Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 162. Series M, General Hydrographic Investigations, 17 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DiEKCTOB

TRANSFER CASE

DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE UNITED 

STATES IN 1905

WITH A

DISCUSSION OF FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY

AND AN

INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE

EDWARD CHARLES MURPHY

AND OTHERS

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1906
f " 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STATES GEOLOGICAL

 HA«tES D. WALOOTT, BIRECTQK

FLOODS IN THE OTfl 

STATES IN 1905

DISCUSSION OF FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY

INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE

EDWARD CHARLES MURPHY

AND OTHERS

WASHINGTON

PRINTING OFFICE 

1906
CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction............................................................... 1

Flood on Poquonnock River, Connecticut, by T. W. Norcross.................... 1

Introduction........................................................... 1

Precipitation. ............................ j^ ........................... 1

Discharge............................................................. 2

Damage............................................................... 2

Flood on Sixmile Creek and Cayuga Inlet, New York............................ 3

Introduction........................................................... 4

Previous floods........................................................ - 4

Flood of June 17, 1857.............................................. 4

Flood of December 14 and 15, 1901................................... 4

Flood of June 21, 1905.................................................. 4

General features................................................... 4

Flood on Sixmile Creek............................................. 5

Flood on Cayuga Inlet.............................................. 5

Area overflowed.................................................... 5

Damage........................................................... 6

Suggested means of preventing or lessening overflow.................... 6

Improvement of channel of Sixmile Creek............................. 9

Conclusion............................................................ 9

Flood on the Unadilla and Chenango rivers, New York, by R. E. Horton and C. C.

Covert.............................................................. 9

Introduction........................................................... 9

Precipitation.......................................................... 11

Discharge............................................................. 12

Damage................................................................ 12

Flood on Allegheny River, Pennsylvania-New York........ .................... 13

Introduction........................................................... 13

Precipitation.......................................................... 14

The flood.............................................................. 15

Flood on Ohio River........................................................ 16

Flood on Grand River, Michigan............................................. 20

Flood in eastern Missouri.................................................... 21

Flojds in South Dakota..................................................... 22

Flood in southeastern Minnesota............................................. 24

Flood on Devils Creek, Iowa, by E. C. Murphy and F. W. Hanna................ 24

Introduction........................................................... 24

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

The flood............................................................. 26

Damage............................................................... 29

Inferences from the flood........-................-.------..-...-......-- 29

Flood in Des Moines County, Iowa........................................... 31
IV CONTENTS.

Page.

Flood on Purgatory River, Colorado.......................................... 31

Flood on Pecos River, New Mexico-Texas..................................... 32

Flood on Hondo River, New Mexico.......................................... 34

Flood on Rio Grande, New Mexico-Texas..................................... 34

Introduction........................................................... 34

Flood flow............................................................ 35

Comparison with flood of 1904........................................... 36

Damage............................................................... 37

Effect of proposed Engle dam on floods................................... 37

Spring floods in Colorado River basin......................................... 38

Introduction........................................................... 38

Precipitation.......................................................... 39

Tributaries above Hardyville............................................ 40

Green River at Greenriver, Utah..................................... 40

Grand River at Palisade, ColO....................................... 40

Gunnison River at Whitewater, Colo.................................. 41

San Juan River near Farmington, N. Mex............................. 41

Little Colorado River............................................... 41

Colorado River at Hardyville, Ariz....................................... 41

Gila River basin....................................................... 41

Introduction.......................................'................ 41

Precipitation...................................................... 42

San Francisco River................................................ 42

Gila River near Solomons ville, Ariz................................... 43

San Pedro River................................................... 43

Salt River..._............_.....__................:_............... 43

Verde River....................................................... 45

Gila River at Dome, Ariz........................................... 47

Summary......................................................... 48

Colorado River at Yuma................................................ 48

Flood in Gila basin, November, 1905......................................... 52

Precipitation.......................................................... 52

Flow................................................................. 53

Damage................................................................ 53

Flood on Little Colorado River, November, 1905............................... 54

Flow of Colorado River into Salton Sink...................................... 54

Unusual rates of run-off in 1905.............................................. 55

Flood discharge and frequency in United States................................ 55

Introduction........................................................... 55

Kennebec River........................................................ 56

Androscoggin River.................................................... 57

Merrimac River........................................................ 57

Connecticut River...................................................... 60

Hudson River......... I............................................... 61

Genesee River ........................................................ 62

Passaic River.......................................................... 63

Raritan River......................................................... 64

Delaware River........................................... A. ........... 64

Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, Pa.................................... 66

Potomac River........................................................ 67

Cape Fear River....................................................... 69

Savannah River at Augusta, Ga.......................................... 70

Alabama River........................................................ 72
CONTENTS. V

Page. 

Flood discharge and frequency in United States Continued.

Black Warrior River.................................................... 72

Monongahela River..................................................... 74

Youghiogheny River.................................................... 77

Tennessee River....................................................... 78

Illinois River.......................................................... 79

Mississippi River....................................................... 80

Kansas River.......................................................... 82

Rio Grande at San Marcial, N. Mex...................................... 83

Western streams....................................................... 84

Flood-flow characteristics............................................... 86

Index to literature on floods in American streams.............................. 88

Index to this paper......................................................... 103

ILLUSTRATIONS.

PLATE I. View of Purgatory River at Trinidad, Colo........................... 32

II. Map of drainage basin of Gila River, Arizona......................... 42

III. Map of drainage basin of Delaware River............................. 64

IV. Map of drainage basin of Ohio River................................. 76

FIG. 1. Map of drainage basin of Sixmile Creek and Cayuga Inlet, New York...... 3

2. Map showing area overflowed, location of bridges, etc., Ithaca, N. Y...... 7

3. Flood profile and cross sections of Sixmile Creek, New York.............. 8

4. Map of drainage basin of Unadilla and Chenango rivers, New York........ 4

5. Map of drainage basin of Devils Creek, Iowa............................ 25

6. Plan and profile of Devils Creek at Atchison, .Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

crossing............................................. .,............ 27

7. Map of Rio Grande drainage basin..................................... 35

8. Diagram showing flood flow of Colorado and Gila rivers.................. 50

9. Map of drainage basin of Merrimac River............................... 58

10. Map of drainage basin of Connecticut River............................ 60

11. Map of drainage basin of Susquehanna River................-..--...--- 66
DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE UNITED STATES IN

1905.

By E. C. MURPHY AND OTHERS.

INTRODUCTION.

There were few very destructive floods in 1905. The most remarkable flood or series of 

floods of the year were those in the Gila River basin in Arizona. From January 15 to 

April 30 occurred a series of seven floods almost a continuous flood remarkable for the 

total volume of flow. In November there was in this basin another flood, which was remarkble for its magnitude, being the largest on record on Salt River. The other large floods of 

the year occurred on comparatively small streams. Few lives were lost and the damage 

was small compared with that of some previous years.

In addition to the credits for data given in the body of this paper the writer desires to 

acknowledge his indebtedness to F. H. Newell, chief hydrographer, for valuable suggestions; 

and to James Dun, chief engineer Santa Fe Railway System, who has furnished data and 

transportation over the Santa Fe lines to flooded sections.

FLOOD ON PEQUONNOCK RIVER, CONNECTICUT. 

By T. W. NORCROSS. 

INTRODUCTION.

A flood on this stream on July 29 and 30, popularly known as the Bridgeport flood, 

destroyed a quarter of a million dollars' worth of property. It was due primarily to a very 

heavy local rainstorm, during which 11.32 inches of rain fell in seventeen hours at Bridgeport, Conn., where it was heaviest. The flood wave was enlarged by the failure of four 

dams in the watershed.

The Pequonnock is a small stream that rises in the northeastern part of Fairfield County, 

Conn., flows south about 14 miles, and empties into Long Island Sound at Bridgeport. Its 

fall from source to mouth is 460 feet. Its channel is rather narrow, with numerous bends, 

and its banks are low and flat. Its drainage basin is mainly hilly pasture land, with little 

timber, and has an area of 25 square miles.

\t 

PRECIPITATION.

The following table, prepared from records of the United States Weather Bureau at 

Bridgeport, shows the precipitation during this storm:

Table showing rate of rainfall at Bridgeport, Conn., July 29-30, 1905.

Time of beginning.

July 29 11.40 a.m..........................................

1.30 p. m ..........................................

7.50 p. m..................................... . ...

July 30 3.00 a.m.................. ....................'...

July 29 11.40 a. m ........ .................................

July 29-30 11 .40 a. in .......................................

Time of 

end.

1.30p.m.

7.50 p. m.

12.00

5.20 a. in.

12.00p.m.

5.20 a. m.

Time 

elapsed.

h.m. 

1.50

2.45

3.35

4.10

2.20

12.20

17.40

Precipitation.

0.10

5.90

4.18

0.77

0.37

10.95

11.32

Average 

rate per 

hour.

0.06

2.15

1.17

0.18

0.16

0.89

0.64
DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table, gives the 'precipitation at several neighboring rainfall stations from 

July 23 to 31, inclusive:

Precipitation at stations near Bridgeport, Conn., July 23-31, 1905.

23.

0.07

0.02

0.05

0.43

24.

0.63

0.83

0.77

0.37

Tr.

0.39

O.G3

0.02

25.

Tr.

1.16

26.

Tr.

Tr.

Tr.

July27. 28.

Tr.

29.

0.86

0.04

0.16

0.90

1.43

1.77

9.86

10.95

7.91

<-8.00

30.

2.39

0.72

2.22

0.41

0.31

0.97

0.61

0.55

0.18

£2.00

31.

0.23

Tr.

0.35

0.01

0.09

0.40

0.04

a The first six stations are United States Weather Bureau stations. Data furnished by William 

Jenniags, United States Weather Bureau observer.

6 The last four stations are stations of the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company. Data furnished by S. P. 

Senior, superintendent Bridgeport Hydraulic Company.

c Approximate.

The table shows that the storm was very intense over a comparatively small area, the 

greatest rainfall occurring in the Pequonnock Valley in the vicinity of Bridgeport.

DISCHARGE.

The run-off from a rainfall of 8 to 11 inches in seventeen hours on this quick-spilling basin 

soon overtaxed the natural capacity of this rather small, crooked channel and overflow 

occurred, carrying debris that more or less reduced the channel capacity, especially the spillways of dams. Four dams failed, each one increasing the magnitude of the flood wave and 

adding debris to the already choked spillway of the dams below.

The rate of flow at Bunnell's dam, about 1J miles above Bridgeport, at the time of its failure was computed to be 3,930 second-feet, or 157 second-feet per square mile. The length 

of the spillway was 52 feet, and the depth of water on the crest at the time of failure was 7.48 

feet. Two smaller waste openings discharged 105 second-feet each.

This is a comparatively small run-off from such a large rainfall, and it is very likely that 

the maximum rate of flow occurred after the dam failed. By computing the run-off from 

rainfall and using a run-off factor of 0.5, the maximum rate of flow at this dam is found to be 

248 second-feet per square mile. If 0.6 is used as the run-off factor the maximum rate is 

297 second-feet per square mile.

DAMAGE DONE.

The Toucey dam, on a brook entering the Pequonnock from the west near Long Hill, gave 

way shortly before midnight of the 29th. It was 100 feet long, 10 feet high, built of rubble 

masonry laid in cement. Ward's milldam at Trumbull, on the Pequonnock, failed when 

the flood wave from Toucey dam struck it. It was 60 feet long, gave a head of 15 feet, 

and was built of rubble masonry laid in cement mortar. It was founded on a ledge and 

probably failed by sliding. At about 1 a. m. July 30, the dam at Bunnell Pond, l\ miles 

above Bridgeport, failed. It was 800 feet long, 28 feet high, built of earth with a masonry 

spillway. It had a puddle core, a top width of 30 feet, upper slope 1.5 to 1, lower slope 1 to 

1. In addition to a spillway 52 feet long, there were two openings 3 feet 10J inches by 1 

foot 8J inches and a circular opening 4 feet in diameter. Failure resulted from overflow, 

due in part to the blocking of spillway by debris. The fourth dam to fail was the Berkshire 

milldam. This was a masonry tidewater dam 140 feet long and 7 feet high. Its failure 

was probably due to undermining.
NEW YORK: SIXMILE CHEEK AND CAYUGA INLET. 3

Several bridges were damaged, traffic was impeded, and ships at the mouth of the river 

were damaged. Fortunately the tide was at ebb stage when the flood wave reached the 

mouth of the river, otherwise the damage to shipping would have been greater.

FLOOD ON SIXMILE CREEK AND CAYUGA INLET, NEW YORK.

INTRODUCTION.

On June 21, 1905, occurred the largest and most destructive flood on Sixmile Creek and 

Cayuga Inlet in the recollection of the oldest inhabitant of Ithaca, N. Y. Up to that time

FIG. 1. Drainage basin of Sixmile Creek and Cayuga Inlet, New York.

the flood of 1857 had been regarded as the largest on this stream, but the depth of overflow 

during the flood of June 21, 1905, was at least 1 foot greater than during the flood of 1857, 

as shown by well authenticated flood ma^ks. The flood of 1905 was due to a cloud-burst,
4 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

which fortunately did not cover a very large area. Had a storm of the intensity of this one 

covered the whole drainage area of these two streams the damage done at Ithaca and vicinity would have been very large.

The city of Ithaca is so situated that the effect of a storm in the drainage basin is almost 

the greatest possible. It is located on a low, flat area, with steep hills on three sides. The 

drainage, area is characterized by steep slopes and nearly impervious soil, and is shaped 

somewhat like a fan, so that the three principal streams unite at about the same place in the 

city. Thus a very large, volume of water, compared with the size of the drainage basin, is 

brought into the city very rapidly. The banks are eroded where the velocity of the water 

is high, the protection is poor, and gravel and small bowlders are deposited in a short time 

in other places where the velocity is low.

Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, Sixmile Creek, and Cascadilla Creek drain the area at the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Sixmile and Cascadilla creeks are really tributaries of Cayuga 

Inlet near its mouth (see fig. 1). Fall Creek, the largest of these four, drains an area of 

about 117 square miles. In about 22 miles it falls from an elevation of 1,306 feet at Lake 

Como to 381 feet at its mouth. The upper half of this basin is hilly, cultivated land; the 

lower half is more broken, with steep, pastured slopes. Cayuga Inlet drains an area of 

about 93 square miles, southwest of Ithaca. The watershed is rough, with steep pastured 

slopes, and some of the smaller tributaries extend to an elevation of about 1,900 feet above 

the sea level. Sixmile Creek drains an area of about 46 square miles lying directly east of 

Cayuga Inlet. Cascadilla Creek drains an area of about 16 square miles lying east of Sixmile 

Creek basin. Both of these basins have, extremely steep slopes and their beds fall very 

rapidly until they reach the city limits.

Floods of considerable magnitude frequently occur on these streams. They are usually 

due to large rainfall over only a portion of one or another of the watersheds, and consequently all of the streams are not in destructive flood at the same time.

PREVIOUS FLOODS.

Flood of June 17, 1857 (a). The flood of 1857 was due to a heavy rainfall over a comparatively small area, mainly on the watershed of Sixmile Creek. Almost no damage was 

done on Fall Creek and comparatively little on Cayuga Inlet.

There were two dams on Sixmile Creek at this time and both were destroyed. The fallen 

timbers of these structures formed a temporary dam in front of the stone arch bridge on 

Aurora street, and this obstruction caused the water to overflow its banks and run down 

State street and other streets parallel to it, flooding a part of the city which was not flooded 

during the flood of 1905. This stone arch bridge and other bridges on Sixmile Creek were 

destroyed by the flood. Marks left by this flood near State street show that at this place the 

flood of 1905 was about 14 inches higher than that of 1857.

Flood of December 14 and 15,1901. The flood of 1901, which is one of the three large floods 

that have occurred on Sixmile Creek, took place on the night of December 14 and the morning of December 15, as the result of heavy rain over a considerable portion of central New 

York and northern Pennsylvania. The United States Weather Bureau gage at Ithaca 

recorded 3.09 inches of rain from 8 a. m. on December 14 to 8 a. m. on December 15. All 

the streams entering the southern end of Cayuga Lake were in destructive flood. The 

maximum rate of flow of Sixmile Creek at Van Netta dam, about 2 miles above Ithaca, was 

computed by Prof. C. L. Crandall to be 6,070 second-feet.

FLOOD OF JUNE 21, 19O5.

GENERAL FEATURES.

Copious rains had fallen for two or three days previous to the flood of June 21,1905, and on 

the 21st heavy thunderstorms passed over the south-central part of the State, accompanied

a Data taken mainly from Ithaca Journal of January 24, 1857.
NEW YORK: SIXMILE CREEK AND CAYUGA INLET. 5

by very heavy local rain. The rainfall at six places in or near the drainage basins of Sixmile 

and Cascadilla creeks from 8 a. m. on the 20th to 8 a. m. on the 21st was as follows: Ithaca, 

1.82; Elmira, 1.05; Binghamton, 1.00; Cortland, 1.38; Waverly, 0.53; Perry City, 1.26, 

and Kings Ferry, 1.73. The hourly rainfall at Ithaca from 4 a. m. to 4 p. m. on the 21st 

varied from 0.03 inch to 0.58 inch. These figures show only the local character of the storm. 

The rainfall indicated by them would not cause even a small flood on these streams. The 

intensity of the storm can be judged only T>y the maximum rate of flow and the damage done 

on each of the streams. This damage indicates that an exceedingly heavy rain fell on two 

comparatively small areas on Sixmile Creek, in the vicinity of Brookton and Slaterville, 

and on Cayuga Inlet, in the vicinity of Stratton (see fig. 1).

FLOOD ON SIXMILE GREEK.

The heaviest rainfall occurred in the upper part of the watershed in the vicinity of Slaterville and Brookton. Several bridges here were destroyed and the banks of the streams were 

badly eroded. In some places a new channel was formed and the old channels were closed 

with bowlders and gravel. Some of the bottom land along the creek was badly damaged by 

the deposit of gravel upon it.

The maximum rate of flow is computed from measurements of cross section and slope 

between Aurora Street Bridge and Tioga Street Bridge. The channel here is approximately 

rectangular. From these data and a value of the coefficient of roughness "n" of 0.030, it 

is found that the mean velocity equals 15.8, and that the maximum rate of discharge was 

8,980 second-feet, or 195.2 second-feet per square mile of drainage area.

The maximum rate of flow was also computed at the Sixmile Creek dam, 4 miles upstream 

from Ithaca, from the head on the dam, length of crest, and length of abutments. The discharge at this place was found to be. 8,500 second-feet, which agrees closely with the computed flow after taking into account the difference of drainage area at the two places.

FLOOD ON OAYUGA INLET.

The flood on this creek began at about 10 a. m. and lasted for about five hours. Mr. G. H. 

Ellison, county commissioner, who lives on this stream and who has been over the greater 

part of the flooded area, states that the storm covered an area approximately circular in 

shape, the radius of the circle being about 3 miles. The storm was central over the small 

stream southwest of Stratton. Judged from the erosion of its channel the flood in this creek 

was exceedingly large. The highway and railroad bridges near the mouth of this stream 

were located at a bend in the stream, the width between abutments of the bridges being 

about 25 feet. A new channel, between 80 and 90 feet wide and 3 feet deep, was cut around 

these bridges, the old channel being filled with bowlders and gravel. The area of the watershed of this tributary is about 2.6 square miles. The extent of the erosion indicates that the 

rainfall on this basin must have been very great. The main stream also cut a channel 

around the bridge near the mouth of this gulch. The highway bridge, located about a half 

mile below the mouth of the gulch, was washed away, and the right bank of the stream was 

eroded for a distance of 50 feet back from the abutment.

AREA OVERFLOWED.

The stream began to overflow State street, Ithaca, about 3 p. m., reached its maximum 

stage about 5 p. m., and subsided below the street level about 1 a. m. of June 22. This overflow extended from a point about 1,200 feet east of the creek to a point 1,100 feet west of it, 

had a maximum depth of 3 feet, and a cross-section area of 4,120 square feet. The highwater line at this bridge was 8.9 feet above lake level on August 1, and about 9.5 feet above 

lake level just prior to the flood. The boundary of the area overflowed during this flood is
6 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

shown on fig. 2. This area is probably somewhat less than that overflowed during the flood 

of 1901, for Fall Creek was not in flood and there was little overflow from Cascadilla Creek. 

But in some sections of the city the overflow reached places it had never reached before at 

least not in thirty years.

DAMAGE.

The Lehigh Valley Railroad, which runs along Cayuga Inlet for several miles, was damaged to such an extent that trains could not pass over this part of the line for about a week. 

The first estimate of the damage done by this flood along this railroad between Ithaca and 

Sayre was $65,000. A later estimate, however, placed it at $100,000. The estimated cost 

of replacing bridges, protecting them from floods, and repairing the damage to roads in the 

town of Newfield was $8,000.

The dam at the Van Netta mill was swept away by the flood, leaving the city pumping 

station on Sixmile Creek without water for the city's supply, and without water power to 

work some of the pumps. The highway bridge over this dam was also destroyed.

The new 30-foot dam about 4 miles above Ithaca, on this stream, was uninjured; but the 

dam a few hundred feet below it, forming a water cushion for the water flowing over the 

30-foot dam, was destroyed. The pipe line extending from the dam down the creek was 

considerably damaged by the washing out of the concrete supports.

The bridge at Clinton street was washed away; also the right abutment and the bank for 

a distance of about 55 feet back from the abutment (see fig. 3). The flood of 1901 eroded, 

to a large extent, the right bank of this stream from this bridge up to a point about 300 feet 

above the electric railway car barn. After the flood this bank was protected along a part of 

this distance by a concrete wall, along another part by piling and planks, and along a third 

part by piling and concrete. The concrete part was not injured by the flood of 1905 along 

the portion protected by piling, but the piles were washed away or badly damaged, and the 

part protected by piles and concrete was damaged to some extent. The water found its way 

back of the piling and eroded the bank in some places back to a distance of 55 feet. Fig. 3 

shows a cross section of the channel at Clinton Street Bridge, taken August 1, 1905. The 

shaded area was washed away by the flood. The old channel is now filled with gravel to a 

depth of 2 to 3 feet.

Meadow Street Bridge was carried 900 feet downstream and left with a large mass of 

lumber in front of the Lehigh Valley Railway bridge. About a month after the flood this 

bridge was taken apart and replaced in its former location.

State Street Bridge was damaged to some extent and was closed to heavy traffic for about 

a month. A mass of drift collected in front of the bridge and prevented the water from 

passing freely through the natural channel.

SUGGESTED MEANS OF PREVENTING OR LESSENING OVERFLOW.

Overflow of the lowland in the vicinity of Ithaca results from two causes (1) backwater 

from the lake, (2) overflow of one or more of the four creeks before mentioned. The elevation of the normal level of Cayuga Lake is 381 feet above sea. Its surface elevation fluctuates from about 5 feet above normal to 1J feet below normal.

A considerable area of land at the south end of the lake stands less than 5 feet above normal lake level, and is consequently subject to overflow from the lake, but it is not within 

the scope of this investigation to consider overflow from the lake alone. The elevation of 

the lake surface does, however, in a measure, affect the overflow of the creeks, because it 

controls the surface slope near the mouth of each. The sidewalk on State Street Bridge is 

about 9 feet above normal lake level, or 4 feet above high-water lake level. There would, 

therefore, be a surface slope of from 2 to 3 feet from the under surface of State Street Bridge 

to the lake, a distance of about 1 mile, when the lake level is at its maximum height.

The effects of floods on Sixmile Creek and Cayuga Inlet are intensified by the smallness of 

the channel .and the obstructions in the streamway from State Street Bridge to a point below 

Buffalo Street Bridge. The average width of the channel along this portion of it is only 67
NEW YORK: SIXMILE GREEK AND CAYUGA INLET.

T, V »>/ " \W )"~s^/\\^ JfT^ \\/ IVK II II 'I I If *>-$fi\ ^X^x^^^^mirnrii i f3i4^^^iiDflH

 i rn i EI i sn I A^1^^-^ bj

AREA SUBMERGED DURING FLOOD soo o

FIG. 2. Map showing area overflowed, location of bridges, etc., Ithaca, N. Y.
DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

PROFILE OF SIX MILE CREEK FROM EAST LINE OF AURORA ST. TO CLINTON ,ST. BRIDGEr£f £ 0 HIGH 2S WA TER 50 75 f^ 0 HIGH ^WATERL50L '»

fJOTpfPp^fi'

CROSS SECTION AURORA ST. BRIDGE

 Q f

. - _ 

 CROSS SECTION TIOGA ST. BRIDGE

CROSS SECTION CLINTON ST. BRIDGE

CROSS SECTION S CAYUGA ST. BRIDGE

CROSS SECTION STATE ST. BRIDGE

25 50

FLOOR OF BRIDGE =.|.

CROSS SECTION SENECA ST. BRIDGE

£ -^W^- 

CROSS SECTION BUFFALO ST. BRIDGE

rrsnra BED AND BANKS

FIG. 3. Flood profile and cross sections cf Sixmile Creek.
NEW YORK: UNADILLA AND CHENANGO RIVERS. 9

feet. There are two or three groups of piles under each of these bridges, one being the 

group that supports the draw span of the bridge. The water cross section at each of these 

bridges up to the bridge floor, not making any allowance for the area of the piles in the 

channel, is as follows: State Street Bridge, 1,625 square feet; Seneca Street Bridge, 1,244 

square feet; Buffalo Street Bridge, 1,210 square feet. These sections and the portion of 

each obstructed by piles are shown in fig. 3. With a surface slope of 2 to 3 feet, Cayuga 

Inlet, if unobstructed, would discharge 6,000 second-feet. The maximum flow being more 

than 15,000 second-feet, there remains a flow of 9,000 second-feet to be provided for, either 

by storage or by the construction of an overflow channel, if the overflow of State street is to 

be prevented during a flood of the magnitude of that of June 21, 1905.

It is not within the scope of this investigation to determine whether or not storage sufficient to control this amount of flow is obtainable. Judging, however, from the topography 

of the watershed, one would readily infer that such storage is possible; but the second solution of the problem, namely, the construction of an additional channel to carry off this 

surplus water, would be the most feasible. This solution has several times been recommended, but satisfactory data have not heretofore been available to determine the proper 

size of the channel. This channel would be about a mile long, and would be cut through 

low ground of little value and easy of excavation.

IMPROVEMENT OF CHANNEL OF SIXMILE CREEK.

The damage done by floods upon this creek, from a point about 800 feet above Aurora 

Street Bridge to Cayuga Street Bridge, would several times pay the expense of suitable 

bank protection. The flood of 1905 has taught a useful lesson as to the kind of protection, 

its height, and the proper width of the channel. The concrete work near Aurora Street 

Bridge was uninjured by this flood, but was not sufficiently high. The width of channel at 

this place is about 56 feet and the maximum depth of the water was about 10 feet. The 

bed was not injured by scour. Below Cayuga Street Bridge the grade of the stream bed 

decreases; hence the width of the channel should increase as State Street Bridge is approached. 

The height of the banks and the width of channel can easily be computed from the maximum rate of flow and the slope of the bed.

CONCLUSION.

Rainfall records are of little value in estimating the maximum flow of streams, especially 

the smaller ones. The maximum rates of flow are due to storms of shon;duration and great 

intensity over small areas, and there is seldom a rain gage in the area of greatest precipitation. The maximum rate of flow of Sixmile Creek at Ithaca, June 21,1905, was about three 

times greater than its supposed maximum rate computed from rainfall records.

FLOOD ON THE UNADILLA AND CHENANGO RIVERS, NEW YORK. 

By R. E. HORTON and C. C. COVERT.

INTRODUCTION.

*

Considerable damage was done in the valleys of the Unadilla and Chenango rivers, in 

Chenango, Otsego, ^and Madison counties, New York, on September 3 and 4, by a flood that 

caused the overflow of the smaller streams of these basins and the failure of culverts and 

reservoirs. The flood was the direct result of a short rain storm, of great intensity, that 

occurred after several days of rain, which had saturated the soil and filled the streams nearly 

bank full. -

Unadilla River rises in the southern part of Herkimer County, flows southeastward for 

about 50 miles, and empties into the Susquehanna near Sydney. Its chief tributary is 

Wharton Creek, which enters it at New Berlin. The watershed is long and narrow, with
10 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

numerous side grass-covered valleys and a moderate amount of woodland. The soil is clay 

and gravel, of considerable depth, underlain by rock. The smaller streams are precipitous, 

with beds of bowlders, shingle, and gravel, and as their headwaters are approached the 

beds become solid rock.

BOUNDARY OF AREAS IN WHICH 

FLOOD WAS GRF.ATf.ST 

COUNTY BOUNDARY 

------* TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY

FIG. 4. Map of drainage basins of Unadilla and Chenango rivers, New York.

Chenango River is located just west of the Unadilla, and its basin greatly resembles that 

of the Unadilla, being long and comparatively narrow, with numerous small side valleys. 

The side slopes are grass-covered and moderately steep.
NEW YORK: UNADILLA AND CHENANGO RIVERS. 11

The drainage areas of the streams on which most of the damage was done by this flood are 

approximately as follows:

Square miles. 

Mill Brook above Ackerman dam ................................................................ 9.4

Wharton Brook above mouth.................................................................... 95.0

Unadilla River above South Edmeston........................................................... 172.0

Unadilla River, South Edmeston to electric light company's dam at New Berlin .................. 32.0

Total, Unadilla River above dam, New Berlin................................................... 204.0

Susquehanna River above Sydney................................................................ 914.0

Mad Brook above storage reservoir, near Sherburne ............................................. 5.0

Chenango River above South Oxford Branch.................................................... 423.0

PRECIPITATION.

The following table gives the depth of rainfall, in inches, at several stations of the United 

States Weather Bureau in the vicinity of these basins from August 29 to September 4, 

inclusive. Fig. 4 shows the watersheds of these streams and the location of some of these 

rainfall stations:

Precipitation in vicinity of the Chenango and. Unadilla ivatersheds August 29 to. September 4,

1905.

Station.

Oxford. ...............................

South Kortnght... ...................

Little Falls. ..........................

Graefenberg................ ..........

Savage reservoir................. ....

August29.

0.31 

0.00 

0.30 

0.06

(") 

0. 15 

0.00 

0.18 

0.23 

0.31 

0.38

30.

2.13 

1.50 

1.25 

2. HI 

1.70 

1.84 

1.41 

0.96 

1 43 

. 0 98 

0 :« 

0 37

31.

0.00 

0.00 

0.28 

0.01 

0.02 

0.00 

0.40 

0.00 

0 28 

0.00 

0.80 

0 91

September 

1.

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

o_

0.22 

0.55 

0.11 

0.22 

0.42 

Tr. 

0.42 

0.49 

Tr. 

0 58

3.

0.80 

1 15

(°) 

1.30 

0.12 

0.00 

050 

0.03 

0.38 

0.55 

1.20 

1.21

4.

1.36 

0.22 

1.53 

0 17 

1.92 

0.28 

0.55 

0.24 

0.52 

2 52 

0.87 

0.87

Total.

4.82 

3.42 

3.47 

4.37 

4.. 49 

2:12 

3.43 

1-72 

2.79 

4.86 

3. 51 

3 74

a Amount included in next measurement

The Graefenberg and Savage reservoirs are located near Utica, a few miles north of theChenango-Mohawk divide.

These rainfall data indicate only in a general way the precipitation for this period over 

these basins. None of the stations are located in the areas where the greatest damage was 

done. The rainfall at several of the stations was greater on August 30 than during theflood, this fact showing that the precipitation over the flooded basins was probably much 

greater than shown by these records. The measured rainfall and the damage done indicate; 

a very heavy rain of short duration over a comparatively small area. The effect of this 

local storm was intensified by the heavy rains of the previous six days.

IRR 162 06 2
12 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

DISCHARGE.

The maximum discharge of some of the streams in the flooded area is given in the following table:

Maximum discharge of streams in UnadUla and Chenango basins.

Stream.

Mill Brook........

Unadilla River....

Starch Factory 

Creek.

Do............

Do............

Do............

Do............

Locality.

Aekerman dam, near Edmeston.

New Berlin Electric Light and 

Power Company's dam.

Upper storage reservoir, Sherburne.

.....do.........................

.....do.........................

.....do.........................

.....do.........................

Date.

September 3, 4, 

1905.

September 3, 4, 

1905.

September 3, 4, 

1905.

September 3, 4, 

1905.

June 21, 1905......

March, 1903.......

October 10,1903... 

March 25, 1904 «...

Area 

(square 

miles) .

9.4 

204.0 

5.0 

3.4

3.4 

3.4 

3.4

Discharge.

Secondfeet.

2,300.0 

8,200.0 

1,300.0 

712.0

647.5 

367.0 

313.0 

372.0

Secondfeet 

per 

square 

mile.

241.0 

40.0 

262.0 

209.0

190.4 

108.0 

92.0 

109.4

» Melting snow.

The discharge of Starch Factory Creek at the gaging stations near Utica has been included 

for purposes of comparison. The records of flow at this station have been kept for three 

years, and the discharge obtained there is more accurate than that obtained at the other 

places mentioned in the table.

It is seen that the flood of September, 1905, on Starch Factory Creek was somewhat 

larger than that of June 21, 1905, and considerably larger than those of 1903 and 1904. 

As far as known, the storm that caused the flood of June, 1905, did little damage in the 

Unadilla and Chenango basins. The duration of the September flood of 1905 was from 

twelve to fifteen hours, and was somewhat longer on the Chenango than on the Unadilla 

River. ,

In the Chenango basin the magnitude of the flood, as well as the damage done, was 

much less than in the Unadilla basin. This difference was due in part to the interception 

of a part of the flood water for storage in the State reservoirs in the upper Chenango basin. 

These reservoirs, which are located in the vicinity of Hamilton, had been drawn down 

during the months preceding the flood to supply the Erie Canal. As a result the run-off 

from the area tributary to them comprising 30 square miles, mostly hillside land was 

intercepted and stored in the reservoirs, and the damage that would have resulted from 

the passage of this volume of water down the streams was thus prevented.

The maximum discharge of Chenango River at Binghamton, near its mouth, during this 

flood was 17,400 second-feet at 5 p. m. September 5. On March 2, 1902,-the discharge of 

this stream at this place was 35,950 second-feet that is, twice as great as during the flood 

of 1905. The maximum discharge of the Susquehanna at Binghamton during the flood 

was 29,240 second-feet at 5 p. m. September 4. On March 2,1902, the maximum discharge 

here was 60,400 second-feet that is, more than twice that measured during the flood of 

September, 1905. The March flood on the Susquehanna was not only twice as large, but 

was of much longer duration, and was due to the melting of ice and snow, as well as to rain.

DAMAGE.

The greatest damage caused by this storm occurred in the village of Edmeston, at New 

Berlin, and elsewhere along Wharton Creek and Unadilla River. The failure of the Sherburne Waterworks reservoir, in the Chenango basin, resulted in severe damage below it.
PENNSYLVANIA-NEW YORK! ALLEGHENY RIVER. 13

The railroads passing through these basins suffered heavily and were out of service from 

one to two weeks. Three dams at Mill Creek above Edmeston failed, also one at Edmeston 

and one at New Berlin. These failures intensified the fleod. The damage in the vicinity 

of the village of Edmeston is estimated at $25,000. The damage at New Berlin resulted 

from the choking of a stone arch culvert over a tributary of Paper Mill Brook, three-fourths 

of a mile above the village. This culvert became clogged with drift and the stream overflowed the arch and washed it away, flowing down Main street, scouring in some places to 

the depth of 8 or 10 feet, sweeping away the smaller buildings, filling cellars, and causing 

a loss of $10,000 to residences and business houses in the village. In the township of New 

Berlin 22 bridges were washed away, ranging in value from $25 to $1,400. The villages of 

Bridgewater, Brookfield, and North Brookfield also suffered heavily from this flood.

