Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 147 Series M, General Hydrographic Iimstigations, 15 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIEKCTOB

DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE UNITED 

STATES IN 1904

EDWARD CHARLES MURPHY

AND OTHERS

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1905
Water-Sutrply and Irrigation Paper No. 147 Series M, General Hydrographic Investigations, 15

DEPAKTMENT OF THE INTEEIOE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES D. WALOOTT, DIRECTOR

DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE UNITED 

STATES IN 1904

EDWARD CHARLES MURPHY

AND OTHERS

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1905

CONTENTS.

Page.

Letter of transmittal.___--------_---___--___--_------_---..----_------.-- 9

Introduction. ______.___.______._._____________.____.____-_.___.-----.---- 11

Sacramento River flood, California, from report of S. G. Bennett. _.___.___ 12

Streams and drainage basin ______________._____.__._-_.-.--.___-____- 12

Precipitation ---..--..-----_.__-________.-._----.-----_----.--------- 15

Gage height and discharge -___..____._. _______ ___.___.__-_-----__--- 16

Obstruction of channeL _---______.____.__.___.___..-____------------ 20

Damage ............................................................. 20

Prevention of future damage-..._______._.- ___--_.---_.----------__-- 21

Susquehanna River flood. Pennsylvania, by E. C. Murphy................ 22

Former floods....-------__-_-.._____ .........-...--- ...-.--.--.--.- 32

Streams and drainage basin..........._------.-.-----..--.-.--.--.--. 23

Precipitation _......-..-......--........--..-..--.-.------.._---.---- 25

Ice gorges __________________________________________ ...---.---.-.--- 25

Gage height and discharge -...-...........-..-..--. _-.---._-_--..-... 27

Damage -.-.-.----.-.-.-.----.-._..---.----....--.-.----------..---.- 31

Prevention of future damage- _-...---......---.--.--...--_....-.-..--- 32

Mohawk River flood, New York, from report of R. E. Horton....._-...--. . 32

Streams and drainage basin ... ..............I....-----..,------..-.- 32

Precipitation and temperature........ ..^.........-...-........^-.... 33

Discharges ................._. _ ..............^..-....-............. 35

Damage .-__.-..._..-...-._____.. .f .______.___........._^......... 40

Grand'River flood. Michigan, from report of R. E. Horton....._.--...-.., 40

Streams and drainage basin ......... ..._..._.._..-_-__-------_._..__ 40

Precipitation and temperature._..__..........-...--.-_...-.-....--_-- 41

Gage height and discharge -----.....-...--..-..-... .....-------..-.-- 42

Damage ..^...................^,..................................... 44

Prevention of future damage.................-..-..-.--_-.-.---..---- 44

Wabash River flood, Indiana, by F. W. Hanna ...--..-...---.-.-.--..-.-. 45

Streams and drainage basin .-......--...--.--.--.-.--.._-.--...---.-- 45

Precipitation ..-....-....................-..-_..--.-._---..-.- .___. 46

Gage height.--...---...-_..---..-._..--.-.----..-.-..----.-----..-.. 47

Damage -....-.....--...--..--........-.-.-----.-_-.--.--.-..---..---- 49

Prevention of future damage...-..-.-.... . r ....-...-..--...----..---- 52

Belle Fourche River flood. South Dakota, from report of R. F. Walter..__ 55

Streams and drainage basin ........-._.-.--.-.-..--..----.....- ...... 55

Precipitation --..--...--_...-.-...-....----..---...------------.-..-- 56

Gage height and discharge ...................-----.-._...-..---..---. 56

Damage .....-.-..---. ---...--........-.-_.--.----.-.------. .___..-. 58

3
4 CONTENTS.

Page.

Kansas floods, by E. C. Murphy...__._______-._-.......---....--.-----_.. 59

Precipitation --_-._-...__-__._ -__-__.-_--_--__.-_.-._.-----_--_--_-- 59

Kansas River flood .___..___.___________.._ .__..--.---..-----------.. 61

General statement -...-_--.-..--. __-.-_--__--_.--.--------_--_-- 61

Flood near Kansas City _-_.___-.-_.___--_---__---.---------.----- 61

Gage height and discharge --.-----------_--_---..------.----- 62

Necessary waterway ____...__._.__-_____-__--------_-_.-__-- 64

Recommendations of board of army engineers _.-___-------.-_ 65

Flood near Lawrence .__..__...-..----.--_-.- .................... 66

Flood near Lecompton___._.__. ________....-__--_--___-._.-..-- 66

Grage height and discharge _-.-.-----..------------. __-._--__. 66

Necessary waterway.___-.___-___-__..____..-._--_--_--_--_-- 68

Floods near Topeka._--_-._-.._---._--..---_...--._---------_---- 70

Gfage height - ....-.__-__-__-______-__-__-__-----_---------.- 70

Obstructions in channel --.--..-.-.-_----------.--.------_--..- '71

Flood near Manhattan ....__-._-__.._. ........................... 73

Flood near Junction ___________._.__..______..._. ............... 73

Flood near Solomon....... ......--..-.-...-.._-......-..--..---. 74

Comparison of floods of 1903 and 1904 ..............^............. 75

Damage .____----_.._,-.._.....-..--.--__.._.. ..........-..-...-- 76

Prevention of future damage... -...--..--...---....--..----..--..- 77

Neosho River floods .__._.____ ...................................... 78

Streams and drainage basin ______.__.______.--...--,-_-_..__.--.. 78

Discharge and run-off ............................................ 81

Flood near lola......................... .._.-..._..-.__-._-.--. 85

Flood near Humboldt. -..-..... -.-._..-..----.-..---..----.--.. 87

Flood near Neosho Rapids .............. . ......... j............ 89

Flood near Emporia _.-__._.._...--_ ._ . ....................... 90

Flood near Chanute.. ..__----.-------------.......-.--.----.-.-- 91

Flood near Fort Gfibson .....'............................... ..... 91

Levees of Neosho County ____-____-__-_..__.__-._-__.. .......... 92

Necessary width of channel,. _-__-__-__-___-.-..------__._--_._-_- 93

Damage......... ............_......_........................... 94

Prevention of future damage _._._____ _ _____.._.__..-.._....._._- 94

Verdigris River floods __-__..___..__ _.._.-................. ...... .. ' 94

Streams and drainage basin.__.____.___.----___-_-.__-__-.-_____ 94

Discharge and run-off.._____-.______ _.......................... 96

Floods near Independence -..------_------.-------.----....-.---. 101

Flood on the lower Verdigris..-.---------------.. ._.__-_.. ...... 103

Flood in lower Fall River Valley ..--.-_----.-. .__ ^ _._____.._.__ 104

Necessary width of channel of Verdigris River ..__.__ _........... 105

Damage ..-..--.-..-.. ......__.-_.--.---.-..-_--.-_._-..__._.._ _ 106

Osage River floods.-----_.-._.-..--.-...--.---....-..----..-.---.---- 106

Stream and drainage basin-.--.--.-..---...-.....--.-..--..-...-. 106

Gage height and discharge __________.-_____.____.._.-_.-__--_-.__ 106

Damage -..-..-.--....-..-..__.--.....-..--.-.---.---.........--- 108

Prevention of future damage -_-__-__--_-----_-----_-----_-.-- _. 109

Arkansas River floods .......... .....---..-.-----....-..-............ 109

Gage height and discharge ........ -..._....--.----...-....-....- 109

Flood near Arkansas City..........._............................. 110

Flood near Wichita _....._.,......__._..-_.-_.-_....._-...._.-_. Ill

Flood on Walnut River...-......_... ....-....-.......-........ 112
CONTENTS. 5

Page.

Pennsylvania floods, by E. C. Murphy.-. ^................................ 113

Johnstown flood ----_.._._._--._______. .... ____._____-___-_-_-----._. 113

Robinson Run flood.....-__._ ________._-.___-- ---------- __.__ -.___. 114

Troxton Canyon flood, Arizona, by E. C. Murphy. ______ -_.__.---__--_-.. 115

Globe flood, Arizona, by O. T. Reedy...._____.._____.-.___-...__--.--_--- 118

Canadian River basin flood, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Indian Territory,

from report of Frank S. Dobson and George B. Monk. ------ 120

Streams and drainage basin_-____________.___-__-_-_-__.------_.----- 121

Precipitation ..--_-._. __-.--.______________.___--.-_-_._____----.___ 123

Flood on Canadian River _.__________._____.._______.____--..._----__ 124

Flood on UteCreek... ______...______.___._..____......_____..-.-.__-. 125

Flood on Sapello River....-...-____.__._-..___-._ ................... 126

Flood on Rio Mora.-..___________--______._.__--------. .....-.---..- 127

Obstruction of streams......---..........-.........-....-.....-..---- 128

Damage. _.-.-_--_--_.___._-.. ....................................... 128

Pecos River basin flood, New Mexico, from report of Frank S. Dobsoii .... 130

Streams and drainage basin..................................... .... 130

Precipitation _____-._____________.._________.._.______._______--__---- 131

Flood on the Pecos................................ ..-.-.-..-.-.-..--.. 133

Flood on Gallinas River -____--..-.__..____-______--___.-----.-_--- 138

Flood on Hondo River ___---___._________._.____.-___._.--..._-___--. 139

Damage ^ .................. __._______.___.__.____..__.____--....___. 140

Prevention of future damage.............._...................._....- 141

Failures of Lake Avaloii dam near Carlsbad, N. Mex., by E. C. Murphy.... 141

Rio Grande floods, New Mexico, by E. C. Murphy ........................ 143

Precipitation ----..____._-.-..__.__.__.__-.__.__-.---.__---_-----_-.- 143

Flood in southern New Mexico. ....\...............^................. 143

Flood in northern and central New Mexico ....----.-.-__.-_---_--_.-- 148

. Damage ........................... ____.___._.________.___._--..__.. 149

Floods in the Denver district, by M. C. Hinderlider and assistants......... 150

Review of year _.__-_______._______._.._.____._____.-_______----____. 150

Introduction.......__....-..........__._.... .................... 150

Flood stations .........................................._..-...-.. 151

Cause of floods..._.._..._..... ......-......_----....---.--_-...- 152

Damage.......... .._.._........................................ 153

Prevention of future damage........................--_--.-.----. 153

Cache la Poudre River and Crow Creek flood ______.-.____....----.-.- 154

Precipitation.-..........._._..._....._____......_...___---...._. 154

Flood on Cache la Poudre River. __.____.._--.----.._-_.---_----_- 155

Flood on Crow Creek ........_._......................-..... .... 156

Purgatory River flood, by R. I. Meeker.---.-.-...---..----.-----.-.-- 158

Stream and drainage basin...................- -.........---,..-. 158

Precipitation ._........................................-----..... 160

Flood on the Purgatory proper......___...__.----__.--._.----_-.. 161

Flood near Trinidad __.______................................ 161

Flood below Trinidad...................._-.-__..-.___--.._.. 164

Purgatory flood on the Arkansas. ................................ 165

In Colorado........---.................--..--.-.---------...-- 165

In Kansas .......................................j,........... 168

Damage ...._..______...____.___._ ..................... ..... 169

La Plata River flood, Colorado, from report of Theo. Tobish........... 169
6 CONTENTS.

Page.

Floods due to failure of dams and reservoir walls, by E. C. Murphy. ...... 172

General statement----.----......._.---..--...----.----.-.---...__-.. 172

Scottdale flood....................................................... 172

Drought in Ohio River drainage basin, by E. C. Murphy.................. 173

Introduction .-.__._-_-__--._________--_-_____-.,------_----._ ..... 173

Streams and drainage basin __.. .-__..____._--------.----.--_._. -..._. 173

Precipitation.....-._....-................-... .-.--.---......----... 174

Run-off and discharge................................................ 177

Some effects of the drought. _........................................ 181

A method of computing cross-section area of waterways, by E. C. Murphy, 183

Factors determining maximum discharge- -------------.--.......-...- 183

Maximum rate of discharge of various streams ..-__.--............---. 184

Formulas for maximum discharge and area of cross section........... 189

General summary.....---...................--.---.._---.--.......--.--. 192

Index....-........-..-----...--.......-....--.------...-----...-...--.-. 195
ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page. 

PLATE I. Drainage basin of Sacramento River ................... ........ 13

II. Flood of March 8, 1904, on Susquehanna River at Yorkhaven.

Pa., at its height----.---------.----------------.-.----------- 22

III. Ice gorge of 1875 on Susqnehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa...... 24

IV. .B, Damage to Chicago and Northwestern Railway along Whitewood Creek, South Dakota; A, Missouri Pacific and Union Pacific railway bridges over Kansas River at Kansas City during 

floodof 1904......... . _.___._...____ .. . .................. 60

V. Kansas City, showing area flooded in 1903 and 1904 _._-.----.__. 64

VI. A, Channel scoured by Kansas River around the abutment of the 

Melan bridge, Topeka, Kans.; B, Ruins of Denver and Rio 

Grande Railway bridge, Trinidad, Colo __._____-__-..- ...____ 72

VII. A, Flood in Neosho River at highway bridge at Humboldt, Kans.; 

B, Overflow of right bank of Neosho River at highway bridge 

atHumboldt, Kans--..___-__..___.._.____-------.- .......... 88

VIII. View showing effect of flood on abutments and bridge No. 604,

Santa Fe Railway, Troxton Canyon. ___. .....---.-------.--.. 116

IX. Drainage basin and profile of Canadian River _______.._......... 120

X. Drainage basin and profile of Pecos River _ _______-__-__-.__ .... 130

XI. A, Dam on Pecos River at Carlsbad, N. Mex., before the flood of 

October, 1904; B, Dam at Carlsbad, N. Mex., after the flood of 

October, 1904........................................ . ....... 134

XII. Flood at dam on Pecos River at Carlsbad, N. Mex., October, 1904_ 134

XIII. Flume of Barstow Irrigation Company, Pecos River, Texas, carried away by flood October 5, 1904..__.__ _--_.-----.---_.--.__ 136

XIV. A and B, Destruction caused by flood on Purgatory River at

Trinidad, Colo....________________________ ........ ........... 163

XV. A, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway station at Trinidad, 

Colo., after flood of September, 1904; B, View showing failure 

of dam near Scottdale, Pa ...... .......... .._....---...-._.. 162

XVI. Erosion of banks of Purgatory River, Trinidad, Colo ............ 164

XVII. Drainage basin of Ohio River................................... 174

XVIII. Big Sandy River, near mouth, showing extreme low-water conditions in November, 1904 .----_______________._---------..--.-- 183

FIG. 1. Drainage basin of Susquehanna River ._.____.-------.._-__ ...... 23

2. Drainage basin and profile of Mohawk River._.._.__......_..._... 34

3. Drainage basin and profile of Grand River, Michigan .....-.....__ 41

4. Drainage basin of Wabash River _..___......._.._-____.--._--.... 45

5. Part of Black Hills drainage ___.......___.. .____---.--._____-__._ 55

6. Flood discharge of Kansas River at Lecompton, Kans., in 1903,1903,

and!904..___ ................ ................................ 63

7. Cross section of Kansas River at Melan arch bridge, Topeka, Kans_ 73

8. Kansas River and flooded area in vicinity of Topeka, Kans --...... 73

7
8 ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page. 

FIG. 9. Drainage basins of southeastern Kansas ______-____...-..-.__._-___ 80

10. Erosion of bank of Big Sandy Creek and relocation of Santa Fe Railway, Troxton Canyon, Arizona ________________________ ______ 116

11. Design of east abutment of bridge No. 604, Santa Fe Railway,

Troxton Canyon. Arizona ._________________-______-------_ _... 117

12. Upper portion of drainage basin of Canadian River .,.....-...--... 121

13. Drainage basin of the Rio Grande ___._______..-..__.._...__-.__._. 147

14. Drainage basins of Cache la Poudre River and Crow Creek ________ 155

15. Drainage basin of Purgatory River _____________________________ 159

16. Area overflowed and area eroded at Trinidad, Colo., by Purgatory

River flood.-..---__,_-. _____________________________________ 163

17. Drainage basin of La Plata River and area of heaviest rainfall on

Octobers, 1904__________________________________ _____________ 170

18. Curve showing mean annual precipitation at three places in the

Ohio River drainage basin from 1880 to 1904 _______ _______ 174

19. Curve showing relation between size of drainage basin and run-off

per square mile .._.-________._____-_- __._._ ________________ 187
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

DIVISION OF HYDROGRAPHY, 

Washington, D. C., April 10,1905.

SIR : I transmit herewith a manuscript, prepared by E. C. Murphy, 

entitled " Destructive Floods in the United States in 1904," and 

request that it be published as a water-supply paper.

The value of property along the streams of this country is rapidly 

increasing and data on the flood flow of streams and means of preventing overflow are of increasing interest and value.

Data on the other extreme of stream flow are also of increasing 

interest and value, as droughts affect not only the agriculture and 

navigation interests of the country, but also, to a considerable extent, 

its manufacturing and transportation interests. 

Very respectfully,

F. H. NEWELL,

Chief Engineer. 

Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT,

Director United States Geological Survey.

9

DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE UNITED STATES

IN 1904.

By E. C. MURPHY and others.

INTRODUCTION.

Destructive floods occurred on several streams of the United 

States during the year 1904, mainly on the smaller streams in the 

western part of the country. The loss of property caused by these 

floods, while large in the aggregate, is small compared with flood 

losses of some previous years.

The first in chronologic order in the list of destructive floods of 

1904 is that on Sacramento River in California, which occurred in 

February and which was the most destructive in the records of that 

stream. In March occurred the flood on Susquehanna River, due 

mainly to ice gorges; the flood of Mohawk River in New York 

and that of Grand River in Michigan, due mainly to the rapid melting of snow; and the flood on Wabash River, due mainly to rainfall. 

In May very heavy rains in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming caused a flood on Cache la Poudre River and Crow Creek, which 

resulted in the loss of considerable property along them. In the 

early part of June the Belle Fourche and other streams on the northern slope of the Black Hills were in destructive flood. In the latter 

part of June and the early part of July continued heavy rain caused 

the rivers in southeastern Kansas to be higher than ever known before 

and to cause much damage. Several cloud-bursts occurred in this 

month, causing local floods in western Pennsylvania and western 

Arizona. The Johnstown, Pa., and the Troxton Canyon, Arizona, 

floods are examples of these. Very heavy precipitation during the 

latter part of September and the early part of October in southern 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas caused floods of unprecedented 

magnitude on Purgatory, Canadian, Pecos, and other streams of that 

region.

After these floods in the western part of the country there was a 

severe drought in the eastern part. This was felt most keenly in the 

upper part of the Ohio drainage basin and to a lesser extent in the 

Southern and New England States. This drought is briefly described in this paper.

11
12 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

The United States Geological Survey has carried on a study of 

the water resources of the country for the past seventeen years, and 

there is now available for the use of engineers and others interested 

a large mass of data bearing on the seasonal flow of the principal 

streams of the country. In this paper that part of these data which 

bears on the maximum rate of run-off of streams is brought together 

and a method is given for the determination of the waterway area of 

streams.

The writer acknowledges his indebtedness for data used in the 

preparation of this paper to Mr. F. H. Newell, chief engineer of the 

Reclamation Service and hydrographer in charge of stream-gaging 

work; Messrs. J. B. Lippincott, B. M. Hall, A. L. Fellows, M. C. 

Hinderlider, W. M. Reed, G. H. Matthes, and R. E. Horton, in 

charge of the districts in which the floods described in this paper 

have occurred; and especially to S. G. Bennett, Raymond F. Walter, 

F. W. Hanna, J. C. Hoyt, James A. Armstrong, A. J. Parshall, R. I. 

Meeker, George B. Monk, W. G. Russell, Frank S. Dobson, and

T. Tobish.

t 

SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD, CALIFORNIA.«

From February 15 to the end of March, 1904, occurred the most 

destructive flood, as far as property was concerned, in the recorded 

history of Sacramento. The greatest known flood occurred fortyodd years before, in January, 1862, and was due to rainfall, the precipitation in December, 1861, and January, 1862, just prior to it 

having been 23.62 inches. This flood filled the entire flood plain, 

and was not limited, as was the later one, by the reclamation of large 

tracts of bottom land, nor was the channel below the mouth of 

Feather River then filled with mining debris as it is now.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Sacramento River rises in the northern part of California, flows in 

a general southerly direction for about 260 miles and empties into 

Suisun Bay. Its chief tributaries are Pitt, McCloud, Feather, and 

American rivers, entering from the east, and Cache, Putah, and 

Stony creeks, entering from the west. These streams and the 

location of the gaging and precipitation stations in this basin are 

shown in PI. I.

Between the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range of mountains 

lies what is called the Great Valley of California, having a length 

of about 400 miles and a width varying from a few miles to 80 miles, 

the average width being 40 miles. It has a gentle slope, being practically an unbroken plain, with an area of about 15,700 square miles.

a Prepared from report of S. G. Bennett, engineer.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. I

EXPLANATION

LANDS FLOODED IN 1904

SCALE 

10 0 10 [ 30 50 MILES

Dunsmuii

DRA1NAGE BASIN OF SACRAMENTO RIVER.
SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD, CALIFORNIA. 13

The northern portion of this valley is drained by the Sacramento; 

the southern part by the San Joaquin Kiver.

What is commonly known as Sacramento Valley extends .only as 

far north as Iron Canyon, 4 miles beyond Ked Bluff. The part of, 

the drainage basin above this canyon is very different in topography 

from that below it, being mainly hilly and mountainous, with steep 

slopes and rapid run-off, while the valley below this canyon has a 

remarkably uniform slope. At Eed Bluff the elevation is about 300 

feet above sea level, near Colusa it is 50 feet above sea level, and at 

Sacramento it is 11 feet that is, from Eed Bluff to Colusa there is a 

fall of 250 feet in 65 miles, and from Colusa to Sacramento there is a 

fall of 39 feet in 50 miles. The area of Sacramento Valley is about 

4,250 square miles, 2,510 square miles being high plains or hilly land, 

not subject to overflow, 450 square miles subject to occasional overflow, 1,254 square miles naturally subject to overflow, and 38 square 

miles constituting the surfaces of perennial streams.

Sacramento Valley below the mouth of Stony Creek is a typical 

flood plain, the river banks being from 5 to 20 feet higher than the 

land on either side of the channel. The lowlands on each side subject 

to overflow are known as flood basins. They are connected with the 

river by old river channels, known as sloughs, through which the water 

enters the basins at ordinary and high stages. During flood stages 

the river overflows both banks, as the channel capacity in some places 

is only about one-third that of the flood plain of the river.

Butte basin lies on the east side of Sacramento Eiver and northwest of the Sutter Buttes. At flood stages the water in this basin 

covers an area of from 30 to 150 square miles, and has a volume of 

from 115,000 to 460,000 acre-feet. It receives water from the river, 

from creeks, and during great floods from Feather Eiver, and discharges into Sutter basin.

Sutter basin lies south of the Sutter Buttes, between Sacramento 

and Feather rivers. In time of flood the water surface has an area 

of 138 square miles, and the basin has a maximum capacity of 895,000 

acre-feet. This basin discharges into Sacramento and Feather rivers 

near the mouth of the latter.

Colusa basin lies west of Sacramento Eiver, and is bounded on the 

south by a ridge of debris brought down by Cache Creek. It is about 

50 miles long and from 2 to 7 miles wide, and has a capacity at ordinary stages of 690,000 acre-feet. It drains into Sacramento Eiver 

above Knights Landing.

American basin extends from American Eiver to a point about 9 

miles above the mouth of Feather Eiver. It has an area of about 110 

square miles, and contains at ordinary flood stages 345,000 acre-feet, 

its maximum capacity being approximately 575,000 acre-feet. It 

receives the water which escapes through breaks iti the east banks of
14 DESTBUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Sacramento and Feather rivers, through the south-side levees of Bear 

River, and from the Sierra Nevada footllills between American and 

Bear risers.

Sacramento basin is a long, narrow depression, east of Sacramento 

River and south of the city of Sacramento. It has been protected for 

a number of years from overflow by levees.

Yolo basin lies on the west side of Sacramento River below Knights 

Landing. It is the largest of the flood basins, and has a length of 40 

miles and an average width of 7 miles. During floods it contains 

about 1,150,000 acre-feet of water. It is a by-pass for the excess 

flood water of the Sacramento. An outlet through Cache Slough, 

which enters the main river at the foot of Grand Island, discharges 

at times more than double as much as the main river. The effect of 

this body of water, which stands at the same elevation as the river, 

is to increase the high-water stage near the foot of Grand Island if the 

basin receives a large volume of water suddenly through a break in 

the west side of the levees. Much damage has been caused to the 

reclamation work on the delta island on this account.

The total approximate storage capacity of these basins, not including the Sacramento basin, is 3,800,000 acre-feet.

The Sacramento below Red Bluff flows in a channel that is in 

places raised above the surface of the country on either side. The 

banks are low and there are sloughs that lead the water into the overflow basins. The slope of the channel is small, so that the flow is 

sluggish. The channel cross section is much smaller than that of the 

flood flow, so that the river sometimes overflows its banks and floods 

the country for many miles on each side. The river was formerly 

navigable to Red Bluff, and there was a rise and fall of the tides at 

Sacramento of 2 feet in 1860. Now the tidal effect is not felt at 

Sacramento and the bed of the river there is higher than the surface 

of low water some years ago.

Feather River breaks through the foothills into Sacramento Valley at Oroville. Its mountain drainage is fan shaped and the water 

collected when rains are general sometimes causes tremendous freshets 

of short duration. The river has at such times overflowed its right 

bank and submerged the relatively high-plain lands northwest of the 

Sutter Buttes.

There has been a great change in the channel of this river in recent 

years. In 1849 it was a clear-water stream falling over bars of gravel 

and cobbles lying between well-defined banks to its junction with 

Yuba River. Tidal influence extended for some distance up the 

river. The bottom lands along Yuba and Feather rivers in their 

original condition were inundated only at times of extraordinary 

floods. Now Feather River below Yuba River has become the repository of so much mining debris that its channel has been nearly filled,
MUKPHY AND "I 

OTHERS. J

SACRAMENTO KIVER FLOOD, CALIFORNIA. 15

its bottom being nearly at the height of its former banks. The water 

plain at Marysville at low stage of Yuba and Feather rivers is now 

at least 15 feet higher than it was in 1849.

Feather and Yuba rivers were once navigable streams. Up to 

1862 the Yuba was navigable all the year for ships and boats drawing from 9 to 10 feet of water, and during the entire season deepwater ships and steamers from around Cape Horn navigated to 

Marysville. At the present time the channel of Yuba River is entirely filled with mining debris and Feather River is practically 

unnavigable.

PRECIPITATION.

The monthly precipitation at 14 places in the Sacramento River 

drainage basin for the seasonal year 1903-4 is given in the table 

below, which shows clearly the -excessive precipitation at all stations of high elevation in this watershed during February and 

March, 1904. The records for Red Bluff and Sacramento are taken 

as typical of the precipitation of the Sacramento Valley. Fifty per 

cent or more of the total yearly precipitation fell during these two 

months, the rainfall being from 100 to 250 per cent above the normal. 

The precipitation was 7.37 inches at Mount St. Helena on March 17 

and 6.58 inches at Mount Shasta on March 15 and was 2 or more 

inches daily at several places. Some of this precipitation fell as 

snow and did not at once find its way into the streams as run-off; 

otherwise the resulting flood would have been much larger than it 

was.

Monthly precipitation at certain points in the watershed of Sacramento River, 

California, for the season 1903-4-

Basin and station.

Upper Sacramento:

Dunsmuirn.--

Johns Camp «.

Feather:

Quincy « . ..... 

Butte Valley o

Yuba:

Laportea .. ...

Bowman

American:

Georgetown a.

Cache Creek:

Lakeport 

(near) e .,...

Sept.

0.00

.17

.00

.38

.40

00

.00

T.

.00

Oct.

2.27 

2.05

5.06

1.53

3.50

4.03

1 00

1.39

.36

Nov.

16.94

19.67

21.85

14.08 

15.90

27.64

31.27

16.90

17.71

5.29

Dec.

5.84 

4.78

4.85

3.72 

5.50

6.46

6.19

3.80

2.07

3.18

Jan.

5.03 

2.79

4.50

2.46 

4.20

4.48

5 37

5.20

4.79

1.40

Feb.

24.00 

24.86

19.73

22.10 

22.90

90.35

45.61

30.80

36.02

8.78

Mar.

32.90 

16.37

27.36

10.83 

23.10

31.66

39.51

36.87

21.17

7.74

Apr.

4.33

7.84

10.90

1.97 

6.65

7.63

8.52

5 20

5.52

2.17

May.

0.00 

.07

.00

.74 

.65

.98

1.37

.80

.81

.00

June.

0.00 

.00

.00

T. 

T.

.24

.15

T.

.00

July.

0.00 

.04

.00

.05 

.70

.10

.20

.00

.00

.00

Aug.

0.00 

.00

.00

.12

.90

.58

.11

.50

.05

.00

Total.

81.31 

78.64

94.15

57.95

679.50

114.02

142.33

90.07

79.53

28.92

" Authority of United States Weather Bureau. 

6 The period ; year incomplete. <, 

" Authority of United States Geological Survey.
16 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Monthly precipitation at certain points in the watershed of Sacramento River, 

California, for the season 1903-4 Continued.

Basin and station.

Putah -Creek:

Mount St. 

Helena^.....

Sacramento Valley:

Red Bluff « ...

Sacramento « .

Sept.

.00

.00

.00

.00

Oct.

2.75

2.00

.46

.12

Nov.

27 63

7.99

3.44

Dec.

5.63

6.75

3.73

1.12

Jan.

4.52

3.37

1.44

.45

Feb.

34.22

28.34

6.63

5.26

Mar.

31.48

26.14

8.33

5.43

Apr.

8.12

5.19

2.90

1.02

May.

.00

.05

.04

.03

June.

.20

T.

T.

T.

July.

.10

.22

,11

T.

Aug.

.00

.00

00

.07

Total.

114.64

72.06

31.63

16.94

" Authority of Andrew Rocca.

6 Authority of the United States Weather Bureau.

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

The United States Geological Survey had five gaging stations in 

this drainage basin during this flood one on Sacramento River at 

Red Bluff, one on Feather River at Oroville, one on Yuba River 

at Smartsville, one on Stony Creek near Fruto, and one on Cache 

Creek near Yolo. The mean daily discharge during the fifty days 

of the flood (February 11 to March 31) is given in the table below. 

About 72 per cent of the total mountain and foothills drainage area 

of the basin is above these gaging stations. The daily discharge for the 

remaining 28 per cent has been estimated, and the total daily discharge 

for all the mountain and foothills area is given in the last column.

Daily mean gage height and discharge in Sacramento basin, February 11-March

31, 1904.

Date.

February 11 ....

February 12 ....

February 13 ....

February 14 ....

February 15 ....

February 16 ....

February 17 .,..

February 18 ....

February 19 ....

February 20 ....

February 21 ....

February 22 ....

February 23 ....

Sacramento River at 

Iron Canyon, near 

Red Bluff, Gal.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

3.30

3.30

6.30

6.30

17.35

« 28. 00

15.20

11.20

9.55

9.90

12.50

20.30

16.60

Discharge.

Sec. feet.

11.040

11,040

22, 360

22, 360

84, 790

184, 600

69, 560

. 45, 280

36, 940

38, 620

52, 600

108, 480

79, 820

Stony Creek at Julians. 

Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

4.20

9.00

6.25

5.45

8.25

12.25

8.25

7.20

6.65

5.85

7.85

11.75

8.85

Discharge.

Sec. feet.

210

5,270

. 1,630

942

4,055

15,450

4,055

2,660

2,035

1,265

3,480

13,200

5,015

Cache Creek at Yolo.

Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

2.50

5.95

9.25

5.50

5.25

16.75

8.75

7.00

5.80

5.10

4.90

11.00

14.75

Discharge.

Sec. feet.

270

1,998

4,400

1,705

1,555

11,250

4,012

2,700

1,900

1,465

1,350

5,900

9,275

« Gage height 9 a. m. ; highest known gage height, 31.0, same night.
MITBPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD, CALIFORNIA. 17

Daily mean gage height and discharge in Sacramento basin, February 11-March

31, 1904 Continued.

Date.

February 24 .... 

February 25 

February 26 .... 

February 27 

February 28 .... 

February 29 ....

March 3 ........

March 4 ........

March 6 ........

March 7 --------

March 8 ...... _

March 9 . . . . . .

March 10 .......

March 11 .......

March'l2.......

March'13.-.-...

March 14 .......

March 15 -------

March 16 - ......

March 17 . .... .

March 18 .......

March 19 __..__.

March 20 .... ..

March 21 ... .

March 22 __..___

March 23 .......

March 24 _ _ . . .

March 25 _ _ . -

March 26 - . -

March 37 . . .

March 28 _ -

March 29 . .

March 30 .......

March 31 ... ...

Sacramento River at 

Iron Canyon, near 

Bed Bluff, Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

19.15 

19.15 

16.80 

17.80 

12.85 

13.40 

13.10 

15.55 

14.40 

15.80 

14.70 

13.10 

16.30 

24.40 

18.95 

17.90 

15.80 

14.70 

13.30 

15.80 

17. 25 

18. 80 

(18.85) 

19.40 

18.30 

19.40 

16.20 

13.50 

12.40 

11.50 

10.40 

8.80 

11.50 

14.70 

18.20 

14.80 

13.00

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

98,830 

98, 830 

80, 760 

88, 180 

54, 700 

58, 000 

56, 200 

71,950 

64, 260 

73, 700 

66, 220 

56, 200 

77,200 

147, 180 

97, 200 

88, 940 

73, 700 

66, 220 

57,400 

73, 700 

84, 050 

92, 040 

96, 400 

100, 880 

92, 040 

100; 880 

76, 500 

58. 600 

52, 020 

46,900 

41,100 

33, 380 

46, 900 

66, 220 

91,260 

66,880 

55, 6 )0

Stony Creek at Julians, 

Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

13.50 

10.00 

10.00 

9.05 

7.90 

7.40 

7.20 

7.20 

7.10 

7.05 

6.75 

6.85 

7.55 

7.65 

7.25 

13. 25 

9.25 

7.85 

7.35 

8.65 

8.00 

7.60 

10.50 

9.75 

8.85 

8.90 

8.00 

7.45 

7.20 

6.95 

6.80 

6.65 

8. 35 

10. 50 

9.35 

8.55 

7.30

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

22, 200 

7,280 

7,280 

5,360 

3,550 

2,900 

2,660 

2,660 

2,540 

2,480 

2, 145 

' 2,255 

3,085 

3,215 

2,720 

20, 700 

5,720 

3,480 

2,840 

4,680 

3,690 

3,150 

8,560 

6,700 

5, 015 

5, 100 

3,690 

2,960 

2,660 

2,365 

2,200 

2,035 

4, 205 

8,560 

5, 905 

4,520 

2,780

Cache Creek at Yolo, 

Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

16.50 

7.50 

13. 00 

16. 50 

9.60 

8.60 

7.85 

7.30 

7.05 

6.85 

6.65 

6.45 

6.35 

6.30 

6.20 

. 14. 75 

20. 75 

12.00 

10.75 

10. 60 

10.50 

10.40 

. 11.65 

16. 50 

11.75 

10. 55 

10.25 

10.10 

11.00 

9.80 

9.80 

9.65 

9.50 

16.75 

14.50 

11.70 

10.40

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

11,000 

3,075 

7,700 

11,000 

4,680 

3,900 

3,338 

2,925 

2,738 

2,595 

2,455 

2,328 

2,262 

2,225 

2,160 

9, 275 

15, 250 

6,800 

5,, 675 

5, 540 

5,450 

5,360 

6,485 

11,000 

6,575 

5,495 

5,225 

5,090 

5,900 

4,840 

4,840 

4,720 

4,600 

11,250 

9,050 

6, 530 

5,360

IEE 147 05 M-
18 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Daily mean gage height and discharge in Sacramento basin, February 11-MarcJi

31, 1904 Continued.

Date.

February 11 .... 

February 12 . . . . 

February 13 

February 14 .... 

February 15 

February 16 -... 

February 17 

February 18 .... 

February 19 .... 

February 20 _ _ _ _ 

February 21 

February 22 .... 

February 23 

February 24 

February 25 .... 

February 26 

February 27 

February 28 .... 

February 29 .... 

March 1 ...

March 2 . .

March 3 ........

March 4 __...___

March 5 . . . . ....

March 6 _ _ _ .

March 7 ........

March 8 _ _ . .

March 9 . _ .

March 10 . . .

March 11 ......

March 12 .......

March 13 .......

March 14 . ... .

March 15 .......

March 16 ......

March 17 -.-....

March 18 .......

Feather River at Oroville, Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.25 

9.00 

7.15 

5.95 

11.65 

20.35 

16.75 

11.85 

10.45 

9.55 

9.65 

17.80 

16.40 

21.50 

18.70 

17.15 

16.05 

13.90 

12.55 

11.65 

11.95 

12.15 

13.05 

12.55 

12.00 

12.05 

15.35 

14.70 

15. 65 

14.30 

12.35 

11.95 

11.85 

12.20 

11.75 

15.80 

20.45

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

3,150 

12, 900 

8, 550 

6,680 

23, 250 

94, 000 

59, 975 

24, 250 

17, 900 

14, 575 

14, 925 

69, 300 

57, 000 

105, 500 

77, 750 

63, 450 

54, 025 

37, 400 

28, 400 

23, 250 

24, 800 

26, 000 

31,450 

28, 400 

25, 100 

25, 400 

48,400 

43,350 

50, 800 

40, 350 

27, 200 

24, 800 

24, 250 

26, 300 

23, 750 

52, 000 

95. 000

Yuba River at Smartsville, Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

5.70 

10.50 

8.50 

7.50 

9.50 

20.00 

(17.00) 

(12.00) 

(10.50) 

(9. 50) 

(9.50) 

20.30 

14.30 

20.30 

13. 50 

12.40 

11.20 

10.60 

10.30 

10.00 

9.60 

10.00 

10.90 

10.90 

10.20 

10.60 

12. 50 

11.10 

13.10 

11.10 

10. 50 

9.80 

10.70 

10.60 

10.50 

14.80 

15.50

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

1,880 

12, 340 

6,740 

4,550 

9,350 

58, 000 

41,000 

17, 880 

12,340 

9,350 

9,350 

59, 800 

27, 660 

59,800 

24, 080 

19, 480 

14, 800 

12, 680 

11,700 

10, 780 

9,630 

10, 780 

13, 720 

13, 720 

11,380 

12, 680 

19,880 

14, 440 

32, 380 

14, 440 

12, 340 

10, 200 

13, 020 

12, 680 

12, 340 

30, 040 

33. 500

Mountain and foothill 

drainage area, 32,487 

square miles.

Estimated 

discharge.

Sec. feet. 

22, 408 

95, 554 

68, 231 

51,587 

180, 369 

570, 014 

298, 266 

147, 436 

110,214 

94, 682 

118,077 

442, 141 

279, 554 

542, 216 

328, 167 

277,421 

251, 436 

169, 296 

152, 750 

138, 296 

152, 558 

149, 724 

174, 889 

162, 746 

139, 488 

168, 548 

295, 970 

217, 998 

345, 474 

218,318 

165,973 

143, 209 

174, 824 

182, 462 

183, 153 

308,023 

380.434

Run-off per 

square mile.

Sec. feet. 

1.01 

4.29 

3.06 

2.32 

8.09 

25.58 

13.38 

6.61 

4.94 

4.25 

5.30 

19.84 

12. 54 

34.33 

14.72 

12.45 

. 11.28 

7.60 

6.85 

6.20 

6.84 

6.72 

7.85 

7.30 

6.26 

7.56 

13.28 

9.78 

15.50 

9.80 

7.45 

6.42 

7.84 

8.19 

8.22 

13.82 

17.07

NOTE. Gage heights in parentheses are
MUBPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

SACRAMENTO KTVEK FLOOD, CALIFORNIA. 19

Daily mean gage height and discharge in Sacramento basin, February 11-Harch

81, 1904 Continued.

Date.

March 19.......

March 20 _...._._

March 21 .......

March 22 .......

March 23.......

March 24. ......

March 25 .......

March 26 .......

March 27.. .....

March 28 .......

March 29 .......

March 30 .......

March 31 ....

Feather Eiver at Oroville, Cal.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

19.75 

19.15 

16.70 

14.70 

13.55 

12.80 

12.00 

11.65 

11.50 

13.75 

16.70 

15.10 

13.40

Discharge.

Sec. feet.

88,000 

82,000 

59, 550 

43, 350 

3<950 

29, 900 

25, 100 

23, 250 

22, 500 

36, 350 

59, 550 

46,400 

33, 900

Yuba River at Smartsville, Cal.

Gage

height.

Feet. 

15.10 

13.30 

10.80 

10.30 

9.10 

9.30 

9.10 

8.70 

9.00 

14.80 

13.30 

11.10 

10.20

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

31,500 

23, 220 

13, 360 

11,700 

8,260 

8,800 

8,260 

7,230 

8,000 

30, 040 

23, 220 

14,440 

11,380

Mountain and foothill 

drainage area, 23,487 

square miles.

Estimated 

discharge.

Sec. feet. 

349,319 

323, 675 

228, 171 

177, 349 

148, 569 

134, 910 

119, 151 

104, 825 

128, 408 

260, 514 

287, 075 

206, 309 

158, 823

Run-off per 

square mile.

Sec. feet. 

15.68 

14.52 

10.24 

7.96 

6.67 

6.05 

5.35 

4.70 

5.76 

11.69 

12.88 

'9.26 

7.13

The total discharge from the mountain and foothill area was a 

maximum on February 16, the estimated mean daily rate of discharge 

being about 575,000 second-feet, or 25.58 second-feet per square mile. 

This flood rose very rapidly and also subsided rapidly. Four days 

after the maximum stage was reached the discharge was only 94,680 

second-feet. The river at this time again rose very rapidly, and in 

two days a rate of 442,140 second-feet was attained. The greatest 

daily rate of discharge in March was on the 18th, when it was 380,436 

second-feet.

By comparing the daily rate of discharge at the gaging stations it is 

seen that when the rate of flow from the whole mountain and foothill 

area is a maximum the rate at each of the stations is generally a 

maximum, but that occasionally the rate at one of the stations is a 

maximum while the rate from the total drainage basin is not a maximum. For example, the rate of discharge from the total mountain 

and foothill area was a maximum on March 10, but the rate at Red 

Bluff was a maximum on March 8.

Taking the rise that culminated on February 16 as a typical one, 

we may say that 2.8 per cent of the total run-off from the mountain 

and foothill area came from Stony Creek, 2 per cent from Cache 

Creek, 16.5 per cent from Feather River, 10.2 per cent from Yuba 

River, 32.2 per cent from Sacramento River above Red Bluff, and 36.3
20 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

per cent from the mountain and foothill area of the Sacramento basin 

not included in the areas gaged.

OBSTRUCTION OF CHANNEL.

The lower Sacramento has always been subject to overflow. The 

greatest recorded flood was in 1862. The precipitation at Sacramento for December, 1861, and January, 186,2, during this flood, was 

23.62 inches, while the precipitation for these months for 1903-4, as 

seen from the table, page 16, was only 1.57 inches. The maximum 

height attained was not as great as that of the 1904 flood, but the 

volume of water discharged was much greater. Some of the bottom land has been reclaimed by the construction of levees, so that 

the flood width of the river has been considerably reduced. The 

depths of the channels have been reduced also by the deposit of debris 

from hydraulic mining on the tributaries.

The reclamation of bottom lands along the river by the construction 

of levees was begun in 1852 ° and has gone on steadily since that time. 

It is estimated that $20,000,000 has been spent by private parties, 

reclamation districts, the State of California, and the Federal Government in the reclamation of these lands and in correcting the channels of Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. The levees in many 

districts have been repeatedly overtopped by floods. The problem of 

reclamation has been rendered more difficult on account of the fact 

that the beds of the streams in Sacramento Valley, particularly the 

Yuba, Bear, Feather, American, and the Sacramento below the mouth 

of the Feather, have been raised by the accumulation of debris brought 

down during floods. Some lands that were formerly exempt from 

overflow have been inundated recently by the accumulation of mining 

debris.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

This flood swept away levees, fences, buildings, crops, and caused 

great damage to agricultural land. Approximately 800,000 acres 

of land were flooded. It is said that 50,000 acres of wheat were 

destroyed by breaks in the levees below Colusa. Orchards which 

had reached their most productive age were killed by the water standing upon them. The value of a portion of the submerged land was 

decreased by having from 2 to 4 feet of sand deposited upon it. On 

February 26 the levee on the left bank of Sacramento River broke at 

a point 2^ miles below the south line of the city of Sacramento. 

This was known as the Edwards break. The water escaping at this 

point backed up against the Y street levee of Sacramento and soon 

overtopped the cross levees to the south and reached Sacramento River

0 Report of the commissioner of public works, 1895.
SACRAMENTO RIVEK FLOOD, CALIFORNIA. 21

by way of Mokelumne Eiver. About 10,000 acres of fertile anc 

highly cultivated land in the Sacramento flood basin were inundated 

and remained so until the end of March. This area was planted to 

crops, orchards, gardens, alfalfa, etc.

The city of Sacramento was surrounded by water on three sides. 

On March 10 a severe windstorm from the southeast drove the waves 

against the Y street levee, and a threatened break was prevented only 

by continuous work.

The Edwards break is supposed to have been caused by the work of 

squirrels and gophers and the fact that the base of the levee is located 

upon a bed of quicksand. To this break may be traced the flooding 

of Staten, Tyler, and Bouldin islands on lower San Joaqum River. 

Before the repairs were completed the width of the gap in the levee 

was 1,400 feet and the total cost of closing it has amounted to $120,000.

It has been impossible to make a satisfactory estimate of the total 

damage caused by the flood of 1904. The most that can be said is 

that the loss amounted to several millions of dollars. Fortunately, 

there was no loss of life. **

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

After the flood of February and March, 1904, an engineering commission was appointed by the governor of California to report upon 

rectification of Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their principal tributaries and the reclamation of overflow lands adjacent 

thereto. This commission made its report to the commissioner of 

public works of California, December 13,1904. It declares that 

In Sacramento Valley and contiguous parts of San Joaquin Valley there are 

some 1,25(3 square miles of very fertile land that is subject to overflow from a 

very considerable flood in Sacramento River, and about 1,700 square miles from 

ordinary floods. The problem presented for solution is to devise means for 

preventing the inundation of these lands by having the flood water that must 

pass through this territory pass harmlessly into Suisun Bay, and to correct the 

existing faults of the river channel with a view to avoiding the floods and promoting the interests of navigation.

The plans recommended for 'the solution of the problem are 

1. To confine the flood waters to the channels of the various streams by means 

of levees, so as to prevent destructive inundation of the fertile lands.

2. To correct the alignment of the river by cut-offs where necessary, and to 

increase its channel capacity by mechanical means where current action fails 

to accomplish that purpose.

3. To collect the hill drainage, which now loses itself in the basins, in intercepting canals and carry it into the river at selected points.

4. To provide escape ways over levees for surplus flood waters during the 

period of channel development, and to provide for the disposal of this water in 

connection with tbe hill drainage.

5. To provide for the relief of the basins from accumulation of rain and 

seepage water by means of pumps wherever gravity drainage is not practicable.
22 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

It is proposed to construct lines of levees on both sides of Sacramento River, from Stony Creek on the west and Chieo Creek on the 

east down to its mouth, including both sides of Old River and 

Steamboat Slough, except where existing levees are adopted into the 

system. The minimum distance between the levees is specified in 

each case, and wherever the distance between the present levees is 

less than this specified amount the width is to be increased, by the 

removal of the old levee on one or both sides of the river.

The estimated cost of carrying out the plan proposed is $23,776,000. 

The direct benefits to the entire valley to be realized as a result of 

this plan of improvement are the reclamation of a million acres of 

extremely fertile land and the placing of all in a position of assured 

safety from overflow, together with direct and indirect advantages 

to many associated interests, which, expressed in money valuation, 

reach at least $100,000,000 and assuredly justify the cost of the work.

STJSQTJEHANNA RIVER FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA.

By E. C. MURPHY.

From March 3 to 15, 1904, there was a very destructive flood on 

Susquehanna River, due to excessive precipitation, the rapid melting 

of ice and snow, and the formation of ice gorges along the river.

FORMER FLOODS.

Destructive floods are not infrequent on this stream, four notable 

ones having occurred in the past forty years. One of these occurred 

in March, 1865, and was due to excessive precipitation, accompanied 

by a rapid melting of ice and snow and the formation of ice gorges. 

Another occurred in June, 1889, and was due to an excessive and prolonged precipitation, which, in point of volume of water, was the 

greatest on record. A third occurred in May, 1894, was due to excessive precipitation, and reached a stage from 2 to 3 feet lower than 

the stage of the 1889 flood at McCalls Ferry. The primary cause of 

the fourth flood (March, 1904), to be described in this paper, was the 

breaking up of the ice at places along the stream in January, with 

the water at so low a stage that this ice instead of moving out of the 

river collected in places where islands and other obstructions had 

caused the formation of gorges. These gorges were solidified and increased in thickness by the low temperature of February, forming 

dams that backed the water, causing overflow of large areas. The 

warm rains of March 6 and 7 largely increased the volume of flow, 

causing these gorges to break and form other temporary gorges farther downstream. When these temporary gorges gave way great 

destruction was caused, bridges, buildings, and even islands being 

completely destroyed by the action of the ice and water.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. II

FLOOD OF MARCH 8, 1904, ON SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT YORKHAVEN, PA,, AT ITS HEIGHT.
MURPHY AND 

OTHERSf°] SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA. £3 

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

The Susquehanna drainage basin is one of the largest on the 

Atlantic slope and comprises an area of about 27,400 square miles, 

located mainly in eastern Pennsylvania. About 56 per cent of this 

basin is in the Allegheny Plateau, 31 per cent in the Allegheny Mountains, 6 per cent in the Allegheny Valley, and 7 per cent in the PiedFIG. 1. Drainage basin of Susquehanna River.

mont Plateau. The Allegheny Plateau is characterized by high hills 

and deep valleys, the hills rising from about 500 to 800 feet-above 

the valleys. The western part is more broken and has steeper slopes 

than the eastern part. The valleys contain much glacial drift and 

many of the hills are covered with timber. The mountain portion 

consists of a series of nearly parallel ranges, with steep slopes, through 

which the Susquehanna has cut its waterway, forming great water
24 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

gaps. Below the mountain region the valleys are wider and the 

slopes less steep. The slope of the stream is comparatively small in 

this part of the drainage basin. The Piedmont Plateau region is 

composed mainly of farming land with low, well-rounded hills and 

very little forest area. The Susquehanna, like its tributaries in this 

part of the basin, has a very steep slope for its size, having a number 

of shoals with considerable fall.

The principal tributaries are Chenango River, which enters from 

the west at Binghamton, N. Y.; West Branch, entering Sunbury, 

Pa., and Juniata River, which enters from the west about 15 miles 

above Harrisburg. (See fig. 1.)

The slope of the river can be seen from the following table :

Profile of Susquehanna River.*1

Locality.

Mouth of Fishing Creek __._.___________.__-

Foot of Columbia dam _ _ . . . ... ..______..

Above Conewago Falls ___.___.____-_______.._-.

Rockville ______ ..._.___.____.._ .________._._

Clark Ferry dam, foot .._.... _________________

Liverpool ____________________________________

Selinsgrove _ . ...._____..______.____________.__

Sunbury dam: 

Foot _._ -----_-..-.-.._-.___.___-..__._-_._

Crest ---.......... ... ........ ...........

Nanticoke dam: 

Foot -..._. ...... .. .. . .... .....

Crest ___________ . ...

Wilkesbarre _ _ .

Mouth of Lacka wanna River . ................

Mouth of Tunkhannock Creek .......... ....._.

Mouth of Meehoopany Creek . . . -....---.

Mouth of Wyalusing Creek _ _ _ ...._.. . .......

Mouth of Wysox Creek _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . .......

Towanda ... ____...___ . . . ....

Athens ..-..-_.___.. ...

OtsegoLake.. .....

Distance 

from 

mouth..

Miles. 

0

12

20

43

59

69

84

99

116

122

122

174

174

183

190

211

223

244

258

262

278

422

Height 

above sea.

Feet. 

0

69

100

224

254

273

298

305

336

378

421

422

429

. 509

515

521

536

581

604

646

687

700

744

1,193

Fall per 

mile.

Feet.

5.8

3.9

5.4

1.6

9.5

2.5

1.16

3.4

2.3

2.5

.2

1.5

.66

2.14

2.14

1.9

2.0

2.9

3.2

2 7

3.1

0 Gannett, Henry, Profiles of rivers : Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 44, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1901, p. 17.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. Ml

ICE GORGE OF 1875 ON SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT WILKESBARRE, PA.
MDBPHY

OTHERS. J RS.ND ] SUSQIJEHANNA KIVEK FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA. 25

PRECIPITATION.

The monthly precipitation and the variation from normal monthly 

precipitation from October, 1903, to March, 1904, at three places in 

this drainage basin are given below:

Monthly precipitation and monthly variation from normal in Susquehanvta basin,

1903-4.

Place.

Harrisburg, Pa.: 

Precipitation . _ _ .

Variation .............

Scranton, Pa.: 

Precipitation ..........

Binghamton, N. Y.: 

Precipitation .____.__..

Get.

Inches. 

2.62

- .4

6.42

+2.8

Nov.

Inches.

0.88

 1.9

1.86

2 26

 .1

Dec.

Inches. 

1.92

 1.1

2.59

2.12

Jan.

Inches. 

3.11

- .5

3.23

2.11

- .8

Feb.

Inches. 

1.54

-1.4

.92

1.16

 1.7

Mar.

Inches. 

2.72

- .8

2.10

2.11

 1.0

Total.

Inches. 

12.79

-6.1

17.12

15.5

- 1.5

From this table it may be seen that there was a deficiency of 

precipitation at these places of from H to 6 inches preceding this 

flood. The deficiency at Binghamton would have been about 3 

inches larger had it not been for the excessive precipitation at this 

place during the month of October.

While these data are not sufficient to enable us to state exactly the 

deficiency for the whole drainage basin, they are sufficient to indicate 

that the precipitation over the drainage basin for the six months 

prior to the flood was below the normal for such a period, and that 

the flood was not due to the large volume of water flowing, but to 

the ice gorges in the river.

ICE GORGES.

The following facts in regard to time of breaking up of ice gorges 

on this river are taken from the United States Weather Keview.

The ice on Juniata Eiver broke the latter part of February and 

formed a gorge at Duncannon. It broke on West Branch at Lockhaven at 2 p. m. March 3, moving out on a 12-foot stage. When the 

flood reached Duncannon, on March 4, it broke the gorge there and 

the ice in the river below, destroying Clarks Ferry bridge. The ice 

began to move at Fort Hunter, 7 miles above Harrisburg, at 10 a. m.
26 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

and at Harrisburg at 10.55 a. m. on March 4. The surface fluctuations of the river at Harrisburg on March 4 were as follows:

Gage heiaht at Harrisburo, March 4, 1904.

Height m feet. 

8 a. m __________________________________________ 13.5

12 m_____________________________________________ 16. 0

I p. m __________________]_________________ 20.0

3.15 p. m___________________________. _________________ 23.3

II p. in ______________________ ________ ___________ 21.3

A gorge formed near Middletown, 9 miles below Harrisburg, and 

another a short distance below Highspire, the water being 1.5 feet 

higher at the former place and 0.8 foot higher at the latter place than 

during the great flood of June 2, 1889. All the lowlands along this 

part of the river were flooded.

There was no material change in conditions on the main stream 

from March 4 to 8. The height of the water in the pools above the 

ice gorges fluctuated as the gorges opened and were closed again by 

floating ice.

Juniata, West Branch, and the headwaters of the main stream fell 

from March 4 until the morning of March 7, when mild weather and 

rain caused all the branches to rise rapidly. On the evening of 

March 7 the ice passed out of Roaring, Catawissa, and Nescopeck 

creeks. Early March 8 the ice began to move at Wilkesbarre, but in 

two hours formed a gorge and caused the stage to be 29 feet at noon. 

It broke at Pittston, above Wilkesbarre, about midnight of March 

8, and, moving downstream, lodged on the gorge at Nanticoke, causing the water to reach 30.6 feet at Wilkesbarre, flooding more houses 

and causing several coal companies to suspend operations. The ice 

moved about 400 feet at Catawissa at 11.30 on March 9, carrying 

away two spans of the Catawissa bridge. Several movements of ice 

occurred in North Branch on March 9, indicating a general breaking up of the ice.

At Middletown at 10 a. m. on March 7 the stage of the river was 

34.5 feet that is, 5 feet higher than during the great flood of June 

2. 1889. The gorge at Bainbridge, 14 miles below Harrisburg, moved 

on March 8, dislodging the gorge at Turkey hi 11 and forming a gorge 

below Safe Harbor, submerging the lower part of the town and 

destroying many houses and two bridges.

The ice started at Danville about 3.30 p. m. on March 9, carrying 

away the bridge at this place. About 5 p. m. it began to move at 

Wolverton, a few miles above Sunbury, and the portion of the great 

gorge between Sunbury and Boyds passed out, carrying away three
SUSQUEHANNA EIVEE FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA. 27

spans of the wooden highway bridge at Sunbury. A section of the 

gorge between Boyds and Rupert moved out at 2 p. m. on March 10, 

causing the river at Catawissa to fall 14 feet and improving the situation at Blooriisburg, where the water fell at the rate of 6 inches per 

hour during the afternoon. A section of the gorge at Rupert moved 

out about noon March 11 without destroying the Bloomsburg Bridge, 

as it settled back on its piers. The stage at Bloomsburg was 24 feet 

when the ice began to move, and fell to 12 feet shortly after the movement occurred. The ice was reported to be 6 feet in thickness when 

it broke up.

No further movement of ice was reported until March 21, when 

the gorge above Wilkesbarre began to disintegrate and pass downstream. A portion of the gorges in Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers near Binghamton moved out during the afternoon of March 24. 

The ice at Bloomsburg, which is near the center of the great gorge, 

began to move at 7 p. m. on March 24, and the gorge at Creasy broke 

at 3.30 p. in. on March 25 without doing much damage.

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

The daily gage height and corresponding discharge at six of the 

gaging stations in this drainage basin during this flood are given 

below:

Daily gage heigJit and discharge at gaging stations in Susquehanna drainage 

basin during flood of March,

Date.

March 3 __-._. .

March 4 _ .

March 5 _ _

March 6 .... ...

March 7 _ . . ...

March 8 ........

March 9 .......

March 10 .......

March 11 .......

March 12 .......

Susquehanna River at 

McCalls Ferry, Pa.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

122.0 

122.9 

128.0 

128.0 

126.0 

146.6 

130.2 

130.4 

130.9 

126.6

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

59, 000 

70, 200 

141, 100 

141,100 

118, 500 

300, 000 

176, 500 

180, 700 

192,000 

121,300

Susquehanna River at 

Harrisburg, Pa.

Gage 

height

Feet. 

11.91 

13.50 

22.00 

19.41 

16.33 

21.16 

15.91 

15.00 

12.00 

9.16

Discharge.

Sec. feet, 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a)

(«) 

(a)

(a)

(«) 

(a)

(a)

Susquehanna River at 

Wilkesbarre, Pa.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

12.3 

11.6 

11.0 

10.9 

11.6 

21.7 

25.3 

24.6 

23.8 

22.0

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

(«) 

(«) 

(«) 

(a) 

(a)

(«) 

(«)

(«) 

(«) 

(«)
28 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Daily gage height and discharge at gaging stations in Susquehttnna drainage

basin, etc. Continued.

Date.

March 3 ........

March 5 ........

March 6 .__....'_

March 7 -..._...

March 8 ........

March 9 .... ...

March 10 .......

March 11 .......

March 12 .......

Susquehanna River at 

Biughamton, N. Y.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.92 

6.65 

8.48 

7.68 

7.52 

11.40 

13.62 

12.25 

9.80 

8.02

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

(«) 

(«) 

(«) 

(«) 

(«)

( a ) 

(a)

(«) 

(«) 

18, 020

West Branch at Williamsport, Pa.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

7.o 

19.0 

16.5 

9.2 

7.4 

17.4 

13.5 

9.8 

7.6 

6.5

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

26, 300 

135, 100 

104, 300 

37,200 

25, 700 

115, 000 

72, 600 

41,400 

26,-900 

20, 850

Juniata Elver at New- 

 ~r port, Pa.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

7.2 

13.5 

8.9 

6.0 

5.5 

14.0 

10.0 

7.2 

6.0 

6.0

Discharge.

fiec. feet. 

16, 370 

73, 850 

27, 700 

9,930 

8,010 

80,100 

36,800 

16, 370 

9,930 

9, 930

" Not computed on account of ice gorge.

The maximum daily gage height attained at the gaging station at 

Binghamton, N. Y., during this flood is seen from the table above 

to be 13.6 feet on March 9. This is 4 feet less than the recorded flood 

of this river at this place, so that the stage was only that of an ordinary flood at this place. Little damage was caused in this part of 

the drainage basin.

The maximum daily stage attained at the gaging station on the 

Juniata at Newport is seen from the table above to be 14 feet on 

March 8. This stream frequently attains a stage of 15 feet or more 

at this place during floods, so that this flood was of only ordinary 

magnitude at this place.

At the Williamsport gaging station on West Branch the maximum daily stage was 19 feet on March 4 and 17.4 on March 8. This 

station has been in operation only about three years, but during this 

period a maximum stage of 21 feet has been recorded.

The maximum daily stage reached during this flood at the gaging 

station at Wilkesbarre was 25.3 feet on March 9. This is 3.5 feet less 

than that attained by the great flood of 1869; the stage on March 9 during the ice gorge was 30.5 feet, however. It is seen from the table that 

the stage at this place was 23 feet or more for three consecutive days.

At Harrisburg a daily stage of 22 feet was reached on March 5 

and 21.2 feet on March 8. Twice in the past thirteen years these 

stages have been exceeded. On March 29, 1895, it was 25.6 feet, and 

on March 2, 1902, it was 23.9 feet.

The maximum daily stage at the station at McCalls Ferry during 

this flood was 146.6 feet on March 8.
MUIiPHY 

OTHERSRs.ND ] SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA.

The following table gives the maximum height above low water 

of 1900 of the flood at five places along the river:

Flood height in 1904* in feet, above low water of September, 1900."

Date.

1904.

March 3 .........

March 4 ......_..

March 5 .........

March 6 _ .

March 7 .........

March 8 .........

March 9 _ . . . . ...

March 10 ........

March 11 ........

March 12........

Maximum 

height 

attained .

Main river at 

McCalls 

Ferry

(4p.m.).

9.0

9.9

15.0

15.0

13.4

33.6

17.3

17.4

17.9

13.6

633.6

Mate river at 

Harrisburg 

(7a.m.).

