Mr. Todd. 
346 DISCUSSION: FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
A careful examination of Tables 7 and 8, and a comparison with 
the actual heights from gauge to gauge during only moderate freshets 
about equalling the computed restrained flow at Cairo, will show that 
the results obtained are radically wrong; especially the figures deduced 
in Table 8. Mr. Horton has all the great floods, of whatsoever source, 
reduced to just below the flood level at Cairo. The writer is doubtful 
whether this condition could ever be realized. It is not his purpose 
to go into the correctness of this table at present; but, considering 
Table 8, it is evidently seriously in error. There has never been a 
time when the flood stage of 45 ft. at Cairo has been about equalled or 
exceeded, but that the flood stages at all points below have been ex- 
ceeded, and especially if a flood from the Arkansas River happened to 
culminate with the Cairo wave. 
A good example of a high water where the flood stage at Cairo was 
just reached is found in the record for 1908. Table 9 compares the 
computed heights for 1882 with the heights actually obtained during 
the May-June flood in 1908. 
TABLE 9. 
Restrained flow, as| Heights reached 
estimated* for by May-June flood 
1882, iu feet. of 1908, in feet. 
ere Flood stage, 
Station. in feet. 
Lake Providence... i 
Vicksburg........-.....e000s 5 
8 
SESABE 
Mm a@manwnwc 
SESERS 
ON OUR COM 
*By Mr. Horton. 
About the same discrepancies are evident for all the years con- 
sidered by Mr. Horton. Certainly, it cannot be said that the reservoirs 
on the Ohio could influence in any way the heights of a freshet after 
it had passed Cairo. Hence Mr. Horton’s conclusions as to the effects 
of the reservoir system on high water along the Lower Mississippi 
cannot be accepted as even approximately correct. 
The writer is of the opinion that all the investigations and dis- 
cussions as to conservation, forestry, reservoirs, etc., are valuable, 
and the matters treated are worthy of the fullest investigation; but 
it is wrong to recommend great innovations, claiming great benefits to 
localities, if there is any possibility that further investigations may 
prove the proposed plans useless for the objects considered. In refer- 
ence to the work of flood control and leveeing the Lower Mississippi, 
there are already many persons who seize the slightest pretext to 
condemn the levee system as wrong in principle and execution, and, 
indeed, many of the current writers, while passing the levees as a 
“necessary evil,” so to speak, seem to harbor the opinion that they 
