on parts that will be presented to you more fully by men who are more capable of speaking on them.

I wish to speak, in the first place, of the intense public interest in this matter. It is one in which the people of Boston, of Massachusetts, and of New England generally, take a most keen and active interest. Editorials are appearing in our leading Boston papers, and in the papers all over New England, urging the support of this measure by Congress. I have received communications (I will read the names of just a few of them) from the Massachusetts Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the Pawtucket Gas Company, the Haverhill Board of Trade, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Boston Merchants' Association, the American Civic Association, the Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Federation of Women's Clubs, the Massachusetts Civic League, the Massachusetts Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association, the Massachusetts State Board of Trade, from instructors in our colleges and universities, and from leading citizens in Boston and in the other Massachusetts cities.

I have here an editorial from the Scientific American, which I should like to have go into the record, showing that the recent Paris flood was due to the denudation of certain of the forest lands which drain into the Seine.

(The editorial above referred to is as follows:)

CAUSES OF THE PARIS FLOOD.

[From the Scientific American, February 12, 1910.]

There appears to be a consensus of opinion among the French scientists that the causes of the recent phenomenal rise of the Seine, when it reached the record height of 31 feet 2 inches, are to be found more in geological than in meteorological conditions. The basin of the Seine and the streams that are tributary to that river consists of a light absorbent soil; and, as the slopes are gentle, any sudden precipitation is ordinarily absorbed by the ground. In winter, when the soil is either frozen or saturated with the rains, there is a risk that the run-off of a heavy precipitation will be so large and sudden as to overtax the capacity of the river channels. These conditions obtained to a marked degree during the recent continuous heavy rainfall and flood. Meunier, the geologist, is of the opinion that the heavy rains preceding the flood found the soil of the watershed so thoroughly impermeable, because of saturation, that the water ran off as swiftly as it would from the surface of an asphalted or cemented street. Furthermore, it seems to be generally agreed that the denudation of the forests in the higher regions of the watershed has been a contributory cause to the flood. Not only do the trees assist evaporation, but the forest undergrowth also exerts a material influence in retarding the flow of the water.

Mr. PETERS. New England has paid its part toward the forest reserves of the country. Two hundred million acres have been taken in forest reserves in the West, for which New England has paid her part, and pays her part for maintaining them. Those 200,000,000 acres which have been put in forest reserves only affect the watershed which produces slightly over 3 per cent of the water power of the country; whereas the watershed in the White Mountain Forest Reserve (the one which it is proposed by this bill to take) affects 37 per cent of the total water power of the United States. Those figures are taken from the last census.

The importance of preserving the forests for their effect on the streams is too great a one for me to go into. I will quote here from a report entitled "Commercial importance of the White Mountain for

7

ests," made by the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (Circular 168), in which it is said:

The timber supply in the White Mountain region, including spruce, which will last about twenty years, and the hard woods, which are as yet both abundant and cheap, is of importance not only to New England, but also to the country at large. These forests are near to a great population, and the pinch of scarcity in the timber supply is already felt everywhere. As the general population grows rapidly in numbers the rate of consumption increases, but the supply does not increase correspondingly. On the steep slopes the spruce forests will last only four or five years.

The protection of the mountain forests from fire is of great importance, because fire consumes the soil, rendering it in many places permanently impaired and even barren. This prevents future timber supply and greatly facilitates erosion and rapid run-off of water. Fires have already caused irreparable damage.

I shall not take up the time of the committee further. My own committee is sitting now, and I feel that I must get back to it. But I want to bring, particularly, before you the tremendous public interest in this measure. The bill was passed by Congress last year, and I think that with this public interest behind it the people who are supporting may fairly ask the committee to make a report and bring up the bill itself, so that it can be discussed before Congress by the representatives of the country.

(Mr. Peters subsequently submitted for incorporation in the record the figures above referred to by him, the same being as follows:)

Data from Page CCCXX, Volume VII, Twelfth Census, proving that the present forest reserves are situated in States which use only slightly more than 3 per cent of the country's water power, and that their beneficent influence on stream flow affects only a slightly greater percentage:

States using greatest amounts of water power, United States.

Wisconsin__.

*Vermont

Pennsylvania

*Connecticut.

Horsepower.