11.9

13.5

22.0

19.4

16.3

21.2

15.9

15.0

12.0

9.2

<-23.3

North Branch 

at Wilkesbarre(8 a.m.).

9.0

11 2

16.0

14.9

15.4

26.3

28.5

34.0

21.9

19.9

*28.5

West Branch 

at Williamsport (7.30 

a. m. ).

7.4

18.9

16.4

9.1

7.3

17.6

13.4

9.7

7.5

6.4

'18.9

Juniata River 

at Newport 

(12m.).

. 4.4

10.7

6.1

3.2

2.7

11 2

7.2

4.4

3.2

3.2

a Hoyt, J. C., and Anderson, R. H., Hydrography of Susquehanna River basin : WaterSup, and Irr. Paper No. 109, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905.

6 March 8, 4 p. m.

c March 4, 3 p. m.

« March 9, 8 a. m.

e March 4, 7 a. m.

NOTE. Maximum heights other than at McCalls Ferry were caused by backwater from 

gorges.

The following table gives the maximum, minimum, and mean discharge and corresponding gage height of Susquehanna Eiver at 

Harrisburg, each year from 1891 to 1904:

Minimum, maximum, and mean discharge of Susqiteha'nna River at Harrtsbwrg, 

Pa., for 1891 to 190%, inclusive.*

Year.

1891 

1892

1893

Minimum.

Date.

October 4 to 7, inclttsive.

October 31 to November 8, inclusive.

August 16 to 19, 

inclusive, and 

August 25.

Gage 

heigat.

Feet. 

1.60

.50 

.35

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

10,200

4,070 

3,500

Maximum.

Date.

February 19 ... 

April 6 ........

May 6_. -------

height.

Feet. 

19.00

14.65 

16.50

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

334, 500

224,200 

267,480

Mean discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

52,200

37,250 

40,550

a Op. Cit.
30 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Minimum, maximum, and mean discJtarge of Susquelianna River, etc. Cont'd.

Year.

1894 

1895 

1896

1897

1898 

1899 

1£00

1901 

1902

1903 

1904

Minimum.

Date.

September 5 and 6 

October 30 and 31 

September 5 to 13 .

September 15 and 

October 21.

October 3 to 7 _ _ . 

October 24 and 25

Septemt er 28 and 

29.

November 12 ....

September 23, 24, 

and 25.

October 7 _-____-

December 11 ....

For the 14 

years.

Gage height.

Feet. 

.25 

.05 

.25 

.50

.65 

.15 

-.04

1.00

.85

1.40

.84

« .04

Discharge.

Sec.-ft.

3,160 

2,570 

3,160 

4,070

4,740 

2,850 

2,360

6,550 

5,760

8,850 

5,708

o 2, 360

Maximum.

Date.

May22___..__

April 11.......

April 1 and 2 _ . 

March 26_---..

March 7. ....._

March 2. ......

December 16 . . 

March 2. ......

March 2. ......

May 22

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

25.60 

13.65 

14.60 

11.50

15. 65 

13.00 

13. 10

21.40 

23. 90

16.85

&25.60

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

543, 500 

205, 400 

223, 200 

165,300

245, 900 

193, 000 

194, 900

405, 100 

484, 100

276, 500

& 543, 500

Mean discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

39, 970 

29,330 

34, 600 

32, 320

40, 490 

31,000 

29, 950

42,380

47, 100

54, 510 

32, 318

39, 360

« September 28 and 39,1900. 6 May 82, 1894.

The flood at McCalls Ferry reached a maximum at about 3.30 p. m. 

on March 8, for a stage of 161.3 feet above sea level near the cable on 

the Lancaster side, and 159.8 feet on the York side. In about half 

an hour the stage had fallen from 2 to 3 feet, and on the morning of 

March 9 it had fallen to 15 feet below maximum stage.

A discharge measurement was made at the cable during maximum 

stage by Mr. R. H. Anderson. The time of the passage of cakes of 

ice between two cables across the river 80 feet apart was observed at 

various places across the stream, and the surface velocity computed. 

From the surface velocity and cross section the discharge was computed and found to be about 631,000 cubic feet per second.

There are several high-water marks of the flood of 1889 along the 

railway and canal near McCalls Ferry, made by eyewitnesses of that 

flood. These marks were connected by level, and the slope of the 

surface obtained. Ten sections were selected, and their area and 

wetted perimeter measured. From these data and a value of « , 

the coefficient of roughness (0.05), the maximum discharge at these 

10 stations was found by Kutter's formula to vary from 713,000 

to 780,000 cubic feet per second, the mean of the 10 discharges being 

730,000 cubic feet per second. The value of «,, the coefficient of 

roughness, was computed from current-meter measurements of discharge at this place at a lower stage.
SUSQUEHANNA EIVEE FLOOD, PENNSYLVANIA. 31 

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

It is almost impossible to estimate the damage caused by this flood 

on Susquehanna River. The estimates made by the newspapers vary 

fill the way from $2,000,000 to $8,000,000. The greatest loss probably occurred from Wilkesbarre to Sunbury, Pa. The big gorges at 

Keppsrun, Catawissa, and Nanticoke caused the submergence of 

large areas of lowland along the river. Kingston, Nanticoke, Dorranceton, Plymouth, Pittston, and other places along the river were 

partly under water. Many people were compelled to leave their 

homes, into which the water poured, filling cellars and in some cases 

the first story of the houses. Blocks of ice floated down, carrying 

away fences and porches and crashing into houses and causing much 

damage. The basements in many of the business houses were flooded, 

and goods damaged or destroyed. The railway tracks along the 

river were under water in many places, and the depots flooded. 

Great masses of ice, that required thousands of workmen to remove, 

were piled on the tracks. Several bridges across the river were destroyed or badly damaged. The Catawissa Bridge had three spans 

carried away. The Pennsylvania Railroad temporary bridge at Sunbury was destroyed. The Banclville highway bridge was destroyed, 

and the electric light and coke plant at that place was forced to suspend work. The highway bridge at Sunbury and that at Northumberland were partly destroyed. The highway bridge over Catawissa 

Creek and several other similar structures were destroyed or badly 

damaged. /

The following is a rough estimate of the damage due to the flood 

as given in newspaper reports: .

Damage from flood of 1904-

Pottstown to Sunbury «__ _________________________ $6,500,000

Dauphin County &______ _ _________________________ 275, 000

Lancaster County____________________'___________ 275, 000

York County e___________________________________ 200, 000

Cumberland County.-- - -___________-____________ 200, 000

Perry County_____________-___-__________________ 200, 000

Snyder County_________________________-____'_____ 125, 000

Juniata County__-__-________-___________________ 100,000

Maryland County--_________-_____________________ - 100,000

Total _ -________________________________ 7, 975, 000 

The loss and damage to State bridges was reported as $800,000.

a Of which $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 were in Wyoming Valley.

» Loss at Middletown about $100,000.

0 Most of the damage occurred at Yorkhaven and vicinity.
32 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [No. 147. 

PREVENTION Or FUTURE DAMAGE.

This flood was not due to the large volume of water flowing in the 

river, but to ice gorges in it. The precipitation for the six months 

prior to the flood was below the normal, and the melting of snow 

was not excessively rapid. The ice in the river broke up in January 

at a low-river stage, and before the river had time to clear itself the 

temperature fell and the ice collected, forming gorges at narrow 

places in the stream, river bends, and islands. Snow, water, and 

continued low temperature added to the thickness of these ice gorges. 

When the warm rain of early March melted the snow and increased 

the volume of flow of the river, these gorges held the water back 

somewhat like a dam and caused the overflow of lowlands. When 

the gorges finally gave way they swept away everything in their 

path fences, trees, buildings, and even small islands.

There does not appear to be any practicable remedy for floods due 

to ice gorges on streams. It is almost impossible to keep an open 

channel during the winter. Explosives have been used to break up 

an ice gorge, but the stream is frequently blocked for many miles, 

and if the gorge is broken at one place the ice soon forms at another 

gorge farther down the stream, especially if the temperature is below 

freezing. The only remedy is to remove, as far as possible, the 

causes that stop the movement of the ice.

MOHAWK RIVER FLOOD, ISTEW YORK."

From March 25 to 31, 1904, there occurred a flood on Mohawk 

River, in New York State, which, while not the largest and most 

destructfve in the recorded history of this stream, was yet sufficiently 

so to call for the following brief description.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Mohawk River is the chief tributary of Hudson River and drains 

an area of 3,490 square miles. It rises about 40 miles from the east 

end of Lake Ontario, in New York State, flows in a general southerly direction a distance of about 140 miles, and empties into the 

Hudson at Waterford.

Its principal tributaries are East and West Canadian creeks, which 

enter from the north, and Oriskany and Schoharie creeks, which enter 

from the south. Reels Creek is a small stream that enters the 

Mohawk from the north near Utica. Starch Factory Creek is a 

comparatively small stream that enters from the south near Utica. 

Sauquoit Creek is a tributary of Starch Factory Creek.

The river valley has generally a width of from 1 to 2 miles, made

" Prepared mainly from data furnished by Robert E. Horton, district hydrographer.
MDBPHY ANDl 

OTHERS. J MOHAWK EIVEE FLOOD, NEW YORK. 33

up of rich alluvial meadow land. At Little' Falls it cuts through a 

gorge whose walls are from 500 to 600 feet high. The country gradually rises from the river valley to the hills, attaining an elevation 

of several hundred feet above the river. On the north the hills are 

succeeded by an elevated plateau, having mountain peaks of from 

2,500 to 3,000 feet in elevation above sea level. About 20 per cent 

of the drainage area has an elevation from 100 to 500 feet, 37 

per cent from 500 to 1,000 feet, 27 per cent from 1,500 to 2,000 feet, 

13 per cent from 2,000 to 2,500 feet, and about 3 per cent above'2,500 

feet. The part of the drainage basin north of Mohawk River is thickly 

forested; that on the south is mainly deforested. The tributaries 

are all quick filling, having a comparatively steep slope and rapid 

velocity, with little storage, but enter the main river at points a considerable distance apart. The Erie Canal parallels the river from the 

mouth to a few miles above Rome, and is supplied from the river and 

some of its tributaries.

The following table ° shows the slope of the river from the mouth 

to Rome:

Slope of Mohawk River, New York.

Locality.

Lower aqueduct (fall nearly all at Cohoes) ...--_

Schenectady__ --_._______ _--_-____._-_--_ ...

Month of Schoharie Creek . ._.__________.

Three miles east of Utica ________ _________ . .

Fotir miles east of Rome ___ _ . .-_-.._

Rome, above feeder clam ._ ._ ___________

Distance 

from 

mouth.

Miles. 

0

4

19

42

95

112

115

Height 

above sea.

Feet. 

12

162

214

270

393

418

431

Fall per 

mile.

Feet.

37.5

3.5

2 4

2.3

1.5

4.3

Fig. 2 shows the principal streams of this drainage basin; also the 

precipitation lines and gaging stations.

PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE.

From the precipitation lines on fig. 2 it is seen that the mean 

annual precipitation in this basin varies from about 40 to 55 inches. 

The precipitation for the six months preceding this flood at four 

places in the drainage basin is given in the following table, which

" Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 44, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1901, p. 15. 

IRK 147 05 M 3
DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [No. 147.

also gives the monthly excess or deficiency at Albany and the accumulated deficiency there for the period in question:

Precipitation in Mohawk River watershed, Oct., 1903, to Mar.,

Place.

Albany: 

Variation from normal

Little Falls... .------.....

Oct.

Inches.

+2. 50 

6.09

6.89

7.58

7.95

Nov.

Inches. 

rfl.30 

1.65

1.85

2.10

3.11

Dec.

Inches. 

+1.10 

1.59

2.10

2.23

2.98

Jan.

Inches. 

-0.04

2.51

3.74

2.33

5.27

Feb.

Inches. 

 1.6

1.17

1.91

2.28

2.55

Mar.

Inches. 

-0.70 

1.94

2 82

3.17

3.68

Total.

Inches. 

 2.6 

14.95

19.31

19.69

25.54

WO'EE : Contours show equal mean 

annual-rainfall at intervals of 

five inches depth.

Scale.

FIG. 2. Drainage basin and profile of Mohawk River.

It is seen from the table that there is an accumulated deficiency 

at Albany for the six months of 2.6 inches. The snow accumulation 

of the winter attained a maximum measured-water equivalent of
MURPHY AND 

OTHERS. MOHAWK EIVEE FLOOD, NEW YORK. 35

7.42 inches at Utica on March T. This gradually decreased to 5.92 

inches of water in the form of snow on March 21. 

The temperature and precipitation immediately preceding the flood 

are shown in the following table:

Precipitation and temperature on Mohawk River watershed, March 22 to 27,1904.

Date.

March 22 _..-__-___- _ ............

March 28 ,-.-....___.__._____.

March 24 . . . . . ------- -.-_.

March 25 - .-..-_-

March 26 . . _ _ . .......................

March 27 .---..-.--._.-.--_-.-._... 

Total .---'-.--. -_-.-..-__-_._._

Little Falls.

Rainfall.

Inches. 

0.00 

. 71 

.00 

.35 

' .18 

.00

1.24

Mean temperature.

o Jf

34 

38 

34 

43' 

42 

26

Borne.

Rainfall.

Inches. 

0.30 

.00 

.00 

.20 

.33 

.00

.83

Mean temperature.

°F. 

37 

. 38 

34 

46

-r

32

DISCHARGE.

The rise in temperature on March 25 and 26, as noted above, caused 

a flood of considerable magnitude owing to the rapid melting of 

snow, although but little rain fell.

The total discharge and the discharge per square mile of Mohawk 

Eiver at Little Falls during floods of 1901, 1902, and 1904 are given 

in the following table:

Flood discharge of MoJiaicJc River at Little Falls, N. Y. f 

[Drainage area, 1,306 square miles.]

Date.

1901. 

December 13 ______...___- ________

December 14 _ .....................

December 15 -------- _ . - . . _

December 16 . ____________ . . . . . .

December 17 . . _ . _ . --.. . .. _

December 18 . . . . . . _..-... .......

December 19.- . . ... .... .._.. ..

December 20.------.----.-----.--,...

7a.m.

Second-feet.

4,818 

6,643 

21,628 

28, 500 

11,108 

6,294 

4,349 

2.365

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

3.69 

5.09 

16.57 

21.83 

8.51 

4.82 

3.33 

1.81

5 p. m.

Second-feet.

4,818 

18,284 

21, 628 

21,420 

9,015 

5,269 

3,912 

1.930

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

3.69 

14.01 

16. 57 

16.41 

6.91 

4.04 

3.00 

1.48
36 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Flood discharge of Mohawk River at Little Falls, N. Y. Continued.

Date.

1902. 

February 27 .................... ..^...

February 28 -__-__________.___.-._.__-

March 2 ....... ____________________

March 3 ._............ ______ _.____-_

March 4...... ________ _____ __ ______

March 6. _____________________ ______

March 8.......... ________________ .

1904. 

March 19. ___________________ ________

March 20. .... __________ _ __

March 21. _______ ._ __ _ _

March 22. .___._____.__..______ _____

March 23.

March 24 . _ _ _

March 25. ... _ ______ _____________

March 26......... ...._______.._....__

March 27_ .... ....... ____.__. ._ ...

March 28_ ___________________

March 29_______ __._._____

March 30. _..__.___.__..._____...__...

March 31. ____________________ _______

7 a. m.

Second-feet.

1,451

2, 383 

11, 256 

28, 505 

25, 093 

19, 993 

11, 229 

7,848 

6, 403 

4,889

2,029 

2,071 

2,359 

2,827 

4,149 

6,672 

9,321 

20, 220 

« 22, 920

22, 120 

16, 590 

11,197 

9,286 

8, 658

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

1.11 

1.83 

8.62 

21.83 

19.22 

15.32 

8.60 

' 6.01 

4.90 

3.74

1.55

1.58 

1.81 

2.17 

3.18 

5.11 

7.14 

15. 48 

a 17. 55

16.94

12.70 

8.58 

7.12 

6.63

5 p. m.

Second-feet.

1,732 

4,473 

15, 356 

28, 505 

21,693 

12, 993 

9, 156 

7, 470 

5,378 

4,889

2,038 

2,359

2,583 

2,827 

5,721 

7,579 

12, 497

& 24, 720 

26, 620 

c 27, 220 

22, 120 

16, 090 

10, 767 

8,685 

8,083

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

1.33 

3.43 

11.76 

21.83 

16.62 

9.95 

7.01 

5.72 

4.12 

'3.74

1.56

1.81 

1.98 

2.17 

4.38 

5.80 

9.57

& 18. 96 

20. 38 

« 20. 84 

16.94 

12. 32 

8.27 

6.J65 

6.19

a 10 a. m. 6 2 p. m. 7 p. m.

The latest flood lasted from March 25 to 31, attaining a maximum 

on March 26 of 20.84 cubic feet per second per square mile.

The discharge of three small streams near Utica during this flood 

are given in the following table:
MCBPHT AND"! 

OTHEES. J MOHAWK EIVEE FLOOD, NEW YOKK. 37

Record of flood discharge, 190%.

SYLVAN GLEN CREEK NEAR NEW HARTFORD, N. Y. 

[Drainage area, 1.18 square miles.]

Date.

March 22.... ...

March 23. ......

March 24.......

March 25. ......

March 26 ....

March 27. ._ ...

March 28..-.--.

Time.

5 p. in _ ............ ........... -------

7.30 a. m ________________________________

5 p. m . ___ ______ _ . . . . _ . _ ......

5.30 p. m ________________________________

8 a. rn_ _____-____-.-_-____-_____-____--_

5 p. m ___._-_ _ _ . _____ _____ ...'-.-..

8 a. rn _______________________________

Secondfeet.

0.357

2.07

15.24

14.90

5.10

13.27

12.33

66.80

43.06

12.01

2.67

1.05

1.05

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

0.302

1.75

12.87

12.62

4.32

11.26

10.42

56.58

36.51

10.16

2.26

.889

.889

STARCH FACTORY CREEK NEAR NEW HARTFORD, N. T.° 

[Drainage area, 3.4 square miles.]

March 21-_-._-.

March 22_-.__. .

March 23_ ______

March 24.

March 26_ ______

March 27. ------

March 28_ ______

March 29_ ______

March 30--_-. __

March 31. ......

6 p. m_ _-___----____ ___ ... _._ -_--_.-

7a.m. _--_____._---________ _______ ...

6 p. ru____. ____________ _____ -..._----

7.30a. m_____ ____ ____________

6 D. m _ _ ________ __________ ________

7.30 a. m ____________ ___________________

6p.m. . ______________ _________ _ _ ..

8 a. m. _--_--____----_._ _ ______ __ _ _

6 p. m ._---___.__ _ _____________ -. .

6p.ru___- _____ __---_____----__.__ ....

8 a. in. .-._ ___-____---__._.... ___. ______

6 p. m_ __-_-__._._. ___ _____ _________

8a.m___ ---._______. ________ ___.__._

8 a. m_ __________________________________

6 r>. m_ --.__-. . --________--_._______-_

2.88

3.38

10.35

61

63

65

128

128

372

315

128

48

32

19.5

19.5

14.5

21

14.5

29.5

19.5

32.3

0.847

0.994

3.043

17. 934

18. 522

19.11

37.63

37.63

109. 368

92.61

37. 632

14. 112

9.408

5.733

5.733

4.263

6.17

4.26

8.67

5.73

9.50

" Not including Graefenl.erg diversion, which is estimated at 0.25 second-foot per square 

mile.
38 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Record of flood discharge, 1904 Continued. 

STARCH FACTORY CREEK NEAR NEW HARTFORD, N. Y. Continued.

Date.

April I.........

Aprils. ........

Time.

8 a. m ...... .... ...-..--.---.

7 a. m- __________________________________

Secondfeet.

19.5

337

40 ,

48

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

5.73

99.08

11.76

14.11

REELS CREEK AT DEERFIELD, N. Y. 

[Drainage area, 4.4 square miles.]

March 22.......

March 23- ......

March 24_ ______

March 26. ______

March 27. _......

March 28_____. -

March 29... ___-

March 30.. ___..

*

7 a. m_ _----.-.-------------------------.

7 a. m ......_....., . . . _______ ____

8.72

24. 31

19. 43

49.8

135.9 '

179. 7

214.3

175. 5

188. 5

49.9

33.6

30.5

1.97

5.49

4.38

11.25

30.74

40.68

48.36

37.74

42.6

11.28

7.59

6.89

The very large discharge of 109.62 second-feet per square mile of 

Starch Factory Creek at 6 p. m. on March 25 is worthy of special 

note.

The following table gives the discharge at maximum stage of the 

Mohawk and its small tributaries during this flood:

Discharge of Mohawk River and tributaries March 25 and 26, 1904-

Stream.

Mohawk River at Rome « ..-.--.

Sauqnoit Creek at New York MillsStarch Factory Creek near Utica - 

Reels Creek at Deerfield

Sylvan Glen Creek near Utica-- .. 

Budlong Creek near Utica . . . . .

Mohawk River at Little Falls

Time of maximum.

March 36, p. m ... .

March 26, 11 a. m--

March 25, 6 p. m _. 

March 26, 5 p. m . .

March 25, 5 p. m .. 

March 25, p. m . . . _

March 26, p. m ....

Drainage 

area in 

square 

miles.

158

144

52

3.4 

4.42

1.18 

1.13

1,306

Maximum discharge in secondfeet.

4,320

4,170

1,150

373 

214.3

66.8 

136.4

27, 200

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile.

27.34

29

22.1

109. 37

48.36

56.58 

120.4

20.8

a At State dam.
MDEPHT AND"] 

OTHERS. J MOHAWK RIVER FLOOD, NEW YORK. 39

It is seen that the maximum discharge of the small streams occurred March 25, and the maximum discharge of the main stream 

did not occur until the evening of the 26th.

The following table gives the discharge of the Mohawk at Little 

Falls during the floods of February, 1891, December, 1901, March, 

1902, and March, 1904:

Flood discharge of MoliawTc River in 1891, 1901, 1902, and 1904.

Date.

February, 1891.. ........ .... ... ... .. .....

December 16, 1901 _ _ _ . .

March 2, 1909-.... __._.-....____._________.____________.__

March 26, 1904. __ ____________________ ..................

Second-feet.

26, 260

26, 280

a 28, 500

27, 200

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

20.7

20.7

20.7

20.8

" Revised computation.

The principal results of the 1901, 1902, and 1904 floods of Mohawk 

River are summarized in the following table:

Summary of Mohawk River floods of 1901, 1902, and 1904-

Year.

1901

1902 

1904

Period.

December 13 to 20 ......

February 27 to March 8. 

March 19 to 81... .......

Duration 

in hours.

179

224 

386

Mean second-feet per 

square mile.

8.70

9.18 

7.92

Mean depth 

run-off in 

inches.

2.39

3.19 

4 12

Total discharge 

during flood, 

in cubic feet.

7, 237, 454, 976

9,591,264,000 

10, 183, 289, 472

The results obtained on the small streams near Utica during this 

flood are summarized in the following table:

Summary of smalJ-streanis discharge during flood of 1904-

Stream.

Starch Factory

Sylvan Glen Creek.

Drainage 

area in 

square 

miles.

3.40

4.42 

1.18

Duration of freshet.

From 

March 24, noon. 

March 33, noon.

To 

March 29, noon . 

March 27, noon.

Days.

7 

5 

5

Average discharge 

in secondfeet 

per 

square 

mile.

33.33 

29.93 

19.06

Total yield during 

freshet.

Inches 

runoff.

8.67 

5.56 

3.55

Gallons.

512,278,000 

407,230,000 

72,570,000

a Including Oraefenberg diversion.

The maximum discharge of West Canada Creek during this flood 

occurred on the afternoon of March 27, and was 7,068 cubic feet per
40 DESTET7CTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

second, or 21 cubic-feet per second per square mile, at the gaging 

station at Twin Rocks Bridge, this being far below the recorded flood 

maximum of this stream. The cause of this flood of March 26 on 

the upper Mohawk was apparently the rapid melting of snow on the 

watershed from Rome to Little Falls, together with ice blockades in 

the river. A drop in temperature on the 27th checked the rapid 

melting of snow, and the flood rapidly subsided.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

The damage done consisted mainly in the flooding of all lowlands 

along the river, of cellars, houses, and in some cases the basements of 

business places; and in the delay or stoppage for a short time of 

railway traffic on the New York Central Railroad and street railroads of some of the cities along the river. In some places along the 

river ice gorges formed and flooded large areas. One of these was at 

Akin. Almost the whole of the village of Fort Hunter was flooded 

by this ice gorge.

GKA:NT> KIVEB F:LOOD, MICHIGAN."

From March 20 to April 8 occurred the largest and most destructive flood in the recorded history of this stream, and in all probability 

the largest in this drainage basin for a century.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

This is the largest river drainage basin in Michigan, comprising an 

area of 5,570 square miles, draining into Lake Michigan. It is 

nearly oval in shape, has a length of 135 miles, and a maximum width 

of 70 miles. It slopes rapidly for about half its length from an 

elevation along its eastern rim of about 400 feet above Lake Michigan 

toward the west and toward the river. Its lower half has a very 

slight slope and contains some flat, highly permeable land with lakes 

and ponds having no outlets. Fig. 3 shows the stream and its tributaries, the gaging and precipitation stations, and a profile of the 

river from the mouth to Jackson, a distance of about 210 miles. From 

the mouth to Ionia, a distance of 81 miles, the average slope is only 

0.6 foot per mile. From Ionia to Jackson, 130 miles, the slope is 

2.36 feet per mile.

The three principal tributaries above Ionia are Red Cedar, Looking Glass, and Maple rivers, all entering from the east a considerable 

distance apart. The three principal tributaries that enter below Ionia 

are the Thornapple from the south and the Flat and Rouge from the 

north. These three enter within a distance of less than 18 miles, in

0 Prepared mainly from data furnished by Robert B. Horton, district hydrographer.
MURPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

GRAND RIVER FLOOD, MICHIGAN. 41

which the slope is only 0.6 foot per mile; they have a marked effect 

upon the flood conditions.

PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE.

The monthly precipitation at five places in this drainage basin for

the six months prior to this flood is shown in the following table,

FIG. 3. Drainage basin and profile of Grand River, Michigan.

as are also the monthly excess or deficiency and the

ficiency at Grand Rapids for the six months:

Precipitation in Grand River basin, October, 1903, to Marcli, 1904-

accumulated dePlace.

Grand Haven .

Grand Rapids .____- 

Hastings . _ ______

Lansing . _ _ . _ _

Oct.

Inches. 

1.04

{-:*

1 2.31 

1.55

1.99

1.43

Nov.

Inches. 

1.24

-2.6

.85 

1.57

1.45

1 43

Dec.

Inches. 

1.31

- .6 

2.29 

1.98

2.06

9 07

Jan.

Inches. 

0.78 -1.5' 

1.47 

2.23

2 82

2.80

Feb.

Inchei

o H

 .8 

1.71

1.7J

1.5

2.6

0

8 

0

3

0

Mar.

Inches. 

2.16

+2.00 

« 4. 39 

5.05

( & )

3.72

Total.

Inches. 

7.33

-3.9 

13.09 

14.08

14.05

a The depth of snow at Grand Rapids March 20 was 1 inch. 

6 The depth of snow at Lansing March 6 was 20 inches.
42 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

It is seen that there was an excess of 2 inches in March, but a 

deficiency of 3.9 inches for the six months October to March. The 

daily temperature and precipitation during the flood are given in 

the following table:

Daily precipitation and temperature at Grand Rapids and Lansing, Midi.,

March 22 to 28, 1904.

Date.

March 22 ..............

March 23 ............................

March 24 ............................

March 25 ............................

March26 ..................... _

March 27 ..... ..... .. . . .

March 28 ..................

Grand Rapids.

Precipitation.

Inch. 

0.48 

.00 

.00 

.66 

T. 

.07 

T.

Temperature.

42 

40 

48 

45 

26 

20 

28

Lansing.

Precipita 

tion.

Inch 

0.00 

.00 

.84 

.32 

.04 

T. 

.00

Temperature

O Tjl

40 

38 

46 

38 

21 

20 

28

It is seen that this flood was caused by a moderate rainfall in con- 

' junction with melting snow, due to high temperature.

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

The gage height and corresponding discharge at the gaging stations at Grand Rapids and Lansing during this flood are given in the 

following table:

Mean daily gage height and discharge of Grand River, Michigan, March 20 to

April 9, 1904.

Grand Rapids." Lansing.

Date.

March 20 .'...........................

March 21 ............................

March 22 ........................

Marteh23 ........................ ...

March 24 ............................

March 25 ............................

s a From Lymar

Gage.

Feet. 

9.20 

9.30 

10.65 

11.45 

15.60

/ 18. 01 

\ (18. 09) 

i B. Cooley,

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

16,700 

17, 000 

19, 500 

21,400 

30, 300

1 35,800 

C. E.

Gage.

Feet.

6.60

7.80 

11.39

13.78

16.65

Discharge.

Sec.-ft.

2,840 

3,930 

9,780 

14, 560

20,300
MURPHY AND"]

OTHERS. J

GRAND RIVER FLOOD, MICHIGAN.

Mean daily gage height and discharge of Grand River, Michigan, March 20 to 

April 9, 1904 Continued.

Date.

March 26 ...........................

March 27 _..._.._....................

March 28 ...................... t

March 29

March 30 .._--........-'.......... _

March 31 ............... ............

April 1. ....... ............. . . .

April 2... .........................

Aprils. ................

April 4..... _ . . . ... .... ......

April 5. ...... --.-....._.............

AprilG. ........................... . .

April?....... _--............. . .

April 8.. _._..---._..-__.-......

April9. ...................... .

Grand Rapids.

G-age.

Feet. 

(19. 05)

/ 19. 50 

\ (19.75)

/ 19.20 

t (19.36)

f 18.13 

1 (18.23)

/ 16.75

\ (16.77)

15.40 

14.45 

13.80 

13.80 

13.80 

12.80 

11.20 

10.50 

9.55 

9.40

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

37, 800

\ 39,400 

| 38,500 

} 36, 000

| 32,900

29,900

27, 800 

26, 800 

26, 600 

' 26, 600 

24, 500 

20, 700 

18. 800 

17, 400 

17, 200

Lansing.

Q-age.

Beet. 

18.02

16.05 

14.05 

12.80

10.86

11.07 

11.75 

11.40 

11.10 

10.55 

8.95 

8.22 

7.70 

7.38 

7.55

Discharge.

Sec.-ft.

23, 040 

19, 100

15, 100 

12, 600

8,720

9,140 

10, 500 

9,800 

9,200 

8,100 

6,920 

4,380 

3,830 

3,520 

3,680

Figures in parentheses are elevations corrected for the flow which passed across the 

west side and entered the river about 1.4 miles below Fulton street; they are used in the 

volume equivalent.

The flood at Grand Kapids lasted from March 21 to April 8, reaching a maximum on March 27, with a gage height of 19.75 feet and a 

discharge of 39,400 cubic feet per second, or 8.04 cubic feet per second 

per square mile. For five days the gage reading was 18 feet or more.

The flood at Lansing reached a maxAiium on March 26, one day 

earlier than at Grand Kapids. " The maximum daily flow at Lansing 

was 18.7 second-feet per square mile, which is about 2.36 times greater 

per square mile than that at Grand Eapids, and yet the area overflowed and the damage done by the flood at Grand Eapids was much 

greater than at Lansing, due to the difference in rapidity of flow.

The flood profile of this river is shown in fig. 3, and the height of 

the flood above1 danger line, as shown by gages along the river, is 

given in the table following.
44 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Flood profile of Q-rand River, Michigan, 1904.

Place.

Grand Rapids . ..___.

Ionia _ . . _ . . . .

Portland

Grandledge _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ .... ___________ . _ .

Lansing ________ ...... . _ . . . . ___________

Eaton Rapids ...... .....-.---..

G-age 

height.

Feet. 

20.45

27.55

14.44

14.10

19.45

9.20

Height 

above danger line.

Feet. 

9.7

3

2. 9

7.9

8.6

2.7

It is seen that the stage was from 7.9 to 9.7 feet above the danger 

line at Lansing, Grandledge, and Grand Rapids.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

At Grand Rapids the river began to overflow its banks on the 

evening of March 24, and the water did not return within the banks 

of the river until March 31. More than 1,500 houses were flooded, 

the west part of the city for a width of several blocks being overflowed to a depth in places of 5 feet. The city gas-light plant was 

cut off by the water and the city was without light for several nights. 

Ten thousand employees of the various industries along the river 

were thrown out of work.

The following extract from one of the Bay City, Mich., newspapers describes the flood conditions in Michigan on March 31:

The floods in Michigan are the worst since 1887. Lowlands are everywhere 

completely under water and roads are in most cases flowing streams.

Numerous dams have been washed out or so badly undermined as to be 

practically ruined. Bridges, both railroad and highway, are in the same condition. Railroad traffic has been stopped entirely on account of washouts of 

bridges or sections of track. Factories have been put out of business by water 

rising in their basements sufficiently to put out their fires, and several cities are 

in darkness because of a similar condition of affairs in their lighting-plant 

power houses.

Stores in the business portion of cities are basement full, and in many cases 

the water is flowing through them on the ground floors. Many families have 

been forced to leave their homes.

The damage will be something enormous, both in the actual destruction of 

property and in the stoppage of business. No figures can be given, but it is 

conservatively estimated that the loss will run into the millions.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

Destructive floods may occur on this river from the rapid melting 

of a comparatively small amount of snow, accompanied with a not 

excessive rainfall, the small slope of bed of the stream from Grand
MUEPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J WABASH RIVER FLOOD, INDIANA. 45

Kapids to Lake Michigan (about 0.6 foot per mile) being insufficient 

to carry off the water as rapidly as it conies down from the upper 

watershed. The remedy for the consequent overflow consists in 

giving the stream an abundant unobstructed waterway and using 

levees where the benefits derived from them will justify the cost of 

their construction.

WABASH KITER FLOOD, INDIANA.

By F. W. HANNA.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

*

The drainage area of Wabash River covers the major portion of 

the State of Indiana and a considerable territory in eastern Illinois.

FIG. 4. Drainage "basin of Wabash River.

In shape it resembles a huge fan, the axis of which lies along a 

straight line connecting its mouth with the town of Wabash, Ind., 

near its source. In the upper course of the river the right-hand ind
46 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

left-hand tributaries are about equally distributed, upper Eel and 

Tippecaiioe rivers being offset by the Salamonie and the Mississinewa. 

In the lower course of the river the drainage area is unsymmetrical. 

No important tributaries come in from the right, while on the left 

it receives the White River system, which comprises a very large portion of the whole drainage area of the Wabash.

The topography of the drainage area is diversified. It belongs 

chiefly to the topographic classifications of the middle and southern 

thirds of Indiana, described by Mr. T. C. Hopkins,® who says:

The middle third is somewhat more diversified [than the northern third]. 

The eastern half of it is a broad, rolling plain area, with no prominent -hills 

nor any very deep valleys. The streams in places run over the surface of the 

plain and in places are slightly intrenched in it. In the western half of the 

middle third the streams are more deeply intrenched. The southern third, or 

more, of the State is much more diversified. The area is more deeply trenched 

by the streams; so much so in places that secondary plains have been formed 

and the underlying rocks have stamped their character on the surface. The 

upland sloping plateaus are in many places very much dissected and diversified 

by numerous deep valleys cut in them, so that they form a mass of irregular 

hills.

The total length of Wabash River is 517 miles. Below Lafayette, 

312 miles above its mouth, it has an almost uniform fall of 0.6 foot 

per mile, while the remaining portion above this point has an almost 

uniform fall of 2.4 feet per mile. The upper tributaries of the river 

are roughly similar to the upper portion of the main stream, while 

the lower tributaries are roughly similar to the lower portion.

PRECIPITATION.

During the major part of March, 1904, considerable rain fell 

throughout Indiana, causing a rise in the Wabash that reached a 

maximum stage at Mount Carmel, 111., on March 14. This stage gradually receded until March 21, when another gradual rise began, 

caused by precipitation occurring about the middle of the month, 

and continued by two exceptional storms, one on March 25 and 26 

and another on March 31.

On March 22 a storm center was central over the extreme Northwest, which, traveling across the continent at a rate of 34.7 miles 

per hour, reached the mouth of St. Lawrence River on March 26. 

This storm center passed over the Wabash drainage area during the 

latter part of March 25 and the fore part of March 26, traveling 

practically parallel to the course of the river and precipitating a 

liberal amount of water over the entire area. In the early morninghours of March 25 the Weather Bureau rain gage at Evansville, 

Ind., near the mouth of the Wabash, recorded 1.92 inches of precipi-

«Twenty-eigntk Ann. Kept., Dept. Geology of Indiana.
] WABASH RIVER FLOOD, INDIANA. 47

tation in five and three-fourths hours, with the excessive maximum 

fall of 0.55 inch in twenty-five minutes. In the course of about five 

hours this same storm had reached Indianapolis, Ind., near the headwaters of West Branch of White River, having precipitated copiously over the entire district between Evansville and that point. Here 

the Weather Bureau rain gage recorded between 7.54 a. m. March 

25 and 12.45 a. m. March 26, a period of about nineteen and one-sixth 

hours, a total rainfall of 4.72 inches, the maximum being 1.54 inches 

in one and two-thirds hours. Continuing onward in its northeasterly 

course, this storm appeared at Cleveland, Ohio, during the evening 

of March 26, where, however, the amount of precipitation was 

diminished very materially.

A second storm, originating in the Great Basin on March 28 and 

traveling across the continent at the average rate of 22.3 miles per 

hour, reached the mouth of the St. Lawrence on April 2. This storm 

passed across the Wabash drainage area in a northeasterly course, 

precipitating heavily upon it throughout its entire course. Near 

Indianapolis, where the probable maximum intensity was reached, 

the downpour lasted three hours and five minutes, during which 2.52 

inches of rain fell, 1.89 inches of which were precipitated within 

eighty minutes.

GAGE HEIGHT.

It will be noted that the total rainfall at Indianapolis during these 

two storms was 7.24 inches, 3.43 inches of this being precipitated 

within three hours. The facts that Wabash River and its tributaries 

were already at a high stage when the storm of March 25 and 2(5 

began, that the comparative rapid fall of the Wabash and its 

tributaries in its upper course hurried the water from this storm to 

the lower part of the valley, where it necessarily lingered on account 

of the low fall of the river, and that another severe storm on March 

31 added immense quantities of water which were rapidly carried 

to the lower valley, all resulted in the greatest flood in height and 

the longest in duration that has been experienced in the lower valley of the Wabash since the establishment of the Weather Bureau 

gage on that stream at Mount Carmel, 111., in 1885, and possibly the 

largest flood that had occurred in that region for many years before. 

Only two recorded floods approached anywhere near that of March 

and April, 1904. In March, 1897, and in March, 1898, the Mount 

Carmel gage read 26.4 feet and 27.0 feet, respectively. , On April 2, 

1904, this same gage recorded 27.1 feet, and would probably have 

reached 28 feet or higher had not some of the levees in that section 

given way. Below is appended a list of the maximum stages of 

Wabash River with their dates of occurrence at Mount Carmel, 111., 

us shown by the Weather Bureau records from 1885 to 1904, inclu-
DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

sive. The zero of this gage is very close to low-water mark for the 

river at this place.

Maximum yearly gage height on Wabash River at Mount Garmel, HI.,

1885-1904.

Date.

January 8, 1885 ____._...._.

May 22, 1886 ........ _

March 14, 1887. .............

April 5, 1888................

June 19, 1889 ...............

January 14, 1890 .._.._.____.

March 2, 1891............ ..

April 13, 1892. ..............

May 8, 1893. ...... .

February 16, 1894..........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

24.7

19.8

22.0

20.6

20.8

24.1

23.0

21.5

24.5

13.6

Date.

January 25, 1895. ... --------

July 39, 1896.... ............

March 13, 1897. ............ .

March 30, 1898. .............

January 23, 1899. ...........

Marchl4, 1900...... .......

March 19, 1901. ......... ...

December 25, 1902 .........

March 12, 1908..............

April 2, 1904.. ............ .

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

7.5

14.3

26.4

27.0

19. 5

19.0

17.5

17.0

22.3

27 1

The movement of the waters of these successive storms down 

Wabash and White rivers toward the Ohio can readily be followed, 

in a general way, by a study of the gage heights of the United States 

Geological Survey records at Logansport, Ind., on the Wabash, and 

at Shoals, Ind., on the east branch of White River, in connection with 

those of the United States Weather Bureau at Mount Cartel, 111., on 

the Wabash, below the White. The zero of the Geological Survey 

gage at Logansport is about 1 foot below low-water mark, while the 

zero of the gage at Shoals on White River is about 63 feet below low 

water. A partial list of the gage heights from March 1 to April 25 

is appended below:

Gaffe height and discharge showing progress of flood at Logansport, Shoals, and 

Mount Carmel, March and April, 1904-

Date.

1904.

March 31_____. ____________

March 22____ ..............

March 23 ____..........._..

March 24 ...... -.._____.._

March 25 ..... .... . . ...

March 26 _.-.-...-._.......

Logansport.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

9.90 

6.20 

8.30 

8.10 

6.68 

6.85 

13.45

Discharge.

8ec.-ft. 

31,710 

14, 880 

24, 140 

23, 220 

16, 940 

17, 670 

51.980

Shoals.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

67.60 

67.70 

68.00 

74.40 

75.20 

78.40 

87.10

Discharge.

8ec.-ft. 

8,610 

8,860 

9,610 

25, 870 

27, 950 

36, 270 

58. 880

Mount 

Carmel.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

10.50 

15.50

15. 7C 

16. OC 

16.70 

17. 7( 

20. 7C
MUBPHY AND ~~| 

OTHERS. J WABASH RIVEE FLOOD, INDIANA. 49

Gage height and discharge showing progress of flood at Logenspori, Shoals, and 

Mount Garmel, March and April, 1904 Continued.

Date.

1904. 

March 37 _ --------- .___-_

March28 ..-..------...-...

March 29 .---......__......

March 30.-. ..._...--.....

Aprill .............. ......

April 3... ....... -_---..

Aprils...................

April 4 ....... ............

April 5 _ _ . ..-.----._.......

April 6 ....................

April 7 _____ --....- .....

Aprils ....................

April9.... ................

April 25. ...__. ............

Logansport.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

14.84 

13.05 

10.32 

7.50 

9.10 

13 32 

13.00 

13.10 

11.06 

7.65 

5.73 

4.88 

4.45 

4.70 

3.90 

2.60

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

56, 880 

49, 380 

33, 840 

20, 530 

27, 880 

43, 380 

47, 130 

47, 630 

37, 430 

21, 220 

12, 940 

9,530 

8,320 

9,080 

6,400 

2,770

Shoals.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

87.70 

92.80 

95.20 

94.90 

93.40 

91.00 

88.80 

87.20 

85.60 

84.40 

83.40 

80.20 

73.20 

68.40 

66.80 

65.20

Discharge.

Sec.-ft. 

60, 450 

73, 710 

79, 950 

79, 170 

75, 270 

69, 030 

63, 310 

59, 150 

54, 990 

51,870 

49, 270 

40,950 

22, 750 

10, 610 

6,610 

2,820

Mount 

Carmel.

height.

Feet. 

21.90 

23.10 

24.10 

25.50 

26.50 

27.00 

27.10 

26.60 

26.10 

25.60 

25.30 

25.20 

25.10 

24.60 

20.00 

6.70

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

It is always very difficult, if not entirely impossible, to determine 

the damage done by a flood. Inconvenience, suffering, and loss of 

life all may result from floods, and these are not reducible to mathematical statement. Even the property losses are difficult to estimate, 

as portions not entirely ruined are so damaged, defaced, or spoiled by 

water soaking as to take away the joy of their use, if not their practical utility. Various attempts have been made to ascertain the 

amount of damage wrought by the Wabash flood of 1904, through the 

estimates of county commissioners, city councils, and railroad officials. 

In summing up this matter the Indianapolis News of March 29 says:

It is estimated the damage in this county will reach $2,225,000 and north of 

this county an additional $1,000,000. Eleven lives have been lost in the Indiana flood so far, and the total property loss in the State has been estimated 

at from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. At Madison the county commissioners estimated the loss to bridges at $40,000. In Wabash County the loss is $50,000, 

half of which is in the city. At Peru the loss is $100,000. Reports from Seymour say that the loss in that vicinity will be $35,000. Reports from Bloomington say that the loss in that county will be $50,000,

JBB 147 05 M t
50 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

This estimate was made before the great flood in the lower Wabash 

region was creating its greatest havoc with all kinds of property. 

Railroads, municipalities, highways, farms, in fact every kind of 

property in reach of the waters and their reach was high and wide 

suffered untold damage.

The damage to the railroads throughout the entire State of Indiana, and especially in the southern portion, was very great. Many 

of the roads on portions of their lines were unable to run trains for 

nearly a week, some of the small towns not being able either to receive or transmit mail for several days. Trains were detoured by all 

sorts of means to reach their final destinations, running without any 

hope of time schedule. Culverts and bridges, not only of railroads, 

but of highways as well, were swept out by the rush of waters through 

waterways insufficient at best and made more so by tremendous collections of drift.

The Indianapolis News for March 30 prints the following estimate 

of damages in Indianapolis to engineering works, principally bridges, 

prepared by Mr. Juep, city engineer:

Damages to engineering works at Indianapolis, Ind., March, 190%.

Bridges, etc.:

East Tenth Street Bridge___________________-_____ $8,000

. Highland Avenue Bridge___________________________ 7, 000

Dorrnan Street Bridge____________________________ 7,000

East Ohio Street Bridge___________________________ 8,000

Capitol Avenue Bridge and repairs______________-______ 15, 000

East Michigan street repairs______ _ __ _ 1,500

Washington Street Bridge, Irvington______,_____ _ 2, 500

Indiana Avenue Bridge abutments-__ ____ ____ _ _ 7,000

Meridian street retaining walls, repairs to Barth Avenue Bridge,

Indiana avenue and Cottage avenue retaining walls_ ____ 5,000

Grand avenue culvert-____________________ 75

Repairs to Liberty Street Bridge_______ 50

Henry Street Bridge ____________________ 8

Merrill street retaining walls for sewers_______________ 25

Merrill street and Senate avenue bridges__________ 200

McCarthy Street Bridge____________-_____________ 400

Delaware Street Bridge (new), over Pogues Run __ ___ 10,000

Ray Street Bridge_________________._____________ 300

Additional flood walls for protection of bridges__________ _ 4, 000

Levees and miscellaneous:

Raymond street_______________________________ 350

Fall Creek, in five different places____________________ 3,500 

Other important improvements and repairs of levees along White

River ___________________________ ___________ 4, 000

Cleaning, scraping and regraveling streets and alleys________ 30, 000

Culverts washed out______________________________ 3,000

Repairs to block pavement__________,__________ 10,000

Cleaning out Pogues Run and State ditch_________- ______ 15,000

Repairs to sidewalks ___________________________ 5,000
] WABASH EIVEE FLOOD, INDIANA. 51

Levees and miscellaneous Continued.

Providing floodgates for sewers__________________ $3, 000

Repairs to temporary bridges over White River__________ 6,000

Northwestern avenue temporary bridge_______________ 2,500

West Tenth Street Bridge_________________________ 3,000

Sewer work and repairs and catch basins_____ __________ 5,000

For drainage of flooded districts, cutting levees, and rebuilding__ 1,500

Refilling washouts in streets_______________________ 1,000

Total ______________________________________ 168, 908

Reports from other parts of the Wabash territory showed that the 

damage was as great as in the vicinity of Indianapolis. The county 

commissioners of Daviess County reported 50 bridges damaged and 18 

entirely washed away in that county alone. The big steel bridge over 

White River at Bloomfield was taken out, and large structures at 

various other places were swept away, crippling wagon, electric, and 

steam roads relentlessly.

All of the large railroad embankments in the bottom lands of 

White and Wabash rivers were especial points of attack by the waters. 

Owing to their obstructing nature, a head of several feet caused such 

heavy pressure as to start percolation and ultimate disintegration. 

At Hazleton, on the Evanston and Terre Haute Railroad, in the 

lower White River region, the situation was serious. The following 

extract from the Evansville Courier of April 1 is not only illustrative 

of this point, but of many others throughout the flooded districts:

Hazleton, Ind., March 31. Three hundred workmen and four dirt trains are 

working night and day to save the big fill north of Hazleton. The heavy rain 

Wednesday night and the continued backing of flood water on the upper side 

of the embankment forced a stream of water through the fill early Thursday 

morning. Thirty thousand sand bags had been piled along the track for a mile 

in anticipation of a break, and the workmen at once began piling them into 

the crevasse. They were unable to make headway against the wash, and by 

last night a dozen streams were trickling through the embankment and slowly 

washing it away.

At a late hour last night the break was reported to be in worse condition 

than in the morning in spite of all that had been done. The water stands 6 

feet higher on the upper side of the embankment than on the lower.

It is probable that more damage was done to the farms and farming interests than to any other class of business or property. Many 

farms were washed full of ditches; others were covered with several 

inches or feet of sand, and thousands of acres were flooded. The 

breaking of many levees throughout the valleys greatly increased 

the destruction. The following newspaper dispatches give something of an idea of the damage done by this cause:

Vincennes, Ind., March 28. The Wabash River levee, 10 miles north of here, 

broke in two places last night, flooding more, than 15,000 acres of the finest 

land in Knox County. The water rushed through fields, sweeping everything
52 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

before it. The farmers were warned in the afternoon that the levee was weak, 

and it is believed that no lives were lost. Reports say that houses were swept 

off their foundations and the loss will amount to thousands. One break was 

about 75 feet wide; the other was 300 feet wide. Groundhogs or human 

beings are supposed to have caused the breaks. Other places in the levee are 

weak, and big damages may come at any time. Farmers say that all the wheat 

covered by water is killed. Indianapolis News.

Sullivan, Ind., March 29. The break in the township levee is now 135 feet 

wide. Three hundred feet of the Illinois Central tracks to the west of the 

Riverton Bridge form a dam over which the water is flowing into the bottoms 

at a rapid rate. Much live stock has been killed. Evansmlle Courier.

Clay City, Ind., March 30. Eel River has been sweeping through its valley 

in this county, doing much damage to farms and rarlroads. The 7-foot levee 

constructed by the Lewis Township Improvement Company last year at a cost 

of many thousand dollars to protect farm lands on the west side of " the Big 

Bend "a is said to be ruined, without having afforded any returns for the money 

and labor it represented. It was proposed to build a similar levee on the opposite side of the stream, but the project has been abandoned. Indianapolis 

News.

The breaking of these levees, added to the water already flowing in 

on unprotected tracts of land, produced extremely disastrous results. 

Thousands of acres of growing wheat were either partly or totally 

destroyed. Large amounts of grain and hay in store were either 

destroyed or carried away. A loss of 20,000 bushels of corn in one 

township alone was reported. Houses, barns, sheds, farm implements, and live stock were swept away. Fifty head of dead cattle 

were seen floating in the drift near Mount Carmel.

In addition to the great damages already discussed, every town 

within the reach of the flood suffered heavy loss. Some of the small 

towns were entirely drowned out; others were isolated and ran short 

of provisions; all were partly submerged, cellars were filled with 

water, merchandise ruined, furniture spoiled, water supplies shut off, 

light plants closed down, and business completely paralyzed. In the 

midst of all this many people suffering from disease died from exposure; some were drowned in attempting to escape from the flood; 

others lost their liyes in trying to save property either of their own 

or their neighbors; and still others were drowned in heroically 

attempting to save lives.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

The proper construction of levees is always a matter of vital importance, inasmuch as they invite people to inhabit districts not otherwise tenable and encourage their spending considerable sums of 

money through the confidence imposed in their protection. It is 

usually found upon inspection of levees that have failed that a few 

additional inches in height, a few additional feet in width, a little 

extra precaution in their protection and care would have enabled
WABASH EIVER FLOOD, INDIANA. 53

them' to meet the flood crisis efficiently. The recent experience with 

the levees in Wabash Valley should lead to the rectifying of any such 

errors as these in that vicinity. Careful inspection should be made 

for the purpose of locating any and all defects of the above nature 

and immediate steps taken to repair them. Where there is a State 

engineer such matters should be under his charge, and recommendations should be made by him. In the cases where burrowing animals 

are especially bad, or where from any cause percolation is extremely

likely

permit, narrow concrete walls may be used to prevent the digging of 

through the embankment. This method is necessarily very

to occur, and where the value of the property protected will

sive, but there are exceptional cases where the value of the proholes 

expei 

tectecl property will warrant its use.

The straightening, widening, and deepening of river channels may 

be made a means of flood prevention. This must be done, however, 

in such a way as not to harm one portion of the valley by benefiting 

another. For instance, if all the headwater streams of the river are 

so improved as to bring the upper flood waters hurriedly down into 

the lower valley, where neither natural nor artificial means abundantly exist for their disposal, their field of destruction is merely 

transferred and their power for evil intensified. On the other hand, 

if a stream is improved in its lower valley or in any portion of its 

valley where ample drainage is furnished below the improved portion, great benefit must .result.

In the case of the recent Wabash flood the greater part of the destruction took place in the lower valley in and about the junction of 

White and Wabash rivers. With the exception of a few isolated 

cases, the water channels in this region were less able to dispose of 

the waters delivered to them than those in any other portion of the 

drainage area. Evidently any improvement of the nature under 

discussion in the upper valleys without a corresponding increase of 

the carrying capacity of the lower-valley channel would be unwise. 

If the lower Wabash channel was improved so as to meet the additional demand on it, then the straightening, deepening, widening, 

and diking of some of the tributaries of this stream would be very 

beneficial. This is especially true of both branches of White River, 

which is extremely low banked and winding.

Often serious local flood damage is caused by the narrowing of 

the river channels by bridge piers, railroad embankments, highway 

grades, and other obstructions. The natural waterway is reduced for 

a given stage of water to a half, and often much less, of the original 

and natural one. The consequence is that the water is backed up 

several feet and property is seriously inundated that should have been 

free from the flood. As an instance of this, the situation in the flood
54 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

under discussion on White River at Shoals, Ind., may be cited. The 

town of Shoals consists of two parts, designated East Shoals and 

West Shoals. West Shoals is situated on ground on the right side 

of White River, lying mainly above high-water limit; East Shoals 

occupies chiefly a high rocky knoll immediately adjacent to the left 

bank of the stream. This eminence is exceptionally high at its central part next to the river, but slopes off toward low ground in all 

three of the remaining directions. The ordinary river channel runs 

adjacent to this bluff and carries stages of 15 to 20 feet of water. 

When the water gets higher it naturally spreads out over a flat several 

hundred feet wide on the right side. Still greater elevations of 

water surface originally caused the water to flow around to the left 

of the above-mentioned knoll. During the 1904 flood a maximum 

stage of about 35 feet above low water was reached. Had the riverchannel waterway been what nature had prepared for it, it would 

have been four or five times as wide and several times as large as 

it was, and the water would not have risen to any such stage as it 

did. A highway grade and a railroad embankment made the surplus 

waterway on the right of the main channel useless, and a railroad embankment also prevented the water from passing around the knoll to 

the left as it naturally would. The result was that these obstructions served as a dam that raised the water several feet higher than 

it would naturally have risen. Much property on the lower margins 

of the knoll wT as flooded that should have been high and dry. The 

highway bridge has a length of only 445 feet between abutments, and 

the railroad bridge, a short distance below, is about the same length, 

and the maximum discharge of 80,000 second-feet was forced to pass 

through this space. The capacity of this waterway was also reduced 

by end contraction on the right bank. It is a notable fact that a 

high, solid embankment bridge approach on a low flat covered with 

several feet of water causes an action at the bridge similar to end 

contraction in a weir.

By obtaining slope, wetted perimeter, coefficient of roughness, and 

area of waterway the necessary increase in the length of the bridges 

to enable the channel to carry the flood at this point without causing 

undue rise might be computed. The computation is not made, as the 

situation is not critical enough to cause action on the computed results. This special case is cited at length as being one that came 

under the writer's observation and as being typical of many others 

throughout the flooded territory. Many instances from various 

places are reported where the unnatural rise caused by such obstructions as these has been 6 or 7 feet. Very often this rise has resulted 

in serious damage. Such cases demand the services of an engineer 

who is capable of determining what may be done to prevent future 

similar occurrences.
DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. 55 

BELLE FOURCHE RIVER FLOOD, SOUTH DAKOTA."

During the early part of June, 1904, the northern part of the Black 

Hills, South Dakota, was visited with excessive rainfall, which caused 

the Belle Fonrche and other streams in that region to reach the highest 

known stage since 1883 and to do much damage to property along 

their banks.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Belle Fourche River, sometimes called North Fork of Cheyenne

FIG. 5. Part of Black Hills drainage.

River, rises in the northeastern part of Wyoming and flows in a gen-

" Prepared mainly from data furnished by R. F. Walter, engineer.
56 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

erally southeasterly direction, joining South Fork about 13 miles 

east of the Dakota-Wyoming boundary line, and is the main run-off 

stream from the Bear Lodge Mountains. It fluctuates greatly during the year, being often dry during the summer, but after a rain 

frequently discharging 7,000 to 10,000 second-feet for a short time; 

it rises and falls very rapidly. Although parts of the watershed of 

this stream are mountainous and rough, there are no very high mountains. It is barren of timber, except along the streams. The soil is 

what is locally known as gumbo, a type that sheds water easily and 

is very little cultivated.

Redwater River is an important tributary of the Belle Fourche, 

draining a part of the northern slope of the Black Hills. Spearfish 

and Sand creeks are its tributaries. Its watershed is mainly rough 

and broken.

Rapid Creek is the main stream from the eastern part of the Black 

Hills. It has a steady fall and is never entirely dry. Its basin is 

mainly in the forest reserve, and its slopes are timbered. These 

streams are shown in fig. 5.

PRECIPITATION.

The rain causing this flood began May 31 and continued more or 

less steadily until June 4, the greater part of the precipitation falling on June 3 and 4. It was much heavier on the hills than on the 

plains. The rainfall records of the United States Geological Survey 

rain gage show 2.70 inches at Belle Fourche from June 1 to 5, and 

the United States Weather Bureau records show 3.10 inches at Fort 

Meade and 3.28 inches at Rapid for the same period. In the mountains at Spearfish the precipitation was 5.55 inches, or about double 

that on the plains for the same period.

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

The streams in this region rose steadily and reached a maximum on 

June 5. The greatest damage was done during the night of June 4 

and the morning of June 5. The duration and magnitude of the 

flood can be seen from the mean daily gage height and corresponding 

discharge at the regular gaging stations on Belle Fourche and 

Redwater rivers and Rapid Creek, as shown in the table following.
MUBPHY AND 

OTHERS ND ] BELLE FOURCHE EIVEB FLOOD, SOUTH DAKOTA. 57 

Discharge of Belle Four die and Red water rivers and Rapid Creek, June, 1904-

Date.

June 1 ..........

JuneS .... ....

June 3 - _ - . ...

June 4 .........

June5.__. . ....

June 6 ...

June 7 _ . ------

June 8 _-_.-_..-

June 9 ....

June 10 _________

June 11 _________

June 12 _.-......

June 13 --------

June 14

June 15

Belle Fourche at Belle 

Pourche.

G-age 

height.

Feet. 

2. 83 

3.08 

5.18 

6.98 

10.90 

& 10. 88 

10.10 

7.62 

6.30 

5.10 

4.88 

4.58 

3.90 

3.78 

3.50

Discharge.

Sec. -feet. 

212 

505 

1,951 

3, 211 

5, 465 

b 5, 941 

5,395 

3, 659 

2,735 

1,895 

1,741 

1,531 

1,055 

971 

775

Redwater at Belle 

Fourche.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

2.95 

3.15 

3.50 

3.50 

a 10. 20 

7.40 

5.70 

5.42 

5.42 

5.00 

4.58 

4.42 

4.25 

4.10 

4.02

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

174 

332 

349 

349 

« 8, 050 

3,918 

2,184 

1,898 

1,898 

1,470 

2,062 

915 

779 

670 

617

Rapid Creek at Rapid.

Gage 

height.

feet. 

2.22 

2.30 

2.50 

2.82 

3.45 

< 4. 30 

3.70 

3.55 

3.50 

3.40 

3.45 

3.40 

3.35 

3.20 

3.12

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

146 

164 

220 

324 

526 

<*876 

684 

632 

620 

588 

604 

588 

572 

524 

498

" Maximum gage height, 10.20 feet; maximum discharge, 8,050 second-feet. 

6 Maximum gage height, 11.25 feet; maximum discharge, 6,270 second-feet. 

0 Maximum gage height, 4.40 feet; maximum discharge. 908 second-feet. 

d Channel changed by flood.

It is seen that the maximum daily stage of Belle Fourche River 

was attained on June 6 for a gage height of about 10.9 feet and a 

corresponding discharge of 5,941 second-feet. The absolute maximum gage height during- this flood was 11.25 feet and the corresponding discharge was 6,270 second-feet.

Redwater River reached its maximum stage on June 5 for a 

maximum gage height of 10.2 feet and a corresponding discharge of 

8,050 second-feet. The flow of Rapid Creek reached a maximum on 

June G for a maximum gage height of 4.4 feet and a corresponding 

discharge of 908 second-feet. The flow of this creek during this 

flood was not as large, compared with its ordinary flow, as that of 

Belle Fourche and Redwater rivers.

The table following gives additional data on the flow of these 

streams during this flood.
58 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Flood data of the Belle Fourclie and tributaries, June, 1904-

Stream and place.

Belle Fourche River at Belle 

Fourche, S. Dak .

Red water River at Belle Fourche, 

S. Dak.

Rapid Creek at Rapid. _ _

Belle Fourclie River below mouth

Drainage 

area.

Sq. miles. 

3,250

1,015 

410

Maximum discharge.

Total.

Sec.-ft. 

6, 370

8,110 

1, 170

30, 000

Per square 

mile.

Sec.-ft. 

1.81

8.00 

3.85

Total discharge.

Acre-feet. 

45, 000

34, 000 

7,400

Cross sec 

tion.

Sq.-feet.

1,743

1,454 

330

At no time was there a violent downpour, but all water courses 

and dry runs gradually became torrents, carrying before them large 

logs, trees, and debris, damming the channels. In many of the creeks 

bowlders weighing a ton or more were rolled along by the waters.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

The rainfall over the u hills " was much heavier than on the plains, 

and as the waterways in the former were much smaller than in the 

latter the upper parts of the streams became raging torrents. Besides 

the main channels the smaller creeks and dry runs became torrents 

and discharged large volumes of water. Four lives were lost. The 

greatest damage was done along Spearfish and Whitewood creeks, 

where the channels were contracted in many places by railroad and 

other improvements, and parts of the towns of Deadwood, Central 

City, and Spearfish were under water.

