PREVENTIVE MEASURES.
GENERAL DISCUSSION.
In the consideration of means of preventing damages by floods every plan proposed falls under one of two general heads—the storage of flood waters or an increase in the capacity of the streams.
The first plan involves the construction at selected localities of reservoirs of sufficient size to hold all or a greater part of the waters which run over the surface during and after storms. This plan is not practicable except where valleys or plains are inclosed by high ridges and these ridges approach sufficiently near each other to admit of the economical construction of a bank or dam across the gorge or bed of the stream which flows through, so that the inclosure will be complete and form a water-tight basin. Where such a reservoir exists the water can be held back and gradually let down through properly provided gates so that the channel will not be flooded.
For flood purposes alone it would be necessary to provide reservoirs of sufficient capacity to contain the run-off waters resulting from the largest storms. With such provisions it would be necessary to entirely empty the reservoir as soon as possible after a storm had passed and leave its full capacity available for the next storm. It is therefore better, wherever possible, to provide a reservoir capacity considerably larger than that represented by the run-off from the heaviest storms, so that water may be stored for use as power or domestic supply. With such provision it is necessary merely to draw from the reservoir water to a depth equivalent to the stream run-off in the drainage area above.
The second plan for prevention of flood damages involves provisions for letting the flood water out rapidly by removing obstructions to its flow by straightening and deepening the channels and providing long embankments, dikes, or levees which rise above the ordinary river level to a height exceeding that of the stream during its highest floods. This plan is most generally followed in the case of large rivers like
| U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY | WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. VI |
A. DEVASTATION IN HEBREW QUARTER, PATERSON, N. J.
B. A COMMON EXAMPLE OF FLOOD DAMAGE.
| U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY | WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. VII |
A. INUNDATED LANDS AT PASSAIC, N. J.
B. UNDAMAGED BRIDGE ACROSS PASSAIC RIVER AFTER PARTIAL SUBSIDENCE OF FLOOD.
the Mississippi, where the contributing area is enormous and the conservation of the waters would be impracticable even if the nature of the country would admit of the construction of reservoirs. In Switzerland, where the torrents occasioned by the rapidly melting snows are especially destructive, the flood waters are confined by a series of parallel dikes on each side of the river, which have the effect of dividing the flow into several parallel streams. As the main river channel fills and overflows the inner dikes, the overflow water collects into the first series of parallel channels, and when a height is reached at which the second dikes are overflowed the water collects into the third, and so on. This gives an enormous carrying capacity, the limit of which is approached slowly, and therefore abundant opportunity is afforded for preparation upon the part of the riparian owner.
The drainage basin of Passaic River is admirably adapted to the development of the conservation system. At its headwaters in the mountains of northern New Jersey are numerous sites for reservoirs. The comparatively limited area draining into Passaic River makes such a scheme relatively inexpensive. On the other hand there is abundant opportunity for effective work in removing obstructions and straightening and deepening the channel of the lower river. So that, all things considered, the prevention of flood damages in the Passaic Basin can be best accomplished by a combination of the two general methods above outlined.
LOWER VALLEY IMPROVEMENTS.
The channel of Passaic River below Great Falls, at Paterson, is of limited capacity. To anyone making an inspection, especially within the city of Paterson, it is readily apparent that the river bed has for years been considered a legitimate field for encroachment. Owners of lands fronting on the river have increased their holdings by filling in beyond the channel line. Buildings have been erected upon these tracts and the builders have not hesitated to extend retaining walls still farther into the river bed. Refuse from the city's streets, light and unstable in character, has been freely deposited upon the bank to be carried out into the river. Thus the channel has been constricted laterally, the bottom raised, and there is left for the flood waters no alternative than that of extending themselves in the upward direction. It would seem that this, at least, should have been unobstructed. Such, however, is not the case.
The bridges across the Passaic have apparently been erected without reference to channel capacity. The authorities have evidently considered it more important to retain established approach levels than to provide proper capacity for river water. As an example the following instance may be cited: During the flood of 1902 a steel truss bridge across the river in Paterson was carried away. The point of crossing was one of the narrowest places in the stream and it should have been clear to everyone that the space beneath the bridge was not large enough to carry flood waters. It should have been apparent that a new bridge, if erected at that point, must be higher than the old one, to be thoroughly safe. Notwithstanding, the new bridge was erected at the level of the old one, and in addition to this, it was a concrete arch structure, and the great piers and low arch springs reduced the former channel capacity about 15 per cent. This new bridge, as might be expected, collapsed during the October flood.
Along the entire course of the stream in the lower valley we find a continuation of instances of unreasonable encroachment and ill-considered bridge engineering, and there is opportunity for relieving a large part of the purely local obstructions by straightening the channel at chosen points.
Although this matter has not been thoroughly investigated it is readily apparent to one traversing the river bank that considerable relief may be secured in this manner. Damage, however, can not be prevented by this means alone. It would, of course, be possible to erect high and resistant levees along the entire course of the river, but this would be extremely expensive and would destroy the water front for commercial purposes. In fact, such a plan is quite visionary. At the present time there are no obstructions in lower Passaic River the removal of which would give relief in the event of floods like those of 1902 and 1903. When one considers the amount of water which was carried into the lower valley, the heights which it reached, and the area which it inundated, the futility of any local improvement except levee construction is emphasized. The present channel of the river will not carry without damage the amount of water recently thrown into it, and while it is important to provide regulations which will in the future prevent encroachment, and which will correct the evils now present along the channel, these measures can not, operating of themselves, give relief from flood devastation. Immunity from flood destruction in the Passaic must come, if it ever comes, from the construction of flood-catchment reservoirs in the uplands.
It is not necessary to spend any great amount of time in determining the cause of floods upon the Passaic. A review of the flood history of this river shows that in every case floods arise from extraordinary precipitation. High waters occur through the melting of snows and during periods of abundant rain. The heavy floods which have been regarded as extraordinary are clearly the result of unusual conditions of precipitation. The river carries the usual flood waters, and no damage is done until the water poured into it is far beyond its carrying capacity. Therefore the provisions which are made for preventing damage by floods must, if they be effective, be designed to meet extraordinary conditions, and means which would prove effectual in ordinary cases will not stand the test. In order to appreciate the extent of the flood in the lower valley it is necessary to visit the flooded area and observe the points of flood height. Unless one does this he will be very readily deceived when he considers means of flood prevention.
FLOOD CATCHMENT.
Among the highland tributaries of Passaic River there are three principal areas where storage reservoirs for flood catchment may be placed: (1) The Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac drainage basins, from which the waters are carried into the central basin by Pompton River; (2) the Rockaway drainage basin, and (3) the upper Passaic drainage basin. The remaining principal tributary of Passaic River, the Whippany, is not well provided with storage reservoir sites. The combined capacity of catchment reservoirs which could be constructed in these drainage areas is considerably more than the volume of the heaviest known rainfall, that of October 8-11, 1903.
In the description of reservoir possibilities in the following pages the data with reference to many of the basins are computed from planimeter and other measurements, the United States Geological Survey topographic maps being used as a base. The measurements are therefore not of refined accuracy but suffice for the purpose in view—that of showing flood catchment possibilities.
POMPTON RESERVOIR.