368, 456

187, 848

167, 264 112,755

99, 007 87,615

86, 223

71, 414

States marked (*) would have their water power benefited by the proposed White Mountain Forest Reserve.

Total horsepower of such States, 683,996.

Total horsepower used in the whole United States, 1,727,258.

Percentage benefited by proposed White Mountain Forest Reserve, 37 per cent.

States including present forest reserves, and horsepower they use.

Horsepower.

7, 148

21, 588

5, 164

Percentage of total horsepower used in the whole United States, 3.6 per cent. From the above it can be seen that one of the greatest benefits of forest preservation, the insured maintenance of a regular flow in the rivers, disturbed by a minimum of floods and droughts, profits only about 4 per cent of the water-power industries of the United States, because the forests reserved have been located without reference to the wants of water power already developed. We must now think of protecting such water power. Speaking purely as regards water power, we have secured something we will want in the future, undeveloped water powers, while we have hesitated to preserve what we are already using and see being gradually destroyed for us by the denudation of the watersheds, resulting in irregular flow, disastrous to power users.

Mr. CURRIER. I may say, in this connection, that the people in New England ardently favor the conservation of natural resources. They are willing to stand by great appropriations for the Reclamation Service. They are entirely willing that enormous tracts of land that would otherwise be sold, and the proceeds of which would go into the Treasury of the United States for the benefit of all the people, shall be taken for the benefit of the West. They are willing that tens of millions may be spent for the improvement of the rivers of the West, and they are entirely willing to pay their share of the outlay; but they feel that they are not being generously or fairly treated in this matter.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE FILLMORE SWAIN, OF CAMBRIDGE, MASS., PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Mr. SWAIN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say, first, that I represent at this hearing several bodies in New England. The Boston Chamber of Commerce has asked me to represent it. It numbers 3,500 members, or thereabouts, and is vitally interested in this question. I also represent the Appalachian Mountain Club, numbering a good many hunderd members (I think over a thousand), who are very much interested in this question; also the Massachusetts Forestry Association and the Boston Society of Civil Engineers.

The matter of the preservation of the slopes of the mountains apparently has been surrounded with some degree of mystery by various publications which have been made about it. In reality, however, it is a simple matter, and I want to try to make it this morning just as simple as I can.

Two papers referring to this question have come out recently-one the report by Professor Moore, of the Weather Bureau, and the other the report by Colonel Chittenden, of the United States Engineers. Those documents are lengthy, especially Colonel Chittenden's, but they do not affect our case in the least. We do not urge that forests shall be planted on land which is better suited for cultivation by crops. We urge the preservation of forests on the mountains and slopes which are not suited for cultivation. The papers which have been published do not at all affect that question. I want to show you briefly this morning, if I can, that substantially all the authorities are agreed on the importance of the preservation of the slopes of forests-slopes which are not suited for cultivation. Professor Moore's paper does not touch upon that matter at all; neither does Colonel Chittenden's.

The legality of your action, as I well understand, depends entirely on the relation of this question to the navigability of the streams. In regard to that, I want to show you that the authorities are united.

Professor Moore's paper contains certain conclusions at the end, the first four of which relate to the influence of forests on rainfall. I shall not discuss them unless I am asked to, because that is not a matter in which we are interested. Our case does not depend upon any influence of forests on rainfalls, although personally I believe that the forests do increase the rainfall; and I am ready to present one or two simple arguments which I think will show any of you that it is very reasonable to believe that they may increase the rainfall. However, I shall not refer to that matter at this time.

The question at issue is the relation between forests and floods, but not so specifically the relation between forests and floods as the relation between forest and erosion. The critics of the forestry movement urge that forests do not reduce the highest floods. They say that the floods on the streams are just as high from forested regions as they are from deforested regions. It was not necessary for us to have Colonel Chittenden's paper to prove that, because engineers have admitted it for years. Here, for instance, is an extract from a German work on engineering, published a number of years. ago, which I will read to you:

Authorities are quite united in declaring that woods should be preserved, so far as possible, and that deforested areas, particularly in mountain regions, should be replanted, since the woods moderate the rapid discharge of the waters, the layer of vegetable mold increases the percolation and diminishes the evaporation, forming a collecting basin, which feeds the springs later, and in which particularly the snow is held several weeks longer and melts slower than in the open areas. This favorable effect of the forests on the distribution of the flow of water, as well as upon the soil and climate. is recognized in most civilized lands and has led to the enactment of laws for the protection and the increase of forests. The thick forest of the Riesengebirge has exerted no noticeable effect upon the floods which occurred there in consequence of the great rainfall of the 2d and 3d of August, 1888, and of July 29, 1897. One should not, therefore, expect too much of the forests in diminishing the highest floods. Their effect is greater on the medium floods and in the prevention of erosion and in the holding back of suspended matter.

