186 



INDIANA UNIVERSITY STUDIES 



vestigated) , their proportionate length, and counting bank-cut- 

 ting as one-half as much in the northern part of the State, on account 

 of the relative ability of the soil of the glacial region to withstand 

 bank-cutting, a fairly accurate estimate of the total bank-cutting 

 of the entire State during the flood of 1913, would be eight hundred 

 fifty acres. This is not counting the Ohio River at all. The esti- 

 mate in land loss for the State would be $63,750. The loss to 

 society because of lack of production for the minimum ten years 

 would be $255,000. The total loss, then, for the year of the flood 

 would be $318,750. The total loss to society for the entire State 

 (figuring the loss as accumulating for the minimum ten years) 

 would be $3,185,500. But this total estimate is far too low. This 

 is figured on a total ten-year loss due to bank- cutting of 8,500 acres, 

 which is probably fairly accurate, but there is far more land than 

 that lying idle due to bank-cutting. It was estimated that at least 

 1,200 acres were idle due to bank cutting between Daviess County 

 and Knox County alone. It is evident, then, that the total estimate 

 is far too low; an estimate of from two to five times the amount 

 would be more nearly correct. 



Now, since sufficient details concerning bank-cutting along 

 White River have been given to get a grasp of the situation, and 

 since some idea of the immediate and cumulative loss is before 

 us, let us consider what might be done either in stopping such 

 a loss, or in mitigating it. The writers are not of the opinion that 

 the entire river channel should be straightened nor any large part 

 of it, but they do think it not only feasible, but advisable to straighten 

 certain portions of it, as has been brought out in the above dis- 

 cussion. Many farmers who own land in the valley were consulted, 

 and the majority were of the opinion that the river channel could 

 be profitably straightened in many places. They think that the 

 river should be improved at the expense of the people that are 

 benefited. Their annual losses would in a very short time be enough 

 to pay for the improvement of the channel; and if a small tax were 

 levied on all of the landowners in the region coming within the 

 scope of the benefit, to furnish funds to keep the banks protected 

 where there is a tendency for them to be washed by the current, 

 and to keep the channel free from obstructions that are liable to 

 cause the current to be deflected against the bank, the situation 

 would be practically within control. As has been emphasized, 

 not only the land which is lost annually by bank cutting might be 

 saved by preserving a straight channel, but the waste land already 

 made by bank cutting could be redeemed. This straightening of 