There are in the Pompton system several sites on Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac rivers which, if utilized, would afford sufficient storage for flood catchment purposes, but the entire flow of the river system may be conserved in what has been described as the Pompton reservoir. This project was first presented by Mr. C. C. Vermeule in the year 1884, the details being described at some length in the Engineering News, of April 12 of that year, pages 169-171. In this article Mr. Vermeule presented the possibilities of Pompton reservoir for use as an additional water supply for the city of New York, at the time when the Quaker Bridge reservoir on the Croton watershed was being considered. A few pertinent quotations from this article may be of interest:
This basin, subdivided by minor ridges which cross it, furnishes several admirable sites for large storage reservoirs, with catchments from 50 to 400 square miles in area, lying above on the primitive rock of the Highlands. About 6 miles of the northeastern end of the basin is cut off by Hook Mountain, a small ridge of trap which crosses it from east to west, inclosing a basin 21 square miles in area, known as Pompton Plains, having its outlet at Mountain View, 5 miles west of Paterson, at a pass in Hook Mountain, through which the Pompton River flows to join the Passaic, 2 miles below. This pass is the gateway by which the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, the New York and Greenwood Lake Railway, and the Morris Canal enter the plains. The basin is also crossed near its head, above Pompton, by the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad. Pg032
The Pompton River has a drainage area above Mountain View of 420 square miles. It is formed near the head of the basin by the confluence of the Pequanac from the northwest, the Wanaque from the north, and the Ramapo from the northeast. * * *
The entire flow from this watershed may be stored by building a dam across the gap at Mountain View and converting Pompton Plains into a great lake covering an area of 21 square miles. The elevation of the river at the gap is 168 feet. The slopes in the basin being gentle up to an elevation of 220 feet and abrupt beyond it, it will be advisable to take this as the minimum or low-water level of our reservoir. It is generally estimated that 25 per cent of the volume of the mean annual rain on a given catchment is sufficient reservoir capacity to fully utilize the flood flows. We have long series of observations of rainfall at three points, which may be taken to fairly represent the Passaic catchment. At Newark the mean annual rainfall is 46.2 inches, at Paterson, 50 inches, and at Lake Hopatcong, 42. The last being on the Highlands, like most of our watersheds, is perhaps the safest to use. Now, 25 per cent of 42.5 inches, 10.62 inches, which, on 420 square miles, give a volume of 10,362,000,000 cubic feet, the necessary capacity of reservoir.
By raising our reservoir to 240 feet when full we secure a capacity of 10,493,000,000 cubic feet, or ample to utilize the heaviest floods of the watershed. This gives a beautiful sheet of water 21.1 square miles in area, with bold, rocky shores, and a depth at dam of 72 feet. We secure the above capacity by uncovering but 22 per cent of the reservoir bottom; and, as we shall presently see, we shall rarely need more than half this storage, and probably not oftener than once in ten years will we expose over 10 per cent of the area. By building side dams to keep certain flats always flowed this may be reduced to 5 per cent; and this area will be pretty evenly distributed around 36 miles of uninhabited shore line, leaving the reservoir open to no valid sanitary objections. On the contrary, by relieving the remainder of the Passaic Basin of the flood waters of the Pompton, which now flow large areas of flat land during wet seasons, the sanitary condition of the valley would be much improved.
In constructing this reservoir Mr. Vermeule stated that the following work would be necessary:
The removal of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad from the basin by changing the alignment for 6 miles. It may be done without increase of length or detriment to the alignment.
Three and one-fourth miles of the Morris Canal must be rebuilt. No engineering difficulties are involved.
Of the New York and Greenwood Lake Railway, 9 miles would have to be rebuilt.
The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad would be slightly shifted or raised for 3-3/4 miles.
A dam 2,400 feet long and 80 feet in height, with tunnels, wasteweir, and accessory works would be required at Mountain View. The situation is such that an ample wasteweir may be built at a low-side dam on the solid rock of Hook Mountain remote from the dam, and outlets may be had by tunneling the same ridge. Hence the dam may be a plain, heavy earthen embankment; built, of course, with every precaution but subject to less than the usual dangers of such works. However, a masonry dam might readily be substituted.
There would be 14,000 acres of arable land, swamps, and rough mountain land flowed.
The works are estimated to cost as follows:
| Railroad and canal diversions | $505,000 |
| Dam and accessory works | 1,162,000 |
| Land damages | 1,400,000 |
| Total | 3,067,000 |
A recomputation of the drainage area above Mountain View, made by the northern New Jersey flood commission, shows that it is 380 square miles in extent. It was decided by this commission that the construction of this reservoir would be the most approved method of preventing disastrous floods in the lower valley of the Passaic. By raising a dam to a height of 202 feet above tide, 8 inches of water on the drainage area above might be held back, which, it was believed, would be a sufficient maximum for flood catchment. With this amount of storage the estimates of the flood commission showed that the remainder of the drainage area would not turn a sufficient amount of water into the lower valley channel to cause flood damages.
It was also demonstrated by the flood commission that by increasing the height of the dam an opportunity would be afforded for conserving water, and at the maximum height of 220 feet above tide sufficient storage capacity would be available to provide 5,000 horsepower at Little Falls, Great Falls, and Dundee dam throughout all dry seasons. The value of such a storage reservoir for municipal water-supply purposes is self-evident.
The cost of Mountain View reservoir would be about $3,340,000. Developed for flood catchment with the spillway of the dam at 202 feet above sea level the area of the reservoir would be 13.4 square miles, and the storage capacity 7,200,000,000 cubic feet.
RAMAPO SYSTEM.
Along the Ramapo Valley there are alternative propositions, one of which involves the construction of a dam below Darlington and another across the head of Pompton Lake.
In either case the water might be raised to the 300-foot contour, and if the dam across Pompton Lake were constructed a continuous lake would be formed extending 10-1/2 miles to Hillburn, N. Y. The improvement in either case would be positive, for as the country surrounding is hilly or mountainous it affords excellent opportunity for the location of summer homes and parks, the lake being a potent factor in beautifying the situation and increasing the value of the surrounding region. There are, nevertheless, several things to be taken into consideration, the most important of which are the improvements which have been made by wealthy residents along the valley where it has already been developed as a summer resort.
By the construction of a dam at Darlington 1,100 feet long and 70 feet high, the water would be raised to the 300-foot contour. The reservoir would have a water area of 2,064 acres, and the approximate storage capacity of 2,325,000,000 cubic feet.
A dam across the head of Pompton Lake 2,850 feet long and 100 feet high would raise the surface of the proposed lake to the 300-foot contour. This reservoir would have an area of 6.19 square miles and a capacity of 6,300,000,000 cubic feet, equal to 17.5 inches run-off from the drainage area. Here the measure of safety is wide, and if there were drawn from the lake an amount of water equal to 12 inches on the drainage area there would still be 5.5 inches which could be used for compensating purposes.
The construction of either one of the above-described reservoirs would involve interstate complications, as the 300-foot contour in Ramapo Valley includes a considerable part of the State of New York. This obstacle was deemed insurmountable by the northern New Jersey flood commission, and that commission directed studies to a reservoir which at the time of maximum flood would not back water into New York State to a greater height than it already rises during such floods. The following description is taken from the report of the engineering committee of the flood commission:
An admirable dam site is offered on Ramapo River about 2 miles above Oakland village. The drainage area tributary to this point is about 140 square miles in extent, the country for the most part being quick-spilling and upland. By constructing there a dam 700 feet long and 65 feet high a reservoir with a water surface of 2.8 square miles would be afforded, the flow-line elevation being 280 feet above tide. The capacity of such a reservoir would be 1,768,000,000 cubic feet, equal to about 5.5 inches on the drainage area.
