May, 1913 .] 
Contral of Aquatic Resources. 
135 
scale. There are many other localities which have such power 
in a smaller degree for the running of small local plants in various 
industries. 
This feature is also closely associated with the greatest utility 
of water in irrigation and navigation, as the retention of waters 
during flood periods is the evident means of prolonging the per¬ 
iods in which irrigation or navigation is possible. This problem 
is essentially an engineering problem, and I wgnild like to present 
some quotations from the report of an engineer who has evidently 
given this problem a great deal of study. His paper entitled 
“The Mississippi River Problem" while covering the whole 
Mississippi River drainage, is in large part a discussion of ques¬ 
tions pertaining to Ohio, and it seems to me distinctly appropriate 
in this connection. It certainly fits in most perfectly with any 
efforts toward the retention of our own rainfall, its utilization 
and the reduction of flood damage within the state. He says: 
“The solution by building a series of reservoirs in the head-waters of 
the chief tributaries appears to be the cheapest and most certain remedy for 
all these difficulties. By the construction of reservoirs the excess of water 
which produces flood stages could be impounded and held up with these 
important results: Excessive and destructive high-w T ater stages could not 
occur, while, on the other hand, by regulating the discharge from the reser¬ 
voirs, a more even flow' of water could be maintained at all times, eliminat¬ 
ing to a large degree the losses from diminished water supply, reduced 
power and fouling of streams incident to the low stages of late summer and 
early autumn. As soon as the irresistible rush of flood waters is stopped 
the sapping and caving of banks will be reduced to a minimum, with the 
efficiency of revetments increased many fold; finally, cutting down the 
flood volumes means a great dimuintion of the amount of sediment carried, 
and a marked alleviation of the sand-bar evil. The reservoirs would, more¬ 
over, eliminate floods from the whole system, not merely from the lower 
course. The prevention of the annual flood damage in the Ohio W'ould in 
itself be worth the entire cost of the reservoirs, yet until the work of control 
is carried to the headwaters no relief can be secured for that populous valley. 
“The solution by head-water reservoirs, of all proposed plans, has prob¬ 
ably provoked the most discussion—on the one side, those w'ho regard it as 
impossible, or, at least, highly impracticable; on the other side, those w’ho 
consider that it is not only feasible but at once the only proper remedy. It 
is admitted by every one that the topography of the country about the 
head-w T aters of the Mississippi system is especially well adapted to the 
construction of retention dams and reservoirs. The arguments advanced 
against this plan, though admitting this condition of favorable topography, 
maintain that sufficiently large reservoirs could not be constructed and 
made safe or, in other w'ords, they would, through danger of bursting, be a 
constant menace to the whole valley below the retaining dam. Again it is 
urged that if this plan were adopted, the building of reservoirs would have 
to be done on an enormous scale, since destructive floods often result from 
local conditions, such as a swollen tributary superimposed on an already 
swollen river. This necessity for a widely extended system of reservoirs, it 
is further claimed, would involve such tremendous expense as to make the 
adoption of the plan impossible. Most of these supposed objections are 
still based on a report made to Congress nearly fifty years ago, and, whether 
good or bad arguments then, there is no question that they do not apply 
now.” 
*Tower, W. S. “Popular Science Monthly,” July, 1908. Vol. LXIII, p.13. 