At Deadwood the water of Whitewood Creek reached a height of 

8 feet above normal and 2 feet above danger line, flooding the lower 

part of the town, undermining many buildings, washing out miles 

of the railroad track of the Chicago and Northwestern and Burlington and Missouri River railroads, completely destroying the steel 

bridges in Deadwood, and doing other damage all along its course.

Along Whitewood Creek the list of damages is given as follows 

Damages from Belle Fourclie flood.

City of Deadwood, bulkheads and bridges washed out and damage to

streets _________________________________________ $25,000 

Lawrence County ____:______________________________ 60,000 

Chicago and Northwestern Railroad ___________________ 30,000

Burlington and Missouri River Railroad_________________ 60,000

Private damage ___________________________________ 25,000

Total ________________________________ ._______ 200, 000
] KANSAS FLOODS. 59

Along Spearfish Creek the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad 

in the canyon was almost completely washed out and the Government 

fish hatchery demolished; also considerable damage to streets and 

bridges in the town of Spearfish, as well as many private residences 

and orchards. All mill dams and canal heads were more, or less 

damaged. The damage in Spearfish, outside of the railroad damage, 

will reach $20,000.

All the smelters along Whitewood Creek were forced to close down 

for some time, and the Homestake mine was shut down for the first 

time in twenty years on account of inability to secure fuel and the 

excess of water in the mine. PL IV, B, illustrates the damage to 

Chicago and Northwestern Railway along this stream. .

Along Belle Fourche River, which receives all the water from 

the northern hills, 110 damage was done.

Reclwater River, the main branch of the Belle Fourche, was from 

one-fourth to one-half mile wide and considerable damage was done 

to meadows along its course.

KANSAS FLOODS. 

By E. C. MURPHY.

The floods 011 Neosho, Verdigris, and Osage rivers in eastern 

Kansas in July, 1904, were larger and more destructive than any other 

recorded floods on these streams. The flood on Arkansas River in 

southern Kansas only lacked 0.8 foot of being as high as during the 

great flood of 1877. The flood on Kansas River, while of a stage 

several feet less than that of the May flood of 1903, was, nevertheless, 

greater than any recorded prior to that one.

PRECIPITATION.

The rainfall in eastern Kansas prior to this flood is thus described 

by Mr. P. Connor in the Monthly Weather Review for July, 1904:

The spring and early summer months, like those of 1903, in Kansas and 

western Missouri were abnormally wet. At Kansas City there was an excess 

of nearly 17 inches of precipitation from March 1 to July 8, the date of the 

highest water. Fortunately for this community and interests below Kansas 

City, the most violent storm occurred outside the Kansas commonly known as 

the Kaw watershed. The rainfall in Kaw Valley, while far too heavy and frequent for good farm work, was so distributed that the streams could carry it 

off without overflowing their banks until July 6, although twice in June rather 

heavy rains on consecutive days caused a good many of them to become almost 

bank full in some places. On the morning of July 4 rather heavy rains were 

reported in Kaw Valley and northwestern Missouri, with the larger streams of 

Kaw Valley at ordinary stages. On the morning of July 5 only ordinary rains 

were reported over the same territory. There was, as yet, no cause for serious
60 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

apprehension, but on the afternoon and the night of July 5 uniformly heavy 

rains fell over the greater portion of Kaw Valley and northwestern Missouri. 

At Kansas City the fall was 2.31 inches in eighteen hours, and it was equally 

heavy along Kaw River to Topeka and along the Missouri to some distance 

below St. Joseph. The great quantity of rain that fell in the basin at the junction of Missouri and Kaw rivers had immediate effect in raising the rivers at 

Kansas City, and, in consequence, the Missouri had risen 2.7 feet by the morning 

of July 6, placing it 1.1 feet above the danger line. Kaw River rose 4 to 5 feet.

The monthly precipitation at several places in southeastern Kansas 

and adjacent States is given in the following table:

Monthly precipitation and variation from normal in southeastern Kansas and 

adjacent States, January to July, 1904.

Place.

North Platte, Nebr ...... I^al'I?t!°niV [Precipitation, .

_ _,.. _ [ Variation ....- .

[Precipitation _ . 

 , ^ f Variation ..... .

[Precipitation. . 

T-> ^ ^.-i ^ [Variation ......

[Precipitation. . 

-m- V.M. v [Variation......

[Precipitation. . 

 . _ . ,, [Variation __....

[Precipitation . _

 , ^ ~i , (Variation ._..,- Oklahoma, Okla ......... J_ . .

1 Precipitation. .

 n x <-, -^ . , [Variation ...... Port Smith, Ark .___._.._ ! .

[ Precipitation. _ 

Emporia, Kans ............ Precipitation. _ 

Port Scott, Kans ..... '.............. do.. ..

Winfleld, Kans ............ ______.. ..do....

Hartshorn, Ind. T. ...........__.... .do. _

Okmulgee, Ind. T .__._.__........ ...do....

Jan.

-0.2 

.32 

- .4 

.77 

- .1 

.92 

- .4 

.03 

- .8 

.12 

+1.0 

3.15 

+ .8 

2.18 

+1.1 

3.48 

.42 

1.58 

1.44 

1.13 

2.35 

3.37

2.26

Feb.

-0.4 

.06 

-1.3 

.69 

-1.6 

.16 

- .6 

.03 

-1.2 

.04 

-2.0 

.84 

- .9 

.04 

_ 2 g

.85 

.09 

.57 

.16 

T. 

.48 

.08

1.72

Mar.

-0.2

.52 

+3.3 

5.51 

+ .5 

2.62 

 .9 

.04 

+3.4 

4.23 

+4.4 

7.87 

-1.8 

.26 

- .5 

3.75 

4.01 

1.69 

1.58 

1.48 

4.37 

1.94

.23

Apr.

-0.6 

1.53

+3.8 

6.69 

+3.0 

4.70 

.0 

1.54 

- .3 

2.65 

-0.5 

3.25 

-1.2 

1.51 

-2.7 

2.39 

3.15 

10.34 

3.44 

2.01 

3.68 

1.27

3.78

May.

+0.9 

3.63 

+6.1 

10.70 

+2.0 

6.96 

+1.3 

4.42 

+1.5 

5.74 

 1.7 

2.88 

 1.2 

4.31 

- .4 

4.38 

8.32 

6.23 

4.36 

6.47 

4.83 

10.66

5.93

June.

+1.10 

4.43 

- .4 

4.56 

 .9 

3.88 

-1.3 

2.03 

+ .7 

5.69 

 . 4 

4.64 

+9.6 

12.33 

-1.8 

6.12 

9.51 

12.88 

11.78 

13.23 

15.00 

13.94

11.49

July.

+2.3 

4.90 

+2.0 

6.25 

+1.4 

6.37 

-1.4

i.n

+4.2 

7.46 

- .7 

3.09 

-2.6 

1.07 

-1.4 

3.09 

8.90 

8.12 

9.13 

8.96

2.11

Total.

+ 3.8 

15.38 

+13.2 

35.17 

+ 3.3 

35.61 

- 3.4 

9.78 

+ 7.5 

35.93 

+ .1 

25. 82 

+ 2.7 

21.70 

- 3.0 

24.06 

34.40 

41.41 

31.78 

33.27

27.51

The monthly and the accumulated excess or deficiency for the 

seven months January to July are also given for several of these 

places. These figures verify Mr. Connor's statement in regard to the 

precipitation in eastern Kansas, and in a measure define the extent 

and magnitude of the precipitation prior to this flood.'

This excessive precipitation caused floods on Osage, Neosho, and 

Verdigris rivers larger than ever known before. Compared with the 

storm that preceded the great flood on Kansas River in 1903, it may 

be said that that of 1904 did not cover as large an area, was not as 

intense, occurred about one month later in the season, and was central over an area from 200 to 300 miles farther south.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

A. MISSOURI PACIFIC AND UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY BRIDGES OVER KANSAS 

RIVER AT KANSAS CITY DURING FLOOD OF 1904.

£. DAMAGE TO CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY ALONG WHITEWOOD 

CREEK, SOUTH DAKOTA.
] KANSAS FLOODS. 61 

KANSAS RIVER FLOOD. 

GENERAL STATEMENT.

The greatest flood of Kansas River on record or in the memory of 

the oldest inhabitants living along the stream occurred May 23 to 

June 13, 1903.°

The flood of July, 1904, although it did not reach to within about 

8£ feet of the height attained by that of 1903 at the United States 

gaging station at Lecompton, was, however, second to it in recorded 

height. Its estimated discharge was about 60 per cent of that of the 

flood of 1903 and about double that of the flood of April 26, 1897, 

which was the greatest in twenty-one years prior to 1903. The area 

flooded in 1904, while much less than that flooded in 1903, was nevertheless large, and, as the flood occurred about a month later than in 

1903, it prevented the maturing of ordinary crops on the flooded area.

The effect of the 1903 flood on Kansas River was to deepen and 

\viden the channel and in some places, notably near Manhattan and 

St. Marys, to straighten it by cutting off bends in the stream. A 

short distance south of the latter place a new channel about 4 miles 

long was formed and a few miles farther downstream another, onehalf mile long, was cut across an oxbow bend. At many places along 

the concave bank washing took place, and where the banks were not 

protected erosion occurred, resulting in some places in the destruction 

of several acres of land. This erosion of bed and banks supplied a 

vast amount of material that was deposited on the flooded area. In 

places this deposit consists of from 2 to 6 inches of silt that enriches 

the land and in other places of from 2 to 6 feet of sand that completely ruins it. It is estimated that 10,000 acres of fine farming 

land along the river, valued at $200 per acre, were thus practically 

destroyed.

FLOOD NEAR KANSAS CITY.

The flood of 1903 destroyed 16 bridges in the vicinity of Kansas 

City, only one of which had been removed from the stream bed prior 

to the flood of 1904. Several temporary pile bridges had been constructed across the river between the dates of the two floods. These 

and other obstructions collected drift, retarded the flow, and increased 

the area of overflow. One of these pile bridges, the Rock Island Railway bridge, was destroyed by this flood, and other bridges were damaged to some extent.

0 For a description of the Kansas River basin and of the flood of 1903 and the destruction wrought by it, see Destructive floods In the United States in 1903: WaterSup, and Irr. Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904.
62 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Gage height and discharge. The following table 0 gives the fluctuations of Missouri River at the Hannibal Bridge at Kansas City, 

and of Kansas River at the Stock Yards Bridge (about 3 miles from 

the Hannibal Bridge), at Topeka, and at Manhattan during the flood:

Fluctuations of Kansas and Missouri rivers, July 1 to 13, 1904.

Date.

Julyl. ........... ........

Jnly4.._. ............. ....

Julys.....................

July 6: 

8 a. m ------ -------

12m ..................

July 7:

12m .... .............

2p. m_. ---..-.-----...

3 p. m... .............

6 p. m.. ----..... .-.___

7 p. m_. -__----.._....-

July 8:

12m .....__....._._...

1 p. m_. ................

July 9:

10 a. m.----. ..........

12m

Missouri 

River.

Feet.

20.20

19.40 

22.10

23.20

25.20

24.80

a Data furnished by Mr. H. A, Wise, ei

Kansas River.

Topeka.

Feet. 

11.10 

9.90

7.50 

8.60

14.00 

16.10

20.50 

21.00 

20.90

20.80 

20. 50

eo.io

19.80 

19.60 

19.50

18.90 

18.80 

18.70 

17.60 

17.50 

17. 30 

17.10

15.50 

15.30 

15. 10 

15.00 

14.90 

15.00 

igineer Kan

Manhattan.

Feet. 

11.70 

9. 30 

9.00 

10. 50

16.40 

17.00

16.50 

16.00 

16.20 

16. 10 

16.00 

16.00 

16. 00 

16.20 

16.40

16.00 

15. 90 

15. 80 

15.50 

15. 50 

15.50 

15.50

15.60 

15.60 

15.50 

15.40 

15.40 

15.30 

sas City Stc

Stock-yards 

gage, 'Kansas City.

Feet. 

16. 30 

17. 00 

15. 50 

15.25

19.90 

21.65

24.10 

24.95 

25.25 

25. 50 

25. 80 

26. 30 

26. 45 

26.60 

 26. 75

27.50 

27. 50 

27.60 

27.70 

27.80 

27.60 

27.40

26.00 

25.90 

25.80 

25.70 

25. 60 

25. 55 

)ck Yards C

Slope per 

mile.

Feet.

0. 933

.550 

1.200

2. 233

2.733

' 2. 333

ompany.
MUKPHY 

OTHEKS LBg NU ] KANSAS KIVEE FLOOD. 63 

Fluctuations of Kansas and Missouri rivers, July 1 to 13, 1904 Continued.

Date.

July 9: 

2 p. m ---___-_____-___

4 p. m_ ______

July 10: 

7 a. m -_-______._____

13m _______________

July 11 , 8 a. m- __________ _

July 12,8 a. m_ _-_-_:__--._

July 13, 8 a. m.-___.

Missouri 

River.

Feet.

21.90 

20.30 

19.10

Kansas River.

Topeka.

feet.

14.90 

14.80

14.00 

13.40 

12.70 

12.00 

11.80

Manhattan.

Teet.

15.20 

15. 00

14.00 

13.90 

13.70 

13.30 

13.60

Stock-yards 

gage, Kansas City.

Feet.

25.40 

25.00

22.85 

22. 25

20.00 

17.80 

16.20

Slope per 

mile.

Feet.

1.300 

1.100 

.967

The gage on the Hannibal Bridge is the 

States Weather Bureau, and the readings 

Mr. P. Connor. The datum of this gage is 

of the stock-yards gage. It is seen that thi. 

mum height at 1 p. m. on July 8 at a gage r 

height of 28 feet above low water. The 

reached at Topeka at noon July 7 and at Ms

property of the United

>f it were furnished by

5.8 feet lower than that

flood reached its maxi-

>ading of 27.8 feet, or a

maximum height was

nhattan at noon July 6.

The crest of the 1903 flood reached an elevation at the Hannibal

Bridge about 10 feet greater than that of 

elevation of the crest of these floods at the 

been several feet greater than this on accoi

904. The difference in

stock yards must have

nt of the much greater

choking effect due to the collection of drift at the Union Pacific 

Railway bridge.

Column 6 gives the slope of the surface 

Stock Yards Bridge to the Hannibal Bridge 

slope is not constant, but varies directly wit

i feet per mile from the 

during this flood. The 

i the stage. The greatest slope was about 2.73 feet per mile. During the 1903 flood the 

slope of the surface from the Union Pacific bridge to the mouth of 

the Kansas was about -1.34 feet per mile. ?or a distance of about 

7,000 feet upstream from the Union Pacific bridge the slope was 

about 1.26 feet per mile. Farther up the river the slope was about 

1^ feet per mile. The slope of Kansas River for some miles from 

its mouth is affected by the stage of the Missouri. It was a very 

fortunate occurrence that during the floods of both 1903 and 1904 

Missouri River was not at its highest stage. If the great floods in 

this river had been coincident, the damage due to overflow in Kansas 

City would have been even greater than it was. 

A flood-discharge measurement of Missouri River was made at
64 DESTRUCTIVE FLOQDS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 14T.

Hannibal Bridge May 12, 1904, for a mean gage reading of 20.5 feet 

(about 5-| feet below the crest of the flood of 1904), and gave an area 

of 28,036 square feet, with a discharge of 152,300 cubic feet per second. 

A flood-discharge measurement of Kansas River was made on July 

12, 1904, from the elevated-railroad bridge in Kansas City, for a gage 

height (Hannibal Bridge gage) of about 20 feet, or a surface elevation (stock-yards datum) of 15.8 feet. The width between abutments 

at this bridge is about 595 feet; the maximum depth, 25.9 feet; area, 

] 0,125 square feet; discharge, 58,900 cubic feet per second; the total 

waterway under the bridge is 21,320 square feet. Both banks of the 

river at this point are several feet lower than the surface of this 

bridge, as the new bridge is about 6 feet higher than the old one, 

which was destroyed in 1903.

Necessary waterway. With the aid of Kutter's mean-velocity 

formula we may compute the necessary width of a trapezoidal waterway, with side slopes 1 to 1, to carry the flood of 1903 with a maximum depth of 30 feet. The estimated maximum discharge at the 

United States gaging station at Lecompton was 233,000 cubic feet 

per second. Adding 8 per cent of this volume for the volume received between Lecompton and Kansas City we have 251,715 cubic 

feet, or in round numbers 252,000 cubic feet per second as the discharge of Kansas River at Kansas City. The slope from the table 

above is about 2.75 feet per mile. The coefficient of roughness n is 

about 0.030. From these data we find that the mean velocity will be 

about 10 feet per second, and that the bottom width of the trapezoidal 

area necessary would be 710 feet, and the top width 770 feet. This 

waterway would have permitted the flood of 1903 to pass Kansas 

City with a surface height not greater than that during the flood of 

1904 that is, a surface elevation at the elevated-railroad bridge of 

20 feet (stock-yards datum). Some of the bottom lands would have 

been flooded under those conditions unless low levees had been constructed on each side of the river. If the channel width is restricted 

to 580 feet with vertical sides, surface slope of 2.75 feet per mile, 

then the depth must be about 39 feet. In these computations no 

allowance is made for reduction of waterway due to collection of 

drift in front of piers or to the piers themselves.

PL IV, ^4, shows the Missouri Pacific and Union Pacific railway 

bridges across Kansas River in Kansas City when the flood of July 

7, 1904, had begun to recede. The Missouri Pacific bridge shown 

was the only one across the Kansas River at Kansas City that escaped 

destruction in 1903. The new Union Pacific bridge is at the same elevation above low water as the old one, and the channel under it has 

not been widened; in fact, the only effort made in Kansas City to prevent loss due to floods between the dates of these floods was the construction of a few of the new bridges at a few feet greater elevation
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. V

Mud and sand deposits i 

Cutting and waste 

Bridges demolished.;

Bluff line; 

Flood line 1903: 

Steam railways: 

Electric railways: 

Outfijie offload of July 1904i 

Figures-show depth of water 

at Spots indicated.; 4,0'8'

o' iopo' , sooo' aopo' 4000'

SCALE

S Aj S I IP I

1LLUUJJJJ 

JJJJJJJ'JJJJ

JJJJJJUJ

liTITUJ

KANSAS CITY, SHOWING AREA FLOODED IN 1903 AND 1904.
] KANSAS RIVER FLOOD. 65

than the old ones which were destroyed. The channel has not been 

widened, although at one place it is less than 450 feet in width. The 

spans of the bridges have not been lengthened, the channel has not 

been cleared of wreckage nor deepened, nor have levees been constructed to prevent overflow. The 1904 »flood, although it did not 

reach within several feet of the height of the 1903 flood, nevertheless 

overflowed many acres of bottom land, drove a large number of people from their homes, and destroyed many thousand dollars1 worth of 

property. PL V shows the areas submerged during the flood of 1903 

and during that of 1904.

Recommendations of army engineers. A board of army engineers, 

consisting of Col. Amos Stickney, Maj. J. G. Warren, and Capt. 

H. H. Chittenden, Corps of Engineers, reported January 23, 1904, on 

the flood conditions of Kansas River in Kansas City. This report 

states that the normal average width of Kansas River through Kansas City, which was 850 feet, the minimum width having been 540 

feet, has been reduced to an average width of 590 feet, the minimum 

width being 420 feet. The bridges have more piers than is necessary and are founded on piles. Between and around the piers are 

piles and loose rock that prevent the natural scour of the bed in time 

of flood. As a result of these encroachments on the river the natural 

channel capacity for carrying off floods has been reduced to about 

one-half.

The measures declared necessary to avert another disaster like 

that caused by the 1903 flood are to restore to the river in Kansas 

City a width of at least 734 feet; to construct masonry walls on each 

side reaching to an approximate height of 30 feet above low water 

for a distance of 17,000 feet above the mouth; to dredge the river 

bed of all solid obstructions to a depth of 15 feet below low water; 

to limit the number of piers to two, 300 feet apart, carried down to 

rock, and having the lowest part of the structure on them above the 

flood line of 1903, and to construct earth levees with paved slopes 

above the point where masonry walls are necessary, and carry these to 

the bluffs above Argentine and Armourdale.

Inasmuch as this improvement would be very expensive and require 

a long time to carry out, the board recommended the following measures as a minimum requirement under existing conditions:

(1) That further encroachments on the banks be stopped and existing encroachments be removed, so as to give the channel an average width of at least 

(500 feet for a distance of 17,000 feet above the mouth.

(2) That the channel be cleared of all obstructions to a depth of at least 15 

feet below standard low water.

(3) That all bridge owners be required to remove obstructions around or 

between existing piers and to construct their bridges with only two piers, to be

IBB 147 05 M 5
66 DESTETJCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

carried down to rock and to be 300 feet apart, measured on a line perpendicular 

to the center Hue of the channel, the lowest point of the structure to be above the 

flood line of the ultimate channel.

Since the above was written the Kansas legislature has authorized 

the formation of drainage districts in Kansas. The directors of each 

district have control of all the streams in the district and provide for 

widening, deepening, and straightening the channel and the construction and maintenance of levees to prevent overflow. A district extending from above Argentine to the mouth of Kansas River has 

been organized, surveys are being made, plans and estimates prepared 

for the passage of a rate of flow of 160,000 second-feet without overflow. The United Zinc and Chemical Company in this district has 

already constructed a levee to protect its property at a cost of $15,000. 

The Armour Packing Company has also constructed a levee to protect 

its property.

FLOOD NEAR LAWRENCE, KANS.

From high-water marks above the dam at Lawrence it was found 

that the depth of water on the crest of the dam, measured at a point 

sufficiently far upstream to be out of the influence of the curvature 

of the surface near the crest, 'was 19.7 feet in the 1903 flood and 13.5 

feet in that of 1904 that is,, the crest of the former flood was about 

0.2 feet higher than that of the latter. The high-water marks 

on the south side are about 9 inches higher than those on the north 

side, this being due to the bend in the stream. The 1903 flood cut a 

new channel about 400 feet wide and so deep that all the ordinary 

flow passed through it around the north end of the bridge. This 

channel was filled with rock in October, 1903, reducing the waterway to its former dimensions. The 1904 flood passed over the end 

of this fill and was prevented from cutting another new channel only 

by a levee of sand bags. About one-fourth mile farther north the 

river overflowed the Union Pacific Railway embankment, washed 

out several hundred feet of track, and submerged several hundred 

acres of low land in the vicinity of Lawrence. A part of the apron 

of the dam was washed out during this flood, and later a part of the 

dam itself and of the north abutment of the bridge.

Since the above was written the length of the crest of this dam has 

been increased about 65 feet, thus increasing the width of the channel 

about 11 per cent. The cost of this work, including a new abutment 

and truss for the bridge and the filling of the new channel cut by the 

flood of 1903, was $75,000.

FLOOD NEAR LECOMPTON, KANS.

Gage height and discharge. The mean daily fluctuations of the 

surface of Kansas River at this place and the corresponding daily rate
MURPHY AND!

OTHEHS. J

KANSAS ETVEE FLOOD. 67

of discharge during this flood, as shown by the United States Geological Survey gage oh the highway bridge, and also the corresponding 

data for the flood of 1903 are as follows:

Gage height and discharge of Kansas River at Lccomirton, Kans., May 25 to 

June 8, 1903, and June 24 to July 11, 1904.

Date.

1903.

May 25--- . 

May 36.. -----------

May 27 ------_ 

May 28--------.----

May 29 ___.-_____-_.

May 30.. -----------

May 81... .......

June 3 _ . . , _ .

June 6 _ _ . . . .

June 7 _ _ _ _ _ _.-,--

June 8 ______

1904.

June 24 _____ ____

June 25. ---_._ ___ _

June 26 ______

June 27______ ___._._

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

14.15

12.15

16.60

18.00

21.10

24.00

fl28.75

27.20

26.25

26. 35

24. 35

23.05

20.50

18.20

16.50

6.15

10.50

14.70

13.70

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

80, 075

55, 500

99, 500

113,500

144, 500

173, 500

221 000

205, 500

196, 500

197, 500

177, 500

164, 500

138, 500

115,500

98, 500

11,530

31,460

59, 800

52, 800

Date.

1904. 

June28___________-

June 29. _ ______ _

June30____ ________

July I.... .-----...

July 2_________.___

July 3_____________

July4--____._.____

July 5-... __-__-_..

July 6.. ______-_._.

July 7 -._......._..

Julv8_____________

July 9.. ._.........

July 10. _-___-___._

July 11. ___________

July 13............

Jiily 13. ___________

July 14_ _ _ ____

July IS..... .......

July 16..-..- ...

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

12.00

10.70

10. 05

11.10

9.60

8.70

8.45

10.10

16.75

20.75

18.75

16.45

14.55

13.15

12.10

11.40

11.00

10.50

9.55

8.95

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

41,040

32, 670

28, 600

35, 150

26, 450

21,920

20, 500

29, 160

. 91,040

, 130, 000

110, 000

87, 120

70, 060

57, 720

48, 760

43, 560

40, 700

37, 230

31,390

27, 800

" Maximum gage height, 29.50 feet.

It is seen that this flood lasted from July 5 to 15, reaching a maximum at about noon on July 7, with a gage reading of about 21 feet 

and an estimated discharge of about 130,000 cubic feet per second. 

The highest reading of this gage in 1903 was 29.5 feet, so that the 

crest of the 1903 flood wag 8.5 feet higher than the crest of the 1904 

flood at this place. The left bank was overflowed for a distance of 

about 300 feet in the 1904 flood, and a distance of at least one-half 

mile during the 1903 flood.

Fig. 6 shows graphically the change in volume with the time 

from the beginning of each of these floods, also the change in the 

volume for the flood of 1902. Each ordinate of this diagram represents volume of flow per second in thousand second-feet; each abscissa 

represents days from the beginning of the flood. The magnitude of
68 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS I1ST UNITED STATES IN 1904:. [NO. 147.

the 1903 flood, as compared with that of 1904 and 1902, is clearly

seen.

The tables on pages 75 and 76 give the mean daily gage height and 

corresponding discharge of Bine River near Manhattan, and of Smoky 

Rill River at Ellsworth, during the flood of 1903, for comparison 

with the floods at those places in 1904.

250

200

150

100

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

FIG. 6. Flood discharge of Kansas River at Lecompton. Kans., in 1902, 1903, and 1904.

Necessary waterway. The width of the channel between the abutments of the. bridge at I^ecompton is 800 feet. When the flood of 

June, 1903, was at its maximum stage the left bank was overflowed 

for a distance of at least one-half mile, but most of this overflow had 

very little velocity, and the discharge through the overflow part of the 

cross section was not more than 5 per cent of the total discharge. The 

right bank, along which are the Santa Fe Railway tracks, was submerged for a distance of about 110 feet.

The area of the water cross section at this station when the 1904 

flood was at its highest stage was 17,830 square feet; the measured 

mean velocity was about 7.3 feet per second, and the mean depth was 

about 22 feet. By Kutter's formula it is possible to compute the 

mean velocity in a trapezoidal cross section, and thus by trial to 

determine the proper size of section to carry the flood of 1903 without 

too great surface elevation. In such a section of bottom width 750
MUEPHY AND") 

OTHERS. J

KANSAS EIVEE FLOOD. 69

feet, side slopes 1-| to 1, and depth of 22 feet, passing the 1904 flood 

with a surface slope of li feet per mile and a coefficient of roughness 

n equaling 0.030, the mean velocity is found to be about 6.6 feet per 

second, 0.7 foot per second less than the mean measured velocity, 

indicating either a greater surface slope than H feet per mile or a 

smaller value of n than 0.030, or both. If the slope is 2 feet per mile 

and the other data remain the same as before, the velocity becomes 

7.4 feet per second, 0.1 second-foot greater than the observed velocity. 

It is not likely that the slope was greater than 2 feet per mile, hence 

the value of n was less than 0.030.

The next question is to determine what would have been the mean 

velocity in this assumed trapezoidal channel if all the water of the 

1903 flood had flowed in it (without scour and without increase in 

surface elevation of the flood crest) with a mean depth of 30.8 feet, 

a surface slope of 2 feet per mile, and n=0.025. The total estimated discharge is 233,000 second-feet; area, 24,270 square feet; 

observed velocity, 9.6 feet per second. By the use of Kutter's formula the mean velocity of the water in the assumed trapezoidal section is found to be 10.2 feet per second. Hence this trapezoidal waterway with bottom width of 750 feet and top width of 842 feet would 

Lave carried the 1903 flood past this station if levees were built to prevent overflow, without any increase in elevation of the crest of the 

flood.

The following table gives the maximum and minimum discharge 

of the Kansas at Lawrence and Lecompton each year since 1891:

Ma-rimum and minimum daily discharge of Kansas River at Lawrence,0 Kans., 

1891 to 1S98, and at Lecompton^ Kans., 1899 to 1904.

Year.

1891 

1892

1893

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901

1902 

1903 

1904

Maximum discharge in second-feet.

Date.

June and 

July.

July .........

July .........

July ____._...

July .........

Gage 

height.

6.40 

9.20

4.60

5.60 

5.50 

7.70 

8.80 

5.60 

11.00 

10.20 

10.00

17.60 

38.75 

20.75

From total drainage area.

35,750

21,440

28,990 

28,190 

53,308 

58,000 

28,990 

30,250 

24,898 

25,000

81,400 

221,000 

130,000

Per 

square 

mile.

0.597

.,358

.484 

.471 

.891 

.969 

.484 

.517 

.425 

.427

1.39 

3.T7 

2.22

Minimum discharge in second-feet.

Date.

September, October, and December.

September and 

December.

.....do. ..........

July, August, 

and November.

Gage 

height.

0.20 

.00

.00

- .75 

-1.70 

-2.25 

1.90 

2.20 

2.00

1.80 

3.00

From total drainage area.

967

787

787

698 

562 

507 

1,750 

2,830 

275

100 

2,375

Per 

square 

mile.

0.016 

.013

.013

.012 

.0094 

.0085 

.030 

.048 

.0047

.0017 

.041

I I

1 Drainage basin 59,841 square miles. 6 Drainage basin 58,550 square miles.
70 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

FLOODS NEAR TOPEKA, KANS.

Gage height. At the time of the July, 1904, flood there were three 

river gages at Topeka, two belonging to the United States Geological 

Survey and one belonging to the Wolff Packing Company. One of 

the United States gages was on a pier of the Bock Island Railway 

bridge and the other was on a pier of the Santa Fe Eailway bridge. 

Each consisted of foot and tenth marks painted on the side of a pier. 

The Wolff Packing Company gage consisted of a vertical timber 

marked to feet and tenths and fastened to the right bank of the river 

near their packing house. The location of these gages is shown in 

fig. 8. The readings of the Wolff gage are given on page 62. The 

readings of the United States gage on the Rock Island Railway 

bridge are given below.

Gage height, in feet, of Kansas River at North Topeka, Kans., May 

10, and June 25 to July 2(1, 1904.

to June

Date.

May 28-_. ______

May 29__. ......

May 30_. ____._.

May 31.. ..____.

June 1 . _ _ _ .

June 2 __-_____.

June 3 .... ...

June 7 ....

June 8 _

June 9 .........

- 

Time.

7.45 a. 111 _ - . _

1.30 p. m____ 

7.30 a. m____

2p. m._._.--

1.30 p. m_._.

1.30 p. m_...

7.45 a. m _ _ _

1.30 p. m___

1.30 p. m....

7.45 a. in _ .

1.80 p. m..._

1.30 p. m--_-

8.15 a. m.___

2.20 p. m_,..

1.30 p. m_.__ 

7.45 a. 111

1.30 p. m____ 

7.45 a. m _ .__

1.30 p. m _

7.45 a. m .___

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

6.7

6.55 

11.2

13.5

18.0

17.1

12.8

11.95

10.8

10.5

11.4

11.8

12:2

12.2

12.6

12.1

12.7

12.8

12.5

12.2 

11.1

10.1 

10.1

10.0

9.1

Date.

June 10 .......

June 25 -------

June 26 -_.__._

June 27 ......

June 28 _______

June 29 . _ .

June 30 __.___-

July !_____. ...

July2. ________

July 3... .-__-_

July 4

July5____--__.

July6__. ___--_

July 7.. ------ .

July8___-.--.-

July 9_. .......

Time.

l.SOp. m.__.

7.45 a. in _ _ _ . 

1.30 p. m___.

7.45 a. m ...

1.30 p. m._-.

8.15 a. m__._

8.15 a. m

2 p. m ______

7.45 a. m.--_

7.45 a. m-_-_

7 a. m__-----

1.30 p. m____

6 a. m. ______

7.45 a. m -__. 

5.30 p. m___.

5 D. m..._

Gage 

height.

feet. 

9.4

9.7 

10.3

11.8

12.8

17.1

16.6

15.9

15.5

14.1

12 7

11.7

13.2

11.7

10.3

10.5

10.5

, 16.1

18.5

22.3

21.8

19.8 

19.0

18.9

18.3
MURPHY 

OTHERSBS.ND ] KANSAS KIVER FLOOD. 71 

Gage height, in feet, of Kansas River at North Topeka, Kans., 1904 Continued.

Date.

July 10. --------

July 11..... ....

July 13. ........

July 13-. .......

July 14... ......

Time.

5 p. m_

7.30 a. m ....

7 a. m. .....

7.45 a. m-__.

1.30 p. m-_._

2 p. m. _.__ -

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

17.4

17.0

16.7

16.0

14.0

14.0

13.7

13.8

13.7

13.7

Date.

July 15. -------

July 16_ .......

July 18--------

July 19.. ......

July 20.. ......

Time.

7.45 a. m.-..

2p.m.--.---

7.45 a. m . . . .

2p.m__-__._

9 a. m_ . .

3p. m.-----.

7.45 a. m.-.-

2p.m-...-.-

7.45 a. m ....

7.45 a. m---_

Q-age 

height.

Feet. 

12.9

12.7

12.2

12.0

11.6

11.2

10.9

10.5

9.7

8.6

The flood reached its height on July 7, for a reading of about 22.3 

feet,0 or about 17.8 feet above low water. The elevation of the highwater mark of 1903 on the engine room of the Wolff Packing Company is 902.63 feet and of the 1904 flood 896.44 feet, so that the high 

water of 1903 was about 6.2 feet higher than the high water of 1904 

at this place. The former flood came to the top of the rail of the 

Santa Fe Railway bridge and was about 43 inches in depth on the 

rail of the Rock Island Railway bridge. The latter flood reached 

the under surface of the Rock Island Bridge and took out the false 

works of one span. There was therefore a difference of only 6.2 feet 

in the elevation of the crest of these floods at Topeka, whereas there 

was a difference in elevation of the crest at Lecompton of 8.5 feet.

Obstructions in channel. During the flood in 1904 two cableways 

that had been used for lifting sand from the bed of the river 

were in the river bed with the ends fastened to the trees on shore; 

these collected drift and retarded the flow. Some distance farther 

downstream was a Melan arch bridge, with its large piers and small, 

low arches, in front of which large quantities of drift collected. A 

few feet above this bridge were the ruins of a pile bridge destroyed by 

the 1903 flood, and about 50 feet below was a second pile bridge, the 

bents of which were 30 feet apart. These three bridges so near together and of such small, short spans collected the drift and formed a 

dam. The Melan bridge (fig. 7) has 5 arches, the central one having a 

span of 124 feet, the two adjacent spans of 110 feet, and the other two 

spans of 96 feet. The waterway below the spring lines of these arches 

was about 9,600 & square feet. This is only about 40 per cent of the

a This reading may he in error one or two tenths of a foot on account of its being 

impossible for the reader to get near the gage, one span of the bridge having washed out. 

'- Result based on soundings taken July 19, 1904.
72 DESTBUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

smallest area found necessary to pass the 1903 flood at Lecompton, 

and only 56 per cent of the waterway necessary to pass the 1904

This opening filled with 

fn enbankment bef{ 

flood of 1903. 

Now filled with temporary' 

treetle work. Wet area of Waterway'

beneath trestle 1575

Set. ft.

FIG. 7. Cross section of Kansas River at Melan arch bridge, Topeka, Kans.

flood. It is little wonder that the left abutment of this bridge 

was washed out in the 1903 flood, as shown in PL VI, A, and a

NORTH TOPEKA

All covered by flood of 1903

Several feet deep g

o> ="

u.' Sand bar and washed land

covered during flood and ruined

FIG. 8. Kansas River and flooded area in vicinity of Melan arch bridge, Topeka, Kans.

very large area of the city flooded. It seems almost incredible that 

this city should have allowed a pile bridge to be built in this already 

restricted part of the channel, and especially should have allowed a
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. VI

A. CHANNEL SCOURED BY KANSAS RIVER AROUND THE ABUTMENT OF THE 

MEL.AN BRIDGE, TOPEKA, KANS.

£. RUINS OF DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILWAY BRIDGE, TRINIDAD, COLO.
MUBPHY AND"]

OTHEBS. J

KANSAS EIVEE FLOOD. 73

second one to be built at this place after the complete destruction of 

the old pile bridge and of part of the Melan bridge.0

Fig. 8 shows the location of the bridges and gages at Topeka, a 

part of the flooded area, and depth of overflow. Topeka, like Lawrence, is located in a bend of the river, and diHng great floods the 

river cuts across these bends and floods large areas of lowland.

FLOOD NEAR MANHATTAN, KANS.

The daily gage heights and corresponding discharge of Blue Eiver 

near Manhattan, Kans., during the flood of 1904 and also during 

that of 1903 are given in the table on page 75. It would seem 

that the flood reached its maximum stage on July 6 for a gage height 

of 22.8 feet and the discharge of 23,160 second-feet. This stage is 

13 feet less and the discharge only about one-third of that during 

the 1903 flood at this place.

FLOOD NEAR JUNCTION, KANS.

The following readings of the United States Geological Survey 

gage on the highway bridge over Republican River at Junction show 

the fluctuations of the surface of this river during the June and July 

floods of 1904.

Gage height, in feet, of Republican River at Junction, Kans., June 14 to July

11, 1904.

[Gage at highway bridge near pump house.]

Date.

June 14.. _ _ _ _____ _

June 15 _ _ _ _ _____ _ _

June 16 .... _ . --_

June 17 .....

June 18 _ . .

June 19 _____________

June 20 _____________

June 21 .. _ ... ...

June 33 . ___.._____

June 33 _____ ______

June 34 . _ . ______

June 35 . . . _ _ ________

June 36 . _ _ _ ._._..._.

June 37 ____... _ _ _

9 a. m.

4.8

4.4

10.7

8.9

6.4

5.4

5.6

6.0

6.1

5.5

11.8

13.0

11.4

4 p. m.

4.75

8.6

10.4

8.4

6.8

5.8

5.5

5.7

6.1

5.6

13 3

13.7

10.5

Date.

June 38 ___.__._._____

Jube 39....... ......

Julyl _..........._..

July 3

July3 _..___.........

July4_____ __._..._..

July 5 ______._..____.

July 6 _____..____....

July 7 _---..-..__--..

JulyS .......

July 9 _...._____.____

July 10 ______________

July 11 __........_._.

9 a. m.

9.3

7.9

7.6

6.7

6.1

5.7

7.0

10.8

10.0

10.5

10.1

7.7

7.7

6.4

4 p. m.

8.8

7.6

7 2

6.4

6.0

5.7

6.7

10.5

9.8

10.4

9.1

7.4

7.4

6.4

" Since the above was written two arches have been added to the Melan steel-concrete 

arch bridge, thus increasing the channel width about 150 feet. The street-car bridge 

supported on piles has been replaced by a steel bridge supported on metal piers placed 

directly back of the piers of the Melan bridge. Levees are being built along the Kansas 

River and Soldier Creek to prevent overflow.
74 DESTBUCTIVB FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

These readings show that the highest water in July occurred on the 

5th, the gage height being 10.8 feet, or about 7.4 feet less than the 

highest reading at this place in 1903. The June flood of 1904 was 

greater at this station than the July flood, the maximum gage reading 

being 13 feet on June 20, as compared with 10.8 feet on July 5. The 

flood of 1903 cut a shallow channel around the left approach to this 

bridge. The June flood of 1904 widened and deepened this new channel so that in August, 1904, it was about 180 feet wide and nearly as 

deep as the main channel. The flow in this new channel enter8 the 

main channel a short distance below the station, and has a marked 

retarding effect on the flow in the main channel.

The July flood on Smoky Hill River at Junction was much larger 

than that on Republican River. There is no gage on the Smoky Hill 

at this place, but from the high-water marks in Mr. Hogan's mill it 

is found that the crest of the July flood of 1904 was only 5 inches less 

than the crest of the flood in 1903. Nearly as much damage was 

done by the 1904 flood as by the earlier one, the water in 1904 appearing to have a greater velocity and a greater scouring effect than that 

of the 1903 flood. The macadamized road from the city to this mill 

was badly damaged by the scour.

FLOOD NEAft SOLOMON, KANS.

Fluctuations of the water surface at Solomon are shown by the 

following readings of the United States Geological Survey gage: 

Gage height on Smoky Hill River at Solomon, Kans., June and July,

Date.

June 4 ...... ...

June 5 ..........

June 36 ..........

June 27 . -..--.-.

June 28 ..........

June 29 .... ......

June 30 ..........

Time.

8 a. m _

10 a. m ....

7 p. m.-... 

9.30 a. m__

7.30 p. m_-

7.30 p.m __

11. 30 a.m..

8 p. in

7.30 a. m .

8 a. m_ ....

8 p. m____

7.30 a. m._

8 p. m. _ . _ .

7 a. in._.._

Gage 

height.

Feel. 

15.5

17.4

18.9

19.8 

21 1

22. 0 

22.6

22.7

20.6

19.5

21.6

23.3

23.6

23.0

22.1

20 7

19.3

15.6

Date.

June 30 ._...._ .

July 5. ..........

July 6__. ........

JnlyS...........

July 9... ....... .

JulylO-.___..___

July 11 . ...

July 12,.. .......

July 13. _________

July 14. ...- 

July 15. ........:

Time.

8.30 p. m__

6 p. na.__ .. 

8.30 a. m__

8 p. m. ....

5 p. in____.

11 a. m..-.

8 p. in____.

6.30 p. m..

6.30 a. in__

11 a. m. _.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

15.1

16.9

21.8

23.9

25.4

26.4 

27.0

27.5

27.8

27.8

27.9

27.9

27.9

27.9

27.7

26.9

25.0

21.8
"fUBPHY AND"! 

OTHEES. J

KANSAS EIVEE FLOOD. 75

The above records show that there were two rises in this river in 

June one that reached a maximum on June 7, with a gage height 

of 22.7 feet, and the other that reached a maximum on June 27, with 

a gage height of 23.6 feet. The July flood reached its maximum on 

July 10, for a gage height of 27.9 feet. The highest gage reading at 

this place in 1903 was 32.5 feet that is, 4.6 feet higher than the 

highest reading in 1904. The high water of 1904 only covered the 

highest bottom lands and did little damage as compared with that of 

1903. This high water came mainly from Smoky and Saline rivers, 

Solomon River not being especially high.

COMPARISON OF FLOODS OF 1903 AND 1904.

From the table on page 67 and fig. 6, page 68, it is seen that Kansas River was flowing at a rate of 98,000 cubic feet per second or 

more for thirteen consecutive days in 1903, and the discharge was 

greater than this on only two consecutive days in 1904. The maximum daily rate of discharge in 1903 was about 70 per cent greater 

than that in 1904. The total volume discharged by the river for the 

thirteen days when the flow was greatest in 1903 was two and onehalf times more than for the thirteen days of greatest flow in 1904. 

Gage height and discharge of Blue River 'near Manhattan, Kans., May 25 to 

June 8, 1903, and June 2Jf to July 17,

Date.

1903. 

May 25 .............

May 26.. ...........

May 38-...--.---- -

May29______ ......

May 30 _____________

May 31 ___________ .

June 3 .......

June 4 _ _ . . . _ -._-.-

June 5 . . _ _ _ _ .

June 6 __________ . , .

June 7 - . . _ _

June 8.---.-.--.-...

1904.

June 24....... ______

June25-___.____-._.

June26____________.

June 27 _ . . _ _ .

Q-age 

height.

Feet. 

27.50

25. 00

30.50

32.00

« 33. 50

« 34. 80

a 36. 00

«35.00

« 33. 80

33.50

30.00

27.00

25.50

21.50

17.50

8.30

15. 20

15.10

12.50

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

46, 670

40, 170

54, 470

58, 370

62, 270

65, 650

68, 770

66, 170

63, 050

59, 670

53, 170

45, 370

41,470

23, 900

15, 900

2,970

11,660

11,510

7.840

Date.

1904. 

June 28. __,_.____._

June 29 ___________

June 30..-. ........

July 1 _____________

July3..............

July 3__.___ ______

July 4... .........

July 6.. -_._._-__-_

July 7 --.---...--_.

JulyS....... ......

July 9__... ........

July 10 ___________

July 11 ___________

July 12 ___________

July 13 ,____.____._

July 14 _-_._____-._

July 15 ............

July 16 __-__-_____.

Julv 17 ____________

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

11.90

10.10

15.60

14.60

10.40

9.10

10.60

13.60

22.80

19.90

17.90

16.00

14.80

13.40

12.40

12.70

11.40

10.50

9.80

9.50

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

7, 020

4, 800

12, 360

10, 860

5,150

3, 730

5,380

7,980

23, 160

18,810

15, 810

12, 960

11, 160

9,100

7,700

8, 120

6,360

5,260

4,470

 4.140

0 Maximum gage height, 36.50 feet.
76 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN" UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

From the preceding table it can be seen that the Blue, near Manhattan, was discharging at the rate of 40,000 second-feet or more for thirteen consecutive days in 1903, while at no time during the flood of 1904 

was the flow of this river 24,000 cubic feet per second. The maximum daily rate in 1903 was 68,770 second-feet, and in 1904 it was 

23,160 second-feet,

The Smoky Hill at Ellsworth had a maximum daily flow of more 

than 3,000 second-feet on six days in 1903, but reached that amount 

on only three days in 1904.

Gage height and discharge of Smoky Hitt Hirer at EUfurorth, Kans., Man ?<> to 

June 8, 1903, and June 24 to July 16, 1904.

Date.

1903.

May 25 _ ________

May 26 ...... ....

May 27 _____ ___

May 29 _______ _____

May 30 _ ... _____

May 31 ______ .

June 1 ... _____

June 2 .... . _____ _

June 4 _____

June 5 _ _ _ _ ________

June 6 _ _ _ _ _ . _ _____

June 7 ______________

June 8 _______ _____

1904.

June 24_ _______ ,_

June 25. __________

June 26_ ________

June 27 _______

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.00

5. 00

3. 30

15. 40

16.00

13. 80

10.20

7.00

5.40

4.80

4.40

4.30

3.90

3.60

1.40

3.30

2.15

1.90

Discharge.

tf PC.- feet. 

557

1,835

710

10, 866

11,392

9,466

6,130

4, 005

3,410

2 129

1,690

1,410

1,342

1,075

883

62

709

224

155

Date.

1904. 

June 28 _ _ _ _ _

June 29. __ _____

June 30 ______

July 1 ........ ...

July 2 ________

July 3 _________

July 4 _ _ _ _____

July 5 -.__.

July 6 _________

July 7 _ _________

July 8 _____

July9_._ ______ _

July 10 ____________

July 11 ___________

July 12 ____________

July 13 . . . ______

July 14 __ _ ______

July 15 _________

July 16 ___ __ .....

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

1.70

2.30

2. 20

5. 50

7.60

4.30

3.60

2.70

10.40

6.60

4.40

4.80

4.00

3.40

3.10

2.90

1.70

1.50

1.35

Discharge.

See. -feet.

110

271

239

2, 205

3,920

1,440

883

422

6,300

3,075

1,410

1,690

' 1,141

765

607

510

110

56

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

. The damage caused by the 1904 flood along Kansas Kiver was very 

much less than by the flood of 1903. This was due to three causes: 

First, the flood height was from 5 to 8 feet greater in the 1903 flood 

than in that of 1904, and consequently the area submerged was very 

much greater. The areas submerged in Kansas City during these 

floods are shown in PL V (p. 64). Second, the property in the over-
MURPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J

KANSAS KIVEK FLOOD.

flow area, especially in the cities, was less in 1904 than in 1903. Only 

a few of the buildings that were swept away or destroyed by the 

1903 flood were replaced. Third, the people living along this stream 

heeded promptly the warnings of the approach of a flood issued by 

the United States Weather Bureau in 1904 and conveyed movable 

property out of reach of the waters.

The crops on the low land along the river were destroyed, and the 

lateness of the flood prevented the maturing of a second crop; in 

this respect the 1904 flood was more injurious to farmers than that 

of 1903. Some of the best corn raised in Kansas in 1903 was raised 

on the bottom land along the Kansas that was overflowed in the 

May flood of that year.

Very few bridges were destroyed in the 1904 flood, and the damage 

to railroads along this river was comparatively small. J. C. Bye, 

resident engineer of the Union Pacific Eailroad at Kansas City, 

stated to the writer that the loss sustained by the Union Pacific 

Eailroad Company along this river was about $1,250,000 in the 1903 

flood and about $75,000 in the 1904 flood, or only about 6 per cent 

of the former. This percentage probably represents approximately 

the losses of the other railroads doing business in Kansas River 

Valley during these floods.

The loss, risk, and inconvenience suffered by the cities and towns 

along the river for lack of water for drinking and fire purposes, and 

the lack of illuminating gas, electric light, and power was very small 

during the 1904 flood as compared with that of 1903.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

The remedy for overflow and damage resulting therefrom along 

this river, as stated in the flood report in 1903, is the rapid removal 

of the flood water from the drainage basin and the protection by 

levees of the lowlands from overflow. The natural width of the 

river of about 850 feet has been reduced to 600 feet in many places, 

and in one place to 420 feet; that is, by more than 50 per cent of its 

width. The bridges are constructed on piers founded on piles with 

rock filling around them that prevent the natural deepening of the 

channel during a flood. A greater number of piers are used than is 

necessary, and against these piers drift collects, forming a dam 

that retards the flow of the stream and causes overflow of the lowlands. The channel in places, notably Kansas City and Topeka, is 

more or less clogged with wreckage.

The measures declared necessary by the board of army engineers 

for preventing the recurrence of another flood of the magnitude of
78 DESTBTJCTTVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

that in 1903 (see pp. 65-66) are expensive. Many important industries have been allowed to locate on the banks of this river and encroach in its natural width. To condemn land 011 each side of the 

stream in the cities sufficient to restore to the stream its natural width 

would destroy these industries. The building of masonry walls on 

each side of the stream through Kansas City and the necessary elevation of bridges to the height of these walls will necessitate the raising 

of all the railroads in the low part of Kansas City and will be very 

expensive.

Instead of widening the channel to its original dimensions it is 

suggested that an overflow channel be constructed to carry the flood 

waters past Kansas City. This, however, is simply a detail. The 

remedy for overflow is sufficiently clear, namely, an additional waterway sufficient to carry off floods. The most satisfactory and economical means of securing this additional waterway is a local problem that requires much study.

NEOSHO RIVER FLOODS.

The 1904 floods on Neosho River were greater in number, height, 

and destructiveiiess than ever known before on this stream. The 

flood of 1885 was the largest prior to that of 1904. Although there 

are no definite records of the height reached by the 1904 flood, there 

are quite a number of well-defined flood marks along the river, which 

show that the crest of the flood of July 10, 1904, reached a height of 

about 1 foot greater than that of the 1885 flood.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Neosho River rises in the northern part 6f *Mofr|s..County, Kans., 

flows in a southeasterly and southerly direction tti'rough Kansas 

and Indian Territory, and empties into Arkansas River near Fort Gibsoii, Iiid. T. In a direct course this river has a length of about 260 miles, 

but the distance along the bed is much greater, as this is very crooked. 

It falls, in a distance of about 136 miles, from an elevation of about 

1.500 feet near its source to 800 feet at a point about 27 miles north of 

the Kansas-Indian Territory line, and from this point to the mouth, 

a distance of 110 miles in a straight line, it falls about 300 feet. It 

drains a long, narrow stretch of land just east of Verdigris River and 

west of Osage and White rivers. A profile of the river obtained 

from the atlas sheets of the United States Geological Survey is as 

follows: a

« Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 44, U. S, Geol. Survey, 1901, p. 66.
MURPHY AX 

OTHERS. NEOSHO EIVEE FLOODS. 

Elevations on Neosho River.

79

Locality.

Month _ ..........

Markhani Ferry, Ind. T _____ ...... _____ ___.

Above Oswego, Kans _ ..._ _._.._.____ ______

Humboldt, Kans _______ _ ,.

Leroy, Kans -_.._____. ________________ _______

Otturnwa, Kans ________________________________

Einporia, Kans ....-.-..--......... . . . . . .

Council Grove, Kans .--..-........ . . . . . ......

Head..-.. ............. .........................

Distance 

from rnoutli 

in miles.

0

12 

42

69

177

206

228

255

274

296

310 

326

346

Height 

above sea in 

feet.

470

500 

550

600

800

850 

900

950

1,000

1,050

1,100 

1,200

1,500

Fall peimile in feet.

2 5

1. 7

1.8 

1.8

1.7 

2.3

1.8

2.6

2.3

3.6 

6.25

15.0

As compared with the Verdigris, Neosho River rises about 40 miles 

farther north and at about 100 feet greater elevation. They flow 

in nearly parallel directions and empty into Arkansas River only a 

few hundred feet apart. The Verdigris falls more rapidly in its 

upper course than the Neosho, reaching the State line at an elevation of 680 feet, falling 720 feet in about 151 miles. The Neosho falls 

more gradually, reaching the State line at an elevation of about 770 

feet, falling 730 feet in about 267 miles. From the State line the 

Neosho falls about 270 feet and the Verdigris about^.80. As a result 

of these differences in the topography of the watershed, the Verdigris 

flows in a narrow, deep channel while the Neosho is wider, has kmer 

banks, and is subject to overflow in many places, notably near Chanute, Kans. Near the mouth the differences are more marked. The 

Verdigris is deeper, 250 feet wide, and sluggish, with scarcely a 

perceptible current at ordinary stage of water. The Neosho is from 

600 to 800 feet wide, is shallow, and has a fairly rapid velocity.

The principal tributaries of the Neosho are the Cottonwood, which 

enters it from the west near Emporia, and Spring River, which 

enters it from the east a little south of the Kansas line.

The area of land flooded along this river is large compared with 

the size of the stream. This, in fact, is true of all the streams in 

the southeastern part of Kansas. They have little fall and are 

very crooked. The water, instead of running off quickly, is held
80 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

back, overflows the banks, spreads out over the river bottom to a 

width in places of from -i to 5 miles. The average fall of the 

stream from Emporia to the mouth is less than 2 feet per mile, and 

there are stretches of 20 miles where the fall is only 1.7 feet per mile.

190 S

FIG. 9. Drainage basins of southeastern Kansas.

There are stretches of 10 miles where the river is so crooked that 

the length, measured along the river, is more than twice that in a 

direct course. These numerous bends, together with the trees that 

grow thickly to the water's edge in some places, reduce the already
MUKPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J NEOSHO EIVEE FLOODS. 81

small slope of the stream so much that its effective value is probably 

not more than 1J feet per mile.

The upper part of the watershed is hilly pasture land, from which 

the water flows rapidly. The central and lower part is rolling cultivated land. There are no forests on the watershed, but narrow 

strips of trees are found along the greater part of the stream.

DISCHARGE AND RUN-OFF.

A gaging station was established on this stream August 1, 1895, at 

a highway bridge about 1 mile west of Tola, a short distance below 

a dam. The channel is straight for several hundred feet above and 

below the station, and the bed, though stony, is quite permanent. 

Both banks are low and subject to overflow during flood, especially 

the right one. The following table gives the maximum and minimum 

gage height and corresponding discharge for the years 1896 to 1903 

that this station was in operation. The maximum flow is seen to 

be very large and the minimum flow very small. For sixty days 

in 1896 and for one hundred and twenty days in 1897 the stream was 

almost dry, the discharge being only 1 cubic foot per second.

Estimated monthly discharge of Neosho River at lola, Kans. 

[Drainage area, 3,670 square miles.]

Month. 

/

1896.

April -__.----------------

July-....-.---.- ---

August ___- -------------

November --------------

December ...

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

275 

275 

125 

15, 025 

45, 560 

5,048 

7,890 

300 

10 

225 

2,290 

445

45, 560

Minimum.

100 

75 

20 

50 

160 

250 

125 

10 

0 

0 

5 

20

0

Mean.

125 

114 

61

2,708 

10, 273 

905 

1,278 

58 

6 

11 

245 

88

1,322

Total in 

acre-feet.

7,686 

6,557 

3,751 

161,137 

631,666 

53, 851 

78, 581 

3,566 

357 

676 

14, 578 

5,411

967, 817

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.03 

.03 

.02 

.82 

3.23 

.28 

.40 

.02 

.002 

.003 

.07 

.02

4.925

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile.

0.03 

.03 

.02 

.74 

2.80 

.25 

.35 

.02 

.002 

.003 

.07 

.02

.36

1KB 147 05 M 6
82 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Estimated monthly discharge of Neosho River at lola, Kans. Continued.

Month.

1897.

April ....._............_.

May

June _-____-___.-_--------

July .______________----__

1898.

February - .--

May . . ... . , . . . _ . . . _ .

June ............. ....^...

July..... ................

The year ___________

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

920 

3.970 

4,840 

2, 183 

665 

1,445 

422 

87 

62 

1 

1 

1

4,840

50 

5,060 

7, 077 

5,460 

26, 225 

27,875 

1,050 

1,825 

5,220 

3,620 

3,695 

16, 077

27,875

Minimum.

105 

395 

340 

395 

170 

75 

87 

50 

1 

0 

1 

1

0

1 

1 

80 

220 

1,250 

1,250 

180 

110 

110 

50 

145 

305

1

Mean.

531 

1,689 

960 

894 

379 

363 

163 

72 

9 

1 

1 

1

422

7 

466 

692 

753 

8, 855 

5,360 

392 

543 

678 

395 

482 

2,'311

1,745

Total in 

acre-feet.

32, 650 

93, 802 

59, 030 

53, 197 

23, 305 

21, 600 

10, 023 

4,427 

536 

62 

60 

62

298, 754

430 

25, 881 

42, 550 

44, 807 

544, 476 

318. 941 

24, 103 

33, 388 

40,344 

24, 288 

28, 681 

142, 099

1,269,988

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.167 

.479 

.302 

.272 

.119 

.110 

.051 

.023 

.002 

.000 

.000 

.000

1.525

.002 

.146 

.218 

.237 

2. 785 

1.686 

.123 

.171 

.213 

.124 

.152 

.727

6.584

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile.

0.145 

.460 

.262 

.244 

.103 

.099 

.044 

.020 

.002 

.000 

.000 

.000

.115

.002 

.127 

.188 

.205 

2.413 

1.461 

.107 

.148 

.185 

.108 

.131 

.629

.475
MDBPHY

OTHEBSLBs ND ] NEOSHO RIVER FLOODS. 83 

Estimated monthly discharge of Neosho River at lola, Kans. Continued.

Month.

1899. 

January _______________

February .__________...-_

March ______________ . _ . .

April ....... ...________

May ____________________

June -__._______--____-__.

July ............. .. ....

September . , . . . . . .......

November. . ....---.......

December .........

1900. 

January ..................

Febrnary .____._.____.___

March ...................

April ...............

May .-..........._.......

June ._...................

July. ....................

August ..................

November ...............

The year -.._.._....

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

450 

4,020 

12, 390 

1,835 

5,620 

22, 191 

21,365 

630 

305 

145 

50 

110

22, 191

193 

292 

10,412 

9,800 

23, 700 

4, 725 

4, 035 

650 

15,350 

13, 950 

30,411 

650

30,411

Minimum.

305 

220 

780 

505 

282 

350 

305 

220 

180 

50 

50 

50

50

145 

192 

292 

338 

385 

256 

292 

145 

145 

338 

510 

292

145

Mean.

357

617 

2, 138 

887 

1,094 

4,168 

3,443 

308 

200 

98 

50 

75

1,120

179

200 

2,604 

2,229 

4,098 

1,061 

766 

301 

2,025 

2,019 

3,418 

383

1,598

Total in 

acre-feet.

21,951 

34, 366 

131,461 

53, 780 

67, 268 

348, 013 

211,703 

18, 938 

11,901 

6,026 

2, 975 

4,612

811,894

11,006 

11,107 

160, 114 

132,635 

251, 976 

63, 134 

47, 099 

12, 359 

120,496 

124, 143 

203, 385 

23, 488

1,160,942

Bun-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.12 

.18 

,67 

.27 

.35 

1.27 

1.08 

.09 

.06 

.03 

.01 

.02

4.15

.06 

.05 

.82 

.68 

1.29 

.32 

.24 

.06 

.61 

'.63 

1.04 

.12

5.92

Secondfeet peisquare 

mile.

0.10 

.17 

.58 

.24 

.30 

1.14 

.94 

.08 

.05 

.03 

.01 

.02

.31

.05 

.05 

. 71 

.61 

1.13 

.29 

.21 

.05 

.55 

.55 

.93 

.10

.43
84 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Estimated monthly discharge of Neosho River at lola, Kaiis. Continued.

Month.

1901.

February _ _ _______..._

May _______-__--_____-.__

June _______-__-_.-._-_-__

July _ . . . _ .___.____-_.___

November

1902.

February _ . _ _ ___.._

March - .____.. _________

June -.----..-- -_ . . . . _

July.....................

The year .......

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

985 

3.570 

1,900 

19, 250 

1,500 

4, 250 

353 

190 

142 

58 

70 

94

19, 250

467 

1,000 

1,400 

4,900 

18, 500 

35, 550 

6,690 

24, 550 

18, 500 

20, 150 

2,600 

7, 500

35, 550

Minimum.

353 

353 

552

1,382 

678 

450 

190 

154 

58 

10 

10 

10

10

190 

445 

445 

490 

490 

2,000 

925 

330 

580 

850 

580 

925

190

Mean.

444 

1,224 

999 

6,969 

1,065 

955 

254 

178 

102 

33 

32 

35

102

370 

549 

601 

836 

5,585 

11,694 

2,169 

6,382 

4,962 

4,689 

1,119 

2 227

3, 432

Total in 

acre-feet.

27, 300 

67, 978 

61,426 

414, 684 

65, 484 

56, 826 

15, 618 

10, 945 

6,069 

2,029 

1,904 

2,152

732, 415

22, 750 

30, 470 

36, 954 

49, 745 

343, 408 

695,841 

133, 367 

392, 414 

295, 259 

288, 315 

' 66,585 

136, 933

2. 492, 041

Eun-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.140 

.348 

.314 

2.119 

.334 

.290 

.080 

.055 

.031 

.010 

.010 

.012

3.743

.12 

.16 

.18 

.26 

1.75 

3.56 

.68 

2.01 

1.51 

1.48 

.33 

.70

12.74

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile.