WANAQUE SYSTEM.
Near the headwaters of Wanaque River is Greenwood Lake, a large body of water described in Water-Supply Paper No. 88. Its value as a flood catchment basin is somewhat uncertain, as it is used as a storage feeder for Morris Canal. The surface level of this lake is controlled by gates, which naturally are operated by the canal authorities for the benefit of the canal. Therefore it is the object to store as great a volume of water as possible, and the water falls below the dam crest at the outlet of the lake only when the dam opens in dry seasons and makes it necessary. Under such conditions there is no certainty that storage capacity will be available during the time of a great storm, and in fact Greenwood Lake has been overflowing at the commencement of the storms which caused both of the recent floods.
In view of the condition expressed above it will be necessary in providing for flood catchment in the Wanaque drainage area to omit entirely from consideration the possibility of assistance from Greenwood Lake. Below this point in the basin are several sites at which could be raised dams, which would effectually retain a large proportion at least of storm run-off. They may be described as follows:
Midvale reservoir.—By building a dam 60 feet high and 1,200 feet long across Wanaque River near Midvale, a reservoir would be formed which would have a water surface of 2.1 square miles and a capacity of 1,491,000,000 cubic feet. The drainage area above this site is 83 square miles, and the storage capacity would therefore be equal to about 7.7 inches on the drainage area. The construction of this project would involve the relocation of about 4-1/2 miles of the New York and Greenwood Lake Railroad; the damages apart from this would be nominal, the cost of the entire reservoir construction being about $1,000,000.
Ringwood reservoir.—Ringwood Creek runs through a gorge about 1 mile above its confluence with the Wanaque. Above this is a well-defined basin. A dam about 70 feet high and 585 feet long would create a lake having an area of 520 acres, the surface of which would be 380 feet above sea level. The drainage area tributary to this point has an area of about 20 square miles, and as the proposed reservoir would have a capacity of 915,800,000 cubic feet, there could be conserved a run-off of 20 inches. Allowing for a flood run-off of 12 inches there would still be available for compensating purposes 8 inches on the basin, equal to 373,550,000 cubic feet. The construction of this reservoir would involve the relocation of about 2 miles of the Ringwood branch of the New York and Greenwood Lake Railroad, and the condemnation of comparatively valuable improvements in the proposed basin.
West Brook reservoir.—The drainage from 5.7 square miles might be conserved by the erection of a dam on West Brook, a tributary of Wanaque River, which enters it from the west. There is an available site at which a dam 280 feet high might be erected. At this elevation the length along the top would be about 1,150 feet and about 2,330,000,000 cubic feet of water would be impounded. Little benefit would be derived from such a reservoir, as the limited drainage area affords a comparatively small proportion of flood run-off that might be well cared for at a lower point. For compensating purposes, however, a reservoir might be constructed here, the capacity of which could be adjusted to the actual demands. If the dam were raised to a height of about 280 feet from the base the storage afforded would be equal to 176 inches on the watershed, or about four average years of precipitation, which is far beyond all probable storage necessities. The maximum available storage capacity is given in this case merely to show possibilities.
PEQUANAC SYSTEM.
There are few available reservoir sites of large size along the lower reaches of Pequanac River. In the upper basin, however, there is a sufficient available storage capacity to afford almost complete control of destructive floods from that part of the drainage area. Large tracts are already reserved by the city of Newark for collection of municipal supply, and the storage capacity developed is sufficient to serve the city throughout the driest seasons. The total capacity of Clinton, Oakridge, and Canistear reservoirs is about 1,155,000,000 cubic feet. These basins are not available for flood catchment, as the water is used for city purposes and an endeavor is made to have in storage at all times the largest possible amount. The condition is exactly similar to that described in the case of Greenwood Lake. In considering the means for the construction of flood-catchment reservoirs in Pequanac Basin there must be taken into account the conservation and delivery of the Newark supply. The adjustments with reference to the amount of water available at Macopin intake would have to be met, and if the system were interfered with compensation therefore would be taken into consideration.
Newfoundland reservoir.—Pequanac River passes through a deep gorge between Copperas and Kanouse mountains, just below the village of Newfoundland. This point has been considered an excellent site for the construction of a dam, and in the installation of the present water-supply system of Newark it is proposed that the entire valley in which Newfoundland is situated be overflowed. The site is one of the most advantageous known for the creation of a flood-catchment basin. If a dam 50 feet high were erected across this gorge, a lake would be formed which would have a surface area of 3.15 square miles and a capacity of 3,267,200,000 cubic feet, equal to a storage of about 30.5 inches on the 46.12 square miles of contributing drainage area. This would afford complete protection in case of a sudden run-off of 12 inches, would provide for the supply of the city of Newark without greatly disturbing the present storage system of that city, and would still yield a large amount of water for compensating purposes in dry seasons.
The construction of Newfoundland reservoir would be very expensive, as it would involve the flooding of Newfoundland Village, in which there is considerable improved property. About 3 miles of the track of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad would be submerged, as well as a considerable mileage of macadamized highways. On the whole, however, the Newfoundland reservoir project is the most favorable which can be found on the Pequanac Basin. There are above this point numerous reservoir sites, but their combined capacity would not be equal to that of the proposed Newfoundland reservoir, and the construction would be probably quite as expensive.
Stickle Pond reservoir.—Below Newfoundland there are few available places at which water could be stored. Stickle Pond is probably the best adapted of any of those available. If a dam 1,050 feet long and 80 feet high were erected across the river about 1 mile below the present outlet of Stickle Pond, a lake would be formed having a surface area of 422 acres and a storage capacity of about 800,000,000 cubic feet. The drainage area above this dam would be approximately 4 square miles. This is a comparatively small amount of storage, yet it would provide for all flood catchment in that comparatively limited area and would be of assistance at times in compensating the dry flow of the Pequanac.
ROCKAWAY SYSTEM.
Rockaway River offers a greater number of available reservoir sites than either of the other highland tributaries of the Passaic. Some of the reservoirs which could be constructed could be used solely as catchment areas to hold back flood waters, while the capacity of others would be so much greater than any single flood run-off that they might serve also as compensating reservoirs. A large dam is now in process of erection at Old Boonton, conserving a considerable amount for the water for the municipal supply of Jersey City. This reservoir can not be depended upon as a flood-catchment area, as it will be the aim of those in authority to maintain the water in it as high as possible.
Powerville reservoir.—A short distance above Boonton the erection of a comparatively small dam would flood a large, irregular, flat basin having an area of a little more than 4-1/2 square miles and extending up the Rockaway Valley to Rockaway Village, up Beaver Brook to Beech Glen, and north and south for considerable distances. The probable capacity of this reservoir has been estimated, and it is fairly certain that it is considerably more than would be sufficient for flood catchment. Its construction would, moreover, improve the entire valley and be of advantage to many interests.
The northern New Jersey flood commission has selected for investigation a reservoir site on Rockaway River at Powerville. By the erection of a dam across the stream at this point, 28 feet in height and 470 feet long, a reservoir 4.6 square miles in area, with a capacity of 1,565,000,000 cubic feet, would be afforded. The drainage area above this point is 114 square miles. The cost of such a reservoir is estimated at $600,000.