So we knew that before. Engineers were agreed upon that.

In dealing with this effect it must, first of all, be recognized that we are dealing with a very variable matter. Of course the source of floods is rainfall and snowfall, and the phenomena of rainfall and snowfall are so exceedingly variable that statistical proof of the relations between the two is not possible. I think it is hardly possible even with a very long series of observations. For instance, when you see in the report on streams in Massachusetts that in 1871 on a certain basin there was a rainfall of 46 inches, of which 33 per cent was collected in the basins which supply the city of Boston, while in 1891 there was the same rainfall (46 inches), and 69 per cent (more than double) was collected in the same basins, you see with what a very variable matter we are dealing. So that statistical proof by figures relating to floods or flow is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. In the absence of that we are thrown back on mere matters, not of empiricism, but of common sense, of common observation from fundamental principles, and I maintain that it is perfectly easy to see from fundamental principles the relations involved here.

Everybody who has been in a forest knows that the forest cover, the humus which covers the soil, forms a retentive layer which collects the water, holds it back, prevents it from running off, and en

ables it to percolate into the soil. Of course if we have a very severe storm the retentive layer is filled, and after it is filled it can hold back no more, and the excess flows off. That is the argument that is made by those who oppose the conservation of forests. They say that as soon as that layer is filled the water flows off. But that is no reason for not having the reservoir.

For instance, Colonel Chittenden in his paper here makes this statement:

The forests are virtually automatic reservoirs, not subject to intelligent control, and act just as the system of reservoirs once proposed by the French Government for the control of floods in the River Rhone would have acted, if built. These reservoirs were to have open outlets, not capable of being closed

That is, ordinary lakes

which were intended to restrain only a portion of the flow. A careful study of their operation in certain recorded floods showed that they would actually have produced combinations more dangerous than would have occurred without them.

Does that mean to any intelligent man that reservoirs on a stream do not regulate the flow? Can anyone imagine such a preposterous idea? The fact that a reservoir or series of reservoirs can not do everything is no reason why they can not do a great deal. And everybody knows what a regulative effect on the flow of a stream a series of lakes in its drainage basin has.

Professor Chittenden says the forest is virtually a reservoir and acts the same as a reservoir. Of course, it is not subject to control, but it acts as a reservoir and feeds the springs and regulates the flow. The forest forms a million dams which interrupt the flow of the water; and instead of running off swiftly over the slopes, it percolates through the leaves and finds its way into the streams gradually; and it is held back so that a great part of it, a much greater part of it than otherwise could do so, is allowed to percolate into the ground. The forest keeps the water so that it can percolate and gives it time to percolate into the ground and feed the springs.

Therefore, while it is perfectly possible that if you should allow a forest to grow up on a denuded area the maximum floods from that area might under certain conceivable circumstances be as great as they were before, we maintain that the general effect, the average effect, is to regulate those floods. To argue that because the forests do not or may not reduce the greatest floods-although I believe they do reduce the greatest floods-therefore they are not of any value, would be like arguing that a fire-protection system in a city was of no value because after it is established there may be as big a fire as there had been before. I presume our greatest conflagrations have occurred during the time that our cities have been adequately protected by fire systems. Nevertheless, we have had all these great conflagrations.

But the most important matter with reference to the forests is that of erosion, with reference to the legal basis of your action. Everybody who has seen a rainfall on an open, unprotected area, and a rainfall in a forest, knows the great difference between the two. He knows how, in the open area and on the steep slopes, especially, the waters are gathered together into the streams, eroding the ground and carrying the earth away with them: while in the forest there is a protective layer of humus over the ground, and the soil can not be carried away to that extent. It can not be carried away