0.121 

.334 

.272 

1.899 

.290 

.260 

.069 

.048 

.028 

.009 

.009 

.010

.279

.10 

.15 

.16 

.23 

1.52 

3.19 

.59 

1.74 

1.35 

1.28 

.30 

.61

.94
NEOSHO RIVER FLOODS. 85 

Estimated monthly discharge of Neoslio River at lola, Eans. Contiimecl.

Month.

1903.

February .-___.____.-__

March .......... _______

April ... . _ _ ...........

May ---_....---. . _____...

June _ _ . _ ............__.

July .....................

August ___.-_.-_______-__

September _-.__._.__.,____

October __________________

November ____..__.._

Discharge in second-feot.

Maximum.

770 

8,490 

9,390 

11,634 

29, 670 

39, 120 

3,990 

19,210 

14,010 

14, 220 

19,210

Minimum.

530 

350 

770 

580 

580 

1,190 

700 

630 

120 

120 

700

Mean.

646 

1,041 

2,109

2,208 

9, 157 

10, 725 

1,123 

6,112 

1,396 

1,974 

4,246

Total in 

acre-feet.

39, 721 

57,814 

135, 211 

131,385 

563, 042 

638, 182 

69, 051 

375,812 

83, 068 

121,376 

252,654

Run-off.

Depth in 

' inches.

0.21 

.29 

.69 

.67 

2.88 

3.26 

.36 

1.91 

. 42 

.62 

1.29

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile.

0.18 

.28 

..60 

.60 

2.50 

2.92 

.31 

1.66 

.38 

.54 

1.16

NUTE. Gage heights for 1898 are given in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 28, 

page 115 ; discharge measurements, page 116 ; rating table, page 117.

Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1899 are given in Water-Supply Paper No. 

ft 7, page 267 : rating table in Paper No. 39. page 450.

Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1900 are given in Water-Supply Paper No. 

50, page 332 ; rating table in Paper No. 52, page 518.

Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1901 are given in Water-Supply Paper No. 

06, page 57 ; rating table on page 172 of same paper.

FLOOD NEAR lOLA, KANS.

Flood-gaging stations were established on this stream at Neosho 

Rapids and Humboldt by the United States Geological Survey and 

at lola by the United States Weather Bureau in the spring of 1904. 

From the gage readings at these places the duration and magnitude 

of the floods on this river can be seen. " The gage at lola is just above 

a dam and does not show the same range of stage as did the old 

United States Geological Survey gage, which was just below this 

dam. The highest reading in 1903 was 13 feet 8 inches on July 4. 

The highest reading in 1904 was 15.2 feet on July 10. From the 

high-water marks at the bridge it appears that the reading of the old 

United States Geological Survey gage on July 10, 1904, was about 24 

feet, or 22 feet above ordinary low water. The tables following give 

the gage readings and discharges at lola.
86 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Maximum. aM minimum discharge of Neosho River at lola, Kans. 

[Drainage basin, 3,670 square miles.]

Year.

1895 

1896

1897 

1898

1899

1900

1901

1903 

1903

1904

Date.

Sept. 12 

May 24

Mar. 5 

June 27

June 9

Nov. 2

Apr. 17

June 11 

June 3

July 10

Gage 

height 

in feet.

21.00

21.10

6.35 

20.50

17.03

18.95

13.30

21.25 

22.00

24.00

Maximum discharge in secondfeet.

From 

total 

drainage 

area.

45, 560

4,840

37, 875

22, 191

30,411

19,250

«35,550 

«39, 120

74, 600

Per 

square 

mile.

12.4

1.32 

7.60

6.05

8.29

5.35

9.69 

10.7

20.33

Date.

September and 

October.

October _ - - .

January and 

February.

October and 

December.

January, August, and September.

October and 

December.

September and 

October.

Gage 

height 

in feet.

2.03

2.00

1.70 

1.80

2.00

2.10

.50

2.00 

2.00

Minimum discharge in 

second-feet.

From 

total 

drainage area.

0

0 

1

50

145

10

190 

120

Per 

square 

mile.

0

0

0. 00027

.014

.040

.0037

.052 

.033

a Probably too small on account of overflow of banks.

Mean daily gage lieiglit of NeosJw River at lola, Kans., July 1-20, 1904- 

[Weather Bureau record.]

Date.

Julvl--------------------

July 2 ......................

J-alyS... ............... ....

July4___. .._..____. .._____.

July 5 .......................

July 6 ......................

July 7 .._.__........_.......

July8_ ....................

July 9 ......................

July 10... _._.........-_...

Height in 

feet.

11.4

9.5

3.7

4 2

4 2

11.0

12.6

13.8

14.96

15.2

Date.

July 11.... ...... ...........

July 12. ....... ........... ..

July 13...... ............. -.

July 14_____. ...............

July 15.-----.---. .--.-.--.

July 16. ____________________

July IT...... ...._.--_.--...

July 18_____. ...............

July 19...... ............ ...

July 20-.. ..................

Height in 

feet.

14.7

14.0

13.3

13.0

12.6

10.5

3.3

2.9

2 2

1.8

The" gage readings show that the flood at lola lasted from July 6 

to 16, and reached a maximum stage of 15.2 feet on July 10 for an 

estimated discharge of about 74,600 cubic feet per second, 34,600 

cubic feet of which was overflow. This estimate of the discharge 

is necessarily very roughly approximated, as no measurements of 

velocity were made. It was necessary to estimate the velocity of
MURPHY AND"] 

' OTHERS. J NEOSHO RIVER FLOODS. 87

the overflow from the amount of scour on the roadbed of the Missouri Pacific Railway. This railroad crosses the valley on an embankment. The flood passed over this embankment on both sides 

of the river and had a width of about 1^ miles on the right bank 

and a width of about one-half mile on the left bank. The maximum 

depth, from actual measurement of the water above the surface of 

the rail, was 4 feet at the deepest place. The stone ballast of the 

road was badly washed out in places, and the track was saved from 

washing away only by being held down. Trains could not cross 

the river for several days and passengers were taken across in boats.

FLOOD NEAR HUMBOLDT, KANS.

A flood-gaging station was established at the highway bridge at 

Humbolclt in April, 1904. The fluctuations of the surface, measured 

with a chain gage, are given below:

Gage JieiffJit, in feet, of Neoslio Rirer at Humltoldt, Kans., April 23-to 25 and

May 6 to July, 190%.

Date.

April 23. .........

April 24.... _____

April 25. .........

May 6_____ _______

May 7___. _._.__..

May 8_. ---___..-_-

May 16___ .... ____

May 17 -----------

May 18-. _________

Mayl9__.__._ ...

May 30... --------

May 31.-.. .......

May3G_.____ ___-

Time.

6.10a.rn_-_

8.35 a.m. _.

3 a. m-____ 

7 p. m_i__.

1 p. m.____ 

6 p. m.___.

10.30 a. m._

1.30 p. m__

5.30 p. m__

7. 30 a.m__ _

6 p. m__._.

2 p. m.__..

Height.

Feet. 

3

25.1

25.5

27.3

27 

20

25.7 

11

13

11.9

13.2

15

18.5

19

18

18

17.4

16.2

16.3

15.1

10

5

4

16.9

13.5

Date.

Mav 27-..------..

May 28__--__.___-

May 39_. _ ____..__

May 30_____._.__.

May 31. ..........

June 1 .-.--._...

Time.

8 p. m-__.-

8 a. m_ .-.

7.10p.in__.

lOa. m--_.

8 p. m.-,_- 

10.40 a. m_.

8 p. m----_ 

6.30a.m.._

10 p. m_-_.

7 a. m._. _

7.30p.m.__

8 a. m_ ..--

6 p. m. .-.

8.45a.m___

7 p. m...__

9 a. m_ -.-.

7 p. m-....

9 a. m - . - - .

6 p. m.---.

6 a. m_ .--_

7 p. m.-.-.

6 a. m__-._

7 p. m.-.--

Height.

Feet. 

9

10

11

11.9

11

10.9 

15.7

18 

19

19.9

20.4

21.6

22.4

23.5

27.7

28.6

29

28.8

28.2

37

36.5

38.1

28.5

28.1

27.7

27.1
DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Gage height, in feet, of Neosho River at Hutnbohlt, Kans., April 23 to 25 

May 6 to July, 1904 Continued.

Datte.

June 9 ___________

June 10 _ _ . . . _ _

Junell_-___ ______

Junel2___. __-_.__

June 16 ... .

June 17 .. ._ __

June 18 ..........

June 19 ..... ...

June 20 __........

June 22 . . . . . .

June 23 ______..__

June 26 .

June 27 . . ______

June 28 ..........

June 29 .

Timp.

6.30a.m.--

7.30 p.m..,

7 a. m____.

6 p. ra_ ___

6.30 a. in.. .

7 p. ni___._

6 a. m_ _. __

7 p. m_ . _ _ _

7 p. m.____

6 a. m___._

6 p. m_____

7 p. m_____

7 p. ni_____

6 a. m_____

7 p. m_.__.

7 a. m .__.

8 p. ni_.___

7 p. m.....

8.30 p.m. __

7 a. m . .

7 a. m_ . ..

6 p. m.---.

7 p. m_____

11 a. ra._..

7 p. m_____

7 a. m ....

7.30 p.m.. _

Height.

Feet. 

26.2

25 7

24 8

24.2

21.7

15

12.5

14

15

16.4

17 2

15

11.3

14

17.5

18.3

17.7

14.5

11.9

11.9

13.7

14.5

15.7

16

15.8

15.4

12.6

10.4

8

5

10

iq Q

22 7

23 4

24.6

27.3 

25

24.3

23.5

Date.

June 29 ..........

June 30 ..........

July I...... ......

July2.___ . . .. .

JulyS............

July 4_. __________

July5... ...._.._,

July6. ___________

July 7. ...........

JulyS. ...........

July 9.... .....

July 10.. .........

July 11.. __..._...

July 12_. _________

July 13...........

July 14__. __.____.

July 15.. ...... ...

July 16-.-.--..--.

July 17

July 18_. _________

Time.

8 a. m _ _

7 p. m_____

7 p. m_____

7. 30 p.m. _

7.30a.m___

6.30p.m..,

6 p. m-.._.

8 a. m

8.30 p.m.. .

10 a. m,___

7.30 p. m __

8 a. m

13 m ......

9 p. m._. __

8 a. m_ ...

7p. m-_.._

8 a. in

8 p. m.....

7 a. in_ ____

7 p. rn . ...

7.30a.rn_ _

7.30 p.m.. .

7.30a.m. _

8 a. rn_

7 p. rn_____

7 a. m____.

8 p. rn_.._.

8 a. m_.___

7 p. rn_ .__. 

6 a. rn__.__

7 p. m...__

Height.

Feet. 

23.3

23.3

22.9

22.9

22.7

22 3

21.3

10.8

11.3

12

12.4

14.3

23.9

24.5

26

27.5

28.7

28.3

28.7

29

30

30.3

30.7

30

29.5

28.9

28 5

27.5

27

26.4

25.8

25.3

24.8

24

21.9

14

10 

9

5
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. VII

A. FLOOD IN NEOSHO RIVER AT HIGHWAY BRIDGE AT HUMBOLDT, KANS.

£. OVERFLOW OF RIGHT BANK OF NEOSHO RIVER AT HIGHWAY BRIDGE AT 

HUMBOLDT, KANS.
MUHPHY AND"]

OTHERS. J NEOSHO EIVER FLOODS. 89

It is seen from these gage records that this river was in flood much 

of the time from April 24 to July 17. A stage of 27.3 feet above low 

water was reached April 25; a stage of 29 feet was reached June 4; 

a stage of 27.3 feet was reached on June 27; and a stage of 30.7 feet, 

the maximum for the year, was reached on July 10. The highest 

known water at this place prior to 1904 was in 1885. The flood of 

June 10, 1904, was about 1 foot higher in stage than at that time. 

The highest water of 1903 was about 3 feet less than the July flood 

of 1904.

The left bank of the river at Humboldt is comparatively high, so 

that the city did not suffer from the flood; the right bank, however, 

is low and was overflowed for a distance of about 3 miles back from 

the stream. PL VII shows views of the Neosho River during the 

flood. From it a good idea can be obtained of the extent of the overflow and also of the velocity of the water.

FLOODS NEAR KEOSHO RAPIDS, KAKS.

A flood-gaging station was established at the Santa Fe Railway 

bridge at Neosho-Rapids in April, 1904, at a point a short distance 

below the mouth of Cottonwood River. The fluctuations of the surface at this station, measured with a chain gage, are as follows:

Gaf/e JieigJit, in feet, of NeosJw River at NeosJio Rapids, Kans., May 16 to July

18, 19(14.

Date.

May 16 ...............

May 18.... '..........

May 19 ...............

May 20 .....__.....-...

May 21 ...............

May 22 ...............

May 23 ...............

May 24 .............. .

May 35 ......... .....

May 36 ...............

May 27 . . . . ._______._.

May 38 ...............

May °9

May 30 .......

May 31_____. ______ __

June 1.. ----..........

June 2 ____________

June 3 ...............

7.20a.m.

Feet. 

20.6

26.2

27.8

21.9

14.7

13.8

13.6

13.4

13.3

12.9

14

31.1

19.4

20

32

33.6

31.9

28.5

31.8

6 p. ru.

Feet. 

21

27.2

24.3

19

14

13.6

13.5

13.4

13.3

12.9

14.9

21

19

30

34.1

32

30.9

28.6

33.2

°6 a

Date.

June 7___ _---------.

June 9.... ...... ....

June 12_ ______________

June 13 ........

June 14 . . . . ..... ...

June 15_ _----..... -_.

June 16_ _ __ .........

June 17_ _____.__._ ___.

June 18. ...

June 19 .... . . _____

June 20_ ____________

June 21... _._........

June 22.. .............

. m.

7.20a.m.

Feet. 

a 35. 2

33.4

31

28.1

26.1

18.7

16.2

28.3

29.7

25

18

15. 5

17

Of) t\

23

35.2

26.5

20.2

16

6p.m.

Feet. 

34.3

33

29.5

27

24

18

22.6

30.4

28.4

23.5

16.5

15

19.1

21 5

23.7

26.5

24.2

17.2

15.6
90 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 14T.

Gaye height, in feet, of NeosJio River at Neosho Rapids, Kans., May 16 to July

18, 1904 Continued.

Daie.

June25_____ _____ ,__

June 26 ________ _._.

June 28. _______ __,._

June 29_ _________

Julyl ______ _.____.

JulyS......... ......

July3 ................

July4. ...............

7.20a.m.

Feet. 

15

14

32.7

31.1

33.3

31.2

27 1

25.3

22.3

17.1

18.6

19.1

24.2

6p.m.

Feet. 

14.5

14

25

32.3

32.8

29.6

26.6

24.5

20.1

16.6

18.5

20.4

26

Date.

July6__ ___________

July 7 ----------------

JulyS................

July9.... ............

July 10... ____________

July 11- ___________

July 12 ...............

July 13 ________ ......

July 14 _ . .............

July 15. -______._,__

July 16..... ..........

July 17 __ _ ----._---

' July 18. ...... .......

7.30a.m.

Feet. 

31.4

34.4

35.3

34.4

33.8

33.2

32.8

30

27 1

17.5

16.9

16.5

15.3

6 p.m.

Feet. 

38

« 36. 1

35.1

33.9

33.5

33

33

29.4

23

16.1

16

14.4

n Midnight.

It is seen from these figures that there have been five floods of considerable magnitude at this place from May 17 to July 14, 1904. 

The first one reached its maximum on May 18, with a gage height of 

27.8 feet; the second reached its maximum on May 30, with a gage 

height of 34.1 feet; the third reached its maximum June 4, with a 

gage height of 35.2 feet; the fourth reached its maximum June 27, 

with a gage height of 33.3 feet, and the fifth reached its maximum 

July 7, with a gage height of 36.1 feet, The highest flood of 1903 at 

this place reached an elevation of about 2| feet less than the stage 

on July 7, 1904.

FLOOD NEAR EMPORIA, KANS.

Cottonwood River rises in the eastern part of McPherson County 

and flows in a general eastwardly direction, emptying into the Neosho 

about 8 miles southeast of Emporia. The distance from source to 

mouth in a straight line is about 75 miles. The river falls from an 

elevation of about 1,475 feet to 1,045 feet. The extreme width of the 

watershed is about 40 miles. The land is hilly, or gently rolling, 

prairie, pasture, or cultivated land, without many trees, except along 

the streams.

There is no gage at Emporia on either the Cottonwood or Neosho, 

but the records relative to high floods are kept at the Emporia pumping station on the Neosho and at J. E. Soden's mill, near Emporia, on 

the Cottomvood.

The highest water at Soden's mill prior to 1904 was on May 28,
NEOSHO BIVER FEOODS. 91

1903. On June 3, 1904, the water was 28 inches higher at this mill 

than on May 28, 1903, and on July 5 and 6, 1904, the water was 22 

inches higher than on May 28,1903.

According to the record of Mr. F. A. Bacon, engineer of the 

Emporia Waterworks Company, the highest water at the pumping 

station prior to 1904 was on May 29, 1903, at which time the water 

was 35^ inches deep on the floor of the engine room. On May 29,

1904. the water was 29-J inches deep on its floor. On June 3, 1904, it 

again was 29J inches deep. On June 26 it was 28 inches deep, and on 

July 6, 1904, at 12 noon, it was 36| inches deep. The water remained 

from July 5 to 8 in the pump house that is, for three days the stage 

of the river remained within 3 feet of the greatest height it ever 

attained. Nearly all the country between these two rivers in the 

vicinity of Emporia was flooded and the crops destroyed. The railroads along the river and crossing it were tied up for several days. 

The Neosho branch of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad, 

which extends from Junction City to Parsons, suffered severely, but 

none of the bridges were washed away.

FLOOD NEAR CHANUTE, KANS.

About 3| miles north of Chanute the Neosho makes a sharp bend 

to the west side of the valley, and remains on that side for about 7 

miles. The major part of the water of the 1904 flood, instead of following this large bend, cut across it at a velocity sufficiently large 

to badly damage the levees in its path, destroy the crops, and cause 

considerable loss to the oil interests. Several of the oil tanks were 

moved from their foundation, some of them were overturned, and a 

few were swept away. The pumping machinery was injured to some 

extent by the dirty water.

The flood of July passed at least 1 foot in depth over all the levees. 

Nearly all of them were damaged to some extent and in places they 

were completely destroyed. The greatest damage was usually around 

culverts that passed the water through the levee. The water was so 

high here that a boat was rowed through the doors of a freight car 

standing on the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Eailroad near the depot. 

The flood marks at the pumping station indicate that the July, 1904, 

flood was about 8 inches higher at Chanute than the flood of 1885 

and was about 2 feet higher than the highest water of 1903.

FLOOD NEAR FORT GIB8ON, IND. T.

A gaging station was established on Neosho River at the Missouri 

Pacific Railway bridge near Fort Gibson, Ind. T., in September, 

1903, and the following gage heights were taken during June and 

July, 1904, during the floods on the upper river.
92 ' DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Gaffe height, in feet, an Neoslw River near Fort Gibson, Ind. T., 190.'f.

Date.

1. ...........

2... .........

3............

'4.... . ..

5.. .... .

6. .

8............

9............

10............

11--...... ...

12...... ..

13....... ..

14. ... . ..

is.:.... ....

16. .

May. June.

14.00

18.60

20.00

26.50

33. 00

32.60

29.00

27.00

27.00

25. 50

25. 50

24.00

24.00

22 20

20.00

19. 50

July.

18.80

18.20

20.00

21.00

22.60

23.00

26.00

27.00

28. 00

29.00

32. 40

32. 20

32.00

31.60

30.80

30.00

Date.

18--- .--.

19. ____ ______

20____. ____-.

21

22

23

24

25-___. ______

26___. -.---..

27

28_ ___.___.__

29_ __________

30- ___--__.

31___. _______

May.

11.80

12.00

13.00

June.

17.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.20

18.00

17.10

16.40

15.00

15.40

16.00

18.80

19.00

19.80

July.

25. 00

24.60

23. 00

21.00

19.20

19.00

18.20

16.00

15.80

15. 20

14.80

14.40

13.80

14.00

It is seen from this table that the river was high during June and 

July. A maximum stage of 33 feet was reached on June 5 and again 

a maximum stage of 32.4 feet on July 11, this last being about 23 

feet above low water.

LEVEES OF NEOSHO COUNTY.

Levee building was begun in Neosho County, Kans., in 1892, and 

has gradually grown until at the present time there are 19 levee districts along Neosho River, varying in size from 220 acres to 2,000 

acres, depending upon the topography of the country. A stream or 

high land that does not need the levee serves as a boundary. The 

height of the levees is referred to the height of the greatest flood 

of 1885, the crown of each levee being supposed to be from 14^ to 2 feet 

above the flood height of that year. The crown width varies from 3 

to 6 feet, the latter being the width of those recently completed.

The side slopes vary from 1^ to 1 to 2 to 1, the greatest height being 

about 10 feet. The material for the levees is obtained near the place 

of construction, an^l is usually very good for the purpose, as it contains a considerable amount of clay. The cost of construction ranges 

from 7 to 18 cents per cubic yard, and the cost per acre reclaimed 

from $8 to $12. The Nixon levee, for instance, built in 1903, protects 

626.1 acres and cost $5,681.90. The cost per year for repairs varies 

widely, depending on exposure to action of river, ranging from
NEOSHO RIVEE FLOODS. 93

nothing to $1.25 per acre, but generally amounting to from 25 to 50 

cents an acre. Some levees built nine years ago have required no 

repairs. These levees have protected the land against ordinary flood, 

and as most of the land thus protected is almost valueless without 

flood protection they have well repaid the cost of their construction. 

The belief is very general that several of them are too near the river, 

and thus restrict the stream waterways, and that they are not sufficiently high and thick. The levee districts are formed and the levees 

built and maintained by a board of county commissioners.

NECESSARY WIDTH OF CHANNEL.

For 230 miles from the mouth of the river its average slope is less 

than 2 feet per mile, and there are long stretches where the slope is 

only 1.7 feet per mile. The stream is also very crooked, so that the 

effective slope is smaller than that of other similar streams. The 

frequent overflows of the river are due to the sluggish flow which 

results from this small slope of bed. The only means of increasing 

the slope is by shortening the stream that is, removing some of the 

bends. As this remedy is not practicable, the only remaining palliative is to make the waterway area large and use levees. As the 

volume of flood flow, the average slope of the stream, and the depth 

of water are known, it is possible to compute the approximate size of 

a trapezoidal channel that will safely carry the flood flow without 

overflow of levees of a reasonable height.

The flood discharge of the Neosho at lola in 1904 was about 7.r»,000 

cubic feet per/ second, and the depth of water was about 23 feet above 

low water. The average surface slope at this place is approximately 

2.3 feet per mile. The effective slope is somewhat less, and we will 

assume it to be 2.2 feet per mile. The coefficient of roughness of bed 

(n) in Kutter's formula is assumed to be 0.030. From these data we 

find that a trapezoidal channel having a bottom width of 420 feet, 

side slopes 1.5 to 1 or top width of 486 feet, depth 22 feet, will carry 

a volume of 75,000 cubic feet per second.

That is, if the channel of the Neosho in the vicinity of lola were 

approximately trapezoidal in shape with a top width of 486 feet, 

bottom width 420 feet, and banks or levees on each side, so that the 

overflow could not take place for a height of water of 22 feet above 

low water, the flood of 1904 would have passed down the stream without overflow. The width between the abutments of the bridge at 

Tola is only 190 feet, so that there was a very large overflow on each 

side of the bridge.

In the vicinity of Chanute and farther down the river, where the 

slope of the stream is considerably less than at lola, the top width of 

the channel will need to be from 650 to 700 feet between the levees.
94 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

The damage done along this stream consisted mainly in the loss of 

crops. The overflow water had very little velocity, but spread out 

over a large area, ruining a large acreage of crops, but not destroying 

the land, as was the case along Kansas River during the 1903 flood. 

The cities and towns along the river are, as a rule, situated a considerabte distance back from the river and out of the reach of floods. 

Very few bridges were injured by the flood. The railroads suffered 

quite heavily, especially the Missouri, Kansas and Texas, which 

parallels the river. For several days trains could not run over this 

road, and the loss in traffic and injury to roadbed was large. The 

oil industries along the river, especially in the vicinity of Chanute, 

suffered heavily in loss of time and damage to machinery. The 

levees along the river in Neosho County, described on page 92, suffered to a large extent.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

Floods occur annually on the Neosho that cause overflow of much 

valuable land, destroying crops and making agriculture very uncertain. This overflow is due to the small slope of the river, small 

area of waterway, and to the numerous bends in the stream.

Levees have been used to prevent overflow in some parts of the 

river valley and serve their purpose well in the case of ordinary 

floods. By building levees sufficiently far apart to give a larger 

waterway to the river, building them a few feet higher, and protecting them at exposed places they will protect the land against all 

floods.

VERDIGRIS RIVER FLdODS.

Floods are common on Verdigris River. Rarely a year passes 

without a flood that causes overflow of some of the bottom lands 

along the river. There were five floods on this river from April 26 to 

July 10, 1904, that reached a stage of more than 27 feet above low 

water at Independence, and two of these reached a stage of more than 

41 feet above low water.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Verdigris River rises in the southeastern corner of Chase County, 

Kans., flows in a southerly direction through Kansas and part of' 

Indian Territory, and empties into Arkansas River. Its length, as 

found by measurement on the best available maps, is 290 miles. It
] VEEDIGEIS EIVEE FLOODS. 95

falls from an elevation of 1,400 feet at its source to TOO feet at a 

point about, 11 miles north of the Kansas and Indian Territory line, 

a distance of 141 miles. From this point to the mouth, a distance of 

148 miles, it falls about 100 feet. Throughout its length the river 

flows in a well-defined channel with banks from 10 to 40 feet in 

height. The width at ordinary stage of water at the State line is 140 

feet and at the mouth 250 feet. It is essentially a surface run-off 

stream; its water is muddy, its flood flow large, summer flow small, 

and surface fluctuations quite large and rapid. Although it flows in 

a comparatively deep and well-defined channel, its banks are frequently subject to overflow during floods, on account of the sluggish 

flow due to small fall and crooked channel. The bed and banks are 

composed of firm material, that changes very little from year to year.

The principal tributaries of Verdigris River, are Fall River, Elk 

River, Caney River, and Bird Creek. These all enter the river from 

the west and take a southeasterly direction. The first three rise in 

the Flint Hills of Butler County, Kans., and the last in Indian Territory.

Caney River, the largest of the four, drains an area of 2,440 square 

miles, has a length of 140 miles, and falls from an elevation of 1,500 

feet at its source to 750 "feet near the State line, a distance of 48 

miles.

Fall River is 96 miles long and has a fall of from 1,500 to 750 feet 

in a distance of 43 miles. Its drainage area is 875 square miles. Its 

water is less muddy and its flow more steady than that of Verdigris 

River. The width near the mouth at ordinary low water is 75 feet.

Elk River drains an area of 687 square miles. Its length is 70 

miles and its width near the mouth at ordinary low water 75 feet. 

It falls from an elevation of 1,500 feet to 750 feet in a distance of 43 

miles. Its discharge is smaller and its flow less steady than Fall 

River, resembling the main stream in this respect.

Bird Creek has a length of 85 miles and drains an area of 1,340 

square miles.

The watershed of Verdigris River has an area of 8,610 square miles. 

Its total length is 180 miles and its greatest width 72 miles. The 

Flint Hills, in the northern part of its boundary, have an elevation of about 1,600 feet. The northern boundary varies in height 

from 1,200 to 1,400 feet. The eastern boundary falls from about 1,400 ' 

to 650 feet and the western boundary from 1,600 to 650 feet, decreasing 

from the north toward the south. The upper part is comparatively 

rough, the general fall toward the river being about 25 feet to the 

mile. This portion of the watershed is used for grazing purposes. 

The rest of the basin contains some of the best farming land in 

the Mississippi River Valley. In some parts the general "surface is.
96 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

broken by mounds having an elevation of from 100 to 250 feet above 

the general level; such is Table Mound, G miles northwest of Independence, and the mounds near Fredoiiia and Cherryvale, Kans., 

and near Sageeyah, Ind. T.

The following table gives the distance in miles between 50-foot 

contours along Verdigris, Fall, and Elk rivers:

Distance, in miles, between 50-foot contours along Verdigris, Fall, and Elk

rivers.

Elevation in feet.

1,300 to 1,250

1,250 to 1,200

1,200 to 1,150

1,150 t:> 1,100

1,100 to 1,050

1,050 to 1,000

1,000 to 950

950 to 900

900 to 850

850 to 800 

800 to 750 

750 to 700 

700 to 600

Distance between contours.

Verdigris 

River.

3

2

7

Pall 

River.

Elk 

River.

3 1

3

3

4 3

3

7

6

12

30

32

8 

26 

148

8 '

6

13

33

19

16

3

onJ

4

3

3

4

4

6

16 

13

DISCHARGE AND RUN-OFF.

A gaging station was established on the Verdigris August 2, 1895, 

at McTaggart's mill, 7 miles east of Independence and 3 miles southwest of Liberty. The gage consists of two parts, one a vertical timber spiked to the flume of the mill and reading from 0 up to 8 feet, 

the other of foot and half-foot marks painted on the wheelhouse 

of the mill. Discharge measurements have been made from the 

highway bridge a few hundred feet below the dam.

The channel at this place is straight for several hundred feet 

above and below the bridge. The flow has a moderate velocity at 

low as well as high stages. The bed is mainly rock and not subject 

to change. The banks, although of considerable height, are subject 

to overflow during very high floods.

The following table shows the mean monthly and annual discharge 

and run-ojff obtained ,at this station from 1896 to 1903:
] VERDIGEIS RIVER FLOODS. 97 

Estimated monthly discliarge of Verdigris River at Liberty, Kans., 1895-1903. 

[Drainage area, 3, *67 square miles.]

Month.

1895.

October __________

November- _ .____.._____

December _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1896. 

January _ _ ________-.-.__

February __.___-_._

March _________________

May ___________________

July. _..--. 

August _-----_------.-_

December _ _ _ _ . _

The year ---------

1897.

April . _.___ ---. .

July- ..- 

August _--____--___---.

September _____________

October ---.____.._.____

December ________

The year _.______.

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

7,121 

37, 000 

155

171 

28, 000

1,136

770 

351 

3,882 

19, 900 

16, 620 

10, 770 

210 

424 

8,720 

9,130 

1,010

19, 900

1,616 

5,276 

14, 470 

26, 100 

8,105 

4, 005 

4,989 

39 

20 

20 

5 

39

26, 100

Minimum.

20 

87 

39 

39

68

450 

256 

171 

171 

171 

303 

138 

14 

5 

9 

110 

171

5

351 

450 

553 

450 

256 

52 

39 

20 

20 

5 

2 

2

2

Mean.

783 

5,985 

69 

82 

4,226

661 

426

242 

677 

4,181 

2,200 

1,699 

46 

71 

600 

1,017 

448

1,022

887 

1,591 

2,201 

2,829 

1,260 

505 

408 

28 

20 

8 

2 

12

813

Total in 

acre-feet.

48, 144 

356, 132 

4,243 

4,879 

259,847

40,643 

24, 503 

14, 880 

40, 285 

257, 080 

130, 909 

104,467 

2,828 

4,225 

36,893 

60, 516 

27, 547

744, 776

54,540 

88,360 

135, 333 

168, 338 

77, 474 

30, 050 

25, 088 

1,722 

1,190 

492 

119 

738

583, 444

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.294 

2.179 

.025 

.030 

1.589

.249 

.145 

.091 

.246 

1.572 

.800 

.639 

.017 

.026 

.226 

.369 

.168

4.548

.333 

.532

.838 

1.030 

.474 

.184 

.153 

.011 

.008 

.003 

.001 

.004

3.571

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

0.255 

1.953 

.022 

.027 

1.378

.216 

.139 

.079 

.221 

1.363 

.717 

.554 

.015 

.023 

.196 

.331 

.146

.333

. .289 

.518 

.718 

.923 

.411 

.165 

.133 

.009 

.007 

.003 

.001 

.004

.267

IEB 147 05 M-
98 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS 1ST UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Estimated monthly discharge of Verdigris River, etc. Continued.

Month.

1898. 

January ................

February . . . . _________

March .................

April ..................

July ...................

August _.._.__________

September .............

October . . . . .........

December ... . .......

The year . _ .

1899. 

January .__________._._

February . . . . . . . . ...

March .................

April .......... ........

May -.---...-.-.--.....

July...................

August ___..... .......

September _ ...... . . .

October ....... ........

November.... __..

December __________

The year .........

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

1,010 

10, 606 

6,383 

3,267 

30, 690 

10, 073 

5, 727 

7,285 

4,087 

256 

830 

10, 942

30, 690

660 

2, 652 

3,062 

6,424 

9,253 

21,440 

29, 876 

1,800 

20 

20 

14 

28

29, 876

Minimum.

9 

39 

52

230 

579 

475 

39 

9 

2 

14 

28 

87

2

210 

68 

303 

400 

256 

190 

154 

20 

5 

2

9 

14

2

Mean.

« 108 

a 1,084 

1,335 

859 

6,185 

2, 455 

390 

498 

515 

61 

121 

1,457

1,255

319 

342 

997 

1,244 

1,631 

3,893 

4,433 

234 

16 

7 

12 

18

1,096

Total in 

acre-feet.

«6,518 

« 60, 202 

82, 086 

51,114 

380, 303 

' 146,082 

23, 980 

30, 620 

30, 645 

3,751 

7,200 

89, 588

912, 089

19,615 

18, 994 

61,303 

74, 023 

100, 286 

231,650 

272, 574 

14, 388 

952 

430 

714 

1,107

796, 036

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

a 0. 04 

ff.37 

.51 

.31 

2.33 

.89 

.15 

.18 

.19 

.02 

.04 

.54

5. 57

.120 

.116 

.374 

.453 

.613 

1.410 

1.663 

.087 

.006 

.002. 

.004 

.007

4. 855

Second-feet 

 per square 

mile.

a 0.03 

«.35 

.44 

.28 

2. 02 

.80 

.13 

.16 

.17 

.02 

.04 

.48

.41

.104 

.112 

.325 

.406 

.532 

1.269 

1.445 

.076 

.005 

.002 

.004 

.006

.357

a Approximate.
MUKPHY AND ~| 

OTHERS. J

VEEDIGEIS EIVEE FLOODS. 99 

Estimated monthly discharge of Verdigris River, etc. Continued.

Month.

1900.

February ______________

March . . ..... .. ...

May ___________________

June . _ _ . . ____-_-_._-

July __-_____-___--___._

October _________

November..-.,. -..___.

December ...__... ...

The year ......_..

1901. 

January.... -____.____

February ..............

March . _ . . . ________

April -_-___.______-_

May -___-____-____-__--

June --_____-_-____-____

July ...................

August ____________

September __________ _

October _________ _____

November. _____________

December ______________

The year _________

Discharge In second-feet.

Maximum.

90 

240 

10, 200 

10, 750 

16, 500 

5,400 

23,610 

155 

36, 950 

35, 075 

25, 430 

860

36, 950

860 

2,200 

7,458 

16, 260 

2,550 

810 

90 

205 

2,200 

90 

40 

55

16, 260

Minimum.

55 

40 

170 

140 

280 

110 

222 

7 

10 

280 

860 

368

7

280 

368 

368 

760 

90 

40

3

2

2 

40

27 

40

2

Mean.

65 

82 

1,323 

1,236 

2,455 

593 

1,824 

53 

3,714 

3,236 

3, 766 

531

1,573

465 

920 

1,006 

3,272 

554 

122 

13 

30 

153 

55 

37 

51

556

Total in 

acre-feet:

3,997 

4,554 

81,348 

73, 547 

150, 952 

35, 286 

112,153 

3,259 

220, 998 

198, 974 

224, 093 

32, 650

1,141,811

28, 592 

51,094 

61,857 

194, 697 

34, 064 

7, 259 

799 

1,845 

9,104 

3,382 

2,202 

3,136

398, 031

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

.020 

.030 

.500 

.450 

.920 

.210 

.680 

.020 

1.350 

1.220 

1.370 

.200

6.970

.174 

.312 

.379 

1.195 

.209 

.045 

.005 

.012 

.056 

.021 

.013 

.020

2.441

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

.020 

.030 

.430 

.400 

.800 

.190 

.590 

.020 

1.210 

1.060 

1.230 

.170

.510

.151 

.300 

.328 

1.067 

.181 

.040 

.004 

.010 

.050 

.018 

.012 

.017

.182
100 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Estimated monthly rtixcliarge of Verdigris Ricer, etc. Continued.

. Month.

1902.

May ____..__._ _ _ . _ _ .

July ...................

August -_-------.-.--..

September _____ .......

October ................

November. _ ............

December

The year _ . . _ _ ...

1908.

May . _ . .... ........

June .;...--............

July ...................

August .,---..... _____

September . . . . ........

October . . . . .... _ . .

November _ ............

December . ...........

Discharge in second-feet.

Maximum.

55 

1,780 

785 

810 

26, 438 

33, 018 

4, 525 

6,577 

15, 650 

11,080 

8,470 

6,433

33,018

1,060 

21,020 

17, 800 

19, 900 

41,450 

26, 480 

7,458 

4,000 

8,810 

3,407 

11,150

Minimum.

40 

40 

140 

187 

205 

960 

320 

100 

368 

464 

464 

685

40

610 

393 

1,164 

910 

910 

560 

464 

560 

280 

464 

660

Mean.

45 

204 

357 

268 

5, 395 

7,893 

1,050 

1,051 

2,935 

1,706 

1,598 

1,852

2,030

747 

2,348 

4,112 

3,031 

10,865 

3,981 

1,551 

1,514 

1,306 

1,100 

2,367

Total in 

acre-feet.

2, 767 

11,330 

21,951 

15, 947 

331,718 

469, 666 

64, 562 

64, 623 

174, 645 

104, 898 

95, 088 

113,875

1,471,070

45, 931 

130, 401 

252, 837 

180, 357 

668, 063 

236, 886 

95, 367 

93, 092 

77, 712 

67, 636 

140, 846

Run-off.

Depth in 

inches.

0.01 

.07 

.14 

.10 

2.03 

2.87 

.39 

.39 

1.07 

.65 

.58 

.69

8.99

.28 

.79 

1.54 

1.10 

4.08 

1.45 

.59 

.56 

.48 

.42 

.87 

.69

1.285

Second-feet 

per square 

mile.

0.01 

.07 

. 12 

.09 

1.76 

2.57 

.34 

.34 

.96 

.56 

.52 

.60

.66

.24 

. 76 

1.34 

.99 

3.54 

1.30 

.51 

.49 

.43 

.36

NOTE. Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1899 are given in Water-Supply 

and Irrigation Paper No. 37, page 266; rating table in Paper No. 39, page 450.

Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1900 are given in Water-Supply Paper 

No. 50, page 331; rating table in Paper No. 52, page 518.

Gage heights and discharge measurements for 1901 are given in Water-Supply Paper 

No. 66, page 57; rating table on page 172 of same paper.
MURPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

VERDIGRIS RIVER FLOODS. 101

It is seen that the minimum flow at this place is sometimes only 

2 second-feet for sixty or more days at a time. The maximum 

daily rate of discharge during this period was 41,450 second-feet, on 

May 23, 1903.

The following table gives the maximum and minimum rate of 

discharge and run-off at this station:

Maximum and minimum discharge of Verdigris River at Liberty, Kans. 

[Drainage area, 3,067 square miles.]

Year.

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

Date.

Sept. 11

May 24

Apr. 30

May 4

July 9

Sept. 30

Apr. IB

June 7

May 23

July 8

Gage

height in 

feet.

« 35. 50

23.75

«28.00

^31.00

30.45

36.00

20.40

33.37

39.00

41.00

Maximum discharge in secondfeet.

From

total 

drainage 

area.

&37, 000

19, 900

26, 100

30, 690

29, 876

&36, 950

16, 260

33,018

HI, 450

50, 400

Per

square 

mile.

12.1

6.49

8.51

10.0

9.74

12.0

5.30

10.8

13.5

16. 43

Date.

October _ .

September

November and

Decemb-r.

September --..

October . . . _ _ _

August -....--

August and

September.

January and

February.

September ....

Gage 

height 

in feet.

2.20

1.70

1.60

1.60

lr60

1.55

1.20

1.90

2.80

Minimum discharge in 

second-feet.

From 

total drainage 

area.

155

5

2

2

2

7

2

40

280

Per

square 

mile.

0.051

.0016

.00065

. 00065

. 00065

.0023

. 00065

.013

.091

" Absolute maximum, 

6 Probably too small 

c Absolute maximum, 

* Absolute maximum,

36.40.

on account of overflow of banks. 

28.20. 

31.50.

FLOODS NEAR INDEPENDENCE.

A flood-gaging station was established on Verdigris River at the 

highway bridge at Independence in April, 1904. The fluctuations of 

the surface measured with this gage are given on page 102.
102 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Gage height of Verdigris River at Independence, Kans., April to July, 1904-

Date.

April 24. .... ....

April 26... ......

May 7. .........

June 2 ... .......

June 3 ........

June 4 ...... . .

June 5 ..........

June 12 ......

June 13. .........

June 14 ..........

June 15 ...

June 16 _ . . _ ....

June 17 ......

Time.

6.15 p.m.. .

6.12 a.m. _.

10.50 p.m..

1 p. m ..._

6 a. m._ ..

6.35a.m...

6.30 a.m. ..

9.45a.m...

11.12 a.m. .

12m_.....

4p.m.-...

5.37 p.m...

11 p. m.--.

3.30p.m...

5.30p.m...

7.25p.m.-.

5.30 a.m...

7 p. m_.--_

5.30 a.m.. -

7.30 p.m.. . 

6 a. m.....

7.30p.m.. .

7 p.m.....

Height.a

Feet. 

19

25.4

28.1

30.1

31.5

15

16.1

13

16.8

29.1

35.8

36.6

37

37.4

37.8

38.0

38.3

38.7

39

39.3

39.7

40.1

40.7

41.5

40.8

40.9

41.5

30.9

31.2

30.7

29.8

23.3

11.5

12

12 

19.6

27 7

28.7

29.6

Date.

June 19 . . _ _

June 20 ...______.

June 21 ..-....___

June 22 ..._...___

June 26 ..........

June 27 --------..

June 28 _......_._

June 29 ..........

June 30 ..........

Julyl............

July2. .------_._.

July 4.------.....

»

July6. ...........

July7----------.-

JulyS. __.-----.--

July9... .........

July 10___. .......

Julyll------._.._

July 12.. -..--....

July 13-------....

July 14... ...... ..

July 15. ..........

Time. '

5.30a.m___

7.30 p.m.. _

5.30 a.m...

6.30p.m___

6 p. m._.__

7 a. m.-.__

7 p. m___..

6 a. m__...

7 p. m. _...

6 a. m ....

5.30 a.m. ._

6.30p.m_._

6 p. m._--.

7.30 a.m.. _

1 p. m ....

7a.m.....

7.30 a. ni--_

6 p. m. ....

6 a. m_--.

6 p. m. ____

7 a. m_..._ 

6.30a.m...

Height.a

Feet. 

32.5

36.6

37.4

35.7

33.5

29.1

22.6

16.6

14.4

18.2

23.4

25.5

26.9

25.1

23

19.4

15.8

17.4

21

24.6

31.9

26.5

29.1

33.9

36.2

39.2

41.6

43.2

42.8

39.8

38

36.1

34.1

31.4

26.3 

20.5

13.5

8

4.9

 Above low water.
MUEPHY AN 

OTHEBS. >] VERDIGRIS RIVER FLOODS. 103

It is seen that the river was at a high stage at Independence from 

April 24 to July 13. It reached a maximum of 31.5 feet on April 26, 

a second maximum of 41.5 feet 011 June 5, a third maximum of 37.4 

feet on June 19, a fourth maximum of 31.9 feet on July 4, and a 

fifth maximum of 43.2 feet above low water the largest of the year 

on July 8. There was a range of stage at this place of about 43 feet, 

as compared with a range of 22 feet on the Neosho at lola and 36 feet 

on Fall River at Fall River. It is seen further that the changes of 

stage, though larger, are not as rapid on the Neosho as on Fall River, 

where a change in stage of 6 feet in two hours was observed during 

the July flood of 1904.

Mr. F. N. Gorden, pump engineer of the Independence waterworks, has high-water marks of the floods of 1885, 1895, 1903, and 

1904 on the pump house, from which the comparative heights of 

these floods have been obtained and the gage height at the station 

near Liberty on July 8 was computed. The elevations of the highwater marks above low water were as follows: July 8, 1904, 43.2 

feet; June 5, 1904, 41 feet; 1903, 41 feet; 1895, 38 feet; 1885,37.7 

feet.

The Verdigris makes a U-shaped bend in passing Independence. 

The major part of the flood water cut across this bend and greatly 

retarded the flow in the channel proper during the flood. Mr. F. N. 

Gorden describes the river at the pump house as being nearly as still 

as a lake during the highest water, while before the water cut across 

the bend it was flowing with quite rapid velocity. This reduction of 

velocity in the main channel after overflow begins makes it very difficult to compute the flood discharge of the stream. The water begins 

to overflow the bottom land opposite Independence at a height of 

about 35 feet above low water, or 8 feet below the high water of July, 

1904. The width of the flooded portion in the vicinity of Independence was about 3 miles. Wheat is the chief crop grown in this 

river bottom in this vicinity, and the part of the wheat that had been 

cut prior to these floods was piled up against the hedges and resembled 

in some places small straw stacks. From the flood heights, as shown 

by the gage heights and high-water marks at Independence and the 

flood heights and rating curve of the gaging station at Liberty, the 

flood discharge of the Verdigris at Liberty on July 8, 1904, has been 

computed. The overflow portion of the flood is estimated to have 

been 12,500 cubic feet per second and the total discharge 50,400 cubic 

feet per second.

FLOOD ON THE LOWER VERDIGRIS.

A considerable amount of damage was done by the floods in the 

vicinity of Coffeyville. A portion of the city was flooded, in addition 

to the loss of crops in the bottoms. The high water decreased from 

the Kansas and Indian Territory line to the mouth of the stream.
104 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES Itf 1904. [NO. 141

FLOOD IN LOWER FALL RIVER VALLEY.

The fluctuations of the surface of Fall River during the floods of 

1904 can be seen from the following gage readings, taken at the 

gaging station at Fallriver, from which the flashy character of this 

stream is easily seen:

Gage height of Fall River at Fallriver, Kans., 1904-

Date.

April 22 - ............

April 23. .. .-----.....

April 24--.--.--. -----

April 25 ...-..-.----_-

April 26... -----------

April 27 --------------

April 28. ...-..--_-_-_

April 29 .-..-----.---.

April 30 .--.-------.--

May 31 ...............

June 4------.--- ------

June 7-.-- ------------

June 8---. ------------

June 9... -..-_..-.-.. _

June 10. ---------

June 11. -----.--_---._

June 12. -------- __--

June IS. ..............

June 14. ..-..-.-..--..

June 16---.-- --------

June 17. ------------ .-

7a.m.

Feet. 

3.5

26.3

14.5

9.3

6.5

6.1

5.9

5.7

7

8

9.5

24

33.5

12.5

8.4

6.8

5.5

13.5

23.5

31

10

8

13.2

9

37.8

27 5

10.4

8.2

5p.m.

Feet. 

3.5

4

39.5

12.5

fv o

6.1

6

5.8

5.7

6.4

18.3

10.5

27.5

25.4

10.3

7.5

6

5.5

8.8

34.8

20.7

8.5

7.4

8.5

7.8

35.6

17

7.5

16

Date.

June SO. ...... -------

June 22.- ............

June 23_____. _-.-_---

June 35 --------------

June 36-..- ----------

June 27.--- -..- ------

June 28.---. ---------

June29-____--_,_-.-

June30__-__-__.-._-.

July I..... ....... -_

July2__ .............

JnLyS. ..............

July4. ..............

July5-._. -----------

July6_. ............

July7- .-.. ----------

July 8-. ....... .--_--

July 9--_--_--_.-_--.

July 10. ........... .-

July 11. .............

July 12_.- ..........

July 13..............

July 14....-..--.--..

July 15. .......... ...

July 16....----- .

July 17 .----.---....-

7a.m.

Feet. 

8

9.2

6

9

5

10

11.3

18.5

8

7.5

19

7.5

20

13.5

8

9

32.5

30

31

10.4

9

14

7.5

6.5

6

5

8

5

5p.m.

Feet. 

7.1

6.4

5.4

5.2

4.8

18.5

8

9

7.2

18

9.5

16.2

24 5

8

16.4

21.5

33.6

31.5

15.1

10

18.4

9

7

6.2

6

15.4

6.5

4.8

It is seen that this stream reached a maximum stage on April 24 

of 29.5 feet, reached a second maximum on June 4 of 33.5 feet, a third 

maximum on June 10 of 34.8 feet, a fourth maximum on June 16 of 

37.8 feet, and a fifth maximum on July 6 of 33.6 feet, in addition to
VERDIGRIS RIVER FLOODS. 105

smaller maximum stages between the larger ones. On the evening of April 23 the gage read 4 feet; the next morning it read 26.3 

feet a rise of 24.3 feet in ten hours. On the evening of June 15 

the gage read 7.8 feet; the next morning it read 37.8 feet a rise 

of 30 feet in ten hours. There were six floods of this stream from 

April 23 to July 8 in which the gage read from 22 feet and four 

when it read above 35 feet.

This flashy character of Fall River is due to the steep, impervious 

nature of the watershed.

These floods caused little overflow above the station, but at Fredonia and Neodesha an area of from 2 to 5 miles in depth was submerged by the four highest floods, and the crops on the submerged 

land were destroyed. Less stock was lost in these floods than in 

any recent flood of equal magnitude, because of the warnings telephoned and telegraphed from the station to the property owners 

down the valley.

There are high-water marks at the Frisco Railroad pumping station near the gage one of 1898 and one of 1869. The flood of June 

3, gage height 35.5 at 3 a. m., came to the mark of 1898, and the 

flood of June 10, gage height 36.8 feet at 9 p. in., came above that of 

1869. The flood of June 16 was from 3 to 4 feet higher than any 

previous known flood.

NECESSARY WIDTH OF CHANNEL OF VERDIGRIS RIVER.

The average slope of Verdigris River for 150 miles from the 

mouth is less than 2 feet per mile, and there are long stretches where 

it is not more than 1 foot per mile. This is a very small slope for 

a small stream. The frequent overflows are due almost entirely to 

the small slope and consequent sluggish flow. The only practical 

remedy for overflow is the construction of levees on each side of the 

river where overflow takes place, at such a distance apart that there 

will be ample room for the passage of floods between them.

If the flood volume, the height of floods above low water, and the 

slope of the stream are known, it is possible to compute the area of 

waterway to pass the maximum flow without overflow.

The flood of 1904 had a maximum rate of discharge at Independence of 50,400 cubic feet per second and the height of the flood above 

low water was about 40 feet. With these data and the assumption 

that the slope is 1.5 feet per mile and the coefficient of roughness of 

bed 0.030, we find that a channel of trapezoidal cross section having a 

bottom width of 105 feet and a top width of 225 feet will carry a 

volume of 50,500 cubic feet per second, and the mean velocity of flow 

will be about 7.6 feet per second. The channel cross section at the 

gaging station on the highway bridge near Liberty has a bottom width
106 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

of about 150 and a top width of about 275 feet, so that if the slope 

of the river were 1.5 feet per mile during floods, this channel would 

carry the water without the stage reaching the height of 10 feet above 

low water; but, unfortunately, the slope decreases as the stage increases. The mean velocity should be 7.2 feet, but it probably was 

Jess than 5 feet per second.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

The damage done by the flood along this river consisted mainly of 

loss of crops, dim to overflow of the bottom land. Part of the wheat 

crop was in shock at the time of the first high flood, and this 

was carried off the fields and piled up against the fences. That part 

of the wheat crop that was standing was injured to such an extent 

that little of it was harvested; in fact, the crops on all the area 

flooded were destroyed. Little damage was done to the ground itself, 

as the velocity was not sufficient to cause scour. There was little 

loss of stock, owing mainly to the very efficient way in which the high 

water was predicted from the flood stations.

OSAGE RIVER FLOODS. 

STREAM AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Osage River rises in the northeastern part of Wallace County, 

Kans., flows in a general easterly direction, and empties into Missouri 

River near Osage City, Mo. The distance from the source to the 

mouth in a straight line is about 210 miles, but the length of the river 

is at least 100 miles, as it is very crooked for a considerable part of 

its course. It falls from an elevation of about 1,225 feet to 755 feet, 

near Ottawa, in a distance of about 50 miles} but for a distance of 

about 25 miles on either side of Ottawa the fall is not more than 1^ 

feet per mile. From Ottawa to the mouth of the river there is a fall 

of about 330 feet in 134 miles. The stream flows in a fairly deep 

channel, that changes little from year to year, as the soil contains a 

considerable amount of clay; but it overflows frequently, due to very 

heavy rainfall and sluggish flow.

The watershed above the gaging station at Ottawa has an area of 

1,237 square miles, its greatest length being about 55 miles and its 

greatest width 27 miles. It is hilly or gently rolling, and consists 

of pasture and cultivated lands, with little tree growth except along 

the streams.

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

A gaging station was established at Main Street Bridge, Ottawa, 

August 26, 1902. The channel is nearly straight for about 100 feet
MURPHY AND~| 

OTHERS. J

OSAGE RIVER FLOODS. 107

above and 75 feet below the station, and has a width between abutments of about 138 feet, without piers. The bed is rock and gravel 

and is permanent. The flow is moderately rapid. Although the 

channel is deep, both banks are subject to overflow during floods. 

Fluctuations of the surface are measured with a chain gage fastened 

to the bridge. The mean daily gage height and corresponding discharge obtained at this station from readings each morning and evening during the floods of 1904 are given below :

Gage height and discharge of Osage River at Ottawa, Kans., May, June, and

July, 1904.

Date.

May 15 _ ._._.______

May 16, ...........

May 17 .. . _____

May 18. ___________ _

May 19. ....._._____

May 20 ________--_-.

May 21 _--_______.__

May 25 ____________

May 26 .._..........

May 27 .... _ ......

May 28 _____________

May 29____-____-_-_

May 30____--_______

May 31

June 1 ...... ..._.._

June2. _____________

June3____ . ......

June 4_ ........ ___

June 5 _ _ _.___..

June 6 ______..._____

June 7 _ _ _ _ _ _______

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.10

20. 35

24.25

23.05

9.15

3.40

3.10

2.40

7.00

9.40

4.90

( 6)

31.80

« 30. 00

28.00

26.40

24.60

24.75

24.45

17.00

5.95

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

1,450

« 22, 140

26, 820

25, 380

8,700

1,810

1,450

650

6,120

9,000

3,610

35, 880

33, 720

31,560

29, 400

27, 240

27, 420

27, 060

18. 120

4,860

Date.

June 25______ _-----

June26_____....._-

June 27. .-----_-_-_

June 38. ...__.... ..

June 39. ---.-. -----

June 30------------

Jnlyl.. ...........

July 2. .---.----..-

July 3_. ._._______.

July4_____________

July 5._______---_-

July 6-------------

July 7-------------

July 8.-. . ---------

July 9-___-______--

July 10------.----

Julyll ________.-.

July 12_________.__

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.25

2.65

16.45

22.90

26.25

25.00

10.40

8.30

8.30

5.85

6.10

7.35

4.95

19.60

25. 55

30.15

29.50

27.25

17.45

4.65

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

1,630

920

17, 460

25, 200

29, 220

27, 720

10, 200

7,680

7,680

3,550

5,040

6,540

3,670

21,240

28, 380

33, 900

33, 120

30, 420

18,660

3.310

" Discharges for stages above 20 feet are very doubtful and are probably too small.

6 Record lost, owing to high water.

c Gage heights from May 31 to June 2 obtained by interpolation.

It is seen that there were three floods at this place from June 30 to 

July 10 one that reached a mean daily stage of 31.8 feet and discharge of 35,880 second-feet on May 20; a second that reached a mean 

daily stage of 26^ feet and discharge of 29,220 second-feet on June 

27; and a third that reached a mean daily stage of 30.2 feet and discharge of 33,900 second-feet 011 July 8. The maximum stage reached 

for a short time on May 10 was 34.3 feet.
108 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

The flashy character of this stream can easily be seen from the 

rapid fluctuation in stage and discharge.

The greatest flood on this stream prior to 1904, in the recollection 

of the oldest inhabitants living along it, was in May, 1898, the highest 

stage reached at Ottawa being about 29 feet. The first flood of 

1904 that of May 30 reached a stage at Ottawa of 34.3 feet, that 

is, about 5 feet higher than the 1898 flood. The second flood of 

1904 that of June 27 reached a stage at Ottawa of 26.6 feet, that is, 

to within 2| feet of the flood of 1898. The third flood of 1904 that 

of July 8 reached a stage of 30.7 feet, that is, 2 feet higher than the 

flood of 1898.

Each of these floods was due to very heavy rainfall following a 

period of excessive precipitation. The rainfall for May, 1904, was 

11.68 inches, and the rainfall in the twenty-four hours just preceding 

the flood was 5.20 inches. In May, 1898, when the previous great 

flood occurred, the rainfall for May was 11.67 inches, and the rainfall 

for the twenty-four hours just preceding the flood was 4.06 inches.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOODS.

The 1904 floods on this river appear to have been higher and did 

more damage in the vicinity of Ottawa than anywhere else along the 

stream. The damage done was due mainly to the water overflowing 

and standing on the ground, and very little to scouring action. About 

250 houses in Ottawa were flooded and their occupants driven out. 

The city water, gas, and electric-light plants were flooded and the 

city left without water and light for several days. The water stood 

H feet in depth on the floor of the Santa Fe Railway station, and 

about 3 inches in depth on the floor of the Missouri Pacific Railway 

station. Railway traffic was suspended for about three clays. The 

river bottom was flooded for several days for a width varying from 

one-fourth mile to 2 miles, and all the crops in the overflowed portion 

were destroyed. Some stock in the river bottoms was destroyed; also 

numerous fruit trees, especially the smaller ones. The water passed 

over the three bridges in Ottawa, but none of them was injured to 

any great extent. The water was 3 feet in depth on Main Street 

Bridge, where the gage is located.

The second flood, which reached its height about June 27 at a gage 

height of 26.6 feet that is, 7.7 feet lower than that of May 30 

was commented on by the Ottawa Republic as follows:

While the area covered in Ottawa by this flood is considerable, not so many 

families have been compelled to move as ordinarily have in the case of floods of 

equal height, for the reason that the,big flood caused a score or more of lowly 

homes to be washed away that never have been replaced.

During the third flood, which reached its height July 8 at a gage 

height of 30.7 feet, the city's supplies of water and gas were again cut
MURPHY AND~| 

OTHERS. J ARKANSAS RIVER FLOODS. 109

off. Many persons were driven from their homes, 

railway traffic were nearly suspended for a few days.

Business and

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

The area of waterway at Main Street Bridge, Ottawa, is about 

4,000 square feet to the lower surface of the bridge. The overflow 

area here was probably at least 6,000 square feet. The actual area provided for passing the discharge of this stream is, therefore, not more 

than 40 per cent of the water area on May 30, 1904. The Atchison, 

Topeka and Santa Fe Kailway crosses the river on an embankment. 

The water overflowed this road and wore holes several cubic yards in 

capacity in some places, showing that there was a considerable difference in elevation of the water on the upstream and downstream 

sides of the embankment and that the embankment acted as a dam. 

Large trees grow close to the water's edge along this stream. These 

trees, while they served to protect the banks from erosion, retarded 

the flow, and drift collected in front of them, forming a dam. Conclusive evidence of this action can be seen a short distance above the 

upper bridge in Ottawa. This is a crooked stream, with rather sluggish flow, and if the flood height is to be reduced to a minimum the 

flow should not be obstructed by bridges, embankments, trees, and the 

like.

ARKANSAS RIVER FLOODS,

GAGE HEIGHT AND DISCHARGE.

The floods on Arkansas Kiver from Wichita to Arkansas City were 

greater in 1904 than ever known before. Maximum fluctuations of 

the river surface from May 30, 1889, to July, 1904, given by the 

United States Weather Bureau gaging station on Douglass Avenue 

Bridge, at Wichita, are given below:

Maximum stages of Arkansas River at Wichita, Kans.

Date.

May 3, 1889

June 10, 1889 .................

June 10, 1899 .................

April 22, 1900.----.....--.--,.

May 28, 1900..--------..----..

JuneS, 1900 ..................

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

5.3

5.6

6.3

7.0

7.4

7.2

Date.

April 13, 1901___. .............

June 9, 1901 ... .............

June 3, 1902 ..................

June 2, 1903

June 4, 1904.-....--..--.-....

July 9, 1904. ..................

Gage

Feet. 

6.0

4.3

5.9

7.6

6.0

10.2

It is seen that the July 9, 1904, flood was 2.6 feet higher than any 

previous flood since the gaging station was established, but this differ-
110 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES 1ST 1904. [NO. 147.

cnce in gage height between the floods of 1904 and other floods does 

not convey an adequate idea of the difference in volume. The recorded range of stage of the Arkansas at Wichita is only about 10.5 

feet, whereas the range of stage of the Neosho at lola is 22 feet, that 

of Fall River at Fallriver is 36 feet, and that of the Verdigris at 

Independence is 43 feet. Yet the change in volume of the Arkansas 

is from 70 to 40,000 second-feet, whereas the change in volume of 

the Verdigris is only from 30 to 50,400. Arkansas River flows in a 

relatively wide, shallow channel, with low banks and sandy, changeable bed, with a considerable fall and rapid velocity, making it impossible for the change of stage to be as great as .that of the Verdigris 

or the Neosho, on account of the shallow channel and steep slope.

FLOOD NEAR ARKANSAS CITY.

The fluctuations of the surface of the Arkansas at Arkansas City 

during the floods of 1904 and the corresponding discharge are given 

by the gage readings below, taken at the United States Geological 

Survey gaging station in Arkansas City:

Gage lieigJit and discharge of Arkansas River flood at Arkansas City, June 1 to 

8 and July 1 to, 18, 1904.

Date.

JuneS... ...... ...

Jtine 4... ....... ....

July 1 ................

JulyS.... ...... .....

JulyS..... ...........

Jnly4...... ..........

July 5. .._....._......

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

6.20

8.10

11.30

13.90

13.30

10.80

8.90

8.10

7.00

6.60

7.50

8.70

9.50

Discharge.

Sec. feet.

3,300

7,135

14,440

31,470

34, 100

13,390

8,810

7,135

4, 355

3, 555

5, 445

8,565

10, 955

Date.

July6. ..............

July7. ..............

JulyS. ..............

Jnly9. ..............

July 10. ....... ......

July 11 ......... .....

July 13... ...._......

July 13. ...-...-..'...

July 14. .............

July 15. ........... _.

July 16. _---..---....