North from Powerville, near the confines of the proposed Powerville reservoir, there is an available reservoir site along Stony Brook. By the erection of a dam 1,100 feet long and 120 feet high a lake would be formed 645 acres in extent, which would serve as a flood-catchment basin and a compensating reservoir. This reservoir would hold approximately 850,000,000 cubic feet. The construction of a reservoir at this place offers no engineering difficulties, and the project may be regarded as extremely favorable.
Dixons Pond, west of Rockaway Valley and northwest of Powerville, is a small sheet of water which lies in a valley which might be flooded to a greater height. By the erection of a dam 450 feet long and 30 feet high a lake of 136 acres would be created, which would form a part of the flood catchment and compensating service.
Longwood Valley reservoir.—A large storage basin is afforded in Longwood Valley which, if developed to its full extent, would extend from a point about a mile below Lower Longwood 7 miles up the headwaters and reach to about 1-1/2 miles above Petersburg. An alternative proposition is afforded which involves the submerging of less than half this area.
A dam 800 feet long and 55 feet high might be erected across a gorge about 1 mile south of Petersburg. There would be formed a lake of about 1.247 square miles, or 800 acres in extent. The hamlet of Petersburg would be submerged, but the damages from the destruction of improved property would not be very great, as the improvements and the land are not especially valuable. This reservoir would have a capacity of about 964,000,000 cubic feet and the surface would be at a height of 800 feet above sea level.
The alternative plan, that of using a longer stretch of the valley for reservoir purposes, would involve the construction about 1 mile below Lower Longwood of a dam 1,300 feet long and 110 feet high. The reservoir thus formed would be 1,900 acres in extent and contain approximately 3,447,000,000 cubic feet. The drainage area above this dam is limited, and if the reservoir were drawn down to an amount equivalent to 15 inches upon the drainage area there would still remain an enormous amount of water which could be used in a compensatory way to tide over dry seasons.
Splitrock Pond.—By erecting a dam 550 feet long and 30 feet high across a gorge at the outlet of Splitrock Pond, a lake could be formed having an area of 625 acres and adding to the present storage capacity of the lake an amount approximately equal to 475,000,000 cubic feet, equivalent to 38.75 inches on the drainage area.
Thus it is seen that if this reservoir were drawn down an amount equivalent to 15 inches on the drainage area, which would without doubt give sufficient protection from all floods, there would still remain a storage capacity of 23.75 inches for compensating purposes in addition to the amount now available in Splitrock Pond. This project is one of the most attractive in the Rockaway Basin, as the damages which would be caused by flooding would be, comparatively speaking, nil. The property is, however, now owned by the East Jersey Water Company, and is prized highly as a reservoir site by that corporation.
UPPER PASSAIC BASIN.
Millington reservoir.—There is an area of swamp land, comprising a part of the drainage area of upper Passaic River above Millington, which is known as Great Passaic Swamp. It is bounded on the south by a long, narrow trap ridge known as Long Hill, the summit of which ranges from 400 to 500 feet in elevation, or roughly 200 feet above the border of this swamp. To the northwest the land rises gradually toward Trowbridge Mountains, while to the northeast is the terminal moraine. The outlet of Passaic River at Millington is by a narrow gorge, which offers natural facilities for the erection of a dam.
The whole situation is exceptionally good, and the surface of a reservoir might be fixed at any elevation between 240 and 300 feet above sea level. With the surface of the reservoir at 300 feet a dam 1,600 feet long and 90 feet high would be required. This lake would have an area of 28.46 square miles. The drainage area above Millington has, however, an area of only 53.6 square miles, and the proposed reservoir would therefore cover more than half of this. Therefore the conservation of so large a quantity of water would not be necessary nor advisable, unless the beautifying of the surrounding country were an object to be taken into consideration, which might be profitable.
A better project, however, would be to construct a dam at Millington 900 feet long and 50 feet high, the crest being about 260 feet above sea level. There would be formed a lake with an area of 19.41 square miles, and a capacity of 1,477,600,000 cubic feet, equal to 9.864 feet on the drainage area. This project is too great for the necessities here presented, and would not be wisely considered unless it were found advantageous to improve the country generally as a place of suburban residence. The land which would be flooded with the reservoir crest at 260 feet is of a wet, swampy character, and its value for agricultural purposes is somewhat doubtful. Such construction would involve the flooding of 13 miles of road, which, however, would not involve a great loss of invested capital, as the roads generally are of a poor character.
A second alternative would involve the construction of a dam across the Millington gorge, 550 feet long and 30 feet high, raising the water to 240 feet above sea level and creating a lake of 14.40 square miles. This would conserve 4,026,000,000 cubic feet, equal to 2.69 feet on the drainage area. This would be ample for flood purposes and would still afford a large impounded area, as the drawing off of an amount equal to 10 or even 15 inches on the watershed would not reduce the size of the lake to any great extent.
The whole project here presented involves few difficulties, and as the drainage area above is of small extent, the mere question of conserving the flood waters could be met without great difficulty. The natural advantages, however, are so great and the land included within Great Passaic Swamp is of so little value that the surrounding country would be improved and beautified by the construction of such a reservoir. The opportunity for varying the character of the reservoir to meet the ideas of those interested seems unexampled, and as a whole it presents an extremely interesting field which may be profitably exploited.
SADDLE RIVER.
This stream has been described in the report on the flood of 1902, already referred to. It contributes a large amount of water to the main artery of the Passaic below Dundee dam, and as the river channel at that point is overburdened under the present conditions because of lack of slope and numerous catchments, together with what is known as the Wallington Bend, it increases very materially the damage caused by floods.
The most effectual remedy in the case of Saddle River floods is that of construction of flood catchments. No studies have been made of the situation in the Saddle River drainage area, but a superficial inspection of the basin shows that opportunities for the construction of flood-catchment reservoirs are not numerous.
SUMMARY OF FLOOD-CATCHMENT PROJECTS.
By following the plans described in the preceding pages absolute flood catchments may be provided above Little Falls on the Passaic Basin for 551.7 square miles, leaving only 221.2 square miles from which flood run-off would flow immediately. The accomplishment of this would involve the construction of Pompton reservoir, which would withhold all flood waters from the northern tributaries. It would leave unprovided for 20.2 square miles on the Rockaway, 71.7 square miles on the Whippany, 46.2 square miles on the upper Passaic, and 83.7 square miles tributary to the Central Basin and not included above.
Leaving Pompton reservoir out of consideration, and conserving flood run-off on the Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac rivers, there would be absolute flood catchment up to a 12-inch run-off over 494.8 square miles above Little Falls. This would leave 278.1 square miles unprovided for, the run-off from which would not overburden the channel in the lower valley, provided, of course, that channel were improved to a maximum carrying capacity.
PREFERABLE RESERVOIR SITES.
