DISOUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 443 
Both Colonel Chittenden and Mr. Pinchot have gone to the water- Mr. Labelle. 
shed of the Sacramento River* to secure evidence in favor of their 
views. Their conclusions are divergent. In the paper on the flood 
of March, 1907, on pages 296 and 297, is found the rainfall for both 
the American River and Puta Creek, the two streams selected for 
comparison. The divergence in the conclusions is caused by the 
use of different rain stations in the columns headed March 17th-26th. 
The author derives his average rainfall for Puta Creek from Stations 
76 and 77, excluding the two others as not representing territory 
tributary to the run-off gauging stations. Mr. Pinchot objects to this, 
and by taking in Stations 74 and 78 and some stations outside of the 
water-shed (a procedure of doubtful orthodoxy, but the figures on the 
Cache Creek Basin were very tempting) he manages to get an average 
much lower than the author’s, thereby turning the tables on the latter. 
The writer does not think it necessary to go outside of the Puta Creek 
water-shed for rainfall data. If the period from March 17th to 26th 
does not furnish sufficient information, the two water-sheds may be 
compared for the whole month of March, which is preferable for our 
purpose for it represents a greater percentage (70%) of the yearly rain- 
fall. Table 4 of the paper cited gives the precipitation of both water- 
sheds for March, 1907. From Tables 13 and 14 of the same paper the 
total discharge for the month can be obtained. Table 17 gives the 
precipitation and run-off for each water-shed. 
TABLE 17. 
st Drainage |Total rain-| Total run- 
ge or area, in fall, in off, in |Percentage 
inches square | billions of | billions of | of run-off. 
: miles. jcubic feet.|cubic feet. 
American River,.............008 25.67 1910 114 62 54.5 
Puta, Creek... ..cceesectsenneess 19,12 805 86 13,45 37.4 
The figures in Table 17 certainly do not favor forestation. It is 
fair to say, however, that they are not an argument against forests, 
because the percentage of snow in the American River water-shed is 
not known and cannot be estimated owing to the non-existence of rain 
and snow gauges in the upper part of the basin. 
In his 5th proposition the author gives an important place to 
second growth; there is no doubt that second growth in Eastern forests 
tends to perpetuate or at least restore the conditions obtaining before 
the removal of the virgin forest, whether these conditions be favor- 
able or not to the uniformity of stream flow. In the Southwest, how- 
ever, in places, coniferse compose the bulk of the forests, and deforesta- 
* “ The Flood of March, 1907, in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, Cali- 
fornia,” Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LXI, p. 281. 