The village of Sherburne gets its water supply from two reservoirs on Mad Brook, about 

2 miles northeast of the village. The upper or storage reservoir, having a capacity of 

10,000,000 gallons, was formed by an earth embankment 300 feet long, 35 feet high, and 10 

feet thick on the top. There is a spillway 35 feet wide, 6 feet deep, with a slope of 1 in 350 

at one end. During this flood the water in this reservoir rose to the height of 1 foot above 

the top of this embankment and scoured out a U-shaped section 150 feet in width at the top 

to the base of the embankment. The lower reservoir also was damaged to some extent.

Nearly every bridge in the towns of Exeter, Columbus, Sherburne, Pittsfield, Edmeston, 

and New Berlin were either washed away or badly damaged.

FLOOD ON ALLEGHENY RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA-NEW YORK.

INTRODUCTION.

The spring freshet of March 18-31 on the Allegheny and upper Ohio rivers was not the 

largest or most destructive that has occurred on these, streams, but nevertheless approached 

closely the maximum recorded stage at some places along the Allegheny and caused much 

loss of property and inconvenience.

The highest stage at Pittsburg was 29 feet, which is 4.2 feet below the height reached during the great flood of 1884, but only 1 foot below that of the flood of 1904, when about 

$1,000,000 worth of property was destroyed in western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. 

The highest stage of the Monongahela at Lock No. 4, Pennsylvania, was 27.2 feet, which is 

15 feet below maximum recorded stage. The failure of this stream to yield the rate of flow 

expected resulted in a stage 2 feet less than was predicted.

The flood was the result of rapid melting of snow on five days (March 16-20), and a rainfall of 0.75 inch on the 19th and 0.50 inch on the 20th. The ice gorges held back large 

volumes of water and augmented the maximum rate of flow.

Allegheny River rises in northern Pennsylvania, at an altitude of about 2,500 feet. It 

flows northwestward into New York, then southwestward through Pennsylvania, and joins 

the Monongahela at Pittsburg, Pa., to form the Ohio. Its length, measured along the 

stream, is 325 miles, and the area drained by it comprises 11,100 square miles. From its 

mouth to Olean, N. Y-, a distance of 255 miles, the slope is gradual and slightly less than 3 

feet per mile. From Olean to Salamanca, N. Y., a distance of 23 miles, the fall is 1.85 feet 

per mile.

The greater part of the watershed is mountainous or hilly, with steep, nearly impervious 

slopes and no surface storage; hence the run-off is rapid. The rapid melting of snow, which 

in places in the upper part of the watershed has a depth of 3 feet, and the formation of ice 

gorges cause great floods, especially in the sluggish stretches of the stream. One of the 

largest of these ice freshets occurred January, 1877.«

a Report of Chief of Engineers U. S. Army for 1880, pt. 2, p. 1769.
14 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

PRECIPITATION.

There are no authentic records of the depth of snow accumulated during the winter of 

1904-5 or its water equivalent. The following record of water equivalent of snow at three 

places in New York State o will show in a general way the probable water equivalent of the 

snow in the upper part of this basin:

Water equivalent of snow on ground at Hancock and near Utica, N. Y., during February and

March,, 1905.

Date.

March 6. ..........................................................

March 13.. ........................................................

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

Hancock.

Inches. 

1.85

2.93

3.49

2.45

2.40

1.30

1.35

Utica.

Inches. 

2.39

3.27

3.27

3.18

2.89

Graef enberg reservoir, near - 

Utica.

Inches. 

5.06

5.97

6.25

7 30

6.66

6.03

4.88

3.37

During the five days comprising March 16-20 the temperature in this basin was as follows: 

Temperatures in Allegheny Elver basin March 16-20, 1905.

Date.

March 16... ..............

March 17. ................

March 18. ............ ..

Maximum.

,°F. 

55

62

67

Minimum.

oF. 

21

31

36

Date.

March 20.. ...............

Maximum.

o F. 

69

48

Minimum.

o p. 

42

32

These high temperatures were accompanied by considerable rain, especially on March 19 

and 20, averaging for 16 stations in this basin 0.75 inch on the 19th and 0.50 inch on the 

20th. As a result of this rain and melting snow the tributaries rose rapidly during the 19th 

and 20th and reached a maximum stage generally on March 20.

« Data furnished by R. E. Horton, district hydrographer.
PENNSYLVANIA-NEW YORK: ALLEGHENY RIVER. 15

THE FLOOD.

The gage heights at several points are shown in the. following table:

Gage heights in feet, in Allegheny River basin, March 18-31, 1905.

Date.

March 18........

March 19........

March 20........

March 21. .......

March 22........

March 23. .......

March 24........

March 25........

March 26........

March 27........

March 31........

Freeport.a

10.0

16.8

e31.2

26.3

21.5

18.0

17.4

16.8

17.5

18.0

15.0

13.0

11.8

Oil City .»

4.2

15.5

17.6

14.9

14.1

12.3

11.1

11.0

10.8

10.4

10.3

9.4

8.6

7.9

Redhouse, 

N. Y.6

6.5

11.4

11.6

11.7

11.1

9.9

9.6

9.6

9.7

9.9

9.8

9.3

8.8

8.2

Monongahela River 

at Lock 

No. 4, Pa.a

9.6

9.9

14.4

16.5

97 o

20.5

13.3

12.9

13.3

13.2

12.3

10.9

10.0

9.2

Redbank 

Creek, 

Brookville, 

Pa .a

1.4

5.0

5.8

4.0

3.8

2.8

2.0

-

Clarion 

River, 

Clarion, 

Pa .»

7.4

10.8

16.0

11.0

9.6

7.7

6.8

t

Conemaugh 

River, 

Johnstown, 

Pa .»

6.4

7.6

8.8

9.0

7.0

5.4

4.5

a- U. S. Weather Bureau Station.

6 This gaging station is described in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper 128, p.

e Maximum, 32 feet.

45.

The Freeport station is just below the mouth of Kiskiminitas River and is 28 miles 

above Pittsburg. The highest stage at Freeport was 32 feet that is, 31.3 feet above low 

water on March 20. The highest recorded stage was 32.7 feet on February 18, 1891. The 

maximum of 1905 lacked only 0.7 foot of being as high as the highest since 1890 at this place. 

The following table gives the maximum stage of the river at Freeport each year from 1890 to 

1905:

Flood stages of Allegheny River at Freeport, Pa., 1890-1905.

Year.

1890. . . .

1890....

1890. . . .

1891....

1892....

1893. . . .

1894....

Date.

April 10.......

May 24.......

February 18 . .

March 28.....

May 18.......

May 22.......

Gage 

heigh t.a

Feet.

16.0

20.0

22.1

32.7

17.5

22.8

24.5

Year.

1895. . .

1896...

1897...

1898...

1899...

1900...

Date.

April 10.......

March 31 .....

March 24 .....

March 7 ......

Gage 

height."

Feet.

20.6

20.2

19.5

25.3

17.0

17.5

Year.

1901...

1902...

1903. . .

1904...

1904...

1905. . .

Date.

April 21.....

March 1.....

January 23..

March 4 ....

Marcn 20....

Gage 

height. a

Feet.

23.0

28.8

23.5

30. /

27.9

631.2

« U S Weather Bureau gage heights. 

>> Maximum,32 feet.

The greatest stage at Oil City, 123 miles above Pittsburg, was 17.6 feet on the 20th. On 

March 17, 1865, the stage at this place was 21 feet that is, 3.4 feet higher than during this 

flood.

The greatest stage at Redhouse, about 15 miles above the New York-Pennsylvania line, 

was 11.7 feet on March 21. This is less than 9 feet above ordinary low stage. There was 

no overflow worthy ot mention here or above this station.
16 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The maximum stage during this freshet at Lock No. 4, on the Monongahela, about 40 miles 

above its mouth, was 27.2 feet on the 22d. The rate of flow was 94,000 second-feet. The 

highest recorded stage is 42 and the highest discharge is 207,000 second-feet. The volume 

contributed to this flood by this stream was comparatively small. This small run-off is 

partly due to a freshet of greater magnitude, which occurred from the 8th to the 14th, and 

which removed most of the snow from the watershed.

The details of river stage at Kittanning, Pa., 45 miles above Pittsburg, are shown below. 

The ice jam at Ford City, about 3 miles below, broke at about 10.30 a. m. on March 18.

Gage heights and discharge of Allegheny River at Kittanning, Pa., March 18-24, 1906.

Date.

March 18........

March 18........

March 18........

March 18........

March 18........

March 19........

March 19. .......

March 19........

March 19........

March 19. .......

March 20. .......

March 20........

Hour.

10.30 a. m.

11.30 a.m.

3.30p.m.

4.00 p. m.

4.30 p. m.

11.00 a. m.

6.35 p. m.

12.30 p. m.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

16.40

15.30

12.10

11.95

11.85

16.50

18.40

18.70

20.45

20.90

22.50

23.25

28.40

28.55

28.75

28.80

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

82,900

73,000

47,830

46, 810

46, 140

83,840

94 560

125,600

131,000

156,600

161,300

235,000

237,200

240,900

Date.

March 20. ........

March 20.........

March 20. ........

March 21.........

March 21.........

March 21. ........

March 23.........

March 25. ........

Hour.

2.30 p. m.

2.45 p. m.

4.00 p. m.

4.30 p. m.

3.10 p. m.

6.30 a.m.

7.00 a. m.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

28.75

28.70

28.70

28.60

28.50

25.50

25.30

24.80

24.70

24.60

24.' 25

24.10

22.35

22.20

22.00

21.75

21.60

19.25

16.50

16.05

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

240, 200

239,400

239,400

237,900

236,400

192,800

190,000

182, 900

181,500

180,100

175,200

173, 100

149,200

147,300

144,700

141,500

139,600

111,900

83,840

76,680

The highest stage at Kittanning was 28.8 feet on the gage, or 26.5 feet above ordinary low 

water. It lacked 6 to 8 inches of the height reached by the flood of 1865, and probably 

lacked 8 inches or more of reaching the height of the flood of 1832. The rise was very rapid, 

about 5 feet the first day and 10 feet the second. The maximum daily rate of discharge was 

231,990 second-feet, or 26.7 second-feet per square mile.

FLOOD ON OHIO RIVER.

The gaging station on this stream is at Wheeling, W. Va., 90 miles below Pittsburg, Pa. 

The drainage above it, including the Allegheny and Monongahela basins, is 23,800 square 

miles. Beaver Elver, which joins the Ohio from the north 25 miles below Pittsburg, is 

the only comparatively large stream entering between Pittsburg and Wheeling. Its drainage area comprises 3,030 square miles. The first comparatively large stream that joins the 

Ohio below Wheeling is the Muskingum .River. It enters from the north at Marietta, 81 

miles below Wheeling, and has a drainage of 7,740 square miles.
OHIO RIVER. 17

The magnitude and duration of the flood of March, 1905, can be seen from the data in the 

following table:

Stages of Ohio River and tributaries during flood of March, 1906.

Date.

» 

March 18..........

March 19..........

March 20..........

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29.. ........

March 30..........

March 31..........

Ohio River at Wheeling, W. Va.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

10.9 

14.9 

28.2 

* 39.7 

042.3 

41.8 

34.0 

26.2 

23.2 

22.6 

21.2 

19.9 

17.9 

15.9 

14.0 

12.4 

10.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

54,340 

85,700 

' 205,200 

329,200 

359, WK) 

353,700 

265, liOO 

185,500 

. 157,000 

151,500 

138,900 

127,500 

110,400 

93,790 

78,500 

65,920 

54,340

Ohio 

River at 

Davis 

Island 

dam. a

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

9.5 

14.1 

23.2 

26.1 

27.1 

23.1 

17.2 

15.0 

15.1 

14.5 

13.8 

12.8 

11.5 

10.6

Ohio 

River at Marietta. 6

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

10.75 

12.6 

20.7 

32.8 

39.1 

40.4 

38.8 

33.7 

27.2 

23.6 

21.3 

19.8 

18.1 

16.4

xOhio 

River at Cincinnati.c

Gage 

height.

Feet.

25.3 

22.3 

21.2 

28.8 

37.1 

42.2 

45.0 

46.8 

47.0 

45.4 

42.2 

38.7 

35.2 

31.3

28.4 

26.0

Beaver 

River at 

El wood 

Junction, 

Pa.d

Gage 

height.

Feet.

4.3 

9.6 

9.0 

9.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

4.0 

4.0 

3.9 

3.9 

3.8 

3.8

Muskingum at 

Zanesville.e

Gage 

height.

Feet.

11.1 

13.7 

15.6 

17.3 

16.9 

15.9 

14.5 

13.0 

11.8 

10.9 

10.2 

9.8 

9.5

Kanawha at 

Charleston, 

W. Va./

Gage 

height.

Feet.

6.5 

7.0 

8.0 

9.8 

10.8 

8.5 

7.3 

7.2 

7.0 

6.4 

6.0 

5.5 

5.3

a Highest stage 32.3 feet February 7, 1884. 

6 Highest stage 46.5 feet February 7,1884. 

c Highest stage 71.1 feet February 14,1884. 

d Highest stage 18 feet May 18, 1893.

t Highest stage 35.9 feet March 24, 1898. 

/Highest stage 46.9 feet September 29, 1861. 

s Maximum stage 42.7 feet 8 p. m.

The. Ohio at Davis Island dam, 5 miles below Pittsburg, reached on March 22 a maximum 

stage of 27.1 feet, which is 5.2 feet less than the maximum reached during the great flood of 

February, 1884. On the same date it reached a maximum stage of 42.3 feet and a rate of 

flow of 359,600 second-feet at Wheeling. On February 7, 1884, the river reached a stage 

of 53.1 feet at Wheeling and a maximum rate of flow of 494,200 second-feet.

At Cincinnati, Ohio, a maximum stage of 47 feet was reached on the 27th, which is 24.1 

feet below the height reached by the flood of 1884. The maximum stage of Beaver River 

at Elwood Junction, Pa., was 8.4 feet below the highest recorded stage.

During this flood the Muskingum at Zanesville was 186 feet below, and the Kanawha at Charleston was 36.1 feet below the maximum recorded stage. It is evident, 

therefore, that this flood came mainly from the Allegheny River and that its magnitude, 

compared with other great floods, decreased as it traveled downstream.
18 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the date of occurrence and daily rate of flow of the Ohio at 

Wheeling during the large floods from 1884 to 1905:

Flood flow of Ohio River at Wheeling, W. Va., 1884-1905. 

[Danger line, 3t> feet; drainage area, 23,800 square miles.]

Year.

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1890

1891

1893

Date.

A riri I 9

Aprils........:......

A nril O

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

May 18...............

Gage 

height.

Feel.,

38.0

53.1

46.5

41.3

36.0

32.0

26.0

32.8

27'. 8

31.0

28.0

22.0

31.3

32.0

25.0

30 9

30.6

20.8

33.8

29 8

16.3

OO O

 21.8

29.4

32.9

26.8

25.0

40.0

40.5

34 ^

29.8

20.9

31.6

28.0

28.9

90 1

27.0

23.8

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

155, 100

309,800

494,200

410, 400

347,800

OO7 W¥i

244,300

183,500

252,800

201,200

162, 600

233,800

203,200

146,000

237,000

244,300

173,900

232 800

217, 400

221, 500

263,500

"1 500

97,060

179, 700

249, 600

227,600

144,200

217,400

253,800

191,300

173,900

332, 700

338,500

271,000

221,500

244, 300

203,200

212,300

245,400

193,300

162,600

Year.

1895

1897

1898

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

Date.

May 19...............

May 20. ..............

February 23..........

February 26..........

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

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

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

April 20. .............

April 24..............

March 1..... .........

April 11..............

March 2. .............

March 3. ....... ......

March 11. ............

March 11. ............

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

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

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

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

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

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

31.5

29.5

28.8

36.0

30.7

26.0

19.5

35.3

37.0

27.0

25.6

35.4

o43.9

42.9

37.0

29.9

25.0

23.8

37.0

«41.3

37.0

32.2

33.9

28.8

42.0

42.0

37.9

30.0

32.9

28.6

39.7

37.3

34.2

43.9

41.0

31.5

28.4

36.3

29.3

22.3

33.9

27.7

39.7

42.3

41.8

34.0

26.2

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

239,000

218,400

211/300

287,500

230,700

183,500

124,000

279,800

298,600

193,300

179, 760

280,900

378,700

366, 700

298,600

222,500

173,900

162,600

298,600

347,800

298,600

246,400

254,900

211,300

356,000

356,000

308,700

223,500

253,800

209,300

329,200

308,000

267,800

378,700

344,300

239,000

207,200

290,800

216,400

148,800

264,600

200,200

329, 200

359,600

353,700

265,600

185,500

Probable mean for day. Maximum, 54 feet.
OHIO EIVEE. 19

The largest flood at this place during the twenty-two years covered by the table occurred 

in February, 1884. On February 7 the maximum stage was 54 feet, the mean stage for 

the day about 53.1 feet, and the rate of flow 494,200 second-feet, or 20.8 feet per square mile. 

During this flood the river rose 10.8 feet higher, had a rate of flow 134,600 second-feet 

greater, and was of two days' longer duration than during the freshet of March, 1905. 

Second in rate of flow was the flood of February, 1891, when the stage at 8 a. m. on the 19th 

was 44.6 feet, and the greatest daily rate of flow was 387,200 second-feet. Third in magnitude was the flood of March, 1898; fourth, that of January, 1904; and fifth, that of March, 

1905.

All the large floods occurred during the spring or winter months and were due to rapid 

melting of snow. The largest summer flood was in August, 1888. The maximum stage 

was 32.2 feet and the rate of flow was 246,400 second-feet. That is about 0.6 the rate of the 

maximum spring flood.

The river stood above the danger line for four days, from the 6th to the 9th, inclusive, 

during the flood of 1884, and for three days, March 21 to 23, during the flood of 1905.

The total flow for the four days comprising February 6-9, 1884, less the total flow for 

these days at the danger line (36 feet) is about 802,100 acre-feet. The total flow for the 

three days comprising March 21-23, 1905, when this stream was above the danger line, 

less the total flow for the same period at the danger line, is about 357,000 acre-feet. These 

figures show approximately the storage necessary to prevent this stream from passing the 

danger line at this place during floods.

The following table gives the highest stage each year, from 1860 to 1905, at Cincinnati, 

Ohio, for the years that the river rose above 50 feet on the gage:

Flood stages of Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio. 

[Danger line, 50 feet of gage; lowest stage, 1.9, September 17-19, 1881.]

Year.

1832.. 

1847.. 

1862..

1865..

1867..

1870. .

1875. .

1876. .

1877. .

Date.

February 18.. ... 

December 17... ..

January 20.......

Stage.

Feet. 

64.3 

63.6 

57.3

56.3

55.8

55.3

55.3

51.8

53.8

Year.

1880. 

1821. 

1882.

1883.

1884.

1886.

1887.

1890.

1891.

Date.

February 17..... 

February 16.....

April 9..........

February 25. ....

Stage.

Feet. 

53.2 

50.6

71.1

55.8

59 '

57.3

Year.

1893. 

1897. 

1898

1902.

1903.

Date.

February 20...... 

February 26......

April 27..........

Stage.

Feet. 

54.9 

61.2 

61.4

57.2

59.7

50.9

52.3

48.3

In these forty-six years the river at this place rose above 50 feet on the gage twentythree times. It has been at stages from 0.7 to 0.8 of the maximum stage fifteen times; 

at stages from 0.8 to 0.9 of the maximum stage six times; and at stages from 0.9 to 1 of 

the maximum stage twice. In the seventy-four years, from 1832 to 1905 there have 

been three floods, reaching stages from 0.9 to 1 of the maximum stage.
20 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IK UNITED STATES IN 1905.

FLOOD ON GRAND RIVER, MICHIGAN.

This flood, although not so large as that of March, 1904, was probably the largest summe 

flood recorded in the history of this stream. The following table, taken from the Unitei 

States Monthly Weather Review for June, 1905, gives the precipitation for May and fo 

June 1 to June 6 at ten places in this drainage basin:

Precipitation in the basin of Grand River and its tributaries in Hay and June, 1905, in inches

Station.

WebbervilLe. ..

College. 

Lansing... ........

St. Johns..........

Hastings..........

Grand Rapids.....

River.

.....do.........

.....do.........

.....do.........

.....do.........

Ma

Amount.

fi.12

6.37

4.36

5.17

5.51

5.46

3 79

6.60

5.97

5.48

y.

Departure from 

normal.

+2.49

+2.01

+ 1.95

+ 1.98

+2.37

+ 3.22

+2.49

+ 2.36

1.

0.03

Tr.

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tr.

2.

Tr.

0

0

0

0.01

0

0

0.20

0.03

3.

a 24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.03

June

4.

0.78

0.28

0.10

0.11

0.18

0.04

0.68

0.36

0.32

5.

2.15

0.40

1.13

0.45

0.28

2.18

0.50

1.20

1.04

6.

0.79

3.15

4.76

5.47

4.92

3.90

3.60

3.56

3.77

Total

3.9!

3.81

5.9!

6.01

5.3!

6.1:

3.5(

4.7)

6.31

5.3;

5.1:

The rainfall for May exceeded the normal by 2.36 inches, so that the ground was full 01 

nearly so at the time of this flood. From the 4th to 6th of June 5.13 inches of rain fell 

of this amount 75 per cent fell on the 6th.

The following table gives the daily gage height at Grand Rapids, Mich., from June 5 tc 

June 17, and the daily gage height and corresponding discharge at this place during the 

flood of March, 1904:

Flood flow of Grand River at Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1904 and 1905. 

[Drainage area, 4,900 square miles.]

Year.

1904

Date.

March 20..............

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

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

M&rcli 24

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

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

March 29... ...........

March 30. .............

March 31. .............

April 1. ...............

April 2. ...............

April 3................

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

9.20

9.30

10.65

11.45

18.09

19.75

19. 36

16.77

15.40

14.45

13.80

13.80

13.80

12.80

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

16,700

17,000

19,500

21,400

35,800

37,800

39,400

38,500

36,000

32,900

29,900

27,800

26,600

26,600

26,600

24,500

Year.

1904

1905

Date.

April 6................

April 7.. ..............

April 8................

June 12................

June 17................

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

11.20

10.50

9.55

14.2

18.1

18.4

17.7

15.3

13.8

12.5

11.2

9.9

8.7

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

20,700

18,800

17,400

18,820

49, 340

46,100

29,560

24,850

20,450

16, 770

13,930
MICHIGAN MISSOURI. 21

This stream rose rapidly on June 6, and reached a maximum of 18.4 feet on June 9. 

This flood, compared with that of March, 1904, was of shorter duration, more rapid rise 

and fall, and was 1.3 feet lower.

The lower part of the city of Grand Rapids was flooded. The damage done was small, 

compared with that of the flood of 1904, the difference in this respect being due largely 

to the timely warning of the height and progress of the flood given by the United States 

Weather Bureau.

The Muskegon and other streams' in western Michigan were bank full, and in places 

overflowed lowlands and injured dams and bridges. Numerous washouts occurred on the 

railroads in western Michigan. The Pere Marquette reported thirty, some of them 200 

feet long.

The streams in eastern Wisconsin, especially the Fond du Lac, were out of their banks 

as a result of the storm of June 6. A portion of Fond du Lac was flooded. Some washouts 

were reported on the Wisconsin Central and five on the Chicago and Northwestern.

The Sheboygan River was out of its banks at Sheboygan Falls, and caused damage in 

the low part of the town, and the Chippewa River overflowed at Eau Claire.

FLOOD IN EASTERN MISSOURI.

Heavy rains in Missouri and southern Illinois from September 15 to September 19 caused 

the Missouri River from Boonville to Hermann, Mo., to rise above the danger line, and 

some of the smaller streams of Missouri to be in destructive flood. The flood was remarkable for the time of year of its occurrence and the rapidity of its rise. The rain causing 

the flood occurred from the 15th to the 19th, but the larger part fell on the 17th. At 

Boonville, Mo., 12.98 inches fell from the 15th to the 19th. At Chester, III., 8.06 inches fell 

in 20.5 hours.

The streams rose very rapidly on the 17th. The following table gives the daily gage 

height of Meramec River at Meramec, the daily gage height and discharge of Meramec 

River at Eureka, Mo., and the gage height of the Gasconade River at Arlington, Mo., 

during this flood.

Flood flow of Meramec and Gasconade rivers during flood of September, 1905.

Date.

September 22. ............................................

Meramec 

River, 

Meramec, 

Mo.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

2.7 

7.0 

8.2 

7.8 

6.0 

5.6 

5.1 

4.3 

4.2 

3.9 

3. 1

Meramec River, 

Eureka, Mo.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

4.9 

18.4 

20.9 

24.5 

29.7 

28.5 

24.5 

13.5 

7.4 

6.6 

5.9

Discharge.

»

Sec.-feet. 

2,180 

23,840 

28,930 

37, MO 

51,160 

48,040 

37,640 

14,040 

4,950 

4,030 

.1,260

Gasconade River 

Arlington, Mo.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.95 

13.8 

12.5 

16.5 

13.fi 

14.0 

10.4 

7.4 

6.3 

5.8 

5.8
22 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Gasconade River rises in the southeastern part of Missouri, flows in a general northeasterly direction, and empties into the Missouri River about 6 miles west of Hermann, 

Mo. It is a very crooked stream, with little fall. The basin is mainly hilly or rolling land, 

cultivated or grass covered. The area of this basin above the gaging station at Arlington 

is 2,725 square miles.

Meramec River rises in the eastern part of Missouri, flows in a general northeasterly 

direction, and empties into the Mississippi about 22 miles below St. Louis. The drainage 

basin is hilly or rolling, cultivated or grass-covered land, and comprises an area of 3,619 

square miles. The area above the gaging station at Eureka is 3,497 square miles.

The maximum daily rate of the Meramec at Eureka during this flood was 51,160 secondfeet, or about 14.63 second-feet per square mile.

During the flood of January, 1897, the Gasconade at Arlington reached a stage of 26.90 

feet that is, a stage nearly twice as high as that reached by it during the flood of 1905.

The following table shows the daily gage heights at four United States Weather Bureau 

stations Boonville, Hermann, Grafton, and St. Louis two on Missouri River, and two 

on Mississippi River. Boonville is 199 miles above the mouth of the Missouri; Hermann 

is 103 miles above the mouth; Grafton is on the Mississippi about 21 miles above the 

mouth of the Missouri, and St. Louis is about the same distance below.

Stages of Missouri River during flood of September, 1905.

Date.

September 16 .........................................

September 17. ........................................

September 20. ........................................

September 21 .........................................

September 22. ........................................

September 23. ............................. ...........

Missouri River.

Boonville, 

Mo.«

Feet. 

8.8 

10.6 

16.9 

21.3 

21.6 

22.0 

21.3 

19.5 

17.9

Hermann, 

Mo.6

Feet. 

9.7 

11.2 

20.7 

24.3 

25.4 

25.4 

24.6 

23.3 

21.6

Mississippi River,

Grafton, 

Mo.c

Feet. 

8.2 

8.2 

8.8 

11.0 

13.6 

15.6 

16.4 

16.2 

15.2

St. Louis, 

Mo.d

Feet. 

11.3 

11.1 

12.9 

23.2 

27.1 

29.3 

30.2 

30.1 

29.2

o Lowest recorded stage, 0.6 feet. 

6 Lowest recorded stage, 0.0 feet, 

c Lowest recorded stage, 0.3 feet. 

» d Lowest recorded stage, 2.5 feet.

Some lowland along Missouri River was flooded and crops were damaged. Several of 

the smaller streams overflowed their banks, washed away some of the smaller bridges, 

and interfered with railway traffic for several days.

FLOODS IN SOUTH DAKOTA.

Freshets occurred on some of the streams of South Dakota in June, July, and August. 

The damage done was confined mainly to the Teton or Bad River in the vicinity of Fort 

Pierce. Heavy rain on July 2 and 3 caused this river to overflow its banks in a flood that 

swept away 17 houses and drowned 7 persons. There is no gaging station on this stream 

and the United States Weather Bureau gage at Pierce was carried away by the flood, so 

that records of river stage and rate of flow are not available for points in the eastern part 

of the State. There are several gaging stations in the western part of South Dakota, however, and data obtained there show magnitude of the floods in that part of the State.
SOUTH DAKOTA. 23

The following table gives the gage heights during these freshets at gaging stations on the 

Cheyenne at Edgemont, the White at Interior, the Moreau at Bixby, and the Grand at 

Seim, and also the daily rate of flow at Edgemont:

Stages and flow of streams of South Dakota during freshets of June-August, 1905.

Date.

July 1........ ............................

Tnlv >

JulyS....................................

July 4........ ............................

JulyS....................................

July 19...................................

July 20....... ............................

July 21....... ............................

July 28......... ..........................

July 29....... ............................

July 30...................................

July 31....... ............................

Cheyenne River at 

Edgemont.

Gage 

height."

Feet. 

5.45 

9.65 

4.4

2.7 

9.35 

5.80

2.1 

7.7 

5.9 

6.0 

10.7 

9.7 

6.0 

2 95 

7.95 

4.0 

5.0 

8.4 

5.8

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

2,752 

9,175 

1,850

345 

8,665 

3,460

75 

6,280 

3,595 

3,730 

10,960 

9,260 

3,730 

562 

6,842 

1,420 

2,440 

7,420 

3,460

White 

River at 

Interior.

Gage 

height .6

Feet. 

4.2 

16.0 

6.0

3.75 

9.20 

13.60 

10.10 

8.3 

2.35 

4.05 

2.95 

4.25 

9.50 

7.00 

6.30 

3.35 

3.05 

. 2.85 

2.15 

5.20 

5.15

Moreau 

River at 

Bixby.

Gage 

height, c

Feet. 

3.0 

6.75 

6.40 

4.8 

1.7 

2.'1 

6.1 

5.3

3.3 

3.1 

2.15 

2.25 

1.9 

1.8 

1.75 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.6

Grand 

River at 

Seim.

Gage 

height.**

Feet. 

3.6 

4.0 

4.9 

4.6 

2.2 

2.2 

4.0 

3.6

2.6 

2.8 

2.9 

2.1 

2.6 

2.4 

2.1 

2.1 

2.0 

1.9 

1.8 

1.8 

1.8

"Lowest reading, 1.4.

6 Lowest reading, 1.6.

c Lowest reading, 1.0; discharge, 0.

d Lowest reading, 1.5.

These four streams, drain the western half of South Dakota, flow in a general easterly 

direction, and empty into Missouri River. Seim is about 90 miles from the western boundary of the State, Bixby 72 miles, Edgemont 11 miles, and Interior 100 miles. The drainage area above Edgemont is 7,350 square miles; above Bixby, 1,600 square miles.

As the table shows, there were six freshets on the Cheyenne during the year one in 

June, three in July, and two in August, the largest of the six being the fourth, during which 

the daily rate of discharge was 10,960 second-feet, or about 1.5 second-feet per square mile 

of drainage above station. These floods were of short duration, the high water lasting 

only a day.

During only three of these six flood periods did the flow of White River at Interior rise 

more than 5 feet above low water. The flood of June was the largest of the three on the 

White, the stage on the 18th being about 14.5 feet above low water.

During these flood periods the stage of the two streams in the northwestern part of the 

State the Moreau and the Grand was less than 6 feet above low-water.
24 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

FLOOD IN SOUTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

Heavy rains in. Minnesota from July 3 to July 6 caused the upper Mississippi to reach a 

stage of 14.8 feet at St. Paul, Minn., the highest since 1897. The flood of April, 1881, 

reached a stage of 19.7 feet.

The following table gives the daily gage heights of the Mississippi River at Sauk Rapids, 

Minn., during the freshet; also the gage height and rate of flow of two of the tributaries, 

the Minnesota, which enters from the west at St. Paul, and the Chippewa, which enters 

from the north 70 miles below St. Paul:

Flow of upper Mississippi River and tributaries during the freshet (f July, 1905.

Date.

Tnlv 5

July 6. ........................................

Jnly 7.. .......................................

July 8. ........................................

July 9.. .......................................

July 10. .......................................

July 11. .......................................

July 12. .......................................

Chippewa River at 

Eau Claire, Wis.a

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

6.9 

10.4 

10.6 

11.3 

10.1 

7.0 

8.1 

6.9

Discharge.

SfC.-feet. 

8,390 

18,960 

19,640 

22,050 

17,940 

8,650' 

11,740 

8,390

Minnesota River at 

Mankato, Minn.6

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

9.4 

10.6 

11.7 

12. 2 

12.5 

12.0 

11.8 

11.2

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

9,400 

11,310 

13,070 

13,870 

14,350 

13,550 

13,230 

12,270

Mississippi 

River at 

Sauk 

Rapids, e

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

18.8 

19.8 

20.1 

20.2 

20.1 

19.6 

19.2 

18.6

a Lowest stage during 1905, 4.1 feet; discharge, 2,010 second-feet. 

b Lowest stage during 1905, 1.80 feet; discharge, 750 second-feet. 

< Lowest stage during 1905, 11.25 feet.

The Chippewa at Eau Claire reached a stage of 19.6 feet and a discharge of 60,520 secondfeet on June 8, 1905, and the Minnesota at Mankato, Minn., reached a stage of 19.6 feet on 

May 29, 1903, so that the greatest stage reached by the flood of July, 1905, on these streams 

was far below the highest recorded stages at these places.

FLOOD ON DEVILS CREEK, IOWA.

By E. C. MURPHY and F. W. HANNA.

INTRODUCTION.

Lee County, in southeastern Iowa, and Hancock County, in western Illinois, which 

borders Lee County on the east, were visited by a very heavy rain storm during the night 

of June 9, 1905. As a result of this storm the streams in these counties rose to extraordinary heights, causing great damage to property. Railroads, highways, and bridges were 

severely injured, stream beds and banks were badJy scoured in many places, and debris 

was transported and deposited throughout the creek valleys, destroying crops and damaging 

many acres of valuable land.

The data on which this report is based were obtained by investigating the conditions on 

the ground about one month after the flood, through facilities afforded by the courtesy of 

the engineers of the Santa Fe Railway. Owing to the lapse of time between the storm and 

the examination ol its results the information obtained is necessarily incompJete.

The area affected by this storm is in the central Mississippi drainage basin. Devils 

Creek, the stream on which most of the damage was done, drains directly into the Mississippi a few miles below Fort Madison, Iowa. It rises in Marion and Cedar townships and 

flows in a general southeasterly direction for about 20 miles. Panther Creek, the largest
IOWA: DEVILS CREEK. 25

vestern -tributary of Devils Creek, rises in the southern part of Franklin township, flows 

n a general southeasterly direction about 8 miles, and joins the main stream about 3 miles 

Joove its mouth. It drains an area of 14 square miles. The principal tributary of Devils 

]reek is Little Devils Creek, which enters it about 1 mile below the junction of Devils and 

'anther creeks. It is 7 miles long and drains an area of 19 square miles. The drainage 

irea of Devils Creek and that of the lower part of each of these two tributaries consists of 

illuvial, sandy soil that erodes readily. The upper drainage area is covered with heavy

FIG. 5. Map of drainage basin of-Devils Creek, Iowa.

:lay soil. There is little timber in the basin except narrow strips in places along the creeks. 

Fhe total drainage area of Devils Creek and it's branches at its mouth is about 145 square 

mles, while that at the Santa Fe Railway bridge is about 143 square miles.

PRECIPITATION.