The following table and discussion of preferable sites for flood prevention are taken from the report of the engineering committee of the northern New Jersey flood commission:
Table showing detailed facts regarding possible reservoir sites on Passaic drainage basin.
| Reservoir. | Area of watershed. | Area of reservoir. | Height of dam. | Length of dam. | Elevation of flow line. | Storage, watershed. | Storage capacity. | Total cost. |
| Sq. mi. | Sq. mi. | Feet. | Feet. | Feet. | Inches. | Million c.f. | ||
| Ramapo | 140 | 2.8 | 65 | 1,700 | 280 | 5.5 | 1,768 | $900,000 |
| Wanaque | 83 | 2.1 | 60 | 1,200 | 275 | 7.7 | 1,491 | 1,000,000 |
| Newfoundland | 52 | 1.8 | 40 | 430 | 780 | 8 | 966 | 1,800,000 |
| Rockaway | 114 | 4.6 | 28 | 470 | 520 | 6 | 1,565 | 600,000 |
| Millington | 56 | 15.8 | 25 | 220 | 245 | 31 | 4,060 | 370,000 |
| Great Piece | 773 | 37 | 21 | 1,500 | 178.5 | [C]9 | 8,950 | 2,625,000 |
| Mountain View | 380 | 13.4 | 42 | 2,150 | 202 | 8 | 7,200 | 3,340,000 |
| Do..... | 380 | 13.9 | 44 | 2,380 | 204 | 9 | 7,900 | 3,460,000 |
| Do..... | 380 | 14.3 | 46 | 2,470 | 206 | 10 | 8,700 | 3,590,000 |
| Do..... | 380 | 17.4 | 60 | 3,000 | 220 | 17 | 15,000 | 5,260,000 |
With the exception of the Millington reservoir site where the cost of the dam is a small factor, the elevation of flow line in the various reservoirs which determines the capacity was fixed so as to afford an approximate storage equal to a run-off of about 8 inches from the drainage area above each dam site. This amount is somewhat in excess of the run-off for the flood of October, 1903. It was found impracticable on the Rockaway reservoir site to provide for a storage greater than 6 inches. On the Wanaque the amount which can be stored falls slightly under 8 inches, while on the Ramapo it is possible to obtain only 5-1/2 inches, by reason of the fact that with a greater storage capacity the slack water would reach into New York State. The economical height for a dam at the lower end of the Great Piece Meadow, if such dam is provided with fixed discharge openings which will carry a maximum outflow of 12,000 cubic feet per second, will provide a reservoir which will dispose of a run-off of 9 inches on the drainage area above.
The following combinations of reservoir sites, with their respective drainage areas, proportional storage, and estimated costs, give the facts necessary for final deductions:
| Site. | Drainage area. | Water collected. | Equivalent area retarded. | Cost. |
| Square miles. | Inches. | Square miles. | ||
| Ramapo | 140 | 5.5 | 96.25 | $900,000 |
| Wanaque | 83 | 7.7 | 80 | 1,000,000 |
| Pequanac | 52 | 8 | 52 | 1,800,000 |
| Rockaway | 114 | 6 | 85.5 | 600,000 |
| Total | 389 | ..... | 313.75 | 4,300,000 |
| Ramapo | 140 | 5.5 | 96.25 | 900,000 |
| Wanaque | 83 | 7.7 | 80 | 1,000,000 |
| Rockaway | 114 | 6 | 85.5 | 600,000 |
| Millington | 56 | 31 | 56 | 370,000 |
| Total | 393 | ..... | 317.75 | 3,870,000 |
| Great Piece | 773 | 4.5 | 435 | 2,625,000 |
| Mountain View | 380 | 8 | 380 | 3,340,000 |
The necessity to retard the flow of or provide storage for approximately 380 square miles of highland drainage area has been determined after careful study, and there has been deduced an amount which may safely be expected to represent the maximum for the highest floods. When the highland tributaries are sufficiently checked the natural storage on Great Piece Meadow in its effect upon flood control becomes more apparent. Our investigations show that the holding back of the flood flow—that is, 8 inches run-off on approximately 380 square miles of flashy drainage area above Great Piece Meadow—is necessary to reduce the discharge in the river through the city of Paterson to 14,000 cubic feet per second for a flood similar to that of 1903.
From the foregoing table, in which different reservoir projects are compared, it is seen that only the reservoirs designated as Great Piece and Mountain View will fulfill the requirements within a reasonable limit of cost. It is also shown that a combination of any other available sites would involve the expenditure of more money for their construction and the control of less tributary drainage area than is fulfilled by the demands of the Passaic drainage basin. We are therefore brought to the conclusion that only two of the projects above set forth will be effective. First, the construction of a regulating dam on the main stream above Little Falls, which we have called the "Great Piece" Meadow Reservoir, and second, the building of a dam at Mountain View across Pompton River. The relative cost of these reservoirs, constructed for flood control exclusively, is $2,625,000 for that on Great Piece Meadow and $3,340,000 for the Mountain View site. Details of these estimates are as follows:
Estimate of cost of Great Piece Reservoir, dam at Little Falls.
[Elevation of flow line, 178.5 feet. Storage and disposal of 9 inches collected.[D]]
| Earth excavation, 17,600 cubic yards, at 35 cents | $6,160 |
| Rock excavation, 8,800 cubic yards, at $2 | 17,600 |
| Rubble masonry, 29,100 cubic yards, at $5 | 145,500 |
| Ashlar masonry, 1,800 cubic yards, at $12 | 21,600 |
| Facework of rubble masonry, 2,850 square yards, at $1.50 | 4,275 |
| Concrete masonry, 250 cubic yards, at $6 | 1,500 |
| Slope paving, 300 cubic yards, at $2 | 600 |
| 60-inch cast-iron pipe in place, 360 tons, at $35 | 12,600 |
| Relocation of railroads, Erie, 5 miles, at $20,000; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, 4.5 miles, at $40,000 | 280,000 |
| Relocation of highways | 170,000 |
| Real estate: | |
| Above Mountain View | 500,000 |
| Additional for village of Singac | 100,000 |
| 22,000 acres, at $50 | 1,100,000 |
| 2,360,000 | |
| Add for engineering and contingencies | 240,000 |
| 2,600,000 | |
| Protection of pipe lines, Newark and Jersey City | 25,000 |
| 2,625,000 |
The effectiveness of a reservoir built upon the lines proposed in the case of Great Piece Meadow depends upon the adjustment of outflow so that the channel below will not be overborne, while at the same time sufficient storage capacity is afforded to hold temporarily the water which enters above the dam in amount greater than the carrying capacity of the outflow apertures. The dam across Passaic River above Little Falls would be provided with apertures which would discharge 12,000 cubic feet per second under the maximum head in the storage basin. As the flood rises these apertures would discharge a constantly increasing amount of water to the maximum, and for a considerable time thereafter the maximum would be maintained, the discharge decreasing after the flood according to the height of water remaining in the reservoir.
Estimated cost of Mountain View Reservoir.
[Elevation of flow line, 202 feet. Storage of 8 inches on watershed.]
| Earth excavation: | |
| Stripping dam base, 83,500 cubic yards, at $0.30 | $25,050 |
| Core wall trench, 24,900 cubic yards, at $1 | 24,900 |
| Rock excavation, 10,100 cubic yards, at $2 | 20,200 |
| Rock fill in dam, 197,000 cubic yards, at $1.25 | 246,250 |
| Rubble masonry, 23,200 cubic yards, at $5 | 116,000 |
| Concrete, 30,000 cubic yards, at $6 | 180,000 |
| Gate chambers and tunnels | 65,000 |
| Reconstruction of highways | 142,400 |
| Reconstruction of railroads | 815,000 |
| Real estate | 1,360,000 |
| 94,800 | |
| Engineering and contingencies | 325,200 |
| 3,320,000 | |
| Protection of Newark pipe line | 20,000 |
| Total cost | 3,340,000 |
| [Same for elevation of flow line, 204 feet. Storage of 9 inches on watershed.] | |
| Earth excavation: | |
| Stripping dam base, 85,200 cubic yards, at $0.30 | $25,560 |
| Core wall trench, 26,000 cubic yards, at $1 | 26,000 |
| Rock excavation, 10,600 cubic yards, at $2 | 21,200 |
| Rock fill in dam, 214,000 cubic yards, at $1.25 | 267,500 |
| Rubble masonry, 24,500 cubic yards, at $5 | 122,500 |
| Concrete, 30,500 cubic yards, at $6 | 183,000 |
| Gate chambers and tunnels | 65,000 |
| Reconstruction of highways | 142,400 |
| Reconstruction of railroads | 815,000 |
| Real estate | 1,435,000 |
| 3,103,160 | |
| Engineering and contingencies | 336,840 |
| 3,440,000 | |
| Protection of Newark pipe line | 20,000 |
| Total cost | 3,460,000 |
The final recommendation of the committee involves the consideration of two projects for flood storage, one on Great Piece Meadow and the other above Mountain View on the Pompton. In making such recommendations the committee is of the opinion that it must take into account matters of engineering policy with regard to future needs and contingencies, as well as the bare necessities of the present.
