The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-03-12
THE FATHER OF WATERS.


can Supplement, a remarkable document
written Tor our paper by James B. Eads. c.
E., of st. Louis, being review of the report
of the United States Levee Commission,
made in 1876. This board was appointed, by
authority of Congress, to report permanent
plan for the reclamation of the alluvial lands
of the Mississippi River. The subject is one
of Extraordinary importance, as will be readily
understood if it is considered that the area of
the lands that might be saved to agriculture,
by q proper system of reclamation, is esti-
mated at about 70. 600 square miles, of unsur-
passed natural fertility, and capable, if peo-
pied as thickly as Belgium. of supporting
population of over 30O, 100000.
clamation may be Justly regarded as perhaps
the most useful and important engineering
enterprise now before the civilized world. Its
successful accomplishment would vastly add
to the prosperity of our own country, and
benefit all nations, by charging the special
domain of food supply, besides opening the
Father of Waters to the free commerce OF the
world, floating the largest vessels for an in
land distance of fifteen hundred miles.
By reference to the review it will be seen
that Engineer Eads and the Levee Commits.
sion have arrived at Numerically opposite
conclusions, not only as to the best method of
executing the work, but as to the results that
might be expected from the adoption of their
respective plans. The subject is grand one,
but the principles involved are simple, and
their relative correc ness would seem to be
capable of determination without serious
difficulty. The most curious thing is that
practical engineers should disagree about the
matter.
The Levee Commission aver that the vol.
ume of the Mississippi is too great; hence the
overflow, to prevent which they recommend
q reduction of the river volume by means of
side channels. These are. expected to conduct
large portions of the water to the Cult, and
thereby reduce. as they allege, the food dis
charge to the limits of the levees. They fur
Their advise the raising of the hight of the AZ
tificial banks or levess, the cost of which they
though large when exhibited in figures, is az
nothing compared with the gain to be derived
from successful reclamation.
The chief questions to be settled are: Is
this plan practicable? Will q reduction Of
the rivers volume diminish the flood dis
charge? What has been the experience on
tho Mississippi and on other rivers having
analogous bottoms? Is it not fact that, be-
low the points where side channels have been
formed and water drawn of, the river bottom
has become filed up. and the food level
raised! Is 1t not true, IN respect 10 Otner
rivers, that their food levels have been low
cred by increasing rather than by diminishing
the river volume, by stopping up old side
channels rather than opening new? Is it not
plain that, in an allnyal bottom like the Mis-
sissippi. the quicke and best way to lower
the flood level is to deepen the bed of the
river?
Will not the river deepen its own bed if its
volume is increased?
The we ght of evidence, derived from past
experience ON the subject, clearly gives an
affirmative answer to the latter question, and
this. substantially. is the position taken by
Engineer Eads. He declares that the recon-
mendations of the Lsvee Commission are
founded in error. Hs AYERS that the proper
way to lower the food line of the Mississippi
is to do the very opposite of that recon-
mended by the Commission. He advises that
the side channels be closed, SO Is to increase
the volume of the water; and that, excepting
repairs, the levees be not raised, because the
increased flow will deepen the river bed,
rendering the artificial building up of tho
levees unnecessary. He adduces an array Of
practical evidence, in support of his position,
that seems unahswerable. Scientific Anaeri-
cnn