272 FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
necessities and, except in rare cases, they do not shoal appreciably 
more than formerly.* 
The distinction between erosion actually resulting from cultiva- 
tion 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 reservoir system of the 
Ohio, to be referred to later, will be absolutely dependent for its 
integrity and permanence upon keeping the water-sheds 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 agri- 
culture.t 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 occu- 
pancy, the source of sediment remains uncurbed and the whole argu- 
ment 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 reports 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 1000 million tons of our soil is annually 
carried by our rivers into the ocean. This figure itself is quite con- 
servative, but the conclusions drawn from it are not at all so. Taking 
the results of silt observations on the Mississippi River and its tribu- 
taries 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 1100 million tons is indicated. 
*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!” 
yAmong 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 11th, 1908: ‘The reader should not 
lose sight of the fact that the conserved area is not rendered unfit for cultivation or 
other use, but that only a small portion of the conserved area [that covered by the 
reservoir] {s so utilized that its value for cultivation fs destroyed.” 