The storm causing the damage here discussed is described in the June issue of the Monthly 

Review ot the Iowa Weather and Crop Service, as follows;

On tne alternoon and night of June 9 and morning of the 10th copious showers visited all districts, 

ind in a, considerable portion ol cne houtheast and east-central distncu< the downpour can only be 

lescnbed by the term ' torrential." The heaviest amounts reported at stations m the submerged
26 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

section were as follows: Bonaparte, 12.10 inches; Keosauqua, 11.09; Stockport, 10.63 (three cooperative 

stations in Van Buren County); Mount Pleasant, 7.20; Burlington, 6.10; Fort Madison, 6.40; Keokuk 

4.80; Chariton, 4.22; Albia, 3.44; Iowa City, 4.87; Amana, 3.65; Davenport, 5.67; Wilton, 4.17; L< 

Claire, 4.41 inches. The larger part of this heavy precipitation fell in the twelve hours from 8.30 p. m 

of the 9th to 8.30 a. m. of the 10th, and in Bonaparte the average downpour was about an inch an hour 

The result of such a shower may be imagined but can not be fully described in detail. Not many buildings were sufficiently well roofed to keep the occupants dry, and but few streams and water courses 

were adequate to carry off the surplus moisture. Those who were driven into the wet say it came dowr 

in sheets and hit- so hard it was difficult to stand, though there was no wind. One of the Van Burei 

County reporters states that 85 county bridges were swept away. The aggregate damage to crops bj 

erosion of soil on slopes and flooding the bottoms was altogether beyond estimation in all the area swepl 

over by that unprecedented storm. Happily such storms are not usual visitations.

The following table, prepared from data furnished by the United States Weather Bureau 

shows the depth of rainfall in inches at several surrounding places in Iowa and Illinois:

Precipitation at places in southeastern Iowa, June 9, 10, and during June, 1905, in inches.

Place. June 9.

3.93

1.20

.17

2.18

.00

June 10.

1.69

.38

1.95

2.62

10/25

Total foi 

June.

7.6S

4.33

2.71

6.57

12. 6C

THE EXOOD.

Devils Creek at the Santa Fe Railway bridge began to rise about 10 p. m. and continued 

to rise gradually until about 12.30 a. m., when, according to the report of the bridge watchman, it rose about 4 feet in fifteen minutes. The bridge and about 150 feet of the right 

embankment went out about 4 a. m., when the water reached its maximum height, 17.7 

feet above low water. This bridge was a Pratt truss bridge of 149-foot span, resting on 

masonry piers, with 54 feet of pile approach on the right side and 109 feet on the left. Fig. 

6 shows a plan of this stream in the vicinity of the bridge; also a cross section and profile 

taken June 24, 1905, fourteen days after the flood. The waterway below the high-water 

line of June 10 had an area of 4,320 square feet before the flood and about 13,000 square 

feet after the flood. Thus it seems that the scouring effect at this bridge increased the 

waterway to three times its original size.

The daily gage heights and corresponding discharges at the United States Geological 

Survey gaging station on Des Moines River at Keosauqua, Iowa, from June 9 to 14, inclusive, 

were as follows:

Gage heights and discharge of Des Moines River at Keosauqua., Iowa, June 9-14-

Date.

June 10. .............................. ..........................................

June 12..........................................................................

June 13 ............ 3 ......................................................... ...

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

4.0

22.8

 144

10 6

ai

5.6

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

8,550

75,750

44,670

30,610

21,460

13,250
PLAN
28 DE8TEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The table shows that the river at Keosauqua station rose from 4 feet on the 9th to 22.8 

feet on the 10th, a total rise of 18.8 feet. Des Moines River at Des Moines rose on the 10th 

about 1 foot. Iowa River at Iowa City rose from 2.2 to 7.7 feet on the 10th. There was 

no rise on the 10th either in Cedar River at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, or in Rock River at Sterling, 111. Skunk River is reported to have been very high, but there is no record of the 

amount of rise. Mississippi River at Fort Madison, Iowa, rose from 8 feet on the evening 

of th* 9th to 11 feet on the morning of the 10th. The gage on the Mississippi River at 

Keokuk, Iowa, read 18.4 feet at 2 p. m. on the 10th. The maximum stage here in 1888 

was 19.95 feet, the maximum in 1903 was 19.6 feet, and the maximum during the great 

flood of 1851 was 21.05 feet.

The high-water marks on Devils Creek show that the height of the flood and the flow 

were much greater on this creek than on either Panther or Little Devils Creek. The maximum rate of flow of this stream during this flood is very difficult to compute because it 

overflowed its banks and was from a quarter to a half a mile in width, except at some of 

the bridges. At the Santa Fe bridge Devils Creek was ultimately about 470 feet wide, 

but the stream bed was so much scoured that the cross section affords no basis for determining the size of the stream when the flow was at its maximum. Mr. Gray, the Santa Fe 

engineer in charge of the construction work at this bridge at the time, of the flood, 

believes that the stream bed, which is of sand, scoured down to the clay previous to the 

time the bridge failed. The high-water marks above and below this bridge indicate a 

slope of 0.0025. The. coefficient of roughness has been assumed to be 0.050. This high 

coefficient of roughness is necessary, owing to the many obstructions in the stream at the 

bridge. The channel is extremely crooked and the banks are covered with trees immediately above the bridge. The amount of pier and piling at the bridge was great, there 

being, in addition to the two piers on which the iron truss was supported, 54 feet of pile 

approach on one side and 109 feet on the other.« Undoubtedly immense amounts of drift 

were collected in and about these piers and piles. In addition to this there must be taken 

into consideration the effect of constriction of channel, for the stream immediately 

above the bridge was two or three times as wide as at the bridge. The hydraulic mean 

depth has been roughly computed from the maximum area to be 27.3 feet. From these 

data and the use of Kutter's formula, c being 56, v is found to be 14.6 feet per second; and 

the maximum rate of discharge is approximately 189,800 second-feet computed from the 

maximum cross-section area. Inasmuch as the drainage area of Devils Creek at the Santa 

Fe bridge is 143 square miles, this gives an approximate maximum run-off of 1,300 secondfeet per square mile.

In order to verify this computation, an attempt has been made to compute, by means 

of Kutter's formula, the flow of the tributaries of Devils Creek. Considerable care has 

been exercised in selecting the proper coefficients of roughness and although at first they 

may seem somewhat large, yet an investigation of the conditions at the cross sections will 

show that they are proper. From data obtained at the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 

Railway crossing on Devils Creek the maximum rate of discharge was found to be 161,600 

second-feet, with a slope of 0.005 and a coefficient of roughness of 0.050; that at the crossing 

on the same line on Little Devils Creek was found to be 10,700 second-feet, with a slope of 

0.002 and a coefficient of roughness of 0.040; and the maximum rate of discharge at the 

crossing of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway bridge on Panther Creek was found 

to be 7,300 second-feet, with a slope of 0.0028 and a coefficient of roughness of 0.038. The 

sum of these discharges is 179,000 second-feet. The drainage area of Devils Creek at the 

Santa Fe bridge exceeds the sum of the areas represented by the three points selected'by 

about 2 square miles. Adding for this excess drainiage area 1,300 second-feet per square 

mile to the discharge found by the summation of the partial discharges, there would be at 

the Santa Fe bridge over Devils Creek a discharge of 182,000 second-feet, which differs from 

the original computation by about 4 per cent.

a See Qanguillet and Kutter, flow of water, Theiss below Szolnok, Class B, Division VIH.
IOWA: DEVILS CHEEK. 29

It has been noted that the run-off per square mile on the drainage area of Devils Creek, 

at the Santa Fe bridge is about 1,300 second-feet. Like computations show that the run-off 

per square mile is about 1,500 second-feet, 560 second-feet, and 520 second-feet for Devils 

Creek, Little Devils Creek and Panther Creek, respectively, at points near Viele. This 

clearly indicates that the flood was concentrated in the main Devils Creek Valley.

These maximum rates of flow are greatly in excess of any that have been published for 

streams in the United States, and although the data were obtained with care they may be 

in error by a large amount. There was no engineer on the ground during this flood from 

whom definite information could be obtained as to what happened at each measured section 

at the time of maximum flow. Drift undoubtedly lodged in front of the Santa Fe Railway 

bridge and abutments, making a difference in elevation of the water surface above and 

below the bridge, and consequently a greater surface slope than the stream would show 

during times of free flow. Again, it is impossible to state with certainty the rate of scour 

of the bed and banks. The computed rate of flow is based on the area obtained from soundings taken on June 24, fourteen days after the flood. This area is three times larger than 

the area at this place just prior to the flood.

The behavior of Devils Creek at the bend (fig. 6), 1.5 miles above Viele,~well illustrates 

the change of velocity in the channel around a bend when overflow takes place across the 

bend. This stream makes a sharp bend about 1,000 feet above the Chicago, Burlington 

and Quincy Railway bridge and flows nearly parallel with the railway. The overflow cut 

across this bend and entered the channel below with a velocity which was greater than that 

in the channel because of the. same fall in a shorter distance. The entry of this overflow 

produced backwater in the channel above, reducing the velocity almost to zero. The 

overflow across the bend carried a steel bridge over the railway embankment, washed 

away the track, and eroded the embankment to a depth of 10 feet, but although the water 

was 3 feet deep on the railway bridge, the bridge was not damaged.

DAMAGE. '

The damage done was very large considering the small area covered by the storm. In 

addition to the damage done at the Santa Fe Railway bridge No. 342, already mentioned, 

the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway bridge over Devils Creek at Viele was swept 

away, with 375 feet of the right approach, and the abutments of the railway bridges over 

Little Devils and Painter creeks near Viele were badly damaged and 900 feet of embankment 

washed away. Besides these, 14 county bridges over Devils Creek in Lee County, varying 

in length from 70 to 127 feet; 6 bridges over the branches of Devils Creek, of lengths ranging 

from 30 to 156 feet; 4 bridges over Little Devils Creek, of lengths ranging from 110 to 136 

feet: and 3 bridges over Panther Creek, of lengths ranging from 90 to 156 feet, were either 

swept away or damaged. The cost of replacing these county bridges was estimated at 

$27,000 by M. E. Bannon, bridge engineer, Lee County, Iowa. Many small bridges in this 

county were also swept away, and several miles of road and several acres of land were badly 

damaged by scour or by deposit of sand and debris upon it.

INFERENCES FROM FirOOD. <.

The general inference to be drawn from the effects of the high water on bridges throughout 

Devils Creek Valley is that all the waterways were by far too small. The waterways on the 

main stream were not more than one-third the size required to carry with safety the immense 

volume of water flowing at the tune of the maximum stage. However, that it would not be 

economical and, therefore, not good engineering practice, to attempt to provide waterways 

sufficient for such extraordinary floods as that of June 10,1905, is certain. The long lapse of 

time between storms of such abnormal proportions as the one here described makes the interest on the invested capital of the structure exceed several times the cost of replacement. 

The most economical bridge is one whose waterway is based on a careful study of the frequency and intensity of storms and the corresponding run-offs with a view to balancing 

interest on the first co?t against cost of replacement, loss of traffic, etc., due to washouts.
30 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Such engineering study is unfortunately hindered by lack of comprehensive data concerning 

rainfall. The washout experience of the railroads at their crossings on Devils Creek should 

result in enlargements of their waterways. That the new waterways need not be as large as 

the openings made by the flood, and that they should be larger than they were before the 

flood are equally without doubt.

The following table, taken from Table VI, Bulletin C, of the Weather Bureau, shows maximum rates of rainfall at points surrounding Lee County for periods prior to and including 

1891.

Maximum rainfall at certain points in Mississippi River basin.

Location of station.

St. Paul, Minn ..........................................

Period.

Teirs. 

32

20

22

 52

20

00

22

Maximum 

in 72 hours.

Inches. 

5.8

5.5

5.5

6.7

5.7

5.1

6.4

Maximum 

in 48 hours.

Inches. 

5.4

5.3

5.4

6.7

5.2

4.6

6.0

Maximum 

in 24 hours.

Inches. 

4.5

4.8

5.0

4.5

4.2

3.7

4.3

This table indicates that a rainfall of about 5 inches in twenty-four hours may be expected 

to occur at least as often as once in twenty years. It would therefore, seem wise to provide 

waterways for such storms as far as possible. It is a matter of record, as shown by the table 

below, that the major portion of the precipitation in these cases occurs in a few hours, and 

is not equally distributed throughout the twenty-four-hour period. It is also a well-known 

fact that as a rule these great rainstorms are local.

Heavy precipitation in upper Mississippi Valley.

Place.

Bright, Ind. . ..............................................

Shelby ville, Ind ...........................................

Tilden, 111... ..............................................

St. Paul , Minn ............................................

Kansas City, Mo............. .............................

St. Paul, Minn... ..........................................

Columbia, Mo. ............................................

Kansas City, Mo ..........................................

Date.

September 23, 1898. . . .

August 17, 1898.......

July 6, 1898...........

July 29, 1898..........

July 6, 1898...........

July 25, 1898..........

June 26, 1898..........

June 14, 1898..........

June9, 1898...........

June 16, 1898..........

April 30, 1898.........

March 26-27, 1889.....

March 18, 1898........

October 28, 1900......

September 11, 1900. . . .

September 27, 1900. . . .

August 18, 1902....... 

Julyl, 1902...........

August 13, 1903.......

Precipitation.

Ink?*. 

2.00

1.97

0.98

3.30

2.33

3.00

2.30

3.00

2.05

3.00

2.90

1.52

1.92

1.39

1.33 

2.19

1.36

3.04

2.04 

3.37

1.35

Time.

h.m. 

2

2

1 53

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1 20

1 20

1 20

1 20 

1 20

1 20

1 20

1 20 

1 20

2
IOWA COLORADO. 31

Let it be assumed, for streams with small drainage areas, that 60 per cent of the twentyfour-hour rainfall occurs in two hours; that it takes two hours for the storm water from the 

remotest part of the drainage area to reach,a given point, and that the proportion of run-off 

is 70 per cent, for the per cent of run-off is often very large during heavy rains, as the ground 

is likely to be already thoroughly saturated. The amount of water reckoned in second-feet 

arriving at the lower end of this drainage area at the end of a two-hour period would be the 

total precipitation in cubic feet on that area for one second. Now, if F equals the number 

of square feet in a square mile; M, the member of square miles in the drainage area; P, the 

precipitation in feet for two hours; R, the percentage of run-off; T, the number of seconds 

in two hours, and Q, the maximum drainage area run-off; then,

nV y _F MPR 

By substitution,

A

n Q=5280X5280X12X 2X60X60 .70 M

That is, there would be 678 second-feet per square mile to provide for. Evidently the rate of 

precipitation to be used should be the maximum occurring in the time required for the 

remotest waters to reach the point considered.

FLOOD IN DES MOINES COUNTY, IOWA.

On the night of August 15,1898, a storm of great intensity occurred in Des Moines County, 

Iowa, a This storm and the damage done by it are discussed by Maurice Ricker in a paper 

entitled "The August Cloudburst in Iowa," read before the Iowa Academy of Sciences, 

December 28, 1898. This storm was confined to about two-thirds of Des Moines County, 

or an area of about 250 square miles. Unfortunately there were no rain gages in this 

area, but Mr. Ricker claims that reliable measurements of the depth of water in empty cans 

in exposed places indicate that over an area of about 50 square miles the precipitation was 

about 16 inches.

Twenty-three county bridges were swept away by this flood, and the Burlington, Cedar 

Rapids and Northern Railway lost 5 bridges and 2 miles of track by it.

FLOOD ON PURGATORY RIVER, COLORADO.

From April 22 to 24,1905,2.5 inches of rain and snow fell at Trinidid, Colo., and a greater 

depth on the mountains, causing a freshet in Purgatory River for several days. The stream" 

has a fall of 42 feet per mile in the vicinity of Trinidad, and the sandy loam banks, softened 

by the rains, disappeared rapidly into the river. Many acres of fertile bottom land and 

thousands of feet of railway were swept away. The stream in places shifted its channel 

from one side of the valley to the other, necessitating the moving of some of the bridges.

PL I is a view of the river above Trinidad. On the right is a bridge, under which the river 

passed before the flood of September, 1904. The road and the right bank for several hundred feet were washed away. The railroads passing through Trinidad suffered heavily from 

these floods. All the trains on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway from Kansas 

City to the Southwest were delayed for several days. Large gangs of men were kept constantly at work repairing and rebuilding track washed out by the high water. About 2,000 

feet of the pipe line that supplies the city of Trinidad with water were washed out, and the 

city was left without drinking water for several days.

a Monthly Review of the Iowa Weather and Crop Service, December, 1898.
32 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the gage heights and daily rate of flow of this stream at the 

gaging station near Barela, Colo., 30 miles below Trinidad and about one-eighth of a mile 

below the canyon entrance:

Flood flow of Purgatory River at entrance of canyon, Barela, Colo., April 23 to May 5, 1905.

Date.

April 23. ................................

April 24 ..................................

April 24 ..................................

April 25. .................................

April 25 ..................................

April 25. .................................

April 25 ..................................

April 25. .................................

April 26 ..................................

April 26. .................................

April 26 ..................................

April 26. .................................

April 26. .................................

April 27. .................................

April 27........ ..........................

April 27 ..................................

April 27 ..................................

April 27 ..................................

April 28 ..................................

April 30..................................

May 1....................................

May 2.... ................................

May 3. ...................................

May 4.... ................................

Hour.

a. m.

g 0o

10.00

9 45

12.45

11.00

7.30

8.30

9.30

12.00

8.00

8.00

7.15

8.30

8.30

8.00

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

4.90

8.60

8.20

8.10

7.35

7.35

7.35

7.40

7.45

9.80

9.80

9.80

9.75

11.50

11.30

11.10

10.75

10.50

10.40

10.80

8.90

7.90

7.70

7.30

6.80

6.40

5.80

Hour.

p. m.

3.00

4 00

1.45

2.45

4.45

5.45

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

5.00

5.30

5.00

5.00

4.00

Gage 

height.

Feet.

8.00

7.90

7.80

7.75

7.70

7.60

7.90

8.40

9.30

9.50

9.70

9.65

9.60

9.65

9.65

10.10

10.00

10.10

10.50

10.90

9.90

8.30

7.50

7.30

5.90

Mean 

gage 

height.

Feet. 

4.90

8.08

I 7.96

9.72

- 11. 01

10.35

8.60

7.70

7.50

7.30

6.80

6.40

5.85

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

261

1,528

1,456

2,676

3,790

3,198

1,860

. 1,305

1,195

1,095

865

695

495

It is seen that the largest recorded gage height was 11.50 feet, on the morning of the 27th. 

The gage reader reports that on the night of the 26th the water reached the 15-foot mark 

on the gage. The discharge for a 15-foot stage is upward of 7,700 second-feet.

FLOOD ON PECOS RIVER, NEW MEXICO-TEXAS.

During the latter part of July a flood occurred on the Pecos River that approached 

closely in magnitude the great flood of September and October, 1904, in that part of the 

stream from Carlsbad, N. Mex., to Pecos, Tex. The flood did much damage to bridges and 

irrigation works.

Pecos River rises in the northern part of New Mexico, flows in a southerly and southeasterly direction a distance of 550 miles, and empties into the Rio Grande near Langtry, 

Tex.

The following table gives the daily gage height at Santa Rosa and Roswell and the daily 

gage height and corresponding discharge at Carlsbad and Pecos, Tex., during the flood.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 162 PL. I

PURGATORY RIVER AT TRINIDAD, COLO.
NEW MEXICO-TEXAS: PECOS RIVER. 33

Daily rate of flow of Pecos River during floods of 1905.

Date.

July 20...........................

July 21.................... .......

July 22 ...........................

July 23...........................

July 24...........................

July 25...........................

July 26...........................

July 27... ........................

July 28. ..........................

July 29...........................

July 30...........................

July 31. ..........................

Santa 

Rosa, 

N. Hex.

Gage 

height .a

Feet. 

0.7

0.9

2.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Roswell, 

N. Hex.

Gage 

height .6

Feet. 

3.3

3.0

3.0

6.7

5.6

4.3

3.8

3.4

3.4

3.4

Carlsba

Gage 

height, c

Feet.

1.48

1.54

8.67

<"14.39

12 42

7.00

5.35

4.50

4.15

d, N.Mex.

Discharge.

Sec. -feet. 

206

476

518

47,600

37,500

25,000

11,300

5,685

3,750

3,140

Pecc

Gage 

height.^

Feet. 

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.0

4.9

7.2

9.4

Ii7

18.3

17.2

13.2

10.7

7.6

6.2

>s,Tex.

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

140

140

140

150

1,600

5,380

8,450

16,100

25,500

22,650

15,200

9,750

5,800

4,170

a Maximum stage during flood of October, 1904, 23 feet.

b Maximum stage during flood of October, 1904, 16.5 feet.

c Maximum stage during flood of October, 1904,15+feet.

^ Maximum stage during flood of October, 1904, 19 feet.

« Gage height at 10 a. m., 15.85 feet; discharge, 54,930 second-feet.

It is seen that the stream above Santa Rosa was not in flood at this time, as the gage did 

not read above 2.5 feet, not within 21 feet of the gage reading of September 30, 1904. At 

Roswell the maximum stage was 7 feet; it was 16.5 feet on October 1, 1905. The maximum stage at Carlsbad occurred on July 25, and was at least 1.4 less than in October, 1904. 

At Pecos, Tex., the highest stage was reached on July 28, and was about a foot less than 

the highest stage in October, 1904. The Pecos did not begin to rise at the mouth until 

July 30. It rose slowly from a stage of 1.7 feet and a rate of flow of 670 second-feet on 

July 29 to a stage of 5.6 feet and a rate of flow of 5,530 second-feet on August 12.

The total run-off of the Pecos at Carlsbad, N. Mex., for the nine days, July 23-31, of this 

flood was 305,600 acre-feet.

By comparing the gage heights and corresponding rates of flow given in the table above 

with those prevailing during the flood of September and October, 1904, a it will be seen that 

the flood of 1905 was much smaller than the flood of 1904 above Carlsbad and almost disappeared above Santa Rosa. In the vicinity of Pecos, Tex., the flood of 1905 almost 

equaled in magnitude that of 1904, but was of shorter duration. The stage was 9 feet or 

more for twelve days in 1904 and only six days in 1905.

"See Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper, U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 147, p. 133.
34 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS TN UNITED STATES IN 1905. 

FLOOD ON HONDO RIVER, NEW MEXICO.

The Hondo reached a higher stage at Hondo reservoir during 1905 than during 1904. 

The following table gives the daily gage height and discharge at Hondo reservoir during 

the flood of 1905:

Daily rate of flow of Hondo River during floods of July, 1905.

Date.

July 22. ...................................................

July 23. ...................................................

July 24. ...................................................

July 25. ...................................................

July 26 ....................................................

July 27. ...................................................

July 28. ...................................................

July 29 ....................................................

July 30. ...................................................

July 31 ....................................................

Reservoir.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

Dry.

6.3 

8.05 

11.4 

9.2 

8.55 

7.0 

6.5 

4.15 

4.35

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

460 

820 

1,790 

1,115 

950 

600 

500 

170 

250

Ro swell.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

4.1 

5.0

4.9 

4.85 

3.6 

2.95 

2.25

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

422 

551 

660 

535 

528 

358 

280 

202

FLOOD ON RIO GRANDE, NEW MEXICO-TEXAS. 

INTRODUCTION.

From May 15 to June 20 the part of this stream between Albuquerque, N. Mex., and 

Presidio, Tex., was in destructive flood. The dikes protecting villages and lowlands were 

overtopped and considerable damage was done to crops,' railway property, buildings, and 

land along the river. It was the spring flood, due to the rapid melting of an exceptionally 

large winter accumulation of snow on the mountains.

The Rio Grande rises among the mountains of southern Colorado, flows in a genera} 

southerly and southeasterly direction for about 1,800 miles, and empties into the Gulf of 

Mexico. Its two largest tributaries are the Pecos, entering from the north near Morehead, 

Tex., and the Rio Conchos, entering from the south at Presidio, Tex. (see fig 7). It is a 

storm-water stream, subject to large and sudden fluctuations of flow, except in the spring 

and early summer, when its water comes from melting snow in the mountains at the headwaters. The basin is long and comparatively narrow, the larger part being mountainous, 

with steep, barren, impervious slopes. From its head to Del Norte, Colo., a distance of 

144 miles, the fall of the stream is 4,258 feet; from Del Norte to San Marcial, 393 miles, the 

fall is 3,342 feet; from San Marcial to El Paso, 203 miles, it is 700 feet; from El Paso to the 

mouth, 1,032 miles, it is 3,700 feet. The area of the watershed above El Paso is 38,000 

square miles.
MEXICO-TEXAS: BIO GKANDE. 35

FLOOD FLOW.

There are eight gaging stations on this stream. The daily rate of flow and progress of

FIG. 7. Map of Rio Grande drainage basin.

the flood down the stream can be seen from the record at San Marcial, El Paso, and Upper 

Presidio,« given in the following table:

« Data furnished by W. W. Follett, consulting engineer.
36 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Flood flovj of Rio Grange during part cf May and June, 1005.

Date.

May 19 ...................................

May 20. ..................................

May 21 ...................................

May 23. ..................................

May 24. ..................................

May 25. ..................................

May 26. ..................................

May 27. ..................................

May 28. ..................................

May 29........................ ...........

May 30 ...................................

May 31......... .........................

June 13...................................

June 18...................................

Cenicero 

(gage 

height).

Feet. 

5.9

6.6

7.0

7.2

7.95

8.0

8.4

8.15

8.0

7.7

7.1

6.7

6.25

6.5

7.05

7.85

8.25

8.75

8.85

9.05

8.85

8.6

8.45

8.1

7.6

6.8

6.7

6.4

6.05

5.8

5.15

4.9

Rio Grande 

(gage 

height) .

Feet. 

11.1

11.6

11.5

11.4

11.5

11.8

11.8

11.5

11.2

10.9

10.6

10.5

9.4

9.3

9.1

9.2

9.5

10.2

10.5

10.45

10.7

11.1

10.4

10.05

9.65

9.4

9.05

8.45

 8. 15

7.7

7.5

7.15

6.85

6.45

San 

Marcial 

(discharge) .

Sec.-feet. 

15, 380

16, 550

17,350

23,400

28,600

29,070

23,540

28,000

27,100

25,580

23,600

20,430

19,060

19, 360

19,660

19,970

17, 110

16,350

16,480

15, 810

15,440

15,070

15,930

17,390

IS, 460

16, 370

13,570

12, 170

11,880

12,800

13,730

10,950

10, 170

8,810

1,276,000

El Paso 

(discharge) .

Sec.-feet. 

6,020

6,180

6,980

8,360

9,720

9,800

10,210

12,640

14, 720

16, 450

17,860

18,920

18, 920

20,270

20,720

20,320

18,840

17,620

15,630

14, 190

14, 190

17, 410

18,300

20, 190

23,680

23,050

23, 620

23,270

23,270

20,100

17,250

13, 620

9,970

7,310

1,070,000

Upper 

Presidio (discharge) .

Sec.-feet.

4,80C

4,900

5,050

5,200

5,200

5,400

5,650

5,850

6,200

6,500

6,900

7,480

8,860

9,640

10,620

11,200

11,780

12, 360

12,540

13,700

13,700

12,600

12,400

12,600

11,400

12,300

12,100

11,900

513,400

There were evidently two flood waves, one reaching a maximum rate of 29,070 secondfeet at San Marcial on May 24, the other reaching a maximum of 18,460 second-feet at San 

Marcial on June 12, nineteen days later. These two waves reached El Paso on June 2 and 

14, the second having there a larger rate of flow than the first. The first wave was lost 

before reaching Presidio, and the maximum rate of the second one at that place was 

reduced to 13,700 second-feet. The total volume of flow from May 19 to June 21 at San 

Marcial is 1,276,000 acre-feet. The total volume at El Paso May 19 to June 21 is 1,070,000 

acre-feet, and the total volume at Presidio May 25 to June 21 is 513,400 acre-feet.

COMPARISON WITH FLOOD OF OCTOBER, 19O4.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow at San Marcial and El Paso for the ten 

days of the flood of 1904 between October 8-17, and for ten days of the flood of May, '1905. 

The former, a fall flood due to rain, had a much more rapid rate of rise and fall and a greater 

maximum rate of flow than the latter, which was a spring flood, due to melting snow. 

The greatest daily discharge each year from 1895 to 1905 is given on page 83.
NEW MEXICO-TEXAS: ETO GRANDE.

Comparison of daily discharge of Rio Grande at San Martial and El Paso during the foods

of 1904-1905.

Date.

October 8. ....................

October 9. ....................

October 10 ....................

October 11....................

October 12 ....................

October 13....................

October 16. ...................

October 17....................

19(

San 

Marcial.

Sec-feet. 

2,880

12,000

24,000

33,000

24,800

21, 750

15,900

11,100

6,250

1,550

)4.

El Paso.

Sec-feet.

7,670

11,370

10,550

12,010

13 800

16,200

17, 100

9 300

6,300

Date.

19

San 

Marcial.

Sec.-feet. 

17,350

23,400

28,600

29,070

23,540

28,000

27,100

25,580

23,600

20,430

D5.

El Paso.

Sec.-feet. 

6,980

8,360

9,720

9,800

10,210

12, 640

14, 720

16, 450

17,860

18,920

DAMAGE.

The damage, done by this flood consisted chiefly in the destruction of crops on lands 

overflowed and the destruction of clay or adobe buildings. The village of Tome, 35 miles 

south of Albuquerque, N. Mex., one of the olclest in the Territory, was reported to have 

been almost completely destroyed. The river broke through the dike at this place, flooded 

the village, softened the walls of the buildings, and caused them to fall. Some of the land 

along the river was injured by having the soil washed from it, while other land was enriched 

by the deposition of rich sediment upon it.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED ENGL.E DAM OK FLOODS.

A reservoir, to be formed by a dam on the Rio Grande, will be located near Engle, N. 

Mex., 125 miles above El Paso. It will have a depth of 175 feet at lower end, a length.of 

40 miles, and a capacity of 2,000,000 acre-feet. The following table gives run-off, in acrefeet, at San Marcial each month from October, 1904, to September 30, 1905, and the total 

volume for these twelve months.

Estimated monthly discharge of Rio Grande near San Marcial, N. Mex., October 1, 1904, to

September 30, 1905.

Month.

1904. 

October................ ......... ....... . ... ,

November. ..................... .......

1905. 

January ........................ ......

February.. ............................. ....... . .

June .................... ...... .

July.................... ......... .... . . .

August ................................. . . ...

Acre-feet for period .............................

Maximum.

Sec.-feet. 

33,000

1,430

1,130

1,005

3,220

14, 160

29,070

19,970

2,770

710

470

Minimum.

Sec.-feet. 

1,120

650

355

370

290

2,200

1,730

7,500

2,640

65

0

0

Mean.

Sec.-feet. 

7,534

870

* 679

636

1,150

3,544

4,695

15,650

12,000

582

327

89

Total in 

acre-feet.

463,200

51,770

41,750

39,110

63, 870

217,900

279, 400

962,200

714,300

35,780

20,090

5,276

2,895,000
38 DESTKUCTITE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

It is seen that the total flow for these twelve months at San Marcial was about 1.45 

times the capacity of this reservoir.

SPRING FLOODS IN COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 

INTROD UCTIOK.

In the Colorado River drainage basin, especially its southern portion, a remarkable flood 

or succession of floods occurred during the period January-April, 1905. The rate of flow 

of some of the tributaries may have been greater, for a short time, at some previous date 

than during this period, but the total run-off of the Gila and Colorado during this flood 

was unprecedented. The flood of 1903 on the Colorado was regarded as one of the largest 

up to that time, but the total run-off at Yuma from January to July, 1905, was 1.8 times 

greater than during the corresponding period.of 1903. The Gila River at Dome, near its 

mouth, had a total run-off of 31,000 acre-feet from January to May, 1903, inclusive, and 

2,957,800 acre-feet for the same period of 1905.

The Colorado River proper is formed by the junction of the Green and Grand rivers in 

the southern part of Utah, flows in a general southwesterly direction for nearly 1,000 miles, 

and empties into the Gulf of California. The principal tributaries are the Gila, Little Colorado, San Juan, Virgin, and Williams. The following table, prepared mainly from data 

in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 44 (p. 82), gives the distance from the mouth 

to places along the river, their height above sea level, and the fall per mile between them.

Distances and altitudes along Colorado River, and fall per mile..

Locality.

Mouth of Grand Wash (fault)... .......................................

Mouth of Grand River.. .................:..............................

Distance 

from 

mouth.

Miles. 

0

150

261

340

367

385

440

447

454

555

600

650

700

730

790 

800 

815

880

905

920

957

970

1,030

1,067 

1,080

Height 

above 

sea.

Feet. 

0

125

375

448

935

1,000

1,312

1,625

1,810

2,300 

2,520 

2,625

3,187

3,220

3,250

3,310

3,325

3,434

3,750 

3,775

Fall per 

mile.

Feet. 

0

0.8

1.3

1.6

2.9

1.4

6.2

6.3

6.2

8.2 

22.0 

7.0

8.6

1.3

2.0

1.6

1.2

1.8

31.2 

1.9

The-Colorado River drainage basin, including the Green and Grand rivers, extends from 

43.5° to 31° north latitude, and from 115.5° to 106° west longitude, and comprises an area
COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 39

of about 225,000 square miles. Within this basin is found some of the most varied topography on this continent. The canyon of the Colorado has a depth of 3,000 to 6,000 feet 

below the surrounding plateaus. The greater part of the basin consists of elevated plateaus bordered with cliffs. The slopes are steep and nearly impervious, hence the run-off 

is very rapid.

PRECIPITATION.

The mean annual precipitation varies from less than 5 inches in the southwestern part 

of the basin to more than 15 inches on some of the high plateaus and mountains. On 

the headwaters of the Duchesne River the precipitation must be more than 20 inches, as 

the measured annual run-off is 14.5 inches.

The following table, prepared from the records of the United States Weather Bureau 

gives the monthly precipitation from January to April, 1905, at places in the Gila River 

basin and vicinity. It also gives the mean monthly precipitation at some of these places 

for comparison:

Monthly precipitation in the Gila and Little Colorado River basins from January 1 to April 

30, 1905, compared with the mean monthly precipitation of same localities.

Place.

Alpine, Ariz ......................

Luna, N. Mex ....................

Bisbee, Ariz ......................

Fort Wingate.N. Mex. .......... 

Flagstaff, Ariz ...................

January.

1905.

5.10 

4.74 

1 97

1.44 

5.21

3.15 

3.45 

0.36 

3.31

3.61 

1.53 

3.07 

3.46 

1.69 

1.91

3.57 

1.57 

2.85 

2.09 

2.91 

1.60 

1.15 

1.12 

1 08

1.29

1.77

2.30 

3.20 

1.45

Mean.

1.44 

1.55

0.99

1.36 

0.99 

0.80 

1.03 

0.43 

0.66 

1.33 

0.22 

1.63

1.35 

0.53 

1.27

1.08 

0.74 

0.42

.......

February.

1905.

7.80

7.92

Q O7

6.05

7 14

5.88 

4.31 

2.34 

4.64 

6.22 

2.08 

4.26 

5.03 

2.01 

3.29 

3.00 

5.88 

3.35 

4.86 

3.53 

6.46 

2.70 

3.43 

5.71

0 ^A

3.72

4 47

2.31 

5.79 

1.21

Mean.

2.35 

1.76

0.39

1.80 

1.13 

0.70 

1.21 

0.31 

0.86 

1.44 

0.60 

1.15 

0.37 

1.39 

0.32 

0.94

0.80 

0.70 

0.51

.......

March.

1905.

7.30 

6.17

5.35

4.91 

6.79 

0.99 

2.38 

6.07 

2.15 

4.33 

3.30 

1.02 

2.65 

2.95 

3.75 

3.24 

3.42 

2.47 

3.61 

1.72 

3.33 

5.26

O QQ

3.05

2.85 

4.02 

0.96

Mean.

1.351 

1.78

0.56

1.63 

0.71 

0.58 

0.98 

0.42 

0.58 

0.98 

0.23 

0.92 

0.37 

1.02 

0.44 

0.76

0.72 

0.45 

0.26

.......

April.

1905.

