Mr. Leighton's figures are based upon data furnished him by a certain proportion of railroads reporting on the damage done to their property. For example, in the year 1906, when your office reports but $1,150,000 damage as a total of all kinds, Mr. Leighton has received from railroads, representing only 37 per cent of the total mileage of the country, an amount not less than $2,700,000, showing, apparently, that the estimates of your office are far too low. Will you be kind enough to look into this matter? I inclose herewith a copy of Mr. Leighton's estimate and a description of his method of estimating. Yours, very truly, HENRY GANNETT, Geographer. I will submit, also, my letter of August 24, addressed to the National Conservation Commission, and the reply I wrote to their letter of the 13th of November, 1908: HENRY GANNETT, Esq., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GENERAL OFFICE OF THE WEATHER BUREAU, National Conservation Commission, Census Bureau, Washington, D. C. SIR: In reply to question 3, Section E, page 31 of the Schedule of Inquiries, or Bulletin 3, of the National Conservation Commission, which reads-How much damage do they (floods) do? I beg leave to submit the following data for the years from 1897 to 1908 (July), inclusive. It has uniformly been a matter of much difficulty to obtain reliable data of this nature, but those given below are believed to be conservative. Ten per cent have been added to the computed amounts in order to cover the many small floods that occur annually in the smaller rivers for which no data were available. As an indication of the general awakening on this subject, I also beg leave to inclose a clipping from the Galveston News of August 30, 1908. It is believed that this line of action was prompted largely by the Weather Bureau Circular, dated June 16, 1908, a copy of which is also inclosed. Very truly, yours, WILLIS L. MOORE, Chief, U. S. Weather Bureau. HENRY GANNETT, Esq., NOVEMBER 17, 1908. National Conservation Commission, United States Census Bureau, Washington, D. C. SIR: I have your letter of the 13th instant relative to discrepancies in the estimates of losses by floods in the United States as furnished by the Weather Bureau and by the United States Geological Survey, and beg leave to say in reply thereto that the Weather Bureau can see no reason for modifying the figures given in my letter to you of August 24, 1908. As I understand the situation, Mr. Leighton's figures are based entirely upon estimates, while those of the Weather Bureau are only partially so estimated. The Weather Bureau has 52 different river centers, and after every flood the official in charge of each district by inquiry, correspondence, and personal observation calculates the resulting losses. Of course estimates figure largely, but there is also a large basis of actual facts, whereas, if I correctly understand your letter, Mr. Leighton's figures are based almost entirely upon the assumption that 90 per cent of the flood losses are calculated from estimates regarding the remaining 10 per cent. The figures given by the Weather Bureau may be too low. In fact, we endeavor to be as conservative as possible, and understimated rather than overestimated, but I am inclined to believe that Mr. Leighton's figures are entirely too high, principally for the reason that his primary assumptions were in error. The facts given by Mr. Leighton for the year 1906 may be more nearly correct than ours. The year 1905 was not a flood year, and it is not at all improbable that a number of floods in some of the smaller rivers were not considered in our figures. In any event the total amounts were comparatively small during that year. Very respectfully, WILLIS L. MOORE, Chief, U. S. Weather Bureau. Now, I would like to introduce this letter, dated October 17, 1908: HENRY GANNETT, Esq., National Conservation Commission, Census Bureau, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In reply to question 1, section E, page 31, of the Schedule of Inquires, or bulletin 3, of the National Conservation Commission, which reads, "Are floods increasing; and, if so, why?" I beg leave to say that the Weather Bureau is not prepared to give a definite answer to this question at the present time. A great amount of data has been examined, but a careful inspection thereof reveals nothing upon which to base a positive statement. Perhaps the only fact that stands forth clearly is that floods are entirely dependent upon rainfall distribution. If they have been more than usually frequent during recent years, it was because the precipitation has been more abundant, and there is no reason to believe that a reaction will not occur within a reasonable time. Very respectfully, WILLIS L. MOORE, Chief U. S. Weather Bureau. Just one more thing I would like to introduce, Mr. Chiarman, and then I am through, and would be glad then to take up the answering of inquiries. I am quoting now from the Engineering News under date of October 29, 1908. In this is a translation from a work of M. Ernst Lauda, chief of the Hydrographic Bureau of the Austrian Government. I will say, briefly, that he discussed the floods of the river Danube. He had information of the floods of the Danube for eight hundred years. As the result of the discussion he came to the