266 FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
exhausted. In the first half of November, 25% more rain fell than 
in the normal for the entire month, and of this about one-half came 
on the 13th, 14th, and 15th. 
In the flood season of 1905 on the water-shed of the Upper Missis- 
sippi, there fell in the month of April above Pokegama Falls 2.55 in., 
in May, 4.95 in., in June, 8.08 in., and in July, 6.88 in., a total of 
22.41 in. The normal for the entire year is 26.5 in. 
In the record-breaking flood of 1907, in the Sacramento Valley, 88% 
of the normal for the month of March (based on 21 years’ observation) 
fell in three days (17th-19th), and, on one day, the precipitation ranged 
trom 5 to 8 in. at the difierent stations. 
In the extraordinary flood of May and June, 1908, in Western 
Montana, the precipitation for May, at four selected stations, was 6.5 
in., and for June, 4.2 in. The greater portion of this fell late in May 
and early in June. The normal for May is 2.6 in. and for June, 2.3 in. 
Similar conditions prevail in every great flood, and the true ex- 
planation is found in them and not at all in the presence or absence 
of forests on the water-sheds. Whether the forests are in any way 
responsible for the precipitation itself, and so, indirectly, for the floods, 
brings up the third of the foregoing general propositions, viz., that 
forests do increase precipitation. However strong may be the popu- 
lar belief in this theory, there is nothing in the records of rainfall to 
give it substantial support. The writer has had occasion, in con- 
nection with his official work, to compare the rainfall records in the 
northern half of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
cften with this particular point in mind, and he has never found 
anything to indicate a change. So far as he has examined European 
records the same result holds, and he believes it to be true the world 
over except where climatic changes have resulted from causes entirely 
disconnected with the operations of Man in changing the face of 
Nature. In fact, the claim that forests increase precipitation (about 
10%, according to Mr. Pinchot) leads to some contradictory results 
in the forestry argument. Coincident with our recent high waters, 
which are attributed so largely to deforestation, there has been an 
increase in precipitation, where there should, apparently, have been 
a decrease.* It is evident that, where one rule applies, the other fails. 
*As a step in the crescendo of gloomy forebodings upon this subject, that have 
filled the periodicals during the past twelve months, the following from the Sep- 
tember Scrap Book is the very latest’ “When our forests are gone the streams will 