July 17. -----.-----..

July 18 ._....___._...

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

10.50

13.30

14.30

14.90'

15.30

14. 50

13.80

13.50

11.80

9.30

8.10

7.30

7.00

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

13, 955

37, 347

33, 503

38, 391

40, 355

35, 555

30, 767

31,875

17,855

10, 055

6, 915

4,775

4,355

It is seen that two floods occurred here this season one that 

reached its maximum on June 5, with a gage height of 13.3 feet, and 

another that reached its height on July 10, with a gage height of 15.2 

feet and a discharge of 40,355 second-feet. The ordinary gage reading of low water at Arkansas City is about 2 feet, so that these flood 

crests are 11.3 and 13.2 feet, respectively, above low water. There is
MURPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J

ABKANSAS BIVEB FLOODS. Ill

a difference of only about 2 feet in the elevation of the crests of these 

floods at Arkansas City, whereas the difference in elevation of the 

crests at Wichita is about 4 feet. This is partly due to the flood of 

the Little Arkansas at Wichita, and to the greater facility for spreading out over the valley at Arkansas City. Both banks at the latter 

place are low and subject to overflow. A levee of sand banks on the 

right side prevented overflow of that bank, but the left bank was 

submerged for half a mile from the river. The maximum depth of 

this overflow on July 10 was about 5 feet. The area of overflow was 

7,205 square feet, and the total flood area 11,287 square feet. The 

total discharge was 40,335 cubic feet per second. The flood of July 

remained for five days higher than ordinary floods, and being about 

2 feet higher destroyed a much larger area of the river bottom than 

ever before. A pile bridge across the river at Arkansas City was 

swept away by the flood.

FLOOD NEAR WICHITA.

The fluctuations of the surface of Arkansas River at Wichita 

and Hutchinson, furnished by Mr. George T. Todd, United States 

weather forecaster, are as follows:

Gage height of Arkansas River at Wichita and Hutchinson, Kans., July 2 to

18, 1904.

[United States Weather Bureau record.]

Date.

July 2______--____

July 3___ _________

July 4__._________

July 5_-._________

July 6____________

July 7---_-----.._

July 8______. ._

July 9.________

July 10.. ____.._ _

Wichita.

Feet. 

3.2

4.6

4.3

5.5

9.1

10.1

10.2

9.7

Hutchinson.

Feet. 

3.4

3.2

3.4

3.9

4.9

4.7

4.2

3.8

3.0

Date.

July 11_... ......

Julv 12..........

July IS----......

July 14_________.

July 15_._ _______

July 16__---.____

July 17__________

July 18..........

Wichita.

Feet. 

8.6

7.6

6.3

4.8

3.9

2.8

2.3

1.9

Hutchinson.

Feet. 

2.8

2 7

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.5

2 5

NOTE. Crest of 1904 flood was about 2 feet higher than that of 1903 and a little 

higher than crest of 1879 flood.

The low-water gage reading at Wichita is 0.6 foot, so that the 

excess of the July flood was about 10.8 feet above lowest low water.

Flood marks here indicate that the flood of 1877 did not reach as 

great an elevation as the flood of July 8, 1904. About three-tenths of 

the city of Wichita was submerged during the larger of the two
112 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

floods. Indeed, it appeared on the night of July 8 that about ninetenths of the city was under water, but the greater part of this water 

came from a very heavy rain, and not from streams.

The larger part of the overflow came from Little Arkansas River 

and Chisholm Creek. This creek traverses a considerable portion of 

the city, but its waterway there was not sufficiently large to carry the 

flood safely, and the area on each side was flooded. The Little Arkansas is very crooked and empties into the Arkansas where the 

channel is very narrow. As a result of this, the water backed up and 

submerged a considerable portion of the city in that vicinity. There 

are seven bridges across the Arkansas within the city limits of 

Wichita, and each of them, with the single exception of the Douglass 

Avenue Bridge, rests on piles, which collected the drift, retarded the 

flood, and caused overflow.

The damage in the city due to the overflow is estimated to be about 

$30,000. All the railway tracks in the vicinity were under water and 

traffic greatly delayed or suspended. The farmers, however, living 

along the river valley suffered to the greatest extent, as all the crops 

on the submerged land were destroyed.

The gage readings at Hutchinson, given above, show that the flood 

was very small at this place.

FLOOD ON WALNUT RIVER.

*

Walnut River rises in the southern part of Marion County, flows 

south and empties into Arkansas River near Arkansas City. Its 

length from source to mouth in a straight line is about 75 miles. It 

falls from an elevation of about 1,410 feet to 1,030 feet at its mouth. 

Its watershed joins that of the Cottonwood on the north, of the 

Verdigris on the east, and of the Arkansas on the west. Its greatest 

width is about 35 miles, and its area is about 946 square miles. It 

consists of gently rolling pasture or cultivated land, with little 

timber except along the river banks.

The rainfall and floods of this river in 1904 were greater than 

ever known before. There is a gage on the downstream side of one 

of the piers of the Frisco Railroad bridge in Winfield, also highwater marks on this bridge and the machinery, room of a mill near 

by, from which the following data in regard to the floods of 1904 

and previous floods have been obtained.

Four great floods have occurred here in the recollection of the 

inhabitants those of 1877, 1898, June 4, 1904, and July 8, 1904.

The high-water mark of 1898 was surpassed by 25| inches in the 

flood of July 8, 1904, and by 14| inches in that of June 4, 1904. The 

marks of the 1877 flood are not very distinct, but the general belief is 

that the flood of July 8, 1904, was somewhat higher than that of 1877,
MUBPHT AND 

OTHERS. J PENNSYLVANIA FLOODS. 113

as the highway bridge at Winfield was built above the high-water 

mark of that flood, and the water in July, 1904, was 8 inches in depth 

on the floor of this bridge.

PENNSYLVANIA FLOODS.

By E. C. MUBPHY.

Floods of short duration, due to heavy downpour of rain, have 

occurred at a number of places on comparatively small streams with 

steep, narrow channels, during the past year. Two of these, namely, 

Robinson Run and Johnstown, both in Pennsylvania, will be described 

in this paper. They illustrate the need of providing an ample way 

for such streams and of keeping it always open. Sooner or later 

the damage caused by such floods will much more than offset the 

small gain due to encroachments on the natural width of the stream.

JOHNSTOWN FLOOD.

Damage amounting to several thousand dollars was done at Johnstown, Pa., by a very heavy downpour of rain on Saturday evening, 

July 8, 1904. During the twenty-four hours ending at 8 a. m. July 

9, 2.98 inches of rain was measured at the United States Weather 

Bureau station, of which 1.45 inches fell between 8 and 9.30 p. m. on 

the 8th. This rain fell so very rapidly that the street gutters could 

not carry off the water with sufficient rapidity, and the streets were 

flooded, sewers clogged, and basements and cellars of houses entered. 

The hills surrounding Johnstown are very steep; the minor streams, 

one-half mile to 2 miles in length, that are ordinarily dry became very 

much swollen and, passing down the steep hillsides, carried large 

amounts of gravel and bowlders that quickly choked culverts and 

other waterways, causing overflow into the streets and surrounding 

territory.

The flood down Bedford street is thus described in the Johnstown Tribune:

The occasion of all the damage on Bedford street was the little stream 

ordinarily the merest rivulet which drains Meyers Hollow. The cloud-burst of 

Saturday night converted this brooklet into a raging flood which tore down Brown 

avenue to Bedford street, bearing with it tons of earth, rocks, and logs. Its first 

onslaught was on the house of D. B. Parker, the lower floor of which was almost 

instantly covered to a depth of 3 feet with slimy mud. From here the flood 

swept on down Bedford street to the corner of Main, where it formed a veritable 

lake. As usual, the cellars of the Merchants' Hotel, Nathan's, and Swank Hardware Company were attacked, and with the exception of Swank's, where an 

electrical pump kept ahead of the influx, were pretty well filled.

The quantity of material brought down by these streams delayed 

the street cars for several hours. Traffic on the Pennsylvania RailIBB 147 05 M 8
114 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

road was delayed for ten hours by the landslide at Buttermilk Falls, 

all four of the tracks being covered to a depth of several feet.

The rainfall which caused this damage, though large, was local, 

as shown by the flow of the larger streams. The readings of the 

United States Weather Bureau gage at Franklin Street Bridge, 

Johnstown, on Stony Creek, show very little change of stage.

Gage liejght at Johnstown, Pa.., 1904-

Date.

JulyS...--.....-..--....---...

July 9-..---_-.. -.-_-.._. --_--

July 10...... ...... -..----..----

Height 

in feet.

3.6

3.5

5.4

Date.

July 11. ..--.---. -------------

July 13.. ---------------- ----

July 18.. .-_.-..--_-.--- ------

Height 

in feet.

3.6

3.0

2.8

It is easily seen that this damage was not due to overflow of the 

principal streams, but to that of the minor streams, and to the fact 

that the street gutters in the low part of the city were not large 

enough to carry off the water that fell on the streets.

ROBINSON RUN FLOOD.®

On June 28, 1904, there occurred a flood on Robinson Run that did 

much damage to property along its banks, especially in Oakdale, Pa.

This stream is a comparatively small one that rises about. 20 miles 

west of Pittsburg, Pa., flows in a southeasterly direction, and empties 

into Ohio River about 2 miles west of Pittsburg. Its principal 

 tributary is Robb Run, which enters it near Oakdale. The watershed has steep, uncultivated slopes, with little timber. The stream 

has a steep slope and a rapid rim-off. The Pennsylvania Railroad 

runs along Robinson Run from Walkers to Oakdale, thence along 

Robb Run to beyond McDonnell.

The flood occurred on the evening of June 28. During the day 

there were occasional heavy showers, and from 6 to 7 in the evening it rained very heavily, especially along the north branch of 

Robinson Run. As a result these two streams, especially Robinson 

Run, were transformed into raging torrents.

Some damage was done at McDonnell on Robb Run. This creek 

rose to flood stage in about fifteen minutes and was back again to 

near its normal stage in about two hours. It overflowed its banks, 

filling cellars, with water, damaging furniture, and carrying away 

sidewalks and a few small bridges.

The flood on Robinson Run was muda larger than on Robb Run.

" .From report in QaMaifi Times.
] TBOXTON CANYON FLOOD, AKIZONA. ' 115

Its height at Oakdale was due, in part at least, to the obstruction of 

the channels in and just below the town, where it was badly obstructed 

by the railway bridge. The water was about 15 feet deep in the 

creeks at Oakdale and 7 feet deep on the floor of the Oakdale Times 

office. All the buildings in the lower part of the town along the 

creek were flooded. Sixty families lost their furniture and 11 houses 

were either destroyed or very badly injured. Some of the business 

houses lost a considerable amount of stock, damaged by the water. 

Three bridges across Robinson Run in the vicinity of Oakdale were 

destroyed, also other bridges farther down the creek. The total loss 

was estimated to be about $30,000, one-half of which was for bridges.

TROXTON CANYON FLOOD, ARIZONA, a

By E. C. MTJKPHY.

Floods of great magnitude and destructiveness occurred in western 

Arizona on the headwaters of the Big Sandy, a tributary of the 

Williams, and on Sacramento Wash, a small tributary of Colorado 

River, in the latter part of July and August, 1904.

The gorge commonly known as Troxton Canyon is about 3.5 

miles long and is located about 40 miles northeast of Kingman, Ariz. 

The country is mainly a barren, treeless, elevated plateau with an 

occasional low range of mountains, through one of which, known as 

Cottonwood Cliffs, the Big Sandy has cut its way, forming the gorge 

in question. This is crooked and its bed has a very steep slope. The 

Santa Fe Railway passes through it, crossing it at several points on 

steel bridges.

The stream in this canyon is usually dry, but on July 30 it had a 

depth at one of these bridges of more than 30 feet and a very high 

velocity. The stream remained at maximum stage about half an 

hour.

The nearest place to the canyon where precipitation is measured is 

Kingman, Ariz. The records, there show a rainfall in July of 0.79 

inch. The precipitation over the greater part of western Arizona 

in August varied from 2 to 9 inches in depth, being 6 inches or more 

above the normal at some places. Unfortunately, so far as known, 

110 measurements of stage or discharge of the floods were made along 

either of these streams in July or August.

Five steel bridges of approved construction, built since 1898, cross 

the stream in the canyon. Two of these, of 80 feet span, were 

destroyed by the flood; two others of 80 feet span were not destroyed, 

but the water and drift passed over them; the fifth, consisting of

a Largely prepared from an article in the Railway Age by A. F. Robinson, bridge engineer of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, on the damage to the railway property during the flood.
116 ' DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

VIEW SHOWING EFFECT OF FLOOD ON ABUTMENTS AND BRIDGE NO. 604

From Railway Age.
MURPHY AND"! 

OTHEKS. J

TEOXTON CANYON FLOOD, ARIZONA. 117

three 80-foot spans, had about 60 feet of the east approach washed 

out. Bridge No. 604, an 80-foot bridge, was destroyed by this flood 

(PL VIII). Although the east abutment of this bridge weighed 

over 600 tons, it was carried by the water abput 150 feet downstream and turned through an angle of about 180 degrees. The west 

abutment was founded on rock, the east one on adobe, resting on 

a concrete footing extending 7 or 8 feet below the bed of the stream 

on a timber grillage. There was a protection wall at right angles to

FIG. 11. Design of east abutment of bridge No. 604, Santa Pe Railway, Troxton Canyon, 

Arizona. Prom Railway Age.

the abutment and extending about 16 feet into the bank to prevent the 

water from cutting around the end, but the stream cut under this and 

tipped it and carried away the abutment. The protection wall was 

not carried down to the depth of the main part of the abutment; possibly if it had been the abutment might not have failed. The water 

not only destroyed this east abutment, but washed away the bank to a 

distance of about 35 feet. Fig. 11 shows a plan and an elevation of 

this east abutment; fig. 10 shows erosion of channel in the vicinity 

of bridge No. 604 and relocation of railway.
118 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

During August there were almost daily floods on this stream and 

other streams in western Arizona, making the railroad repairs very 

difficult and expensive. On August 2 one of the largest of these 

floods occurred, doing considerable damage in this canyon and also 

along Sacramento Wash, through which the Santa Fe Railway passes. 

Between Yucca and Haviland the bridge and 600 feet of road were 

destroyed.

The damage caused by the flood was almost entirely to the railway 

line, and comprised a large loss of business, traffic being suspended 

fifteen days. From Los Angeles to Albuquerque for some days it 

was necessary for the Santa Fe trains to pass over the Southern 

Pacific tracks to Maricopa and thence north through Phoenix to the 

Santa Fe tracks.

From slopes and cross sections in this canyon taken after this flood 

by the Santa Fe engineers it has been estimated that the maximum 

in this canyon was approximately 49,000 second-feet.

GLOBE FLOOD, ARIZONA.

By O. T. REEDY.

The Pinal Creek flood of 1904, generally known as the Globe flood, 

since both the rainfall which caused it and the greatest damage 

occurred in the immediate vicinity of Globe, Ariz., took place on 

the afternoon of August 17. The rain began to fall about 5.30 p. in. 

in a gentle shower, which in a few minutes increased to a veritable 

cloud-burst, continuing without abatement for about three-quarters 

of an hour. Pinal Creek began to rise within fifteen or twenty 

minutes after the rain commenced, and reached its highest point 

about 6 o'clock. The storm was local, extending from the divide 

5 or 6 miles to the southwest and southeast of Globe to about the 

northern limits of the town. The area covered was only about 25 

or 30 square miles. The water all fell within an hour, and measured 

2.05 inches at Globe. In order to estimate the amount of the flood 

waters I took several cross sections of the creek up to the high-water 

mark, and also measured the slope of the creek bed. From these 

data, and assuming «, the coefficient of roughness, to be 0.025, the 

discharge per second was computed by Kutter's formula. The first 

cross section was taken just behind Mr. A. Kinney's barn, the highwater mark being a point shown by Mr. Kinney. The discharge at 

this point as computed is about 11,000 feet per second, which is 

checked pretty closely by the computed discharge for a cross section 

taken 200 or 300 yards below, at the footbridge. The discharge at 

the latter point was about 11,500 second-feet. Between this point 

and the northern limit of the rainfall two large drainages, Graveyard
MUHPHY AND.l 

OTHERS. J

FLOOD, ABIZONA. 119

Wash and Copper Hill Wash, flow into Final Creek. No measurements were taken on the former, because it added very little to the 

flood water, and all the high-water marks were made a couple of 

weeks after the big flood, at a time when the wash was discharging 

four or five times as much as at the time of the flood. Copper Hill 

Wash was measured and the discharge found to be about 3,000 

second-feet. This, added to the last above-mentioned discharge of 

the creek, makes 14,500 second-feet, which checks pretty well with 

the computed discharge at the third cross section. This was taken 

at a point about a hundred yards above the Government warehouse, 

and at about the limit of the rainfall. The above discharge data are 

given in the tabulation below:

Data on discharge of Final Greek and Copper Hill Wash, Globe, Ariz., August

17, 1904.

Locality.

Final Creek: 

Kinney 's barn .-.-.--.

Footbridge, Broad st. .

Copper HiU Wash:

About J mile from

United States wareArea,

cross 

section.

Sq. feet.

800

610

105

963

Wetted perimeter.

Feet. 

200

90

28

240

Hydraulic 

radius.

4.0

6.8

3.8

4.0

n.

0.025

.025

.025

.025

Slope.

0.008

.008

.042

.008

Coefficient, 

C.

76

82

76

76

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

10, 900

11,500

3,200

13, 200

The average duration of the high waters of the flood, as given by 

a number of observers, was about forty to fifty minutes. Estimating 

that the discharge was half the maximum for an hours longer and 

one-fourth the maximum for two hours more, the total quantity of 

water discharged is as follows:

Cubic feet.

45 minutes, at 14,000 cubic feet per second________________ 37,800,000 

60 minutes, at 7,000 cubic feet per second______________.__ 25,200,000 

120 minutes, at 3,500 cubic feet per second________________ 25,200,000

Total_______________________________________ 88, 200, 000

If this amount of water were distributed evenly over 25 square 

miles the depth would be 1.52 inches. This, of course, does not 

necessarily disagree with the 2 inches observed rainfall at Globe, 

since the area covered by the rain is more or less estimated, and it 

is reasonable to suppose that over part of this area the fall was 

much less.

Cross sections were also measured about 15 miles below Globe, at
120 DESTBIJCTWE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Wheatfields, where the computed discharge averaged about 5,000 

second-feet. I was unable to determine how long the flow continued. 

Mr. Devore, who lives at Wheatfields, stated that the water began 

to come down about 8 o'clock and that the water was nearly normal 

next morning. Estimating the average flow at one-half the computed discharge, and its continuance at eight hours, gives 72,000,000 

cubic feet as the total quantity of water. This does not greatly 

disagree with the Globe observations.

The principal damage caused by the flood was to the property of 

the Gila Valley, Globe and Northern Railway. The stock yards and 

a number of cottages occupied by the railway employees were partly 

washed away. All the bridges and culverts in the lower part of town 

were either destroyed or badly damaged and long stretches of the 

roadbed entirely carried away. The loss was about $5,000.- The balance of the damage was sustained principally by the merchants on 

lower Broad street. Several buildings were lifted from their foundations and carried across the street. The goods in these buildings 

were all destroyed. In many other buildings the water stood 18 

inches deep, destroying or damaging much of the contents. The 

total losses, including that of the railroad, were about $18,000.

A most distressing feature of the flood was the great loss of life. 

Six persons were drowned in a few minutes. The first one was probably asleep in his cabin on the low ground when the wall of water 

came down and carried the building away. The other five persons 

were in the Mitchell boarding house. When the flood set in there 

were eight persons in the house, two of whom made their escape, and 

a third, son of the proprietor, went to secure ropes with which to 

rescue the others, three of whom were women, one a cripple. Before 

he could return the house and its occupants had been swept away.

I am indebted to Mr. Jos. H. Hamill, of the Silver Belt; Mr. A. 

Kinney; Mr. Cottee, of Cottee & James, electricians, and Mr. M. S. 

McEniry, of the United States Geological Survey, for the greater 

part of the information upon which this report is based.

CANADIAN RIVER BASIN FLOOD, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, AND INDIAN TERRITORY.«

From September 30 to October 2, 1904, occurred the largest and 

most destructive flood on record in the upper part of the Canadian 

River drainage basin. It was caused by a very heavy downpour of 

rain September 28 to 30 on the headwaters of this river. Although 

much damage was done along the stream in Oklahoma and Indian 

Territory the storm causing the flood did not extend beyond the 

eastern border of New Mexico, as Ute Creek, which drains a narrow'

a Prepared mainly from report of Frank S. Dobson and George B. Monk, engineering aids.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEV 

DRAINAGE BASIN AND PROFILE OF CANADIA
"!

OTHERS. J

CANADIAN RIVEB BASIN FLOOD. 121

strip extending nearly north and south in the eastern part of New 

Mexico, did not show any marked rise during the period.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

The Canadian River basin comprises a long, narrow strip of land 

lying between the Arkansas and Red River drainage, extending 

northwest from the east boundary of Indian Territory through Okla-

 t.\.xv- ** ^*J *

FIG. 12. Upper portion of drainage basin of- Canadian River.

homa, Indian Territory, and northern Texas to the northern part of 

New Mexico. Its total length is about 875 miles, its greatest width 

110 miles. (See PL IX.)

The part of the basin in New Mexico where the flood occurred comprises an area of about 12,600 square miles, 3,900 square miles of 

which is classified as mountainous, 4,600 as plateau, and 4,000 as 

plains.

The mountainous part ranges in elevation from 8,000 to 12,000 feet, 

some of the peaks being covered with perpetual snow and having
122 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

little vegetation. The lower mountainous part is covered with wild 

grasses and some forest growth. The high plateaus are deeply cut 

by canyons of varying width, with numerous side canyons, from which 

the smaller streams emerge. These canyons become deeper and wider 

with the descent until the plains are reached. On these last are scattered high mesas.

The plains are covered with a fine sandy loam, which produces a 

thick growth of wild grass similar to that on the plateaus. The 

Canadian cuts through these plains in a canyon about 100 feet deep 

and from 600 to 800 feet in width.

The chief tributaries of the Canadian in New Mexico are Ute 

Creek, 96 miles long, with a drainage area of 2,010 square miles; 

Trementina Creek, 60 miles long, with a drainage area of 670 square 

miles; Pajarito Creek, 42 miles long, with a drainage area of 570 

square miles; Ocate Creek, 72 miles long, with a drainage area of 560 

square miles; and Cimarron Kiver, 45 miles long, with a drainage 

area of 1,050 square miles. The following table shows the slope of the 

river: a

Profile of Canadian River, New Mexico.

Locality.

Mouth _ .._...._. ---_ _ _______

Near Purcell _----,__.___-______.___-_---__-----

Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway crossing

Canadian _,-__-_____.-___.____.-_----___-------

Tascosa ______________________________ _-____..

Raton Pass, head _ _ _

Distance 

from mouth 

in miles.

0

22

83

104

134

152 

190

240

435

550

727

745

758

Height 

above sea 

in feet.

460

500

600

700

800

900

1,040

1,200

2,300

3,150

5,972

6,292

7,893

Fall per 

mile in feet.

1.8

1.7

4.5

3.3

5.6 

3.7

3.2

5.6

7.4

15.9

17.8 

123 2

The location of the above mentioned tributaries is shown in fig. 12, 

and the profile of the river in PL IX (p. 120). The only other tributary of the Canadian of importance is North Fork, which enters the 

main river about 35 miles from its mouth.

« Gannett, Henry, Profiles of rivers: Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 44, U. S. Geol. 

Survey, 1901, p. 66.
MURPHY AND ~| 

OTHERS. J

CANADIAN RIVER BASIN FLOOD. 123

The Canadian and its tributaries have a steep slope and a rapid 

flow. The floods usually occur in spring and are due to the melting 

snow. They rise and fall slowly and remain at nearly maximum 

stage for several days. Occasionally, as in the instance under discussion, they are due to rain and are of short duration, rising and 

falling very rapidly. The great velocity of the river, however, 

causes these floods to be very destructive.

PRECIPITATION.

From September 26 to 30 the precipitation over the greater portion 

of the drainage basin of the Canadian in New Mexico varied from 5 

to 7 inches, as shown by the following table, prepared from the 

United States Monthly Weather Review:

Precipitation in New Mexico, September 26-30, 1904.

Albert,. ..........

Bell ranch. _.--.-.

Dorsey ..........

Fort Union.. .....

Baton . ... . ...

Springer ...... ..

Vermejo __________

Rociacia ......

Near Maxwell ....

Greatest in

tive hours.

Incites. 

2.24

2 17

2.77

2.30

3.98

2.30

2.80

3.67

26.

Inches. 

0.10

1.80

1.50

.05

S

27.

Inches.

0.50

.70

.80

.50

.37

eptember28.

Inches. 

0 22

.96

1.50

1.10

.30

.63

29.

Inches.

2.40

2.17

2.65

2.30

3.88

3.10

2.30

30.

Inches. 

1.54

1.87

2.77

1.50

1.60

Inches.

4.26

4.04

6.88

6.30

7.38

5.40

4.95

The total precipitation and excess for the month of September, 

1904, at places in this drainage basin is shown in the following table: 

Precipitation in New Mexico, September, 1904-

Place.

Albert ._______._.._.__.._._.__._____._________'_

Bell ranch. ----.--.---.-----------__-..._.......

Baton . -.....- _ _ _ _ -.._... ....... . _

Rociada ._........ ... . . . . . . -.--..........

Number 

years record.

13

5

2

43

10

Precipitation.

Inches. 

6.00

4.04

7.11

6.84

7.38

8.81

5.39

Excess.

Inches.

4.48

2.75

2.77

4.77

6.49
124 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

This excess of monthly rainfall varied from 2.75 to about 6.5 inches 

in depth; the greatest precipitation in twenty-four consecutive hours 

was about 4 inches. Such a downpour of rain on a basin of steep, 

nonabsorbent surface with little or no storage resulted in a sudden 

and very large, though local, flood.

FLOOD ON CANADIAN RIVER.

The gage at the gaging station at Logan was destroyed on October 2, 1904. The mean daily gage readings to the time when the 

gage was washed away are as follows:

Gage height, in feet, of Canadian River at Logan, N. Hex., September 26 to

October 1, 1904.

September 26______________________________________ 0. 80 

September 27_______________________________________ 2. 35 

September 28_______________________ . ___________.__ 4. 25 

September 29_________________________________. ____ 7. 50 

September 30_______________________________________ 25. 00 

October 1 ________________________________________ 30.00

This record shows a rise of over 29 feet above low water at Logan. 

How much higher the river rose after the gage was destroyed the 

observations do not show.

The cross sections of the flood plain and slope of the river bed 

were measured at places on the river and its principal tributaries, 

and the discharge computed by Kutter's formula: Q=FC \/RS, 

using a coefficient of roughness n=0.035. The results are given 

in the following table:

Data of Canadian River basin flood, 1904.

Stream.

Canadian _________

Do____.__. _____________

Do-_-_-_.______________

Mora ------.-....-...

Sapello. .............. . _-.

Place.

Taylor ______________________

French _______ ......------.

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

140, 555

91,140

, 156,000

76, 000

62,900

Duration of 

high stage 

in hours.

12

7

.5

.5

.5

Mr. W. G. Russell measured the cross section and slope of bed of 

the Canadian a short distance below the railway bridge at Logan 

on October 27, 1904, and found the cross-section area to be about 

13,500 square feet, the mean velocity 11.05 feet, the maximum discharge 149,396 cubic feet per second, and the maximum stage above 

low water 31.3 feet.

Mr. D. P. Eichards, a physician at Union City, Okla., states that 

on October 2, about 11.30 a. m., there was a sudden rise of about
MURPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

CANADIAN RIVEE BASIN FLOOD. 125

4 feet in the Canadian. This was followed by a continued rapid rise 

until about 12.30 p/m. October 3, when the river reached its maxi~, 

mum stage. It remained nearly stationary for about nine hours 

and then began to subside. At 1 o'clock on the 4th it was again 

within its banks. ,

The following table gives the gage height on Canadian River at 

Calvin, Ind. T., Cimarron River at Waynoka, Okla., and Beaver 

Creek at Beaver, Okla., during the flood period:

Gage height, in feet, in Canadian River basin, September 29 to October 8, 1904-

Date.

September29 _-__--------___..:..-________.___ .

September 30. --_-_.--___.__...___..___________._

October 1........ ........... .. . .. ..... .

Octobers..-------.-.-.--..--....-........ ..

Octobers.----.-------..---..---..----.--. ...

October 4. ........... .... .. . . ...

October 5.......................................

October 6....... .............. .................

October 7. ........ ................ ^.... ..........

October 8. _..'-_.---_---____._.---___.____-.___.

Canadian 

River at 

Calvin, 

Ind.T.

0.2

.1

.1

.0

9.0

4.2

2.0

1 2

1.0

Cimarron 

River at 

Waynoka, 

Okla.

1

4.50

2.50

2

2

2

4.50

3

1.50

2

Beaver 

Creek at 

Beaver. 

Okla.

0.30

.30

.70

2.60

3.15

2

1.70

1.30

1.15

There are no available records of the flood of 1885, but old settlers 

say it was greater than any for many years prior to that date. An 

estimate of the discharge of the Canadian at Logan during it has been 

made by Mr. F. Dobson. From cross sections and slope of bed of 

stream, using Kutter's formula, the maximum discharge is placed at 

70,000 cubic feet per second for about one hour. The estimated 

maximum discharge October 2, 1904, was 140,555 second-feet, or 

about double that of the flood of 1885.

FLOOD ON UTE CREEK.

The gage height at the gaging station on Ute Creek during the 

flood is given in the following table:

Gage height, in feet, on Ute Creek, September 26 to October 3,190Jf. 

September 26_______________________________________ 0. 20 

September 27_____________________________________ _ . 20 

September 28__ -_-___.______-________-______________ 3. 50

September 29_______________________________________ 5. 00 

September 30____________________________ _J___________ 3. 00

October 1__________________________ ______________ 2. 50

October 2______________________________ - 2. 20

October 3____________________ _ _*_ 2.00
126 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Although the watershed of this creek is part of the drainage basin 

of Canadian River, and is only a short distance from it, the flood on 

it was small, the rise being less than 5 feet above low water, while 

the rise at Logan on the Canadian was more than 30 feet. Neither 

North Fork of Canadian River nor Washita River, which flows 

parallel to the Canadian at Union and not a great distance from it, 

showed any signs of flood. The local character of the storm is 

evident.

FLOOD ON SAPELLO RIVER.

The gage at the gaging station on Sapello River, near Los Alamos, 

was washed out by the flood, and the bank to which it was attached 

was eroded to a distance of 40 feet back from the river. The river at 

this place rose above the top of the posts supporting the cable from 

which the discharge measurements were made.

The river began to rise early in the evening of September 29 and 

by midnight had reached the maximum stage. By 2 a. m. on September 30 it had receded about 2 feet. This stage was maintained for 

about forty-eight hours, when it gradually declined until October 7, 

at which time the discharge was about 150 second-feet. Heavy rains 

on October 8 again raised the river 2 feet, a height which was maintained for about twenty-four hours. From that time it decreased, 

and on October 12 the discharge was found by measurement to be 

136 second-feet. The ordinary high-water width of the channel at 

the station is 115 feet, but the width at the highest stage was about 490 

feet.

The maximum discharge at the gaging station was computed by 

Mr. Monk from Kutter's formula. The slope of the stream being 

0.0004 foot per foot, the area 3,093 square feet, and the wetted perimeter 501 feet, and the coefficient of roughness being put at 0.040, the 

maximum rate of discharge was found to be 8,104 second-feet, and 

the total discharge from September 29 to October 10, inclusive, was 

found to be 67,370 acre-feet. As the drainage area above the gaging 

station is 221 square miles, this would mean a depth of about 5.71 

inches over the entire area, and a run-off for the period from September 29 to October 10, inclusive, of 12.81 second-feet per square mile.

Several small irrigating dams about 7 miles above Los Alamos 

were washed out by the flood, but the volume of water liberated by 

their failure was not sufficiently large to produce any marked increase in the flood wave. Very little damage occurred in the immediate vicinity of Los Alamos, as the buildings and fields are high 

above the river and all crops were stacked above the high-water line.

Manuelitas River, which adjoins the Sapello at the town of Sapello,
CANADIAN KIVEK BASIN FLOOD. 127

"^as out of its banks from 8 p. m. on September 29 until noon of the

collowing day. The town of Rociada, on the headwaters of this 

stream, was completely isolated for several days by the destruction of 

the road and telegraph wires.

FLOOD ON RIO MORA.

The gage.at the highway bridge over Mora River at Weber was 

swept away by the flood, also the bridge itself, the observer's house, 

'he post-office, and the store located near by. On September 29 the 

"iver began to rise early in the evening, reaching its maximum height 

of 12 feet about 10 p. m. By 7 a. m. on September 30 the water had 

fallen 6 feet. It then gradually dropped for five days to a stage such 

liat the discharge was 200 second-feet. It was 3 feet higher on 

October 7 and 8 for about thirty hours, and then gradually declined

 intil October 12, when a gaging gave a discharge of 196 second-feet. 

An estimate of the maximum discharge at this place was made by 

Mr. Monk, using Kutter's formula, and found to be 27,724 secondfeet. The discharge for a stage 6 feet lower than the maximum was 

about 7,335 second-feet, and a stage 3 feet below the maximum gave 

a discharge of 18,927 second-feet. With these measurements of 

discharge and the fluctuations in stage, the total discharge from Sep- 

^ember 29 to October 10, inclusive, was found to be 173,249 acre-feet, 

^he drainage area above the point of measurement being 422 square 

miles. This total volume corresponds to a depth of 7.69 inches over

 :he drainage area and a run-off for the flood period of 17.25 secondfeet per square mile. The damage done by the flood in the vicinity 

of Weber was estimated to be about $5,000.

Rio Cebolla and numerous small arroyos contributed a considerable 

amount of water to the river below Weber, the Cebolla alone discharging at maximum stage at the rate of about 600 cubic feet per 

second. Perhaps the worst devastation occurred at Watrous, the 

junction of Sapello and Mora rivers. Miles of the Santa Fe Railway 

tracks were washed out; houses, crops, fences,,and bridges were swept 

away, and eight lives were lost in the town.

Excessive damage was caused by the flood in the entire Mora 

Valley. Commencing at the town of Mora, in the upper end of the 

valley, where the streets were submerged from 4 to 10 feet deep, about 

30 houses were washed out and nearly 300 people rendered homeless. 

It is estimated that about half the crop in this vicinity was lost.

At La Cueva, 5 miles below Mora, the river was above the wagon 

bridge 011 September 27, and continued to rise until midnight of 

September 29, the maximum stage lasting about twelve hours. It 

remained out of its banks until October 5, when a decrease was appar-
128 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

ent until October 9, when the rains caused it to rise 2 feet. The 

channel during normal flow is about 32 feet wide, but the distance 

between the water lines during the flood was about 660 feet. A measurement of the discharge was made at this place by Mr. Monk, using 

Kutter's formula, and found to be 22,213 second-feet. The total discharge from September 29 to October 10, inclusive, was 161,849 acrefeet. The drainage area being 159 square miles, this volume corresponds to a depth of 9.305 inches over the whole drainage basin. The 

estimated run-off per square mile for the flood period of twelve day« 

was 20.85 second-feet.

A large amount of damage was clone in this vicinity, especially to 

crops and orchards belonging to the La Cueva Land and Cattle 

Company. About 500 yards above La Cueva the irrigating ditch, 

together with the country road to Mora, were washed out for a 

distance of 20 yards.

Turquillo Valley, a very productive section 8 miles north of the 

town of Mora, suffered greatly from the flood resulting from a four 

days' downpour. The waters from Canyon Carro and other minor 

arroyos originating in the adjacent hills swept through it, destroying 

the crops. In places the stream was over half a mile wide, and at one 

point near the upper end a lake of about 500 acres was formed, which 

will remain for some time, as it has no outlet.

OBSTRUCTION OF STREAMS.

The flood height at certain points was increased by structures 

across the streams. At French the Santa Fe Railway runs along the 

right bank of the river on a roadbed 12 feet above the river, while 

the El Paso and Northeastern Railway crosses it with approaches 

that restrict the stream to half its natural width. These obstructions, 

acting as a dam, backed the water over the Santa Fe tracks and 

depot, forming a lake one-fourth of a mile wide. At Springer the 

Santa Fe Railway crosses the Canadian on a bridge 170 feet wide 

between abutments and 17 feet above low water, the remainder of the 

channel being filled with the bridge approaches. Three miles below 

Watrous the Santa Fe Railway crosses Rio Mora at an angle, with 

long, high, filled approaches, the low-water channel only being 

bridged. At these three places the embankment caused backwater 

and finally gave way, after which the flood rapidly subsided.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

It is impossible to give an accurate estimate of the damage done 

by this flood, and only a few of the larger losses will be mentioned.
CANADIAN EIVEE BASlK FLOOD. 129

Four miles of track and three bridges were destroyed on' the Santa 

Fe Railway between Watrous and Shoemaker; the Rock Island Railway bridge at Logan, costing $60,000, was destroyed; the loss on the 

El Paso and Northeastern Railway from Taylor to French is estimated to have been $50,000; the loss of orchards, irrigation ditches, 

and 40 adobe houses at Sanchez, $50,000; in Mora River Canyon, 

between Watrous and Shoemaker, seven persons lost their lives, many 

houses were wrecked, and farms along the river damaged; the Rock 

Island Railway bridge at Lawton, consisting of two steel spans and 

two 60-foot steel-girder approaches, was destroyed, one span being 

carried downstream 3 miles, another 1 mile, and one of the steel 

girders, weighing 40 tons, 1^ miles; more than a mile of track was 

lifted and swept away; 700 feet of trestle approach to the Frisco 

Railroad bridge was completely destroyed; and similar damage was 

done at other places along the stream in Oklahoma.

The following information regarding the damage to railroads has 

been collected from railway officials of the various roads by Mr. 

Gerard H. Matthes, district engineer:

The Fort Worth and Denver Railroad lost about 600 feet of pile 

and trestle bridge across the Canadian near Tascosa, Tex., and had 

about 1,600 feet more damaged. Traffic was delayed four days. The 

approximate damage is estimated at $10,000.

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway sustained considerable damage at Purcell, Ind. T., where it has a roundhouse and extensive yards. The water during the flood stood from 2.5 to 3 feet 

deep in the yard and in front of the passenger depot and left a 

deposit of sand in some places 1 foot deep. Spur tracks were washed 

off the embankment and side tracks were badly washed out in places. 

Near Walker, Ind. T., 6 miles north of Purcell, about 3,900 feet of 

embankment, including both main and passing tracks, were demolished. The steel bridge over Canadian River near Walker was not 

damaged, but 385 feet of approach was washed out. Two miles 

farther south about 1,600 feet of embankment and a bridge went out. 

The main line was closed to traffic from 6 p. m. October 3 to 6 p. m. 

October 10.

The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway escaped with relatively 

little damage. At the crossing between Eufaula and Canadian, 

Ind. T., one bridge pier slipped on its base about 3 or 4 inches; the 

repairs cost $750. At the new bridge over the washed-out channel of 

1898 about 150 feet of embankment south of the bridge was washed 

out and the south pier was undermined. On the recently completed 

line from Atoka to Oklahoma City no damage was done to the bridge 

at Tyrola, Ind. T., but the south approach was washed away and the

IBB 147 05 M 9
130 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

station grounds covered with sand. A large part of the line in the 

river valley was torn up.

The St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad lost 2,740 feet of a 

total of 3,130 feet of the bridge on the Blackwell, Enid and Southwestern branch near Golden, Okla. The cost of repairs was $20,000, 

and the traffic was suspended from October 2 to 25. On the line 

between Chickasha and Oklahoma City 490 feet of trestle approach 

was destroyed, the steel span remaining intact. The cost of repairs 

is estimated at $4,600. The traffic was suspended from October 3 to 

15. At the Canadian River Bridge near Francis, Ind. T., about 140 

feet of bridge was destroyed, costing in repairs $1,475, the traffic 

being interrupted from October 4 to 9.

Considerable damage was done to bridges on the Rock Island system, which crosses Canadian River at four different points. The 

steel bridge south of Union City, Okla., consisting of one steel through 

span and two girder spans, was completely carried away, the through 

truss being washed downstream several miles.

PECOS RIVER BASIN FLOOD, NEW MEXICO.«

During the latter part of September and the first part of October, 

1904, there occurred upon the drainage basin of Pecos River the 

heaviest and most destructive flood in its recorded history.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Pecos River rises in the northern part of New Mexico, flows in a 

southeasterly and southerly direction for about 300 miles through 

New Mexico, thence for about 250 miles southeasterly through Texas, 

and empties into the Rio Grande near Langtry, Tex. The principal 

tributaries, all of which enter from the west, are Rio Penasco, having 

a length of about 80 miles and a drainage area of'750 square miles; 

Rio Felix, having a length of 60 miles and a drainage area of 800 

square miles; Rio Hondo, having a length of 90 miles and a drainage 

area of 1,900 square miles; Salt Creek, having a length of 80 miles 

and a drainage area of 2,550 square miles; Pintado Creek, having a 

length of 70 miles and a drainage area of 1,000 square miles; and Rio 

Gallinas, having a length of 50 miles and a drainage area of 620 

square miles. These tributaries and the location of the gaging and 

precipitation stations are shown in PI. X. The slope of the river 

is shown in the following table:

a Based on data obtained by personal observation during the flood and after it had 

subsided, by W. M. Reed, engineer, F. S. Dobson, engineering aid, and Geo. B. Monk, 

assistant hydrographer; prepared mainly from report toy F. S. Dotoson.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. X

T \. E -^ ,.<X r /A

DRAINAGE BASIN AND PROFILE OF PECOS RIVER.
MURPHY AND~| 

OTHEKS. J

PECOS RIVER BASIN FLOOD. 

Profile of Pecos River, New Mexico.®

131

Locality.

Distance

from mouth

in miles.

Height

above sea

in feet.

Pall per

mile in

feet.

Month ----------.-----__..._________---._____-- 0

Pecos -_.__-_---_.___.__._______________________ 215

Eddy_ ______.................................... 300

Hagerman -..-_____ _______.__....____...._._ 375

Crossing, Pecos River Railroad ....-.----...--.. 405

Latitude 35° -.---.-.-......_..................... 530

Las Colonias ...................... ... ________ 548

La Junta.....---..-._.......................... 556

567 

Anton Chico.--.-...-.-....................._... 577

La Cuesta .^.............................^...... 597

SanHigueL.---.---..-..............-._........ 607

623 

637 

657 

Head.......................__.................. 663

1,000

2,550

3,107

3,400

3,500

4,600

4,850

4,950

5,100

5,250

5,800

6,000

6,500

7,000

8,000

12,000

7.2

6.6

3.9

3.3

8.8

13.9

12.5

13.6

15.0

27.5

20.0

,33.3

33.3

50.0

666.7

0 Gannett, Henry, Profiles of rivers: Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 44, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1901, p. 37.

About 20,000 square miles of the drainage basin of this stream 

is in New Mexico, the greater portion being rolling sand hills, easily 

cultivated, and very productive when irrigated. Along the eastern, 

western, and northern edges of the basin are mountains, having 

peaks covered with snow all the year round. Above Santa Eosa 

and below Eoswell the valley is well developed, but between these 

cities it is sparsely settled. South of Eoswell there is an area of 

about 350,000 acres that will probably be eventually irrigated from 

artesian wells.

The Pecos, as can be seen from the profile above, has a very steep 

slope; its tributary streams also have steep slopes; consequently, 

the flow of all is very rapid and destructive during time of flood.

PRECIPITATION.

The precipitation for September and October, 1904, measured by 

the United States Weather Bureau at six places in this drainage 

basin, was as follows:
132 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Precipitation in Pecos River drainage basin, September and October,

Place.

Carlsbad _,-_-___-___________

Fort Stanton _______________

Las Vegas _________________

Roswell. . ___________________

Length 

of 

record.

Years. 

2 

9 

1 

3 

17 

11

September.

Total precipitation.

Inches. 

9.95 

4.55 

6.16 

6.06 

6.07 

5.10

Excess.

Inches.

+3.45

+3.90 

+3.06

October.

Total precipitation.

Inches. 

5.90 

1.71 

4.37

2.68

1.08 

2.67

Excess.

Inches.

+0. 82

.00 

+1.06

The precipitation during September varied from about 4.5 inches 

to 10 inches, which was 3 or more inches greater than the normal 

rainfall for this month. The precipitation for October was less than 

that for September, but was somewhat above the normal for October.

The following table gives the daily precipitation for the periods 

September 26 to 30 and October 5 to 8, 1904, and, taken in connection 

with the previous table, shows that more than half the September 

and October precipitation fell during these periods. The precipitation for twenty-four consecutive hours during these storms at five of 

these places was, as ween from the table, 2.7 inches or more.

As a result of these two periods of excessive precipitation, there 

was one large flood on this stream and a second somewhat smaller 

flood on some parts of it.

Daily precipitation in the Pecos River drainage basin September 26 to 30 and 

October 5 to 8, 1904, also the greatest precipitation in twenty-four consecutive 

hours.

Station.

Arabela ______ ...

Carlsbad - .-_---..

Cloudcroft. -------

Fort Stanton __.- _

Las Vegas ........

Precipitation in 34 

consecutive 

hours.

2.70 

2.69 

2.80 

2.86 

2.87 

1.80

September 

26.

T.

0.10 

T. 

.05

37.

0.08

2.80

.10

28.

0.51

1.40 

1.00 

.26 

.42

29.

2.70 

.95

.90 

2.00 

2.87 

.75

30.

1.88

2.86

1.77

Total.

5.17 

.95 

5.20 

5.86 

5.05 

1.17
MCBtHt AND"1 

OTHERS. J

PECOS EIVEB BASIN FLOOD. 133 

Daily precipitation In the Pecos River drainage basin, etc. Continued.

Carlsbad. -----------------

Cloudcroft -----,-.-----...

Fort Stanton.--.---. ------

Precipitation in 24

consecutive 

hours.

2.50

.38

2.08

1.30

.76

.80

5.

0.20

T.

T.

6.

0.17

.20

.04

T.

October 

7.

1.13

.09

1.00

1.30

.76

.80

8.

2.50

.31

2.08

1.08

.60

Total.

3.63

.57

3.48

2.38

.80

1.40

FLOOD ON THE PECOS.

Floods are not uncommon on the Pecos. They usually result from 

melting of snow, but occasionally, as in the present case, from 

heavy rains. There are five gaging stations on the main portion of 

this stream and some on its tributaries. The stations on the main 

stream are at Santa Rosa, Roswell, and Carlsbad, in New Mexico, 

and Pecos and Moorehead, in Texas. From the gage-height records 

obtained at these stations, the magnitude, duration, and to some 

extent the progress ,pf the flood down the river can be seen. Unfortunately, however, the flood destroyed some of the gages, and also 

changed the channel of the river to such an extent at some of them 

that the records are partly wanting or very poor.

Mean daily gage height at gaging stations along Pecos River^ September 27 to

October 27. 1904.

Date.

September S7-... ..........

September 28-..-...-....-.

September 29--.. __ -..-..

September 80... ...........

October 1 ....... ...........

October 2. --.... ...........

Octobers..-. ..............

October 4..................

October 5.... ..............

October6....... ..........

October 7. -.---..--.-.--..-

October 8..................

October 9. ....... ..........

October 10. -----.-._-,.----

a Estimated ; gage

Santa Rosa, 

N. Mex.

1.40 

4.00 

13.00 

«23.00 

«8.00 

«3.00 

«3.00 

«2.00 

«2.00 

«2.00 

2.00

2! oo

2.00 

2.00 

washed aws

Boswell, 

N. Mex.

3.50 

3.65 

5.50 

16.45 

18.45 

15.0

4.0 

3.9 

3.7

8.45 

4.45

iy.

Carlsbad, 

N. Mex.

0.83 

3.45 

15.00 

( &)

ft Gage w

Pecos, Tex.

3.50 

7.00 

9.00 

19.00 

17.00 

15. 50 

13.00 

13.00 

11.00 

ashed out.

Moorehead, 

Tex.

1.60 

2.10 

2.90 

3.30
134 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Mean daily gage lieiglit at gaging statiws along Pecos River, 1904 Continued.

Date.

October 11 _ .. . _.._.._

October 1 2 .................

October 13- ................

October 14 . . . ...........

(October 15... .. .........

October 16 .................

October 17-... ........ ....

October 18. ................

October 19.................

October 20...... ...........

October 31. ................

October 22..... ........ ..

October 33........ ..... .

October 24........ .

October 35'.... .............

October 26........ I........

October 27. ....... .

Santa Rosa, 

N. Mex.

3.0

3.0

Roswell, 

N.Mex.

5..00

4.45

Carlsbad, 

N.Mex.

7.60

5.90

Pecos, Tex.

10.50

14.00

13.00

12.00

9.00

8.40

8.20

8.10

7.80

7.30

7.00

Moorehead, 

Tex.

3.30

3.45

3.65

3.75

4.10

4.30

4.45

4.60

4.75

4.90

5.00

5.05

5.35

5.30

5.20

5.05

4.80

Measurements of flood cross sections and slope of bed were made at 

places along the Pecos and some of its tributaries, and the maximum 

discharge computed by Mr. F. S. Dobson by Kutter's formula. The 

following rates of flow were obtained: Pecos River at Fort Stunner 

45,150 second-feet, at mouth of Salt Creek 45,350 second-feet, and at 

Roswell gaging station 55,690 second-feet; Salt Creek above mouth 

12,400 second-feet; and Hondo River at gaging station near reservoir 

G,330 second-feet. Mr. V. L. Sullivan, chief engineer of the Pecos 

Irrigation Company, estimated the flow of the Pecos at Lake Macmillan reservoir at the time the water began to pass over the rock 

spillway at 82,000 cubic feet per second. t

The flood at Santa Rosa extended from September 28 to October 2, 

reaching a maximum on September 30, with a gage height of about 23 

feet that is, about 22 feet above low water. The estimated maximum discharge is 46,498 second-feet. There is little, if any, indication at this place of the second flood plainly seen in the records lower 

down the river.

Mr. W. G. Russell measured a cross section and the slope of the bed 

of the Pecos at Santa Rosa, October 26, 1904, and found the crosssection area to be 4,973 square feet, the velocity by Kutter's formula 

about 9.35 feet, and the maximum discharge 46,498 second-feet. The 

maximum stage above low water was about 23.4 feet.
U. S. GEOL OGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. XI

A. DAM ON PECOS RIVER AT CARLSBAD, N. MEX., BEFORE THE FLOOD OF 

OCTOBER, 1904.

B. DAM AT CARLSBAD, N. MEX., AFTER THE FLOOD OF OCTOBER, 1904.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL. xn

FLOOD AT DAM ON PECOS RIVER AT CARLSBAD, N. MEX., OCTOBER, 1904.
MURPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J

PECOS RIVER BASIN FLOOD. 135

At Roswell the flood began on September 29 and continued until 

October 4, attaining a maximum on October 1, with a gage height of 

more than 17 feet and a discharge of about 55,690 second-feet. The 

surface fluctuations during this flood of Hondo River, which enters 

the Pecos near Eoswell, are shown on page 139. The stage of the 

Hondo was a maximum at the gaging station at Hondo reservoir on 

October 5 at 5 p. m.

The flood at Carlsbad, as shown by the gage heights at Lake Macmillan, was at its maximum height 9.40 a. m. on October 2. (See 

Pis. XI, XII.) At Pecos the first flood reached a maximum stage 

on October 5 and the second on October 12. At Moorehead the maximum stage was not attained until October 23.

At Lake Macmillan, near Carlsbad, the following fluctuations 

of the Pecos during the flood were reported by Mr. V. L. Sullivan:

Gage height at Lake Macmillan, near Carlsbad, N. Hex., September

2, 1904

to October

Date.

September 29 . .

September 39 . _ .

September 80 . -

September 80 - . .

September 30 . .

October 1 .

October 1 ......

October 1 . .

Octobers.-..-..

October^.......

October 2...._. .

October^. ......

October 2 .... .

Octobers ..

Time.

12m _.-.-_.-.__-__.__..._._..-.--..__.__---_....___-

6 p. m --.-.--------_________...__-__...__..--_--_-___

6 a. m ----------.--.__.__.._-_----._._._.--------.-..

12m --------....-..........................-..-.-.-

6 p. m ----.-----.--_.__......._.--___..-.----.-.----.

6 a. m.-------. ----__.._....._-.--.__-.-_---_-------.

12m --.-__-...-.-_.____.__......-._.__..._-.__.--___

6 p. m----. ---.-.-............_...... ____.___.__--.--

1.30 a. m .___.._.-.___._______._.__..__....--._-.-_-_

7.80 a. m .--.------.............-.....-----...---...-

8.40 a. m .................... .......................

9.40 a. m ----..-.--...........--.-.--.-...----------

12.45 p. m .-._-.._._____.._...___-____.-_---.-----_--

Height in 

feet.

18.8

18.8

18.8

19.0

19.3

19.3

21.1

31.5

22.0

33.0

27.0

37.2

27.5

27.9

27 7

On October 3 Pecos River reached a stage of 7 feet at the United 

States Geological Survey gage near Pecos, and was slightly rising.® 

At 10 a. m. on October 4 the stage was increasing at the rate of 

about 1 foot per hour. At this time four breaks occurred in the 

Barstow Irrigation Company's levees, designed to protect the west 

valley lands from flood, at points about 3^ miles above the flume 

that carries the canal over Pecos River. Other breaks occurred 

later in the day, and on the morning of October 5 the water had a

0 From report of Mr. Willard H. Denis, Barstow, Tex.
136 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

width of from one-half mile to 2^ miles on each side of the river and 

extended nearly to the foothills on each side of the valley, with a depth 

of from 2 to 4 feet. It had a reddish-gray appearance and a comparatively sluggish flow. Fortunately warnings had been given in 

ample time to permit the removal of stock to places of safety. The 

river continued to rise, and at 8 a. m- on October 6 reached a stage 

of 19 feet on the gage near Pecos. The water was above the base 

of the flume (see PI. XIII), and its upward pressure, together with 

the downstream pressure of the water and the drift which collected 

against the flume, caused it to tear loose at the ends, break in two 

pieces, and float downstream. One of these parts, about 150 feet 

long, was afterwards found about 1| miles downstream; the other 

part, also about 150 feet long, floated about 6 miles downstream to 

the railway bridge, where it was again broken in two and passed on 

down the stream.

On October 15 the stage at the gage was again 9 feet; thus this 

flood, which swept through Roswell, N. Mex., in about three days, 

spread itself out to such an extent as to require about ten days to pass 

Pecos. On October 19, about two weeks after the beginning of the 

flood,, most of the overflow water had found its way back into the 

river and passed downstream.

The water left a deposit of reddish clay and fine sand where it 

was sluggish and coarse sand where it was swift, of a depth generally of from 0.2 to 0.4 foot, but in some places of from 1 to 2 feet.c 

In the west valley about two-thirds of the alfalfa was covered so 

deeply with silt or was submerged so long that it died. Some cotton, not all, in places was so deeply covered with sand as to be a 

complete loss. In all, 40 per cent of the cotton was saved, although 

the lands are generally lower than on the eastern side. Out of a 

total of 900 acres, about 700 were flooded.

On the east-valley side about a thousand acres of cultivated land 

was heavily, and as much more lightly, flooded. That in sorghum 

was badly injured, and from 25 to 50 per cent of the heavily flooded 

cotton was lost; while few plants were killed, except in little sags, 

many bolls were soaked until they soured.

At Riverton practically all crops, except on one farm, were lost, 

much sediment was left in the first mile of the main canal, the 

headgates were washed out, and all the laterals were destroyed.

Grand Falls escaped any material injury. The crest of the flood 

had become lower when it reached there, and most of the lands in 

use are on the second bench. »

The following table gives the daily gage height obtained at the 

United States Geological Survey station near Pecos, Tex., during 

this flood:

MUKPHY AND~| 

OTHERS. J

PECOS RIVER BASIN FLOOD. 137

 Gage height, in feet, of Pecos River near Pecos, Tef., October 2 to 21, 1904. 

October 2 _________________._______________________ 3. 50

October 3 ______________ -______________________ __ 7. 00 

October 4 ____________________________-___ _ 9. 00 

October 5 ________________________________ _ 19. 00* 

October 6 ________________________________________ IT. 00 

October 7 ________________________________________ 15. 50 

October 8 _____ - ____________i____________________ 13. 00 

October 9 ____________________________________ - __ 13. 00 

October 10 _______________._____._,._________-___-_ 11. 00 

October 11 _______________________"__________________ 10. 50

October 12 _______________________________ ________ 14. 00 

October 13 __________________________________________ 13. 00

October 14 ______ ____________________________ _ _____ 12. 00

October 15 ________________________________________ 9. 00 

October 16 _______________________________________ 8. 40 

October 17 __________=____________________-________ 8. 20

October 18_______________________________________ 8.10 

October 19 _______________________________________ 7. 80 

October 20 ____________________________________ L ____ 7. 30

October 21 ________________________________________ 7.00

The flood thus reached a maximum stage on October 5, with a gage 

height of about 19 feet, or a height above low water of about 18 feet. 

The gage read 9 feet or more for twelve consecutive days.

The following table gives the daily gage height and corresponding 

discharge at Moorehead, Tex., near the mouth of the river, during this 

flood. The river at this place began to rise on October 8, reaching 

a maximum on October 23. At Santa Rosa the flood lasted from 

September 28 to October 3 that is, about four days reaching a 

maximum above low water of about 22 feet. At Moorehead, 520 

miles down the stream from Santa Rosa, it lasted from October 8 

to beyond October 27, attaining a maximum height on October 23 of 

4 to 5 feet above low water. 

Gage height and discharge of Pecos River at Moorehead, Tear.,October 1 to 27,1904.

Date. Height 

in feet.

Discharge 

in secondfeet.Date. Height 

in feet.

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

October 7.. 

October 81. 

October 9.. 

October 10. 

October 11. 

October 12. 

October 13- 

October 14. 

October 15. 

October 16. 

October 17.

590 

«700 

1,360 

1,740 

1,740 

1,830 

3,050

«3,095 

3,630 

3,010

«3,340

October 18. 

October 19- 

October 30- 

October 31- 

October 33. 

October 33- 

October 34_ 

October 35. 

October 36. 

October 37.

4.60

4.75

4.90

5.00

5.05

5.35

5.30

5.30

5.05

4.80

3,680 

4,040 

4,410 

4,660 

4,790 

«5,577 

5,460 

5,330 

4,880 

4,360

1 Obtained with current meter.
138 DESTBUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

FLOOD ON GALLINAS RIVER.

During the night of September 29, while the flood was at its height, 

four timber dams on Gallinas River above Las Vegas and Hot Springs 

were washed out, liberating about 6 acre-feet of water. The timbers 

from these dams formed a temporary dam in front of the trestle of 

the upper bridge at Hot Springs and forced out the bridge about 

1 a. m. September 30. The volume of water, headed by the timber 

from the dam, took out two more footbridges, the end of the bath 

house, all the masonry protection wall above the main span bridge at 

the railway station, and 50 feet of masonry wall below the bridge. 

Between Hot Springs and Las Vegas, 6 miles down the valley, three 

railway bridges were washed out and the railway tracks were more 

or less damaged. At Las Vegas the railway station for the Hot 

Springs branch, a large frame structure situated on the left of the 

bank, was completely taken out by the erosion of the bank. An 

adjoining building, belonging to the Moore Lumber Company, was 

damaged to a considerable extent and considerable lumber lost.

The greater portion of all the damage at Hot Springs and at Las 

Vegas was undoubtedly due to the obstruction formed by the temporary wooden dam against the trestle of the bridge at Hot Springs.

The amount of damage sustained by the Agua Pura Company, 

which owned the timber dams that were destroyed, is estimated to 

have been from $5,000 to $8,000; the damage at Hot Springs is estimated to have been about $10,000, and to the town of Las Vegas about 

$25,000.

The following are readings of the gage at Hot Springs before it 

was destroyed by the flood:

Gage height, in feet, at Hot Springs, N. Hex., 1904

September 29, 7 a. m_________________________________ 2.50 

September 29, 9 a. in__________________________ - _______ 4.00 

September 29, 12 iu________________________________1_ 3.50

September 29, 5 p. in_______________________________ 4.00

September 29, 9 p. in__________________________________ 5.00 

September 29, 11 p. ru., the first rush of water came down the stream. 

September 30, 12.30 a. m., temporary timber dam formed in front of bridge. 

September 30, 1 a. m., the temporary dam in front of bridge was swept away.

The maximum discharge of this stream was computed from Kutter's formula by Mr. Monk, using a cross section of the stream about 

200 yards below the gaging station. The slope was found to be 

0.0041 feet per foot, area 1,534 second-feet, wetted perimeter 212 feet. 

With these data and the value of the coefficient of roughness ^=0.05, 

the maximum discharge was found to be 11,612 second-feet. This 

rate of flow continued for about one hour. At 8 a. m. on September 

30 the river had fallen so that its discharge was about 700 second-feet, 

and on October 11 its discharge was 135 second-feet.
y AXD~| 

OTHERS. J

PECOS RIVEE B4SIN FLOOD. 139

The total discharge from September 29 to October 7, inclusive, 

which can be considered the flood period of this stream at this place, 

was found to be 16,572 acre-feet, from a drainage area of 90 square 

miles. This means an average depth of 3.J4 inches over this area, 

and a run-off per square mile during the nine days of the flood of 

10.31 second-feet.

The channel through Las Vegas is very crooked and causes the 

water to rush from one bank to the other, and as there were no protection walls on either bank considerable erosion took place.

FLOOD ON HONDO RIVER.

The following table gives the daily gage height and approximate 

discharge of Hondo River at the reservoir 12' miles southwest of 

Koswell, N. Mex., and at the gaging station at Roswell. The maximum discharge is very uncertain as the stream overflowed its banks 

and a considerable part of the discharge passed around the gaging 

station.

Gage height and discharge of Hondo River at Roswell and near the reservoir, 

September 27 to October 15, 190%.

Date.

September 27 _ ._______. _ . . . . ... _

September 28 _ __________ .........

September 29 ___-_._._-. _ . _ . ... _

September 30 ....--.-_----..--.._....

October 3..... .......................

October ^ ............................

October 4 ...___...... .... .. ......

October 5.... ......----.-...---......

October 6. . . . . . . . ....._.........

October 7. -._-._......-..-_.----.....

October 8 _ ... . . .........._-....

October 9 ............................

October 10 ...........................

October 11 _...... ................

October 12.. _ ..................

October 13 ____..._____._._______.___.

October 14............................

October 15..... ..-...._.-... .....

Roswell.

Gage height 

in feet.

