The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-19
OUR LEvEEs.

After half century or more OF discussion
as to the best method for protecting our most
fertile lands from annual nundation. the Con
gress of the United States provided for elab
crate surveys and observations to ascertain
all the facts having a bearing upon the sub
ject
From this action resulted the ten years
labor Of Humphreys and Abbot, and report
on the physics and hydraulics of the Missis-
sippi river which has placed its authors in
the front rank of enginSrs who have paid at
tcntion to hydraulic engineering.
It was rightly thought by those vitality
Interested that the conclusions of Hum
1lseys and Adopot, favo1ing protection by
levecs. were the Cpnclusions Of mon who had
made themselves thoroughly familiar With
the matter they had been detailed to ineesti-
gate. and who had no interest IN the matter
beyond the desire to faithfully perform their
duty by giving true information and advice
to the public.
Now. on the eve Of what we had Just reason
to think the day OF acknowledgement of our
claims for relief that reason and public expe-
diency should accord us, we are confronted by
a proposition which. If pressed before Con
gross. as 1t no doubt will be, will again cause
sHHSeh divisions of that party in Congress
friendly to us as do undoubtedly defeat the
evce bill and give no reasonable substitute
for it.
The project Mth which Capt, Eads antago-
nizes the levee bill. for which, eve have been SO
long and earnestly working, is based upon o
system of works for river improvement such
as has been employed with varying success in
this country for at least forty years. Appli-
cation Of dams and spur dykes dettiesl for
the purpose of closing island chHtes and
narrowing water ways to secure increased
depth Of channel, was mSde to portions Of the
Ohio river about 1880. and has been con-
tinued at intervals of time UP to the present
date with benefit to Navigation, but we have
vet to learn that the floods have been reduced
in height by this application.
Portions of the Mississippi above Cairo
hava for many years been undergoing this
treatment under the drectioSof officers Of the
corps of engineers, and with good eresults
Capt. Eads is no doubt familiar With these
| works Can he point to any one fact resulting
from observation Of effects Of these works tG
Warrant his assumption that similar work be-
-
hill' anP do away with the necessity fol
| lcvees?
The fallacy of Capt Eads theory hayebe
suggested by assuming two points OF the
river below Cairo the Uarrowest portion OF
the river, we will sag, wherea sufficient depth
of channel is provided by nature and where
the natural construction Of water way is the
cause Of high flood levels, and New Orleans
we will say, for the second point where the
great depth of the river, nearly 200 feet, prac
tically excludes attempts at narrowing ano
further deepening.
Does it appear probable that oJapt. Eads
could reduce the flood level at either of these
points? Again. does it not appear probable
that the project Of Capt. Eads is calculated t
raise the flood level at some points without
lowering it at others; for example, if the rivel
at New Orleans were to be oartiticially con
fined to one half its present width what would
probably be the result? Would the wate