3.70 

3.81 

1.65

2.40 

4.59

3.20 

5.00 

1.21 

2.59 

2.35 

1.87 

2.93 

3.34 

0.55 

1.19 

1.78 

3.90 

1.27 

2.70 

2.37 

2.04 

1.71 

0.16 

4.04 

2.01

1.74

1.57

2.42

4.05 

2.65 

2.58

Mean.

1.07 

0.81

0.38

0.71 

0.32 

0.44 

0.41 

0.06 

0.24 

0.42 

0.02 

0.21 

0.03 

0.54 

0.09 

0.45

0.22 

0.14 

0.08

Total.

1905.

23.90 

22.64 

9.05

15.24 

25.24

17.14

19.55 

4.90 

12.92 

18.25 

7.63 

14.59 

15.13 

5.27 

9.04 

7.73 

17.10 

9.43 

ia83 

10.46 

15.02 

7.73 

8.07 

16.13 

10.63

11.92

8.77 

11.71

11.51 

15. 66 

6.20

Mean.

6.21 

5.90

2.32

5.50 

3.15 

2.52 

3.63 

1.22 

2.34 

4.17 

1.07 

3.91

4.30 

1.38 

3.42

2.82 

2.03 

1.27

.......

It is seen that the precipitation for this period at all of these places was several times 

greater than the normal. At some places where the rainfall per month is generally about 

one-half inch it was from 5 to 7 inches per month. Excessive precipitation for a short
40 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

time over comparatively small areas is not uncommon, but such long periods of excessive 

rainfall over so large an area in this section is very remarkable. In a considerable part of 

the Salt and Verde River basins the precipitation during these four months was over 20 

inches.

TRIBUTARIES OF COLORADO RIVER ABOVE HARDYVILLE.

The subjoined table shows the discharge of tributaries of the Colorado during the floods 

of June, 1905:

Daily rate of flow of Colorado, Green, Grand, Gunnison, and San Juan rivers, during floods of

June, 1905.

[Drainage areas above gaging stations in square miles: Green River, 38,200; Grand River, 8,546; Gunnison River, 7,863 .J

Day.

1. .......

 >

3........

4........

5........

6........

7........

8........

9........

10........

11........

12........

13........

14........

15........

16........

17........

18........

19........

20........

Colorado River 

at Hardyville, 

Ariz.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

10.8 

11.85 

12.5 

13.1 

13.7 

14.4 

14.3 

14.0 

14.3 

14.45 

14.5 

13.8 

13.3 

12.8 

12.5 

12.2

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

64,310 

73, 890 

80,070 

85,880 

91,760 

98,620 

96,500 

- 93, 500 

94,000 

94,500 

93,5(X> 

85,500 

79,000 

73,000 

70,500 

67,500

Green River at 

Green river, 

Utah.

Gage 

height.

Feet.

9.6 

9.8 

9.85 

10.05 

10.3 

10. 55 

10.5 

10.05 

10.2 

10.2 

9.95 

9.85 

9.35 

9.25 

9.15 

9.05

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

29,260 

30,970 

31,400 

33, 160 

35,400 

37,700 

37,230 

33,160 

34,500 

34, 500 

32,280 

31,400 

27,180 

26, 370 

25,580 

24,790

Grand River at 

Palisade, Colo.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

19.35 

20.05 

20.35 

21.0 

22.05 

22.0 

21.8 

21.35 

22.0 

22.0 

21.3 

21.25 

20 6 

20.35 

20.4 

20.4 

19.9 

19.45 

19.05 

18.7

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

25,040 

29,200 

31,000 

35,000 

41,620 

41,300 

40, 020 

37, 180 

41,300 

41,300 

36,860 

36, 850 

32,530 

31,000 

31,310 

31,310 

28,300 

25, 620 

23, 290 

21,300

Gunnison River 

at Whitewater, 

Colo.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

11.65 

12.45 

12.75 

13.15 

13.85 

13.6 

13.05 

13.2 

13.5 

13.55 

12.95 

12.5 

12.25 

12.05 

11.85 

11.7 

11.1 

10.45 

10.15 

9.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

17, 780 

21,280 

22,710 

24,660 

28,080 

26,860 

24,160 

24,900 

26, 370 

26, 620 

23,680 

21,520 

20,360 

19,460 

18,600 

17,980 

15, 680 

13,420 

12, 440 

11,650

San Juan River 

at Farmington, 

N.Mex.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

10.05 

10.7 

12.4 

12.25 

12.35 

13.10 

11.65 

11.8 

12.0 

11.9 

12.0 

12.05 

11.9 

11.6 

11.4 

11.4 

11.75 

10.6 

10.7 

10.75

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

15,650 

17,600 

22,700 

22,250 

22, 550 

24,800 

20,450 

20,900 

21,500 

21,200 

21,500 

21,650 

21,200 

20,300 

19,700 

19,700 

20,750 

17,300 

17,600 

17,750

GREEN RIVER AT GREENRIVER, UTAH.

The daily rate of flow of Green River, the largest of the two streams that form the Colorado, at the gaging station near Greeuriver, is given on page 40. The station is located 

about 70 miles above the mouth of the river and the drainage area above this point is 38,200 

square miles.

The stage increased gradually from 9.6 feet on June 5 to 10.55 feet on June 10, and the 

rate of flow increased from 29,260 second-feet to 37,700 second-feet. From the llth to the 

20th the rate of flow gradually decreased from 37,230 second-feet to 24,790 second-feet. The 

greatest daily rate of flow was about 1 second-loot per square mile. In May, 1897, the rate 

of flow was 68,800 second-feet, and in June. 1899, it was 58,350 second-feet.

GRAND RIVER AT PALISADE, COLO.

The daily rate of flow of Grand River, which unites with the Green to form the Colorado 

at the gaging station at Palisade, Colo., is given on page 40. Between June 2 and June 16 

the stage varied from 20 to 22 feet and the rate of flow from 29,000 to 41,300 second-feet.
COLOEADO EIVER BASIN. 41

The greatest daily rate during this period was 4.83 second-feet per square mile. This station was established in 1902. The greatest rate of flow during these four years prior to 

June, 1905, was 24,800'second-feet in May, 1904.

GUNNISON RIVER AT WHITEWATER, COLO.

The daily rate of flow of Gunnison River during this flood at the gaging station, 10 miles 

above its mouth, is given on page 40. From June 1 to June 16 the stage varied from about 

11.7 to 13.85 feet and the rate of flow from 17,780 to 28,080 second-feet. The maximum 

daily rate during this time was 3.67 second-feet per square mile. This station has been in 

operation four years. The greatest daily rate during this period prior to June, 1905, was 

17,810 second-feet in June, 1903.

SAN JUAN RIVER NEAR FARMINGTON, N. MEX.

The San Juan is the largest tributary of the upper Colorado, which it enters from the east 

about 120 miles below the junction of the Green and the Grand, and about 15 miles north 

of the Utah;Arizona boundary line. The daily rate of flow at the gaging station near Farmington, N. Mex., is given on page 40. From June 1 to June 21, the stage varied from about 

10 to 13.1 feet, and the rate of flow from 15,600 to 24,800 second-feet. The greatest daily 

rate in 1904 was 20,000 second-feet in October.

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER.

The excessive precipitation in the basin of the Little Colorado during the months January-April, noted on page 39, resulted in great floods that swept away several large dams 

and deprived many thousand acres of irrigated land of water.

A gaging station was established on this stream at Holbrook, Ariz., March 17, after the 

largest flood that destroyed the dams had passed. The records at this place show that during 

the period, March 17 to April 30, the discharge varied from 1,000 to 2,075 second-feet.

The maximum stage, due to failure of the St. Johns dam, was 11.5 feet. This stage is 

about 3 feet higher than that on November 29, when the discharge was estimated to have 

been about 20,000 second-feet.

COLORADO RIVER AT HARDYVILI/E, ARIZ.

A gaging station is located on Colorado River about one-fourth of a mile above the 

deserted town of Hardyville, 7 miles above Fort Mohave and 297 miles above Yuma. Discharge measurements are made from a car on a cable, and fluctuations of stage are read 

daily on a rod fastened to the left bank near the cable.

The daily gage height and rate of flow from June 5 to June 20, during this flood, are given 

on page 40,

At this station there was a gradual increase from a stage of 10.8 feet and a discharge of 

64,310 second-feet, on June 5, to a stage of 14.4 ieet and a discharge of 98,620 second-feet 

on June 10. From June 10 to June 15 the stage varied Irom 14 to 14.5 feet. On the 20th 

it had fallen to 12.2 feet.

GILA RIVER BASm.

INTRODUCTION.

Gila River rises in the mountainous country of southwestern New Mexico, flows in a general southwesterly direction through Arizona, and empties into Colorado River 1 mile above 

Yuma, Ariz. Its principal tributaries are the Salt, Verde, San Francisco, Agua Fria, and 

Hassayampa from the north and the San Pedio and Santa Cruz from the south. The 

location of these streams is shown on Pi. II.

The total area drained by this nvei is 71,140 square miles, 40 per cent of which has an elevation of less than 3,000 feet and is largely agricultural land if supplied with water. About
42 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS TN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

27 per cent has an elevation of more than 5,000 feet and from this part comes the water supply. This high plateau, which lies at the headwaters of the Gila, in the eastern and northeastern part of the drainage basin, intercepts the moisture-laden winds from the southwest 

and causes them to precipitate their moisture. The run-off from the remaining 73 per cent 

is small, except during an occasional period of heavy storms like that of the winter and 

spring of 1905. The run-off is rapid, the slopes being steep and impervious and the fluctuations in flow are very great, as can be seen from fig. 8.

PRECIPITATION.

The precipitation in this basin during the floods of 1905 can be seen from the precipitation 

records on page 39. Large parts of the Salt, Verde, and Gila basins are in the area of greatest 

precipitation, and more than 20 inches of rain fell on them during these four months.

SAN FRANCISCO RIVER.

The San Francisco is an important tributary of the Gila, which it enters from the north 

about 30 miles above Solomonsville, Ariz. The gaging station on it is located at Alma, 

N. Mex. The basin above the station is mountainous and comprises an area of about 18,000 

square miles. The following table gives the daily rate of flow at this station during these 

floods:

Daily discharge, in second-feet, of San Francisco River at Alma, N. Mex., in 1905. 

[Drainage area, 1,800 square miles.]

Date.

March 4... ..............

Discharge.

80

3,162

1,080

357

287

Qlft

1,310

370

200

4,760

5,060

180

340

4,010

3,410

2,360

2,510

2,510

2,660

460

Date.

March 17......... ......

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

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

Aprill... ..............

April 2.................

Discharge.

910

2,120

325

230

3,092

1,700

2,280

1,480

1,480

1,290

1,110

1,110

1,020

885

800

602

642

681

1,155

2,048

Date.

April 6.................

April 7.................

Aprils.................

April9..... ....... ..

April 10.. ..............

April 11................

April 12..... ...........

April 13................

April 14. ...... .........

April 15................

April 16..... :..........

April 22................

April 23................

April 24................

April 25. ...............

April 26... .............

April 27................

April 28.. ..............

April 29................

April 30. ...............

Discharge.

1,380

1,932

1,874

1,758

1,590

1,245

1,245

1,200

1,430

1,990

1,400

1,200

975

618

1,535

1,700

1,380

1,020

930

1,020

760

602
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

115"

WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 162 PL. 

107°

 Precipitation Stations 

O Gaging Stations 

/5 "Precipitation Curves

o 25 e so 76 miles

DRAINAGE BASIN OF GILA RIVER, ARIZONA.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 43

GILA RIVER NEAR SOLOMONSVILLE, ARIZ.

For 20 miles below the mouth of the San Francisco the Gila flows in a canyon. About 

10 miles above Solomonsville the topography changes, and from this place to a point 6 miles 

below Sai Carlos nearly 70 miles the river flows in a fertile valley where irrigation ditches 

take water from it on both sides. This is one of the finest Irrigated portions of Arizona.

Great damage was done in this valley by the floods of 1905. The banks of the river are 

composed of sandy loam which is easily eroded, and several hundred acres of land were 

washed away. The stream bed was doubled or trebled in width by these floods and is now 

strewn with uprooted trees that before the flood grew along the banks. On some areas that 

were protected from the direct scouring action of the current material has been deposited 

to depths ranging from 6 inches to 4 feet, destroying the land for agricultural purposes. The 

irrigation works, especially the ditches, were badly damaged, many orchards and fields of 

alfalfa were destroyed or badly injured, the railway bridge at San Carlos was washed away 

in January, the railway along the river was damaged several times at many places, aud 

traffic was interrupted for the greater part of the time from January 10 to April 15.

During the flood of January 11 the Gila rose very rapidly in the vicinity of Solomonsville 

and overflowed all the land below tthe level of the Montezuma canal. It overflowed the 

river bank above the heads of this canal, flowed through the city, and before the canal could 

be cut to allow the water to pass back into the river many adobe houses were destroyed.

The gage at the gaging station at San Carlos was washed away on January 10 at a river 

stage of 5J feet above ordinary water. A new gage was put in February 1 and during 

February the stage varied from 1.8 feet to 9 feet. This gage was washed away March 17 

at a stage of 8 feet. The bed of the stream was changed so much during these floods that 

reasonably accurate estimates of the daily rate of flow at this place can not be given.

The daily rate of flow from June 27 to July 14 varied from 4 to 6 second-feet. The maximum rate of flow during these floods was 5,060 second-feet, or 2.8 second-feet per square 

mile.

A large amount of damage was done by these floods in the vicinity of Clifton, Ariz. The 

steel railway bridge across the river was swept away, the roadbed was damaged, and traffic 

interrupted for several days, a few small buildings were swept away, and the smelters along 

the river were damaged.

SAN PEDRO RIVER.

The San Pedro enters the Gila from the south at Dudleyville, Ariz. The total area 

drained by it is 3,456 square miles. The greatest rate of flow in January was 124 secondfeet, in February 235 second-feet, in March 668 second-feet, and in April 145 second-feet. 

As this gaging station is about 110 miles above the mouth of the river, these figures afford 

little indication of the rate of flow at the mouth.

SALT RJplR.

Salt River is the largest tributary of the Gila, which it enters from the north 14 miles west 

of.Phoenix, Ariz. Its principal tributaries are the Verde, entering from the north at McDowell, and Tonto Creek, entering from the north at Roosevelt. The basin of the Salt above the 

mouth of the Verde is mountainous, with deep canyons and very steep slopes.

The precipitation at places in this basin during January-April is given on page 39. 

IKE 162 06 1
44 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The daily rate of flow during the floods of these four months as measured at the gaging 

station at Roosevelt, Ariz., is given in the following table:

Daily discharge, in semnd.-feet, of Salt River at Roosevelt, Ariz., during floods of JanuaryApril, 1905.

Date.

February 20. ............

Discharge.

9 460

4,000

2,400

1,685

1,170

999

625

31,400

18,800

16,700

4,500

3,145

2,867

21,550

7,000

4,400

Date.

March 4............... .

March 13...............

March 16 ...............

March 19...............

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

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

Discharge.

17,100

12, 150

9,250

8,925

11,300

11,330

11,220

11,060

11,220

11,540

11,500

8,200

22,050

38,700

17,600

12,150

39,800

36, 550

23,200

23,440

11,940

9,524

9,895

8,040

7,860

7 480

Date.

March28...............

March 29....... ........

March 30. ..............

March 31. ..............

April 1... ..............

AprI12... ..............

Aprils.................

April 4. ................

April 10................

April 11................

April 12................

April 13. ...... .........

April 14................

April 15................

April 16................

April 23................

April 24.. ..............

April 26.... ............

April, 27 ...............

April 28................

April 29................

April 30................

Disdharge.

6,740

6,000

6,700

7,300

7,548

8,076

9,819

-12,020

8,937

8,937

20,040

43,350

45,470

20,370

14,010

10,620

8,864

8,777

11,500

12,750

12,500

11,160

10,800

9,906

9,370

NOTE. The daily discharge during May varied gradually from 9,350 to 1,950 second-feet.

The table shows one flood in January, three in February, four in March, and three in 

April. The largest of these floods occurred April 13. The rate of flow was 45,470 secondfeet, or 7.9 second-feet per square mile; on March 20 the daily rate was 44,400 second-feet, 

nearly as large as on April 13. The highes£ stage during these four months at this station 

was 23.5 feet and the lowest 6.9 feet.

The following table .gives the greatest daily rate of flow of Salt River at Roosevelt each 

year, from 1889 to 1905;
COLOEADO EIVEE BASIN. 45

Maximum daily discharge, in second-feet, of Salt River at Roosevelt, Ariz., 1889-1905.a 

[Drainage area, 5,756 square miles.]

Year.

1889. . . .

1890. . . . 

1891....

1892. . . .

1894. . . .

1895....

1896....

1897....

1898. . . .

1899. . . .

Month.

February. . ..................

July.........................

Discharge.

18,930

71,640 

150,000

770

1 430

46,810

5,530

10,420

1,210

3,330

Year.

1900...

1901... 

1902...

1903. . .

1904. . .

1905. . .

1905...

1905. . .

1905. . .

1905. . .

Month.

February ....................

April.........................

February

April.........................

Discharge.

2,220

4,170 

4,680

2,050

14,700

12,300

27,550

44,400

45,470

97,710

a This station is described in Water-Supply Paper No. 100, p. 42.

According to these records, the greatest daily rate of flow during these seventeen years 

was nearly 26 second-feet per square mile in February, 1891.

The following table gives the maximum, minimum, and mean monthly run-off of the 

Salt and Verde rivers for January-April, 1905, and for the same months of 1891:

Comparison of fldods of 1891 a and 1905 b on Salt River at Roosevelt and on Verde River at

McDowell, Ariz.

SALT RIVER AT ROOSEVELT. 

[Measurements in second-feet.]

Date.

Maximum.

1891.

8,900 

150,000 

4,970 

2,180

1905.

12,300 

27,550 

44,400 

45,470

Minimum.

1891.

551 

413 

753 

1,654

1905.

165 

526 

6,000 

6,495

Mean.

1891.

1,777 

19,408 

2,768 

1,922 

6,467 

1,471,000

1905.

1,611 

8,207 

15,300 

12,550 

9,417 

2,242,000

VERDE RIVER AT McDOWELL.

7,190

3,460

606

10 060

32,970

29,410

32,140

445

371

525

459

241

498

1,887

1,411

1,435

17,467

1,928

534

5,341

1,209,000

1,419

7,709

8,780

5,227

5,784

1,366,000

a Prepared from data Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 73, pp. 14 and 26.

6 Discharge obtained by taking proportional part of discharge of Salt River at Arizona dam.

The maximum daily rate of flow of both Salt and Verde rivers was more than three 

times as great in February, 1891, as at any time during the period January-April, 1905, 

but the total'flow of Salt River below the mouth of the Verde was 1.24 times greater during the period January-April, 1905, than during the same period of 1891.

VERDE RIVER.

The precipitation in the drainage basin of the Verde during the months January-April 

can be seen from the table on page 39. The daily rate of flow during these floods, as
46 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

measured at the gaging station at McDowell, near the mouth of the river, is given in the 

following table:

Daily discharge, in second-feet, of Verde River at McDowell, Ariz., during foods, January to

April, 1905.

Date. Discharge.

285

8,674

10,060

7,394

2,379

1 400

1,100

860

755

1,100

944

507

32,970

32,970

19, 310

9,743

5,400

3,750

1,403

1,367

4,950

9,767

8,641

6,130

5,004

Date.

February 26... .........

 March 3................

March 10. ..............

March 12. ..............

March 14...............

March 15...............

March 18.. .............

March 19 ...............

Discharge.

4,311

5,610

12, 170

6,126

4,572

4,650

21,050

25,130

10,580

8,800

8,107

7,414

5,928

5,276

4,884

3,946

3,289

2,617

2,539

7,612

25,500

10,580

10,780

29,410

23,460

12, 120

Date.

March 20... ............

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29. ..............

March 30.... ...........

March 31 ...............

April 10................

April 11................

April 12................

April 13....?...........

April 14................

April 15................

April 16................

April 18................

April 19................

April 20................

April 21................

April 22. ...............

Discharge.

10,630

9,368

8,110

6,853

5,594

5,070

4,755

3,916

3,077

2,770

2,158

1,887

1,493

6,433

32,140

24,640

15,160

13,720

10, 710

7,566

5,471

3,639

2,337

1,893

1,617

The greatest daily rate of flow during these four months at this place was about 33,000 

second-feet, on February 4 and 5. The greatest daily rate per square mile during this 

period was 5.5 second-feet, and the stage varied from 1 foot to 13.25 feet.

The monthly and.total run-off at this station for these four months were given on page 45.

The following table gives the greatest daily rate of flow of the Verde River near its mouth 

each year from 1889-1905:

Maximum daily discharge, in second-feet, of Verde River at McDowell, Ariz., J889-1905.a 

[Drainage area, 6,000 square miles.]

Year.

1889. . . .

1890....

1891....

1894....

1895. . . . 

1896....

1897....

1898. - - .

Month.

January .....................

July ........................

Discharge.

13,180

64,480

135,000

996

33,000 

5,320

15,690

1,890

Year.

1899. . .

1900. . .

1901...

1903. . .

1904. . . 

1905. . .

1905^ . .

1905...

Month.

February ....................

July..........................

Discharge.

3,770

2,470

6,610

6,060 

32,970

32,140

61,460

a This station is described in Water-Supply Paper No. 100, p. 31. 

6 Gage height, 19 leet. Discharge, Mpward <rf 95,000 second-feet.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN.

According to these records the greatest daily rate of flow at this station during these 

seventeen years was about 23 second-feet per square mile in February, 1891.

GILA RIVER AT DOME, ARIZ.

The following table gives the daily discharge of the Gila at Dome (Gila City), Ariz., 

15 miles from the mouth of the river, for January-May, 1905:

Daily discharge, iji second-feet, of Gila River at Dome, Ariz., for period January-May, 1905.

Day.

1...................................................

3...................................................

4. ..................................................

5...................................................

6...................................................

7. ..................................................

8. ..................................................

9...................................................

10...................................................

11...................................................

12...................................................

13...................................................

14...................................................

15...................................................

16...................................................

17...................................................

18...................................................

19...................................................

21...................................................

99

23...................................................

24...................................................

25...................................................

26. ..................................................

27...................................................

28...................................................

29...................................................

30...............................................!...

31...................................................

January.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

40

2,220

2,600

2,840

2,960

4,680

18,600

26,000

10,200

5,650

3,690

3,060

2,560

1,990

1,660

1,460

1,290

1,180

1,020

830

560

310

95,400

3,077

189,200

February.

80

0

0

0

280

2,200

20,800

82,000

35,800

14,900

6,900

2,920

60

1,920

300

0

140

230

24,800

42,800

45,200

40,200

630

300

900

9,250

5,150

5,300

343,080

12,250

680,300

March.

5,150

21,500

34,000

11,800

5,000

3,050

1,050

450

370

300

5,000

10,000

3,800

3,500

10,300

39,000

20,000

27,800

62,000

95,000

25,500

20,000

18,000

16,100

14,500

13,100

11,800

10,600

9,500

8,500

7,700

514. 370

16,590

1,020,000

April.

6,800

6,800

6,000

7,300

8,500

12,400

13,800

9,000

8,100

8,500

9,000

8,500

22,000

64,000

34,000

23,000

15,300

10,900

8,300

6,200

5,150

6,400

8,300

7,900

9,250

12,750

12,100

13,100

12,750

11,200

387,300

12,910

768,200

May.

9,500

8,100

8,500

7,700

6,000

6,400

6,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

4,100

5,600

5,000

4,400

4,700

5,000

5,000

4,700

3,800

4,400

3,800

4,100

4,400

3,800

3,500

3,500

3,500

3,300

2,800

2,350

2,150

151,100

4,874

299,700

The table shows one flood in January, two in February, two in March, and one large 

and two small ones in April. The greatest rate of flow was 95,000 second-feet, on March 20. 

The first flood in February is more characteristic of floods on this stream than any of the 

others. They are generally of short duration, the rise and fall being very rapid. The 

long-continued rains of this period gave a character to these floods not unlike that of streams 

in the eastern part of the country.

The total run-off for the five months is 2,957,400 acre-feet. To appreciate the magnitude of the run-off on this stream during this period it is necessary to' remember that 

this stream is usually dry at 'this place about ten months of the year.
48 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS I1ST UNITED STATES I1ST 1905.

The stream at this place was about 4 feet higher during the great flood of February, 

1891, than during this flood. The rate of flow of the river for a given gage height changes 

greatly at this station. On February 8, 1905, the rate was found to be 82,000 second-feet 

for a gage height of 16.95 feet; on March 20 it was found to be 95,000 second-feet for a 

gage height of 13.1 feet The bed is sandy and not only scours out during a flood and 

fills in after it, but the channel changes from one side of the bottom to the other. The 

width when the stream is flowing is generally not more -than 106 feet, but during some of 

these, floods the whole bottom was flooded; thousands of acres of land that were cevered 

with arrowwood, mesquite, and cottonwood before the floods are now part of the river 

bed or bare mud flats. This continual changing of the river bed has made it exceedingly 

difficult to secure reliable estimates of the rate of flow, and some of the estimates may be 

largely in error.

The. damage done by the floods along the lower Gila consisted mainly in washing away 

large areas of good land along the river, some of which was under cultivation.

SUMMARY.

The following table gives the monthly and total flow in acre-feet, January-April, 1905, 

at four of the gaging stations in this basin:

Monthly and total discharge, in second-feet, at stations in Gila River basin, January-April, 1905.

Stream.

Salt.;.................

Gila...................

Place. January.

17,340

87,250

99,060

189,200

February.

43,870

428,100

455,800

680,300

March.

79,260

539,900

940,800

1,020,000

April.

72,830

311,000

746,800

768,200

Total.

213,300

1,366,000

2,242,000

2,658,000

The flow at the Arizona dam is approximately the sum of the volumes of flow of the 

Salt at Eoosevelt and the Verde at McDowell, which is 3,608,000 acre-feet. The total 

flow at this place is about 1.36 times the Volume of flow for the same period at Dome, 

near the mouth of the Gila.

COLORADO RIVER AT YTJMA, ARIZ.

The gaging station at Yuma is below the. mouth of the Gila, and the records there show 

the combined flow of the Gila and upper Colorado. The Hardyville station is about 300 

miles above Yuma. The only comparatively large stream entering between these stations 

is Williams River. Along the Colorado between these stations there are from 200,000 to 

225,000 acres of lowlands subject to overflow during floods. Overflow of these lowlands 

begins at a gage height of about 24.5 feet,« Yuma gage. The Colorado reached a stage 

of 24.85 feet at Yuma (8 feet Hardyville gage) on May 23 and remained above 24.5 feet 

until July 5. These lowlands were therefore flooded lor about forty-five days.

<* Secomd Ann. Kept. U. S. Reclamation Service, p. 150.
COLOR ABO RIVER BASIN. 49

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of the Colorado at Yuma from January 1 

to July 31, 1905:

Daily discharge, in second-feet, of Colorado "River at Yuma {or the period January-July, 1905.

Day.

1................

2................

3................

4................

5................

6................

7................

8................

9................

10. ...............

11................

12................

13................

14................

15................

16................

17................

18................

19................

20. ...............

21................

22................

23. ...............

24................

25................

26................

27.............. .

28................

29................

30................

31................

Mean run-off. . . . 

Per square mile.. 

Depth in inches..

January.

3,750

3,800

3,985

4,300

4,570

4,700

4,500

4,170

16,090

6,400

7,000

8,370

8,600

20,100

27,500

19,300

12,120

9,300

10, 170

7,863

7,900

7,025

6,770

6,250

5,400

5,070

4,900

8,130 

0.0361 

0.042 

499,900

February.

5,800

9,400

82,820

52,580

37,320

29 700

22,800

21,900

22,500

18,610

14 600

16,490

31,500

47 000

54,200

KA 7OA

32,990

21,990

18,850

30,500

27,730

25,000

28,100 

0.125 

0.130 

1,561,000

March.

29,070

qO OfiA

70, 170

70,200

51,100

44/100

43,100

34,400

38,620

42,000

OQ Q7ft

36,720

65,820

62,400

73,440

91 200

34,600

31,020

OQ ry^fi

26,900

24,390

50,540 

0.225 

0.259 

3,108,000

April.

20,690

20,100

19 480

jq 450

24,800

24,900

23,000

26,100

45,800

93,800

97,500

70,100

45,050

39,500

35,900

33,900

31,690

33,000-

37,160

41,630

35,000

38,700

37,830 

0.168 

0.187 

2,251,000

May.

39 700

37,100

37, 410

38,000

40,050

46,000

49,200

52,000

48,000

38,840

37,800

37,300

37,320

33,910

34,200

35,700

07 nfin

38 400

41,500

43,700

45,300

47,600

54,810

56,300

42, 170 

0 187 

0.216 

2,593,000

June.

61,500

65,300-

68,160

67,900

67,600

67,600

69,500

72,930

70,300

69,600

71,000

82,020

82,000

83,000

86,000

88,500

94,320

91,500

92,400

9° 400

89,800

84,800

82,000

77,610

73,500

68,500

64,370

61,500

76,470 

0.340 

0.379 

4,550,000

July.

57,800

55,500

50,640

45,000

44,950

42,400

40,100

37,200

35,500

32,980

32,100

31,720

30,870

29,500

27,710

28,300

31,100

25,300

22,320

22,250

22,000

21,500

20,900

20,800

20,650

20,460

19,700

18,910

17,200

17,500

16,750

30,310 

0.135 

0.156 

1,864,000

There were two flood periods in January one that reached a rate of 16,090 second-feet 

on the 10th and one that reached a rate of 27,500 second-feet on the 18th; two floods in 

February one that reached a rate of 82,800 second-feet on the 9th and one that reached 

a rate of 54,730 second-feet on the 21st; two floods in March one that reached a rate of 

70,170 second-feet on the 4th and one that reached a rate of 110,800 second-feet on the 20th; 

one in April, that reached a rate of 97,500 second-feet; one in May, with a rate of 52,000 

second-feet; and one in July, with a maximum rate of 94,300 second-feet. The flood in 

July came from the upper Colorado; all the others came from the Gila, as can be seen 

from the records at Dome and Hardyville. The daily flow at this station for this period is 

shown on fig. 8. The highest stage of water at th.e Yuma gage during these floods was 

30.3 feet, on March 20, when the rate of flow was 110,800 second-feet or 0.49 second-loot
50 DESTETJCTTVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

per square mile. The highest stage of water at the Yuma gage during the great flood on 

the Gila in 1891 was 33.2 feet. The greatest flow from the Colorado above Yuma was 

92,400 second-feet, on June 21.

Disc/iarge in ssctnd-Feet

Z:

FIG. 8. Diagram showing flood flow of Colorado and Gila rivers.

The flood of 1903 on the Colorado above Yuma is regarded as one of the largest recorded 

to that date. In the following table the monthly run-off, in acre-feet, during the floods of 

1903 and 1905 are compared.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 51

The following table gives a comparison of run-off in acre-feet of Colorado River at Yuma 

during the floods of 1903 and 1905:

Flow of Colorado River at Yuma, Aris., in acre-feet, during floods of 1903 and 1905.

Month.

March ....................

1903.

189,935

187,271

376, 120

852, 456

2,074,284

1905.

3,108,000

2,251,000

2,593,000

Month.

Julv. ..... ...............

Total..............

*

1903.

3,162,526

2,304,494

1905.

4,550,000

1,864,000

.

The run-off for these seven months was 1.8 times greater in 1905 than in 1903. 

The following table gives the greatest daily rate of flow at this station each year from 

1894 to 1905:

Maximum daily rate of floie, in second-feet, of Colorado River at Yuma, Ariz., 1894-1905.a

Year.6

1894....

1895....

1896....

1897....

1898. . . .

1899....

1900....

1901....

1902....

Date.

.....do.......................

July 1 .......................

Discharge.

34,700

35,550

63,450

Year.

1903...

1904...

1905...

1905...

1905...

1905...

Date.

April 15....................

May 31..... .................

Discharge.

72,219

51,170

82,820

110,800

97,500

59,000

94,320

102,700

a This station is described in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 133, p. 25. 

6 Discharge prior to 1902 was obtained from the station rating curve of 1902.

The v&lley immediately above and below Yuma contains about 100,000 acres of irrigable 

land, and about 75,000 acres were covered by these floods. The damage done by the floods 

in the Yuma Valley proper that portion on the east side of the river below Yuma was 

estimated as follows:

Damage done in Yuma Valley by flood on Colorado River in 1905.

Crops................. ........................................................................ 160,000

Ditches, small levees land along the river, etc................................................. 10,000

Buildings.................. ..................................................................... 10,000

Canals................................!...................................... .................. 10,000

Total........................ ........................ ......... ......................... 80,000

The town of Yuma is well protected by levees, built by the Government after the great 

flood of the Gila in 1901.
52 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905. 

FLOOD IN GILA BASIN, NOVEMBER, 1905.

There was a short but very large flood in the Gila from November 27 to December 2. 

The rate of flow and damage done far exceeded that during the spring floods.

PRECIPITATION.

The precipitation for the month of November in Arizona, as determined by the United 

States Weather Bureau at 56 stations, was nearly 4 inches above the average for November. 

There were three wet periods, one from the 4th to the 9th, a second from the 20th to the 

23d, and the third from the 26fch to the 28th. It was the rain of the third period that caused 

the flood. The daily precipitation from the 26th to the 28th and the total precipitation for 

the month are given in the following table for 26 places in the Gila and Little Colorado 

drainage basins:

Daily precipitation in Gila and Little Colorado River basins November £6-28, 1905, in incites.

Place.

November.

26.

1.00 

1.62 

.82

2.10 

.83 

1.45 

1.02

.68 

1.30 

1.40

.80

1.05 

1.10 

.89 

1.14

Tr. 

.32

.85 

1.01 

.48 

.98 

.12

27.

2.20 

1.90 

.61 

1.10

1.16 

.26 

.45 

.49

.01 

Tr. 

.20 

1.00

.85 

.61

.14

.06 

1.02 

.58

2.16

.05 

.10 

.55 

1.74 

.76

28.

0.5C 

.61

Tr.

.62

Tr. 

.02

.18

.46

.05

.60 

.06

Sum.

3.70 

4.13 

1.43 

1.10 

3.26 

1.09 

1.90 

1.51 

.69 

1.30 

1.60 

1.00 

2.27 

.61 

1.38 

1.11 

2.14 

1.65 

1.14 

2.62

.95 

1.11 

1.03 

3.32 

.94

Month of 

November.

8.80 

8.68 

4.83 

5.70 

8.36 

6.30 

4.64 

3.61 

2.72 

3.66 

4.04 

1.50 

5.65 

2.93 

3.55 

6.01 

5.01 

3.47 

2.44 

5.21 

3.08 

2.90 

3.82 

1.86 

7. CO 

2.32

It can be seen from the above, table that the precipitation at the headwaters of Gila, Salt, 

and Verde rivers was from 2 to 4 inches for the three days, November 26-28.
ARIZONA: GILA BASITST. 53

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of Colorado River at Yuma, Gila River at 

Dome and Cliff, the Salt at Roosevelt, and the Verde at McDowell during this flood:

Daily discharge, in second-feet, of Colorado, Gila, Salt, and Verde rivers during flood, of November and December, 1905.

Date.

Colorado 

River at 

Yuma, 

Ariz.

6,580

24,500

.62,500

102,700

77 360

37,160

40,200

35,000

28,650

23,300

Gila River 

at Dome, 

Ariz.a

180

480

780

95,000

36,900

30,700

24,400

18,200

11,900

5,700

5,000

Gila River 

at Cliff, 

N. Mex.

419

13,640

9,835

6,700

4,515

3,190

2,387

Salt River 

at Roosevelt, Ariz.

2,150

97,710

45,250

14,050

9,480

8,700

4,700

Verde 

River at 

McDowell, 

Colo.

