tion, flood control, and the regulation of mining detritus, with irrigation and drainage problems also involved, at a cost originally estimated as $33,000,000, of which the United States was to contribute $11,000,000, as being the estimated value of the improvement to navigation. Hardly was this plan formulated when the local interests set to work on an enormous scale without awaiting appropriations from the United States or the State, so that in February, 1913, the estimate of the cost of the work remaining to be done to complete the original plan was $11,717,000, of which the United States was to contribute one-half. The same plan has been partially adopted in connection with the Mississippi River and can be readily extended with the help of the Mississippi River Commission to a complete solution of this great problem whenever Congress shall so decree. I therefore wish to urge upon Congress the desirability of enacting the following legislation: First. To extend the jurisdiction of the War Department to all feeders or tributaries of navigable waterways by the insertion of the following item in the pending river and harbor bill, or by a separate bill: SEC. That section ten of the river and harbor act approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, be amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "And it shall not be lawful to place any obstruction in, along, or across any feeder or tributary of any navigable waterway of the United States which in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War will, in connection with floods or otherwise, injuriously affect the navigable capacity of said waterway or any structure built in aid of navigation, except as recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War.” Second. To authorize preliminary examination and survey in the pending river and harbor bill of the following streams with a view to devising plans for flood protection and determining the extent to which the United States should cooperate with the States and other interests in carrying out such plans, its share being based upon the value of the protection to navigation and interstate commerce: Cheat River, Pa. and W. Va.; Tygarts River, W. Va.; West Fork River, W. Va.; Kanawha River and its tributaries, W. Va.; Muskingum River and its tributaries, Ohio; Scioto River and its tributaries, Ohio; Maumee River and its tributaries, Ohio and Ind.; and the Wabash River and its tributaries, Ill. and Ind. The estimated cost of the survey of all the streams above mentioned is $80,000. It is believed that the $250,000 carried by the pending river and harbor bill for examinations and surveys will be sufficient, with the balance remaining from previous appropriations, to provide for these surveys should they be authorized. Third. To authorize preliminary examination and survey of such other streams from time to time as may warrant investigation with a view to protection from flood damage. Some of those meriting early consideration are the Mohawk, the upper Hudson, the Delaware, the Susquehanna, and the Brazos, with their tributaries. The above expresses the views of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, as well as my own. Very respectfully, LINDLEY M. GARRISON, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, Pittsburgh, Pa., February 16, 1914. 1. The board of officers on river floods submits report in compliance with the following orders: Special Orders, Orders, No. 3. WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, By direction of the Secretary of War, a board of officers of the Corps of Engineers, to consist of Lieut. Col. Francis R. Shunk, Lieut. Col. Henry Jervey, Maj. Charles S. Bromwell, Maj. John C. Oakes, Maj. Frederick W. Altstaetter, Maj. Lewis H. Rand, will assemble at Cincinnati, Ohio, upon the call of the senior member, to investigate and report upon flood conditions in the valley of the Ohio River and in the drainage area of Lake Erie. The board will make a thorough inquiry and examination into existing conditions, conferring freely with authorities locally interested, and will report upon the most practicable and effective measures for prevention of damage by floods to works constructed for the improvement of navigation, of interference with interstate commerce, and of other disastrous results thereof. The board is authorized, as a whole or by committees, to visit such points as it deems advisable within the area covered by its investigations and as may be necessary to conferences with authorities locally interested in the subject of its investigations. The travel directed is necessary in the military service. By command of the Chief of Engineers: Special Orders,} * EDW. Burr, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. 4. By authority of the Secretary of War, Maj. James P. Jervey, Corps of Engineers, is hereby detailed as a member of the board of officers of the Corps of Engineers, appointed by Special Orders, No. 3, Office of the Chief of Engineers, April 12, 1913, to investigate and report upon flood conditions in the valley of the Ohio River and in the drainage area of Lake Erie, vice Maj. Frederick W. Altstaetter, Corps of Engineers. Special Orders, ders,} WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, By authority of the Secretary of War, Maj. Frederick W. Altstaetter, Corps of Engineers, is hereby detailed as an additional member of the board of officers of the Corps of Engineers, appointed by Special Orders, No. 3, Office of the Chief of Engineers, April 12, 1913, to investigate and report upon flood conditions in the valley of the Ohio River and in the drainage area of Lake Erie. By command of the Chief of Engineers: EDW. BURR, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. 2. Since its organization the board or its committees have visited 66 places, have passed upon plans submitted by municipal authorities for Columbus, Lima, and Toledo, and has now under consideration plans for Fort Wayne, Ind. HD-63-2-vol 158-25 3. Conditions in the Ohio and Lake Erie basins were described in the preliminary report of the board submitted May 26, 1913. More detailed descriptions may be found in Appendixes E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y. Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, and UU.1 4. The funds at the disposal of the board have only been sufficient for the necessary traveling and for collection of existing information. After study of the data so obtained, the board is able to report that certain proposed methods of flood relief may be eliminated, and that the problem is to be solved by the application of certain other methods. But no specific application of the proposed methods to particular streams can yet be made. 5. Causes and methods of prevention. The causes of floods in general are excessive precipitation, quick run-off, and inadequate carrying capacity of waterways. Methods of prevention of floods must, therefore, contemplate control of precipitation, control of run-off, or provision of adequate channels of escape. Damage by floods might also be largely prevented by another method not involving control of the flood itself, namely, by moving valuable property beyond the flood limits. For convenience, the last-named method will be treated first. 6. Vacating flood plain. The method of moving property out of the way is that which will afford the most prompt and certain relief, and its adoption should be urged in all cases where at all practicable. The investigations of the board during the months of April and May, 1913, which consisted in personal inspections of 66 localities, showed that in every case a large percentage of the damage suffered was due to the fact that people had knowingly erected buildings and lived in territory which has always been subject to inundation by high water. It was evident that present conditions would have been far better if, in the past, when towns, roads and railroads, etc., were being located, some effective authority had been exercised to regulate the placing of permanent structures on the lowlands of the rivers in the Ohio and Lake Erie basins. However, millions of dollars have been spent in improving lowlands which are subject to floods and in making encroachments which have so diminished the flood carrying capacity of streams as to increase the height of floods and the velocity of flood currents. Some of this work can be undone, and in every case, where possible, it should be undone. On the other hand, the cost of completely remedying these mistakes-in some cases involving the moving of large portions of cities of 10,000 or more inhabitants, such as Cairo (14,548), Portsmouth (23,481), Marietta (12,923), Zanesville (28,026), etc.-would be so enormous that it is evident that some form of flood control or flood protection will be much less expensive. To find this is the chief duty of this board. 7. Forestation as means of controlling precipitation. The only method of controlling precipitation which has been seriously proposed is that of forestation. The question has been debated at length in recent years and was considered by the National Waterways Com 1 Not printed. The present report of the board is not final. The board hopes at some future day to submit a definite project accompanied by estimates of cost, but before this is possible a great deal of field work must be done in the way of examination, survey, and gauging. mission in its recent investigations. The conclusions of the commission on this subject are given on page 32 of the final report (S. Doc. No. 469, 62d Cong., 2d sess.) as follows: An impartial consideration of the results of investigations relating to the influence of forests upon precipitation does not warrant the assertion that such influence is marked, nor can it be said that forests exercise no influence whatever. The present status of this question was very fairly stated in 1902 by Prof. B. E. Fernow in Bulletin 7 of Forest Service, page 125: Altogether, the question of appreciable forest influence upon precipitation must be considered as still unsolved, with some indication, however, of its existence under certain climatic and topographical conditions in the Temperate Zone, especially toward the end of winter and the beginning of spring. Whatever influence forests may have upon precipitation, it certainly is not sufficient to appreciably affect stream flow and the navigability of streams, and thus is not essential to this discussion. 8. Most authorities take the view that forests have less effect on rainfall than that quoted above; but, even taking the favorable view quoted, the board would seem to be warranted in assuming that for all practical purposes the control of precipitation by means of forests is impossible and that the meteorological causes of floods are beyond human control. 9. Methods of controlling run-off.-The methods proposed for controlling run-off are forestation, special methods of plowing, and reservoirs. 10. Forestation as a means of controlling run-off. This subject is discussed in the report of the National Waterways Commission (S. Doc. 469, 62d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 33 and 34) on the effect of forests upon run-off and upon floods. This is quoted in full as follows (italics have been inserted by the board): Effect of forests upon run-off.