If there were none other than the single problem of prevention the committee would advise the construction of the reservoir on Great Piece Meadow by reason of its smaller probable cost and its equal efficiency. It is plain, however, that there are many important features of public policy involved in the subject at hand. Population in the valley of the Passaic is developing so rapidly that in only a few years the present sources of water supply will be inadequate. The whole subject of water supply for northern New Jersey demands immediate consideration, and it would not be wise to take up the matter of prevention of flood damage in the Passaic without basing the value of every project upon its adaptability for use in future water-supply needs.
By expending $2,600,000 a great reservoir could be constructed upon Great Piece Meadow which could not be adapted for any purposes except to regulate floods; it would stand in season and out of season a huge feature of the valley and entirely useless and inoperative save on the occasion of high water. However great might be the needs of the inhabitants of the Passaic Valley for a conserved water supply, the construction on the meadows, representing an enormous expenditure, would furnish no solution of the problem. It would admit of no enlargement for water-supply storage and would be available for no purpose except flood regulation.
When we consider the Mountain View project, however, we find that as a measure for the prevention of flood damages it fulfills all the requirements and provides in addition all the possibilities and advantages demanded inevitably in the near future. The Mountain View site is an ideal one for the reservoir, and its initial development for flood catchment does not involve the expenditure of a dollar that would be lost in the development of the basin to greater capacities for water supply. From its lowest level, at 202 feet above tide, to its maximum capacity, at a level of 220, there would be no depreciation. Every dollar spent in the initial construction would be effective in the maximum development.
The probable cost of Mountain View reservoir, estimated at $3,340,000, exceeds that of Great Piece by $700,000. It is realized that to many persons this margin may seem very wide. Let us consider briefly just what it really represents.
Suppose, for example, that the Great Piece project is constructed at a cost of $2,600,000. After the elapse of a few years it will be necessary to provide additional storage in the Passaic highlands for water supply or the maintenance of water power. The Mountain View reservoir, or its equivalent in capacity and cost, will then be necessary. The situation will then be as follows: By constructing the Great Piece reservoir in preference to the Mountain View for flood catchment, $700,000 would be saved. We can consider that this amount might be expended to pay a part of the cost of additional conservation above referred to. If, on the other hand, Mountain View had been constructed, there would have been paid on the final cost of conservance the sum of $3,340,000, which, as stated in previous pages, would also have effected flood relief. There would then be the difference between $2,600,000 and $700,000, or $1,900,000, which represents the actual loss which would accrue by reason of the construction of Great Piece reservoir.
The engineering committee, after presenting the merits of both Great Piece Meadow and Mountain View projects, therefore recommends the adoption of the latter in spite of its greater cost, because it is believed that in the end the construction of the Great Piece project would involve an expenditure not warranted by public economy or general expediency.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
1. Great floods in the Passaic Basin arise only after a specially violent precipitation.
2. Under present conditions floods may be expected at frequent intervals.
3. A part of the damage along the lower valley is the result of encroachments on the part of individuals and public and private corporations.
4. The channel in the lower valley may be improved at certain points by straightening it and judiciously making cut-offs.
5. Without the construction of numerous levees the lower valley channel can not be made to carry great flood waters without damage.
6. Immunity from floods can be effected only by the construction of catchment reservoirs in the highlands or levees in the lowlands.
7. Levee construction would involve more damage than is now caused by floods, and the cost thereof would be prohibitive.
8. Flood catchment reservoirs may be constructed economically and provide storage to compensate for the dry-season flow, thereby maintaining water power at Paterson, Passaic, and other points, and providing for municipal water supply in the future.
INDEX.
Arch street bridge, Paterson, destruction of; [27]
Beattie's dam, flood flow at; [16-17]
flood period at; [9]
view of; [16]
Bridges, destruction of; [26-27]
Capacity of streams, increase in; [28]
Central Basin, damage in; [24]
flood in, descent of; [14-15]
Charlotteburg, rainfall at;[11,] [12]
Chatham, flood period at; [10]
Chester, rainfall at; [11]
Cranberry Pond, dam at, failure of; [24]
Damages, discussion of; [23-28]
Darlington, reservoir site at; [33]
Dixons Pond, reservoir site at; [37]
Dover, rainfall at; [11,] [12]
Drought, relation of rainfall to; [12]
Dundee dam, flood flow over; [17-22]
flood flow over, diagram showing; [20]
flood period at; [9]
floods at, comparison of, figure showing; [18]
East Jersey Water Company, damage at pumping station of; [25-26]
Elizabeth, rainfall at; [11]
Essex Fells, rainfall at; [11,] [12]
Flood, descent of; [14-22]
period of; [9-10]
prevention of; [28-44]
Flood damage, plates showing; [26,] [28]
Floods, general conclusions concerning; [44-45]
Great Passaic Swamp, reservoir site at; [38-39]
Great Piece reservoir, cost of, estimate of; [42]
Greenwood Lake, use of; [34]
Hanover, rainfall at; [11]
Hebrew quarter, Paterson, devastation in, plate showing; [28]
Highland tributaries, damages along; [23-25]
descent of flood in; [14-15]
Hotel, wreck of, plate showing; [26]
Little Falls, dam at, view of; [16]
damage at; [25-26]
flood flow at; [16-17]
flood period at; [9]
rainfall at; [12]
Longwood Valley, reservoir site in; [37]
Lower Longwood, reservoir site near; [38]
Lower Valley, damage in; [25-28]
improvements in, discussion of; [29-31]
Ludlum Steel and Iron Company, water front of; [24]
Macopin dam, flood flow at; [15-16]
flood period at; [10]
Main street bridge, Paterson, destruction of; [27]
Midvale, proposed reservoir near; [34]
Mill district, Paterson, effects of flood in, plate showing; [26]
Millington, reservoir site near; [38-39], [40]
Mountain View, reservoir site at; [31-33], [40]
Mountain View reservoir, cost of, estimate of; [43]
New York City, rainfall at; [11,] [13]
Newark, rainfall at; [11,] [12,] [13]
Newark water department, information furnished by; [16]