1,610

61,460

13,120

5,520

4,240

3,280

2,400

 The stream was dry at this place from July 20 to September 13, and from October 19 to November 

13, 1905.

NOTE. Highest stage at Yuma, January-April, 1905, was 30.3 feet on March 20.

The greatest daily rate of flow of the Colorado at Yuma during this flood was 102,700 

second-feet, only about 8,000 second-feet less than the daily rate on March 20, 1905.

The flow of the Gila at Dome reached a daily rate on November 26 of about 95,000 

second-feet, the same as on March 20, 1905, and the same as the greatest daily rate during 

spring floods on this stream.

The flow of Salt River at Roosevelt reached a daily rate of 97,710 second-feet on the 

27th, which is more than twice as great as the greatest rate of flow at this place during 

the spring floods of 1905. The water at this place rose to a stage of 35.8 feet that is, 

13 feet above that on April 13, 1905, when the rate of flow was the greatest during the 

spring floods. The mean daily stage on November 27 was 26.7 feet that fe, about 9 

feet less than the maximum stage for that day. The maximum rate of flow on the mottling of the 27th is estimated to have" been 148,000 second-feet.

The greatest daily rate of flow of the Verde at McDowell was 61,460 second-feet on November 27, which is nearly twice as great as the greatest daily rate reached during the spring 

floods of 1905.

In places where the canyon was narrow the water rose to a height of 40 feet above low 

water. Verde and Tonto rivers reached a maximum stage earlier than Salt River, hence 

the Salt at Phoenix was not so high as in February, 1891, but indications seem to show 

that Salt River above the mouth of the Tonto was higher during this flood than at any 

time during its history.

DAMAGE.

The damage done by this flood on Salt River was very great. The bridges of the Gila 

Valley, Globe and Northern Railway and the Maricopa, Phoenix and Salt River Valley 

Railway aeross Gila River were swept away. The old Southern Pacific Railway bridge 

and the new Santa Fe Railway bridge across Salt River near Tempe and the approaches 

of the new Southern Pacific Railway bridge at Tempe were damaged. The Arizona dam 

and all other dams on Salt River were swept away. The water rose above the top of the 

head gates of the canal and greatly damaged the banks where the water passed back into
54 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN" UKITED STATES IJST 1905.

the river. The river rose 4 feet above the bridge at the gaging station at Roosevelt and 

swept it away. The flume and the cofferdam of the Roosevelt dam were swept completely 

away, and the Phoenix-Roosevelt road through the canyon below the dam was badly

FLOOD ON LITTLE COLORADO RIVER IN NOVEMBER.

The excessive precipitation in the basin of the Little Colorado River November 26-28 

(see p. 52) produced a sudden and large increase in the flow of this stream. The daily 

gage height and rate of flow at the gaging stations at Woodruff and Holbrook, Ariz., are 

given in the following table:

Flood flow of Little Colorado River at Woodruff and HoTbrook, Ariz., November 26-30, 1905.

Date.

November 26. .............................................

November 27. .............................................

November 28. .............................................

Woodruff, Ariz.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

l.OC 

21.90 

7.75 

5.50 

2.00

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

33 

10,000 

2,960 

1,735 

85

Holbrook, Ariz.

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

3.50 

8.55 

5.75 

4.05 

3.80

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

160 

20,180 

7,295 

1,000 

260

It is seen that the stage at Woodruff rose from 1 foot on the 26th to 21.9 feet on the 27th 

and the rate of flow from 33 second-feet to 10,000 second-feet.

At Holbrook the rate of flow increased from 160 second-feet to 20,180 second-feet in 

twenty-four hours.

FLOW OF COLORADO RIVER INTO SALTON SINK.

Salton Sink is a body of water in the southern part of California about 90 miles northwest 

of Yuma. It is noted for the fact that its surface is about 290 feet below sea level. Imperial 

Valley, in which it is located, has a length of about 90 miles and an area below sea level 

of about 1,000,000 acres. Much of the soil of this valley is very productive, and in order 

to irrigate it a channel was excavated from Colorado River to Alamo River, an old channeV 

leading into the valley from a point just north of the California-Mexico boundary line, 

10 miles below Yuma. This canal, which passes through material that is easily eroded, 

was left without head gates. It had a low grade and dredging was necessary to keep it 

open. In October, 1904, a cut-off channel 50 feet wide and 8 feet deep was excavated 

in Mexico from the river to the canal to procure a larger volume of water for irrigation. 

The floods from January to April, 1905, scoured the canal to some extent; the flood of 

May and June from the upper Colorado scoured it from a width of 100 feet to a width of 

300 to 400 feet. As the latter flood subsided silt was deposited in the river channel below 

the canal headings and gradually closed the river channel.

The average fall of the Colorado from Yuma to the Gulf of California, is about 1.25 feet 

per mile, and the average fall from the Colorado River to Salton Sink is about 3 feet per 

mile; and as the canal passes through material that is easily eroded, cutting of bed and 

banks took place rapidly. On June 30, 1905, 22 per cent of the river flow was passing into 

the canal. On July 8, 67 per cent passed into the canal, and October 25 the whole flow 

passed into the canal. In November an effort was made to turn the river away from the 

canal by constructing a diversion dam of brush, piles, and gravel, but the sudden large 

November flood (p. 53) swept away the dam and greatly widened and deepened the 

cut-off canal. An attempt was also made to divert the flow of the Alamo canal back 

into the gulf by a short channel to Padrone River, which flows into Volcano Lake. A 

dam was built across New River at the lower end of this lake to force the lake to discharge
FLOW OF COLORADO EIVER INTO SALTON SINK. 55

to the southeast, into the gulf, instead of through New River into Salton Sink. Padrone 

River, however, cut a new channel across the country to New River, and thus the water 

passed into the sink instead of into the gulf. Near thevclose of 1905 the water in the sink 

was described as 45 m'iles long, from 10 to 18 miles widej and 23.5 feet in greatest depth. 

It is reported that the water in the sink rose at the rate of one-half to three-fourths of aA 

inch a day and during the larger floods at the rate of 2 inches a day.

The works of the New Liverpool Salt Company, located on the shores of the sink, have 

been drowned out. At the close of 1905 the water was up to the roofs of the buildings. 

The Southern Pacific Railway has 60 miles of main line and 40 miles of branch lines in this 

valley below sea level. Up to February, 1906, 40 miles of new track had been laid by 

this company 50 feet above the old location. It is said that $25,000 were spent on the 

construction of the diversion dam at the entrance to the canal that was swept away by 

the November flood.

The most serious danger to this valley is that before the river is controlled the canal 

may be cut so deep that water can not be taken from it to the irrigable land by gravity.

UNUSUAL RATES OF RUN-OFF IN 1905.

The following unusual rates of run-off occurred in the United States in 1905: 

Extraordinary rates of run-off in 1905.

Stream and place.

Do................................................

Six-Mile Creek near Ithaca, N. Y. .....................

Drainage 

area.

Sq. miles. 

9.4

5.0

3 A

3 A

46.0

Date Maximum 

rate.

Sec.-feet. 

241

262

209

190

195

FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY IN THE UNITED STATES.

INTRODUCTION.

Water-Supply Paper No. 147, " Destructive floods in the United States in 1904," pages 

184-189, gives the greatest rate of flow of the largest recorded flood on many streams in 

this country. The following pages contain data on the daily rate of flow and frequency 

of all the larger floods on some streams. These streams are selected in preference to others 

on account of the long record of flood observation on them. The periods over which the 

flood records extend vary from eleven to more than one hundred years. The source of 

information is given in each compilation; when no statement to the contrary is made, 

the data were obtained by engineers and hydrographers of the United States Geological 

Survey.

A brief description of each drainage basin is given, especially of the part above the 

gaging station where the data were obtained, with a statement of the features that influence flood flow. Brief notes calling attention to the more important facts shown by the 

data are also presented.

At flood flow a stream usually carries much drift, overflows its banks, and changes 

height rapidly, so that it is very difficult to measure accurately its discharge at maximum 

stage. Some of the data here given are computed from careful measurements made 

during or shortly after the flood and some are computed from a single station ratiag curve, 

assuming the channel conditions to have been fairly constant during the period considered.

Primarily the flood flow of a stream depends on 

(1) The extent, duration, and intensity of precipitation, especially the intensity in the 

case of small drainage basins.
56 DESTBUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES I1ST 1905.

(2) The direction of motion of the storm causing the flood. If the storm moves in the 

direction of the flow of the stream the flow will be greater than if it moves in the opposite 

direction or across it.

(3) The amount of snow on the ground and the temperature during the storm. The 

large floods on northern streams are dug almost entirely to the rapid melting of snow. 

When the ground is frozen the measured run-off is occasionally more than three times 

the precipitation during the month.

(4) The storage, both natural and artificial, in the drainage basin. In gome basins 

ground storage may take up 9 inches of precipitation. Storage extends the flood period 

and reduces the maximum rate of flow.

(5) The size of the drainage basin. Most great rainstorms cover comparatively small 

areas, so that a big storm is likely to cover a larger part of a small drainage basin than of 

a large one. The maximum rate of 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 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 tributaries 

entering the main stream in close proximity. Steep, impervious, deforested slopes of 

basin and ateep slope of stream bed cause rapid run-off. Narrow, deep, crooked channels 

of small slope cause sluggish flow, great variations in stage, and frequent overflow.

Among the more or less artificial conditions that increase the flow may be mentioned 

(1) controlled storage; (2) deforestation and cultivation; (3).reduction in width of 

channel by placing the abutments of bridges in the stream; (4) the use of piers that prevent scour of bed, collect drift, and hold back a part of the flow for a time, causing greatly 

increased flood wave; (5) the formation of ice gorges and the failure of dams and reservoir 

walls.

XENNEBEC BIVEK.

Kennebec River is the outlet of Moosehead Lake, in northwestern Maine. The basin 

has a length of 150 miles, a width of 50 to 80 miles, and an area of 6,330 square miles. Its 

upper part is mountainous and thickly forested; its lower part is hilly or gently rolling, with 

grass-covered slopes. In this basin are 360 square miles of lake storage, controlled mainly 

by dams at the outlet of each lake. This stored water is used principally for log drivfcg. 

From Moosehead Lake to Augusta, the head of navigation, a distance of 112 miles, the 

stream has an average fall of 9.1 feet per mile.

The following table gives fche daily rate of flow of this stream at the Hollingsworth & 

Whitney Company's dam at Waterville, Me., during the greatest annual floods, from 1893 

to 1904.

Flood flow ofKennelec River at WatermUe, Me., from 1893 to 190-4.

[Drainage area above this gaging station, 4,380 square miles.]

Year.

1893. . . .

1894. . . . 

1895. . . .

18%....

1896. . . .

1896. . . .

1896. . . .

1897...

Date.

May 18. ......................

April 23. ....................

, April 15. ....................

March 1. .....................

Mar«h 3. .....................

Discharge."

Sec.-feet. 

83,600

35,280 

86,200

6,360

111,200

52,690

24,810

Year.

1898...

1899... 

1900...

1901...

1902...

1903. . .

1904...

Date.

April 15......................

April 27...................... 

April 21.....................

May 12.......................

Discharges

Sec.-feet. 

50,380

v 45,800

76,600

54,340

35,700

37,840

Data furnished by Hollings worth & Whitney Company.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 57

The largest flood in these fifteen years at Waterville occurred on March 2, 1896, when 

the rate of flow for the day was 111,200 second-feet, or 25.2 second-feet per square mile. 

The rise was exceedingly rapid, the discharge increasing from about 6,000 to 111,000 secondfeet in twenty-four hours.

The greatest flood in the upper part of this basin occurred on December 15, 1901. At 

8 a. m. only a few second-feet of water were flowing over tbe dam at Madison, Me., where 

the drainage area is 2,850 square miles. At midnight the depth of water on the crest of 

this dam was 14.5 feet and the rate of flow was 105,000 second-feet. At 9 a. m. the next 

day the water surface had fallen 5.5 feet.

The large floods in this basin all occur in the spring or winter and are due to rain and 

the rapid melting of the winter accumulations of snow. The summer floods are small 

compared with the spring floods.

ANDROSCOGGm RIVER.

The Androscoggin is the outlet of the Umbagog-Eangeley lakes in western Maine. The 

basin has a length of about 110 miles, a greatest breadth of 70 miles, and an area of 3,700 

square miles. The upper part of the basin is mountainous, broken, and thickly forested; 

the lower part is hilly, with grass-covered or cultivated slopes. There are 148 lakes in the 

basin, having a water-surface area of 312 square miles that is, about one-twelfth of the 

basin is water surface. From the foot of Umbagog Lake to the foot of Eumford Falls, a 

distance of 81 miles, the stream falls 836 feet. The lakes are largely controlled by dams 

and the storage is used mainly for log driving. The range of stage at Lewiston near the 

mouth is 8 feet; at Bethel, 28 feet.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream at Rumford Falls, Me., 

during the greatest annual floods, from 1893 to 1903:

Flood Jlow of Androsmggin River at Eumford Falls, Me., from 1893 to 1903. 

[Drainage area above gaging station, 2,320 square miles.]

Year.

1893....

1894....

1895....

1896....

1897....

1898. . . .

Date.

April 21.....................

April 22.....................

April 17.....................

July 15......................

April 25. .....................

Discharge."

Sec.-feet.

22,230

55,230

22,900

16,750

Year.

1899...

1900...

1901...

190°

1903. . .

Date.

May ^

May 20.......................

April 22. .....................

Discharges

Sec.-feet. 

24,080

24,530

32,650

18,490

26,790

« Data furnished by C. A. Mixer, C. E., resident engineer of the Rumford Falls Power Company.

The greatest flood on this stream at this place in these twelve years occurred April 22, 

1895. The greatest daily rate of flow was 55,230 second-feet, or 23.8 second-feet per 

square mile.

The larger floods in this basin occur in the spring and are due to rain and the rapid 

melting of snow. As a rule, the floods on this river are somewhat less in magnitude than 

those on the Kennebec.

MBRRIMAC RIVER.

The Merrimac is formed by the union of the Pemigewasset and the Wmnepesaukee rivers 

at Franklin, N. H. The basin is comparatively long and narrow and has an area of 4,916 

square miles. The up'per part is mountainous, broken, and forested; the central part is 

hilly or gently rolling, cultivated and pasture lands; the lower part is flat, with some
58 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

swamps. There are in this basin more than 100 square miles of controlled storage. From 

its head at Franklin Junction to its mouth, a distance of 110 miles, the river falls 269 feet.

Grafton

NEW HAMPSHmE\'""""9 

MASSACHUSETTS

FIG. 9. Map of drainage basin of Merrimac River.

A large part of this total fall is concentrated at six places. Along the stream are extensive 

tracts of bottom land, which are subject to overflow during floods,
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 59

The following table gives the daily rate of flow and dates of occurrence of the larger 

floods since 1846 at Lawrence, Mass.:

Flood flow of Merrimac River at. Lawrence., Mass., 1846 to 1904- a 

[Drainage area, 4,553 square miles.]

Year.

1890. . . .

1892....

1893. . . .

1894. . . .

1895....

1896....

1897. . . .

1898. . . .

1899....

Date.

July.........................

Discharge."

Sec. -feet.

31,450

32,800

44,800

27,900

65,300

82, 150

41,500

36,000

38,200

Year.

1901...

1901...

1901...

1901...

1901...

1902...

1903...

1904...

-

Date.

April 7.......................

Aprils.......................

April9. ......................

April 10......................

April 11......................

April 12. .....................

May 1. .......................

Discharge."

Sec.-feet. 

52,990

33,950

61,200

48,760

38,020

31,460

61,190

45,470

46,340

"Data furnished by R. A. Hale, engineer, Essex Water Power Company. 

6 Largest flood in recollection of inhabitants. 

« Stage was 0.8 foot lower than in 1896.

The greatest flood since 1846 occurred March, 1896. On March 3 the stage at Lawrence 

was 25 feet above low weter, and the maximum rate was 82,150 second-feet, or 18 secondfeet per square mile. This was the spring flood and was largely due to rapid melting of 

snow. The floods due to rain alone are scarcely half the magnitude of the spring floods. 

The spring floods generally last from one to two weeks.

IRR 162 06 5
60 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITEU STATES IN 1905.

CONNECTICUT RIVER.

Connecticut River'has its source in Connecticut Lake in northern New Hampshire. It 

falls from an elevation of 1,618 feet to nearly sea level at Hartford in a distance of about 

312 miles. The basin, shown in fig. 10, is long and narrow and has an area of 10,924 square 

miles. The upper part is mountainous, with some forest area; the middle and lower

SCALE OF MILES

FIG. 10. Map of drainage basin of Connecticut River.

parts are hilly or rolling grass covered or cultivated. The river receives the water of many 

small tributaries and a small amount from lake storage. Above Bellows Falls the stream 

has numerous shoals and rapids; below this place its descent is much slower and is broken 

by rapids at only three places.
FLOOD DISCHAKGE AND FKEQUETTCY. 61

The following table gives the daily rate of flow and date of occurrence of the large floods 

on this stream at Hartford, Conn., since 1801:

Flood flow of Connecticut River at Hartford, Conn., 1801-1904- 

[Drainage area, 10,234 square miles. Danger line, 13 feet gage height.]

Year.

1801..

1841..

1843. .

1S47. .

1850..

1852..

1853..

1854..

1856..

1859..

1861..

1862. .

1865. .

1866..

1867. .

1868..

1869..

1869. -

1870. .

1870. .

1873. .

1874. .

1876..

1877. .

Month.

May..................

April..................

April .................

April..................

April..................

April..................

April..................

Gage 

heights

Feet. 

27.5

26.3

27.2

21.0

20.8

23.1

29.8

23.3

26.4

21.5

28.7

24.8

20.5

21.5

26.7

26.3

21.3

23.9

21.9

22.9

Discharge. 6

Sec. -feet.

109, 800

108, 100

129, 800

205,200

131,900

165,900

114,400

192, 300

105,400

114,400

169, 300

II9 600

138,200

118,200

127,800

Year.

1878.

1879.

1884.

1886.

1887.

1888.

1889

1890.

1891.

1892.

1893.

1894.

1896.

1898.

1899.

1901.

1902

1904.

Month.

October 26............

April 17...............

June 16...............

May 6. ................

April 25...............

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

April 27...............

April 22...............

April 25.. ............

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

Gage 

height."

Feet. 

23.9

21.4

21.5

21.8

22.5

19.4

15.6

16.0

19.8

18.3

24.0

13.8

25.7

26.5

20.8

21.2

< 22. 0

23.4

22.8

22/7

25.5

23.4

21.4

22.8

Discharge. 6

Sec.-feet. 

138,200

113, 500

114,400

117,200

124,000

96, 060

70, 700

99, 420

87, 100

139,200

157,900

167,000

108, 100

110,700

119,100

133,000

126. 900

125,900

155, 600

133,000

113,500

126,900

a Furnished by Edwin Dwight Gravus, chief engineer Connecticut River bridge and highway district.

b Computed from rating table prepared by T. G. Ellis, C. E., Report Chief of Engineers U.'S. Army, 

1875, pt. 2, p/364. 

x e From April 16 to April 31 the stage did not Jail below 20 feet.

The flood of May, 1854, was the largest in mote than a century, and reached a stage of 

29.8 feet above low water at Hartford, Conn. The daily rate was 205,460 second-feet, 

or 20 second-feet per square mile.

The flood of April, 1862, was the largest at Holyoke, Mass., and gave a discharge of 

162,000 second-feet, or 18.7 second-feet per square mile.

The largest flood that was due entirely to rain occurred in Octobei, 1869. The maximum 

daily rate of flow was 16.5 second-feet per square mile. High stages in the spring sometimes last for two or more weeks.

HUDSON RIVER.

The drainage basin of Hudson River above the gaging station at Mechanicsville, N. Y., 

comprises 4,500 square miles. It is mountainous, with considerable lake storage and 

forest area.

Serious flood conditions exist in a stretch of the river extending for 30 miles below Albany. 

Here the channel is shallow, narrow^and crooked, and there is a tidal action and a large 

inflow from the Mohawk. The tidal action prevents the rapid passing out of ice, and aids 

in the toimation of ice dams. Floods due to ice come with but little warning at any time 

from December to April.
62 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the rate of flow and date, of occurrence of each of the large floods 

at Mechanicsville, N. Y., since 1869:

Flood flow of Hudson River at Mechanicsville, N. Y., 1869-1904.a 

[Drainage area, 4,500 square miles. Danger line, 9.0 feet gage height.]

Year.

1869....

1896....

1896....

1899....

1900. . . .

1901....

Date.

April 18.....................

April 26.....................

April 23............... .....

April 23.....................

Discharge

Stc.-feet.b

42,620

24,550

41,480

43,550

54,860

Year.

1902...

1903. . .

1903. . .

1903. . .

1903...

1903...

Date.

March 3. .....................

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

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

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

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

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

41,360

42,910

54, 490

56,280

50,640

41,580

32,930

« Data furnished by the Duncan Company, R. P. Bloss, engineer. 

t> Hydrology of the State of New York, 1905, p. 467.

The largest flood in these thirty-five years was in the spring of 1869, when the discharge 

was 70,000 second-feet, or 15.6 second-feet per square mile. The large floods all occur in 

the spring, and are due to rapid melting of the winter accumulation of snow with rain.

GENESEE RIVER.

Genesee River rises in northern Pennsylvania, flows northward across New York State, 

and empties into Lake Ontario. Its basin is 108 miles long, 22 miles wide, and comprises 

2,400 square miles. The catchment area above Mount Morris has steep slopes with heavy 

and impervious soil and little wooded area. In the catchment area below Mount Morris 

there are from 60 to 80 square miles of flats subject to overflow. These flats act as a reservoir, decreasing to a marked degree the maximum rate of flow at Rochester. Near Portage 

the river passes through a narrow canyon and has a fall of 330 feet, nearly all of which is 

at Portage Falls.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream at Rochester, N. Y., of the 

large floods from 1785 to 1904, and the date of occurrence of each:

Flood, flow of Genesee River at Rochester, N. Y., 1785-1904.a 

[Drainage area, 2,428 square miles.]

Year.

1785

1835. .

1857..

1865..

1867..

1873. .

1875. .

1879. .

1889. .

1890. .

1893. .

Date.

October...

February .

March ....

February.

March ....

March ....

March ....

June.....

September

March ....

Place.

Rochester. ....

Rochester.....

Rochester.....

Rochester.....

Rochester.....

Rochester.....

Rochester.....

Rochester. ....

Rochester.....

Mount Morris.

Mount Morris.

Discharge.

Second-feet.

40,000

36,000

30,000-35,000

45,000-54,000

20,000-25,000

30,000-35,000

30,000-35,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

30,000

Year.

1894.

1894.

1894.

1894.

1894.

1894.

1894.

1896.

1902.

1902.

1903.

Date.

May 18. ...

May 19. ...

May 20....

May 21....

May 22. ...

May 23. ...

May 24. ...

April... . .

March ....

July......

April 5. ...

Place..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Mount Morris..

Rochester... . .

Rochester... . .

Portage .......

Rochester.....

Discharge.

Second-feet.

600

5,530

16,580

42,000

33,000

15,650

7,300

33,000-36,000

35,000-38,000

40,000-50,000

18,380

"Report of special committee on flood conditions in the Genesee River affecting the city of Rochester, 

N. Y., 1904. '
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 63

The greatest rate of flow during this period at Rochester was during the flood of March, 

1865, when the rate per square mile of drainage was 19 to 22 second-feet. This was a 

spring flood and was due largely to the rapid melting of snow.

The flood of May, 1894, which gave a maximum rate at Mount Morris of 42,000 secondfeet, gave a maximum rate of only 20,000 to 21,000 second-feet at Rochester.

The flood of July 5-9, 1902, was without precedent in the high stage of water for the time 

of year and the damage done. The ground was saturated at the time. The precipitation for 

June and July was more than 12 inches over half of New York State and 18 inches at some 

stations in this basin.

PASSAIC RIVER.

The topography of this watershed has a marked effect on the flood flow of the stream 

and .on the damage resulting from overflows. The watershed is fan shaped, consisting of a 

large central basin with a narrow outlet. The length of the stream from source to mouth is 

only 27 miles, but the length by river is 83. The total drainage area is 949 square miles, the 

area above Little Falls, the outlet of the central basin, is 772.9 square miles. All the important tributaries except one drain highland areas having steep, nearly impervious slopes and 

empty into the central basin. This basin is 8 to 12 miles wide, 32 miles long, and contains 

29,300 acres. Much of it is marshy or wet land, flooded during ordinary freshets. As the 

outlet of this basin is too small to allow free flow from it, the water is held back for a time 

and the duration of each flood is increased.

The fall from this outlet to the ocean is mainly concentrated at three places, leaving little 

fall between. The channel cross section in part of the lower reach is also small.

The following table gives the, daily rate of the flow of this stream at Dundee dam during 

the large floods from 1877 to 1903 and the date of occurrence of each:

Flood fow ofPassaic River at Dundee dam, New Jersey, 1877-1903. 

[Drainage area, 822.7 square miles.]

Year.

1877

1878

1882

1886

1886

1888

1888

Date.

March 29..............

April 8................

Maximum 

discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

10,-7SO

16,590

18,260

12,450

10, 420

11,880

Duration in 

hours.

60

60

60

60

55

68

Year.

1889

1891

1893

1893

1902

1903

Date.

April 29 ...............

March 14 ..............

October 10 ............

Maximum 

discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

10,970

11,700

11,220

11,160

- 24,800

35,000

Duration in 

hours.

66

60

69

72

270

225

NOTE. Records for years preceding 1902 are from Report Geol. Survey, New Jersey, 1894, vol. 3.

&

53; records for 1902 and 1903 are from Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper U. S. Geological Survey 

o. 92, p. 19.

The largest spring flood during this period occurred from February 27 to March 6, 1902.0 

The maximum rate of flow was 30.2 second-feet per square mile. This flood was due to 

melting snow, accompanied by rain on frozen ground.

The largest flood due to rain alone occurred October 7-10, 1903,& when the miximum rate 

of flow was 43.4 second-feet per square mile that is, 44 per cent greater than that of March 

2, 1902. The precipitation for the three days October 8-11 over this watershed was 11.74 

inches. The precipitation during the preceding months was above the normal, so that the 

ground and surface reservoirs could absorb only a small part of the water that fell during the 

storm.

o This flood and the damage wrought by it is treated in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 88. 

6 This flood and the damage wrought by it is treated in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. t>2.
64 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

RARITAN RIVER.

The Raritan is the largest river of New Jersey. Its basin is long and narrow and comprises an area of 1,105 square miles. The upper part is mountainous and has a rapid run-off. 

The lower part is hilly or rolling with grass-covered or cultivated slopes. Less than 13 per 

cent of the whole area is forested. The topography of this basin is very different from that 

of the Passaic, which lies just north of it. The rain falling on all parts of the basin runs off 

quickly, so that the floods are shorter than in the Passaic and inflict less damage.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream during the large floods from 

1810 to 1905, and the date of occurrence of each:

Flood flow of Raritan River at New Brunswick and. Boundbrook, N. J.a 

[Drainage area above Boundbrook, 806 square miles.]

Year.

1810

1865

1874

1882

1886

1887

1889

1903

Date.

July 17..............

Octobers...........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

( b )

W

9.0

f 11.5

<-14.2

9.0

8.0

8.0

1.6

7 9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

d 7,000

d 35, 500

d 52, 000

<*7,000

820

14.900

Year.

1904

1905

Date.

October 10..........

March 10. ...........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

e 12.0

e 6.5

e 5 °

C 3.5

9.5

10.1

5.5

10.4

5.7

6.0

7.4

5.7

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

28,500

10, 840

7,500

3,800

19, 950

21,940

8,230

22, 960

8,730

9,500

13, 410

8,730

a A description of this station is given in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 97, p. 238.

6 Not as great as in September, 1882.

< At Boundbrook dam.

d Geological Survey, New Jersey, 1894, vol. 3, p. 213.

f U. S. Geological Survey gaging station, Boundbrook, N. J.

There were four great floods in these ninety-five years. That of September 24, 1882, 

which had a maximum discharge at Boundbrook of 52,000 second-feet, or 64.5 second-feet 

per square mile, was probably the largest during this period. Jt was due to a long, heavy 

rain. During four days 12 inches of rain fell over this basin.

During the great flood in the Passaic River basin in October, 1903, the maximum rate of 

flow of the Raritan at Bouadbrook was only 28,500 second-feet, or 35.3 second-feet per 

square mile.

DELAWARE RIVER.

The Delaware rises in the southeastern part of New York State, on a plateau that stands 

1,800 to 1,900 feet above sea level, flows in a general southerly direction a distance of 410 

miles, and empties into Delaware Bay (see PI. 111). From its source to Trenton, N. J., a 

distance of 280 miles, its average fall is 6.7 feet per mile. The basin is long and narrow, 

with steep slopes and little surface storage above Lambertville, N. J. The topographic 

features all favor a rapid run-off, hence the stream is subject to great and sudden fluctuations of flow.
U. S. GEOLO&ICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 162 PL. Ill

DRAINAGE BASIN OF DELAWARE RIVER
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND Jj'REQUENCY. 65

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream at or near Lambertville, N: J. 

of the large floods from 1786 to 1905.

Flood flow of Delaware River at Lambertville,'N. J.a 

[Drainage area, 6,855 square miles-l

Year.

1786

1801

1814

1832

1836

1839

1841

1843

1846

1862

1890

1891

1899

1900

1901

1902

Date.

October 6......

April. .........

October 13.....

February ,14. ..

March 22.......

Gage 

height. &

Feet. 

16.0

14.0

12.0

14. 5

20.'0

14 0

17.6

11.4 

12.0

10.5

18. U

18.2

20.2

Discharge.

Second-feet. 

175,000

115, 000

115,000

140, 000-150, 000

254, 600

140,000 150,000

997 ooo

223, 600

50 900

81,070

n oftn

158, 300

Year.

1903

' Date.

March 18.......

October 12.....

Gage 

height .6

Feet. 

16.4

12.5

9.4

11.1

10.2

11.8

13.6

12.9

12.7

12.4

9.4

20 2

20 7

12.7 

9,9

c 10.0

c 15 1.

c 13.5

11.9

Discharge.

Second-feet. 

132,600

92, 450

77,980

68, 710

85,190

103, 700

96, 520

94, 460

91,370

60,470

171,700

176,900

94,460 

65, 620

86,220

oThis station is described in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper U. S. Geological Survey, No. 97 

p. 249.

o Heights given for 1786 to 1846 are heights above low water. See Kept. New Jersey Geol. Survey for 

1894, vol. 3, p. 235; and Kept, ot Chiet Engineer U. S. Army, lor 1873, App. U, p. 19. Discharges have 

been computed from tnegage heignu given.

e Due to ice gorge.

According to these records the largest flood on this stream since 1786 occurred January 8, 

1841, during which the rate ot flow was 254,600 second-feet, or 37.1 second-feet per square 

mile. The largest in recent years was the great flood of October, 1903, the rate on the llth 

being 176,900 second-feet, or 25.8 second-feet per square mile. The storm that produced 

the flood on this stream caused an unprecedented flood on the Passaic River.a

a Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 92, U. S. Geological Survey, 1904.
66 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IK 1905. 

SITSQUEHANNA RIVER.

The Susquehanna, the largest river on the Atlantic slope,-rises in Otsego Lake, New York, 

at an elevation of about 1,193 feet above sea level. It falls this height in 422 miles, but its 

fall per mile, unlike that of most streams, is greater in the 43 miles just above its mouth than 

in any other part of its course. In these 43 miles it falls 231 feet.

FIG. 11 of drainage, basin cf Susquehanna River.

The basin is fan shaped, being nearly as broad as it is long, and has an area of 27,400 

square miles. Its topography Is extremely varied in character. The upper part is a plateau a rolling country with moderately rapid run-off. Nearly all the remainder is mountainous, with steep slopes, little forest area, little surface storage, and comparatively little 

ground storage. Spring freshets, due to the rapid melting of the winter's snow and to ice 

gorges in the streams, are of frequent occurrence.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY: 67

The following table gives the daily rate of flow at Harrisburg during the large floods that 

have occurred from 1865 to 1905, and the date of each:

Flood flow ofSusque Jianna River at Harrisburg, Pa., 1865-1905.® 

[Drainage area, 24,030 square miles. Danger line, 17 feet gage height.]

Year.

1865

1889

1891

1893

1894

1898

1901

Date.

May i. ................

May 5.................

May 7.................

May 21................

May 23................

May 24................

Gage 

height.

Feet.

14.3

19 0

17.8

13.3

6.8

16.2

25.6

21.4

10 9

15.6

15.3

9 3

21.4

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

(")

f 070, 000

I 735, 000

217, 580

198 700

go QQO

2°3 "MO

404, 800

404,800

Year.

1901

1902

1903

Date.

March 2...............

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

18.6

14.2

9.8

9.7

20.3

23.9

23.3

21.4

16.3

12.3

is. 4

16.8

14.5

< 128. 0

< 128. 0

c 126. 4

«146. 6

c 130. 2

cl30. 4

clSO.9

15.7

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

323, 380

215, 720

134,900

133, 150

371,950

483, 760

464, 320

404, 800

262,240

179, 960

200,600

275,200

221,300

141,100

141,100

118, 500

d 300, 000

176,500

180,700

192,000

283,700

a For description of gaging station and station rating table see Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No 109, 

pp. 104 and 115.

6 Approximately the same as during flood of June, 1889. 

c At McCall Ferry. Above sea level. 

d \pproximate maximum discharge, 631,000 second-feet.

Four very large floods have occurred during this period. Two of these occurred in March 

and were due to rapid melting of snow and to ice gorges, and two occurred later in the year 

and were due to rainfall alone. The flood of June, 1889, was the largest and had a maximum 

rate of from 28 to 30.6 second-feet per square mile at Harrisburg. The storm causing this 

flood lasted about thirty-four hours. During this time from 4 inches to 9 inches of rain fell.o

This flood reached a stage of 33.5 feet above low water at Williamsport, on the West 

Branch. The highest stage at this place during the flood of 1865 was 27 feet.

This flood was very large on Chemung River, a northern tributary of the Susquehanna. 

The maximum rate of flow at Elmira on June 1 from 2,055 square miles was 67 second-feet 

per square mile.b

The flood of March, 1904, is described in Water-Supply Paper No. 147, pages 22 to 32.

POTOMAC RIVER.

The Potomac is formed by the union of its north and south branches 15 miles below Cumberland, Md. From Cumberland to Georgetown the river falls 610 feet in 185 miles. The 

basin is long and comparatively narrow and has an area of 14,500 square miles. The basins 

of both branches of the Shenandoah, its principal tributary, are also long and narrow. The 

greater part of the Potomac basin is mountainous, with steep, nearly impervious slopes, little 

forest area, and no surface storage. All the topographic features favor rapid run-off; hence 

floods are frequent, sudden, and large. The valley of the Shenandoah is somewhat broader 

than that of the Potomac, and the range of surface fluctuation of the stream is not so great.

<* Kept. Chief Engr. U.S. Army, 1891, p 1105. Also Eng. News, vol. 21, p. 528.

6 Report of Francis Coilmgwood on " Protection of Elmira, N. Y against floods "
68 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream during the large floods from 

1889 to 1905 and the date of occurrence of each:

Flood flow ofPotomac River at Point of Bocks, Md., 1889-1905.a 

[Drainage area, 9,650 square miles.]

Year.

1877

1889

1895

1896

1897

18QQ

1901

Date.

^or»tarn"Kar on

May 4.................

October 2'^

April 21...............

April 22...............

April 23. ..............

April 24. ........ ......

April 25...............

May 22................

Gage 

height.

Feet.