conclusion that as the forests disappeared in the valley of the Danube the floods had slowly and constantly decreased. I would like to read a little from his paper: For example, it is universally believed that forests have an influence in moderating and preventing floods, and deforestation upon their origin and more frequent occurrence; yet this belief is no better established from a hydrographic standpoint than the entirely unfounded belief that the floods of the past few years in Austria are due to deforestation. Likewise untenable are the frequent assertions that the greater frequency of floods in recent times is the result of artificial interference with stream flow, due to works of river regulation. (3) No doubt the interests of hydrography are indirectly affected by forests through their property of preserving the earth's surface from denudation and the water courses from sediment; and also through the protection of snow masses deposited during the winter from the action of the sun's rays, the wind. and warms rains. I differ entirely with this paragraph, although I shall read it, because I think it is only fair to give a complete idea of what he says These features are enough to warrant the greatest possible development of forestry. Moreover, on account of the slower melting of the snow less water reaches the streams, and consequently less sediment, and in this way only can the washing away of fertile soil and the terrible devastation of civilized regions be successfuly prevented. I would like to make a slight answer to that, which is this: The action of forests is to restrict wind velocity and cause snow to fall gently and spread evenly over the surface. On the very high slopes the low temperature of elevation may preserve the snow and not the forest; as a rule the drifted snow in the open and in ravines lies after the evenly distributed blanket of snow in the forest is gone, except possibly where the cold of elevation retains it, as explained above, and here the forest is usually only a thin scrub growth. As to erosion, I do not hesitate to repeat what I have said before, that it is not an unmixed evil. The great Appalachian Range itself, by the beneficial-I repeat the word "beneficial "-processes of erosion, has been worn down from a height that was at one time possibly greater than that of the Rocky Mountains, and distributed over the lower reaches, where it is now growing fruitful crops. Erosion from the steep mountain sides, taking the humus and the soil off of steep slopes where it is too steep to be cultivated and depositing it on the lower reaches where it will rejuvenate the soil and grow food I do not consider an unmixed evil; and furthermore, erosion from steep mountain slopes must be small in amount as compared with the erosion from the cultivated fields. I will read a few more paragraphs from this paper: (4) But with these benefits the advantages of forests in controlling floods are exhausted. That forests have a certain retentive capacity in holding back the precipitation is evident from the fact of the greater scarcity of the water in the streams in dry seasons after lands have been cleared up. But this beneficial influence, charcteristic of vast forest areas, is local only, and can affect favorably only those valleys in the immediate vicinity of the forests. This retentive capacity does not exercise a decisive influence upon the cause, extent, and nature of high floods, such as have visited Austria and are the subject of our present consideration. Moreover, this capacity is quickly exhausted during great rain storms, when both atmosphere and soil are saturated with moisture. At such times the forests may even increase run-off over what it would be in the same region if free of forests, for in the latter case considerable quantities of water are lost in evaporation, whereas the foliage of the forests retards this process. Mr. LEVER. Just in this connection, do you agree to this statement by the same author in the same paper: The general utility of the forest is so well settled, the extraordinary appreciation in which it is held as a means of protecting the soil against landslides is so firmly established, its great advantageousness, especially for the spring district, in holding back earth thrusts and reducing the amount of sediment carried by rivers so important, that these reasons alone justify fully the greatest possible promotion of forest culture. Professor MOORE. No; I do not agree to that. Mr. LEVER. You do not agree to that? Mr. MOORE. No, sir. Mr. LEVER. I am quoting from the same paper that you were quoting from. Professor MOORE. Yes; I do not agree to that, for this reason, that "the greatest degree of forest culture" is a very broad term, and while there is erosion on limited areas, it is not of such an extent or sufficiently harmful to justify, in my mind, a great expenditure of effort, or time, or money. I would like, if you will permit me, to add just one letter to those which have already been produced, and the reason I ask this is because this is from Mr. Frederick C. Thwaits, one of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin. In this letter he says: I have rarely read a more splendid report. Your reasoning is clear and convincing and your conclusions unassailable. The publication