Newell, F. H., letter of transmittal by; [7]
Newfoundland, reservoir site near; [36,] [40]
Nigger Pond, dam at, failure of; [24]
Oakland, reservoir site near; [34]
Obstructions to flow of Passaic River, discussion of; [29-30]
Old Boonton, flood period at; [10]
Passaic, damage at; [27-28]
inundated lands at, plate showing; [28]
Passaic Basin, reservoir sites in upper; [38-39]
storage facilities in, effect of; [11]
Passaic River, bridge over, plate showing; [28]
flood flow of; [17-22]
diagram showing; [20]
flood period on; [10]
floods on, comparison of, diagram showing; [18]
flow of, obstructions to; [29-30]
Passaic Valley, rainfall in; [11,] [12]
Paterson, damage at; [26-27]
flood district of, plate showing; [24]
flood-water lines in residence district of, plate showing; [16]
Hebrew quarter in, devastation in, plate showing; [28]
mill district, effects of flood in, plate showing; [26]
rainfall at; [11,] [12]
residence district, flood-water lines in, plate showing; [16]
views in; [16,] [24,] [26,] [28]
Pequanac Basin, reservoir sites in; [35-36], [40,] [41]
Pequanac River, damage along; [24]
flood flow of; [16]
flood period on; [10]
Petersburg, reservoir site near; [37]
Plainfield, rainfall at; [11]
Pompton Lake, dry bed of, plate showing; [24]
reservoir site at; [33-35]
Pompton Lakes, damage at; [24]
Pompton Lakes dam, plate showing; [24]
Pompton Plains, damage at; [24]
highest water at; [10]
Pompton reservoir, discussion of; [31-33]
Powerville, reservoir site near; [37]
Precipitation, amount of; [11-14]
Prevention of floods, discussion of; [28-45]
Rainfall, amount of; [11-14]
relation of drought to; [12]
Ramapo River, damages along; [23-24]
flood on, time of; [9]
Ramapo Valley, reservoir sites in; [33-34], [40,] [41]
Reservoir sites, comparison of; [40-44]
Reservoirs for preventing floods, discussion of; [28,] [31-40]
Residence district, Paterson, flood-water lines in, plate showing; [16]
Ringwood, rainfall at; [11,] [12]
Ringwood Creek, reservoir site on; [35]
River street, Paterson, view of; [26]
River Vale, rainfall at; [11,] [12]
Rockaway Basin, reservoir sites on; [37-38], [40,] [41]
Rockaway River, flood period on; [10]
Saddle River, reservoir sites on; [39-40]
Sherrerd, M. R., aid by; [15]
Smith, G. W., quoted on changes in channel at Little Falls; [25]
South Orange, rainfall at; [11,] [12]
Splitrock Pond, reservoir site on; [38]
Spruce street, Paterson, washout at, plate showing; [26]
Stickle Pond, proposed reservoir at; [36]
Stony Brook, reservoir site on; [37]
Storage reservoirs for preventing floods, discussion of; [28,] [31-40]
Streams, capacity of, increase in; [28]
Vermeule, C. C., quoted on Pompton reservoir; [31-32]
Wanaque Basin, reservoir sites in; [34-35], [40,] [41]
West Street Bridge, Paterson, destruction of; [26]
West Brook, reservoir site on; [35]
PUBLICATIONS OF UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
The publications of the United States Geological Survey consist of (1) Annual Reports; (2) Monographs; (3) Professional Papers; (4) Bulletins; (5) Mineral Resources; (6) Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers; (7) Topographic Atlas of United States, folios and separate sheets thereof; (8) Geologic Atlas of United States, folios thereof. The classes numbered 2, 7, and 8 are sold at cost of publication; the others are distributed free. A circular giving complete lists may be had on application.
The Bulletins, Professional Papers, and Water-Supply Papers treat of a variety of subjects, and the total number issued is large. They have therefore been classified into the following series: A, Economic geology; B, Descriptive geology; C, Systematic geology and paleontology; D, Petrography and mineralogy; E, Chemistry and physics; F, Geography; G, Miscellaneous; H, Forestry; I, Irrigation; J, Water storage; K, Pumping water; L, Quality of water; M, General hydrographic investigations; N, Water power; O, Underground waters; P, Hydrographic progress reports. The following Water-Supply Papers are out of stock, and can no longer be supplied: Nos. 1-14, 19, 20, 22, 29-33, 46, 57-64. Complete lists of series I to P follow. (WS=Water-Supply Paper; B=Bulletin; PP=Professional Paper.)
Series I—Irrigation.
WS 2. Irrigation near Phoenix, Ariz., by A. P. Davis. 1897. 98 pp., 31 pls. and maps.
WS 5. Irrigation practice on the Great Plains, by E. B. Cowgill. 1897. 39 pp., 11 pls.
WS 9. Irrigation near Greeley, Colo., by David Boyd. 1897. 90 pp., 21 pls.
WS 10. Irrigation in Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, by F. C. Barker. 1898. 51 pp., 11 pls.
WS 13. Irrigation systems in Texas, by W. F. Hutson. 1898. 68 pp., 10 pls.
WS 17. Irrigation near Bakersfield, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1898. 96 pp., 16 pls.
WS 18. Irrigation near Fresno, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1898. 94 pp., 14 pls.
WS 19. Irrigation near Merced, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1899. 59 pp., 11 pls.
WS 23. Water-right problems of Bighorn Mountains, by Elwood Mead. 1899. 62 pp., 7 pls.
WS 32. Water resources of Porto Rico, by H. M. Wilson. 1899. 48 pp., 17 pls. and maps.
WS 43. Conveyance of water in irrigation canals, flumes, and pipes, by Samuel Fortier. 1901. 86 pp., 15 pls.
WS 70. Geology and water resources of the Patrick and Goshen Hole quadrangles, Wyoming, by G. I. Adams. 1902. 50 pp., 11 pls.
WS 71. Irrigation systems of Texas, by T. U. Taylor. 1902. 137 pp., 9 pls.
WS 74. Water resources of the State of Colorado, by A. L. Fellows. 1902. 151 pp., 14 pls.
WS 87. Irrigation in India (second edition), by H. M. Wilson. 1903. 238 pp., 27 pls.
The following papers also relate especially to irrigation: Irrigation in India, by H. M. Wilson, in Twelfth Annual, Pt. II; two papers on irrigation engineering, by H. M. Wilson, in Thirteenth Annual, Pt. III.
Series J—Water Storage.
WS 33. Storage of water on Gila River, Arizona, by J. B. Lippincott. 1900. 98 pp., 33 pls.
WS 40. The Austin dam, by Thomas U. Taylor. 1900. 51 pp., 16 pls.
WS 45. Water storage on Cache Creek, California, by A. E. Chandler. 1901. 48 pp., 10 pls.
WS 46. Physical characteristics of Kern River, California, by F. H. Olmsted, and Reconnaissance of Yuba River, California, by Marsden Manson. 1901. 57 pp., 8 pls.
WS 58. Storage of water on Kings River, California, by J. B. Lippincott. 1902. 100 pp., 32 pls.
WS 68. Water storage in Truckee Basin, California-Nevada, by L. H. Taylor. 1902. 90 pp., 8 pls.
WS 73. Water storage on Salt River, Arizona, by A. P. Davis. 1902. 54 pp., 25 pls.
WS 86. Storage reservoirs of Stony Creek, California, by Burt Cole. 1903. 62 pp., 16 pls.
WS 89. Water resources of Salinas Valley, California, by Homer Hamlin. 1903.—pp., 12 pls.
The following paper also should be noted under this heading: Reservoirs for irrigation, by J. D. Schuyler, in Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV.
Series K—pumping Water.
WS 1. Pumping water for irrigation, by Herbert M. Wilson. 1896. 57 pp., 9 pls.