C 6 >

5.3

21.9

12. 1

6.7

21.2

24. G

16.8

6.5

14.0

8.5

8.9

12.6

8.0

14.0

]6. 1

9

C

10.1

13.7

9.0

9

0

1 0 Q

11.9

9.2

8.5

1° 9

10.0

12.4

9.9

9 0

15.0

8.3

5.4

11.4

20.8

15.8

11.2

7.9

1.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

 470,000

65 980

159,800

78,430

34,900

'154,000

182,200

117,400

33,480

94,200

48,700

51,900

82,580

44, 720

27,340

94,200

111,600

26, 020

86, 730

01,830

48, 700

100,800

91,710

76, 770

54,360

48,700

1] 5,800

85,070

61,000

80, 920

60, 170

52, 700

102, 500

47, 100

26,020

72,620

150,600

109,100

70, 900

43, 940

Year.

1901

1902

1903

1905

Date.

May 23................

May 24................

February 28. ..........

March 2. ..............

March 3. ..............

March 16. .............

Aprils................

April 9................

April 12...............

April 13...............

February 28. ..........

March 2. ..............

April 14. ..............

April 15...............

April 16...............

April 17. ..............

April 18...............

March 10. .............

March 12..............

March 13..............

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

12.6

14.2

9.3

8.1

17.2

13.3

6.9

4.4

13.8

18.4

11.7

4.4

17.8

27 2

18.0

22.5

29.0

16.1

10.2

12.0

12.4

14.0

13.8

12.0

10.2

6.4

16.4

14.3

12.9

12.2

11.5

5.4

14.2

' 15.3

8.9

7.0

12.1

8.6

5.6

14.4

15.1

14.0

10.4

6.4

11.0

10.1

6.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

82,580

95,860

45,500

120,800

88,390

36,340

19,840

92, 540

130,700

75,110

19,840

125, 700

203,800

127, 400

164,800

218, 700

111,600

62,660

77,600

80,920

94,200

92,540

77,600

62, 600

28, 780

108, 700

91,290

79, 670

73,860

68,050

22,300

90,460

99,590

46, 820

32,820

73,030

44,500

23,560

92, 120

97, 930

88,800

58,920

28,780

63,900

56, 430

32,140

a Description of this station is given in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper U.S. Geol. Survey No. 167, p. 55. 

6 See Kept. Chief of Engrs. U. S. Army, 1881, p. 940, for comparisons of floods of 1877 and 1881. 

c Discharge at Chain Bridge.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 69

The largest flood, except for that of 1889, in the lower part of this basin occurred in 

February, 1881, and was due to an ice gorge.« The stage at Long Bridge, Washington, 

D. C., was 2.5 feet greater than during the flood of 1877. About 254 acres of the city of 

Washington was submerged during this flood.

On June 2, 1889, occurred the largest flood on this stream. Above Harpers Ferry b it 

reached a stage of 34 feet above low water and 6.8 feet above that attained during the flood 

of 1877. The mean rate of flow June 2 at Chain Bridge, Washington, was 40.9 second-feet 

per square mile from 11,500 square miles of area.

The storm c causing this flood extended from Kansas to the Atlantic and from the Great 

Lakes to the Carolinas. It caused unprecedented floods in the Susquehanna River basin, 

and to it was due the great disaster at Johnstown, Pa.

The largest flood since 1SS9 was on March 2,1902, when the discharge was 218,700 secondfeet at Point of Rocks.

CAPE FEAR RIVER.

Cape Fear River is formed by the junction of New and Deep rivers in Chatham County, 

N. C., flows 192 miles in a general southeasterly direction, and empties into the Atlantic 

Ocean. Steamers of light draft ascend the river to Fayetteville, a distance by river of 160 

miles. From Fayetteville up to Smileys Falls, a distance of 25 miles, the fall is only 1.25 

feet per mile.

The basin above Fayetteville is long and narrow and has an area of 3,860 square miles. 

It is gently rolling or hilly, with thin soil that absorbs moisture slowly. The run-off into 

the main channel is therefore large and rapid and the floods on this stream are more violent 

than those on any other stream in North Carolina.

The following table gives the stages of this stream at Fayetteville during all the large 

floods from 1S89 to 1902 and the approximate daily discharge during some of them:

a Kept. Chief of Engrs. U. S. Army, 1881, p. 940. 

£> Kept. Chief of Engrs. U. S. Army, 1889, p. 985. 

c Eng. News, vol. 21, p. 528.
DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Flood flow of Cape Fear River at Fayetteville, N. O., 1889-1904.a 

(Drainage area, 3,860 square miles. Danger line, 38 feet gage height.]

Year.

1889

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

Date.

June 2................

JulvS.................

July 29 ...............

May 30.......... ......

October24. ...........

October 12. ...........

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

Gage 

height.6

Feet. 

43.0

10.0

40.0

30.0

43.9

45.0

44.2

41.0

45.1

43.1

49.5

42.3

42.0

47.9

37.0

52.0

58. 0

56.0

47.4

38.0

41.0

Discharge.

Sec. -feet.

\ 53,000

\ to

I 55,000

1 to

I 65,000

f 70,000

\ to 1 on Afifi

Year.

1899

1900

1902

Date.

May 22. ...............

May 23................

May 25................

May 26................

May 27................

March 2...............

Gage 

height/'

Feet.

47.7

44.6

48.0

49.5

52.0

43.0

42.0

44.0

44.0

47.7

14.0

48.0

58.5

54.7

42.0

33.9

4L.5

42.0

43.6

40.3

41.7

50.5

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

| 55,000

< to

« A description of this gaging station is given in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper U. S. Geol. Survey No. 

83,p. 31. 

6 U. S. Weather Bureau gage records.

NOTE. The lowest stage was 0.7 foot on the gage October 5, 1S95, and the flow was 0.069 second-foot 

per square mile.

The largest flood during this period occurred in May, 1901, and reached a stage of 58.5 

feet, or about 58 feet above low water. The discharge is estimated to have been from 70,000 

to 90,000 second-feet, or from 18 to 23 second-feet per square mile. High stages occur often 

in this stream, and in nearly all months of the year. The rise and fall are very rapid. The 

very great range of stage at this place is due to the small slope of the stream bed and the 

small channel, which is U-shaped, with high banks and small bottom width. At the junction of New and Deep rivers, where the slope and width are greater than at Fayetteville, 

the range of stage is about 25 feet. It is reported that the stage at Fayetteville has been 75 

feet.

SAVANNAH RIVER.

Savannah River is formed by the junction of Tugaloo and Seneca rivers in the northern 

part of North Carolina, about 100 miles north of Augusta, flows in a southerly direction a 

distance of 355 miles by river, and empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah The 

stream is navigable to Augusta, a distance by river of 248 miles. The fall in this distance 

is above 130 feet. From Augusta to Andersonville, a distance of 107 miles, the fall is 270 

feet, The basin is long and narrow and comprises a drainage area above Augusta of 7,500 

square miles. The upper part extends well up into the Blue Ridge Mountains and lias a
FLOOD DISCHAEGE AND FREQUENCY. 71

rapid run-off. Nume,rous comparatively small streams enter the main stream at considerable distances apart. This stream is subject to large freshets, due to rain and the rapid melting of snow in the mountains in the spring. The greatest flood, however, occurred in September, and was due to rain alone.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream at Augusta, Ga., during all 

the large floods from 1840 to 1905:

Flood discharge of Savannah River at Augusta, Ga., 1840-1905.a 

[Drainage area, 7,500 square miles. Danger line, 32 feet. Lowest stage, 2.5 feet.]

Year.

1840

1852

1865

1878

1888

1881

1886

1887

1888

Date.

May 28.............. .

January 11.... ...... .

July 31................

March 17 ..............

March 18. .............

March 19... ...........

April 1................

April 2................

May 20................

May 21................

May22. ...............

July 29.. ..............

July 30................

July 31................

March 29. .............

March 30 ..............

Gage 

height.6

Feet. 

37.8

30. 8

36.4

34.5

38.7

28.5

32.2

23,3

30.8

32-2

29.0

28. 7

32.5

20 8

14 0

34.5

32.0

31.7

32 1

23.9

30.8

33.0

24 0

30.0

32 7

29 8

23 5

34 7

38.1

Discharge.

Scc.-feel. 

c 253, 000

c 202, 000

c 143, 000

90, 800

123, 360

47 660

111,040

123,360

95,200

92, 500

120, 000

75,840

17,900

124, 200

143,000

121,600

52,000

109,300

127, 800

48,900

148,600 !

Year.

1888

1889

1891

189°

1896

1899

1900

1903

Date.

March 10. .............

March 11 ..............

March 12... ...........

March 13. .............

July 9.................

March 2. ....... ......

Gage 

height.6

Feet. 

33.9

23.2

30.0

32.9

29.3

31.2

35.3

32.6

27.7

31.2

29.5

31 0

32 5

20. 8

29.2

30 2

25,8

28.0

31.0

99 9

29 6

32-3

22 1

33 8

33 3

28 6

30 7

33 0

28 i

25 3

Discharge.

Sec. -feet. 

138,300

47, 500

109,300

129,500

97, 840

114,000

165, 400

126, 900

83, 760

114,600

99,600

112,800

126,000

75, 840

90, 900

105, 800

07,040

80,400

112,800

103, 100

100,500

124,200

41,480

04,400

137,400

133 000

91,080

110,200

130,400

92,560

62.700

" Description ot station in Water-Sup anairr Papei U S Geoi Survey No 98 p. 57

b Property ol city ot Augusta, Ga

< House Document No 213 5lst Cong 1st sess

The largest flood at this place during the period covered by the table occurred September 

11,1888.a The maximum stage was 38 7 teet and the maximum late of flow was 40 secondfeet per square mile The normal ramtali for September at Augusta is 2 to 4 inches. The 

rainfall for September, 1888, was 12 inches. -The water was fiom 1 foot to 12 feet deep 

over a part of the city of Augusta, and the flood did a laige amount of damage.

Second in size was the flood ot 1840, during which the maximum rate of flow was 33.7 

second-feet per squaie mile.

a Report on survey of the Savannah River above Augusta. Ga., House Doc 213, 51st Cong , 1st sess.
72 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN" UNITED STATES IN 1905.

ALABAMA RIVER.

Alabama River is formed by the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers 6 miles above 

Montgomery, Ala. The drainage basin of these streams is hilly country, well wooded, and 

about one-fourth of the land is under cultivation. The streams have comparatively little 

fall, a sluggish flow, and are subject to great fluctuations of stage. The channel is deep and 

the area flooded comparatively small for such extreme fluctuations of stage.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of the Alabama at Selma, Ala., of the large 

floods from 1891 to 1904:

Flood flow of Alabama River at Selma, Ala., 1891 to 1904. a 

[Drainage area, 15,400 square miles. Lowest water, 1.9 feet, November 9,1894. Danger line, 35 feet.]

Year.

1891

1892

1893

 1897

1899

Date.

March 13. ...........

March 14. ...........

March 15. ...........

March 29. ...........

March 30. ...........

April 14.............

February 20........

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

March 17. ...........

March 3. ...........

Gage 

height. 6

Feet. 

47.3

48.0

47.6

50.3

52.2

53.8

54.0

53.7

52.8

52.1

52.1

51.3

48.3

4*5

46.0

44.0

44.6

43.9

42.6

41.8

40.7

38.8

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

127, 260

135,500

140,800

145,200

145, 700

144,900

142,400

130,000

130, 600

123, 700

118,200

119,800

117,900

11° °00

109, 200

103,900

Year.

1900

1901

1902

1903

Date.

April 24.............

April 23.............

March 7. ............

March 31. ...........

April 1..............

April 2..............

April 3..............

April 4..............

Gage 

height. 6

Feet. 

48.0

47.9

41.0

40.0

40.0

39.0

45,0

46.6

46.3

47.1

47.1

46.2

44.4

48.9

50.1

50.7

50.0

48.6

48.0

50.2

50.6

49.9

49.0

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

129,200

128,900

110,000

107, 200

107, 200

104, 400

121,000

125, 400

124,500

1 96 700

124, 200

119,300

131,700

135,000

136, 600

134, 700

130,800

129, 200

134, 400

132,000

« For description of station, see Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 83, p. 131. 

6 U. S. Weather Bureau records.

The largest flood during this period occurred in January, 1892. The stream was nearly 

56 feet above low water and the maximum rate of flow was 145,700 second-feet, or 9.5 second-feet per square mile. High stages occur nearly every year and last from one or two 

weeks to a month. The flood flow is comparatively small and these high stages are due to 

narrow channel and small slope of stream bed.

BLACK WARRIOR RIVER.

Black Warrior River is formed by the junction'of the Mulberry and Sipsey forks at Warriortown, Ga., flows in a southerly direction ^,nd empties into the Tombigbee. The basin 

is rolling or flat open country, much of which is under cultivation. The stream has little 

fall and its flow is sluggish. The area above the gaging station at Tuscaloosa, Ala., is 

4,900 square miles.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 73

The following table gives the daily flow at this station during the large floods from 1889 

to 1905:

Flood flow of Black Warrior River at Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1889-1905. « 

[Drainage area, 4,900 square miles. Danger line, 43.0 feet gage height. Lowest stage, 0.8 foot.]

Year.

1889 

1890

1891 

1892

1893 

1895

Date.

March 2.. ..........

March 3.. ..........

March 8...... ......

March 9 ............

April 7..............

April 10. ............

April 11.............

April 12.............

April 13.............

April 14.............

July 11..............

a Descripti 

fc U. S. Arr

Gage 

height.ft

Feet. 

40.5 

56.4 

56.6 

53.0 

54.0 

52.9 

58.9 

57.4 

52.4 

45.9

51.5 

51.5 

52.2 

53.5 

50.5 

47.6 

51.4 

49.5 

53.0 

58.0 

60.4 

58.0 

54.0 

53.0 

57.4 

55.9 

51.7

56.3 

63.2 

62.2 

58.0 

52.3 

45.4 

40.7

36.5

46.2 

52.2 

55.6 

54.7 

51.4 

51.2 

52.2 

48.0 

49.6 

46.0 

50.6 

49.3

on of stat 

ny Engine

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

63,000 

126,600 

127, 400 

113,000 

117,000 

112,600 

136,600 

130,400 

110,600

107,000 

107,000 

109,800 

115,000 

103,000 

91,400 

106,600 

99,000 

113,000 

133,000 

142,600 

133,000 

117,000 

113,000 

130,600 

124,600 

107,800

126,200 

153,800 

149,800 

133,000 

110,200

85,800 

109,800 

123,400 

119,800 

106,600 

105,800 

109,800 

93,000 

99,400 

85,000 

103,400 

98,200

on in Waterers records.

Year.

1895 

1897

1898 

1899

1900

1901

1902 

Sup. at

Date.

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

March 17. ..........

March 19.. .........

March 20. ..........

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

April 12............

April 17. ............

April 21... ..........

April 22... ..........

June 27.............

April 21. ............

id Irr. Paper No. 98, \

Gage 

height.&

Feet. 

52.0 

47.3 

51.3 

51.4 

54.8 

51.6 

51.0 

43.5 

38.7 

49.3 

50.6 

51.4 

51.7 

48.6 

59.3 

60.3 

57.7 

52.4 

49.3 

39.5 

48.0 

51.0 

52.8 

53.4 

48.7 

63.0 

64.0 

62.2 

59.4 

56.1 

51.7 

46.2 

50.0 

58.4 

56.4 

52.9 

49.1 

52.7 

56.5 

53.3 

47.3 

42.0 

42.6 

49.0 

49.0 

44.0 

48.4 

49.9 

). 159.

Discharge.

Sec. feet. 

109,000 

90,200 

10&,200 

106,600 

120,200 

107,400 

105,000 

75,000 

55,800 

98,200 

103,400 

106,400 

107,800 

95,400 

138,200 

142,200 

131,800 

110,600 

98,200 

59,000 

93,000 

105,000 

112,200 

114,600 

95,800 

153,000 

157,000 

149,800 

138,600 

125,400 

107,800 

85,800 

101,000 

134,600 

126,600 

112,600 

97,400 

111,800 

127,000 

114,200 

90,200 

69,000 

71,400 

97,000 

97,000 

77,000 

94,600 

100,600
74 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Flood floio of Black Warrior River at Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1889-1905 Continued.

Year.

1902

1QH9

Date.

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

March 29...........

March 30. ..........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

60.4

' 60.6

58.3

56.4

55.9

51.5

52.0

53.8

51.1

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

142,600

143,400

134,200

112,600

126,600

124,600

107,000

109,000

116,200

105, 400

Year.

1903

1905

Date.

February 17. .......

February 18........

February 19.. ......

March 1.. ...........

May 16..............

February 22........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

56.7

56.8

53.0

54.3

43.4

46.1

55.5

56.9

54.5

47.7

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

127,800

128,200

113,000

118,200

74,600

85,400

123,000

128,000

119,000

91,800

The largest flood during this period was in April, 1900. The stage on the 18th was 64 

feet, or about 64.8 feet above low water. The maximum daily rate was 157,000 secondfeet, or 32 second-feet per square mile. This great range of stage is due to sluggish flow 

and narrow, deep channel. They last from one to three or four weeks.

It is reported that the stage at this place has been 87.6 feet.

MONO5TGAHELA RIVER.

The Monongahela rises in the north-central part of West Virginia, flows in a general 

northerly direction, and joins the Allegheny at Pittsburg to form the Ohio (see PI. IV). Its 

principal tributaries are the Cheat, which enters from the east a few miles north of the 

southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and the Youghiogheny, which enters from the east at 

McKeesport. The basin of the Monongahela has an area of 7,625 square miles, embracing 

the west slope of the Allegheny Mountains. It is mainly mountainous or hilly, with no 

surface storage ijnd little forest area, and stands at a higher elevation than the Ohio basin, 

immediately west of it. From Fairmount to the mouth of the stream, a distance of 123 

miles, the fall of the river is about 1.1 feet per mile. This part of the stream consists of a 

series of slack-water basins formed by dams.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of the Monongahela at Lock No. 4 during 

all the large floods from 1886 to 1905:

JJow of the Monongahela Rwer at Lock No. 4, Pennsylvania., 1880-1905. 

[Drainage area, 5,430 square miles. Lowest stage, 3.2 feet. Danger line, 28 feet.]

Year.

1886

Date.

March 31...........

April 1. .............

April 2. .............

April 3..............

April 6..............

April 7..............

April 8..............

May8...............

May 9...............

May 10..............

May 11... ...........

Gage 

height.^

Feet. 

16.5 

27.0 

23.5 

16.0 

18.5 

25.0 

26.0 

19.5 

6.5

22.0 

16,5 

11.5

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

33,600 

92,600 

70,800 

31,300 

43,600 

79,800 

85,800 

48,600

62,300 

 33,600

Year.

1886 

1887

Date.

May 13..............

May 16..............

Fp.brna.rv 28

a U. S. Weather Bureau records.

Gage 

heights

Feet.

15.3 

21.2 

24.3 

16.5 

14.0 

31.0 

24.5 

16.3 

11.7 

28.0 

24.0

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

28,150 

57,900 

75,600 

33,600 

22,500 

120,600 

76,800 

32,650 

14,500 

99.600 

73,800
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 75

Flood flow of the Monongahela River at Lock No. 4, Pennsylvania, 1886-1905 Continued.

Y"ear.

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

Date.

July 9...... .........

July 10..............

July 11.............

July 12..............

July 13..............

April 13... ..........

April 14.............

April 15............

May 31..............

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

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

IRR 162 06 1

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

16.3

19.5

20.7

16.5

6.9

26.0

42.0

27.0

14.5

12.7

27.0

25.5

19.5

, 10 (\

21.0

17.7

8.7

25.0

19.4

11.9

21.4

18.0

10.0

T> ^

20.0

16.4

10.8

21.1

21.1

11.0

19.5

31.8

28.5

IS S

U Q

20.1

9d ^

21.5

15.0

9 0

27.0

31.3

20 8

14.1

17.0

10 Q

190

21.8

on c

16.3

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

32,650

48,600

55,150

33,600

85,800

207,000

92,600

17,490

92,600

82,800

48,600

1 s Pidfi

56,800

39,600

79,800

48,100

15,000

59,000

41,100

£A ncn

57,350

70 800

48 600

103, 100

45, 100

H QAA

C1 QCf\

7C CAA

59,550

og goo

122, 700

55, 700

9*> Q9O,

36,100

70 cnn

45,100

61,200

32,650

Year.

1891

1892

1893

1896

1897

Date.

April 23.... .........

April 24.:.. .........

April 25.... .........

March 15... .........

March 17.... ........

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

July 30..............

July 31.. ............

February 26........

May 15.............

May 16..............

March 18.. ..........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

19.0

20.4

15.3

11.0

25.7

28.5

19.3

18.0

21.6

15.5

16.5

23.5

18.2

7 *3

24.5

30.0

22.0

15.8

21.9

19.0

14.5

21.0

21.7

16.4

11.2

20.5

18.6

14.2

25.3

24.0

15.6

16.0

36.0

36.0

23.0

14.0

19.7

20.6

14.6

8.0

20.6

15.6

14.0

23.9

20.0

15.8

19.5

21.0

16 0

13.5

21.9

16.7

8.5

20.0

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

46,100

53,500

28,150

84,000

103, 100

47,600

41,100

60,100

29,050

33,600

70,800

42,100

76,800

113,600

62,300

30,400

61, 750

46,100

24,600

56,800

60,650

33,100

54,050

44,100

23,340

81,600

73,800

29,500

31,300

159,000

159,000

67,800

22,500

49,650

54,600

25,040

54,600

29,500

22,500

73,200

51,300

30,400

48,600

56,800

31,300

20,480

61,750

34,600

51,300
76 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN" 1905.

Flood flow of'the Monongahela River at Lock No. 4, Pennsylvania, 1886-1905 Continued.

Year.

1898

1899

1900

1901

Date.

March 20. ...........

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29. ...........

March 30. ...........

March 31.. ..........

April 1..............

October 22..........

March 7. ............

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

March 1. ..........

March 2. ............

March 3. ............

April 6. ......... .

April?.............

April 8. .............

April 19.... .........

April 20.. ...........

April 21...... .......

April 22.... .........

April 23. ............

May 27..... .........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

16.7

12.7

13.8

22.5

20.7

20.2

24.7

16.0

12.5

12.0

23.9

20.7

14.5

17.3

23.3

21.0

17.8

14.0

21.6

15.8

15.0

23.5

15.6

11.5

17.5

14.0

<>g g

9.5

O^i ft

23 0

1A f»

10.2

21.0

19 0

17.6

33.8

22.6

14.8

18.8

21.6

23.1

21.6

17.0

12.0

23.3

25.5

21.5

17.2

19.4

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

34, 600

21,680

65,050

55, 150

52,400

78,000

72,600

31,300

15,300

73,200

55, 150

24,600

37, 600

69,600

56,800

40,100

22,500

60, 100

on 4nn

°6 800

QC find

2

9 Knn

Q1 QOO

51, 300

67,800

67,800

33,600

56,800

39,100

141 400

65,600

25,920

45,100

60,100

68,400

60, 100

36, 100

59,550

37,100

48,100

Year.

1901

1QO9

1903

.

Date.

May 28..............

May 29. .............

May 30..............

February 26........

February 28........

April 10.............

April 11..... ........

April 12.............

Anrtl 14

December 16

February 28........

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

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

21.3

20.0

17.1

18.5

28.5.

18.5

16.5

25.0

22.0

9.5

25.9

19.5

16.4

21.5

18.8

29.5

25.1

20.0

15.6

11.3

01 ft

19 6

17 2

°0 1

oo n

T> 7

21.5

17.7

20.0

eye n

,' 26 2

19.0

17.0

20.5

14.5

10.9

22.1

18.9

16.0

21.7

17.8

10.5

22.6

28 4

19.2

14.6

32.5

24.6

15.7

13.0

23.2

21.0

14.6

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

58,450

51,300

36,600

43,600

103, 100

43,600

79,800

62,300

85,200

48,600

33,100

59,550

45,100

110, 100

80, 400

51,300

29,500

60 100

49,100

37,100

51,850

62,300

39,600

51,300

70 onn

87,000

46,100

36,100

85,800

54,050

24,600

62,850

45,600

31,300

60,650

40, 100

«65,600

47,100

25,040

131, 100

77,400

29,950

18,540

69,000

56,800

25,040
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 162 PL. IV

DRAINAGE BASIN OF OHIO RIVER

19OS
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 77

Flood flow of the Monongahela River at Lock No. 4, Pennsylvania, 1886-1905 Continued.

Year.

1904

1906

Date.

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

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

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

height.

Feet. 

13.8

21.2

20.0

14.5

14.2

20.2

16.8

10.2

24.3

19.5

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

21,680

51, 300

23, 340

35,100

75,600

48,600

Year.

1905

Date.

March 11............

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

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

Gage 

height:

Feet. 

12.0

21.0

28.3

29.3

18.5

16.5

27.2

20.5

13.4

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

15,300

56,800

101, 700

108, 700

43,600

33,600

94,000

54,050

20,080

The discharge is taken from a station rating table prepared from current-meter measurements of the flow at Belle Vernon, Pa., and surface slope data furnished by T. P. Roberts, Corps of Engineers, United States Army.

The gage is located at the lower end of the lock below the dam; its zero is 717.82 feet 

above sea level.

The greatest rate of discharge during this period was on July 11, 1888. The stream 

reached a stage of 42 feet, 38.8 feet above lowest stage, and a daily rate of flow of 207,000 

second-feet, or 38.1 second-feet per square mile. Both the rise and fall during this flood 

were very rapid. It was due to a very heavy rain of comparatively short duration.

The flood second in size occurred February 23-24, 1897, when a stage of 36 feet was 

reached, and a rate of 159,000 second-feet, or 29.3 second-feet per square mile. It was a 

spring flood, due to rain and the rapid melting of snow.

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER.

The Youghiogheny, the chief tributary of the Monongahela, drains an area of about 1,770 

square miles. It rises in the mountains about 30 miles south of the Pennsylvania-West 

Virginia line, flows northwestward about 85 miles, and enters the Monongahela at McKeesport, Pa. Its chief tributary is the Casselman, which enters from the east, at Confluence, 

Pa. The basin is mountainous and quick spilling, without storage. The stream bed is 

steep and rocky and the flow rapid.
78 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the daily flow just below the mouth of the Casselman at Confluence, Pa., of all the^arge floods from 1874 to 1905:

Flood flow of Youghiogheny River at Confluence, Pa., 1874-1905.0- 

[Drainage area, 782 square miles. Lowest stage, 0.8 foot. Danger line, 10 feet.]

Year.

1874

1875

1876

187V

1881

1882

1883

1888

1889

1890

Date.

July 28. .............

July 29. .............

July 30.. .............

February 1*^

February 7

May 31. .............

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

Gage 

height.

Feet.

8.5

6.1

3.0

10.7

5.2

5.4

12.3

in Q

4 4

11.6

7.6

11.6

7.8

9.6

9 4

fi 4

10.5

Q 0

3.6

1 1 Q

9 9

17.0

9.6

12.0

6.1

9.0

in Q

7.6

Discharge.

Second-feet. 

17,320

30,420

23, 100

25,630

20,170

19,640

17,060

99 5gQ

16,810

oo o9o

19 1°0

42,000

20,170

26, 820

18,600

9Q fiAO

Year.

1891

1895

1 CQfi

lono

1QO1

190°

1904

1QAE

Date.

July 24..............

July 25. .............

February 23........

April 6. .............

April 7. .............

February 28 ........

Gage 

height.

Feet. 

6.9

12.3

10.2

6.9

8.5

10.8

7.3

7.6

10.5

&9

5.4

13.0

5 9

5.8

11.6

13.0

9.6

3.3

10.3

7.3

7.6

10.5

8. a

2.6

10.6

7.0

40

9.9

10.1

9.0

10.6

5.0

8.0

Discharge.

Second-feet.

27, 720

21,750

17,320

23, 370

22,560

18,340

29,820

25,630

29,820

20, 170

22, 020

22,560

16,060

22,830

21,470

20.960

18,600

22,830

16,080

a Gage heights from II. S. Weather Bureau records.

The largest flood on this stream in these thirty-one years occurred in August, 1888. The 

maximum rate of flow was then from 42,000 to 46,000 second-feet, or from 53.8 to 59 

second-feet per square mile. Second in size to this flood was the spring flood of February 

1883, when the maximum daily rate of flow was 41.2 second-feet per square mile.

TENNESSEE RIVER.

Tennessee River is formed by the junction of the French Broad and the Holston about 

4 miles above Knoxville, Tenn. it is a long, somewhat U-shaped stream and is navigable 

to Chattanooga, a distance of 453 miles. The basin above Chattanooga is mountainous, 

being made up of a series of parallel ridges. The tributary streams drain the narrow valleys between these ranges. There is no surface and little ground storage, and the run-off 

is therefore very rapid.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 79

The drainage area above Chattanooga, where the gaging station is located, is 21,380 

square miles. The following table gives the daily rate of flow of this stream at Chattanooga 

during all the larger floods from 1867 to 1905.

Flood flow of Tennessee River at Chattanooga, Tenn., 1867-1905. a 

[Drainage area, 21,382 square miles. Danger line, 33 feet gage.height. Lowest stage, 0.0.]

Year.

1867

1890

1891

1892

1893

1896

1897

Date.

March 11. ...........

March 2. ............

March 4. ............

April 10............

February 26........

Gage 

height.6

Feet. 

58.0

34.8

40.2

42.5

34.4

36.5

37.5

35.5

38 9

37.6

Vf 1

*?7 Q

35.2

33.4

38.8

40.5

34.8

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

c 735, 000

445, 100

418, 400

300,900

999 900

390 500

308, 100

Year.

1897

1101

1902

Date.

March 14............

March 15............

March 17...... ......

March 17............

''March 5.. ...........

Gage 

height. &

Feet. 

37.9

37.9

37.0

36.0

36.95

38.25

 36.75

36.90

36.15

35.85

37.05

39.20

40.00

38.70

32.70

32.00

37.45

40.10

40.80

38.0

35.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

363,200

363,200

347, 200

329,400

225, 100

333,200

223,800

224,800

220,200

218, 300

225, 700

239,000

244,000

235,900

198, 700

202,200

237,300

254,800

259, 400

241,200

227,600

a Description of station given in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No.'

6 U. S. Weather Bureau records.

c Two per cent added for overflow passing around gage.

8, p. 255.

The flood of March, 1867, on this river exceeded all floods in the preceding ninety* years. 

It was one great rise, due to a very great storm that extended over the whole drainage 

area. At noon on March 11 the stage was 58 feet above low water at Chattanooga. At 

Knoxville the stage was 12 feet above that of 1847. The loss of life and property in this 

valley was unparalleled.

Second in size was the flood from February 27 to March 5, 1890, which had a maximum' 

rate on March 2 of 445,120 second-feet, or about 0.6 the rate of the flood of March, 1867.

ILLINOIS RIVER.

Illinois River is the largest tributary of the Mississippi above the Missouri. It is formed 

by the junction of the Kankakee and Desplaines rivers in northeast Illinois. The basin 

including these streams has an area of 29,013 square miles, and its width is about half its 

length. It is level or gently undulating land, with a deep, rich, loamy soil, and is nearly 

all under cultivation. From Lake Michigan to Lasalle the fall of the river is 141 feet, and 

from Lasalle to its mouth the fall is 33 feet. The Chicago Drainage Canal extends from 

Lake Michigan to Illinois River at Joliet, and through it passes into the river 3,000 to 

5,000 second-feet of the water of Lake Michigan. A large part of the Kankakee River 

basin in Indiana is a swamp formed by a ledge of limestone crossing the valley near the 

State line. This swamp exerts a marked influence on the flood flow and also on the lowwater flow of the river.

oRept. Chief Engr. U. S. Army for 1875, p. 635.
80 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS UNITED STATES IN 1905.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of Illinois River at Peoria, 111., during 

larger floods from 1890 to 1905. The gage heights are readings of the United States 

Weather Bureau gage on a pile of the protecting work of pier of the Peoria wagon bridge.

Flood flow of Illinois River, Peoria, III., 1890 to 1905.a 

[Drainage area, 15,700 square miles. Danger line, 14 feet. Lowest water, 2.6 feet.]

Year.

1890

1891

1892

1893

1895

1897

1898

Date.

April 17............

April 18............

April 19............

May 6...............

May 7.... ...........

May 11... ...........

May 12..............

May 13..............

May 14..............

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

Gage 

height. 6

Feet. 

13.3

15.0

1 K f\

15.0

18.9

20.9

21.5

21.9

21.3

20.7

20.0

19.9

19.4

19.6

15.0

18.3

19 3

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

. 22,960

2 f) Q£A

22,960

39,120

47, 920

50,480

52,180

49, 620

47,140

44,000

43,560

41, 330

42,220

22,960

36,500

40,880

Year.

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

Date.

March 29............

Aprill.. ...........

April 2.............

July 22..............

March 12............

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

March 8. ............

May 19..............

Gage 

height.6

Feet. 

15.1

19 9

19 9

17.0

17.2

17.4

17.6

17.7

17.6

17.5

21.0

19.3

19.3

c<J21.8

<U5.0

"17.4

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

23,330

43,560

A*J CAft

30,900

31,760

32,620

33,480

33, 910

33,480

33,050

48,350

40,880

40,880

57,500

24,090

35,500

a Description of gaging station in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 128, p. 39. 

& Heights on U. S. Weather Bureau gage.

e From March 24 to April 7 this stage was above 20 feet, and from January 22 to May 19 the stage did 

not fall below 13 feet. 

d Heights on U. S. Geological Survey gage.

The largest flood on this stream in these sixteen years occurred March, 1904. The greatest stage was 21.8 feet, or 19.2 feet above low water, and the greatest rate of flow was 57,500 

second-feet, or 3.66 second-feet per square mile. For fifteen days during this flood the 

discharge did not fall below 44,000 second-feet.

Second in size was the flood of May, 1902, which had a maximum rate of 3.3 second-feet 

per square mile.

The floods on this stream are of long duration, but have a very small rate of flow.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

The Mississippi has its source in Itaska Lake, in northern Minnesota, at an elevation of 

1,324 feet above sea level. From this lake to St. Paul, Minn., a distance of about 500 

miles, it falls about 1,000 feet. The watershed is mostly hilly, without mountains, with 

considerable swampy land and lake surface. The surface covering is drift composed of 

sand, gravel, and bowlders. The total area above St. Paul is 36,085 square miles, 16,350 

square miles of which is Minnesota River drainage.

The following table gives the daily stage and rate of flow of the larger floods from 1867 

to 1904. The discharge is taken from a station rating table prepared from observations 

made by engineers of the United States Army in April and May, 1897. The daily rate of 

flow during the flood of 1881 is in doubt. It was less than 120,000 second-feet and greater 

than 95,000 second-feet.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 81

Flood flow of Mississippi River at St. Paul, Minn., 1867-1904.a

[Drainage area, 36,085 square miles. Highest water, 19.7 feet, April 29, 1881; lowest, 0.9 foot, March 19,

1896. Danger line, 14 feet.]

Year.

1867

1868

1869

61872

1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

Date.

April 21............

April 22. ... , .......

April 23............

April 24............

April 25............

April 26..... ........

July 1.. .............

July 23..............

September 24-27....

May 19-22..........

April 29............

June 13.............

July 1 2.............

April 14............

April 15............

April 16............

April 17............

April 18............

April 19............

April 20............

May 22-23...........

Mav25..............

April 27............

July 11..............

April 26. ...........

April 27............

April ^9

MHTT ">

Gage 

height, c

Feet. 

16.8

17.4

17.1

16.8

16.4

15.7

16.2

17.2

18.6

9.3

15.6

16.1

7.7

16.0

15.7

15.5

11.6

16.0

17.0

18.0

17.8

17.5

17.0

16.4

10.4

7.7

6.7

10.8

15.2

15.3

17.9

19.0

1Q 3

18.7

17.8

15.8

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

74,880

80,040

77, 460

74,880

71, 500

69,900

78,320

91, 560

65,020

69,100

68,300

65, 840

64, 200

68,300

76,600

85,500

83,640

80,900

76,600

71,500

61,800

62, 600

84, 580

95,000

120,000

92,620

70, 750

Year.

