of expenditures by foreign governments 

 for reforestation have no pertinence to the point here in consideration. It is 

 perfectly true that all enlightened countries expend money for this purpose, 

 as they should, and as it is to be hoped our country will do; but it is for the 

 purpose of raising forests and not for the improvement or control of our great 

 rivers. In France they have been resorted to extensively for the purpose of 

 preventing erosion on mountain slopes, where extensive deforestation and ill- 

 advised cultivation were undertaken upward of a century ago. 



In reference to my argument concerning the low-water flow of rivers, some 

 misunderstanding has resulted, due to a failure to comprehend what I actually 

 said. In no case have I depreciated the value of springs which are, of course, 

 of the very highest importance at such times; but I simply said that the dif- 

 ference between the low-water flow of a spring or stream when forests covered 

 the ground and what it is now, is a relatively very small quantity, compared 

 with the flow of the river itself. 



The real springs upon which our streams rely in time of low water remain 

 nearly permanent and respond very slowly to the effects of rainfall. They are 

 deep-seated springs that flow for long distances through the earth, and often 

 emerge to the surface far from their source of supply. Such springs are found 

 in all parts of this country and in all parts of the world, and many towns and 

 cities rely upon them for their supply. I have been unable to find any evidence 

 that these permanent springs have suffered materially in volume from defor- 

 estation of the country. The shallower springs, those which come from near 

 by and respond quickly to rainfall and drought, are the ones that dry up to 

 such an extent in the low water season. They used to dry up also before the 

 forests were cut away, and do so in forests to-day, as anyone can see by exam- 

 ining springs in the early part of the season and then again in the autumn. 

 It is this class of springs which has suffered, if there has been any diminution 

 by the clearing of the country. But it is right here that our forestry friends 

 jump at the conclusion, which is by no means warranted, that the removal of 

 the trees is the cause of this diminution and also the cause of the diminishing 

 supply of wells. They never stop to consider the enormous demand upon these 

 waters, which has accompanied the settlement of the country and which is 

 increasing all the time. The one item of locomotives in the United States takes 

 up 170 cubic feet of water per second or a stream twice as large as the Mon- 

 ongahela River in extreme low water. Towns require 100 gallons per day per 

 individual; every farm has its wells and the drain of water for these varied 

 purposes is something enormous. It has been conclusively proven that wells, 

 by being constantly drawn upon, lower the water where no change whatever has 

 taken place upon the surface of the ground. In fact, it seems reasonably cer- 



