222 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



fr to Professor these mountain watersheds and the roll- 



; 



and the large or eep _ ^ ^ ^ ^ icuta . 



es'a,Kl "g fa e a Tlime'stone ra, one and nobody is proposing to con- 



nr lonl tvoe of sider * as a forestry problem. 



regions-only the first or Professor Moore itali- 



springs is found CMC '"* cises two consecutive sentences, each of 



, Appalach 



jan region and Professor res 



French author admit, the increas 

 irregulanty of flow and even the drying 

 up and entire disappearance of such 

 small springs as a result of cutt 

 away the forests. This is exactly in 

 accordance with what is found in the 

 field in the South and had Professor 

 Moore known the actual conditions m 

 the region about which he was writing 

 he probably would have omitt< 

 quotation. 



Several pages are devoted by 

 sor Moore to discussing the academic 

 question of the source of flood waters in 

 the United States. Whatever the source 

 of these waters no one has yet pro- 

 posed to alter or change in any way the 

 general system of atmospheric circula- 

 tion over the country at large and until 

 this is successfully done the rains will 

 continue to come from the same sources 

 as of yore. It is not a question of 

 where the rains come from, but i^'liat 

 we are going to do with them or they 

 with iis after they have gotten here. 



Erosion is handled very briefly and 

 lightly by Professor Moore and no very 

 definite conclusion or conviction as to 

 it is expressed. Erosion is, however, 

 one of the most powerful destructive 

 agencies at work in the mountain region 

 and is of supreme importance in any 

 study of the relationship between forests 

 and streams. There is not room here 

 for any detailed discussion of erosion but 

 it will be referred to again in discussing 

 the question whether floods are increas- 

 ing or not. 



In discussing the ratio of the forested 

 area, or mountain watersheds, to the to- 

 tal watershed there is the same failure 

 to appreciate the differences between 



arg ^ foUows ^ m 



> ^ ^^ ^ has ,.,_ 



J unimportant as flood P ro- 



Lc^ary actaotfy /o 



f ^ sl \ nd vdleys 



/flwrf ^ o/ ^ ^^ fl;irf 

 ^ ^^ fo agricnlfn _ 



J n the first of these sen- 

 tly> the former 

 CQnfusion of Hnkin steep mountain 



cau sative factors directly with 

 ^ and ]ower main stream flood results 



and there is at tne same t i me apparently 

 a tQtal ignorance o f t he perfectly evident 

 f&ct that thege rugge( i s i ope s are most 

 in tant flood pro ducers in such large 

 tributary basins as the Watauga, the 

 French Broad, the Pigeon and the Little 

 Tennessee) a ll of which He among the 

 mounta ins themselves. With regard to 

 ^ secon( j sentence above quoted one 

 wolK i e rs if there has been a slip of the 

 pen or j^ despite all of his arguments to 

 t j ie CO ntrary, its author really means to 

 sa y tnat f ores t s do after all exert an 

 efficient regulative influence on flood 

 production. 



ji ie ] as t topic discussed is whether 



floods are increasing. Here again Pro- 



fessor Moore has in mind floods on the 



lower, navigable portions of stream sys- 



terns. His argument and array of sta- 



tistics, when balanced against Mr. 



Leighton's opposing ones, are at most 



not convincing. The present writer. 



however, has studied in the field certain 



processes that are of such widespread 



occurrence and distinctive character as 



to leave no doubt that floods are increas- 



ing both in frequency and in height. 



These processes have to do with erosion 



as the chief causative factor and a very 



brief statement concerning them be- 



comes necessary. 