1883

1884

1885

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

1896

1897

-

1899

1900

1901

1909

1903

1904

Date.

April 25. .:. ........

May 5...............

April 17............

A nril 1 4

May 21..... .........

April 17............

Mmr OK

April 1.............

April 4. ............

April 7. ...... ......

April 10............

April 12............

April 14............

April 15. ...........

April 16............

April 12............

Gage 

height."

Feet. 

13.3

12.2

10.2

7.4

8.2

9.6

14.4

4.5

5.5

6.4

12.6

14.7

11.8

4.6

10.7

15.3

16.4

17.1

17.4

17.9

18.0

17.8

17.7

17.8

17.7

17.5

17.1

16.6

16.2

15.7

15.2

10.7

11.0

6.0

7.5

6.8

13.5

9.9

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

62,600

71,500

77,460

80, 040

84,580

85,500

83,640

82, 700

83,640

82,750

80,900

77,460

73,160

69,900

65,840

61,800

a Tabulated results of discharge observations Mississippi River and tributaries, 1897-98, p. 184.

ft Records for 1870-71 missing.

«U. S. Weather Bureau gage records.

d Maximum, 19.7 feet.

The largest flood at St. Paul in these thirty-nine years was in April, 1881, when the rate 

of flow, was from 2.63 to 3.33 second-feet per square mile. Second in size was the flood of 

July, 1867, which had a rate on the 23d of about 92,000 second-feet.
82 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

KANSAS RIVER.

The Kansas is formed by the junction of Republican and Smoky Hill rivers in central 

Kansas, flows eastward for a distance of 180 miles, and empties into Missouri River. 

The two streams that form the Kansas rise in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, in 

eastern Colorado. The basin including these streams has a length of 490 miles, a width of 

140 to 190 miles, and an area of 61,440 square miles. It is rolling prairie country, the 

eastern third being under cultivation, the remainder covered with tough buffalo grass sod. 

There is little timber and no surface storage. The surface falls gradually from an elevation 

of about 5,500 feet to 750 feet at the mouth of the stream. The mean annual precipitation 

varies from about 12 inches in the western part to 35 or 40 inches in the eastern part. The 

river bottom ranges in width from 1 to 4 miles and is almost entirely submerged during the 

largest floods, the natural channel being entirely inadequate to pass the flood flow, the 

average slope of stream bed Being only 1.8 feet per mile.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of Kansas River at Lawrence or Lecompton, Kans., during the larger floods from 1881 to 1905:

Flood flow of Kansas River at Lawrence and Lecompton, Kans., 1881-1905.a

[Drainage area at Lawrence, 59,841 square miles; drainage area at Leeompton, 58,550 square

miles.]

Year.

1881

1882

1883

1886

1889

1891

1892

1893

1895

Date.

April 10........................

June 25. ........................

May 10. ........................

May 13..................... ...

July 22. ........................

May 16.........................

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

18,700

19, 370

19, 370

19, 370

24, 340

24,340

35,600

67,700

19, 370

26,620

Year.

1895

1896

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

Date.

July 20.........................

JulyS..........................

March 10. ......................

April 14........................

July 15.........................

May 31.........................

Julv7........... ...............

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

17,390

53,300

67, 700

28,990

630,250

6 24, 900

625,000

681,400

& c 221, 000

6130,000

656,000

o This station is described in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 99, p. 208.

& At Lecompton, Kans.

c From May 28 to June 7 the discharge was above 100,000 second-feet. .

The largest flood during this period occurred in May and June, 1903. It is fully described 

in Water-Supply Paper No. 96. The maximum daily rate of flow was 221,000 second-feet, 

or 3.78 second-feet per square mile. Although this rate is very small as compared with 

that of eastern streams of the same drainage, it was an exceedingly large flood for this stream 

and caused the loss of $22,000,000 worth of property in Kansas and at Kansas City, Mo.

During this flood the greatest daily rate of flow of Blue River, one of the tributaries of 

the Kansas, was 7.2 second-feet per square mile.

The spring floods in this basin, due to melting snow, are small compared with those that 

occur in May, June, and July.

In 1844 there was a flood in this basin that is said to have equaled or exceeded that of 

1903, but there is little data concerning this flood.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 83

KEO GRANDE".

The Rio Grande rises in the Rocky Mountains in the southern part of Colorado, flows in 

a southerly direction through New Mexico, in a southeasterly direction through Texas, 

and empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The basin above San Marcial is long and comparatively narrow and its area above the gaging station at that place is 28,067 square miles. 

The slopes are steep, bare, and impervious, with no surface storage. The precipitation is 

small and generally torrential, except that which falls as snow at the headwaters of the 

streams.

The following table gives the daily rate of flow of the Rio Grande at San Marcial, N. Mex., 

during the largest floods from 1895 to 1905:

Flood flow ofih.e Rio Grande at San Marcial, N. Mex. 1895 to 1905.a 

[Drainage area, 28,067 square miles.]

Year.

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

Date.

April 15. .......................

April 29........................

May 15.........................

May 21. ........................

April 30........................

July 17.........................

July 20.........................

May22. ........................

May 25.........................

September 29 ..................

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

7,800

4,800

4,800

21,750

10,750

11,300

16, 775

4,655

6,250

8,500

5,600

18,880

3,280

Year.

1904

1905

Date.

October 2. .....................

October 10. ....................

October 11.....................

October 12. ....................

October 13. ....................

May 23. ........................

May 24......... ................

May25.. ....... ................

May 26. ........................

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

8,550

18,400

19,700

5,000

12,000

24,000

33,000

24,800

21,750

15,900

28,600

29,070

23, 540

28,000

o A description of this gaging station is given in Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 99, p. 382. 

NOTE. The discharge was zero during the months of July, August, and part of September, 1900.

The greatest rate of flow during this period was in October, 1904. The mean rate for 

October 11 was 33,000 second-feet, or 1.17 second-feet per square mile. This flood is 

described in Water-Supply Paper No. 147, pages 143 to 150.

Second in size to this was the flood of May, 1905, described on pages 34 to 38 of this 

paper. The maximum rate of flow was 1.04 second-feet per square mile.
84 DESTEUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

WESTERN STREAMS.

The maximum rate of discharge of some of the important streams in the' arid region is 

given in the following table:

Maximum rate of flow of certain western streams, fry years, 1886-1905.

[Drainage areas above gaging stations, in square miles: Colorado, 37,000; Loup, 13,540; Platte, 56,870;

Arkansas, 4,600.]

Year.

1886 . . .

1887 . . .

1888...

1889 . . .

1890 . . .

1891 . . .

1892 . . .

1893 . . .

1894 . . .

1895 . . .

1896 . . . 

1897 . . . 

1898 . . . 

1899... 

1900... 

1901 ... 

1902 . . . 

1903 . . . 

1904... 

1905 . . .

Colorado River at 

Austin, Tex.

Date.

October.. . . . 

January 2...

Junes...... 

April 7......

July 13...... 

Jnly28...... 

February 27 

June 8...... 

April .......

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

14,100 

11,000 

29,000 

103, 400 

123, 000 

40,900 

31,250 

32,500 

46,140 

51 , 190

Loup River at Columbus, Nebr.

Date.

June 3.......

July........

July........

August.....

July........

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

9,100 

070,000 

27,000 

0,670 

6,980 

14,300 

5,900 

10,900 

20,000 

20,000 

25,800

Platte River at Columbus, Nebr.

Date.

............

June 1..... 

June 10....

May

April...... 

May... .. . 

May... ... 

June...... 

June... ...

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

27,200 

14,900 

31,000 

24,600 

25, 770 

35,400 

28,400 

13,800 

21,600 

18, 190 

51,100

Arkansas River at 

Pueblo, Colo.

Month.

July........

July........

August.....

July.. .......

August.....

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

7,660 

6,510 

b 2, 760 

62,620 

&3.270 

64,230 

M,750 

64,750

5,000 

3,440 

3,750 

5,390 

4,890 

6,980 

11,060 

8,320 

6,100 

3,310 

6,460

a Mean rate from 7 p. in. June 6 to 2 a. m, June 7. 

6 At Canyon, Colo.
FLOOD DISCHARGE AND FREQUENCY. 85

Maximum rate of flow of certain western streams, by years, 1886-1905 continued.

[Drainage areas above gaging stations, in square miles: Bear, 6,000; Humboldt, 10,780; Boise, 2,450;

Weiser, 894.]

Year.

1890...

1891 . . .

1892 . . .

1893 . . . 

1894 . . . 

1895 . . . 

1896 . . . 

1897 . . . 

1898. . 

1899 . . .

1900 . . . 

1901 ... 

1902 . . .

1903 . . . 

1904 . . . 

1905 . . -

Bear River at Collinston, Utah.

Month.

May........ 

May........ 

May........ 

May........ 

May........

May........ 

May ........

May........ 

May........ 

May ........

Discharge.

Sec.-feet. 

8,220

S finn

6,260'

6,470 

7,900 

5,000 

5,050 

10, 590 

5,320 

6,640 

4,650 

4,950 

3,340 

3,350 

6,700 

2,760

Humboldt River at 

Ooleonda, Nev.

Month.

May........

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

1,614 

3,100 

485 

2,230 

464 

3,080 

523 

740 

1,060 

356

Boise River at 

Boise, Idaho.

Month.

May ......

April ..... 

May ......

May......

May......

May......

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

~.

7,100 

40, 130 

28, 570 

8,250 

19,050 

11,960 

12,670 

8,190 

16,750 

19,680 

6,260

Weiser River at Weiser. Idaho.

Month.

April .......

February... 

February... 

March......

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

6,130 

17,940 

17,180 

3,880 

6,580 

8,120 

7,140 

7,340 

10,410 

11,620

[Drainage areas above gaging stations, in square miles: Tuolumne, 15 000, Kern, 2 345; Kings, 1,742.]

Year.

1889..

1890..

1891 . .

1892 . .

1893 . .

1894 . .

1895 . .

1896.. 

1897 . .

1898 . . 

189& . . 

1900 . . 

1901 . . 

1902 . 

1903 . . 

1904.. 

1905 ..

Tuolumne River at Lagrange 

Cat.

Month.

April ...........

.November.,.. ....

April. ........... 

May . .......... 

Marcn ............

Discharge. ,

Sec.-jeet.

11,800 

14,700 

7,800 

21,800 

14,440 

19,240 

12 630 

20, 340 

17,850 

13,070

Kern River at Rio Bravo 

ranch. Cat.

Month.

Apnl . . ...... 

Marcn . ...... 

May. . .......

May . .......

Discharge.

Sec -feei

2,210 

5,380 

a, 610

6,340 

1,340 

4,930 

1,970 

4, 420 

3,760 

S,37J

a, 170

3,03S)

Kings River at Sanger.. Cal.

Month

M&?

May..............

Discharge.

Sec.-feet.

22,100 

22,730 

7,820 

20,200 

15, 700 

43,930 

26,380 

17,290 

15,700 

9,795
86 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

FLOOD-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS.

The flood-flow data on pages 56 to 85 are summarized in the following table, which 

gives the drainage area in square miles of each river basin above the place of measurement; 

the length of record, or number of years, that flood observations have been made; the 

largest daily rate of flow during the period of observation; the largest range of stage during 

that period, and the number of times that floods of a given magnitude compared with 

the largest flood have occurred in the period. This comparison of magnitude is by rate of 

flow, not by stage, except in a few cases. The rate of flow per foot increase of stage is 

much greater for the higher stages than the lower ones, so that the frequency of the stage 

of from, say, 0.8 to 0.9 of the maximum stage is much greater than the frequency of the 

rate of flow of from 0.8 to 0.9 of the maximum rate of flow.

An examination of this table will show that the streams in certain sections have definite 

flood-flow characteristics. Streams Nos. 1 to 6 form a northern group. The larger floods 

on these streams all occur in the spring. They are due to the rapid melting of snow and 

are intensified at times by the formation of ice gorges. The depth of snow on the ground 

in the early spring and the rate at which it melts are the controlling flood factors on these 

streams. Floods due to rain alone are of about half the magnitude of the spring floods 

and of much shorter duration. The maximum rate of run-off of these streams is small (15 

to 25 second-feet per square mile) compared with streams elsewhere of the same size of 

basin and depth of annual precipitation. Floods of the first or second magnitude (from 

0.8 to 1 of the magnitude of the greatest recorded flood) may be expected to occur, on an 

average, once in twelve to fifteen years.

Streams Nos. 7 to 11 form a second group. The rate of flood flow is larger than that of 

the streams in group 1. Some of the large floods in the spring are due to melting snow 

and some are due entirely to rain. The summer floods are not so long in duration as the 

spring floods. Large floods in streams of this group are not so frequent as in those of 

group 1. They occur about once in twenty to forty years.

The length of record of the four southeastern streams (Nos. 12-15) is too short, except 

that of the Savannah, to include the largest flood. The range of stage is large. The 

frequency of occurrence and duration of floods are also large, because of sluggish flow. The 

largest flood occurred in the fall, and had a rate "of flow somewhat less than the largest 

rate of flow in group 2.

The largest floods in the upper Ohio basin occur in the spring. Two exceptions are the 

flood of July, 1888, on the Monongahela, and that of August, 1888, on the Youghiogheny. 

They resemble somewhat those on streams of groups 1 and 2, but are more like the latter 

than the former.

The Illinois and upper Ohio rivers have a remarkably small rate of flood flow less than 

3J second-feet per square mile. The large floods occur in the spring. The largest flood 

on Grand River, Michigan,a in probably a century had a maximum daily rate of about 8 

second-feet per square mile of drainage area.

Streams 23-28 are in the arid and semiarid regions, and their rate of flood flow is very 

small. Very^large floods occur rarely on those streams, and are due to heavy rain. Ordinary floods generally occur in the spring, and are due to melting snow. An exception to 

this rule is shown by Kansas River. The two great floods on Kansas River were about 

sixty years apart.

Other less important facts can be seen from a study of the data.

Water-Sup, and Irr. Paper No. 147, p. 40.
Data on flood flow of streams in the Unit

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28

Stream.

Kennebec

Mississippi .................

Bear............... .........

Place.

Fayetteville, N. C ...........................

St. Paul, Minn..............................

Pueblo, Colo ................................

Collinston, Utah ............................

Drainage 

area, in 

square 

miles.

4,380 

2,320 

4,553 

10, 234 

4,500 

2,428 

8,227 

806 

6,855 

9,650 

24,030 

3,860 

7,500 

15,400 

4,900 

5,430 

782 

9,220 

23, 800 

. 21,382 

15,700 

36,085 

59,841 

28,067 

37,000 

13,540 

4,600 

6,000

Length of 

record, 

in years.

12 

12 

59 

105 

35 

119 

26 

96 

120 

17 

17 

15 

66 

14 

17 

20 

32 

31 

22 

38 

16 

38 

25 

11 

9 

]0 

]0 

15

Per

re

189

189

184

180

186

178

187

181

178

188

188

188

184

189

188

188

t 187

c 187

188

186

189

186

188

189

189

189

189

189

a Number of occurrences of magnitude of greatest stage. 

b Two years' records not complete.

c T

d M
88 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE.

The following index to flood literature in the United States has been compiled from the 

indexes of the principal publications that treat of the subject. The floods have been 

indexed by streams and by the principal places affected by the flood. Throughout the 

index an attempt has been made to distinguish between the descriptions of flood and the 

flood discharges. The index is not exhaustive, but comprises, it is believed, all important 

articles: 

Adams, N. Y., discharge of Sandy Creek at, 1897 and 1898.......Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 461 

Ager's mill, N. Y., discharge of Moose River at, April, 1869.......Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 466 

Albany, N. Y., flood damages at...................... -Eng. News, vol. 43, 1900, p. 132

freshets and ice gorges at...............Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 469

Allegan, Mich., discharge of Kalamazoo River at, March, 1903... .Water-Supply Paper No.

83, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, pp. 268, 269 

Allegheny River, N. Y., floods on, at Red House, 1832 and 1865.... .Water-Supply Paper.

No. 36, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1900, p. 158

Arizona dam, discharge of Salt River at, February, 1890, and February, 1901.. .12th Ann.

Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 2, pp. 312-313 

Arkansas City, Ark., flood at, June, 1904 .......Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey,1805, p.110

Arkansas River, discharge of, at La Junta, Colo., May, 1894.. .Bulletin No. 131, U. S. Geol.

Survey, pp. 37, 38 

discharge of, at Syracuse, Kans., October, 1904.........Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 169 

flood on, June, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 109

September, 1904... .Water-Supp'ly Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 165

great floods on. .Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, by..........

Humphreys and Abbott, p. 46 

Augusta, Ga., discharge of Savannah River at, 1884 and 1891...........14th Ann. Rept.

U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 2, p. 149 

levees proposed for protection of.... .Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1900, pp. 1496-1498

Austin, Tex., discharge of Colorado River at, 1889..........Water-Supply Paper No. 40,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1900, p. 31 

Baldwinsville, N. Y., discharge of Seneca River at, July, 1902........Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 458 

Beaver River, N. Y., discharge of, at Beaver Falls, 1869.............Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 466 

Belle Fourche River, S. Dak., discharge and flood on, at Belle Fourche.... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 55, 57 

Big Sandy Creek, Ariz., discharge of, August, 1904.........Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 115-118 

Binghamton, N. Y., discharge of Susquehanna River at, 1865 and 1902........Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 486; Water-Supply Paper No. 82, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1903, pp.147-150 

discharge of Chenango River at, 1902... .Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 487

Black River, N. Y., discharge of, near Carthage, April, 1869..........Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 465

discharge of, near Carthage, Forestville, Lyons Falls, Ontario Paper Mills, and Watertown, April, 1869.........Water-Supply Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1902, p. 105 

Blue River, Kans., flood on, at Manhattan, May,and June, 1903.... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 36 

flood on, at Manhattan, June, 1904........Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1905, p. 74
INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATUEE. 89

Boonton, N. J., discharge of Rockaway River at, March, 1902.......Water-Suppiy Paper

No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37 

Budlong Creek, N. Y., discharge of, near Utica, March, 1904.......Rept. State Eng. New

York, 1904, p. 588

Cache Creek, Cal., discharge of, at Yola, February and March, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol.' Survey, 1905, p. 16 

Cache La Poudre River, Colo., flood on, May, 1904........Water-Supply Paper No. 147.

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 154 

Canadian River, discharge of, and flood on, October, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 120, 124

Carlsbad, N. Mex., flood at, September and October, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 133 

Carthage, N. Y., discharge of Black River at, April, 1869 ... .Water-Supply Paper No. 6.5,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 105; Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 465

Caslers Mill, N. Y., discharge, of Otter Creek at, April, 1869..... .Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 466 

Catskill Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Woodstock's dam, 1901.........Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 474 

Cayuta Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Waverly, 1904. .......Rept. State Eng. New York,

1904. p. 647 

Chanute, Kans., flood at, 1904.........Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1905. p. 91

Chatham, N. J., discharge of Passaic River at, March, 1902. .Water-Supply Paper No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37 

Chemung River, N. Y., protection from floods of, at Corning.........Eng. News, vol. 38

1897, p.146 

Chenango River, N. Y., discharge of, at Binghamton, 1902...........Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 487 

Coleman, N. Y., discharge of Oriskany Creek at, spring of 1888...... .Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 485 

Colorado River, historic floods on...... .Water-Supply Paper No. 40, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1900, p. 33 

Colorado River, Tex., discharge and flood of, at Austin, 1899........Water-Supply Paper

No. 40, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1900, pp. 30, 31 

Columbus, Nebr., discharge of Loup River at, June, 1896. .. .18th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol.

Survey, pt. 4, p. 184 

Columbus, Ohio, discharge of Scioto River at, 1898..........20th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol.

Survey, pt. 4, p. 214 

Colusa, Cal., discharge of Sacramento River at, March, 1879, and January, 1904.. ..Rept.

Commissioners Public Works California, 1895, pp. 52-58

Conemaugh River, flood of, at Johnstown, Pa., 1889... -Eng. News, vol. 21, 1889, pp. 517,

540, 569, 57S vol. 22, 1889, p 153, Eng Rec , vol. 19, 1889, pp. 15, 16, 25, 31,32

flood of July, 1904... .Water-bupply Paper Mo 147, U. b Geol. Survey 1905, p. lid

obstruction of J................................. -Eng News, vol. 25, 1891, p. 614

Connecticut River, discharge of, at Hartlord, Conn...................Rept. Chief Eng.,

U. S. A , 1887, pp 357,358 

floods on. ...............................Rept- Chief Eng., U. S. A.,1868, p. 761;

1875, p 364, 1878, p. 265, 1880, p. 403

Copper Hill Wash, discharge of, at Globe, Ariz.,.August, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No.

147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 119 

Corning, N. Y., flood protection lor..................... Eng. News, vol. 38, 1897, p. 146

Crandalls Mill, JS1. Y.,. discharge of Independence Creek at, April, 1869......... Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 466
90 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Croton River, discharge of, at Croton dam, 1841, 1853, 1854.................Hydrology

State of New York, 1605, p. 473 

Crow Creek, Wyo., flood on, May, 1904....................Water-Supply Paper No. 14,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 156 

Culverts, discharge of small streams and capacities of.... -Eng. News, vol. 41, 1899, p. 61

Davis Crevasse Levee on Mississippi River. .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 17,1887, p.199 

Deer River, N. Y., discharge of, at Deer River, April, 1869..................Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 466 

Discharge during floods in New York State............................. .H. Doc. 149,

56th Congress, 2d session, pp. 760-816 

from small watersheds..............Technology Quarterly, vol. 4, 1891, pp. 316-327

maximum rate of.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 184

minimum rate of.........................Rept. on Barge Canal, 1901, pp. 851-864

of small streams and capacities of culverts.......... -Eng. News, vol. 41, 1899, p. 61

of streams during floods...........................Eng. Rec., vol. 39, 1899, p. 163

Dolgeville, N. Y., discharge of East Canada Creek at, August, 1898.... .Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 484

Dundee dam, N. J., discharge of Passaic River at, 1902, 1903.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 

88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1603, p. 43; No. 92, 1904, pp. 21, 22

Dunsbach Ferry, N. Y., discharge of Mohawk River at, 1898,1900, 1901. .Hydrology State

of New York, 1905, p. 475 

flood at, June, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1802, p. 181

East Canada Creek, N. Y., discharge of, near Dolgeville, August, 1898, April, 1600,

April and December, 1901.. Water-Supply Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1602, p. 160; Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 484

East St. Louis, 111., flood protection works at............Eng. News, vol. 51, 1904, p. 118

proposed levees and relief canal at........... -Eng. News, vol. 49, 1603, pp. 118, 179

El Paso, Tex., discharge of Rio Grande at, 1904...........Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 145 

Elmira, N. Y., protection against floods at.... .Report of Mayor of Elmira, Feb. 12, 1890

Ellsworth, Kans., discharge of Smoky Hill River at, May and June, 1803.. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 35 

flood at, June, 1804. .. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 76

Emporia, Kans., flood near, June, 1904...................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 90 

Enoree River, S. C., flood on, June, 1903...................Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 13 

Esopus Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Rosendale, March, 1902... .Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 474 

Fall River, Kans., flood on, at Fall River, June, 1904..... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 104

Feather River, Cal., discharge of, at Oroville, February and March, 1904 .. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16 

Fish Creek, N. Y., discharge near Camden, 1889, Taberg Station, 1898, and West

Camden, 1884 ......................Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108 

Fish Creek (East Branch), N. Y., discharge of, at Point Rock, 1889....... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U.~S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108; Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 460 

Fish Creek (West Branch), N. Y., discharge of, at McConnellsville, 1884... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108; 

Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 459
INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE. 91

Floods, causes of.................................Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 45, p. 63

causes and seasons of, on western rivers............ -Eng. Mag., vol. 8, 1897, p. 1038

discussion of flood problems and..........Monthly Weather Review, September, 1899

Government engineers responsibility for........... -Eng. News, vol. 49, 1903, p. 566

increasing frequency of.............. Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A., 1875, vol. 2, p. 510

produced by backwater from dams.. .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 2, 1873, p. 255 

Flood discharge, determination of, and backwater caused by stream contraction .. .Trans.

Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 11, 1882, p. 211 

and maximum rate of flow of streams................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 184 

and minimum rate of flow of streams....... Rept. on Barge Canal, 1901, pp. 851-964

of streams in New York State............. .11. Doc. 149, 56th Congress, 2d session,

pp. 760-816; Eng. Rec., vol. 39, 1899, p. 163

Flood prevention, forest preservation and. -Eng. News, vol. 29, 1803, pp. 324, 369, 478, 566 

general discussions of................................. -Eng. Mag., vol. 32, p. 13;

vol. £0, pp. 351, 388; Van Nostrand's Eng. Mag., vol. 9, 1873, 

p. 65; vol. 24, 1881, p. 131; vol. 28, 1883, p. 108; vol. 34,1886, 

p. 131; Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 69, p. 323; vol. 76 p. 395

reservoirs and. .Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 101, p. 408; Eng. News, vol. 25,1891, p. 258 

works designed for.......................... Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 67, p. 309

Flood waters, disposal of.........................Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 60, p. 130

Flood waves, movement of... .Rept. Commissioner Public Works, California, 1895, p. 130

Forestville, N. Y., discharge of Black River at, April, 1869. .Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 105 

Fort Gibson, ind. T., flood near, June, 1904 ..............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 91

Fort Hunter, N. Y., discharge of Schoharie Creek at, 1892 and 1601. .Hydrology State of

New York, 1805, p. 483 

French, N. Mex., discharge of Canadian River at, 1904... . .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 124

Fulton, N. Y., discharge of Oswego River at. .Hydrology State of New York, 1605, p. 458 

Gallinas River, N. Y., discharge and flood on, at Hot Springs, September and

October, K04................Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1805, p. 138 

Galveston, Tex., flood at, September 8, 1£00. .................Eng. News, vol. 44, 1COO,

pp. 173, 180,186, 205 

protection of, plans for......................Eng. News, vol. 47, 1902, pp. 77, 343

Genesee River, N. Y., discharge t»f, at Mount Morris, 1890, 1893, and 1894.........Rept.

Special Commission on Flood Conditions of Genesee River, 1605, p. 45 

discharge of, at Mount Morris, May, 1894...........Hydrology State of New York,

1905, p 445; Rept. Special Commission on Flood

Conditions of Genesee River, 1605, pp. 4-44

at Mount Morris, July, 1902........Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 449

at Portage, July, 1602..........................Rept. Special Commission on

Flood Conditions of Genesee River, 1605, p. 45 

at Rochester, March, 1865, and June, 1889.........Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 141; No. 97, 1904, pp. 400-403 

in 1857, 1865, 1867, 1873, 1875, 1879, 1889, 1896, 1902.......Rept. Special

Commission on Flood Conditions of Genesee River, 1905, p. 45 

in 1604 ..........................Rept. State Eng. New York, 1604, p. 517

flood conditions on,'at Rochester....................Rept. Special Commission on

Flood Conditions of Genesee River, 1905 

IRR 162 06 7
92 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Genesee River, N. Y., floods on, in 1865,1869, and March and July, 1902.. .Hydrology State

of New York, 1905 

floods on, in 1833, 1S57, 1865, 1867, 1875, 1889, 1890, 1893, 1894, 1896, March

and July, 1902 and 1904 ........................Rept. Special Commission on

Flood Conditions of Genesee River, 1905, pp. 4-44 

Globe, Ariz., discharge and flood at, August, 1904........Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 118, 119 

Grand River, Mich., discharge of and flood on, at Grand Rapids, March and April,

1S04... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 40-43

Groveville dam, discharge of Fishkill Creek at, in 1882, 1888, 1891, 1893, 1896,

1902........................Hydrology State of New York, 1S05, p. 473

Harrisburg, Pa., greatest yearly discharge of Susquehanna River at. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 109, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 178 

Hartford, Conn., discharge of Connecticut River at...........Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A.,

1887, pp. 357, 385

Heppner, Oreg., discharge of Willow Creek at, June 14, 1903. .Water-Supply Paper No.

96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 11 

flood at, June 14, 1903..............................Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 9; Eng. News, vol. 50, 1903, p. 53

Hill Tannery, N. Y., discharge of Woodhill Creek at, April, 1869. .Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 466 

Hondo River, discharge of and flood on, at Roswell, N. Mex., September and October,

1904............................. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 138-140

Hot Springs, N. Mex., discharge of Gallinas River at, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 138 

Hudson River, N. Y., discharge of, at Mechanicsville..... .Hydrology State of New York,

1905, p. 467 

flood damages on, at Albany ..................... -Eng. News, vol. 43, 1900, p. 132

freshets and ice gorges on ................Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 469

Humboldt, Kans., flood at, June, 1904.................... Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 87

Ice jams, allowance for, in estimating height of streams. -Eng. News, vol. 51, 1904, p. 400 

Independence Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Crandalls Mill, April, 1869. .Hydrology State

of New York, J905, p. 466 

Independence, Kans., flood at, June, 1904 ................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol- Survey, 1905, p. 101

lola, Kans.,.flood of 1904 at. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol Survey, 1905, p. 85 

Iron Canyon, Cal., discharge of Sacramento River in, February and March, 1904.. WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol Survey, 1905, p. 16 

Johnstown, Pa., flood of 1889 at........Eng. News, vol. 21, 1889, pp 517, 540, 5(39, 578;

vol. 22, p. 153; Eng. Rec , vol. 19, 1889, pp 15, 16, 25, 31, 32

flood of July, 1904, at. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U S. Geol Survey, 1905, p 113 

obstruction of stream at..........................Eng. News, vol. 25, 1891, p. 614

Junction, Kans., discharge of Republican River at, May and June, 1903... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S Geol Survey, 1904, p 35 

flood of 1904 at .........Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S Geol Survey, 1905, p 73

Kalamazoo River, Mich., discharge of, at Aliegan, March, 1903..... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 83, U. S Geol. Survey, 1903, pp 268, 269 

Kanawha River, great floods of.............Rept. Chief Eng U, S A., 1»76, vol. 2, p. 163

Kansas City, Mo., engineering aspects of floods at....... -Eng. Rec , vol. 48, 1903, p, 300

flood of 1904 at........Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S Geol. Survey, 1905, p 61

Kansas River, at Kansas City, engineering aspects of floods on ...............Eng Rec.,

vol. 48, 1903, p. 300
INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE. 93

Kansas River, at Kansas City, Mo., flood on, in May and June, 1903......Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 2S

flood on, in 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 61 

at Lawrence, Kans., discharge of, June, 1903 ..........Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 22; No. 147, 1905, p. 67 

flood on, in May and June, 1903.................. Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 28 

in 1904.......Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 66

at Lecompton, Kans., discharge of, June, 1903..........Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 36 

discharge of, June and July, 1904 ...............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 67 

flood on, 1904.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 66

at Topeka, Kans., flood on, in May and June, 1903......Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 28

flood on, in 1904... Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U.S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 61 

obstruction of channel of, 1904 ..................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 71 

changes in channel of, caused by flood of 1903..... .Scientific American Supplement,

Feb.13, 1904 

prevention of damage from floods on..................Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 70 

La Junta, Colo., discharge of Arkansas River at, May, 1894............Bulletin No. 131,

U. S. Geol. Survey, pp. 37, 38 

La Plata River, Colo., flood on, October, 1905.............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol Survey, 1905, p. 169 

Las Moras Creek, Tex., discharge of, in 1898 and 1900..... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 145

Langiry, Tex., discharge of Rio Grande at, October, 1904...Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 145

Lawrence, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge of, June, 1903. .Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. G.eol. Survey, 1904, p. 22; No. 147, 1905, p. 67 

Kansas River at, flood on, in May and June, 1903.......Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S, Geol Survey, 1904, p. 28

flood on, in 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 66 

Lecompton, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge of, June, 1903.... Waf er-Supply Paper No.

96, U S Geol. Survey, 1C04, p. 36 

Kansas River at, discharge of, June and July, 1904.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 27 

flood on, 1904.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S Geol Survey, 1905, p. 66

Levees, at East St. Louis, 111., proposed, and relief canal....... -Eng News, vol. 49, 1903,

pp. 118,179 

on Mississippi River, construction of...........Eng. News, vol 35, 1896, pp. 66, 77;

vol. 37, 1897, p. 249 

cost of......................................Eng. News, vol. 38, 1897, p. 33

criticism by New York Times............................Eng, News, vol, 49,

1903, pp. 276, 346, 408; vol, 50, 1903, p. 151 

discussion ot ....................................Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,

vol. 3, 1874, pp. 267, 289; vol. 17, 1887, p. 199, Rep..

on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, p. 151

effect on stage and discharge..................................Annual Rept.

Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1888, pt. 4, p. 2220; Eng. News, 

vol. 23, 1890, p. 315, vol. 50, 1903, pp. 435, 436
94 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Levees, on Mississippi River, function of........Rept. Chief. Eng. U. S. A., 1883, p. 2373

on Mississippi River, theory of ....................... .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,

vol. 51, 1903, pp. 331-414 

vindication of, by levee engineers....... -Eng. News, vol. 50, 1903, pp. 432, 435

on Missouri River, effect on flood of 1881....... .Rept. Mississippi River Commission,

1881, p. 135

on Neosho River, Kans. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 92 

reclaiming lowlands by means of.... .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 5, 1876, p. 115

theory of, tested by facts...........Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 13, 1884, p. 331

Liberty, Kans., Verdigris River at, greatest annual discharge of. ...... Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p.101 

Little Falls, N. J., discharge of Passaic River at, October, 1903..... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 92, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 17 

flood at, in 1902........Water-Supply Paper No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 39

Little Falls, N. Y., discharge of Mohawk River at, 1899, 1900, 1S01,1902..... .Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 476; Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, pp. 165-177

discharge of Mohawk River at, 1904.......Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1905, pp. 35, 39; Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 588 

Logan, N. Mex., discharge of Canadian River at, 1904..... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 124

Los Alamos, N. Mex., discharge of Sapello River at, October, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 126 

Loup River, discharge of, at Columbus, Nebr., June, 1896. . . . . 18.h Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol.

Survey, pt. 4, p. 184 

flood on, June, 1896............... 18th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 4, p. 184

Lyons Falls, N. Y., discharge of Black River at, April, 1869.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 105 

McCalls Ferry, Pa., flood at, March, 1904 ...... Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1905, p. 27; No. 109, 1905, pp. 178-180 

McConnellsville, N. Y., discharge of West Branch Fish Creek at, 1884..........Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 459; Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108

Macopin dam, N. J., discharge of Pequanac River at, March, 1902 .........Water-Supply

Paper No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37

flood at, October, 1903. .Water-Supply Paper No. 92, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 16 

Manhattan, Kans., discharge of Blue River at, May and June, 1904 ........Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 36 

flood at, June, 1904 ......Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. t. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 74

Mechanicsville, N. Y., discharge of Hudson River at...... .Hydrology State of New York,

1905, p. 467 

Middle Loup River near St. Paul, Nebr., discharge of, 1866 ... .18th Ann. Rept. LI. S. Geol.