0.00 

2.25 

3.60 

(a) 

(«) 

2.35 

1.65 

1.50 

1.30 

1.25 

1.75 

4.80 

4.35 

4.50 

3.25 

2.70 

2.10 

1.90 

1.75

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

0.00 

.62 

2.24

70 

29 

23 

15 

13 

34 

&520 

&365 

&415 

171 

103 

52 

41 

34

Reservoir.

Gage height 

in feet.

1.15 

5. .50 

2.30 

9.60 

10.16 

1.80 

1.15

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

14 

370 

70 

4,400 

6, 290 

33 

14

<* Banks overflowed ; gage not read.

* No allowance made for overflow water passing around the station.
140 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 14T.

There were, two floods on this stream in October, one reaching a 

daily maximum on October 1, with a gage height at the reservoir gaging station of 10.16 feet, and the second one reaching a maximum on 

October 8, with a gage height at Roswell of about 4.8 feet. The second flood was of longer duration than the first, but did not reach as 

great a stage. On October 1 the water at the gaging station near the 

reservoir was 1.5 feet above the floor of the .bridge from wiiieh the discharge measurements are usually made; hence a conshtef»Me portion 

of the discharge must have passed around the gaging station.

The following table gives the gage height of Hondo River at the 

gaging station near the Hondo reservoir:

Gage height on Hondo River near the reservoir, September 29 to October 9, 19Q4-

Date.

September 29 _ - _ .

September 30 - . . - 

September 30 . - _ _

October 1 ________

October !___.____

October !__..____

October 1 ________

October 2 .... ...

Time.

9 a. m------

5.30 a. m . _

11 a. m- ....

2p.m____._

6.30 a. m__-

Height in 

feet.

2 SO

9.00 

10.20

9.60

9.70

10.20

10.20

10.50

9.20

2.00

Date.

October 7 .......

October 7 ------- 

Octobers-...-..

October 8 _......

October 8 .......

October 8 --.....

October 9 -.--...

October 9 .......

Time.

8 a. m--_---

7 p. m .._,... 

6 a. m.-----

6.30 a. m__-

lOa. m-..-_

2 p. m--.---

4 p. m _ . _ - . .

5 p. m---___

8 a. m . . . . .

5p.m.-.--.

Height in 

feet.

0.80

5.30 

9.15

9.48

10.64

10.13

9.70

10.30

9.20

6.90

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.

At Las Vegas and vicinity the Santa Fe Railway bridge was 

destroyed; loss, $10,000. The irrigation company had two or three 

dams washed away and ditches damaged; loss, $15,000. In Las 

Vegas itself the damage was estimated at $25,000.

At Roswell the damage was estimated at $15,000. The whole of 

the business part of the city was under water on September 30 and 

October 1, and again on October 8 and 9. Many adobe houses were 

destroyed.

At Carlsbad the Pecos Valley and Northeastern Railway bridge, 

the Green street highway bridge, and the La Huerta highway bridge 

were destroyed. The Lake Avalon dam was destroyed and Lake Macmillan and Carlsbad dams badly damaged. The total damage in 

and around Carlsbad is estimated at $100,000. (See Pis. XI, XII, 

p. 134.)

Considerable silt was deposited in the low valley. In some places
FAILURES OF LAKE AVALON DAM. 141

this deposit is 2 to 3 feet in depth, hut it resulted in little damage, as 

it was not deposited on farming land.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

Floods of great magnitude occasionally occur on this stream and 

are very destructive to irrigation interests on account of the great 

slope of its bed. They destroy the dams or cut channels around them, 

destroy the headgates of canals or form bars in front of them, overflow the irrigable land, deposit immense quantities of silt, sand, and 

gravel, and in some cases bowlders, filling the canals and covering the 

land.

The apparent remedy is to store the flood waters. The topography 

of the country renders storage easy, and the demand for the water for 

irrigation will add to the value resulting from prevention of overflow.

FAILURES OF LAKE AVALON DAM NEAR CARJL8BAD9

N. MEX.

By E. C. MTJBPHY.

Two failures of the Lake Avalon dam have occurred within a dozen 

years. The dam is located on Peqos4 River, about 6 miles above the 

town of Carlsbad, N. Mex., and was built to form a storage reservoir 

for irrigation purposes. The dam, as reconstructed after the first 

failure, was a composite structure of loose rock with earth on the 

upstream side. The total length was 1,380 feet and the maximum 

height 48 feet. The loose-rock part had a top width of 10 feet, inside 

slope ^ to 1, laid by hand; downstream slope 1-J to 1, laid by hand. 

The earth part had a top width of 10 feet and a slope of 3^ to 1, 

riprapped 1 foot thick.

The right bank of the river at the dam is a conglomerate, the left 

bank is limestone, and the river bed is mixed well. The loose 

rock used in the dam was the conglomerate taken from the right bank. 

It is mainly chunks 6 to 18 inches in diameter, with much fine material. It was dumped in place by carts. The earth used was a sandy 

loam containing some clay, obtained near the dam. It was put in 

place with carts and scrapers and consolidated by the travel of teams 

and vehicles over it.

There are three wasteways, one at each end and the other on the 

right bank about one-half mile from the dam. The principal one 

was located on the limestone ledge on the right bank and was provided with gates; Its discharge capacity for a water height of 23 

feet, or 7 feet below the crest of the dam, was 16,900 second-feet. 

Spillway No. 1 had a capacity of 5,600 second-feet; No. 2, 7,300
142 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

second-feet; headgates of canal, 3,200 second-feet. The total discharge of the wasteways when the water surface in the lake was 7 

feet below the crest of the dam was 33,000 second-feet.

The reservoir when filled to the 23-foot level had a length of about 

5 miles and a maximum width of 1^ miles; it submerged an area of 

1,980 acres and had a capacity of 6,300 acre-feet.

The dam was built in 1894 on the site of the composite loose rock 

and eartli dam that failed during the flood of August, 1893, when 

the maximum discharge of Pecos Eiver at this place was 43,000 

second-feet. The first dam had a lighter cross section than the second 

and had only one spillway.

The second failure occurred at 11 p. m. October 1, 1904, during a 

flood of unprecedented magnitude, the rate of flow at this place 

being, according to the estimate of Mr. V. L. Sullivan, engineer of the 

Pecos Valley Irrigation Company, 82,000 second-feet. It failed by 

the water forcing a passage through the dam, not by flowing over the 

top, but the height above the bed where the earth facing failed could 

not be ascertained.

Mr. F. G. Tracy, president of the Pecos Valley Irrigation Company, 

was at the dam at the time of its failure, and states that the water 

reached a height of about 3 feet below the crest of the dam and remained nearly stationary for a few hours. He thought the danger 

of failure was over, but shortly after the lake surface at the dam 

dropped rapidly 3 feet.

He went out on the dam with a lantern and heard the water roaring through the dam, but the crest had not settled. The water continued to fall for some minutes and then appeared to rise for a short 

time, after which the dam gave way. A section about 450 feet long 

at the crest and 400 feet at the base was washed out.

There are two opinions as to the cause of the failure. One is that 

animals burrowed into the earth facing from the downstream side 

and weakened it; the other is that the failure occurred near the 

base at the right end. There was some leakage at the latter point, 

and efforts were made to stop it by sheet piling, but without complete 

success. Whether the failure was due to animals burrowing or to 

faulty construction of the dam at the right bank can not be ascertained, as it occurred in the night.

The flood waves caused by both failures were large. At the first one, 

in August, 1893, all bridges in Carlsbad ,and the flume that carried 

water for irrigation across Pecos River were swept away. The flood 

at the second failure dpnaged the flume, swept away the three 

bridges, cut a new channel around the dam at Carlsbad, and eroded 

the river banks to a considerable extent. It is said that the channel
JIL'EPHY AN 

OTHERS. EIO GKASTDE FLOODS, NEW MEXICO. 143

in the vicinity of Carlsbad is twice as wide at the present time as 

prior to the flood of 1893.

Nine miles above Lake Avaloii dam is located Macmillan dam, a 

somewhat larger composite structure having a maximum height of 

52 feet and a crest length of 1,686 feet. The side slopes and top 

width are the same as those of Lake Avalon dam, but the top width 

of the loose-rock part of the larger structure is 14 feet and of the 

earth part 6 feet. This dam was not damaged by the flood, but 

fears were entertained for its safety, as its spillways were raised a 

few feet a short time prior thereto.

The writer is indebted to Mr. B. M. Hall, supervising engineer, 

United States Reclamation Service, and to Messrs. F. G. Tracy, H. 

Christian, and V. L. Sullivan, officers of the Pecos Valley Irrigation 

Company, for some of the information used in the preparation of 

this paper.

KIO GRANDE FLOODS, NEW MEXICO.

By E. C. MURPHY.

During the latter part of September and the early part of October 

there were frequent and at times quite heavy rains in Texas and 

southern New Mexico that caused the Rio Grande to overflow its 

banks at some places. The property loss due to these overflows was 

not large.

PRECIPITATION.

The precipitation recorded at six places in this drainage basin 

from September 28 to October 15, 1904, was as follows:

Precipitation in Rio Grande ~basin, 1904-

Inches. 

Taos ________________________________________________________ 2. 88

Albuquerque ___________________________________________ 3. 03

Los Lunas_-__-_________________________________ 4.15

Socorro __________________^________________-__-___ 5. 48

San Marcial__________________________'_______ _____ . 2. 50 

Mesilla Park _____ _ _________________________________ 2. 86

FLOOD IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO.

The following table gives the mean daily gage height and corresponding discharge of the Rio Grande dtiring these floods at three 

of the gaging stations on it, and from this table the magnitude and 

duration of the floods can be seen. One of these stations is at Cenicero, Colo., near the Colorado-New Mexico boundary line; another 

is at San Marcial, N. Mex., about 145 miles north of El Paso, Tex., 

and the other is near El Paso.
144 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Daily mean gage height and discharge of Rio Grande, 1904-

Date.

September 27 ............

September 28. . ....... __

September 29 ........

September 80 ------------

October 2 _ . ___-__._.__.

October 3 ...............

October 4 _ . . ......

October 5 _-__._.__..

October 8 --.--._..___.__

October 9 . .

October 10 ______________

October 12 ____....._._._

October 13 ..---._....._.

October 14 .---.- ........

October 15 _ . . . . ....

October 16 _____.........

October 17 . ... ... ....

October 18 ..... ........

October 19 ..............

October 20 ..............

October 21 ..............

October 22 ...............

October 23 ..............

October 24 ..............

October 25 ..............

October 26 ..............

October 27 ... _ ...

Cenicero, Colo.

Gage

height in 

feet.

1.10 

& 1.10 

1.20 

1.50 

, & 2. 90 

3.00 

&2.95 

3.00 

2.90 

2.70 

&2.60 

2.90 

3.30 

&3.75 

3.95 

3.95 

&3.70 

3.50 

3.20 

3.20 

&3.00 

3.00 

2.90 

2.80 

. &2.60 

2.60 

2.50 

2.50 

&2.40 

2.20 

2.10

Discharge in secondfeet.

84 

84 

112 

236 

556 

1,865 

1,800 

1,865 

1,735 

1,480 

1,355 

1,735 

2,125 

2,860 

3,150 

3,150 

2,790 

2,520 

2,125 

2,125 

1,865 

1,865 

1, 735 

1,605 

1,355 

1,355 

1,230 

1,230 

1,110 

874 

762

San Marcial, N. Mex.a

Q-age

height in 

feet.

9.10 

&10.40 

10.50 

11.70 

11.95 

13.10 

&12.70 

9.50 

&8.90 

8.60 

9.10 

8.95 

11.55 

& 12. 85 

13.75 

& 10. 60 

9.45 

9.00 

8.90 

8.75 

8.65 

8.65 

8.55 

8.40 

8.20 

8.30 

8.25 

8.10 

8.15 

8.20 

8.10

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

950 

3,030 

3,280 

7,550 

8,550 

18, 400 

19,070 

5, 000 

3,200 

2,600 

3,000 

2,880 

12, 000 

24,000 

33, 000 

24, 800 

21,720 

15, 900 

11,100 

6,250 

1,550 

1,710 

1,770 

1,780 

1,730 

1,750 

1,620 

1,390 

1,370 

1,430 

1,240

El Paso, Tex.a

Gagre

height in 

feet.

4.70 

5.35 

5.80 

6.05 

7.45 

9.55 

10.80 

11.55 

12.10 

12.75 

11.50 

11.10 

12.55 

13.30 

13.15 

13.40 

13.60 

13.90 

18. 95 

11.35 

10.35 

9.85 

9.55 

9.25 

9.05 

8.80 

8.65 

8.50 

8.65 

8.35 

8.15

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

110 

280 

500 

620 

1,730 

4; 040 

5,410 

6,230 

6,850 

8,170 

6,180 

5,740 

7,670 

11,370 

10, 550 

12,010 

13, 800 

16, 200 

17, 100 

9, 300 

6,300 

5,050 

4,300 

3,550 

3,150 

2,700 

2,460 

2,250 

2, 460 

2,040 

1,800

a Results furnished by W. W. Follett, consulting engineer International Boundary Commission.

6 Meter measurements.

The record at Cenicero, Colo., shows two maximum stages one 

October 2 to 4 of 3 feet, and another on October 11 and 12 of 3.95 

feet. As the stage at this station is occasionally 6 feet higher than
MUEPHY AND ~| 

OTHERS. J

EIO GBANDE FLOODS, NEW MEXICO. 145

either of these stages, it is evident that these floods were almost 

entirely south of the Colorado-New Mexico boundary line.

The record at San Marcial shows that the Rio Grande at this place 

reached a maximum stage of 13.1 feet with a discharge of 18,400 second-feet on October 2 and a stage of 13.75 feet and discharge of 33,000 

second-feet on October 11. The second of these floods.was much 

larger and of longer duration than the first, and the discharge for four 

consecutive days during the second was larger than at any time during1 

the first. It is interesting to note the effect of the sandy bed of the 

stream at this place on the height of the flood. Although the discharge on October 11 was 80 per cent greater than on October 2, the 

gage height was only 0.65 foot greater on the earlier date. If the bed 

had been rock or permanent material, the extent of overflow would 

have been much greater than it was.

At El Paso, Tex., the stream reached a maximum stage on October 

6, with a gage height of 12.75 feet and a discharge of 8,170 secondfeet, and on October 15 it reached a stage of 13.95 feet with discharge 

of 17,100 second-feet. For seven consecutive days during the second 

flood the discharge at El Paso was greater than at any time during the 

first.

The following table gives the mean daily discharge of the Rio 

Grande at seven places on it and of the Pecos, near its mouth, for 

October, 1904, while the streams of New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico 

were in flood:

Mean daily discharge, in second-feet, of Rio G-rande and Pecos River, October 1

to SI, 1904.a

Date.

October I...

Octobers...

Octobers...

October 4 _..

Octobers...

October 6.. .

October 7.- _

October 8.. .

October 9...

October 10..

October 11. .

October 12..

Bio Grande.

San 

Marcial.

8,550

18,400

19, 070

5,000

3,200

2,600

3,000

2,880

12,000

24, 000

33, 000

24,800

El Paso.

1,730

4,040

5, 410

6,210

6,850

8,170

6,180

5,740

7,670

11, 370

10, 550

12,010

Upper 

Presidio.

0

0

0

0

0

0

300

1,300

1,750

2,090

2,600

3,540

Lower 

Presidio.

7,770

6,200

3,920

4,100

4,450

3,750

4,630

7,600

7,950

7,080

8,830

12, 680

Langtry.

11,350

9,250

9,100

9,250

8,050

6,400

6,100

5,800

5,800

6,850

10, 600

12, 850

Pecos 

Eiver at Moorehead.

980

1,150

890

760

715

675

590

700

1,260

1,740

1,740

1,830

Eio Grande.

Below 

Devils 

Eiver.

17, 000

15, 510

15, 060

13,960

12, 560

12,810

13,510

11,300

10, 640

10, 880

13, 370

14,060

Eagle 

Pass.

15,400

14, 640

11,880

10,430

11,600

9,280

8,640

8,470

8,800

8,800

1Q,Q00-

13)900;

« Data furnished by W. W. Follett, consulting engineer.

IEE 147 4)5 M- -10
146 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Mean daily discharge, in second-feet, of Rio Grande and Pecos River, October 1

to 31, 1904 Continued.

Date.

October 13..

October 14..

October 15. .

October 16..

October 17. .

October 18..

October 19..

October 20..

October 21..

October 22..

October 23..

October 24..

October 25..

October 26..

October 27..

October 28..

October 29..

October 30..

October 31.. 

Mean ..

Rio G-rande.

San 

Marcial.

21, 750

15, 900

11,100

6,250

1,550

1,710

1,770

1,780

1,730

1,750

1,620

1,390

1,370

1,430

1,240

1, 200

1,160

1,120

1,230

7,534

El Paso.

13, 800

16, 200

17, 100

9,300

6,300

5,050

4,300

3,550

3,150

2,700

2,460

2,250

2,460

2,040

1,800

1,620

1,620

1,620

1,500

5,960

Upper 

Presidio.

4,200

4,000

3,630

6,180

9,360

8,910

8,910

7,000

7,000

8,550

6, 350

3,540

2,410

2,240

2,240

2,010

1,800

3,540

2,010

3,403

Lower 

Presidio.

16, 700

17, 100

18, 300

18, 900

18, 500

17, 500

15, 900

13, 920

12,480

10, 900

10, 020

8,270

6,870

6,180

5,490

7,050

8,100

9,150

6,700

9,903

Langtry.

14, 650

19. 300

21, 250

19, 150

21, 100

21, 400

25, 300

20, 050

18, 700

19, 750

16, 900

14, 800

13, 750

12, 700

10, 300

8,800

8,650

9,550

11. 500

13, 194

Pecos 

River at Moorehead.

2,050

2,095

2,630

3,010

3,340

3,680

4,040

4,410

4,660

4,790

5,570

5.460

5,220

4,880

4,360

3,520

2,780

2,620

2,130

2,719

Rio G-rande.

Below 

Devils 

River.

14, 440

20, 360

28, 880

24, 880

25, 880

25, 480

29, 500

26, 740

21,980

21, 620

19, 860

17, 900

16, 320

16, 020

15, 870

14, 970

14, 370

14, 220

13, 920

17,544

Eagle 

Pass.

- 15, 400

20, 800

31,000

29. 600

28, 560

28, 420

29, 170

31,420

28, 420

26, 580

26, 780

25,090

25, 640

21, 720

19,240

16, 800

15, 160

13, 980

15, 160

18, 735

Fig. 13 shows the location of the above gaging stations.

The following facts may be noted. The flood at San Marcial that 

had a maximum discharge on October 3 of 19,070 second-feet produced a maximum three days later at El Paso of only 8,107 secondfeet. The second flood reached a maximum at San Marcial of 33,000 

second-feet on October 11 and a maximum four days later at El Paso 

of 17,100 second-feet. These two stations are about 145 miles apart. 

There are a number of small streams entering between the stations, 

but no large ones.

The Rio Conchos enters the Rio Grande between the upper and 

lower Presidio stations, and to it is due the difference in the discharge at the two places. Up to October 7 the Rio Grande was dry 

above the mouth of the Conchos, the flow at El Paso, which varied 

from 1,730 to 6,210 second-feet from October 1 to 4, failing to cause 

a flow at this place, although they are only about 220 miles apart.

The volume of flow of the Rio Grande at Devils River station
MURPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J RIO GRANDE FLOODS,, NEW MEXICO. 147

should be approximately the sum of the volumes of flow at Langtry, 

of the Pecos at Moorehead, and of Devils River, which is 16,483 as 

compared with the measured amount of 17,544 second-feet.

There is a gaging station on Devils River near its mouth, but its 

discharge is not given in the table, as it was nearly constant during

FIG. 13. Drainage basin of the Rio Grande.

the month, varying only from 530 to 610 second-feet, the mean for the 

month being 570.

The flow of the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass for the month was 

somewhat larger than that at the station just below the mouth of 

Devils River, owing to the discharge of certain small tributaries 

entering between these places,
148 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

FLOOD IN NORTHERN AND CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.

A measurement made at the gaging station at Rio Grande, N. 

Mex., on September 29 showed a discharge of 606 cubic feet per second, with the water surface 14.05 feet below the floor of the railway 

bridge. Late in the afternoon of that day the river began to rise 

and at 11 p. m. had reached its maximum stage, 7.6 feet above the 

stage at which the measurement had been made. A measurement 

with surface floats was made at 6 o'clock the next morning, with the 

stage about 1 foot below maximum, and the discharge found to be 

approximately 28,000 cubic feet per second. At 6 a. m. October 1 

a measurement was made and the discharge found to be 2,500 cubic 

feet per second. The cross section of the stream at this gaging station was found to have been greatly changed by the flood. The 

maximum discharge at this place was computed to be 30,936 cubic 

feet per second, and the total volume of run-off from September 

29 to October 10, inclusive, 131,782 acre-feet, from a drainage area of 

11,250 square miles.

The maximum discharge was also computed by Mr. Monk, using 

Kutter's formula, with a coefficient of roughness n=0.025, and a 

surface slope .6':= 0.0007 feet per foot, and found to be 19,567 cubic 

feet. It is seen that the discharge, as obtained by the formula, is 30 

per cent less than that obtained by the floats. This is probably due 

to the difficulty of measuring the surface slope.

Albuquerque Valley from the mouth of White Rock Canyon to 

San Marcial varies in width from one-fourth mile to 3 miles, most 

of which is under cultivation. As this valley is comparatively flat 

and very slightly above the level of the river channel, the water 

spread and covered nearly all of it. The widening of the stream 

diminished its force and consequently the damage to buildings was 

very small, but almost the entire harvest of corn, wheat, and oats 

was destroyed and the orchards and vineyards damaged to a large 

extent. The soil, however, was enriched by the sediment and benefited by the washing of the alkali from the land. The town of Albuquerque was affected by the flood to only a slight extent other than 

the suspension of railway traffic for about ten days. At San Marcial 

the levees east of the town broke at 6 p. m. on October 2 and allowed 

the water to reach the town. In the Mexican quarter of the town 70 

houses were rendered uninhabitable, and about 280 people were 

obliged to seek refuge with friends or in tents. The water in the 

streets varied in depth from 1 to 2 feet.

The precipitation at Santa Fe, N. Mex., on September 29 and 30 

was 2.51 inches, about 0.8 inch greater than for any previous two 

days' record. This precipitation caused a very large flood in the 

Santa Fe canyon in the bed of a small stream that is usually dry.
BI° G&A&i>E tflOO&S, NEW MEXICO.

The flood on this stream reached the storage reservoir at Santa Fe 

at 8.30 p. m. on September 29, and at 10 p. m. had filled the reservoir (200,000,000 gallons capacity) and was running over the spillway to a depth of 36 inches. From this time until 2 a. m. on September 30 the river was discharging approximately 750 cubic feet 

per second. For the following twenty-four hours the discharge fluctuated between 500 and 200 cubic feet per second, then decreased to 

a flow of 35 cubic feet per second, which stage it maintained for 

about ten days. It then gradually decreased to zero on October 25.

The flood as it appeared just above the Santa Fe reservoir is 

described by an eyewitness as a wall of water 8 feet high with a 

velocity of about 20 miles per hour.

From the first water on September 29 to October 10 the estimated 

discharge of this usually dry stream was 1,636 acre-feet, after storing in the city reservoir 614 acre-feet.

The Santa Fe Light and Water Company sustained the heaviest 

loss, which amounted to between $3,000 and $5,000. The main water 

pipe into its power house .was broken, leaving the city of Santa Fe 

without water and light for about forty-eight hours. One of its 

bridges was washed out and four others were more or less damaged. 

Other damages were of minor importance.

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOOD.®

The damage done by this flood consisted of: (1) Loss of crops on 

the area overflowed, consisting of alfalfa, corn, beans, and vegetables. 

(2) Damage to land along the river that in some places had the soil 

washed away and in other places was covered with sand. (3) 

Damage to dams, head-gates of canals, and irrigation ditches. (4) 

Destruction of houses; many of the houses in this section of the 

country are built of adobe, and the water soon softened the clay and 

the houses fell. (5) Damage to highways and railway bridges along 

the river, some of which had one or more spans taken away by the 

flood.

Summary of Josses from Engle, N. Mear., to El Paso, Teae.

Las Palomas Valley_______________________________ $315

Near Arrey, west side Rio Grande_________________________ 1,645

Lands under sand, San Isidro canal_______________________ 5,380

Colorado and Rodey settlers_____________________________ 1,930

Southwest of Rincon_______________ _________________ 2,195

Dona Ana community_____________________________ __ 1,200

Las Cruces district-_________ ______________ 9,460

Near Earlham _____________________________________ 5,080

a Taken mainly from report of J. L. Rhead, assistant engineer.
150 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Near Berino and Anthony__________________________y___ $8.210 

Santo Tomas and San Miguel communities____________________ 1,135

La Mesa community-__________i_____________________ 7,060

Chamberino _,.______________________________________ 4, 555

Near El Paso, Tex_________ __________ ___ _ __..______ 6,100

Total_______________________________________ 54,265

FI/OODS IN THE DENVER DISTRICT^

BY M. C. HINDEETJDEE and assistants.

REVIEW OF YEAR.

INTRODUCTION.

The year 1904 has passed into history as one of great and destructive floods, this being particularly true of portions of the arid and 

semiarid sections of the Rocky Mountain districts, in numerous parts 

of which there have occurred, almost without warning, ruinous 

floods, which swept everything before them and left wreck and ruin 

in their wake. What had for years been known only as dry gulches, 

or arroyos, were suddenly converted into torrential streams, laying 

waste entire villages, destroying crops, sweeping away homes, drowning live stock and, in some instances, human beings.

Some of the floods were remarkable for the suddenness of their 

occurrence and the corresponding rapidity of their dissipation and 

the havoc wrought, others by their occurrence in localities where 

even more destructive floods had occurred the previous year, others 

for length of duration, and still others for fearful loss of life which 

shocked the whole country.

In Colorado there occurred early in the spring a flood of large 

proportions along the valley of Cache la Poudre River, which, owing 

to its location in what is probably the most intensely cultivated and 

valuable agricultural section of the State, caused heavy losses both 

to individuals and to the towns of Livermore, Fort Collins, and 

Greeley, and also to railway and ditch corporations; one life was 

lost. The same storm, precipitating also on the headwaters of Crow 

Creek, in southern Wyoming, caused that stream to rise to an excessive height within a few hours, resulting in the destruction of a great 

deal of private and corporate property in Cheyenne, Wyo., and the 

loss of two lives. A detailed report of this flood, compiled from 

reports by Messrs. James J. Armstrong, irrigation engineer, and A. J. 

Parshall, resident hydrographer, appears on pages 156-158.

Doubtless the most destructive flood of the year in Colorado, if

0 On account of lack of space it has been necessary to condense certain parts of this 

report and to omit other parts of minor importance; it has also been found impossible to 

reproduce many of the accompanying illustrations. E. C. MOBPHT.
FLOODS IN DENVER DISTRICT. 151

judged by the extent of the financial losses, was that along Las 

Animas, or Purgatory, River, a southern tributary of the Arkansas. 

This occurred on October 1 and resulted in heavy losses to railway 

corporations and to the city of Trinidad. A detailed report of this 

flood, by R. I. Meeker, assistant engineer, appears on pages 158-169.

Another flood whose results were particularly direful was that of 

August 7, which occurred in what is ordinarily a dry tributary of 

Fountain River, and caused the awful Eden disaster on the Denver 

and Rio Grande Railroad, in which 106 people lost their lives.

During the latter part of September very heavy rains, resembling 

cloud-bursts, occurred in northeastern New Mexico, causing the Gallinas, Sapello, and Mora rivers to overflow their banks and flood their 

valleys, and resulting in the destruction of an enormous amount of 

property and the loss of several lives. Heavy floods on the Rio 

Grande in this territory were a feature of the season's flood conditions. A destructive flood occurred in La Plata Valley, in New Mexico, on October 6, a detailed account of which is given by Mr. T. 

Tobish, field assistant, on pages 169-171.

Destructive floods occurred also along Canadian River and Ute 

Creek, in northeastern New Mexico, and along the Rio Pecos, in the 

eastern part of the territory, resulting in heavy damage to the Chicago, Rock Island and El Paso Railroad and to the residents along 

these streams. These floods have been reported by Mr. W. G. Russell, 

resident hydrographer, of Russell, Kans., and Mr. W. M. Reed, engineer, at Roswell, N. Mex.

FLOOD STATIONS.

In the spring of 1904, in response to the general desire of the people of Kansas for a Federal investigation of flood conditions in that 

State, eight river observation stations were established on the streams 

most generally affected by floods, at points where records of their 

stage could be secured. In locating these, several things had to be 

considered, among them the necessity for placing them at points 

where the records would be of the most value to the residents of the 

cities and agricultural districts farther down the river, and at points 

where they might be within easy reach of telegraph or telephone 

accommodations for transmitting warnings of high and dangerous 

stages to residents along the lower course of the streams. After due 

consideration, the following points were selected: Fall River at Fallriver, Kansas River at Solomon, Kansas River at St. George. Kansas 

River at Topeka, Neosho River at Neosho Rapids, Neosho River at 

Humboldt, Verdigris River at Independence.

At each of these stations permanent gages were established, 

observers employed to make the observations, the river channel cross
152 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. (NO. 147.

sectioned, levels of previous high-water stages taken and connected 

with permanent bench marks, slopes of channel secured, and information collected regarding the character and damage resulting from 

previous floods.

The observers were instructed to take daily readings after the stage 

of the river rose above a certain point, to take such readings hourly, 

if necessary, during dangerous rises, and to report the same to 

towns lower down the river. These observations of river stage 

proved of great value, particularly to the agricultural districts, as the 

information concerning dangerous rises enabled the farmers to transfer their stock to places of safety before the appearance of a flood. 

This information during the spring and summer of 1904 prevented 

losses to the farming communities along Fall River aggregating many 

thousands of dollars. The telephone companies cooperated in this 

work by transmitting all messages free of charge. In Colorado, 

Kansas, New Mexico, and Wyoming the various railway companies 

extended valuable assistance in the collection of flood data and other 

furtherance of this work. Some of the data obtained at these flood 

stations are given in the discussion of floods in southeastern Kansas, 

pages 59-113.

CAUSE OF FLOODS.

The cause of the floods in this district has been mainly abnormal 

rainfall for a short period of time over comparatively small areas. 

In some cases the failure of artificial works on the stream has 

increased the flood flow and the destruction wrought.

The flood discharge of a stream is controlled by two factors, viz, 

rate of run-off from drainage basin and capacity of the channel. 

If either of these controlling factors can be regulated, the other may 

be disregarded. To regulate the run-off one requirement is necessary, viz, storage. This may be either natural or artificial in character or both. If natural, the storage will consist of the forest covering of the drainage basin, the character of the soil, and the topography; if artificial, the water must be stored in reservoirs. If, on 

the other hand, the run-off can not be controlled by storage, the 

drainage channel must be maintained at such capacity as to accommodate the maximum run-off in the minimum length of time. It 

sometimes happens that the natural channel is of sufficient capacity 

to meet the requirements, but this is not often the case; more frequently it is crooked, with banks lined with brush and timber, and 

more or less obstructed by debris and dams, which change the natural 

grade of the river, and by low-spanning bridges, piers, and abutments, loose riprap, and other serious encroachments on the banks 

such as are generally found in cities where the river banks are made 

the dumping ground for the city garbage.
FLOODS IN DENVER DISTRICT. 153 

DAMAGE DONE BY FLOODS.

The data in the accompanying reports illustrate the great destructiveness of floods. As an instance of their suddenness when resulting 

from the so-called cloud-bursts may be cited the cise in Colorado, in 

which an entire train load of unsuspecting people were plunged into 

a roaring torrent, which, but a few minutes previously, had been a 

harmless dry arroyo.

The results of floods are manifold, the most important, doubtless, 

being the financial losses incurred, which may amount to millions of 

dollars in a comparatively small area; in addition they often cause 

great hardships, including loss of life and the suffering and sickness 

caused by exposure and privation. Some of the greater losses affect 

the country not only locally, but at large. Among those may be mentioned the destruction of farms, as was the case in considerable areas 

along Kansas River after the great flood of 1903. What had been 

fertile and productive farms prior to the flood were washed, worthless stretches of sands after its subsidence.

The destruction of mills or of dams furnishing water power for 

irrigation works, bridges, etc., is a blow to the whole section of the 

country where they occur.

Damage to or destruction of a system of sewerage, drainage, or 

water supply is very apt to injuriously affect the health of a city or 

community, and it frequently happens that an epidemic follows such 

an occurrence, and, finally, the effect of damage to any one of the 

staple crops is always reflected on the various markets of the world 

and may cause unsettled conditions of the business of a whole country.

PREVENTION OF FUTURE DAMAGE.

In considering this phase of the problem streams may be divided 

into three classes and each class treated separately in accordance 

with the natural conditions" of the country.

(1) Mountainous streams, i. e., streams having their sources and 

their courses mostly in a mountainous country where the percentage 

of rainfall is large and the run-off rapid.

(2) Arid-plains streams, i. e., streams that head or flow through 

an arid or semiarid plains country, where the precipitation is small, 

the evaporation large, and the run-off small.

(3) Streams flowing through a comparatively level or rolling 

country having a humid climate, where the rate of run-off may be 

either rapid or sluggish.

In the case of mountain streams forests generally equalize the rate 

of run-off. In the absence of these recourse to storage must be had to 

equalize the flow.
154 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

In the case of plains streams, where the water is needed for irrigation, the great problem is the storage of the water. Generally, however, the topography is such that it is very difficult to find reservoir 

sites of any considerable size.

Probably the most practical plan for the partial elimination of 

some of the dangers from floods in humid sections of the country 

would be the careful protection of the remaining forests along these 

streams, the reforesting of the sections of the bottom lands rendered 

worthless by recent floods, the enactment and enforcement of State 

laws regulating the erection of bridges and preventing any encroachment on the natural waterway by individuals or corporations, and 

the dredging and straightening of river channels where necessary.

CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AND CROW CREEK FLOOD.a 

PEECIPITATION.

On May 20 a very heavy local rainfall in the southwestern part of 

Laramie County, Wyo., and the northeastern part of Larmier County, 

Colo., caused North Fork of Cache la Poudre River and its tributaries and Crow and Lone Tree creeks (which join Platte River 

near Greeley) to be in destructive flood on the night of May 20 and 

the forenoon of May 21.

That the area over which heavy precipitation occurred was small 

can be approximately seen from the measured depth of rainfall 

on May 20, given in the following table, prepared from the United 

States Weather and Crop Service report:

Precipitation, in indies, in Colorado and Wyoming, 190 b. 

Place.

Cheyenne, Wye..... ________________ .._____---_

Laramie, Wyo -___.___________________ ______-.-.

Greeley, Colo- ........................ ^... ......

Fort Collins, Colo.. _____________________________

Boulder, Colo - -,_-_-_-____________ . ..-.-..

Alford, Colo.. ..................................

Denver, Colo ___________________________ _ ...

May 19.

T.

T.

May 20.

1.73

.15

.09

.21

T.

3.66

.30

T.

May 21.

0. lo

.07

.03

.01

The location of these precipitation stations and the streams in this 

locality can be seen from fig. 14.

0 From reports of James A. Armstrong, irrigation engineer, and A. J. Parshall, resident 

hydrographer.
MUBPHY AN 

OTHEES. CACHE LA POUDRE KIVER AND CEOW CBEEK.

FLOOD ON CACHE LA PODDKE RIVER.

'155

The storm appears to have originated in the Stonewall Mountains 

and range of upper foothills at the head of North Fork of Cache la 

Poudre River, and to have covered Dale, Lone Pine, Stonewall, and 

Dry creeks, and also Lone Tree and Crow creeks. It began about 

noon on May 20 and lasted five or six hours. A considerable portion 

of this country being rough, with steep slopes entirely destitute of

FIG. 14. Drainage basins of Cache la Poudre River and Crow Creek.

timber, and the beds of the streams being very 'steep, the run-off was 

very rapid. Mr. Armstrong thus describes the flood on the Cache la 

Poudre:

The flood was down into Livetmore almost before anyone could remove anything out of the way, and had it been in the night there would probably have 

been a great loss of life as well as of property. The flood reached the main 

Cache la Poudre early in the afternoon, and was augmented by floods down 

Dry Creek and Hook and Moore canyons, which empty into the main Cache la 

Poudre below the mouth of the canyon. These probably added as much more 

water to the already swollen stream.
156 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

The flood was at its height at Fort Collins late in the afternoon and early 

evening, remaining up from two and one-half to three hours. From Fort Collins 

to Greeley the river has less grade than in the hills and the water traveled more 

slowly, giving the people time to prepare, as they were warned in ample time. 

As the bottom lands are much wider, the flood did not reach Greeley until about 

6 a. m. on the morning of May 21.

Mr. Armstrong estimates the maximum rate of discharge at Livermore at 20,000 cubic feet per second, and state,s that this flood was 

the greatest in at least thirty-four years. People living in the valley 

since 1859 declare that this flood was 1.5 feet higher than the great 

flood of 1864.

The loss in Larimer and Weld counties, Colo., consisted mainly in 

damage to farm property, to irrigation ditches, to roads and bridges, 

and to railway property. These are summarized in the following 

table:

Damage from Cache la Poudre flood in Colorado.

Larimer County:

Homes and farms__________._____________ $62,250 

Ditches _______________________________ 35,000 

Roads and bridges_________________________ 50,000

 $147,250 

Weld County:

Homes and farms_________________________ 19,400

Roads and bridges_____________________ 5,000

 24, 400 

Railroad bridges and tracks washed out, Colorado and Southern and

Union Pacific, in both the above counties____ _______ 12,000

Total loss in these two counties______ ________ 183,650 

FLOOD ON CROW CREEK.

The storm on Crow Creek appeared to have been greatest near the 

junction of South, Middle, and North forks, about 18 miles west of 

Cheyenne. When visited by Mr. Parshall, two days after the storm, 

there was no evidence of a heavy storm above this place, while below 

it on every side were seen torn fences and great deposits of silt and 

debris.

Mr. Parshall thus describes the flood at places along Crow Creek:

About 9 p. m. on May 20 the residents along Crow Creek were suddenly confronted by a wall of water several feet high extending across the valley, varying in width from one-fourth to one-third of a mile, and moving with great 

rapidity. The resulting damage was the loss of the lives of two children and the 

destruction of a considerable amount of property, viz, of railway and highway 

bridges, embankments, public works, and residences. The first alarm at 

Cheyenne was sounded from the city pump house, a substantial stone structure 

located near the creek in West Cheyenne, its floor being about 7 feet above the
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AND CROW CREEK. 157

bed of the stream and about 120 feet distant from it. At 9 p. m. May 20 the 

engineer and family living in the house were warned of some unusual occurrence by a roaring noise, and opening the door were almost simultaneously 

struck by a wave estimated to haVe been 8 feet high. The water continued to 

rise for about three-fourths of an hour, when it reached its greatest height, 5.5 

feet above the floor of the buildiing and 12.5 feet above the bed of the creek. 

Here the width of the bottom covered with water was nearly one-fourth of a. 

mile. After 10 o'clock the water gradually subsided, and at daylight the following morning only a swollen stream with slimy, wreck-strewn banks was to 

be seen.

State Engineer Johnson was on the ground at the time and estimated the discharge of the creek at Cheyenne to vary from 7,000 to 

10,000 cubic feet per second for several hours, this estimate being 

based on his knowledge of discharge of streams. The loss caused by 

the flood consisted mainly of damage to railway property, the Colorado and Southern Railway Company being without doubt the 

heaviest property loser. The points of greatest destruction were 

between the junction of the forks and Cheyenne. Immediately below 

the junction is the roadbed of the Colorado and Southern, lying close 

to the stream and largely constructed on embankments. Farther 

down are the filter beds of the Cheyenne city waterworks, and 15 

miles from the junction the city of Cheyenne, where the creek passes 

under the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad.

The bridge at Silver Crown station (13 miles west of Cheyenne) 

was washed out, and between that point and the city 4 or 5 miles of 

roadbed was washed away. The destruction was complete, scarcely 

one rail being left in place, and where the embankment stood the 

creek, when the storm had subsided, had in many places cut a new 

channel.

The loss to the city of Cheyenne was considerable. A portion of 

the dam used in connection With the filter beds was washed away, the 

beds covered with a mass of mud and debris, and a portion of the 

flume, which conveyed the water to the locks, was destroyed.

The iron bridge which spanned Crow Creek at Nineteenth street 

was wrecked and the wooden bridge at Fortier Park, Sixteenth and 

South Cheyenne streets, was entirely carried away. The Union 

Pacific Railroad Company 10st its big pile bridge over the creek on 

the Denver line, and was obliged to replace a large amount of washedout embankment near the city.

Several houses belonging to the poorer classes were carried downstream and many more were flooded with water, some having been 

twisted around upon the lots and greatly damaged.

The loss to the ranchmen plong the stream was not as great as at 

first supposed, for while majiy fences .and small buildings were destroyed and lands covered with silt, yet, generally, the silt had a
158 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

beneficial effect upon the land, and the crops later in the season 

showed a marked improvement over those of former years. An 

approximate estimate of the damage done along this creek is as 

follows:

Damage from Crow Greek flood, 190kColorado and Southern Railway._______________________ $40,000 

City of Cheyenne ________________________________ 15,000

Union Pacific Railroad___________________________ 10,000

Individual losses ____________________ _____________ 10, 000

Total _________________________________________ 75, 000

PURGATORY RIVER FLOOD.«

The largest and by far the most destructive flood recorded in the 

history of Purgatory Kiver occurred from 10 p. m. September 29 to 

8 a. m. September 30, 1904. All the city bridges in Trinidad wrere 

washed away or badly damaged, the city water supply was cut off 

by the destruction of the main pipe line, the electric-light plant was 

disabled, telephone communications were cut off, and railway services were entirely abandoned. In three hours public, private, and 

corporate property was damaged to the extent of $350,000. No lives 

were lost, an almost miraculous fact considering the suddenness and 

magnitude of the flood and its occurrence in the night.

STREAM AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

Purgatory River rises in the Culebra Mountains in the southwestern part of Las Animas County, Colo., flows in a general northeasterly direction, and joins the Arkansas near Las Animas, Colo. The 

drainage basin is about 120 miles long and from 30 to 40 miles in 

width and comprises an area of about 3,390 square miles.

The upper and mountainous part, lying above Trinidad, has an 

area of 742 square miles and consists mainly of shales and sandstone, 

with some igneous rocks. It is carved into valleys where the formation is shale and into canyons where the formation is more resisting. 

The vegetation of the lower half of this area is largely cedars and 

bunch grass; of the upper portion pine, cedar, fir, and the usual Colorado mountain flora. Ground storage of rain in this part of the basin 

is small owing to the steep slopes.

The lower part, having an area of 2,640 square miles, extends from 

Trinidad to the mouth of the river. The soil here is largely decomposed shale, with some sand and limestones. The vegetation consists 

of cedars, bunch grass, cactuses, etc. Surface storage is small. This 

is a characteristic stream of eastern Colorado, heading in the mountains, flowing across the plains, and carrying little water except dur-

°By R. I. Meeker, assistant engineer.
MURPHY AND~| 

OTHEKS. J

PURGATORY RIVER FLOOD. 159

ing floods. It is the principal southern tributary of Arkansas River. 

In the spring the channel carries a moderate volume of water, but as 

summer approaches this is gradually diminished by irrigation and

natural conditions until the channel is practically dry. The volume 

of water contributed to the Arkansas by this stream is so small that 

it has scarcely an appreciable effect upon the discharge of the Arkansas, .except at times of excessive local rainfall. Its flow is very
160 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS TN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

erratic; the discharge may vary from a few second-feet to several 

thousand in a few hours.

PRECIPITATION.

The mean annual precipitation over this drainage basin varies 

from about 13 inches near the mouth to about 23 inches near the 

source, the September average from source to mouth being from about 

1 inch to 1.2 inches. The following table a gives the depth of rainfall 

for the month of September, 1904, at several places along Arkansas 

and Purgatory rivers:

Precipitation, in inches, in Purgatory River basin, Goloirado, for September, 1904-

Day.

1. ............ .....

2...... ........... .

3..................

9.... ......... .....

10 . 

12 

14 .... -------

15. ...... ...........

18...... ... .........

1Q

20 

21 

as.... ..............

23....... ...........

35

26..................

27...... ............

28........... .......

29.. ............

30..................

Total 

Departure from 

the normal .. ....

Santa 

Clara.

T.

T.

T.

0.05

.05

T.

T.

T.

T.

T.

T.

T.

T.

T.

.75

1 7Q

2.36

5.00

+3.17

Fowler.

0.26

.55

T.

25

.25

1.10

T.

2.41

........

Rocky 

Ford.

0.16

.18

T.

T.

.13

1.49

.38

2.34

+1.69

Sugar

City.

0.17

.25

.07

T.

T.

.06

1 46

.08

2.09

........

Las Animas.

0.20

.10

1 20

.45

1.95

+1.05

Clear

View.

0.14

T.

.08

.10

.14

T.

.05

.03

.04

48

2 03

1.36

4 45

+3.46

Trinidad.

0.28

T.

.55

.18

.73

1.92

3.13

6.78

+5.71

Hoehne.

0.12

T.

T.

T.

.10

3.00

2.15

5.37

+4.37

Lamar.

6.60

.17

.11

.18

.41

26

2.59

+1.54

Holly.

0.23

.98

.28

53

02

2.27

+1.00

The following table gives the daily depth of rainfall at three places 

in this basin from September 26 to 30, 1904:

Precipitation, in inches, preceding Purgatory River flood, 1904-

Place.

Trinidad. ...................

Hoehne . . ......_...

Clear View . ...........

Elevation in 

feet.

6,000

5,271

9,500

Sept. 27.6

0.18

4-8

Sept. 28.

0.72

.10

2.03

Sept. 39.

1.92

3.00

1.36

Sept. 30.

3.13

3.15

Total.

5.95

5.25

3.87

a Prepared from records of United States Weather Bureau. 

6 From 5 p. m. Sept. 26 to 5 p, m, Sept. 27.
PURGATORY RIVER FLOOD. 161

The location of the precipitation stations along Arkansas and Purgatory rivers are shown in fig. 15 (p. 159).

O^i September 27 a moderate rain began to fall over the upper part 

of the Purgatory drainage basin, continuing with increasing intensity until the evening of September 29, when it became excessive. 

Up to 9 p. m. on September 29, 4 inches fell at Trinidad, arid from 

that hour to 9 a. m. September 30, 2 inches more fell. By this time 

the storm had grown in extent and had become general over the entire drainage basin. It was heaviest along the southern mountain 

watershed of the Purgatory above and below Trinidad, and traveled 

slowly from west to east. This movement, together with the physical 

character of the southern portion of the drainage basin, accounts for 

the immense amount of water which arrived at the mouth of the Purgatory. The rainfall of the upper tributaries reached Trinidad 

almost simultaneously with the greater portion of the flood, which 

came into the Purgatory from Long Creek, about 6 miles above 

Trinidad.

FLOOD ON PURGATORY RIVER PROPER.

Flood near Trinidad. Trinidad is located in the narrow valley 

where the Purgatory leaves the mountains, the business portion of the 

town lying along each side of the river and the residence portion on 

higher ground. The slope of the bed of the river at this place is 

from 39 to 10 feet per mile, and the sides of the valley are steep, 

being mainly shale, highly eroded, and cut into well-rounded quickwater channels, causing the run-off to be very rapid. Purgatory 

River at Trinidad was not carrying more than the usual volum.e of 

water until the evening of September 29, when the very heavy rainfall 

caused the river to rise very rapidly. Local information is conflicting as to the exact cause of the large volume at Trinidad. Some 

of the residents report a cloud-burst above the city in the river canyon, 

or elsewhere; others maintain that the origin of the great volume was 

the increasing heavy downpour. From personal investigation Mr. 

Meeker was led to the conclusion that the great volume was due to 

the excessive rainfall of a few hours, following a constant rain of 

about three days over an area of very rapid run-off.

At Weston, 20 miles above Trinidad, the Purgatory, though high, 

did not overflow its banks. Between this point and Trinidad the 

voliime discharged into the Purgatory from southern tributaries was 

exceptionally large. Local residents all agree that Long and Raton 

canyons discharged an immense volume of water on the night of September 29. This large discharge from southern tributaries indicates 

a greater rainfall to the south, which is corroborated by heavy rainfall 

records in northern New Mexico.

IRK 147 05 M 11
162 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

A trustworthy eyewitness, employed at the Cardenas Hotel at 

Trinidad, describes the flood at this place as follows:

The river was high on the afternoon and evening of September 29, and rose 

steadily during the early part of the night. At 11 p. m. the water level was still 

1.5 feet below the level of the river banks and about 5 feet deep in the channel. 

Shortly after this time the river rose rapidly, and by 2.30 a. m. was at its highest 

stage, being 2 feet deep on the lawn of the Cardenas Hotel and within 5 inches 

of the hotel floor. This stage of the river lasted until about 4 a. m., when it 

began to fall. By 8 a. m. oa September 30 the river was again within its banks 

and was rapidly receding.

At the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway station, shown in 

PI. XV, the water reached a depth of 3 feet on the platform.

In three hours $350,000 worth of property was destroyed. Of the 

five street bridges and two railway bridges four were swept entirely 

away and others were badly damaged. Several brick and stone 

structures adjacent to the river were destroyed. The supply main of 

the city water supply was carried downstream, thus disabling the 

service. All the railroads suffered heavily in yard tracks, bridges, 

and roadbeds, being completely lied up for twenty-four hours. The 

entire lower portion of the city was submerged for some hours, being 

flooded to a depth of from 1.5 to 2 feet. A large steel bridge belonging to the Colorado and Southern Railway was carried downstream 

250 feet and half buried in sand and rocks. The piers were overturned and forced out of the river bed, one of them, 5 feet in diameter 

and concrete filled, being entirely destroyed. The city bridge at 

Commercial street, a steel structure on masonry piers accommodating an electric railway in addition to road and foot ways, was carried 

one:fourth mile downstream and reduced to a shapeless mass of 

twisted steel. The losses in the vicinity of Trinidad may be summarized as follows:

Losses from Purgatory River flood at Trinidad, Colo., September, 1904~

Corporation property:

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway__________ $70,000 

Colorado and Southern Railway____________ 25,000

Colorado and Wyoming Railway _______-_-_- 18,000

Denver and Rio Grande Railroad ______________ 30,000 

Other corporation property, about one-half of which was

at Elmoro ____________________________ 17,000

 $160, 000 

Public property:

New bridges and repairs to bridges__________________ 50,000

Straightening channel, etc ________ _____--__ 25,000

General _______________________________________ 25,000

 - 100,000 

Private property:

Estimated_________________________________ 90,000

Total___. .._.,_ ____________________._ > _ 350,000
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY FLOOD ON PURGATORY RIVER AT TRINIDAD, COLO.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. U7 PL. XV

A. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY STATION AT TRINIDAD, COLO., 

AFTER FLOOD OF SEPTEMBER, 1904.

B VIEW SHOWING FAILURE OF DAM NEAR SCOTTDALE, PA.
MUKPHY AND "I 

OTHBES. J

PUEGATOEY EIVEE FLOOD. 163

An old resident who came to Trinidad in 1862 states that at that 

time the channel of Purgatory River was narrow, not over 30 or 40 

feet in width, and that it has increased in width each year since that

time. A flood occurred at Trinidad in November, 1866, and since that 

time there have been two large floods at this place, the exact dates 

and volume of discharge of which could not be secured. Old resi-
164 DBSTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

dents agree that the flood of September, 1904, was considerably larger 

than any previous one. The changes in the channel in the vicinity of 

Trinidad caused by the 1904 flood are shown in PL XVI. The 

area submerged during the fl'ood and a cross section of the stream 

near the Animas Street Bride are shown in fig. 16.

The maximum discharge of the river at Trinidad was computed 

by the use of Kutter's formula. A section was selected just below 

the Animas Street Bridge, where the channel is approximately 

straight and the change in it caused by the flood comparatively small. 

The bed here is composed of sand, gravel, and cobbles. The banks 

are mainly of earth, with a few trees, and in places it is protected 

with riprap or. piling. The old United States Geological Survey 

gage 011 the Animas Street Bridge showed a maximum reading during this flood of 16.6 feet. The slope of the river was measured with 

a level for a distance of about 500 feet above and below this section 

and found to be about 37 feet to the mile. The area of cross section 

is 2.670 square feet, wetted perimeter 275 feet, hydraulic radius 9.71 

feet, and the coefficient of roughness \vas taken as 0.035. The mean 

velocity was found to be 16.61 feet per second and the discharge 

44,322 cubic feet per second. The estimated volume of water not 

included in this section, passing on the right and left banks, is 1,100 

second-feet; the maximum rate of flow was, therefore, 45,422-cubic 

feet per second. The mean rate of flow from September 28 to October 2, inclusive, was 5,061 cubic feet per second, and the total approximate discharge 50,000 acre-feet. This result is based upon depth of 

water in river from September 28 to October 2, as given by local 

residents.

The detailed estimated discharge from, September 28 to October 2, 

inclusive, was as follows:

Discharge, in second-feet, of Puryatory River at Trinidad, CoJo., 19()Jf.

September 28_________ _ ___ ______________ _______ 1, 400 

September 29______________________________ _______ 5, 594 

September 30_______________________________ - ______ 15, 583 

October 1 _____ ___________________________ ________ 2, 000 

October 2 ___ ____________________________________ 750

On October 3 a discharge measurement was made from a temporary 

footbridge at Commercial street and the discharge found to' be 270 

cubic feet per second.

Flood below Trinidad. From Elmoro to the mouth of Purgatory Canyon, a distance of 28 miles, the valley widens and is occupied by farms and ranches on either side for the entire distance. 

These ranches were injured to a considerable extent. Fences and 

hay were washed away, cattle and hogs drowned, and minor dam-
u. s. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. U7 PL. XVI

EROSION OF BANKS OF PURGATORY RIVER, TRINIDAD, COLO.
Mt,"^?rP« Xr'l PURGATORY RIVER FLOOD. 165 UXxll^AO. _|

ages sustained. The loss to fanners in implements, crops, etc., is estimated at $25,000.

Records in the possession of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe 

Railway Company show that previous floods required approximately 

twenty-four hours to pass from Trinidad to Las Animas. The flood 

of October, 1904, passed over this distance in from nineteen to 

twenty hours. Fortunately there was only a small amount of water 

in the Arkansas above the mouth of the Purgatory; otherwise the 

flood of the lower Arkansas would have been much more destructive. 

The Santa Fe road from Holly to Las Animas was completely tied 

up for seven days.

The flood of October 1 was the greatest on record on this stream. 

Old residents declare that it was 2 feet greater than the flood of 

1875.

The following statements concerning the flood of 1875 are taken 

from the Las Animas Leader of September 18 and 25, 1875:

On September 16 a rush of water came down Purgatory River at Las Animas, 

Colo. The water was 5 feet higher than at any previous time that year. The 

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's tracks were under water 

for one-half mile on each side of the Purgatory, the bridge being 3 to 4 feet 

under water. At Fort Lyon the water was 4 feet higher than ever known 

before. The bottom land between the bridge and the post trader's (a distance 

of three-fourths of a mile) was a swift, raging flood. Up the Purgatory considerable damage was done, the greatest losses being of cord wood, stacked 

hay, cattle, fences, and adobe houses. The Arkansas above the mouth of the 

Purgatory was also in flood at this time, there being reports of damage as far up 

as Pueblo. The Apishapa brought in a large amount of this water, and the 

flood height was the highest in fifteen years.

PURGATORY FLOOD ON THE ARKANSAS.

Flood in Colorado. On the Arkansas the lower bottom lands 

were entirely inundated from the mouth of Purgatory River to the 

Colorado-Kansas State line. As a flood at this season of the year 

was unexpected, both the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway 

Company and the farmers were entirely unprepared for it, and 

the damage done was much greater than it otherwise would have 

been.

From Fort Lyon to Holly the water covered all the lower bottom 

lands, and from Caddoa to Lamar, where the bottom is narrower 

than above or below, the waters reached from bluff to bluff, a distance 

varying from three-fourths to 1 mile in width.

At the Colorado and Kansas canal dam, 1 mile east of Martin,.the 

gate keeper was compelled to swim his horses out, so rapid was the 

rise of the water.
166 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

At Powers the water was 3.5 feet deep on the level in places on 

each side of the Atchisoii, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, and the 

residents were compelled to take refuge 011 house tops and in trees. 

Hogs, bees, poultry, and cattle in large numbers were drowned, and 

thousands of tons of alfalfa were destroyed by the water, which 

reached an average height of 3 feet on the stacks. The Amity 

canal dam, which is just below Powers, was damaged by the flood 

to the extent of $20,000; the apron was practically off the dam at 

the time, and the terrific force of the current, augumented by the 

contracted river channel, had free access to the foundations, completely sweeping the dam away between crib No. 1 on the north and 

pier No. 2, a distance of 105 feet.

At Lamar, where the river channel is at the north of the town, the 

river was about H miles in width. If it had risen another foot 

the town of Lamar would have been flooded. The damage in this 

vicinity was largely to alfalfa seed hay, which was stacked in the 

bottoms ready for thrashing, and to other forage and cattle.

The Salvation Army colony at Amity, located in a bottom- level 

with the river, suffered more severely than any other settlement in 

the valley. The entire settlement was inundated and the total damage heavy.

Farther east the damage was small, as the river channel is a large 

shifting bed of sand, and the ranches are scattered and well back 

from the river.

All bridges over the Arkansas from the mouth of the Purgatory 

to Coolidge, Ivans., inclusive, were badly damaged except the steel 

structure at Granada. The tracks of the Santa Fe, which parallel 

Arkansas River, were badly damaged. At the east end of the Las 

Animas-Santa Fe Railway Bridge across the Purgatory the flood cut 

away 400 feet of roadbed and earth bank, which was protected with 

etone riprap work placed on grillage. The overflow from the river 

channel carried 2-J miles of rail and ties off the embankment and badly 

damaged 2 additional miles of roadbed, cutting out the ballasting 

and the underlying embankment, although the track remained in 

place. This damage from overflow began a little west of Caddoa 

and extended to a point about 1 mile east of Powers, the greatest 

damage being done in the vicinity of Martin.

The Atchisoii, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway bridge across the 

Arkansas a short distance east of Byron was so badly damaged that 

about two-thirds of it had to be rebuilt.

The losses in Arkansas Valley in Colorado are estimated as follows :
M1 OT1HJiRS.ND ] PURGATORY RIVER FLOOD. 167

Damage by flood in Arkansas Valley, in Colorado, 1904.

Public property:

Repairs to bridges and roads from mouth of Purgatory to ColoradoKansas line estimated at_______________-__ $50,000

Private property:

Damages to meadow lands, fences, hay, cattle, etc________ 100,000 

Corporation property:

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway._________ $75,000 

Dam and canals in valley________________ 25,000

 100, 000

Total ___________________________________ __ 250, 000

There is a gaging station on Arkansas River, about 5 miles 

upstream from Powers, Colo., and about 1 mile east of Martin, at 

the dam used to divert the water of the Arkansas into the Colorado 

and Kansas Canal. During the flood the water reached a height of 

about 8.3 feet on its crest. An earth dike extending about 500 feet 

from its north end was washed away by the flood and about 185 

feet of the crest so injured that its elevation on the left side was 

about 0.22 foot lower than before the flood. High-water marks of 

this flood were secured from lines on north and south abutments 

which were not entirely submerged. At the south abutment the 

flood reached 8.15 feet above the crest; on the north abutment, 8.9 

feet. The greater height was probably due to the fact that the main 

current was near this end of the dam. On account of the irregularities in the crest of the dam, 8.3 feet is considered the maximum height 

of the flood. Mr. W. H. Houston, gate keeper, reports that the river 

began to rise about 12 o'clock midnight, continuing gradually until 

5 a. m., at which time the water reached the floor of his house. The 

maximum stage was reached about 9 a. m. and lasted about one hour. 

The river then began to recede and at 3 p. m. the gage registered 4 feet.

The flood at this place reached from bluff to bluff, a distance of 

about 4,500 feet. It is difficult to calculate the discharge at this section on account of the large area of overflow and its varying slope 

and roughness of bed. The maximum discharge of the flood, computed by Kutter's formula, was found to be from 65,000 to 75,000 

cubic feet per second; of this volume about 38,000 cubic feet passed 

over the dam and from 27,000 to 37,000 cubic feet on either side. In 

the computations of the volume of water passing around the dam the 

average slope of the river bed in this vicinity was assumed to be 

slightly less than that of the river channel, 0.001 being used. The 

coefficient of roughness n varied from 0.030 to 0.040.
168 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. U7.

The gage height at this station during the flood and the corresponding discharge over the dam are as follows:

Gage height and discharge on Arkansas River at Colorado and Kansas Canal 

dam. September 29 to October 4> !'><>-'h

Date.

September 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________

October 1 _ . _ . . _____ ._._____

October 2 _._.___ . _ . _

October 3 ______

October 4 _ _ _

Total ._ ..... .______.

Average --__-_

Height in feet.

6 a. m.

0.20 

1.30 

7.50 

2.50 

1.90 

1.00

6 p. m.

0.20 

2.50 

4.00 

2.00 

1.80 

.80

Mean.

0.20 

1.90 

5.75 

2.25 

1.85 

.90

Discharge 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

5,800 

23, 700 

7,200 

5, 600 

1,700

44, 000 

8,800

The discharge of the streams from September 30 to October 4, 

inclusive, as computed from the above gage heights, was 87,296 acrefeet passing over the dam and 22,000 acre-feet passing around the 

dam; total, 109,300 acre-feet.

The increase of flow at this place to twice that at Trinidad was 

due to the water from the drainage of southern tributaries entering 

below Trinidad, large volumes entering from Rule, Caddoa, and 

Muddy creeks. There was practically no storage of any of this 

water.

Flood in Kansas. The flood, as it moved down Arkansas River, 

 was gradually absorbed by the sandy bed and banks, being thus considerably reduced in volume and destructiveness. The highway 

bridges at Hartland, Lincoln, Ingalls, Garden, Dodge, and Kinsley 

were damaged, short sections of these bridges in most cases being 

carried out. Very little damage was done to crops along the river, 

as it did not overflow in cultivated portions of the valley.

The following table gives the mean daily gage height and corresponding discharge, of the river at Syracuse, Dodge, Hutchinson, 

and Arkansas City during this flood, also the total volume of this 

flood at these places:
MURPHY AND")

OTHERS-. J

LA PLATA RIVER FLOOD, COLORADO. 160 

Gage height a-nd discharge of Arkansas River in Kansas, October 1 to 15, 1904.

Date.

October 2-_ _ 

October 3_. _ 

October 4- _ _ 

October 5_ _ _ 

October 6___ 

October 7 _._ 

October 8__ _ 

October 9___ 

October 10. _ 

October 11 _

October 12 . .