WS 8. Windmills for irrigation, by E. C. Murphy. 1897. 49 pp., 8 pls.
WS 14. Tests of pumps and water lifts used in irrigation, by O. P. Hood. 1898. 91 pp., 1 pl.
WS 20. Experiments with windmills, by T. O. Perry. 1899. 97 pp., 12 pls.
WS 29. Wells and windmills in Nebraska, by E. H. Barbour. 1899. 85 pp., 27 pls.
WS 41. The windmill; its efficiency and economic use, Pt. I, by E. C. Murphy. 1901. 72 pp., 14 pls.
WS 42. The windmill, Pt. II (continuation of No. 41). 1901. 73-147 pp., 15-16 pls.
WS 91. Natural features and economic development of Sandusky, Maumee, Muskingum, and Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Flynn and M. S. Flynn. 1904.—pp.
Series L—Quality of Water.
WS 3. Sewage irrigation, by G. W. Rafter. 1897. 100 pp., 4 pls.
WS 22. Sewage irrigation, Pt. II, by G. W. Rafter. 1899. 100 pp., 7 pls.
WS 72. Sewage pollution near New York City, by M. O. Leighton. 1902. 75 pp., 8 pls.
WS 76. Flow of rivers near New York City, by H. A. Pressey. 1903. 108 pp., 13 pls.
WS 79. Normal and polluted waters in northeastern United States, by M. O. Leighton. 1903. 192 pp., 15 pls.
Series M—General Hydrographic Investigations.
WS 56. Methods of stream measurement. 1901. 51 pp., 12 pls.
WS 64. Accuracy of stream measurements, by E. C. Murphy. 1902. 99 pp., 4 pls.
WS 76. Observations on the flow of rivers in the vicinity of New York City, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 108 pp., 13 pls.
WS 80. The relation of rainfall to run-off, by G. W. Rafter. 1903. 104 pp.
WS 81. California hydrography, by J. B. Lippincott. 1903. 488 pp., 1 pl.
WS 88. The Passaic flood of 1902, by G. B. Hollister and M. O. Leighton. 1903. 56 pp., 15 pls.
WS 91. Natural features and economic development of the Sandusky, Maumee, Muskingum, and Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Flynn and M. S. Flynn. 1904.—pp.
WS 92. The Passaic flood of 1903, by M. O. Leighton. 1904.—pp., 7 pls.
Series N—Water Power.
WS 24. Water resources of State of New York, Pt. I, by G. W. Rafter. 1899. 92 pp., 13 pls.
WS 25. Water resources of State of New York, Pt. II, by G. W. Rafter. 1899. 100-200 pp., 12 pls.
WS 44. Profiles of rivers, by Henry Gannett. 1901. 100 pp., 11 pls.
WS 62. Hydrography of the Southern Appalachian Mountain region, Pt. I, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 95 pp., 25 pls.
WS 63. Hydrography of the Southern Appalachian Mountain region, Pt. II, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 96-190 pp., 26-44 pls.
WS 69. Water powers of the State of Maine, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 124 pp., 14 pls.
Series O—Underground Waters.
WS 4. A reconnaissance in southeastern Washington, by I. C. Russell. 1897. 96 pp., 7 pls.
WS 6. Underground waters of southwestern Kansas, by Erasmus Haworth. 1897. 65 pp., 12 pls.
WS 7. Seepage waters of northern Utah, by Samuel Fortier. 1897. 50 pp., 3 pls.
WS 12. Underground waters of southeastern Nebraska, by N. H. Darton. 1898. 56 pp., 21 pls.
WS 21. Wells of northern Indiana, by Frank Leverett. 1899. 82 pp., 2 pls.
WS 26. Wells of southern Indiana (continuation of No. 21), by Frank Leverett. 1899. 64 pp.
WS 30. Water resources of the lower peninsula of Michigan, by A. C. Lane. 1899. 97 pp., 7 pls.
WS 31. Lower Michigan mineral waters, by A. C. Lane. 1899. 97 pp., 4 pls.
WS 34. Geology and water resources of a portion of southeastern South Dakota, by J. E. Todd. 1900. 34 pp., 19 pls.
WS 53. Geology and water resources of Nez Perces County, Idaho, Pt. I, by I. C. Russell. 1901. 86 pp., 10 pls.
WS 54. Geology and water resources of Nez Perces County, Idaho, Pt. II, by I. C. Russell. 1901. 87-141 pp.
WS 55. Geology and water resources of a portion of Yakima County, Wash., by G. O. Smith. 1901. 68 pp., 7 pls.
WS 57. Preliminary list of deep borings in the United States, Pt. I, by N. H. Darton. 1902. 60 pp.
WS 59. Development and application of water in southern California, Pt. I, by J. B. Lippincott. 1902. 95 pp., 11 pls.
WS 60. Development and application of water in southern California, Pt. II, by J. B. Lippincott. 1902. 96-140 pp.
WS 61. Preliminary list of deep borings in the United States, Pt. II, by N. H. Darton. 1902. 67 pp.
WS 67. The motions of underground waters, by C. S. Slichter. 1902. 106 pp., 8 pls.
B 199. Geology and water resources of the Snake River Plains of Idaho, by I. C. Russell. 1902. 192 pp., 25 pls.
WS 77. Water resources of Molokai, Hawaiian Islands, by Waldemar Lindgren. 1903. 62 pp., 4 pls.
WS 78. Preliminary report on artesian basins in southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon, by I. C. Russell. 1903. 52 pp., 2 pls.
PP 17. Preliminary report on the geology and water resources of Nebraska west of the one hundred and third meridian, by N. H. Darton. 1903. 69 pp., 43 pls.
WS 90. Geology and water resources of a part of the lower James River Valley, South Dakota, by J. E. Todd and C. M. Hall. 1904.—pp., 23 pls.
The following papers also relate to this subject: Underground waters of Arkansas Valley in eastern Colorado, by G. K. Gilbert, in Seventeenth Annual, Pt. II; Preliminary report on artesian waters of a portion of the Dakotas, by N. H. Darton, in Seventeenth Annual, Pt. II; Water resources of Illinois, by Frank Leverett, in Seventeenth Annual, Pt. II; Water resources of Indiana and Ohio, by Frank Leverett, in Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV; New developments in well boring and irrigation in eastern South Dakota, by N. H. Darton, in Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV; Rock waters of Ohio, by Edward Orton, in Nineteenth Annual, Pt. IV; Artesian well prospects in Atlantic Coastal Plain region, by N. H. Darton, Bulletin No. 138.
Series P—Hydrographic Progress Reports.
Progress reports may be found in the following publications: For 1888-89, Tenth Annual, Pt. II; for 1889-90, Eleventh Annual, Pt. II; for 1890-91, Twelfth Annual, Pt. II; for 1891-92, Thirteenth Annual, Pt. III; for 1893-94, Bulletin No. 131; for 1895, Bulletin No. 140; for 1896, Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV, WS 11; for 1897, Nineteenth Annual, Pt. IV, WS 15, 16; for 1898, Twentieth Annual, Pt. IV, WS 27, 28; for 1899, Twenty-first Annual, Pt. IV, WS 35-39; for 1900, Twenty-second Annual, Pt. IV, WS 47-52; for 1901, WS 65, 66, 76; for 1902, WS 82-85.
Correspondence should be addressed to
The Director,
United States Geological Survey,
Washington, D. C.