By CHARLES LATHROP PACK

President, American Tree Association

'T IS time to act.

In carrying forward all great human endeavors there is a time for taking thought, a time for formulating plans, and a time for action. Without the last the first two are sterile.

Today we are confronted with the tragic aftermath of one of the most gigantic defeats that engineering science has ever suffered. A great river arising in its angry wrath has broken our man-made levees as a summer's shower carries away the mud toys of a little child. For forty years engineers have told us to put faith in levees. For forty years, in spite of failure after failure, we have put not only faith, but money. Probably we shall have to

The Problem Huge

devote many millions more to this form of river development, but it is folly longer to depend for flood protection on levees alone.

The problem of the Mississippi is far too huge and too inextricably bound up with our national welfare to approach from anything less than a national viewpoint. It is a problem to whose solution we must bring not only the best of engineering skill, but also the best knowledge and scientific attainment in the fields of forestry, range control, and soils management. We have got to formulate a vast, thoroughly correlated scheme wherein the engineer, the forester, and other experts shall give their best toward devising effective means of taming once for all the turbulent Father of Waters.

Here in America, and for the past twenty years especially, there has been a great deal of loose thinking and irresponsible writing about the influence of forests on stream flow. It would be futile for even the most skeptical longer to maintain that a forest cover is without important effect on surface run-off, erosion and the regimen of rivers. Such gross misstatements are amply refuted by history, by scientific investigation, and by common sense.

Among the older nations of the world many a costly lesson has taught both European foresters and engineers that the problem of flood control is a dual problem in which engineering and forest culture must go hand in hand. In the Karst, Greece, Palestine, southern France, and Italy the importance of forests has made itself manifest in unforgettable ways. In the French Alps, in the Swiss Alps, and in the Tyrol, the laborious, painstaking measures to bring back the land to forest speak with sincere eloquence of the importance these countries place on the rôle of trees in flood control. Fundamentally the value of engineering control methods depends upon how well the eroding tributaries are protected by a forest cover.

Already a wealth of forest facts exists pointing to the moderating action of forests on floods and to the deterring effect on erosion. And, after all, it is erosion that furnishes arms and ammunition to flood waters. Not water, but solid matter, is the destructive stuff that floods are made of.

The utility of forests, then, need not be dwelt on here. Solution Others have gone into this field with convincing thoroughof ness. I think it more appropriate at this time to suggest a Problem plan and to make a plea for action. My plea in the first place is for federal and state acquisition of land for forestry purposes, especially in the Appalachian region. A large percentage of the water that flows past New Orleans comes from the combined sources of the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberland Rivers. These three rivers are the chief flood breeders of the Mississippi. All arise among the steep slopes and heavy soils of the Appalachians. From this area enormous quantities of silt are torn annually to add to the volume and destructiveness of the lower river in flood stages. Here, if anywhere, is the region where land should be acquired and put under forest management by the Federal Government and by the states. In this section more than any other, forests can make their greatest contribution as ameliorating factors in flood control. Yet the rate at which land for this purpose is being purchased there is pitifully incommensurate with the need.

At the northern headwaters of the Mississippi the topography is gentle, and the soil more sandy or gravelly. Little silting occurs there and, except for a few localities, little erosion. However, the headwaters of the Mississippi River, with literally innumerable lakes and forested swamps, are the

great natural reservoir of this river. Indiscriminate drainage of the swamps and even of lakes and the destruction of the forests around the lakes tend to destroy this natural reservoir. The northern portions of Minnesota and Wisconsin are but little suitable for agriculture. Here, if the land is protected from fire, nature will keep the source of the Mississippi clothed with forest vegetation. Therefore, fire protection of the forests on the headwaters of the river is essential, both as a measure of flood control and as an economic necessity.

From the western tributaries the lands just east of the Rockies are undergoing a tremendous process of sheet erosion as the result of unrestricted sheep grazing. For this country the solution lies largely in a rational system of range control until forage plants again cover the land and hold the soil in place.

Capable

of

So it is in the Appalachians, and to a somewhat less extent in the Ozarks, that forestry can best contribute its share toward the control of the Mississippi. Today probably less than 2 per cent of these regions receives any form of forest management. FedReturns eral ownership and state ownership is the immediate solution, the first step towards translating these wasting assets, these potential forces of destruction, into acres of perpetual productivity. The need is already established. A scientific personnel to carry on the work already exists. The legislative machinery has been provided. All that remains to complete this program is for Congress to appropriate the money. And the money needed will be but a very modest part of the millions destined for flood control in all its various phases before the last word is said.

It is important, too, that we remember the money so spent must not be looked on in the same light as money for levees or spillways-funds purely and simply spent in flood control and bringing no other return than protection. Even so, it would be worth every cent. But these forests, federal and state, are themselves capable of important monetary returns. As the years pass they should pay back into their treasuries every penny expended acquiring them. They will furnish perpetually renewable sources of wealth to coming generations. And all this they can do while they are fulfilling their great primary purpose of holding the soil in place, reducing erosion, and mitigating the destructive effects of floods.

in