October 13_

October 14 __

October 15 _-

Total _______

Syracuse.

Mean 

gage 

Height 

in feet.

7.00 

5.70 

4.70 

3.80 

3.70 

3.70 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50

Mean flow for 1 0 days 

Acre-feet for 10 days

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

18, 690

21,300 

10,610 

4,575 

- 1,250 

1,075 

1,075 

785 

785 

785

60, 930

6,093 

120, 824

Dodge City.

Mean

gage 

height 

in feet.

6

r*f- 

. 75

6.25 

4.50 

3.90 

3.40 

2.85 

2.40 

2.25 

2.20 

2.10

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

15, 010 

13, 175 

7, 125 

5, 085 

3, 625 

2,220 

1,325 

1,120 

1,050 

910

Hutchinson.

Mean 

gage 

height 

in feet.

3.20 

4.80 

3.90 

4.30 

3.90 

3.65 

3.50 

3.25 

3.30 

2.60

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

2, 500 

8,000 

4,425 

5, 965 

4,425 

3. 695 

3, 275 

2,625 

2,750 

1,300

50. 645

5, 064

100,419

--------

38, 960

3,896

77. 258

Arkansas City.

Mean 

gage 

height 

in feet.

7.30 

6.90 

6.50 

6.20 

5.80 

5.30 

5.10 

4.90 

 4.60 

4.40

Discharge 

in secondfeet.

5, 400 

4,590 

3, 850 

3, 350 

2, 725 

2, 075 

1.835 

1.610 

1,300 

1,125

27, 860 

2,786 

55, 246

Of the 120,824 acre-feet that passed Syracuse, Kans., only 55,246 

acre-feet reached the southern border of Kansas at Arkansas City. 

Hence more than half the entire flood volume was absorbed in its 

passage through Kansas.

Damage. The total damage caused by the flood in Colorado and 

Kansas will approximate closely $650,000.

LA PLATA RIVER FLOOD, COLORADO."

On October 6, 1904, a storm occurred on La Plata River, a tributary of the San Juan, that caused the greatest flood along the middle 

and lower part of this valley since 1882. This stream aiicl the storm 

area are shown in fig. 17. In the vicinity of the mouth of the La 

Plata the storm began at about 1 p. m. October 6, traveling very rapidly up Jewett Valley through the u Meadows," reaching Navajo 

Springs at 1.15 p. m. and La Plata and Pendleton at 1.30 p. m., in1 Prepared from report of Mr. Theo. Tobish. field assistant.
170 DESTETJCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

rreasing in fury as it went north. At Pendleton from 1.30 to 3 p. m. 

the storm was at its height, the rain coining down in very heavy gusts 

at intervals of about ten minutes, and at 2 o'clock and thereafter 

accompanied by heavy hailstones, which accumulated at various 

places to a depth of 8 inches. During those two hours the precipitation was about 1 inch.

FIG. 17. Drainage basin of La IMata River and area of heaviest rainfall on October 8,

1904.

The heavy slope of the valley, combined with a large amount of runoff, caused the river to begin to rise very rapidly at 3 p. m. It continued to rise and fall several feet in half an hour, as the canyons above 

discharged their water. At 4 p. m. it had reached its maximum stage 

at Pendleton, passing over the floor of the highway bridge at a 

depth of 2 feet. At 5 o'clock the rain ceased except for a light
LA PLATA RIVER FLOOD, COLORADO.

drizzle, and the river fell very rapidly until 7 p. m., when another 

heavy shower fed the river and in about fifteen minutes caused it to 

rise to the approaches of the bridge. This shower continued for 

about two hours, when it moderated and settled into a steady rain 

that lasted until 4 o'clock the following morning. On Friday, October 7, there were no heavy rains, but a light drizzle fell until the 

evening, when another shower occurred lasting about four hours. 

At this time the fury of the storm had spent itself, although in some 

localities in the northern part of the valley there were unimportant 

light rains on October 8.

The river remained at an extremely high stage for two hours, and 

was at flood stage for thirty-six hours after the beginning of the 

storm.

The maximum discharge of this stream near Pendleton was computed by Mr. Tobish from Kutter's formula. The natural width of 

the channel at this place is about 30 feet, but the water overflowed 

the banks and had a width of 265 feet. The bed proper is composed 

of bowlders and stone, but the overflow portion of the section is 

thickly covered with willows. The slope was found to be 0.0052, the 

area 1,176, and wetted perimeter 280. From these data and the 

value of n=0.010, the mean velocity was found to be 7 feet per 

second and the maximum discharge 8,232 cubic feet per second. 

The discharge was also measured at three other places along the 

stream, but the channel conditions were so unsatisfactory that the 

results were not considered reliable.

Much damage was done in various ways by the storm, the hail 

destroying the fruit crop, which was nearly ready for market, and 

the flood damaging to a considerable extent the reservoirs and irrigation ditches. It is claimed by some, however, that the benefits 

derived from the irrigation of the farms along the river will nearly 

offset the damage done to the fruit. The estimated damage in the 

valley to orchards, crops, and alfalfa seed is about $7,500.

The greatest damage done by the storm was to the reservoirs and 

irrigation ditches, all the former, excepting the Johnson and Conger 

reservoirs, being destroyed. This destruction of the reservoirs is 

believed to have been due almost entirely to faulty construction, the 

foundation for the reservoir walls not having been properly prepared 

and the walls themselves not having been properly constructed, the 

earth being merely dumped in place without being wetted or packed. 

Another cause of failure was the fact that little or no attention had 

been given to the proper size of the spillways.

Sixteen irrigating ditches, having lengths varying from 1 to 7 

miles, were damaged by amounts varying from $50 to $750 each, the 

total estimated damage to ditches alone being $2,850.
172 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [xo. 147.

FLOODS DUE TO FAILURE OF DAMS AND RESERVOIR

WALLS.

By E. C. MITEPHY. 

GENERAL, STATEMENT.

Floods of this character during the past year have been quite 

numerous, but the only one that can be described in this paper is the 

failure of an earth dam near Scottdale, Pa. Description or mention of failure of other similar structures during the year may be 

found in engineering journals.0

SCOTTDALE FLOOD.

The Scottdale Valley flood, which occurred July 7, 1904, was due 

to the failure of an earth dam situated on Jacobs Creek, a few miles 

above Scottdale, Pa. This creek rises in western Pennsylvania, flows 

southwest and west a distance of about 25 miles, and empties into 

Youghiogheiiy River about 18 miles southeast of McKeesport, Pa.

The dam was 70 feet high, had a top width of 12 feet, a puddle 

core, and both faces paved with stone. It was built in 1901 and was 

owned by the Citizens'1 Water Company and used to form a reservoir 

to supply Scottdale and neighboring places with water. The dam 

failed, as shown in PI. XV, B (p. 162), by the washing out of a 

V-shaped piece at the right end. This piece was about 100 feet wide 

at the top and 15 feet wide near the base. The water did not overflow the bank in fact, it was several feet below the crest of the 

dam at the time of failure. A leak was noticed a considerable time 

before the break occurred, but efforts to stop it were unavailing. It 

increased until a well-defined break was discovered near the base of 

the dam. Failure immediately followed, liberating about 2,000,000 

gallons of water. The loss caused was small on account of the sparsely 

settled condition of the valley, consisting mainly in damage to machinery in the pump house just below the dam, the washing away of 

several small bridges along the stream, and some damage to a few 

buildings along the creek.

The failure of this dam was due to leakage between the end of the 

dam and the rock side of the valley. This rock was of a shaly 

nature, the seams dipping 5° to 6° downstream. The earth probably 

settled, leaving a crack between itself and the rock. This explanation appears quite plausible from the fact that on September 14, 

when the writer visited the dam, there was a leak under it near 

the left bank that was passing more water than the natural flow of 

the stream. The water thus leaking under the dam was being

0 For Winston, N. C., reservoir failure seo Eng. News, vol. 53, 1904, p. 444.
l DROUGHT IN OHIO DRAINAGE BASIN. 173

_j

pumped back into the reservoir. An attempt had been made to stop 

this leatfc by a cut-off wall, but it had apparently resulted in failure. 

The upstream face of several hundred feet of the part of the dam 

that did not completely fail slipped down toward the water, a distance of from 1 to 3 feet, leaving cracks of from 1 to 4 inches in 

width.

The clam was immediately .rebuilt, and precaution was taken to 

prevent the water from passing around the end of the dam by building a masonry wall into the rock of the hillside and extending it 

out into the core of the dam. It is quite evident that a sufficient 

amount of care was not taken in constructing the dam to prevent 

leakage underneath and around the ends.

DROUGHT IN OHIO RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN.

By E. C. MURPHY. 

INTRODUCTION.

The severe drought of 1904 in the Ohio drainage basin and in the 

Southern and New England States calls attention to the fact that not 

only in the arid West may there be a shortage of rainfall, and consequently of water supply, but that such conditions may occur east of 

the Mississippi also, and brings prominently to view the necessity for 

abundant storage of flood waters. Fortunately the 1904 drought came 

near the end of the growing season and did not cause a severe shortage of crops, though it seriously affected manufacturing, railway, and 

navigation interests in the Ohio drainage basin.

The normal monthly distribution of rainfall over the United States 

varies greatly. On the Pacific coast the winter months are wet, the 

summer months are dry; 011 the Great Plains the reverse is true the 

summers are comparatively wet and the winters dry. East of the 

Mississippi the precipitation during the winter months is generally 

about the same as during the summer months, but there are great 

variations from the normal rainfall. The areas of low and high 

precipitation are frequently comparatively small. In a few hours' 

ride on the train one will often see a marked change in the vegetation, 

due to the amount of moisture in the soil, this being especially true 

in the Great Plains region. Short periods of diminished rainfall are 

cfemmon east of the Mississippi; west of the Mississippi they are more 

frequent and of longer duration.

STREAMS AND DRAINAGE BASIN.

The drainage basin of the Ohio (see PL XVII) is the second in 

size of those forming the great Mississippi drainage basin. It has a 

length of about 660 miles, a width of 480 miles, and an area of about
174 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [x<>. 147.

214,000 square miles. Its northern boundary extends to about 50 

miles from Lake Erie and has an elevation of from 500 to 1,000 feet 

above sea level; the eastern and southern boundaries lie along the 

crest of the Allegheny Mountains for from TOO to 800 miles. The 

greater portion of the watershed south of the Ohio is rough, with 

steep, uncultivated slopes, much of which is heavily timbered. The 

streams from this mountainous portion have a steep slope and are subject to great and sudden fluctuations in volume. Chief of these are 

the Tennessee, Cumberland, Kentucky, Big Sandy, Great and Little 

Kanawha, and Monongahela. North of the Ohio the country consists 

of gently rolling cultivated land, with little timber except in the eastern portion of the basin, which is mountainous and resembles the part 

south of the Ohio. The Wabash, Miami, Scioto, and Muskingum, are 

the principal tributaries from the northern part of the basin. Their

\. I \

FIG. 18. Curve showing mean annual precipitation at three places in the Ohio River 

drainage basin from 1830 to 1904.

flow is very different in character from the southern tributaries, being 

less rapid and more nearly uniform.

PRECIPITATION.

The annual precipitation over the basin may be said to vary from 

about 35 to 45 inches. The mean of the annual precipitation at 

Marietta, Portsmouth, and Cincinnati from 1830 to 1904 is shown 

in fig. 18, in which the curve shows the variation in precipitation 

from year to year. The years 1835, 1871, 1895, 1901, and 1904 

were years of small precipitation, each being less than the preceding one. The years 1831, 1847, 1858, and 1882 were years of excessive rainfall. The extreme variations from the mean are 8.7 

inches in 1847 and 11.3 inches in 1904. The extreme variation from 

the mean is larger, as a rule, for a single place than for the mean of 

three or more places, so that the variations from the mean for the 

whole drainage basin for a long period are smaller than the variations 

at any one place in this basin for the same length of time.

The period from 1893 to 1896 was very dry, and stages of the water
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 147 PL XVII

DRAINAGE BASIN OF OHIO RIVER.

i»os
MURPHY AND!

OTHERS. J

DROUGHT IN OHIO DRAINAGE BASIN. 175

along the Ohio are usually referred to the low water of 1895. It will 

be interesting to compare the precipitation and stream stages from 

1893 to 1896 with those from 1899 to 1904 for places north of the 

Ohio and also south of or on it. The places selected for this comparison and the annual precipitation at each for these periods are given 

below.

Annual precipitation, in inches, at places in Ohio River drainage basin.

Place.

Oil City, Pa. ...............

Falmouth, Ky .............

Louisville, Ky .............

1893.

49.97 

38.93

39.61

42.84

1894.

34.32 

26.79 

39. 12

30.08

1895.

40.81 

25.89 

32.50

33.07

1896.

40.97 

32.25

37.27

36.83

35.70

43.39 

41.10 

41.45 

44.00 

43.93

42.77

43.80

42.14 

32. 73 

26.30 

26.59 

38.08

33.17

32.01,

35.11 

32.26 

29.84 

29.33 

38.86

33.08

33.75

50.22 

44.72 

39.59 

34.48

48.22

43.45

40.97

37.21

1900.

37.83 

33.86 

39.47

37.05

1901.

47.49 

26.05 

31.78

S5.ll

1902.

45.54 

35.97 

34.88

38.80

1903.

48.90 

38.69 

33.22

40.27

1904.

41.71 

37.19 

39.27

39.39

38.12

44. 03 

40.20 

40.53

27.78 

38.04

38.13

37.73

41.17 

45.94 

29.82 

17.99 

29.53

45.92

45.37 

40.76 

37.30 

41.65

32.89 43.20

33.72 40. D2

37.12 

38.40 

37.46 

34.69 

33.69

36.27

37.77

31.38

32.33 

29.54 

29.25

30.62

34.38

36.90

It appears from this table that the mean precipitation for the 

period 1893-1896 for these eight places is 0.3 inch greater than for 

the period 1899-1904.

The mean of the three places north of the river is 1.51 inches less 

than the mean for the five places south of or on it for the first period 

(1893-1896) and 1.22 inches greater than for the second period that 

is, the drought was more severe north of the Ohio from 1893 to 1896 

than south of it, and the opposite for the period 1899 to 1904.

The table below gives the monthly precipitation at each of these eight 

places and the monthly variation from the normal at some of them 

for two years of the first period and three years of the second period.

Monthly precipitation, in inches, and variation from normal at places in Ohio

River drainage basin.

OIL CITY, PA. 

[P., precipitation ; V., variation from normal.]

Year.

1894 (P.). .........

1895 (P.). .........

1901 (P.)..........

1903 (P.). ....... ..

1903<V.)---. ------

1904 (P.). .........'

Jan.

3.48 

4.63 

2.55 

3.82 

+ .58 

5.45

Feb.

2.94 

1.49 

1.76 

5.07 

+1.79 

3.51

Mar.

1.90 

1.64 

4.34 

5.06 

+1.81 

6.10

Apr.

3.17 

2.68 

5.99 

3.44

+ .67 

4.50

May.

5.04 

4.22 

5.14 

2.62 

-1.31

4.39

June.

1.62

2.58 

5.37 

7.08 

+2.32 

2.30

July.

1.95 

3.65 

3.43 

7.04 

+2.49 

3.43

Aug.

0.41 

3.09 

4.11 

4.32

+1.42 

4.02

Sept.

6.51 

5.15 

6.61 

2.04 

-1.65 

2.66

Oct.

2.43 

1.24 

6.39 

2.92

+ .38 

1.64

Nov.

2.22 

5.11 

3.96 

2.67 

- .89 

.93

Dec.

2.65 

5.32 

4.31 

2.82 

- .42 

2.80

Annual.

34.32 

40.80 

47.95 

48.90 

+ 7.19 

41.71
176 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

Monthly precipitation, in inches, and variation from normal, etc. Continued.

DAYTON, OHIO.

Year.

1894 (P,}. ......... 

1895 (P 1. .........

1901F-'---

1903 UP.) '' --------

UP.) I9°v, :::::::::

Jan.

2.33 

4.08 

2.00 

-1.06 

2.39 

- .67 

4.61 

+1.55

Feb.

3.79 

.18 

1.33 

-1.86 

4.79 

-H.60 

2.53 

- .66

Mar.

2.57 

1.35 

2.42

- .85 

3.69 

+ .42 

7.90 

+4.63

Apr.

1.67 

1.80 

1.87 

-1.06 

3. 66 

+ .86 

3.18 

+ .38

May.

3.90 

1.51 

3.45 

- .39 

4.66 

+ .03 

4.05 

+ .32

June.

2.05 

3.43 

4.04 

+1.08 

9.09 

+4.83 

2.47 

-1.79

July.

0.42 

.74 

1.33 

i PIQ

1.43 

1 46

3.04 

+ .15

Aug.

2.63 

2.25 

.91 

-2.03 

1.17 

-1.56 

1.87 

.86

Sept.

1.53

.66 

2.32 

- .3S 

.65 

-1.95 

2. 00 

- .60

Oct.

0.90 

.80 

1.12 

- .91 

2.72 

+ .48 

1.23 

-1.01

Nov.

1.81 

5.93 

1.43 

-1.96 

2.44 

- .79 

.63 

-2.60

Dec.

3.19 

3.16 

3.83 

+1.32 

2.00 

- .64 

3.68 

+1.0a

Annual.

26.79 

25.89 

26.05 

- 9.69 

38.69 

+ 2.05 

87.19 

+ .5

TBRRE HAUTE, INI).

1901 (P.)

fcP ) 1903

1.99

2.26

1.16

2.32

1(V.)..------!+ .02+1.64

1904 .__...-.. | 4.59 

....--.._!+!. 56

3.73

.38

1.59

3.67

1.32

2.10 

1.64 

4.39 

2.72 

-1.57 

8.94

- .93+4.19

2.11 

4.37 

2.98 

4.35 

+1.11 

5.00

3.63 

.85

2.47

3.20 

+ -14

4.41 

+1.24

2.56

2.75

6.51

2.24 -2.581 

1.91

3.04

4.20

.46

2.15

2.75 

- .24

3.63 

4.96! 

2.63 

3.38

- .84+ .52+ .1:

3.32

1.94

2.09'

.42

2.94

3.74 

+ .92

0.87

.63

3.06

3.31

+ 1.06

.81

-1.44

1.30

4.58

1.93

1.15

-2.08

.29

3.22 

3.79 

4.18 

1.79 

- .86 

3.19

-2.94+ .54

CONFLUENCE, PA.

1894 (P.).... ......

1895 (P.).......... 

1901 (P.). ..._._._.

>Hv.; :::::::::

1904 (P.)_. ........

3.15

2.98 

2.91

4.46 

+ .63

2.87

3.57

1.43 

1.25

1.98 

1.79

2.66

2.36

4.03 

4.35

2.93 

1.05

4.18

4.94

3.57 

5.86

3.00 

44

3.20

5.86

1.94 

6.32

3.16 

.96

4.03

2.90

4.28 

1.99

3.74

.50

1 62

3.00

6.18 

3.55

5.90

+ .67

2.34

1.37

3.75 

4.07

3.22

- .29

4.08

3.48

.68 

2.49

1.64 

-1.48

1.20

?, 71

.67

85

2.64 

 22

1 53

2.87

3.02

2.88

2.91 

- .49

.43

5.93

2.58 

4.65

1.54 

-1.99

3.24

42.1

35.1 

41.1

37.1

- 7.9

31.31

CHARLESTON, W. VA.

1894(P.)-__ __-.

1895 (P.). .........

1901 (P.). .........

1903 l(P-l' ------- 

l(V.). ...... ..

1904 (P.).... ......

2.35 

5.19 

2.10 

2.52

-1.07 

1.68

4.57 

.69 

.32 

6.36

+2.83 

2.63

1.94

3.87 

3.36 

4.56 

+ .22 

3.54

3.06 

2.60 

6.85 

5.95 

+2.54 

4 08

3.52 

2.08 

5.40 

1.83 

2 20

 2 72 !

2.86 

1.83 

6.92 

4.21

KG

2.69

0.66 

4.19 

2.08 

2.76 

-1.03 

3.28

2.05 

4.81 

5.00 

1.93 

-2.69 

3.45

3.77 

1.05

3.57 

.57 

-1.89

1.65 

.72 

.70 

3.43 

+1.51 

1.65

2.39 

2.54 

2.23 

2.16 

-1.21 

.45

3.91 

2.69 

7.41 

2.12 

-1.28 

2.61

32.73

32.26 

45.94 

38.40 

- 4.65

FALMOUTH, KY.

1894 (P.t... ..__.._

1895 (P.)-.. ...__..

1901(P.)____..._._

UP ) 1903{;V.) :::::::::

UP )

i9M{!v.> :::::::::

2.92 

5.62 

1.01 

2.47 

-1.28 

2.88

Q>>

3.09

.58 

1.68 

7.25 

+3.81 

2.63

2.50 

1.73 

2.60 

3.47 

- .34 

1.62 

+3.58

3.20 

2.70 

3.67 

4.35 

+1.06 

3.00

3.03 

2.18 

3.03 

2.23 

-1.27 

1.92

1 <W

1.62 

2.46 

3.68

2.78 

1.31

3.96 

- .13

0.74 

4.06 

2.34 

2.65 

-1.04 

0.96 

-2.55

1.88 

1.13 

2.74 

4.36 

+1.24 

2.20

1.46 

.49 

2.02 

1.30 

- .64 

1.69 

- .24

1.47 

.84 

.84 

2.20 

- .03 

.67 

-1.47

0.72 

3.34 

1.46 

2.04 

-1.08 

.75 

-3.06

3.67 

4.71 

4.75 

2.37 

- .60 

4.05

26.30

29.84 

29.82 

37.46 

- 2.38

32. as

0 Approximate.
MURPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J DROUGHT IN OHIO DRAINAGE BASIN. 177

Monthly precipitatiwi, in incites, and departure from normal, etc. Continued.

CINCINNATI, OHIO.

Date.

1894 (P.). .........

1895 (P.).. ........

H£ ::::::.::

KP )

19031(V.)....-...

TIP i Hlv., :::::::::

Jan.

2.75 

6.13 

.87 

 2.51 

2.05 

-1.4 

2.66 

- .8

Feb.

3.78 

.37 

1.35 

-2.17 

5.76 

+2.1 

2.66 

 1 2

Mar.

2.36 

1.51 

2.01 

-1.60 

4.97 

-1-1.7 

8.17 

-1-4.9

Apr.

1.60 

2.62 

1.93 

- .95 

3.49 

+ .3 

2.28 

- .9

May.

2.33 

1.82 

1.63 

-1.70 

3.83 

-1- .4 

3.70 

+ .8

June.

4.17 

3.15 

2.37 

-1.69 

3.27 

-1.1 

2.60 

-1.8

July.

0.13 

2.27 

1.44 

-2.05 

2.31 

-1.1 

.80

2 ft

Aug.

1.98 

3.29 

.88 

-2.66 

2.75 

-1.0 

.41

3

0

Sept.

2.48 

.49 

.93 

-1.43 

1.78 

- .6 

1.28 

-1.14

Oct.

0.82 

.73 

.59 

-1.68 

1.31 

-1.1 

.89 

-1.55

Nov.

0.98 

4.66 

.74 

-2.59 

1.45 

-1.8 

.34 

-2.96

Dec.

3.23 

3.29 

3.37 

+ .41 

1.72 

-1.4 

3.75 

-1- .63

Annual.

26.59 

29.33 

17.99 

-20.53 

34.69 

- 5.18 

29.54 

-10.5

LOUISVILLE, KY.

1894 (P.). ......... 

1895 (P.). .........

1901 (P.). .........

^

(P.)

(V.).........

f(P 1 Hcv.) :::::::::

2.81

4.54

OS

2.43

-1.6

2.43

-1.6

5.09 

.64

1.16

6.03

+1.7

3.54

1.0

3.04 

3.10

3.59

3.18

- .8

6.49

+2.5

3.98 

3.10

2 AQ

4 82

+ .4

2.67

1.8

3.90

2.88

2.45

2 33

-1.5

1.77

9 n

3.63 

4.94

4 12

3.52

- .8

1.71

2.6

2.41 

5.68

2.85

1 35

2.5

1.70

2.1

3.57 

1.35

9 Sfi

3.51

.0

2.11

-1.4'

2.64 

.41

2.78

.83

-2.00

2.65

17

1.20 

.90

.49

1.60

 1 2

.27

-2.54

0.63

7.01

1.17

2.71

-1.4

.25

-3.81

5.18 

5.31

4.59

1.58

-2.3

3.66

 2

38.08 

38.86

29.53

33.69

-12.07

29.25

-16.8

From this table it appears that the smallest monthly precipitation 

in the first period was 0.4 inch and in the second period 0.25 inch 

that is, there was one-fourth inch or more rainfall per month 

at each of these places during both these dry periods. There is seen 

to be an annual deficiency at Cincinnati of 20.52 inches in 1901, 

a deficiency of 10.2 inches in 1904, and an accumulated deficiency 

from 1901 to 1904 of 39.7 inches. The deficiency at Louisville was 

12.1 inches in 1903 and 16.8 inches in 1904.

RUN-OFF AND DISCHARGE.

As a result of the large deficiency in the precipitation over this 

drainage basin, especially south of the Ohio, the flow of the streams 

became very small, causing great inconvenience and loss to navigation 

and other interests along the river. The following table gives the 

fluctuations of the surface of Ohio River at Wheeling, Portsmouth, 

and Louisville from August to December, 1895 to 1904, as shown by 

the United States Weather Bureau gages at these places. The greatest, the least, and mean gage height for each month is given at each of 

these places.

IBB 147 05 M- -12
178 DESTETJCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147. 

Gaye height. In feet, in places alang the Ohio, August ta December, 1895 to 1904-

Place.

Wheeling, W. 

Va.

Portsmouth, 

Ohio.

Louisville, Ky.

Year.

J1895 

11904

jl895 

\1904

J1895 

\1904

August.

From 

3.5 

5.1

6.0 

6.3

6.4

4.0

To 

1. 2 

1.6

3.6 

3.6

3.2 

3.5

Mean.

2.4 

3.1

4.5 

4.8

4 2 

3.7

September.

From 

3.3 

3.4

4.1 

5.3

4. 2 

4.0

To 

1.7 

1.3

2. 5 

2.1

3.0 

2.5

Mean.

2.3 

2 2

3.3 

3.3

3. 5 

3.1

October.

From 

1.9 

4.9

2.9

. 3.6

3.4

2.8

To 

0.6 

.2.6

1.3 

1.9

1.8 

2.0

Mean.

1.2 

3.2

1. 7

3

0 

. o

2. 5 

2.5

Place.

Wheeling, W. Va....

Portsmouth, Ohio. - _ .

Louisville, Ky _ _ _ .

Year.

jl895 

\1904

rl895 

11904

rl89o 

11904

November.

From 

8.7 

3.9

4.0 

4.3

4.1 

3.1

To 

0.8 

1.3

1.3 

2.4

1.8 

2.2

Mean.

2.9 

2 °'

2. 3 

2.9

2.3 

2.6

December.

From16.5

"16.0

32.8 

& 17. 5

9.0 

3.4

To 

2.9 

1.4

3.1 

2 2

3.0 

2.2

Mean.

6.3 

3.8

8.8 

3.8

5.0 

2.6

" Began to rise December 25 from 2.5 feet. '' Began to rise December 27 from 2.7 feet.

At Wheeling the range of stage in 1895 was from O.G to 3.5, except 

for a few days in December; in 1901 it was from 1.3 to 5.1, except for 

a few days in December. It is thus seen that while the mean stage 

for the five months was less in 1901 than in 1895, the stream at this 

place reached a lower stage in 1895 than in 1901.

The mean stage at Portsmouth for the five months is also less in 

1901 than in 1895, but the lowest for any month was in 1895. The 

same is true of the stages at Louisville.

A stage of 0.6 foot at Wheeling means a depth on bars from Da vis 

Island dam to Wheeling of from 6 to 20 inches. Hence from the 

latter part of July to near the end of December, 1895, and also 

for the same period of 1901, boats could not pass from Pittsburg to 

Wheeling.

The United States Geological Survey has upward of 30 gaging 

stations in this drainage basin, and the intensity of the drought can 

be seen from the records at these stations. The location of these 

gaging stations on the more important streams is shown in PL 

XVII (p. 174). In order to economize space, the principal results 

are presented in two tables.

The table on page 179 gives the run-off per square mile in cubic feet 

per second at 20 of these stations for each month from June to 

December; also the mean for the seven months. The area of each
MURPHY AND"! 

OTHERS. J

DROUGHT IN OHIO DRAINAGE BASIN. 179

of these basins above the point of measurement is given in the table 

on page 181, and the volume passing each station per month can easily 

be computed. South of Ohio River the minimum flow occurred in 

October; north of the Ohio it occurred at some time between September and November. The smallest monthly flow of any of these 

streams was that of Scioto River at Columbus, being 0.029 secondfoot per square mile in September.

Run-off per square mile, in second-feet, of streams in Ohio drainage basin, June

to December, 1904-

Stream and place.

Licking River, Pleasant 

Valley, Ohio _____________

Wabash, River, Logansport, Ind ..........

Tippecanoe River, Delphi, 

Ind ......................

Olentangy River, Columbus, Ohio -_---__. -------

Scioto River, Columbus, 

Ohio.. ......___.-________

Mahoning River, Youngstown, Ohio. ________

White (East Branch) River,

Youghiogheny River, 

Friendsville, Md .....

New River: 

Radford, Va . -

Fayette,W.Va_.. ______

Greenbrier River, Alderson, W. Va ... _________

French Broad River, Oldtown, Tenn _____

Tennessee River, Knoxville, 

Tenn_-___... _--_____.___-_

Pigeon River, Newport, 

Tenn__-_ ___________

Nolichucky River, Greenville, Tenn .._____..

South Fork Holston River, 

Bluff City, Tenn... _ _

Little Tennessee River, Judson, N. C_ ._.. ....

Tuckasegee River, Bryson, 

N. C.. .._---._---__

Hiwassee River: 

Murphy, N. C ----------

Reliance, Tenn

June.

0.731 

1.940

.634

.360

.331

1.76

.485

1.19

1.49

1.34

.988

1.13

.735

.997

1.19

.664

1.47

1.42

1.30

.991

July.

1.310

. 845

.660

1.320

1.380

.324

.314

0.637

1.03

.838

.363

.748

.678

.913

.847

622

1.07

1.12

.927

.788

Aug.

0.197

.128

.382

.041

.048

.346

.133

.183

l.OH

.604

.105

1.08

.703

.890

.931

. 699

1.60

1.39

1.40

1.08

Sept.

0.130 

.139

.318

.053

.039

.073

.107

.153

. 530

.274

.064

.648

.363

.519

.531

.331

.951

.885

.688

.530

Oct.

0. 154 

.134

.310

.045

.042

.049

.089

.207

. 299

.173

.045

.303

.219

.281

.336

.223

.444

.579

.429

.349

Nov.

0. 145 

.110

.236

.038

.046

.084

.073

.168

.493

.339

.063

.543

.317

.430

.535

.351

.699

.690

.546

.476

Dec.

0. 398 

.345

.198

.105

.338

.190

3.73

.576

.427

.307

.793

.703

.808

.791

.786

1.43

1.33

1.07

1.09

Mean.

0. 437 

.519

.406

.394

.369

.396

.199

.747

.784

. 555

.363

.749

.539

.690

.734

.535

1.095

1.043

.909

.758
180 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

The table below gives more detailed information of the flow at 

gaging stations in this basin for the five months July '20 to December 20. Column -i of .this table gives the maximum daily rate of flow 

and column 5 the minimum daily rate during the five months at 

these stations. Column 6 gives the dates of beginning and ending of 

the period of six or more days when the discharge was least; column 

7 gives the number of days of this period, and column 8 the discharge 

during that time. It frequently happens that a dam on the stream 

holds back the water for a few days, so that the smallest daily flow may 

be much less than the average flow for a week or more when the flow 

is least. A comparison of the corresponding numbers in columns 

5 and 8 will give a good idea of the minimum flow, and also of the 

average for a week or longer when the flow was least.

Data on minimum flow of streams in Ohio drainage Itasin, 1904- 

[Discharge in cubic feet per second.]

Name of river.

Wabash-----______

Kiskirninetas _____

"Rl«r»Vlif*lr c

Youghiogheny ___

Do.............

Do___. _________

French Broad .-..

Little Tennessee.-

South Fork Holston.

Do_-______.___.

Place.

Pleasant Valley, 

Ohio.

Columbus, Ohio . . . 

... __do__ .........

Youngstown, Ohio. 

Logansport, Ind...

Blacklick, Pa --__-. 

Confluence, Pa .... 

___._do_-.... __-____-

.....do...... .... ....

Fayette, W. Va...- 

Alderson, W. Va . .

Chattanooga, Teiin 

Oldtown, Tenn 

Newport, Tenn---- 

Greenville, Tenn . .

Bluff City, Tenn...

Murphy, N. C ..... 

Reliance, Tenn....

Drainage 

area 

in 

square 

miles.

696

530 

1,051

ass

3,163 

1,890 

4,900 

8,690

1,769

403 

392 

482 

126

2,725 

6,200 

1,344

8,990

1,737 

655 

1,099 

675 

662 

828

410 

1,180

Daily discharge, July 

20 to December 20.

Maximum.

810

104 

215 

985 

1,118 

1,200 

1,330

14,905 

6,216 

217 

4,630 

13,710

2,955 

1,660 

3,043 

3,280 

3,050 

1,140

3,230 

3,780

Minimum.

66

5

7 

iO 

280 

291 

215

........

690 

984 

46 

1,060 

1,750

400 

160 

320 

275 

340 

150

150

380

Period and amount of least discharge.

Date.

Nov. 27-Dec. 5 ......

Sept.26-Oct.4___.._

Sept.24-Sept.29_.__

Oct. 1-Oct. 10 _.__._ _

Oct.l8-Nov.l3._.__

Oct.22-Dec.23 _____

Sept.19-Sept.26-...

Aug.30-Sept.8..-_

Oct.l Oct.8_ _-_-

Sept.22-Oct.13-.-. 

Oct.l4-Dec.l4______

Oct. 13-Oct. 25 _..... 

Oct. 6-Oct. 13 _-.... .

Sept.30-Oct.6-..... 

Sept.24-0ct.2...... 

Oct.l5-Nov.3.._... 

Oct.21-Nov.2-..--

Oct.4-Nov.2----.--

Oct.ll-Nov. 2 ...... 

Oct. 13-Oct. 27 ------ 

Oct.13-Nov.l- . 

Oct.28-Nov.2.- 

Oct.9-Nov.3---- 

----.do...... ........

Oct. 19-Oct. 26 _._...

Days.

9

9 

6 

10 

26 

10 

63 

8 

13 

10 

8 

22 

62 

13 

8 

7 

9 

20 

13 

29 

23 

15 

20 

6 

26

26

8

Discharge 

for 

period in secondfeet.

66

5

24 

&23 

350 

335 

360 

2,000 

175 

45 

35 

44 

16 

690 

1,050 

46 

1,160 

1,930 

4,980 

535 

180 

355 

275 

340 

190

190 

3TO

* Affected by dam. ' Average for ten days. ' Creek.
] DROUGHT IN OHIO DRAINAGE BASIN. 181

It will be seen that the streams south of the Ohio not only have a 

larger minimum flow per square mile of drainage: area, but their flow 

fluctuates less rapidly than those north of the river.

SOME EFFECTS OF THE DROUGHT.

The drought had a serious effect on the navigation interests of the 

Ohio. Boatmen declare that it was the worst in their recollection. 

For seven months navigation was practically suspended from Wheeling 

to Pittsburg. It is estimated that 13,000,000 bushels of coal were 

tied up at points along the Ohio and tributaries waiting for a rise 

in the river to take them down to Cairo. The South was suffering for 

the coal that was held along the river and the miners were working 

on half time on account of lack of facilities for transporting the 

coal to the consumers. (See PL XVIII.)

The great steel and iron industries in western Pennsylvania and 

Ohio suffered directly from lack of suitable water for boilers and 

indirectly for lack of fuel, the railroads not being able to haul the 

fuel for lack of water for boiler purposes. The Edgar Thompson 

Company shut down part of its steel plant for lack of water. The 

furnaces had no coke and the boilers had badly corroded from the 

sulphur in the water which came from the mines. The National Tube 

Works and the Duquesne and Homestead mills could not run to their 

full capacity. Many of the coke ovens suspended operations and the 

loss in the coke region was estimated at $1,000,000 per month.

The oil industries suffered for lack of water and in many cases this 

scarcity caused suspension for a time. Where it was possible in the 

oil fields water was hauled for the boilers from considerable distances.

The railroads suffered to a large extent. Many of the streams from 

which their local supplies were taken became dry and it was necessary 

to haul the water for the engines in some cases from a long distance. 

The writer counted 12 tank cars of water in a train on the Baltimore 

and Ohio that was on its way from Grafton to Clarksburg and other 

watering stations. The Pennsylvania Railroad and other roads in 

this basin were compelled to haul water for their engines to various 

points. The water was not only scarce but very poor in quality, containing so much sulphur as to render it almost unfit for boiler use.

Many farmers suffered inconvenience and loss from lack of water 

for stock and household purposes. Springs, wells, and streams of 

considerable size in West Virginia and Kentucky were dry and 

farmers were compelled to haul water from a considerable distance.

The water supply of several towns in western Pennsylvania, West 

Virginia, and Kentucky was almost exhausted and property was 

without adequate fire protection for a time. The water company 

which supplies Braddock, Pa., announced in December that it
182 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

could not guarantee a supply of water. The Westmoreland Water 

Company, which supplies Greensburg, Jeannette, Manor, and Irwin, 

Pa., with water, stated on December 21 that there was only sufficient 

for a week's supply. Many towns found it necessary to curtail the 

use of water for bathing purposes.

The remedy for this lack of water during droughts is to store an 

abundant supply of flood water. Fortunately the mountainous 

region of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky affords man}7 

sites for the storage of moderately large volumes of water at a 

reasonable cost. Already many of these towns in this region have 

such storage supplies, and this drought will undoubtedly stimulate 

the construction of other storage reservoirs for the supply of cities 

and towns and also industrial organizations.

A METHOD OF COMPUTING CROSS-SECTION AREA OF

WATERWAYS.

By E. C. MURPHY.

The proper size of channel cross section of a stream depends mainly 

on the rate of flow of the stream. The method proposed in this paper 

for finding cross-section area is based on the fundamental formula

that F =-p, where F is the cross-section area of the stream, Q the

maximum discharge in cubic feet per second, and 1"" is the velocity 

of the maximum discharge in the channel.

The formula3 in common use for this purpose generally have the 

form F = CM1; , in which F is the cross-section area in square feet, M 

is the drainage area in square miles or acres, C is a quantity whose 

value depends on the character of the country, and k is a fraction 

generally less than unity; e. g., the formula used by the engineers of 

the Missouri Pacific Railway Company is F = 0.25 M to 0.17 M. The. 

proposed method is based on measurements of the flood flow of 

streams and on the observed maximum range of stage and slope of 

each particular stream.

FACTORS DETERMINING MAXIMUM DISCHARGE.

The maximum discharge of a stream depends on several quantities. 

Primarily it is dependent on 

(1) Extent, duration, and intensity of precipitation, especially the 

latter in the case of small drainage basins.

(2) Direction of motion of the storm causing the flood. If the 

storm moves in the direction of flow of the stream the intensity of 

flood will be greater than if it moves in the opposite direction or 

across it.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WAtER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 1*7 PL. XVlli

BIG SANDY RIVER, NEAR MOUTH, SHOWING EXTREME LOW-WATER CONDITIONS IN NOVEMBER, 1904.
-^^^"'J CROSS-SECTION AREA OF WATERWAYS. 183

(3) The amount of snow on the ground and the temperature during the' storm. Large floods are often due largely to melting snow 

when the ground is frozen, and in such cases the run-off is much 

larger than the rainfall.

(4) The storage, both natural and artificial, in the drainage basin. 

Storage spreads the flood over a larger period and thus reduces the 

maximum rate of flow.

(5) The size of the drainage basin. Rain storms of great intensity generally cover a comparatively small area, and a larger part 

of a small drainage basin is more likely to be covered by a very 

intense storm than of a larger basin. The maximum discharge per 

square mile will, therefore, increase as the size of the drainage basin 

decreases.

(6) The physiography of the drainage basin. The maximum rate 

of flow from a comparatively long and narrow drainage basin, with 

tributaries entering a considerable distance apart, will be less than 

from a basin of nearly circular shape of the same size, but with the 

tributaries entering the main stream in close proximity. Steep, impervious, deforested slopes of drainage basin, steep slope of bed of 

tributaries, and small slope of main stream intensify flood flow.

Among the more or less artificial conditions that increase the flow 

may be mentioned controlled storage in the basin; deforestation 

and cultivation; reduction in width of channel by placing abutments 

of bridges in the stream; the use of piers that prevent scour of bed, 

collect drift, and hold back a part of the flow for a time, causing a 

greatly increased flood wave; the formation of ice gorges; and the 

failure of dams and reservoir walls.

Freshets occur on all streams, usually once a year, sometimes two 

or more times a year; great floods that result from natural causes 

occur at irregular intervals, varying from a few years to many years 

apart. It is impossible to predict the time of their occurrence or 

determine whether the largest recorded flood is the largest that will 

ever occur.

It is very difficult to measure the discharge of a stream at maximum 

stage with accuracy. At such a time the stream usually carries much 

drift, overflows its banks, and changes its stage rapidly, all of which 

make accurate measurement of flow difficult.

MAXIMUM RATE OF DISCHARGE.

It may be seen, from the foregoing and other facts that might be 

cited, that the rate of flood discharge of streams in different drainage 

basins will differ by a considerable amount. The difficulty of measuring the rate of flow of any flood and the uncertainty whether any 

flood will be the greatest that will ever occur on that stream are both
184 DBSTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES I1ST 19W. [xo. 147.

so great that it is useless to attempt to figure closely the maximum 

rate of flow. It will suffice, therefore, to divide the country into six 0** 

eight parts, according to the topography and rainfall, and to obtain a 

relation between rate of flow and size of drainage basin for each. 

The tables below give the maximum rate of flow per square mile from 

drainage basins in various parts of the United States, the drainage area in square miles above the point of measurement, jmd the 

date of flood. It is impossible to give, except in a very few cases, 

the duration of the maximum rate of flow. In some cases the duration was probably not more than half an hour; in other cases the 

maximum rate given is the mean for several hours, and possibly 

for twenty-four hours of the day when the flow was greatest. It is 

assumed that the maximum rate given is for a period of less than 

twenty-four hours, unless otherwise stated.

These data are selected from a large mass of flood-flow records and 

are the largest rates of flow that appear to be fairly reliable that the 

author has seen. Some of these were obtained from careful weir 

measurements, while others are rough estimates.

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in northeastern United fltates. 

[In second-feet per square mile.]

Stream and place.

Budlong Creek, Utica, N. Y . . .

Sylvan Glen Creek, New Hartford, N.Y.

Pequest River, Hunts Pond, 

N.J.

Starch Factory Creek, NewHartford, N. Y.

Reels Creek, Deerfleld, N.Y...

Skinner Creek, Mannsville, 

N.Y.

Croton River, South Branch, 

N.Y.

Woodhull Reservoir, Herkimer, N. Y.

Williamstown River, Williarnstown, Mass.

Croton River, West Branch, 

N.Y.

Beaverdani Creek, Altmar, 

N.Y.

Trout Brook, Centerville, N. Y.

Wantuppa Lake, Fall River, 

Mass.

Pequest River, Huntsville, 

N. J.

Sawkill, near mouth, N. J

Drainage area, 

in square 

rniles.

1.13 

1.18

1.70 

3.40

4.40 

6.40

0.43 

7.80

9.40 

13.7

14.5

16.0

16.5 

20.5 

20.7

33.0 

38.5

31.4 

35.0

Date.

Mar. 35, 1904 

.....do.......

Mar. 25,1904

Mar. 26,1904 

 ,1891

Feb. ,1886 

 ,1869

 ,1869

Jan. ,1874

 .1875

" Average flow for day of ma

Maximum 

rate.

120.40 

56.58

25.30 

109.62

48.36 

124. 20

48.40 

73.90

77.80 

121.00

a71.40 

68.00 

34.00

54.40 

111.00

50.60 

72.00

19.30

228.60 

simum di

Authority.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 147. 

Do.

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 4. 

U. S. Geol. Sur . W. S. P. No. 147.

Do. 

F. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 25. 

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 4.

Do.

Eeport of Stony Brook Flood 

Com.

Report of H. F. Mills. 

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 4. 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

E. M. Treman. 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W , 1899.

Do. 

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol.4.

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 3..

U. S*Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 35. 

scharge.
MURPHY 

OTHERSRs.ND ] CROSS-SECTION AREA OF WATERWAYS. . 185 

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in. northeastern United Stales Cont'cl.

Stream and place.

Whippany River, Whippany, 

N. J.

Cuyadutta Creek.Johnstowii, N.Y.

West Canada Creek, Motts

Dam, N. Y. 

Sauquoit Creek, New York

Mills, N.Y. 

Rockaway River, Dover, N.J-.

Oneida Creek, Kenwood, N. Y . 

Flat River, R. I.................

Camden Creek, Camden, N. Y_

Nine Mile Creek, Stittville, 

N.Y.

Wissahickon Creek, Philadelphia, Pa.-

Sandy Creek, Allendale, N. Y. 

Rock Creek, Washington, D. C.

Sudbury River, Farmington,

Mass.

Pequanock River, Pompton, 

N. J.

Hockanum River, Conn..... _

.N ashua River, JMass __.... ______

Independence Creek, Crandall, N. Y.

Passaic River, Chatham, N.J- .

Deer River, Deer River, N.Y. 

Wanaque River, N. J __..__ ._

Tohickon Creek, Mount Pleasant, Pa.

Fish Creek, East Branch, Point 

Rocks, N. Y.

Nashua River, Mass_-_... ......

Sandy Creek, North Branch, 

Adams, N. Y.

Scantic River, North Branch,

Conn.

Ramapo River, Mahwah, N. JRockaway River, Boonton, 

N.J.

Patuxent River, Laurel, Md.-.

Nesharuiny Creek, below 

-forks, Pa.

Oriskany Creek, Colemans, 

N. Y.

Oriskany Creek, Oriskany, 

N.Y.

Perkioruen Creek, Frederick, 

Pa.

Mohawk River, Ridge Mills,

N.Y.

Mohawk River, State dam, 

Rome, N. Y.

Ramapo River, Pompton, N. JFish Creek. West Branch, McConnellsville, N. Y.

Salmon River, Altmar, N. Y

Black River, Forestport, N. Y.

Croton River, Croton dam, 

N.Y.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles .

37.0

40.0 

47. 5

51.5

52 5

59.0 

01.0

61.4

63.6

61.15

68.4 

77.5

78.0

78.0 

79.0

84.5

93.2

100

101 

101

102

104 

109

110 

118

118

-35

137

139

141

144

152 

153

158

160

187 

221

268

339

Date.

Oct. , J903

 .1836

 ,1890 

Mar. ,1843

June ,1889

Aug. ,1898

 ,1898

 ,1891

 ,]J-'97

Mar. ,1902

 ,ia5o

Apr. ,1869

Oct. 11,1903

Apr. ,1869 

Sept. ,1883

 ,1885

 -,1897 

 ,1848

 ,1897

Oct. ,1903

Mar. 2,1902

 1897

 ,1894

 ,1888

Mar. 25, 1904

 ,1889

Mar. 26,1904

 ,1882

 ,1885

...............

Maximum 

rate.

61.62

72.40 

34. 10

53. 40

43.00

41.20 

120. 00

24.10

124.90

43. 50

87.70 

12(5.30

41.38

55. 78 

78.10

71.04

66.50

17.20

78.10 

66.00

112. 50

80.50 

104.53

67.30 

51.80

105.09

32.24

31.20

97.60

55.80

29.00

69.20 

46.40

37.34

56.10

32.70 

37.60

39.00

74.90

Authority.

U. S. Geol. Sur. (unpublished). 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Do.

Do.

N.J. Geol. Sur.^1894. 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899 

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 4. 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899. 

Do.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 30 An., pt. 4.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899. 

Tech. Quar. Mass. Inst.. 1891.

Ch. engr. water dept. N. Y. 

City.

U. S. Geol. Sur. (unpublished).

Ch. U. S. Engr. Corps, 1878. 

Trans. Am. Soc. C.E., vol. 4.

Black River Water Claims, 

vol. 1. (unpublished).

U. S.Geol. Sur. (unpublished). 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899. 

N.J. Geol. Sur., 1894. 

Rept. Phila. water board.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 4. 

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Ch. U. S. Engr. Corps, 1878.

U. S. Geol. Sur. (unpublished). 

Do.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.,pt. 4. 

Eng. News, May, 1893.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 147.

Rept. Phila. water board.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 147.

N.J. Geol. Sur., 1894.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Do. 

Do. 

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 4.
186 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [N... 147. 

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in northeastern United 8tates Cont'cl.

Stream and place.

Great River, "Westfield, Mass_.

East Canada Creek, Dolgeville,

N. Y.

Moose Eiver, Ayers mill, N. Y. .

Stony Creek, Johnstown, Pa

West Canada Creek, Middlevine, N. Y.

Farmington River, Conn ......

Monocacy River, Frederick, 

Md.

Passaic River , Little Falls, N. J .

North River, Port Republic, 

Va.

Passaic River, Dundee, N. J_ .

North River, Glasgow, Va -___

Raritan River, Boundbrook, 

N. J.

Potomac, North Branch, Cumberland, Md.

Black River; Lyons Falls, N. Y.

Schoharie Creek, Fort Hunter,

N. Y.

Genesee River, Mount Morris,

N. Y.

Mohawk River, Little Falls,

N. Y.

Greenbrier River, Alderson, 

W. Va.

Black River, Carthage, N. Y ..

Schuylkill River, Fairmount. 

Pa.

Chemung River, Elmira, N. Y.

James River, Buchanan, Va___

Androscoggin River, Kuniford, Me.

Genesee River, Rochester, N.Y.

Hudson River, Fort Edward, 

N. Y.

Shenandoah River, Millville, 

W. Va.

Mohawk River, Rexford.N. Y_

Merrimac River, Lowell, Mass.

Kennebeo River, Waterville, 

Me.

Susquehanna, West Branch, 

Williamsport, Pa.

Hudson River, Mechanicsville,

N. Y.

Merrimac River, Lawrence,

Mass. 

Potomac River, Dam No. 5, Md.

Delaware River, Lambertville,

N. J. 

Delaware River, N. J ..........

Delaware River. Stockton, N . J _

Susquehanna River, Northumberland, Pa.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

350

a56 

407

4'.8

518 

584

fia5

773

804

833

831

879

891

897

948

1,070

1,306

1,344

1,812

1,915

3,055

2,058

3 t3.)

3,3t5

3,835

2,995

3,384

4,0£5

4.411)

4. .500

4,500 

4,553

4,640

6,500

6,750

6,790

6,80(1

Date.

Aug. ,1898

Aug. , 1898

 ,1898

Sept. ,1883

 ,1896

Oct. 10,1903

 - ,1896

 -,1883

 ,1897

Apr. . 1869

 ,1893

1894-1896

Mar. 3,1303

 , 1897

Apr. ,1869

 ,1898

June .1889

 .1896

 ,1869

Mar. , 1865

Apr. ,1900

 ,1898

 ,1893

 , 

 ,1896

 ,1869

 ,1841

 ,1889

Maximum 

rate.

a 151. 40

34.70 

31. 00

70.00

24.90 

41. 70

29.80

34.30

39.80

43. 38

44.80

59. 30

32.80

46.00

44.00

39.20

31.83

41.60

31.30

13. 20

67. 10

15.60

35.00

17.00

15.60

11.40

33.10

19.80

25. 30

11.60

15. 50 

33.40

33.20

53. 80

50.00

37.50

17. 50

Authority.

H. F. Mills.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W. , 1899. 

Black River Water Claims

Com., vol. 1. 

J. J.R.Croes.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W. ,1899. 

Ch. U. S. Engr. Corps, 1878.

U. S. Geol. Stir., 20 An.

N. J. Geol. Sur. 1894, pt. 3.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 30 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 93.

U. S. Geol. Sur., SO An.

N. J. Geol Sur., 1894, pt. 3.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

Do.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 20 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 147.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 30 An.

Rept. of F. Collingswood to 

city, 1889.

U.S. Geol. Sur. ,19 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur., SO An.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W, 1899.

Rept. E. A. Bond, State engr.. 

1900.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 1«J An.

U. S. B. Engrs. D. W., 1899.

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 3.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.

Eng. News, Feb. 14, 1891.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An. 

Do.

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 4.

Trails. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 10.

Do.

N. J. Geol. Sur., 1894, pt. 3.

Eng. News, Feb. 14, 1891.

'Average flow for day of maximum discharge.
1 CROSS-SECTION AREA OF WATERWAYS. 187 OTHERS. J

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in northeastern United States Cont'd.

Stream and place.

Connecticut River, Holyoke,

Potomac River, Point of Rocks, 

Md.

Conn.

Md.

Potomac River, Chain Bridge, 

D. C.

Susquehanna River, Harrisburg, Pa.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

8,660

9,654 

10,234

11,043

11,427

11,545

24,030

Date.

May ,1854

 1897

 ,1889

 ,1893

 ,1894

Maximum 

rate.

21. 10

19.40 

20.30

43.60

41.20

17.20

18.90

Authority.

Ch. U. S. Engr. Corps,1878.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 19 An. 

Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. 7.

Eng. News, May 25, 1893.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 14 An.

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 18 An.

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in southeastern United States. 

[In second-feet per square mile.]

Stream and place.

Coosawattee River, Carters,

Ga.

Etowah River( Canton, Ga ....

Tuckasegee River, Bryson, 

N. C.

Little Tennessee River. Judson, N. C.

Broad River, Carl ton, Ga......

Saluda River, Waterloo, S. C ..

Catawba Biver, Catawtaa, N. C.

Chattahooehee River, Oakdale, Ga.

Ocmulgee River, Macon, Ga__.

Yadkin River, Salisbury, N.C.

Tallapoosa River, Milstead, 

Ala.

Coosa River, Rome, Ga ___._ __

Broad River, Alston, S. C......

Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, Ala.

New River, Fayette, W. Va____

Coosa River, Riverside, Ala . . .

Savannah River, Augusta, Ga _

Tennessee River, Chattanooga, 

Tenn.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

532

604

662

675

762

1,058

1,535

1,560

3,425

3,399

3,840 

4,001

4,609

4,900

6,300

6,850

7,294

21,418

Date.

May 31,1901

Jan. ,1895

Mar. 19,1899

Dec. 29,1901

Feb. 2, 1902

June 8,1903

May 29,1901

Feb. 27,1899

Mar. 1,1903

Mar. ,1899

Dec. 30,1901 

Dec. 31,1901

May 23,1901

Apr. 18,1900

Mar. 4,1899

Oct. 8,1898

Sept. ,1888

Apr. ,1896

Maximum 

rate.

31.86

31.50

58.23

85.24

38.22

18.00

53.10

27.93

20.97

31.60

18.23 

16.04

. 28.44

27.89

17.83

10.53

a 42. 50

30.80

Authority.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 75.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 18 An.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 21 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 75.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 83.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 98.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 75.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 21 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 83.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 21 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 75. 

Do.

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 22 An.

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 20 An.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 14 An.

U.S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.
188 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 14T.

Maximum rate of discharge of streams in central TJniterJ Htatex. 

[In second-feet per square mile.]

Stream and place.

Des Plaines River, Riverside, 

111.

Verdigris River, Liberty , 

Kans.

Grand River, Grand Rapids, 

Mich.

Smoky Hill River, Ellsworth, 

Kans.

Kanawha River, Charleston, 

W. Va.

Blue River, Manhattan, Kans -

Republican River, Jvinctioii, 

Kans.

Mississippi River, St. Paul, 

Minn.

Kansas River, Lecompton, 

Kans.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

630

8,067

3,670 

4,900

7,980

8,900

9,490 

25,837

36,1185

58,550

Date.

June ,1893

July 8,1904

July 10,1904 

Mar. 27,1904

May 29,1903

Aug. .1875

May 31,1903 

--.do.......

Apr. ,1897

May 31,1903

Maximum 

rate.

« 9. 05

16.43

20. -33 

"8.04

"1.43

13.50

" 7. 35 

"1.8(1

19. 70

3.98

Authority.

U. S. Geol. Sur , 20 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No

Do. 

Do.

117.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 96.

Eng. News, May 35, 1893.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P, No. 96. 

Do.

U. S. Geol. Sur., 19 An.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 96.

" Average flow for any ol" maximum discharge.

Maximum rate of fliscJiarye of streams 'in southwestern United States. 

[In second-feet per square mile.]

Stream and place.

Gallinas River, Las Vegas,- 

N. Mex.

Mora River, La Chieva. N. Mex.

Rapid Creek, Rapid, S. Dak .__

Salt Creek, at month, N. Mex .

Canadian River, Logan, N. Mex

Canadian River, French, N. 

Mex.

Mex.

Redwater River, Belle 

Fourche, S. Dak.

Sapello River, Los Alamos, N. 

Mex.

Purgatory River, Trinidad, 

Colo.

Salt River, Roosevelt, Ariz 

Verde River, McDowell, Ariz..

Gila River, Florence, Ariz._ ..

Pecos River, Santa Rosa, N. 

Mex.

Rio Grande, Rio Grande, N. 

Mex.

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

90

159 

175

330

3,052 

1,387

11,440 

3,832

1,478 

6,191

14,840

1,006

221

?42

5,756 

6,000

12,000

17, 750

2,649 

422

11,350

Date.

Sept. 30, 1904

Sept. 39, 1904

June 6,1904

Oct. ,1904 

_____do. ......

_____do. ...... 

.....do.......

.....do.-- . 

._.__do. ......

.... .do. ......

June 5,1904

Sept. ,1904

Sept. 30, 1904

Mar. ,1893 

_____clo____...

Feb. ,1891

Feb. 17,1891

Sept, 30, 1904 

..... do. ......

Oct. ,1904

Maximum 

rate.

129.10

139. 70 

57.00

3.85

4.10 

4.56

"12.29 

632.11

t'105.56 

7.29

3.75

8.00

36.7

61.2

36.0 

f'24.05

24.69

7.50

17.56 

65.70

2.75

Authority.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S

Do.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S.

U. S. Geol. Sur. W. S

Do. 

Do.

Do. 

Do.

Do. 

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur. W.S. 

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur. W.S.

Do.

U.S. Geol. Sur. W.S. 

Do.

Do.

P. No. 147.

P. No. 81.

P. No. 147.

P. No. 73.

P. No. 81.

P. No. 147.

" Rate for 12 hours. 6 Rate for 7 hours. c Rate fop 0.5 hour. d Rate for 24 hours.
OTHERS^"'] CROSS-SECTION AREA OF WATERWAYS. 189

Maximum fate of discharge of streams in California. 

[In second-feet per square mile.]

Stream and place.

Gal.

Cal.

Sweetwater Biver, Sweetwater dam, Cal.

Tuolumne River. Lagrange,

Cal.

San Joaquin River, Hamptonville, Cal.

King River, State Point, Cal.__

Kern River, Rio Bravo, Cal---.

Sacramento River, Iron Canyon, Cal.

Ytiba River, Smartsville, Cal__

Feather River, Oroville,.CaL_.

Stony Creek, Fruto, Cal ... ...

Drainage area, 

in square 

miles.

15.5

19

186 

1,501

1,637

1,743

3,345

9,395 

1,330

3, a50

780

Date.

Jan. ,1895

Jan. ,1881

Jan. ,1901

May ,1897

Feb. ,1904 

.... .do. ___...

-....do.......

Mar. ,1904

Maximum 

rate.

48.5

31.6

97.5 

311.6

fl36.51

« 35. 33

"2.3

33.47 

« 49. 03

a 31. 49

o 39. 31

Authority.

U. S. G-eol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 81.

Do.

Do. 

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

U. S. G-eol. Sur. W. S. P. No. 147. 

Do.

Do.

Do.

" Mean for day when discharge was a maximum.

FORMULAS FOR MAXIMUM DISCHARGE AND AREA OF CROSS

SECTION.

Some of the data for streams in the northeastern United States 

are plotted in fig. 19, using the areas of drainage basin in square miles 

as abscissae and the maximum rates of flow as ordinates. The curve 

A B, whose equation is

_ 46,790

has been drawn to represent the relation between rate of flow and size 

of drainage basin for this section of the country. In this equation, M 

is the drainage area in square miles and q the maximum discharge in 

cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage.

MOO 81 8«

Drainage ana 

4B»9_____S80B

FiG. 19. Curve showing relation between size of drainage basin and run-off per

square mile.
190 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NU. 147.

The following table has been prepared from this equation and gives 

the maximum'rate of flow per square mile from drainage basins of 

various sizes in the northeastern part of the United States. Knowing the size of the drainage basin at a given place on a stream in 

this section of the country, the maximum discharge is found by 

multiplying the drainage area in square miles by the proper value 

found in this table.

Values of q, the maximum rate of flow of streams, in- terms of M, the drainage

area in square miles, m

46,790 ~

Value of M.

1

5

10

20

50

100

Corresponding 

value of q.

161

159

157

153

142

126

Value of M.

250

500

750

1,000

2, 000

3, 000

Corresponding 

value of q.

95

72

59

51

35

29

Value of M.

4,000

5, 000

7, 000

10, 000

Corresponding 

value of q.

26

24

21.4

19.5

The mean velocity of flow in an open channel depends main-ly on: 

(1) Slope of water surface; (2) shape of channel, its width, depth, 

and straightness ; (3) roughness of bed and banks: (I) position of 

mouth of tributary streams; (5) obstructions in channel, such as 

ice gorges, dams of logs, drift, bowlders, etc.

The formula in general use for computing the discharge of a 

stream is 

Q=Ar=AC</RS (1)

In this formula $=discharge in cubic feet per second, ^4=area of 

waterway in square feet, T"=mean velocity in feet per second, S=

slope of surface, J£=hydraulic radius =

& c

where P is the wetted

perimeter, and C= where «, &, and c are constants and

n is the coefficient of roughness of bed. Solving equation 1, we have

,_Q_ Q (3)

If a simple method can be found for obtaining the value of V, then 

the waterway can be found by dividing Q by V.
MUHPHY AND"] 

OTHERS. J

CROSS-SECTION AREA OF WATERWAYS. 191

The following table gives the values of T" for slopes varying from 

0,1 foot per thousand to 20 feet per thousand, and for values of R 

from 2 to 25 feet, for the case where ?i=0.035. It covers all cases of 

flood flow of ordinary streams.

Table for fliidiiKj the mean velocity hi a cJianneJ from K lifter's formula when 

the cofficiettt of roughness n=0.035.

