Professor MOORE. There would be a tendency that way; but it would come from the cultivated areas in much greater proportion than from the steep slopes, because those slopes would be small in area in comparison with the cultivated areas; and in order to stop the silting it would be necessary for you to stop agriculture. Mr. STANLEY. Is a forest to any degree a reservoir? Mr. PLUMLEY. Is not the black forest a constant reservoir? Professor MOORE. No; its effect is too small for it to be called a reservoir. Mr. PLUMLEY. There is where you differ, I think, with those who have had practical experience for many years. Professor MOORE. I am just giving my opinion. Mr. LEVER. On that proposition you differ from Colonel Chittenden. Professor MOORE. I do not agree with everything that Colonel Chittenden says. I agree in his general conclusions. Mr. LEVER. Professor Moore, I think you have somewhere in your report-I can not put my finger on the page now-set out your plan of preventing erosion, and that would be to put these lands into cultivation, plowing the lands deep and covering them with grass and clover, and so on. Professor MOORE. With grass, or with proper terracing, proper cultivation around hillsides. That is well understood to-day as a method of preventing washing. Mr. LEVER. Have you ever traveled through the southern Appalachians? Professor MOORE. No; I have never been there. I have crossed over from Raleigh into Tennessee once only. I have not made a study of that. Mr. LEVER. You have no idea of the area of land that is cultivated according to that method, plowing 8 inches deep? Professor MOORE. I have only a general idea, such as anyone might have. I lived on a farm when I was a boy and I have been in the country a good deal of my time since; I am a farmer. Mr. LEVER. You would not advocate the proposition of putting into agricultural uses the very steep, the almost uncultivable areas in the southern Appalachians and the White Mountains, would you? Professor MoORE. Certainly not. Mr. LEVER. What would you do with them? Professor MOORE. I would grow forests on them if the forests were worth the money expended to grow them commercially. I would not reforest them for the purpose of stopping erosion, because I am of the opinion that erosion from such slopes is a beneficial operation, and transports that soil down to lower levels, where it can be made use of to grow something-where it can be cultivated. Mr. LEVER. And does that eroded surface in any way affect the navigability of streams in their lower reaches? Professor MOORE. Any erosion from such surface or from plowed land goes to lower levels where it comes under the influence of gravity and is deposited on the areas on either side of the river; or it goes into the main stream. So far in the history of our rivers it is my opinion-I do not give this as a geologist, because I am not a geologist-we find little evidence that our principal streams have silted up to any considerable extent. The increase in the amount of matter in suspension that the water must carry as the result of cutting off forests from steep slopes and the result of agricultural processes on such slopes and on the plains below makes a great sedimentary deposit near the mouths of rivers, and great deltas are formed. There is no question but the bed of the Mississippi River is much higher near its mouth than the surrounding country. That is the result of silting up. You may go down 2,000 feet in the city of New Orleans and bring up pieces of decayed timber that were deposited there centuries ago. But in the streams that flow swiftly we do not find so much evidence of silting. I noticed that on the Tennessee and the Ohio and the Cumberland years ago, and it was my opinion that we might have to change the location of the gauges because of the silting up of those streams, which ought to be appreciable in the course of twenty or thirty years; but as a matter of fact we have never changed the zero of any gauge on any of those rivers because of silting, and I think the engineers of the army have never been obliged to change the zero of a gauge in any of those rivers because of silting up. Mr. STANLEY. Professor, these questions which I am asking you are for the purpose of getting at the facts. Professor MOORE. Yes, sir. Mr. STANLEY. Because there is no scientist who appears before the committee for whom I have a more profound respect. But is not the silting more at the mouth of the delta, or the estuary, than anywhere else? Professor MOORE. Yes; of course, that is right. That is a good point to make. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are you aware of the report of the Secretary of Agriculture published about three years ago on the subject of buying the timber lands of the Appalachians? Professor MOORE. I never read it; no, sir. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. As I remember, one of his conclusions is that if the forested land at the upper waters of the streams forming the Ohio River were purchased and controlled, the result would be the controlling of the depth of water at Pittsburg, and the increasing of the average depth by 2 or 3 feet. Would you agree with that conclusion? Professor MOORE. I would first say that that report I believe to have been written in the Forestry Service. I think it was forwarded by the Secretary, as many communications are. They are prepared by the various bureau chiefs for his signature and forwarded by him, and I do not know, therefore, that it is the actual individual opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be rather interesting to have the matter of the authorship of that report settled, and I believe we can settle it by one question to Mr. Hall. I notice Mr. Hall is in the room. He is in the Forestry Service. Can you state, Mr. Hall, who wrote the report referred to, which was issued under the name of the Secretary of Agriculture? Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, my impression is that the committee is thinking of two reports. There have been two reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, one a large book sent in with the presidential message some six or seven years ago, in 1901, I believe. I will take up the two, if I may. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HALL. That report was made after a trip by the Secretary of Agriculture himself to the southern Appalachian Mountains. As to who the authors were of the part which the Secretary himself signed I can not say, but I am under the impression-perhaps I had better not say that; but I will say that I am not sure. The report, however, did include papers by several gentlemen; one of them, as I recall, by one of the members of the Weather Bureau, it being upon the climate of the southern Appalachian Mountains; and there are other papers. There was a second report by the Secretary of Agriculture submitted to Congress in 1907. The CHAIRMAN. For which a special appropriation of $25,000 was made? Mr. HALL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the one Mr. McLaughlin referred to. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That is the one I referred to. Mr. HALL. That investigation was made under the authorization of the Secretary by myself and some men associated with me, and I had a large part to do with preparing the original part of the report. The report was gone over by the Chief of the Forestry Service, and was afterwards personally considered by the Secretary himself, as I know, because I stood in his office and worked with him in connection with it, and it was to some extent modified by the Secretary, and then submitted to Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Mr. PLUMLEY. I would like to ask one more question of Professor Moore. Professor MOORE. Yes, Mr. Plumley. Mr. PLUMLEY. Is it not nature's way to prepare alluvial valleys by having it done at a time when the mountains and valleys are covered with trees? Professor MOORE. I would say not. The mountain tops must first, by the action of freezing and thawing, and the torrential rains, be eroded and worn down and some of the material carried to lower levels-much of it, I will say, carried to lower levels-and the mountain tops must be beaten down until there is a level place sufficient to retain some of the decomposed rock, and that forms a soil then in which trees may grow, and ought to grow. Mr. PLUMLEY. And down all the sides of the mountains and through all the valleys that become alluvial, during the period when the earth is being prepared for agriculture, these mountain slopes and valleys were covered with trees, were they not? Professor MOORE. Oh, I could not answer that. Mr. PLUMLEY. Well, I am speaking now of the Appalachians, and more particularly of the eastern Appalachians. Professor MOORE. I do not know, Mr. Plumley. Mr. PLUMLEY. From the earliest data you have? Mr. PLUMLEY. And the mountains and the valleys were forested, were they not? Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. PLUMLEY. It was during that period that the earth was prepared for cultivation? Professor MOORE. It was prepared before; yes. Mr. PLUMLEY. It was prepared then in particular? Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. PLUMLEY. And during all this period your mountains had been leveled at the top, and the water had gone trickling down the mountains and had been stopped by the trees, and the trees, with their roots, had broken the rock? Professor MOORE. It is mainly the expansion of the water that breaks the rocks, by getting into the cracks and freezing. Mr. PLUMLEY. Sure; but the very fact that the roots were there, and that the bodies of the trees were there, aided to stop the water and put it into the soil to help break up the rocks; was that not nature's way? Professor MOORE. Yes; there is no doubt that certain formsMr. PLUMLEY. Now, if we should get back to nature, we probably would create the best alluvial conditions, would we not, below? Professor MOORE. I do not think we would improve on what we have. Mr. PLUMLEY. You think the present form is as well adapted to take this alluvial deposit and put it around in a uniform way on the surface of the alluvial valleys as it was when the surface of the earth was all covered with trees? Professor MOORE. Well, I would not want to answer that. I do not believe I am an expert on that particular phase. Mr. LAMB. You admit that erosion is a good thing? Professor MOORE. Yes; I believe that erosion, under certain conditions, is a good thing, and under other conditions it is a bad thing. Mr. LAMB. Like other things, you can have too much of it? Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. STANLEY. You spoke of the value of erosion in leveling the surface of the earth. Professor MOORE. Yes, the mountain tops. Mr. STANLEY. Is it not true-it has been my impression-that the débris from the mountains is dependent directly for its alluvial value upon the amount of vegetable life that exists in the area eroded? For instance, unless you have something like limestone there, which has the remains of animal life, would you get any fertilizing effect from the material eroded? Professor MOORE. You would get some. Some eroded material has no humus. Mr. STANLEY. Would you get alluvial soil from the disintegration of igneous rock, such as you get from the erosion of limestone rock or cretaceous rock such as is found in these mountains? Is not the value of the alluvium from streams directly dependent now upon the amount of Professor MOORE. Humus? Mr. STANLEY (continuing). Humus that is contained in the débris? Professor MOORE. It depends largely on that; I suppose largely so; yes. Mr. LEVER. You have discussed this Forest-Service Circular No. 176, and then you have discussed the circular of Mr. Leighton, and in doing so you say that all of these data, or substantially all, have been drawn from the Weather Service. Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. LEVER. I notice in this Circular No. 176 on page 5, in discussing the Potomac River and the Monongahela River and the Wateree and the Savannah and the Tennessee and a number of other rivers, they all show a tendency toward increased floods, and as you say, this tendency is shown by data taken from your office. Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. LEVER. Do you controvert the conclusions reached in that circular? Professor MOORE. I do, most positively. Mr. LEVER. In what way? Professor MOORE. I controvert it first on the ground that the period is too inconsequential, even if the data had been properly grouped, to justify one in drawing any general conclusions. I differ from the report, again, because they have taken gauge readings that were not floods and counted them as floods. I quote that report here on page 36 and make my answer to it on page 37. I think the investigators were honestly looking for information. I do not agree with them as to the way in which they group the data, or as to their conclusions. Mr. LEVER. Or in the conclusions they draw from the data? Professor MOORE. Oh, no. Mr. LEVER. In other words, your position is that the data on this matter are too insufficient for anybody to draw a correct conclusion from them? Professor MOORE. I take the position that very much of the data, not all I take the position that when you get a ninety-six-year rainfall up in New England you get something that is worth considering, and a record of thirty-eight years in the Ohio Valley is worth giving serious thought to. But to attempt to determine this great problem of the effect of forests upon floods by discussing a nineteen years' record on the Potomac River, and sixteen years on the Wateree, I think is simply ridiculous. Mr. LEVER. Here, for instance, is the Ohio River with a record of twenty-six years, the Monongahela with twenty-two years, the Savannah with eighteen years, the Allegheny with thirty-four years and the Tennessee with thirty-six years. Professor MOORE. Yes; but I will go on record with the fact that actual floods have not been increased except by the rainfall. Mr. LEVER. Mr. Leighton is Hydrographer of the United States Geological Survey? Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. LEVER. He is a competent official, is he not? Professor MOORE. I am not here to criticise or impeach anybody's integrity. I only claim for myself the right to express a different opinion, and to show from my data why it is that I hold that opinion. Mr. LEVER. I do not want you to impeach anybody. I know your views, and my own. Professor MOORE. Yes. Mr. LEVER. What I want to do is to get from you whether this man Leighton is considered in the scientific world as a competent. man. Professor MOORE. I have not any idea but what Mr. Leighton is a competent hydrographer. Mr. LEVER. Yes. Professor MOORE. I believe he is so considered. |