HYDROLOGY OF NEW YORK 



591 



As already shown, when interest is taken into account, the 

 Mount Morris project becomes commercially impracticable. The 

 Portage project, on the other hand, shows an annual income, above 

 interest account, sinking fund, maintenance and repairs, of $307,- 

 460, which, capitalized at 5 per cent, represents $6,149,200. If 

 we assume 4 per cent, the capitalization of the annual income may 

 be expected ultimately to represent $7,686,500. 



Summary of Genesee river storage. The following summation 

 of the Genesee river storage projects is presented as embodying 

 the main points involved. 



1) Of the several available sites for reservoirs on Genesee river 

 that at Portage is preferable to others, because it affords the 

 largest storage at the smallest cost per unit volume. 



2) Serious floods have occurred a number of times in the Gene- 

 see river at Rochester, the most serious being that of March 1865. 

 The floods in April 1896 and March 1902 were nearly as severe 

 as the flood of March 1865, although, as the river channel was 

 clear, very little damage ensued. 



3) As the result of^ three years' measurements of Genesee river, 

 it is determined that the minimum flow of the stream may for the 

 entire year be as low as 6.67 inches on the catchment area. Since 

 1896 the record of the flow of the stream has been extended with- 

 out altering the conclusions of this paragraph. 



4) A study of existing conditions shows that the Genesee 

 river catchment area has been nearly denuded of forests, and 

 hence that severe spring floods are likely to be frequent. For 

 the same reason the summer flow of the stream is less than 

 formerly. 



5) As a tentative conclusion, based on the data at hand, it may 

 be said that the deforestation of a catchment area may tend 

 not only to increase floods somewhat, but to decrease materially 

 the amount of the annual runoff. 



6) A comparison of the conditions existing on the catchment 

 area of the Genesee river with those of the upper Hudson, which 

 is still largely in forest, shows less runoff under given conditions 

 from the Genesee than from the Hudson, thus indicating the 

 probable effect of the forest in increasing the runoff. The com- 

 parative diagram shown in fig. 11 is pertinent as illustrating this 

 point. 