Slope in 

feet per thousand.

0.1

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

.1.5.

2.0

3.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Hydraulic radius.

2.

0.6

.9

1.3

1.6

1.8

3.1

2.5

3.9

3.7

4.2

5.0

5.8

6.5

8.0

9.3

4.

1.1

1.6

2. 2

2.7

3.1

3.6

4.3

4.9

6.0

7.0

8.5

9.6

10.7

13.3

15.3

6.

1.5

2.0

2.8

3.5

4.0

4.6

5.5

6.4

7.8

9.1

10.7

12.6

,14.0

17.8

20.0

8.

1.8

2.5

3.6

4.3

4.9

5.5

6.7

7.8

9.5

10.9

13.7

15.6

17.3

21.0

10.

2.2

2.9

4.1

5.0

5.8

6.5

7.9

9.1

11.2

12.8

15.4

17.8

20.0

12.

2. 4

3.4

4.8

5.7

6.6

7.4

9.0

10.3

12.8

14.6

17.7

20.4

16.

3.0

4.2

5.7

6.9

7.9

8.8

10.8

12.3

15.0

17. 7

31.5

20.

3.6

4.7

6.6

8.0

9.2

10.2

12.5

14.3

17.5

20.2

35.

4.1

5. 5

7.6

9.1

10.2

11.6

14.0

16.4

19.8

It can be shown that the hydraulic radius

(3)

in which / is the bottom width of a trapezoidal section, d is the depth, 

and A" is the slope of the sides. It can be seen from equation (3) that 

for any given values of d and A", R approaches d as / increases; for 

the case of floods, therefore, it may be assumed that R= the difference 

in stage between high and ordinary low water. Any error in the 

assumption that R=range of stage makes R too large, the mean 

velocity too large, and the computed waterway too small. If desired 

R can easily be obtained from a measurement of the chosen cross 

section.

Briefly stated, this method of finding the waterway at a given 

place on a stream consists in finding the drainage area in square miles 

above the place under consideration, the greatest change in stage of 

the stream at this place, and the slope of the surface. By multiplying the drainage area J/ by q (p. 190), we find $; dividing Q by V
192 DESTBUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1904. [NO. 147.

(p. 191), using for I? the maximum range of stage, and for S the 

measured slope of surface of stream, we have the necessary area of 

the waterway.

The greatest error in the use of this method will result from an 

incorrect measurement of the slope. The formula calls for slope of 

surface, and surface slope of a stream is not necessarily the slope of 

the bed. The slope is not the same at all stages nor always the same 

for a given stage. If the place under consideration is near the mouth 

of a large tributary the slope of the main stream will be affected by 

the stage of the tributary. Overflow and flooding of lowlands is 

frequently the result of backwater, due to reduction of surface slope. 

The smaller the slope used the greater will be the computed waterway.

If there is a possibility of the waterway becoming partly clogged 

with drift, logs, or ice, or its being in the influence of backwater from 

a tributary, the computed area must be increased by a liberal amount.

The following tables give the maximum rate of flow of streams in 

various sections of the United States, the date of occurrence, the area 

of drainage above the station, and the authority. Nearly all these 

data were obtained with current meter; a few, however, were computed from cross-section and surface-slope measurements.

GENERAL SUMMARY.

Floods on northern streams may result almost entirely from the 

rapid melting of snow and ice, there being very little rain during the 

flood.

Floods on northern streams are sometimes produced by ice gorges. 

The stream may reach a high stage and large areas along the stream 

be overflowed, while the volume of discharge is comparatively small.

Many of the floods in the western part of the United States are of 

short duration, produced by heavy storms of short duration, popularly called " cloud-bursts."

The area submerged during a flood depends on slope of stream bed 

and size of channel. In the lower part of the drainage basin, where 

the slope is small, the area submerged is larger than in the upper 

part. .

The channel of streams is frequently reduced in width through 

cities, and overflow results therefrom. The bridges across streams 

frequently obstruct the waterway to a considerable extent. Too 

many piers are used, and the pier protection prevents the natural 

deepening of the channel during floods. The abutments are frequently placed at the low-water line instead of near the high-water 

line. The control of streams subject to overflow should be in the 

hands of an engineer or a competent body of men who will prescribe
MUBPHY AMU 

OTHERS. ] GENERAL SUMMARY. 193

the proper width of channel and the design of structures over them, 

and have charge of the work of overflow prevention.

Channel cross-section area should be a function of slope of stream 

as well as of drainage area and section of country.

Problems of stream control, protection of land along streams, and 

reclamation of swamp land are rapidly coming to the front in this 

country, and data bearing on their solution are in demand. In California and Kansas more has recently been done along these lines than 

in any other State.

The United States Reclamation Service is solving the flood problem 

in the semiarid region by the construction of reservoirs for the storage of the flood waters for use in irrigation. Destructive floods will 

eventually be unknown on the streams in this region.

IBB 147 05 M 13

INDEX.

A.

Page. 

Adams, N. Y., Sandy Creek (North Branch)

at, maximum discharge of ..... 185

Akin, N. Y., gorgeat.."..................... 40

Albany, N. Y., rainfall at .................. 34

Albert, N. Mex., rainfall at ................ 123

Albuquerque, N. Mex., rainfall at ......... 143

Albuquerque Valley, N. Mex., description

of............................... 148

Alderson, W. Va., Greenbrier River at,

maximum discharge of ........ 186

Greenbrier River at, measurements of. 179,180 

Alford, Colo., rainfall at................... 154

Allegheny Plateau, character of ........... 23-24

Allegheny River, Pa., measurements of.... 180

Allendale, N. Y., Sandy Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Alston, S. C., Broad River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 187

Altmar, N. Y., Beaverdam Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 184

Salmon River at, maximum discharge

of..........'..................... 185

American basin, Cal., location and description of.......................... 13-14

Amity, Colo., flood at ...................... 166

Amsterdam, N. Y., rainfall at.............. 34

Anderson, R. H., work of .................. 30

Androscoggin River, Me., maximum discharge of................'....... 186

Arabela, N. Mex., rainfall at............. 132-133

Arizona, floods in ....................... 115-120

rainfall in .............................. 118

Arkansas City, Kans., Arkansas River at,

measurements of ......... 110, 111, 16§

flood near ............................ 110-111

Arkansas River, bottom lands of, flood on.. 165-167 

description of......................... 110, 111

floods on...................... 109-113,165-168

measurements of....: 109,110, 111, 112,168,169

Purgatory River flood on............. 165-169

rainfall stations on, figure showing .... 159

Arkansas Valley, Colo., flood in, damage

by .............................. 167

Armour Packing Company, levee ' constructed by..................... 66

Armstrong, J. A., acknowledgment to ..... 12

on Cache la Poudre River flood,

Colo .......................... 155-156

Army engineers, recommendations of ..... 65-66

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway,

damage to...................... 129

Page.

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway 

station at Trinidad, Colo., after 

flood, view of................... 162

Augusta, Ga., Savannah River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

B.

Bacon, F. A., records kept by.............. 91

Barstow Irrigation Company's flume on 

Pecos River, Tex., destruction 

of, view of...................... 136

Bay City, Mich., newspaper of, quoted on

flood conditions in Michigan... 44 

Beaver, Okla., Beaver Creek at, measurements of........................ 125

Beaver Creek, Okla., measurements of..... 125

Beaverdam Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of....................... 184

Bell ranch, N. Mex., rainfall at............ 123

Belle Fourche, S. Dak., Belle Fourche

River at, measurements of..... 57,58

rainfall at.............................. 56

Redwater River at, maximum discharge of....................... 188

measurements of................... 57,58

Belle Fourche River, S. Dak., flood on..... 55-59

flood on, damage by.................... 58-59

measurements of.................... 66,57,58

source and course of ................... 55-56

tributaries of........................... 56

Belle Fourche River basin, S.Dak., description of.......................... 56-57

figure showing portion of .............. 55

rainfall in.............................. 56

Bennett, S. G., acknowledgment to........ 12

Big Sandy Creek in Troxton Canyon, Ariz., 

erosion of bank of, figure showing ............................. 116

Big Sandy River, extreme low-water conditions in, view of.............. 182

Binghamtou, N. Y., rainfall at............. 25

Susquehanna River at, measurements

of............................... 28

Bird Creek, Ind. T., description of.......... 95

Black Hills drainage, part of, figure showing ............................. 55

Black River, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................. 185,186

Black Warrior River, Ala., maximum discharge of....................... 187

Blacklick, Pa., Blacklick Creek at, measurements of .................... 180

195
196 INDEX.

Page. 

Blacklick Creek, Pa,, measurements of .... 180

Bloomfield, Ind., flood at, damage by...... 51

Blue River, Kans., maximum discharge of. 188 

measurements of....................... 75

Bluff City, Tenn., Holston River (South

Fork) at, measurements of ... 179,180 

Bonham, Tex., rainfall at.................. 60

Boonton, N. J., Rockaway River at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Boston, Mass., Stony Brook at, maximum

discharge of.................... 184

Boulder, Colo., rainfall at.................. 154

Boundbrook, N. J., Raritan River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Bowman dam, al., rainfall at............. 15

Broad River, Ga., maximum discharge of.. 187 

Broad River, S. C., maximum discharge of.. 187 

Bryson, N. C. Tuckasegee River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Tuckasegee River at, measurements

of............................. 179,180

Buchanan, Va., James River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 186

Budlong Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 184

measurement of........................ 38

Butte basiu, Cal., location and description

of............................... 13

Butte Valley, Cal., rainfall at.............. 15

Buttermilk Falls, Pa. ..landslide at......... 114

Bye, J C., mention of...................... 77

C.

Cache Creek, Cal........................... 16-17

Cache la Poudre River, Colo., flood on... 155-156 

flood on, damage by.................... 156

measurements of....................... 156

Cache la Poudre River basin, Colo., figure

showing........................ 155

California, flood in ......................... 12-22

rainfall in.............................. 15-16

streams in, drainage area and maximum rate of discharge of....... 189

Calvin, Ind. T., Canadian River at, measurements of .................... 125

Camdeii, N. Y., Camden Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Camdeii Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Canadian River, N. Mex., description of.. 122-123 

flood on .............................. 124-125

damage by ....................... 128-130

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of ..................... 124,125

profiles of............................. 120,121

tributaries of........................... 122

Canadian River basin, description of..... 121,122

floods in.........................:... 120-130

damage by........................ 128-130

map showing........................... 120

rainfall in............................ 123-124

streams in, measurements of........... 124,

125,126,128,129 

obstruction of ...................... 128

Caney River, Kans., description of......... 95

Page.

Canton, Ga., Etowah River at, maximum.

discharge of.................... 187

Carlsbad, N. Mex., flood at, damage by.... 140

Lake Avalon dam near, failures of... 141-143 

Pecos River at, dam on, views of, before, during, and after flood.... 134

measurements of................. 183-134

rainfall at............................ 132-133

Carlton, Ga., Broad River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 187

Carters, Ga., Coosawattee River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Carthage, N. Y., Black River at, maximum

discharge of .................... 186

Castleman River, Pa., measurements of.... 180

Catawba, N. C., Catawba River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Catawba River, N. C., maximum discharge

of............................... 187

Cenicero, Colo., Rio Grande at, measurements of........................ 144

Centerville, N. Y., Trout Brook at, ma^ximum discharge of .............. 184

Chain Bridge, D. C., Potomac River at, maximum discharge of............. 187

Channel, mean velocity in, table for finding ............................. 191

Channels, obstruction of. ............20,53,54,64-

65,66,68-69,71-73,77-78,93,105-106, 

109,110,115,128,139,141,152,171,178

Chanute, Kans., flood near................. 91

Neosho River at, liability to overflow.. 79

Charleston, W. Va., Kanawha River at,

maximum discharge of......... 188

. rainfallat............................ 175,176

Chatham, N. J., Passaic River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 185

Chattahoochee River, Ga., maximum discharge of....................... 187

Chattanooga, Tenn., Tennessee River at,

maximum discharge of......... 187

Tennessee River at, measurements of .. 180

Chemung River, N.Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Cherry Creek, Colo., maximum discharge

of............................... 188

Cheyenne, Wyo., Crow Creek at, measurements of........................ 157

flood at................................. 157

rainfallat.............................. 154

Chicago and Northwestern Railway along 

White wood Creek, S. Dak., damage to, view showing........... 60

Chisholm Creek, Kans., description of ..... 112 

overflow from.......................... 112

Chittenden, Capt. H. H., mention of........ 65

Christian, H., acknowledgment to......... 143

Cimarron River, N. Mex., description of.. 122,123

Cimarron River, Okla., measurements of... 125

Cincinnati, Ohio, rainfall at.............. 175,177

Cisco,Cal.,rainfall at....................... 15

Clarks Ferry bridge, Pa.,destruction of.... 25

Clear View, Colo., elevation at............... 160

rainfallat.............................. 160

Cloudcroft, N. Mex., rainfall at........... 132-133

Coffeyville, Kans., flood near, damage by .. 103
INDEX. 197

Paga

Coldspring Brook, Mass., maximum discharge of....................... 184

Colemans, N. Y.,Oriskany Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Colorado, floods in.................... 150,154-168

rainfall in ........................ 154,160-161

See also Denver district. 

Colorado and Kansas canal dam, Arkansas

River at, measurements of...... 168

Columbus, Ohio, Olentangy River at, measurements of .................. 179,180

Scioto River at, measurements of.... 179,180

Colusa, Cal., elevation at..... A ............ 13

Colusa basin, Cal., location and description

of..................... ......... 13

'Confluence,Pa.,Castleman River at, measurements of.................... 180

Laurel Hill Creek at, measurements of. 180 

rainfall at............................ 175,176

Youghiogheny River at, measurements

of............................... 180

Connecticut Ri ver, maximum discharge of. 187 

Connor, P., data furnished by .............. 63

Coosa River, maximum discharge of ....... 187

Coosawattee River, Ga., maximum discharge of....................... 187

Copper Hill Wash, Ariz., measurements of.. 119 

Cottee, , acknowledgment to........... 120

Cottonwood River, Kans., description of... 90-91 

Council Grove, Kans., elevation of ......... 79

Crandall, N. Y., Independence Creek at,

maximum discharge of ........ 185

Cross section, area of, formulas for maximum discharge and.......... 189-192

Croton dam, N. Y., Croton River at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Croton River,N.Y.,maximumdischargeof. 185 

Croton River (South Branch), N. Y., maximum discharge of............. 184

Croton River (West Branch), N. Y., maximum discharge of ........ .... 184

Crow Creek, Colo., flood on .............. 156-158

flood on, damage by.................. 157,158

Culebra Mountains, Colo., location of...... 158

Cumberland, Md., Potomac River (North 

Branch) at, maximum discharge 

of............................... 186

Cumberland River, Term., measurements

of............................... 180

Cuyadutta Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of....................... 185

D.

Dams, failure of, floods due to ........... 172-173

DavisCounty, Ind., flood in, damage by... 51 

Dayton, Ohio, rainfall at................. 175,176

Deadwood, S. Dak., flood at, damage by... 58 

Deer River, N. Y., Deer River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 185

Deer River, N. Y., maximum discharge of.. 185 

Deerfleld, N. Y., Reels Creek at, maximum

discharge of...................; 184

Reels Creek at, measurements of....... 38

Delaware River, N. J.,maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Page.

Delphi, Ind., Tippecanoe River at, measurements of .................. 179,180

Denver, Colo., rainfall at................... 154

Denver district, floods in................. 150-171

floods in, cause of...................... 152

damage by.......................... 153

gaging stations established in........ 151-152

rainfall in ........................ 154,160-161

Denver and Rio Grande Railway bridge, 

Trinidad, Colo., ruins of, view 

of............................... 72

Des Plaines River, 111., maximum discharge

of............................... 188

Devils River, Tex., flow of ................. 147

Devilsriver, Tex., Rio Grande at, measurements of...................... 145-146

Discharge, maximum, factors determining ........................... 182-183

formulas for area of cross section and. 189-192 

rate of................................ 183-189

Dobson, P. S., acknowledgment to......... 12

data furnished by.................... 125,134

Dodge City, Kans., Arkansas River at,

measurements of............... 169

rainfall at.............................. 60

Dolgeville, N. Y., East Canada Creek at, 

maximum discharge of......... 186

Dorsey, N. Mex., rainfall at................ 123

Dover, N. J., Rockaway River at, maximum

« discharge of.................... 185

Drought in Ohio River basin, effects of .. 181-182 

paper on.............................. 172-182

Dundee, N. J., Passaic River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 186

Dunsmuir, Cal., rainfall at................. 15

E.

Eagle, N. Mex., losses from flood between

El Paso, Tex., and............ 149-150

Eagle Pass, Tex., Rio Grande at, measurements of...................... 145-146

East Canada Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of....................... 186

El Paso, Tex., losses from flood between

Eagle, N. Mex., and.......... 149-150

Rio Grande at, measurements of.. 144,145-146 

El Paso and Northeastern Railway, damage

to............................... 129

Elk River, Kans., contours, 50-foot, along,

distance in miles between...... 96

description of........................... 95

Ellsworth, Kans., Smoky Hill River at,

maximum discharge of......... 188

Smoky Hill River at, measnrementsof. 76 

Elmira, N. Y., ChemungRiver at,maximum

discharge of.................... 186

Emporia, Kans., elevation of............... 79

flood near:............................. 90-91

J. R. Solden's mill near, water at,

height of ....................... 90-91

rainfall at.............................. 60

Erie Canal, description of.................. 33

Etowah River. Ga.,maximum discharge of. 187 

Evansville, Ind., rainfall at................ 46-47

Evansville Courier, on damage at Hazleton,

Ind., by Wabash River flood... 51
198 INDEX.

F.

Fairmouiit, Pa., Schuylkill River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Fall River, Kans., character of........... 104-105

contours, 50-foot, along, distance in

miles between.................. 96

description of .......................... 95

measurements of....................... 104

Fall River, Mass., Wantuppa Lake at, maximum discharge of............. 184

Fall River Valley, flood in lower......... 104-105

Fallriver, Kans., Fall River at, measurements of...................... 104-105

Falmouth, Ky., rainfall at............... 175,176

Farmington, Mass., Sudbury River at, maximum discharge of ............. 185

Farmington River, Conn., maximum discharge of....................... 186

Fayette, W. Va., New River at, maximum

dischargeof.................... 187

New River at, measurements of...... 179,180

Feather River, Cal., description of ......... 14,15

maximum discharge of................. 189

measurements of....................... 16-17

Fellows, A. L., acknowledgment to........ 12

Fish Creek (East Branch), N. Y.,maximum.

discharge of.................... 185

Fish Creek (West Branch), N.Y., maximum

discharge of .................... 185

Flat River, R. I., maximum discharge of .. 185 

Flint Hills, elevation of.................... 95

Floods, general summary on............. 192-193

Hee individual streams. 

Florence, Ariz., Gila River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 188

Forestport, N.Y., Black River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 185

Fort Collins, Colo., rainfall at.............. 154

Fort Edward, N. Y., Hudson River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Fort Gibson, Ind. T., flood near............ 91-92

Neosho River near, measurements of... 92 

Fort Hunter, N. Y., flood at................ 40

Schoharie Creek at, maximum discharge of....................... 186

Fort Meade, S. Dak., rainfall at............ 56

Fort Scott, Kans., rainfall at. .............. 60

Fort Smith, Ark., rainfall at................ 60

Fort Stanton, N. Mex., rainfall at........ 132-133

FortSumner, N. Mex., Pecos River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Pecos River at, measurement of........ 134

Fort Union, N. Mex., rainfall at............ 123

Fort Worth and Denver Railroad, damage

to............................... 129

Fowler, Colo., rainfall at................... 160

Frederick, Md., Monocacy River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Frederick, Pa., Perkiomen Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Fredonia, Kans., flood at................... 105

French, N. Mex., Canadian River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Canadian River at, measurement of.... 124

French Broad River, Tenn., measurements

of............................... 179,18

Page.

Friendsville, Md., Youghiogheny River at,

measurements of............. 179,180

Fruto, Cal., Stony Creek at, maximum discharge of....................... 189

G.

Gallinas River, N. Mex., description of .... 130

flood on .............................. 138-139

maximum discharge of................. 188

Genesee River, N. Y., maximum discharge

Of............................... 180

Georgetown, Cal., rainfall at............... 15

Gila River, Ariz., maximum discharge of.. 188 

Glasgow, Va., North River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 186

Globe, Ariz., Copper Hill Wash at, measurements of........................ 119

flood at............................... 118-120

^waaageby......................... 120

Final Creek at, measurements of..... 118,119

rainfall at.............................. 118

Gordon, F. N., data furnished by .......... 103

Governor of California, engineer commission appointed by, report and 

rfiCQfflinendaHons of............ 21

Grand, Haven, Mieh., rainfall at..-.-.--.-.. 41 

Grand Rapids, Mich., flood at.............. 43,44

Grand River at, maximum discharged". 188 

measurements of....................... 42-43

rainfall at.............................. 41,42

temperature at......................... 42

Grand River, Mich., area drained by....... 40

description of........................... 40

flood on ................................ 40-45

damage by ......................... 44

prevention of future damage by.... 44-45

flood profile of, table showing.......... 44

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of....................... 42-43

profile of, figure showing............... 41

tributaries of ............ ......... h .... 40

Grand River basin, Mich., description of... 40-41 

figure showing.......................... 41

rainfallin................. ............ 41-42

temperature in ........ ................ 41-42

Great Falls, Md., Potomac River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Great River, Mass., maximum discharge

Of............................. 184,186

Great Valley of California, location and description of..................... 12-13

Greeley, Colo., rainfall at .................. 154

Greenbrier River, W. Va., maximum discharge of....................... 186

measurements of..................... 179,180

Greenville, Tenn., Nolichucky River at,

measurements of'............. 179,180

Grover, Colo., rainfall at................... 154

H.

Hall, B. -M., acknowledgment to .......... 12,143

Hamill, J. H., acknowledgment to......... 120

Hamptonville, Cal., San Joaquin River at,

maximum discharge of......... 189

Hanna, F. W., acknowledgment to ........ 12

paper by, on Wabash River flood, Ind... 45-54
INDEX. 199

Harrisburg, Pa., Juniata River at, measurements f........................ 26

rainfall at.............................. 25

Susquehanna River at, maximum discharge of....................... 187

measurements of................ 27,29-30

Hartshorne, Ind. T., rainfall at ............ 60

Hastings, Mich., rainfall at................ 41

Hazleton, Ind., flood at, damage by ....... 51,52

Helena, Cal., rainfall at.................... 16

Herkimer, N. Y., Woodhull reservoir at,

maximum discharge of......... 184

Highspire,Pa.,ioegorgeat,dataconcerning. 26 

Hinderlider, M. C., acknowledgment to ... 12 

paper by, on floods in the Denver district.......................... 150-172

Hiwassee River, measurements of ....... 179,180

Ho.jkanum River, Conn., maximum discharge of....................... 186

Hoehne, Colo., elevation at................ 160

rainfall at.............................. 160

Holly, Colo., rainfall at.................... 160

Holston River (South Fork), Teim., measurements of .................. 179,180

Holyoke, Mass., Connecticut River at, maximum discharge of............. 187

Homestake mine, S. Dak., flood at......... 59

Hondo reservoir, N. Mex., Hondo River

near, measurements of....... 139,140

Hondo River, N. Mex., description of...... 180

floods on ............................. 139-140

maximum discharge of ................ 188

measurements of ................. 134,139,140

Hop kins, T. C., on topography of W; bi?h

River basin, Ind................ 46

Horton," R. E., acknowledgment to ........ 12

Hot Springs, N. Mex., flood at.............. 138

Gallinas River at, measurements of.. 138,139 

Houston, W. H., data furnished by ........ 167

Hoyt, 3. C., acknowledgment to ........... 12

Hudson River, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Humboldt, Kans., elevation of............. 79

flood near .............................. 87-89

Neosho River at, flood on, views of .... 88

measurements of................... 87-89

Hunts Pond, N. J., Pequest River at, maximum discharge of.............. 184

Huntsville, N. J., Pequest River at, maximum discharge of.............. 184

Hutchinson, Kans., Arkansas River at,

measurements of............. Ill, 169

I.

Ice gorge at Akin, N. Y...................

at Bainbridge, Pa.....................

at Duncannon, Pa....................

at Highspire, Pa......................

at Lockhaven, Pa.....................

at Middletown, Pa .:....... .........

at Nanticoke, Pa.....................

at Safe Harbor, Pa....................

on Juniata River, Pa.................

Ice gorges in Susquehanna River basin,

data concerning................ 25-27

25

Page. 

Independence, Kans., floods near........ 101-103

rainfall at.............................. 60

Verdigris River at, measurements of. 102-103 

Independence Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of..*.................... 186

Indian Territory, floods in ............... 120-130

Indiana, flood in .................'......... 46-64

rainfall in.............................. 46-47

Indianapolis, Ind., flood at, damage by.... 50-51

rainfall at.............................. 47

Indianapolis News, on damage done by

Wabash River flood... 49,50-51,51-52 

lola, Kans., flood near...................... 85-87

Neosho River at, maximum discharge

of............................... 188

measurements of............. 81-85,86,93

Iron Canyon, Cal., Sacramento River at,

maximum discharge of ........ 189

J.

Jackson, Mich., rainfall at.................. 41

Jacobs Creek, Pa., dam on, description and

failure of .........j........... 172-173

James River, Va., maximum discharge of.. 1.86 

Johns Camp, Cal., rainfall at............... 15

Johnstown, N. Y., Cuyadutta Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Johnstown, Pa., flood at.................. 113-114

rainfall at............................ 113-114

Stony Creek at, maximum discharge of. 186 

measurements of................... 114

Johnstown Tribune, on Johnstown flood... 113 

Judson, N. C., Little Tennessee River at,

maximum discharge of.......... 187

Little Tennessee River at, measurements

of............................. 179,180

Juep, , on damage to engineering works

at Indianapolis, Ind ........... 50-51

Julians, Cal., Stony Creek at, measurements

of................................ 16-17

Junction, Kans., flood near ................ 73-74

Republican River at, maximum discharge of....................... 188

measurements of................... 73

Juniata River, Pa., measurements of.... 26,28,29

K.

Kanawha River, W. Va., maximum discharge of........................... 188

Kansas, floods in................... 59-113,168-169

flood stations established In.......... 151-152

levees in................................ 92-93

Nixon levee, description, costs, etc., of. 92-93 

rainfall in .............................. 59-60

run-off in........................ 81-85,97-101

southeastern, drainage basins in, nfeure

showing........................ 80

streams in, character of ............ 79-80

Kansas City, area flooded at, view of....... 64

floodnear............................... 61-66

Kansas River at, measurements of... 2^63,64 

Missouri River at, measurements of. 62-63,64 

railway bridges at, view of............. 60

rainfall at.............................. 60

Kansas River, Kans., channel of, at Topeka,

Kans., view of.................. 72
200 INDEX.

Kansas River, Kans. Continued. Page, 

flood on ................................ 61-78

damage by ......................... 61,76

prevention of future damage by... 64-66,

68-69,77-78

flood discharge on, figure showing..... 68

floods of 1903 and 1904, comparison of.. 75-76 

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of ........ 62-63,64,67,69,70-71

obstruction of ..... 64-65,66,68-69,71-73,77-78

railway bridges over, at Kansas City,

Mo., view of.................... 60

Kennebec River, Me., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Ken wood, N. Y., Oneida Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Kern River, Cal., maximum discharge of- - 189 

King River, Cal., maximum discharge of... 189 

Kingman, Ariz., rainfall at................. 115

Kinney, A., acknowledgment to........... 120

Kiskiminetas River, Pa., measurements of. 180 

Kittanning Pa:, Allegheny River at, measurements of .................... 180

Knoxville, Tenn., Tennessee River at, measurements of .................. 179,180

L.

La Cueva, N. Mex., flood at.............. 127-128

Mora River at, maximum discharge of. 188 

La Plata River, Colo., channel of, obstruction of.......................... 171

 flood on .............................. 169-171

damage by ......................... 171

measurements of....................... 171

La Plata River basin, Colo., figure showing. 170 

Lagrange, Cal., Tuolumne River at, maximum discharge of.............. 189

Lake Avalon dam, N. Mex., failures of.... 141-143

location and description of........... 141-142

Lake Macmillan, N. Mex., Pecos River at,

fluctuations of.................. 135

Lakeport, Cal., rainfall near ............... 15

Lamar, Colo., flood at...................... 166

rainfall at.............................. 160

Lambertville, N. J., Delaware River at,

maximum discharge of ........ 186

Langtry, Tex., Rio Grande at, measurements of............:......... 145-146

Lansing, Mich., flood at, duration of....... 43

Grand River at, measurements of...... 42-43

rainfall at.............................. 41,42

temperature at......................... 42

Laporte, Cal., rainfall at ................... 15

Laramie, Wyo., rainfall at................. 154

Las Animas, Colo., rainfall at.............. 160

Las Animas Leader, on Purgatory River

flood............................ 165

Las Vegas, N. Mex., flood at................ 138

flood at, damage by .................... 140

Gallinas River at, maximum discharge

of............................... 18s

rainfall at................. .......... 132-133

Laurel, Md., Patuxent River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 185

Laurel Hill Creek, Pa., measurements of... 180 

Lawrence, Kans., dam at, construction, cost,

etc., of.......................... 66

Lawrence, Kans-. Continued. Page, 

flood near.............................. 66

damage by ......................... 66

Kansas River at, measurements of..... 69

Lawrence, Mass., Merrimac River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Lecompton, Kans., flood near.............. 66-69

Kansas River at, flood discharge of, figures showing................... 68

maximum discharge of............. 188

measurements of ................ 64,67,69

Leroy, Kans., elevation of.................. 79

Levees in Kansas, Neosho County......... 92-93

Liberty, Kans., Verdigris River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Verdigris River at, measurements of.. 97-101 

Licking River, Ohio, measurements of... 179,180 

Lippincott, J. B., acknowledgment to ..... 12

Little Arkansas River, Kans..description of. 112 

Little Falls, N. J., Passaic River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Little Falls, N. Y., gorge at ................ 33

Mohawk River at, flood discharge of.. 35-

36,38,39 

rainfall at .............................. 34,35

temperature at......................... 35

Little Tennessee River, N. C., maximum

discharge of.................... 187

measurements of ..................... 179,180

Livermore, Colo., Cache la Poudre River at,

measurements of............... 156

Logan, N. Mex., Canadian River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Canadian River at, measurements of. 124,125 

Logansport, Ind., Wabash River at, measurementsof............. 48-49,179,180

Looking Glass River, Mich., description of. 40 

Los Alamos, N. Mex., Sapello River at, flood

on, damage by ................. 126

Sapello River at, maximum discharge

of............................... 188

Los Angeles, Cal., Mormon Canyon at, maximum discharge in............. 189

Los Lunas, N. Mex., rainfall at............. 143

Louisville, Ky., Ohio River at, measurements of........................ 178

rainfall at............................ 175,177

Lowell, Mass., Merrimac River at, maximum discharge of .............. 186

Lyons Falls, N. Y., Black River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

M.

McCalls Ferry, Pa., Susquehanna River at,

measurements of............ 27,29-31

McConnellsville, N. Y., Fish Creek (West 

Branch) at, maximum discharge of....................... 185

McDonnell, Pa., flood at................... 114

McDowell, Ariz., Verde River at, maximum

discharge of j................... 188

McEwing, M. S., acknowledgment to ...... 120

Macmillan dam, N. Mex., location and description of..................... 143

Macon, Ga., Ocmulgee River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 187
INDEX. 201

Page.

Mahoning River, Ohio, measurements of. 179,180 

Mahwah, N. J., Kamapo River at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Manhattan, Kans., Blue River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Blue River near, measurements of...... 75

flood near .............................. 73

Kansas River at, measurements of..... 62-63

Mannsville, N. Y., Skinner Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 184

Mannelitas River, N. Mex., overflow of... 126-127 

Maple River, Mich., description of......... 40

Markham Ferry, Ind. T., elevation of...... 79

Marysville, Cal., water plain at, comparison

of............................... 15

Matthes, G. H., acknowledgment to ....... 12

data furnished by .................... 129-130

Maxwell, N. Mex., rainfall near............ 123

Mechanicsville, N. Y., Hudson River at,

maximum discharge of......... 186

Meeker, R. I., acknowledgment to......... 12

MerrimacRiver.Mass., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Mesilla Park, N. Mex., rainfall at.......... 143

Michigan, flood in.......................... 40-45

rainfall in ............................... 41-42

temperature in......................... 41-42

Middletown, Pa., ice gorge at, data concerning .... ........................ 26

Middleville, N. Y., West Canada Creek at,

maximum discharge of......... 186

Millville, W. Va., Shenandoah River at,

maximum discharge of......... 186

Milstead, Ala., Tallapoosa River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Mississippi River, Minn., maximum discharge of....................... 188

Missouri Pacific Railway bridge at Kansas

City, Mo., view of .............. 60

Missouri River, Kans., measurements of. 62-63,61 

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway, damage to............................. 129-130

Mohawk River, N. Y., area drained by...... 32

flood on ................................ 32-40

damage by ......................... 40

maximum discharge of............... 185,186

measurements of................. 35-36,38,39

profile of................................ 34

slope of, table showing................. 33

source and course of.................... 32

tributaries of........................... 32

Mohawk"River basin, N. Y., elevations in... 33 

figure showing ......................... 34

rainfall in .............................. 33-35

streams in, description and measurements of.................. 32,33,37-39

temperature in......................... 33-35

Monk, G. B., acknowledgment to........... 12

Monocacy River, Md., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Monthly Weather Review, on rainfall in

eastern Kansas..................... 59-60

Moorehead, Tex., Pecos River at, measurements of.......... 133-134,137,145-146

Moose River, N. Y., maximum discharge of. 186 

Mora River, N. Mex., flood on ........... 127-128

Page.

Mora River, N. Mex., maximum discharge of 188 

measurement of...................... 124,127

Mora Valley, N. Mex., flood in, damage by.. 127 

Mormon Canyon, Cal., maximum discharge

of............................... 189

Motts dam, N. Y., West Cascade Creek at,

maximum discharge of......... 185

Mount Carrnel, 111., rainfall at ............. 46,47

Wabash River at, measurements of..... 48,49

Mount Morris, N. Y., Genessee River at,

maximum discharge of......... 186

Mount Pleasant, Pa., Tohickon Creek at,

maximum discharge of......... 185

Mount St. Helena, Gal., rainfall at......... 15,16

Mount Shasta, Cal., rainfall at ............. 15

Murphy, E. C., paper by, on A method of 

computing cross-section area of 

waterways ................... 182-192

paper by, on Drouth in Ohio River

drainage basin.........'....... 172-182

on Failures of Lake Avalon dam

near Carlsbad, N. Mex ....... 141-143

on Floods due to failure of dams

and reservoir walls........... 172-173

on Kansas floods .................. 59-113

on Rio Grande floods, N. Mex..., 143-150 

on Susquehanna River flood, Pa.... 22-32

on Troxton Canyon flood, Ariz... 115-118 

Murphy, N. C., Hiwassee River at, measurements of...................... 179,180

N.

Nashua River, Mass., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Nashville, Tenn., Cumberland River at, flow

of, measurements of............ 180

Neodesha, Kans., flood at.................. 105

Neosho Rapids, Kans., flood near.......... 89-90

Neosho River at, measurements of..... 89-90

Neosho River, Kans., area drained by ..... 78

channel of, necessary width of......... 93

comparison of Verdigris River and..... 79

course and character of....... 78-81,89,91,93

elevations on........................... 79

flood on ................................ 78-94

damage by ......... ............... 94

prevention of future damage by.... 94

views of, at Humboldt, Kans....... 88

levees along............................ 92-93

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of .. 81-85,86,87-89,90,91,92,93 

source of................................ 78,79

tributaries of........................... 79

New Hartford, N. Y., Starch Factory Creek

at, maximum discharge of ..... 184

Starch Factory Creek at, measurements

of............................... 37-38

Sylvan Glen Creek at, maximum discharge of....................... 184

measurements of................... 37

Neosho River basin, Kans., description of.. 79-94 

figure showing ......................... 80

Neshaming Creek, Pa., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

New Mexico, Canadian River in, tributaries

of............................... 122
202 INDEX.

Page.

New Mexico, Canadian River in, floods in. 120-150 

rainfall in ............ 123-124,131-133,143,148

New River, maximum discharge of ........ 187

measurements of ..................... 179,180

New York, floods in........................ 32-40

rainfall in .............................. 33-35

temperature in ......................... 33-35

New York Mills, N. V., Sauquoit Creek at,

maximum discharge of ........ 185

Sauquoit Creek at, measurement of .... 38

Newell, F. H., acknowledgment to ........ 12

Newport, Pa., Juniata River at, measurements of........................ 28,29

Newport, Term., Pigeon River at, measurements of...................... 179,180

Ninemile Creek, N.Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Nixon levee, Kans., cost, construction, etc.,

of............................... 92-93

Nolichucky River, Tenn., measurements

of............................. 179,180

North Platte, Nebr., rainfall at............. 60

North River, Va., maximum discharge of.. ISfi 

Northumberland, Pa., Susquehanna River

at, maximum discharge of ..... 186

Northwestern Pacific Railway bridge over 

Kansas River, at Kansas City, 

Mo., view of.................... 60

O.

Oakdale, Ga., Chattahoochee River at, maximum discharge of ............. 187

Oakdale, Pa., flood at.................... 114,115

flood at, damage by .................... 1] 5

Ocate Creek, N. Mex., description of..... 122,123

Ocmulgee River, Ga., maximum discharge

of............................... 187

Ohio River, measurements of .............. 178

navigation on, suspension of........... 181

Ohio River basin, area and location of... 173-174 

drought in, effects of................. 181-182

paper on.......................... 172-182-

map showing........................... 174

principal streams in.................... 174

minimum flow of................... 180

run-off of ........................... 179

rainfall in............................ 174-177

Oil City, Pa., rainfall at.................... 175

Oklahoma, floods in...................... 120-130

Oklahoma, Okla., rainfall at............... 60

Okmulgee, Ind. T., rainfall at.............. 60

Old town, Tenn., French Broad River at,

measurements of............. 179,180

Olentangy River, Ohio, measurements of. 179,180 

Oneida Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Oriskany, N. Y., Oriskany Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Oriskany Creek at, measurement of.... 38

Oriskany Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

measurement of........................ 38

Oroville, Colo., Feather Riverat, maximum

discharge of.................... 189

Feather Elver at, measurements of..... 18-19

Page.

Osage River, Kans., channel of, obstruction of.......................... 109

description of .......................... 106

floods on.............................. 106-109

damage by ....................... 108-109

prevention of future damage by ... 109 

measurements of..................... 107-108

Osage River watershed, area and description of.......................... 106

Oswego, Kans., elevation of................ 79

Ottawa, Kans., flood at, damage by........ 108

Osage River at, elevation of............ 106

measurements of..................... 107-108

Ottawa Republic, on Osage River flood at

Ottawa............................... 108

Ottumwa, Kans., elevation of.............. 79

P.

Pajarito Creek, N. Mex., description of .. 122,123 

Parshall, A. J., acknowledgment to........ 12

on Crow Creek flood, Colorado....... 156-157

Passaic River, N. J., maximum discharge

of ............................ 185,186

Patuxent River, Md., maximum discharge

of .............................. 185

Pecos, Tex., Pecos River at, measurements

of......................... 133-134,137

Pecos River, Tex., Barstow Irrigation Company's flume on, destruction of, 

view of......................... 136

dam on, at Carlsbad, N. Mex., views of,

before, during, and after flood . 134 

flood on .............................. 133-137

damage by.......................... 136

measurements of ............. 133-137,145-146

profiles of, map....................... 130,131

source and course of.................... 130

tributaries of ........................... 131.

Peoos River basin, area of.................. 131

description of........................... 131

floods in.............................. 130-141

damage by........................ 140-141

prevention of future damage by.... 141

map showing............... ........... 130

measurements in............. 133-137,138,139

rainfall in............................ 131-133

Pendleton, Colo., rainfall at................ 170

Pennsylvania, flood in ............. 22-32,113-115

rainfall in ......................... 25,113,114

Pequanock River, N. J., maximum discharge of....................... 185

Pequest River, N. J., maximum discharge

of............................... 184

Perkiomen Creek, Pa., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Philadelphia, Pa., Wissahickon Creek at,

maximum discharge of......... 185

Piedmont Plateau, character of............ 24

Pigeon River, Tenn., measurements of.,. 179,180 

Final Creek, Ariz., flood on .............. 118-120

Pintado Creek, N. Mex., description of..... 130

Pleasant Valley, Ohio, Licking River at,

measurements of............. 179,180

Point of Rocks, Md.,PotomacRiverat, maximum discharge of ............. 187
INDEX. 203

Page. 

Point Rocks, N. Y., Fish Creek (East Branch)

at, maximum discharge of ..... 185

Pompton, N. J., Pequanock River at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Ramapo River at, maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Port Republic, Va., North River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Portsmouth, Ohio, Ohio River at, measurements of........................ 178

Potomac River, Md., maximum discharge

of............................. 186,187

Potomac River (North Branch), Md., maximum discharge of............... 186

Powers, Colo., flood at...................... 166

Precipitation. See Rainfall. 

Presidio, Tex., Rio Grande at, measurements of...................... 145-146

Purgatory River, Colo., area drained by ... 158 

^ascription of........................ 158-160

erosion of banks of, at Trinidad, Colo.,

view showing .................. 164

flood on .............................. 158-169

damage by................... 158,164-165

destruction by, at Trinidad, Colo.,

view of......................... 162

maximum discharge of................. 138

Hteasaiemeirts of....................... 164

rainfall stations on, figure showing .... 159

source and course of.................... 158

Purgatory River basin, Colo., description

of............................. 158,164

figure showing.......................... 159

rainfall in ............................ 160-161

Q.

Quincy, Cal., rainfall at. 15

R,

Radford, Va., New River at, measurements

of............................. 179,1X0

Rainfall in California, Sacramento River

basin ........................... 15-10

in Indiana, Wabash River basin....... 46-47

in Kansas, eastern...................... 59-60

in New Mexico, Canadian River

basin......................... 123-124

in New York, Mohawk River basin.... 33-35

in Ohio River basin .................. 174-177

in Pennsylvania, Susquehanna River

basin........................... 25

in South Dakota, Belle Fourche River

basin ........................... 56

Ramapo River, N. J., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Rapid, 8. Dak., rainfall at.................. 56

Rapid Creek at, maximum discharge of. 188 

measurements of................... 57,58

Rapid Creek, S. Dak., description of....... 56

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of................... 57,58

Raritan River, N. J., maximum discharge

Of............................... 186

Raton, N. Mex., rainfall at................. 123

Red Bluff, Cal., elevation at................ 13

Page. 

Red Bluff, Cal., rainfall At.................. 16

Sacramento River near, measurements

of................................ 16-17

Red Cedar River, Mich., description of .... 40

Redwater River, S. Dak., description of.... 56

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of....................... 57,58

Reed, W. M., acknowledgment to.......... 12

Reedy, O. T., paper by, on Globe flood,

Arizona ...................... 118-120

Reels Creek, N. Y., description of.......... 32

maximum discharge of................. 184

measurements of....................... 38,39

Reliance, Tenn., Hiwassee River at, measurements of .................. 179,180

Republican River, Kans., maximum discharge of....................... 188

measurements of....................... 73

Reservoir walls, failure of, floods due to. 172-173 

Rexford, N. Y., Mohawk River at, maxinram discharge of.............. 186

Richards, D. P., data furnished by....... 124-125

Ridge Mills, N. Y., Mohawk River at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Rio Bravo, Cal., Kern River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 189

Rio Cebolla, N. Mex., flood discharge of... 127 

Rio Felix, N. Mex., description of ......... 130

Rio Grande, N. Mex., flood at.............. 148

Rio Grande at, maximum discharge of. 188 

Rio Grande, floods on .................... 143-150

floods on, damage by................. 149-150

maximum discharge of ................ 188

measurements of..................... 144,145

Rio Grande basin, profile of................ 147

Rio Penasco, N. Mex., description of....... 130

Riverside, Ala., Coosa River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 187

Riverside, 111., Des Plaines River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Riverton, N. Mex., flood at ................ 136

Robb Run, Pa., flood on, description of .... 114

Robinson Run, Pa., channel of, obstruction

of..............................". 115

description of ...................... ... 114

flood on .............................. 114-115

watershed of, description ofy........... 114

Rochester, N. Y., Genesee River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Roeiada, N. Mex., rainfall at .............. 123

Rock Creek, D. C., maximum discharge of.. 185 

Rock Island Railway, damage to ........ 129,130

Rockaway River, N. J., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Rocky Ford, Colo., rainfall at.............. 160

Rome, Ga., Coosa River at, maximum discharge of....................... 187

Rome, N. Y., Mohawk River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 185

Mohawk River at, measurements of ... 38 

rainfall at.............................. 34,35

temperature at......................... 35

Roosevelt, Ariz., Salt River at, maximum

discharge of ..................... 188

Roswell.N. Mex., flood at.................. 135

flood at, damage by .................... 140
204 INDEX.

Page

Roswell, N. Mex., Hondo River at, measurements of........................ 139

Pecos Eiver at, maximum discharge of. 188 

measurements of ................. 133-134

rainfall at............................ 132-133

Rumford, Me., Androscoggin River at,

maximum discharge of......... 186

Russell, W. G., acknowledgment to........ 12

data furnished by ...................... 134

measurement by ....................... 124

S.

Sacramento, Cal., elevation at............. 13

rainfall at.............................. 16,20

Sacramento River, bottom lands along,

reclamation of.................. 20

channel of, obstruction of ............. 20

flood on, damage by ................... 20-21

occurrence and description of...... 12-22

prevention of future damage by... 21-22 

maximum discharge of................. 189

measurements of....................... 16-17

source and course of.................... 12,14

Sac'-amento River basin, Cal., location and

description of................... 14

map of.................................. 12

measurements in....................... 16-19

rainfall in.............................. 15-16

Sacramento Valley, location and description of.......................... 13

St. Louis, Mo., rainfall at .................. 60

St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad, damage to .......................... 130

St. Paul, Minn., Mississippi River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Salina, Pa., Kiskiminitas River at, measurements of........................ 180

Salisbury, N. C., Yadkin River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Salmon River, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Salt Creek, N. Mex., description of......... 130

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurement of........................ 134

Salt River, Ariz., maximum discharge of.... 188

Saluda River, S. C., maximum discharge of. 187 

San Joaquin River, Cal., maximum discharge of....................... 189

San Marcial, N. Mex., rainfall at........... 143

Rio Grande at, measurements of..... 144,145

Sanchez, N. Mex., flood at, damage by .... 129

Sandy Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of. 185 

Sandy Creek (North Branch), N. Y., maximum discharge of.............. 185

Santa Clara, Colo., rainfall at.............. 160

Santa Fe, N. Mex., flood at................. 149

rainfall at .............................. 148

Santa Fe Railway, N. Mex., damage to... 129,140 

Santa Fe Railway bridge, Troxton Canyon,

Ariz., ruins of, view showing... 116 

Santa Rosa, N. Mex., flood at .............. 134

i Pecos River at, maximum discharge of 188 

measurements of................. 133-134

Sapello, N. Mex., Manuelitos River at, overflow of........................ 126-127

Sapello River, N. Mex., flood on......... 126-127

Page.

Sapello River, N. Mex., maximum discharge of....................... 188

measurements of....................... 126

Sauquoit Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

measurement of........................ 38

Savannah River, Ga., maximum discharge

of............................... 187

Sawkill, N. J., maximum discharge of...... 184

ScanticRiver (NorthBranch), Conn., maximum discharge of .............. 185

Schoharie Creek, N.Y., maximum discharge

of........... .................... 186

Schuylkill River. Pa., maximum discharge

of............................... 186

Scioto River, Ohio, measurements of..... 179,180

Scottdale, Pa., dam near, failure of, view

showing........................ 162

Scottsdale Valley, Pa., flood in........... 172-173

Scranton, Pa., rainfall at................... 25

Shasta, Cal., rainfall at.......... .&*&*..... 15

Shenandoah River, W. Va., maxirmaa discharge of .............. -^J...... 186

Shoals, Ind., description of........ tin...... 54

White River (East Branch) at, isisasurements of................ s*8-49,179,180

Skinner Creek, N. Y., maximum diatiaarge

of.................... ..sesu.... 184

Smartsville, Cal., Yuba River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 189

Yuba River at, measurements of....... 18-19

Smarts wood Lake, N. J., maximum discharge of....................... 184

Smoky Hill River, Kans., maximum discharge of....................... 188

measurements of....................... 74,76

Socorro, N. Mex., rainfall at ............... 143

Solomon, Kans., flood near................. 74-75

Smoky Hill River at, measurements of. 74 

South Dakota, flood in ..................... 55-59

rainfall in.............................. 56

Spearflsh, S. Dak., flood at, damage by..... 59

rainfall at.............................. 56

Spearflsh Creek, S. Dak., flood on, damage

by.............................. 58-59

Springer, N. Mex., rainfall at.............. 123

Starch Factory Creek, N. Y., description of. 32 

maximum discharge of................. 184

measurements of.................... 37-38,39

State Point, Cal., King River at, maximum

discharge of.................... 189

Stickney, Col. Amos, mentiou of........... 65

Stittville, N. Y., Nine Mile Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Stockton, N. J., Delaware River at, maximum discharge of.............. 186

Stony Brook, Mass.,maximumdischargeof. 184

Stony Creek, Cal., maximum discharge of. 189

measurements of....................... 16-17

Stoney Creek, Pa., maximum discharge of. 186 

measurements of....................... 114

Sudbury River, Mass., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Sugar City, Colo., rainfall at............... 160

Sullivan, V. L., acknowledgment to ....... 143

data furnished by................ 134,135,142
INDEX.

 205

Sunbury, Pa., ice gorge at, damage by..... 26-27

Susquehanna River, Pa., description of.... 23-24

flood on ................................ 22-32

at Yorkhaven, Pa., March 8, 1904,

at its height, view showing .... 22

damage by ......................... 22,31

prevention of future damage by ... 32 

ice gorge of 1875 on, at Wilkesbarre,

Pa., view of.................... 24

ice gorges in, data concerning......... 26-27

maximum discharge of ............... 186,187

measurements of....................... 27-30

profile of, table showing ............ .. 24

tributaries of........................... 24

Susquehanna River (West Branch), Pa.,

maximum discharge of ........* 186

Susquehanna River basin, Pa., figure showing ............................. 23

floods in, occurrence of ................ 22

location and description of ...... r ..... 23-24

measurements in. .........*............. 27-30

rainfall in.............................. 26

Sutter basin, Cal., location and description

Of............................... 13

Sweetwater River, Cal., maximum discharge of....................... 189

Sylvan Glen Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of....................... 184

measurements of.................... 37,38,39

Syracuse, Kans., Arkansas River at, measurements of ........... '. ........ 169

T.

Table Mound, Kans., location and description of.......................... 96

Tallapoosa River, Ala., maximum discharge

of............................... 187

Taos, N. Mex., rainfall at.................. 143

Taylor, N. Mex., Canadian River at, maximum discharge of.............. 188

Canadian River at, measurement of.... 124

Temperature in N. Y., Mohawk River basin. 33-35 

Tennessee. River, Tenn., maximum discharge of ....................... 187

measurements of..................... 179,180

Terre Haute, Ind., rainfall at............ 175..176

Tippecanoe River, Ind., measurements of. 179,180 

Tobish, T., acknowledgement to........... 12

Todd, G. T., data furnished by............. Ill

Tohickon Creek, Pa., maximum discharge

of...... ........................ 185

Topeka, Kans., floods near................. 70-73

gagesat ................................ 70

Kansas River at, channel of, view of.. 72 

cross section of, figure showing.... 72

flooded area on, figure showing.... 72

measurements of............. 60-63,70-71

rainfall at.............................. 60

Tracy, P.O., acknowledgment to.......... 143

data furnished by.....................'. 142

TrementinaCreek,N.Mex.,descriptionof. 122,123 

Trinidad, Colo., elevation at............... 160

flood at............................... 161-165

area overflowed and eroded by, figure showing.................... 163

cause of ............................ 161

Trinidad, Colo., flood at, damage by........ 162

Purgatory River at, erosion of banks of,

view showing .................. 164

flood on, view showing destruction

caused by ...................... 162

maximum, discharge of ............ 188

measurements of................... 164

railway bridge ruins at, view of ....... 72

railway station at, after flood, view of. 162 

rainfall at.............................. 160

Trout Brook, N. Y., maximum discharge of. 184 

Troxton Canyon, Ariz., Big Sandy Creek in, 

erosion of banks of, figure showing ............................. 116

description of ............... ........ 115-117

floods in.............................. 115-118

damage by ......................... 118

railway bridge in, description of....... 117

design of, figure showing........... 117

ruins of, view of.................... 116

Santa Fe Railway in, relocation of, figure showing..................... 116

Tuckasegee River, N. C., maximum discharge of....................... 187

measurements of ..................... 179,180

Tuohimne River, Cal., maximum discharge

of............................... 189

Turquillo Valley, N. Mex., flood in ........ 128

Tuscaloosa, Ala., Black Warrior River at,

maximum discharge of......... 187

Twin Rocks Bridge, N. Y., West Canada

Creek at, measurements of ..... 39-40

U.

United States, central, streams in, drainage 

area aud maximum rate of discharge of ....................... 188

northeastern, streams in, drainage area 

and maximum rate of discharge 

of............................. 184-187

southeastern, streams in, drainage area 

and maximum rate of discharge 

of............................... 187

United States Reclamation Service, work of. 193 

United States Weather Review, data concerning ice gorges from ........ 25-27

United Zinc and Chemical Company, levee

constructed by ................. 16

Ute Creek, N. Mex., description of....... 122,123

flood on............................... 125-126

measurements of ....................... 125

Utica, N. Y., Budlong Creek at, maximum

discharge of.................... 184

Budlong Creek near, measurement of.. 38 

Reels Creek near, measurements of .... 38,39

Starch Factory Creek near, measurements of..................... 37-38,39

Sylvan Glen Creek near, measurements

Of............................ 37,38,39

V.

Verde River, Ariz., maximum discharge of. 188 

Verdigris River, area drained by........... 95

channel of, necessary width of....... 106-106

comparison of Neosho River and....... 79
206 INDEX.

Page.

Verdigris River, contours, 50-foot, along, distance in miles between......... 96

course and character of ......... 94-95,96,103

floods on............................... 94-106

damage by ......................... 106

maximum discharge of................. 188

measurements of .............. 97-101,102-103

source of................................ 94

tributaries of ........................... 95

watershed, description of .............. 95-%

Vermejo, N. Mex., rainfall at............... 123

W.

Wabash River, Ind., channel of, obstruction

of............................... 53,54

description of .......................... 45-46

flood on ................................ 45-54

damage by......................... 49-52

prevention of future damage by ... 52-54 

measurements of............... 48,49,179,180

Wabash River basin, Ind., area covered by. 46 

description of .......................... 45-46

figure showing ......................... 45

rainfall in.............................. 46-47

topography of.......................... 46

Walnut River, Kans., description of........ 112

flood on.............................. 112-113

Walter, R. F., acknowledgement to........ 12

Wanaque River, N. J., maximum discharge

of............................... 185

Wantuppa Lake, Mass., maximum discharge

of............................... 184

Warren, Maj. J. G., mention of ............ 65

Washington, D. C., Rock Creek at, maximum discharge of.............. 185

Water supply, lack of, remedy for......... 182

in Ohio River basin, decrease of, on account of drought ............. 181-182

Waterloo, S. C., Saluda River at, maximum discharge of.............. 187

Waterville, Me., Kennebec River at, maximum dischargeof.............. 186

Waterways, method of computing crosssection area of, paper on..... 182-192

Watrous, N. Mex., flood at................. 127

Mora River at, measurement of........ 124

Waynoka, Okla., Cimarron River at, measurements of .................... 125

Weber, N. Mex., flood at................... 127

Mora River at, maximum discharge of. 188 

West Canada Creek, N. Y., maximum discharge of..................... 185,186

measurements of.........."............. 39-40

Westneld, Mass., Great River at, maximum

discharge of.................. 184,186

Wheatflelds, Ariz., Final Creek at, measurement of......................... 120

Page.

Wheeling, W. Va., Ohio River at, measurements of........................ 178

Whippany, N. J., Whippany River at, maximum discharge of .............. 185

Whippany River, N. J., maximum discharge

of................................ 185

White River, Ind., bridge over, destruction

of............................... 51

White River (East Branch), Ind., measurements of................ 48-49,179,180

Whitewood Creek, S. Dak, Chicago and 

Northwestern Railway along, 

damage to, view showing ...... 60

flood on, damage by.................... 58,69

Wichita, Kans., Arkansas River at, rneas-

 urements of .................. 109, 111

flood near ............................ 111-112

damage by ......................... 112

rainfall at.............................. 60

Wilkesbarre, Pa., flood at, damage by...... 26

Susquehanna River at, ice gorge of 1875

on, view of...................... 24

measurements of ................... 27,29

Williamsport, Pa., Susquehanna River 

(West Branch) at, maximum 

discharge of.................... 186

measurements of ....................... 28,29

Williamstown, Mass., Williamstown River

at, maximum discharge of..... 184

Williamstown River Mass., maximam discharge of....................... 184

Winfleld, Kans., gage at.................... 112

rainfall at.............................. 60

Wissahickon Creek, Pa., maximum discharge of....................... 185

Woodhull reservoir, N. Y., maximum discharge at....................... 184

Wyoming, flood in................ 150,154,156-158

rainfall in .............................. 154

See also Denver district.

Y.

Yadkin River,N.C.,maximum discharge of. 187 

Yolo, Cal., Cache Creek at, measurements

of............................... 16-17

Yolo basin, Cal., location and description

of............................... 14

Yorkhaven, Pa., Susquehanna River at,

view showing flood of March 8,

1904, atits height............... 22

Youghiogheny River, Pa., measurements

of............................. 179,180

Youngstown, Ohio, Mahoning River at,

measurements of ............. 179,180

Yuba River, Cal., description of...........: 14,15

maximum discharge of................. 189

measurements of....................... 16-17

o
PUBLICATIONS OF UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

[Water-Supply Paper No. 147.]

The serial publications of tbje United States Geological Survey consist of (1) 

Annual Reports, (2) Monographs, (3) Professional Papers, (4) Bulletins, (5) 

Mineral Resources, (6) \\ater-Supplyand Irrigation Papers, (7) Topographic Atlas 

of United States folios and separate sheets thereof,-{-8 )-Geologic Atlas of the 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.

Most of the above publications may be obtained or consulted in the following ways:

1. A limited number are delivered to the Director of the Survey, from whom they 

may be obtained, free of charge (except classes 2, 7, and 8), on application.

2. A certain number are allotted to every member of Congress, from whom they 

may be obtained, free of charge, on application.

3. Other copies are deposited with the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, 

D. C., from whom they may be had at prices slightly above cost.

4. Copies of all Government publications are furnished to the principal public 

libraries in the large cities throughout the United States, where they may be consulted by those interested.

The Professional Papers, Bulletins, 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 mineralogv; 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 

This paper is the fifteenth in Series M, the complete list of whyeh follows. (PP= 

Professional Paper; B=Bulletin; WS=Water-Supply Paper):

SEEIES M GENEEAL HYDEOGEAPHIC INVESTIGATIONS.

WS 56. Methods of stream measurement. 1901. 51 pp., 12 pis.

WS 64. Accuracy of stream measurements, by E. C. Murphy. 1902. 99 pp., 4 pis.

WS 76. Observations on the flow of rivers in the vicinity of New York City, by H. A, Pressey. 1902.

108 pp., 13 pis.

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 pi. 

WS 88. The Passaic flood of 1902, by G. B. Hollister and M. O. Leighton. 1903. 56 pp., 15 pis. 

WS 91. Natural features and economic development of the Sandusky, Maumee, Mnskingum, and

Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Plynn and M. S. Plynn. 1904. 130pp. 

WS 92. The Passaic flood of 1903, by M. O. Leigliton. 1904. 48 pp., 7 pis. 

WS f4. Hydrographic manual of the United States Geological Survey, prepared hy E. C. Murphy

J. C. Hoyt, and G. B. Hollister. 1904. 76 pp., 3 pis.

WS 95. Accuracy of stream measurements (second edition), by E. C. Murphy. 1904. 169 pp., 6 pis. 

WS 96 Destructive floods in the United States in 1903, by E. C. Murphy. 1904. 81 pp., 13 pis. 

WS 106. Water resources of the Philadelphia district, by Florence Bascom. 1904. 75pp., 4 pis. 

WS 109. Hydrography of the Susquehanna River drainage basin, by J. C. Hoyt and R. H. Anderson.

1904. 215 pp., 28 pis.

WS 116. Water resources near Santa Barbara, California, by J. B. Lippincott. 1901. 99 pp., 8 pis. 

WS 147. Destructive floods in the United States in 1904, by E. C. Murphy and others. 1905. 206 pp.,

18 pis.

Correspondence should be addressed to

THE DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

NOVEMBER, 1905.

i

LIBRARY CATALOGUE SLIPS.

[Mount each slip upon a separate card, placing the subject at the top of the 

second slip. The name of the series should nut l»e repeated on the series 

card, but the additional numbers should be added, as received, to the first 

entry.]

Murphy, Edward Charles, 1859-

. . . Destructive floods in the United States in 1904, 

by Edward Charles Murphy and others. Washington, 

Gov't print, off., 1905.

206, iii p. illus., XVIII pi., diagrg. 1*3 m. (U. P. Geological survey. 

Water-supply and irrigation paper no. 147 )

Subject series: M, General hydrographic investigations, 15.

Contains papers by S. G. Bennett, E. C. Murphy, R. E. Horton, F. W. 

Hanna, R. F. Walter, O. T. Reedy, F. S. Dobeon, G. B. Monk, M. C. Hinderlider, R. I. Meeker, T. Tobish.

1. Floods U. S.

Murphy, Edward Charles, 1859-

. . . Destructive floods in the Unked States in 1904, 

by Edward Charles Murphy and others. Washington, 

Gov't print, off., 1905.

206, iii p. illus., XVIII pi., diagrg. 23cr\ (IT. S. Geological survey. 

\Vater-supply and irrigation paper no. 147)

Subject series: M, General .hydrographic investigations, 15.

Contains papers by S. G. Bennett, E. C. Murphy, R. E. Horton, F. W. 

Hanna, R. F. Walter, O. T. Reedy, F. S. Do)won, G. B. Monk, M. C. Hinderlider, R. I. Meeker, T- Tobish.

1. Floods U. S.

U. S. Geological survey.

g Water-supply and irrigation papers. 

I no. 147. Murphy, E. C. Destructive floods in the 

United States in 1904. 1905.

i U. S. Dept. of the Interior.

&

| see also

* U. S. Geological survey.

ifcR 147 05 14 ' HI