of this report has been a real service to the cause of true conservation. That is all that I have. The letter offered by Professor Moore is here printed in full in the record as follows: [The regents of the University of Wisconsin, office of the secretary, Madison, Wis.] Prof. WILLIS L. MOORE, MILWAUKEE, WIS., February 23, 1910. Chief U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I desire to thank you for the copy of your report on "The influence of forests on climate and on floods," which you so kindly sent me at my request. I have rarely read a more splendid report. Your reasoning is clear and convincing, and your conclusions unassailable. The publication of this report has been a real service to the cause of true conservation. May I contribute to you a bit of information which I recently came upon? It is anent" the recollections of the oldest inhabitant," etc. In reading the biography of Noah Webster. I find that in 1799 he wrote an essay to disprove the then current belief that the winters were growing milder. I have not been able to get the text of the article as yet. I thought this might be of interest to you. FRED C. THWAITS, 405 Iron Block, Milwaukee, Wis. Mr. LEVER. Professor Moore, I would like to ask you just a few questions. Professor MOORE. All right, Mr. Lever. Mr. LEVER. Of course I assume that your report under discussion was written from the standpoint of the scientist, rather than from a standpoint of a statesman, and in that connection I would like to ask what you had in mind in this sentence, on page 3 of your report: In the discussion of matters concerned with the conservation of the natural resources of the nation, some of which may involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars and the employment for years to come of thousands of public officials, a consideration of the relation of forests to climate, floods, and low water is vitally important. Professor MOORE. Precisely. Mr. LEVER. That is not a scientific proposition? Professor MOORE. It shows the necessity of a scientific discussion; yes, sir. Mr. Lever. It shows the necessity of a scientific discussion? Professor MOORE. I think so. Mr. LEVER. Have you ever read the Weeks bill? Professor MOORE. I looked over it a week or so ago. Mr. LEVER. You know, of course, that the amount of money to be expended under the provisions of that bill is stated in positive terms? Professor MOORE. No; I have glanced at it, but I am not concerned in that feature of it at all. Mr. LEVER. Do you happen to know how many officials are now engaged on the 195,000,000 acres of land we now have in forest reservations? Professor MOORE. I do not. Mr. LEVER. Do you think that the addition of a few million acres that we might acquire in the White Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains might very greatly increase the number of employees to the extent of the employment of thousands of folks and the expenditure of millions of dollars? Professor MOORE. I think the inauguration of a programme the object of which is to restrain floods by reforestation and to control climate or rainfall by the same methods must involve, not a reforesting of the small areas of steep mountain slopes and crests, but the lower levels that are now devoted to agriculture, and therefore to have an appreciable effect it must involve the expenditure not of one million or of a few million dollars, but of several hundred million dollars, to become operative. That is my conclusion, reached logically as a scientific man, although I have few data back of that. My opinion might be no better than yours on that; probably not so good. Mr. LEVER. It is probably better. You seem to predicate your conclusion upon the idea that those of us who advocate this forestry policy advocate it because we believe that the maintenance of forests has an effect upon the temperature and climate. Professor MOORE. That is what the forestry people have stated. Mr. LEVER. As a matter of fact, that has never been argued before the committee. Professor MOORE. It has not? Mr. LEVER. No, sir. Professor MOORE. That has been disseminated very largely by the Forestry Bureau through its publicity division and disseminated to the American people in great quantities. Mr. LAMB. We have taken no account of that. We leave that to you scientific men. Mr. HAWLEY. I would like to ask Mr. Lever a question, with Mr. Lever's consent. Mr. LEVER. Yes; certainly. Mr. HAWLEY. In connection with the question that you asked Professor Moore a moment ago, is it to be understood that when the money that is appropriated under the Weeks bill has been expended, that is the end of the policy? Is it not just the beginning? Mr. LEVER. That is a matter that depends entirely upon the action of Congress in the future. Mr. HAWLEY. If it was contemplated that that was the end of the policy, would it not be a different proposition? Would not the policy just begun? Is it not contemplated to acquire vast areas that can not be acquired by the expenditure of $9,000,000? Mr. LEVER. The only thing we can possibly be concerned with would be the getting of such forests as we can get for the amount appropriated in this bill. Mr. HAWLEY. But it must be contemplated that this bill is not the only measure. It would mean a policy, and other bills would fol |