Survey, pt. 4, p. 181

Mississippi River, flood on, in vicinity of St. Louis, Mo., May and June, 1903........ WaterSupply Paper No~ 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 29 

flood on, in 1882.........................Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1885, p. 2584

in 1883...............................Eng News, vol. 10, 1883, pp^ 294, 313

in 1889 (between Helena and Vicksburg) ............Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,

vol. 20, 1889, p. 195 

in 1890..'................................... Eng. News, vol.23, 1890, p. 315

in 1S97................................. Eng. News, vol. 38, 1897, pp. 2, 8, 29

33; Harpers Weekly, Apr. 17, 1897
INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE. 95

Mississippi River, floods on, discussion of.. .Eng. News, vol. 31,1894, p. 318; vol. 35,1896, 

pp. 66,77; vol. 37,1897, pp. 242,248,259, 264, 283,314; vol. 41,1899, 

p. 50; Jour. Assn. Eng. Soc., vol. 2, 1883, p. 115; Kept. U.S. Weather 

Bureau, 1896-97. pp. 372-431; Kept. on.Physics and Hydraulics of 

Mississippi River, pp. 167-183; Rept. to U. S. Senate 55th Congress, 

3d session, No. 1433; Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 11, 1882, p. 251 

in spring of 1903.............................Bull. M, U. S. Weather Bureau

increasing elevation of, on Lower Mississippi.............Jour. Assn. Eng. Soc.,

vol. 26, 1901, pp. 345-401 

rate of travel of......................Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1892, p. 2905

floods, early, on .........................Jour. Assn. Eng. Soc^ vol. 4, 1885, p. 87;

Water-Supply Paper No. 96, U. S.Geol. Survey, 1904, p.19 

flood protection on, at East St. Louis, 111...........Eng. News, vol. 51, 1904, p. 118

in lower portion of valley........Eng. News, vol. 23, 1890, pp. 364, 372; vol. 45,

1901, p. 427; Jour. Assn. Eng. Soc., vol. 3,1884, p. 169;

Rept. Mississippi River Commission, St. Louis, 1883

methods of.........................Eng. News, vol. 31, 1894, p. 318; vol. 37,

1897, pp. 242, 259, 264, 283, 314; vol. 38, 1897, pp. 1, 2, 

8, 29; vol. 41, 1899, p. 50; Eng. Rec., vol. 39, 1899, p. 184; 

Engineering, April, 1891; Harpers Weekly, Oct. 4, 1890; 

Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, 

pp. 330-420; Jour. Assn. Eng. Soc., vol. 25, 1900, pp. 85-106 

problem of ..................Jour. Franklin Inst., vol. 147, 1899, pp. 297-308

results obtained and expected from...........Railroad Gazette, Apr. 22, 29, 1887

levees on, at East St. Louis, 111., proposed, and relief canal...... -Eng. News, vol. 49,

' 1903, pp. 118, 179 

construction of.........Eng. News, vol. 35,1896, pp. 66,77; vol. 37, 1897, p. 249

cost of......................................Eng. News, vol. 38, 1897, p. 33

criticism of, by New York Times.....................Eng. News, vol. 49, 1903,

pp. 276, 346, 408; vol. 50, 1903, p. 151 

discussion of..... .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 3, 1874, pp. 267, 289; vol. 17,

1887, p. 199; Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, p. 151 

effect on stage and discharge..... .Annual Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1888, pt. 4,

p. 2220; Eng. News, vol. 23,1890, p. 315; vol. 50,1903, pp. 435, 436 

function of............................Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1883, p. 2373

theory of................Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 51, 1903, pp. 331-414

vindication of, by levee engineers.........Eng. News, vol. 50, 1903, pp. 432, 435

reservoirs in basin of, system of, for prevention of floods... -Eng. News, vol. 12,1884,

p. 91; vol. 44,1900, pp. 293,296, Harpers Weekly, Jan. 9,

1897; Jour. W. Soc. Civil Eng., Aug., 1900; and Apr., 1901

revetment on, methods of .......Eng. Mag., June, 1896; Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,

vol. 35, 1896, p. 141, Harpers Weekly, Oct. 4, 1890 

snow in basin of, relation of, to the June rises.......Eng. News, vol. 51, 1904, p, 179

Missouri River, erosion of, of banks, survey to determine amount of...... Eng. News, vol.

30, 1893, p. 9; Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol 38, 1898, p. 396

levees on, effect of, on flood of 1881. .Rept. Mississippi River Commission, 1881, p. 135 

Mohawk River, N. Y., discharge of, at Little Falls, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902.. Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U. S Geol. Survey, 1902, pp. 165- 

177; Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 476

discharge of, at Little Falls, 1904 .. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. GeoJ. Survey,

1905, pp. 35, 39; R?pt, State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 588

at Utica, 1890-1892 ...............Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 476
96 DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Mokawk River, N. Y., discharge in upper portion of basin of, Mar. 25, 26, 1904,, .Kept.

State Eng. New York, 1904, pp. 388, 389 

flood on, March, 1904............Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1905, p. 32; Kept, State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 77 

Moose River, discharge of, at Ager's mill, April, 1869................Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 466

Morehead, Tex., discharge of Pecos River at, September and October, 1904 .......WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 133, 137 

Neosho Rapids, Kans., flood at, June, 1904.... ..Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1905, p. 89 

Neosho River, Kans., discharge of, at lola, greatest annual, July, 1904..... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 86 

flood on, at Chanute, 1904 ..........................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 91 

at Emporia, June, 1904........................ -Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 90 

at Fort Gibson, Ind. T., June, 1904...............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 91 

at Humboldt, June, 1904........................ Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 87

at Tola, June, 1£04. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 85 

levees on..............Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 92

New Hartford, N. Y., discharge of Starch Factory Creek at, March, 1S04.. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 37 

discharge of Sylvan Glen Creek at, March, 1604... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S.

Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 37 

New York, flood discharge of streams in....... _H. Doc. 149, 56th Congress, 2d session, pp.

790-816 

Report of Water Storage Commission of..... ..Eng. News, vol. 49, 1903, pp. 115, 183

Nine Mile Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Stittsville, August, 1898. .... .Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 485

North Loup River, Nebr., discharge of, near St. Paul, 1896. ..18th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol.

Survey, pt. 4, pp. 177-179 

Oakdale, Pa., flood near, June, 1904.......................Water-Supply Paper No. 14,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 114 

Ohio River,'flood on, 1884..................................Eng. News, vol. 11, 1884

flood protection on..... .Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, by Charles Ellet, 1853, p. 298

floods, great, on........Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, p. 79

velocity of, on..... .Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, by Charles Ellet, 1853, p. 300

Oneida Creek, N. Y., discharge of, near Kenwood, 1891..............Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 459 

discharge of, near Kenwood, 1892.....................Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey; 1902, p. Ill

Ontario Paper Mills, N. Y., discharge of Black River at, April, 1869.. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 105 

Oriskany Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Coleman, spring of 1888.......Hydrolegy State of

New York, 1905, p. 485 

discharge of, in 1904..............Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, pp. 588, 592

Oroville, Cal., discharge of Feather River at, February and March, 1904.. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16 

Osage River, Kans., flood on, June, 1904.................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 106, 107 

Oswego River, N. Y., discharge of, at Fulton... .Hydrology State of New York,-1905, p. 458
INDEX TO FLOOD LITEKATURE. 97

Ottawa, Kans., flood on, June, 1904......................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 107 

Otter Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Caslers Mill, April, 1869...........Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 466 

Pacolet River, S. C., flood on, June, 1903.................Water-Supply Paper, No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 13

Passaic River, N. J., discharge of, at Chatham, March, 1902.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37

discharge of, at Dundee dam, February and March, 1902. .Water-Supply Paper No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, K03, p. 43 

at Dundee dam, October, 1903 .................. VWer-Supply Paper No. 92,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, pp. 21,22 

at Little Falls, October, 1903 .................-Water-Supply Paper No. 92,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 17 

flood on, at Little Falls, February and March, 1902... .Water-Supply Paper No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 39 

at Paterson, October, 1903........Eng. News, 1903, vol. 50, pp. 352,377,388

in 1903................ .Water-Supply Paper No. 92, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904

in February and March, 1902....................Water-Supply Paper, No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1£03 

flood protection on, methods of.... .Eng. News, vol. 50, 1903, p. 388; Water-Supply

Paper No. 92, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, pp. 28,40 

highland tributaries of, discharge of, February and March, 1902.......Water-Supply

Paper No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, pp. 37, 41 

Pecos River, N. Mex., discharge of, September and October, 1904..... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 133,137 

flood on, September and October, 1904 ...............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 130 

Pequanac River, N. J., discharge of, at Macopin dam, March, 1902... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37

flood on, October, 1903. .Water-Supply Paper No. 92, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 16 

Final Creek, Ariz., discharge of, at Globe, August, 1904 .... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 119

flood on, August, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 118 

Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway, floods along, in 1897 ......Railroad

Gazette, May 14, 1897 

Point Rock, N. Y., discharge of East Branch of Fish Creek at, in 1889 ... .Hydrology State

of New York, 1905, p. 460; Water-Supply Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108

Potomac River, discharge of, at Chain Bridge, Washington, D.C., 1892, 1893. ..14th Ann.

Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 2, p. 137 

reclamation of flats along, at Washington, D. C........Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,

vol. 31, 1894, p. 55 

Purgatory River, Colo., discharge and flood of, at Trinidad, September, 1904..... .WT aterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, K05, pp. 158, 164

Ramapo River, N. J., discharge of, near mouth, March, 1902... Water-Supply Paper No. 88,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37

Rapid Creek, S. Dak., discharge of, at Rapid, June, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 57 

Red Bluff, Cal., discharge of Sacramento River at, 1879, 1894.......Rept. Commissioners

Public Works, California, pp. 52-58 

Red House, N. Y., floods at, 1832 and 1865............... .Water-Supply Paper No. 36,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1900, p. 158
98 DESTRUCTIVE 'FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Red River, great floods of.... .Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, p. 40

Redwater River, S. Dak., discharge of, at Belle Fourche, June, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 57

Republican River, discharge of, at Junction, Kans., May and June, 1903 . . .Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 35 

discharge of, at Superior, Nebr., May and June, 1903... .Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 36 

flood on, at Junction, Kans., 1904 ...................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 73 

Reservoirs, effect of, on stream flow; a mathematical analysis/.... .Trans. Am. Soc. Civil

Eng., vol. 40, 1898, p. 401 

efficiency of, to prevent inundation...............Eng. News, vol. 25, 1891, p. 258;

 Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 101, p. 408 

system of, of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence basin........Trans. Am. Soc.

Civil Eng., vol. 40, 1898, p. 355 

Rio Grande, discharge of, September and October, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 144-146 

flood on, September and October, 1904 ...............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 143, 148

Rio Mora, N. Mex., discharge of, at Watrous, October, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 124 

discharge of, at Weber, October, 1904................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 127 

flood on, September and October, 1904...............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 127 

Robinson Run, Pa., flood on, June, 1904 .................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 114 

Rockaway River, N. J., discharge of, near Boontoh, March, 1902.. . .Water-Supply Paper

No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37 

Rosendale, N. Y., discharge of Esopus Creek at, March, 1902...........Hydrology State

of New York, 1905, p. 474

Roswell, N. Mex., discharge of Hondo River at, September and October, 1904... .WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 139 

discharge of Pecos River at, September and October, 1904..... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 133 

Sacramento River, Cal., channel obstruction on.... .Eng. Rec., vol. 42, 1900, pp. 491-492

discharge of, above mouth of American River, above moutli of Feather River, at 

Colusa, Sacramento, and Red Bluff, March, 1879, and January, 

1904.....................Rept. Commissioner Public Works,

California, 1895, pp. 52-58 

at Iron Canyon, February and March, 1904.......Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16

flood on, March, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 12 

flood basins of ........Rept. Commissioner Public Works, California, 1895, pp. 38-43

flood protection on.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1906, p. 21

Saline River, Kans., discharge of, at Salina, May and June, 1903.. . .Water-Supply Paper

No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 35 

Salt River, Ariz., discharge of and flood on, February, 1890........12th Ann. Rept. U. S.

Geol. Survey, pt. 2, p. 312

San Marcial, N. Mex., discharge of Rio Grande at, September and October, 1904.. . WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 144, 146

Sandy Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Adams, 1897, 1898.. .Hydrology State of New York,

1905, p. 461
INDEX TO FLOOD LITEBATUEE. 99

Santa Fe Canyon, flood in, 1904........Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1905, p. 148

Santa Rosa, N. Mex., discharge of Pecos River at, September and October, 1904.. .WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 133, 137 

Sapello River, discharge of and flood on, October, 1904.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 124, 126 

Sauquoit Creek, N. Y., discharge of, 1904..... .Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 588

Savannah River, discharge of, in September, 1888...... .Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A., 1900,

pp. 91, 92 

discharge of, near Augusta, Ga.... .14th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 2, p. 149

flood on, 1888.............................H. Doc. 213, 51st Congress, 1st session

floods on ...............*............... .Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A., 1888, p. 1026

flood protection, levees proposed for, at Augusta, Ga..... .Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A.,

1900, pp. 1496-1498 

Schoharie Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Fort Hunter, 1892 and 1901.. . .Hydrology State

of New York, 1905, p. 483 

discharge of, near Schoharie Falls, 1901 ...............Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 172 

Scioto River, Ohio, discharge of, near Columbus, Ohio, 1898.......20th Ann. Rept. U. S.

Geol. Survey, pt. 4, p. 214 

Scottdale, Pa., failure of reservoir wall at, July, 1904 .......Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 172 

Seneca River, N. Y., discharge of, at Baldwinsville.......Hydrology State of New York,

1905, p. 458

Smartsville, Cal., discharge of Yuba River at, February and March, 1904. ..Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16

Smoky Hill River, Kans,, discharge of, at Ellsworth, May and June, 1903. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 35 

flood on, at Ellsworth, June, 1904 ...................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 76 

at Solomon, June, 1904 ........................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 74

Solomon, Kans., flood at, June, 1904.. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1905, p. 74

Solomon River, Kans., discharge of, at Niles, May and June, 1903.. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 35 

Southern Railway, floods along......................Railroad Gazette, July 16, 1897

Starch Factory Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at New Hartford, May, 1904... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, II.-S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 37; 

Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, pp. 588, 590, 591

Stittville, N. Y., discharge of Ninemile Creek at, August, 1898 . ..Hydrology State of New

York, 1905, p. 485

Stony Creek, Cal., discharge of, at Julians ranch, February and March, 1904..... .WaterSupply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey," 1905, p. 16

Stream contractions, determination of flood discharge and backwater caused by. .Trans.

Am. Soc. Civil Eng., vol. 11, 1882, p. 211

Sudbury River, yield of watershed during the freshet of February, 1886. .Trans-. Am. Soc.

- Civil Eng., vol. 25, 1891, p. 253 

Superior, Nebr., discharge of Republican River at, May and June, 1903... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 36 

Susquehanna River, discharge of, at Harrisburg, Pa. (greatest yearly)....Water-Supply

Paper No. 109, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 178 

discharge, of, at McCalls Ferry, Pa., March, 1904 ......Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 27; No. 109, 1905, pp. 178-180
100 DESTKUCTIVE FLOODS IN UNITED STATES IN 1905.

Susquehanna River, discharge of, methods of estimating stream flow and... -Eng. News,

vol. 51, 1904, pp. 103, 104 

discharge of, near Binghamton, N. Y., 1901, 1902... .Water-Supply Paper No. 82,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, pp. 147-150 

in 1865, and 1902.................Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 486

floods on, at York Haven power plant............ .Eng. Rec., vol. 49, 1904, p. 361

causes of ...........................Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A., 1891, p. 1107

in March, 1904.......................Eng. News, vol. 51, 1904, pp. 393, 400;

Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 22 

in 1865 and 1889 ....................Rept. Chief Eng., U. S. A., 1891, p. 1105

in 1865 and 1S89, 1894, and 1904................Water-Supply Paper No. 109,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 172-178 

in 1892.................................... Eng. Rec., vol. 45, 1902, p. 128

West Branch, June, 1889....................Eng. News, vol. 25, 1891, p. 152

flood protection on, general discussion of.... Rept. Chief Eng. U. S. A., 1891, p. 1109

proposed method of, at Williamsport, Pa.... Eng. News., vol. 34, 1895, p. 309

Sylvan Glen Creek, N. Y., discharge of, near Hartford, March, 1904..... .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 37;

Rept. State Eng. New York, 904, p. 592

discharge of, near Utica, March, 1904.................Rept. State Eng. New York,

1904, pp. 588, 590 

Syracuse, Kans., discharge of Arkansas River at, October, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 169. 

Taberg station, N. Y., discharge of Fish Creek at, 1898.... .Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108 

Taylor, N. Mex., discharge of Canadian River at, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 124

Tiger River, S. C., flood on, June, 1903. .Water-Supply Paper No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey,

1904, p. 13 

Topeka, Kans., floods at, 1903, 1904 .....................Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 27; No. 147, 1905, p. 70 

Trenton Falls, N. Y., discharge of West Canada Creek at, December, 1901... .Hydrology

State of New York, 1905, p. 484 

Trinidad, Colo., flood at, September, 1904..............Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, pp. 161, 164 

Troxton Canyon, Ariz., flood at, August, 1904...........Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 115

Twin Rock Bridge, N. Y., discharge of West Canada Creek at, December, 1901..WaterSupply Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 155 

discharge of West Canada Creek at, March, 1904..... .Rept. State Eng. New York,

1904, p. 590 

Upper Presidio, Tex., discharge of Rio Grande at, October, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 145

Utica, N. Y., discharge of Budlong Creek, near. .Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 558

discharge of Mohawk River at, 1890-1892. .Hydrology State of New York, 1905, p. 476

of Reels Creek at, March, 1904................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 37 

of Sylvan Glen Creek, near, March, 1904........Rept. State Eng. New York,

1904, pp. 588, 590

Verdigris River, Kans., discharge of, at Independence, June, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p 101 

discharge of, at Liberty, June, 1904..................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 101
INDEX TO FLOOD LITERATURE. 101

Verdigres River, Kans., floods on, April to July, 1904..... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 94 

Wabash River, Ind., discharge of, at Logansport and Shoals, March and April,

1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 48

flood on, March, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 45

Walnut River, Ivans., flood on, June, 1904..... Water-Supply Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol.

Survey, 1905, p. 112 

Wanaque River, N. J., discharge of, near mouth, March, 1902..... ..Water-Supply Paper

. No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37 

Watertown, N. Y., discharge of Black River at, April, 1S69... .Water-Supply Paper No.

65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 105

Watrous, N. Me.x., discharge of Rio Mora at, October, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 124 

Waterways, method of computing cross section area of... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 182

Waverly, N. Y., discharge of Cayuta Creek at.. .Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 647 

Weber, N. Mex., discharge of Rio Mora at, October, 1904... .Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 127 

Weiser River, Idaho, discharge of, near Weiser, 1890....................llth Ann. Rept.

U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. 2, p. 92 

West Camden, N. Y., discharge of Fish Creek at, 1889... .Water-Supply Paper No. 65,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 108

West Canada Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Trenton Falls, December 1901. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 65, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1902, p. 155 

at Twin Rock Bridge, March, 1904.........Rept. State Eng. New York, 1904, p. 590

W'hippany River, N. J., discharge of, at Whippany, March, 1902. ...Water-Supply Paper

* No. 88, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1903, p. 37 

Wichita, Kans., flood at, June, 1904....................Water-Supply Paper No. 147,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. Ill 

Williamsport, Pa., proposed method of flood protection at.........Eng. News, vol. 34,

1895, p. 309 

Willow Creek, Oreg., discharge of, at Heppner, June 14, 1903 .......Water-Supply Paper

No. 96, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 11 

flood on, June 14, 1903..............................Water-Supply Paper No. 96,

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1904, p. 9; Eng. News, vol. 50, 1903, p. 53 

Woodhill Creek, N. Y., discharge of, at Hill Tannery, April, 1S69... .Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 466 

Woodstocks dam, N. Y., discharge of Catskill Creek at, 1901.......Hydrology State of

New York, 1905, p. 474

Yazoo River, great floods on. .Rept. on Physics and Hydraulics of Mississippi River, p. 85 

Yola, Cal., discharge of Cache Creek at, February and March, 1904. .Water-Supply Paper

No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16 

York Haven, Pa., damage to power plant at............Eng. Rec., vol. 49, 1904, p. 361

Yuba River, Cal., discharge of, at Smartsville, February and Match, 1904. .Water-Supply

Paper No. 147, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1905, p. 16
INDEX.

Page.

Alabama River, flood flow and character of

basin of........................ 72,87

Allegheny River, flood on.................. 13-16

heights of............................... 15,16

Alma, N. Mex., discharge of San Francisco

River at........................ -i'2

Androscoggin River, flood flow and character of basin of................ 57,87

Arkansas River, maximum discharge of, at

Pueblo, Colo.................... 84,87

Arlington, Mo., heights cf Gasconade River

at.............................. 21

Augusta, Ga., flood flow of Savannah River

at.............................. 71,87

Austin, Tex., maximum discharge of Colorado River at................... 84,87

Bear River, Utah, maximum discharge of, ,

at Collinston................... 85,87

Beaver River, heights of, at Elwood Junction, Pa........................ 17,19

Bixby, S. Dak., heights of Moreau River at. 23

Black Warrior River, Ala., flood flow and

character of basin of........ 72-74,87

Boise, Idaho, maximum discharge of Boise

River at........................ 85

Boise River, Idaho, maximum discharge of,

at Boise........................ 85

Boonville, Mo., heights of Missouri River at. 22

Boundhrook, N. J., flood flow of Raritan

River at........................ 04,87

Bridgeport, Conn., flood on Pequonnock

River near...................... 1-3

rainfall at and near.................... 1,2

Brookville, Pa., heights of Redbank Creek

at.............................. 15

Cape Fear River, N. C., flood flow and

character of basin of........ 69-70.87

Carlsbad, N. Mex., heights of Pecos River at 33

Cayuga Inlet, N. Y., flood on Sixmile Creek

and............................. 3-9

map of basin of........................ 3

Cenicero, N. Mex., heights of Rio Grande at. 36

Charleston, W. Va., heights of Ohio River at 17

Chattanooga, Tenn., flood flow of Tennessee

River at........................ 79,87

Chenango River, N. Y., drainage area of.... 11

flood on Unadilla River and............ 9-13

map of basins of Unadilla River and.... 10

3heyenne River, S. Dak., heights and discharge of....................... 23

Page.

Chippewa River, Wis., gage heights and discharge of....................... 24

Cincinnati, Ohio, heights of Ohio River at.. 17

Clarion, Pa., heights of Clarion River at.... 15

Clarion River, Pa., heights cf, at Clarion... 15

Cliff, N. Mex., discharge of Gila River at... 53

Collinston, Utah, maximum discharge of

Bear River at.................. 85,87

Colorado River basin, spring floods in....... 38-51

Colorado River, discharge of, at Yuma,

A riz......................... 48-51,53

discharge of, into Sal ton Sink.......... 54-55

fall of................................... 38

height and discharge of, at Hardyville,

A riz............................ 40.41

Colorado River, Tex., maximurh discharge

of, at Austin................... 84,S7

Columbus, Nebr., maximum discharge of

Loup and Platte rivers at...... 84,87

Conemaugh River, heights of, at Johnstown, Pa....................... 15

Confluence, Pa., flood flow of Youghiogheny

River at..................... 77-78,87

Connecticut River, flow flood and character of basin of............... 60-61,87

map of basin of........................ CO

Covert, C. C., and Horton, R. E., on flood on 

Unadilla and Chenango rivers, 

N. Y........................... 9-13

Delaware River, flood flow and character of

basin of...................... 64-65,87

map of basin of........................ 64

Des Moines County, Iowa, flood in......... 31

Des Moines River, heights and discharge

of, at Keosauqua, Iowa........ 26

Devils Creek, Iowa, flood on............... 24-31

map of basin of......................... 25

plan and profile of...................... 27

Dome, Ariz., discharge of Gila River at. 47-48,53

Dundee dam, N. J., flood flow of Passaic

River at........................ 63,87

Eau Claire, Wis., gage, heights and discharge

of Chippewa River at .......... 24

Edgemont, S. Dak., heights and discharge

of Cheyenne River at........... 23

Ellison, G. H., on flood on Cayuga Inlet... 5

El Paso, Tex., Discharge of Rio Grande at. 37 

heights of Rio G rande at............... 3C

Elwood Junction, Pa., heights of Beaver

River at........................ 17

103
104 INDEX.

Page. 

.Engle dam (proposed), N. Mex., effect of,

on floods. ..............^.....:.. 37

Eureka, Mo., heights of Mcrampc River at. 21 

Farmington, N. Mex., height and discharge

of San Juan River at........... 40,41

Fayetteville, N. C., flood flow of Cape Fear

River at........................ 70,87

Flood How characteristics, discussion of. .. 80-87 

Flood literature, index to................. 88-101

Freeport, Pa., heights of Allegheny River

at............................... 15

Gasconade River, Mo., course and character of........................... 22

heights of............................... 21

Genesee River, N. Y., Hood flow and character of basin of............. G2-(i3,87

Gila basin, Ariz., floods in............ 41-48,52-54

map of................................. 42

Gila River, discharge of, at Cliff, N. Mex... 53 

discharge of, at Dome, Ariz......... 47-48,53

diagram showing................... 50

Golconda, Nev., maximum discharge of

Ilumboldt River at............ 85

Grafton, Mo., heights of Mississippi River at 22 

Grand Rapids, Mich., flood flow of......... 20

Grand River, Colo., height and discharge

of, at Palisade.................. 40

Grand River, Mich.. flood on............... 20-21

Grand River, S. Dak., heights of, at Seini.. 23 

Green River, height and discharge of, at

Greenriver, Utah............... 40

Greemiver, Utah, height and discharge of

Green River at................. 40

Gunnison River, height and discharge of, at

Whitewater, Colo.............. 40,41

Hanna, F. W., and Murphy, E. C., on flood

on Devils Creek, Iowa.......... 24

Hardyville, Ariz., height and discharge of

Colorado River at.............. 40,41

Harrisburg, Pa., flood flow of Susquehanna

River at........................ 07,87

Hartford, Conn., flood flow of Connecticut

River at........................ 61,87

Hermann, Mo., heights of Missouri River 

at............................... 22

Holbrook, Ariz., heights and discharge of

Little Colorado River at....... 54

Hondo River, N. Mex., flood on............ 34

Horton, R. E., and Covert, C. C., on Qood

on Unadilla and Chenango rivers, N. Y....................... 9-13

Hudson River, flood flow and character of

basin of...................... 61-62,87

Humboldt River, Nev., maximum discharge

of, at Golconda................. 85

Illinois River, flood flow and character of

basin of...................... 79-80,87

Interior, S. Dak., heights of White Riverat. 23 

Iowa, Des Moines County, flood in.......... 31

Ithaca, N. Y., floods at ..................*.. 3-9

map of, showing flooded area.......... 7

Johnstown, Pa., heights of Conernaugh

River at........................ 15

Kanawha River, heights of, at Charleston,

W. Va.......................... 17

Kansas River, flood flow and character of

basin of........................ 82,87

Page.

Kennebec River, Me., flood flow and character of basin of............. 56-57,87

Keosauqua, Iowa, heights and discharge of. 26 

Kern River, Cal., maximum discharge of,

at Rio Bravo ranch............. 85

Kings River, Cal., maximum discharge of,

at Danger....................... 85

Kittanning, Pa., flow of Allegheny Riverat. 16 

Lagrange, Cal., maximum discharge of

Tuolumne River at............. 85

Lambertville, N. J., flood flow of Delaware

River at......................... 65,87

Lawrence, Kans., flood flow of Kansas

River at........................ 82,87

Lawrence, Mass., flood flow of Merrimac

River at........................ 59,87

Lecompton, Kans., flood flow of_Kansas

River at........................ 82

Little Colorado River, flood on............. 54

Loup River, maximum discharge of, at

Columbus, Nebr................ 84,87

McDowell, Ariz., discharge of Verde River

at............................ 45-46,53

Mad Brook, N. Y , drainage area of........ 11

maximum discharge of................. 12

Mankato, Minn., gage heights and discharge

of Minnesota River at.......... 24

Marietta, Ohio, heights of Ohio River at.... 17

Mechanicsville, N. Y., flood flow of Hudson

River at........................ 62,87

Meramec, Mo., heights of................... 21

Meramec River, Mo., course and character

of............................... 22

heights of............................... 21

Merrimac River, flood flow and character of

basin of...................... 57-59,87

map of basin of....'..................... ^

Mill Brook, N. Y., drainage area of......... 11

maximum discharge of................. 12

Minnesota, flood in southeastern........... 24

Minnesota River, gage heights and discharge of........................ 24

Mississippi River, flood flow and character

of basin of................... 80-81,87

flood on upper.......................... 24

Heights of, at Grafton and St. Louis,

Mo.............................. 22

Missouri, flood in eastern................... 21-22

Missouri River, Mo., flood on.............. 21-22

Monongahela River, flood flow and character-of basin of............. 74-77,87

heights of, at Lock No. 4............... 15

Moreau River, S. Dak., heights of, at Bixby. 23 

Muskegon River, Mich., flood on........... 21

Muskingum River, heights of, at Zanesville, Ohio...................... 17

Norcross, T. W., on flood on Pequonnock

River, Conn..................... 1-3

Ohio River, flood on........................ 16-19

map of basin of......................... 64

Oil City, Pa., heights of Allegheny Riverat. 15 

Palisade, Colo., height and discharge, of

Grand River at................. 40

Passaic River, N. J., flood flow and character of basin of................. 63,87

Pecos, Tex., heights of Pecos River at...... 33

Pecos River, N. Mex., flood on............. 32-33
INDEX. 105

Page. 

Peoria, 111., flood flow of Illinois River at.... 80,87

Pequonnock River, Conn., flood on......... 1-3

PittsLurg, Pa., flood at..................... 13

Platte River, maximum discharge of, at

Columbus, Nebr................ 84

Point of Rocks, Md., flood flow of Potomac

River at........................ 68,87

Potomac River, flood flow and character of

basin of...................... 67-69,87

Purgatory River, Colo., flood on........... P1-3J

~ view of, at Trinidad, Colo.............. T2

Pueblo, Colo., maximum discharge of Arkansas River at................ 84,87

Rainfall, 'Bridgeport, Conn................. 1,2

Chenango and TJnadilla watersheds.... 11

Gila basin.............................. 89,52

Grand River basin, Michigan.......... 20

I iwa, southeastern.................... 26

Little Colorado basin.................. 39.52

Mississippi Valley, Upper.............. 30

Sixmile and Cascadilla creeks.......... 5

Raritan River, N. J., flood flow and character (if basin of................ 64,87

Redbank Creek, Pa., heights of, at Brookville............................ 15

Redhouse, N. Y., heights of Allegheny

River at........................ 15

Ricker, Maurice, on flood in Des Moines

County......................... 31

Rio Bravo ranch, Cal., maximum discharge

of Kern River at............... 85

Uio Grande, flood flow and character of

basin of........................ 83,87

flood on...........................^.... 34-38

map of basin of........................ 35

Jlio Grande, N. MPX., heights of Rio

G rande at...................... 36

Eochester, N. Y., flood flow of Genesee

River at..................... 02-63,87

Jloosevelt, Ariz., discharge of Salt River

at........................... 44,45,53

Uoswell, N. Mex., height and discharge of

Pecos River at................. 33,34

Rumford Falls, Me., flood flow of Androscoggin River at................ 57,87

Run-off, formula f ir computing............ 31

unusual rates ol........................ 55

St. Louis, Mo., heights of Mississippi River

at.............................. 22

St. Paul, Minn , flood flow of Mississippi

River at........................ 81,87

Salt River, Ariz., llood on.................. 43-45

Salton Sink, flow oi Colorado River into.... 54-55

San Francisco River, discharge ol at Alma,

N.Mes.. ............. ........ 42

Sanger, Cal. maximum discharge of Kings

Riverat.... ................... 85

Page.

San Juan River, height and discharge of, at

Farmington, N. Mex........... 40,41

San Marcial, N. Mex., discharge of Rio

Grande at...................... 37

flood flow of Rio Grande at............ 83,87

heights of Rio Grande at.............. 36

San Pedro River, Ariz., flood on............ 43

Santa Rosa, N. Mex., heights of Pecos

Riverat..-...-...-...--....-... 33

Sauk Rapids, Minn., gage heights of Mississippi River at.................. 24

Savannah River, flood flow and character

of basin of................... 70-71,87

Sehn, S. DaJc., heights of Grand Riverat.-.- 23

Selma, Ala., flood flow of Alabama Riverat. 72,87

Sixmile Creek, N. Y., flood on Cayuga Inlet f 

and............................. 3-9'

flood profile and cross sections of....... 8

map of basin of........................ 3

Solomonsville, Ariz., flood on Gila River * 

near............................ 43

South Dakota, floods in.................... 22-23

Starch Factory Creek, N. Y., maximum

discharge of.................... 12

Susquehanna River, flood flow and character of basin of............... 66-67,87

map of basin of........................ 66

Tennessee River, flood flow and character

of basin of................... 78-79,87

Tuolumne River, Cal., maximum discharge

of, at Lagrange................. 85

Tuscaloosa, Ala., flood flow of Black Warrior River at................ 73-74,87

Unadilla River, N. Y., drainage area of.... 11

flood on Chenango River and.......... 9-13

map of basins of Chenango River and. 10 

maximum discharge of................. 12

Verde River, Ariz., flood on................ 45-46

Weiser, Idaho, maximum discharge of

Weiser River at................ 85

Weiser River, Idaho, maximum discharge

of, at Weiser................... 85

Waterville, Me., flood flow of Kennebec

River at..................... 56-57,87

Wharton Brook, N. Y., drainage area of... II

Wheeling, W. Va., flow of Ohio River af.... 17,18

White River, S. Dak., height of, at Interior. 23

Whitewater, Colo., height and discharge of

Gunnison River at............. 40,41

Woodruff, Ariz. heights and discharge of

Little Colorado River at....... 54

Youghiogheny River, flood flow and character ol basin of............. 77-78,87

Yuma, Ariz. discharge of Colorado

Riverat.......--.........--- 48-51,53

Zanesville Onio, oeights ol Muskmgum

.Riverat. ...................... 17
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL

SURVEY.

[Water-Supply Paper No. 162.]

The serial publications of the United States Geological Survey consist of (1) 

Annual Reports, (2) Monographs, (3) Professional Papers, (4) Bulletins, (5) Mineral 

Resources, (6) Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers, (7) Topographic Atlas of United 

States folios and separate sheets thereof, (8) Geologic Atlas of United States, fojios 

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 maybe obtained or consulted in the following waya:

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 delivered to Senators and Representatives in Congress, 

for distribution.

3. Other copies are deposited with the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, 

D. C., from whom they may be had at 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 mineralogy; E, Chemistry and 

physics; F, Geography; G, Miscellaneous; H, Forestry; J, 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 seventeenth in Series M, the complete list of which follows. (PP= 

Professional Paper; B=Bulletin; WS=Water-Supply Paper.

SERIES M GENERAL HYDROGRAPHIC INVESTIGATIONS.

WS 56. Methods of stream measurement. 1901. 51 ppM 12 pis.

WS 64. Accuracy of stream measurements, by E. C. Murphy. 1902. &9 pp., 4 pis.

WS 76. Observations on the flow of rivers in the vicinity of New Yorfc CH, 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, byG. B Holiister and M O. Leighton 1903. 56 pp., 15 pis. 

WS 91. Natural features and economic development of the £andusky, Maumee, Musfcingum, and

Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Flynn and M. S. Flynn, 1901 130pp 

WS 92. The Passaic Hood of 1903, by M. O. Leighton. 1904 48 pp , 7 pis. 

WS 94. Hydrographic manual of the United States Geological Survey, prepared by E C, Murphy,

J C. Hoyt, and G. B. Holiister. 1901 76 pp.. 3 pis. ,

WS 95 Accuracy of stream measurements (second edition), by E C Murphy. 1904 81 pp., 13 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 7i> pp , 4 pis 

WS 109. Hydrography of Susquehanna River drainage basin, by J. C Hoyt and R H Andersen.

1905. 216 pp 29 pis

WS 116 Water resources near Santa Barbara California, by J B Lippincott 1904 9a pp., 8 pis. 

WS 147. Destructive floods in tne United Stalls in 1904, by £ C Murphy and others 1905 20b pp.,

18 pis

WS 150. Weir experiments, coefficients and formulus by R. E. Horton 1006. 189 pp . 3a pis 

WS 162. Destructive floods in the United States in i90t> by fi C. Murphy and others. 190t>. 105 pp.,

4 pis. 

Correspondence should be addressed to

THE DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

JULY, 1906.

I

O

IEB 162 06 8