-The influence of forests upon the run-off of rainfall, because of its equalizing effect upon stream flow, is considered much more important for navigation than the influence upon precipitation. The rainfall over a forest, as Mr. Zon explains, is carried off in five different ways: (1) Part of it is intercepted by the leaves and branches of the trees and evaporated into the air; (2) another part is evaporated from the soil within the forest; (3) a third part is absorbed and used by plants and trees for transpiration and tissue building; (4) a fourth part runs off from the surface of the slope; (5) the surplus or that which remains after these other purposes have been served filters through the ground and feeds springs and streams. The amount of water evaporated from tree tops and absorbed by forests in transpiration are losses directly due to forests and vary greatly under different conditions. The amount of rain evaporated from the tree tops depends, among other things, upon the character of the trees, their age and density, the amount of precipitation, velocity of wind, and temperature, and sometimes, as already indicated, assumes large proportions. Likewise the amount of water absorbed by forests for their own use depends upon the character of trees, temperature, and numerous other factors. Forests conserve water to the extent that the lower temperature and more humid air within retards evaporation from the surface, and the forest humus absorbs the water which would otherwise run off on the surface. The water thus retained goes to reinforce the supply of ground water and eventually benefits the flow of springs and streams. On level ground, of course, there is practically no run-off and the forests have comparatively little effect. In such cases, especially in the lowlands, it is quite probable that the loss of water due to forests exceeds the amount conserved. The manner in which forests retard the run-off on slopes is as follows: The force of the rain is broken by the tree tops so that it reaches the ground gently, and the water caught by the leaves and branches continues to drip for a considerable time after the rain has ceased. The forest litter readily absorbs the water instead of allowing it to evaporate or to run off on the surface. The water thus absorbed percolates into the substrata, following the roots of trees, and finally by seepage reaches springs and streams. It is generally admitted that forests exercise such reservoir characteristics and under favorable conditions to a sufficient extent to improve the regularity of stream flow. There is, however, a decided limit to the quantity of water which a forest cover can absorb. The capacity for absorption varies greatly under different conditions, depending upon the depth and character of the forest litter as well as of the soil underneath, whether pervious or impervious, also upon the condition of the ground, whether frozen or not, upon the steepness of the slope, and numerous other factors. Where the forest litter is destroyed by forest fires, or is removed to prevent them, the absorptive capacity is thereby reduced. Various experiments have been made to ascertain the amount of water which different kinds of forest litter could absorb and hold. The results show that in general an amount equal to a precipitation of 0.16 of an inch can ordinarily be retained, while under favorable conditions the absorption of an amount equal to 0.24 of an inch or even more is possible. The soil beneath the humus may also be capable of some absorption. As soon as the saturation point is reached, additional rainfall must necessarily run off on the surface just as if the ground were deforested. This explains why forests are powerless to prevent floods, although, to the extent that they do absorb the precipitation, they may mitigate them. Effect of forests upon floods.-Floods are caused primarily by a heavy and prolonged precipitation, amounting oftentimes to several inches within 24 hours. During the heavy rains which caused the disastrous floods in the Passaic Valley in October, 1903, 14 inches fell at Paterson, N. J., in less than 36 hours, and during the height of the storm more than an inch an hour fell, according to records taken at New York and Newark. The worst floods usually occur in the spring, when these heavy rains fall upon a considerable accumulation of snow, which melts rapidly and augments the amount of water already precipitated. At this time the ground is more apt to be frozen or saturated and its capacity for absorption to that extent impaired. Forests retard the melting of snow in the spring and, by allowing the water from this source to be absorbed, exercise a beneficial influence upon stream flow, but should heavy spring rains fall upon the snow thus preserved and cause it to melt within a few hours the effect of the forest is in such a case to aggravate rather than ameliorate flood conditions. It thus appears that under one set of conditions forests may exercise a beneficial influence upon stream flow and floods, while under another their influence will be harmful. 11. The figure given in this quotation has been applied to the State of Ohio. The average rainfall in this State from March 23 to 27, inclusive, was over 6 inches. This occurred at a time when there were no leaves on the trees and followed a series of rains which had left the ground well saturated with water. These conditions can not be assumed as favorable to the further absorption of water by forests. Assuming, however, what seems impossible, that 0.16 of an inch could have been retained by forests if the State of Ohio had been covered by one unbroken forest, only 23 per cent of the rainfall would have been retained by the storage effect of this forest. 12. From the report Reservoirs at the Headwaters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and their Tributaries (H. Doc. 1289, 62d Cong., 3d sess., pl. No. 17) we have the present forest area of Ohio given as a little less than 9,000 square miles, or less than a quarter of the entire area of the State (40,000 square miles) If we change 10,000 square miles of the present cultivated land of this State back to forest, this additional forest under the most favorable hypothesis would retain two-thirds of 1 per cent of the rainfall of such a storm as that of March 23-27, 1913. 13. It is impossible to expect that any large amount of cultivated land can be returned to the state of forest, or even that further clearing of tracts suitable for cultivation can be prevented. The board therefore concludes that reforestation is not a practicable method of controlling floods, and reserves for its final report the question of maintaining existing forests. 14. Special methods of plowing.-Under this head may be classed certain variations from the usual methods of soil preparation. As presented to this board, these variations may be divided into two classes-contour plowing and deep plowing, either separately or in |