<*" jK yC-NRLF TC $B llb 317 A Diversion Scheme to PREVENT OVERFLOWS OF THE MISSISSIPPI And to Establish A Navigable Waterway From Mobile Bay To The Ohio River BY E. N. LOWE, O State Geologist of Mississippi EXCHANGE ~1 A Diversion Scheme to PREVENT OVERFLOWS OF THE MISSISSIPPI And to Establish A Navigable Waterway From Mobile Bay To The BYE:-N.LOWE, State Geologist of Mississippi. No problem of internal Improvement has for some time past com manded a larger share of the attention of a very large proportion of the people of the United States than that of prevention of over- flows of the Mississippi River and improvement of our internal waterways. Looked at from every point of view the control of the Mississippi during flood seasons looms up as a national problem of immense importance. That the revenues of the national government should be, year after year, lavishly expended to reclaim the desert areas of the West where no inhabitant save the prairie dog, the rat- tlesnake, and the coyote dwells, or can dwell, until the land is re- claimed, while vast areas of the richest soils on earth areas much larger than all the desert lands that can be reclaimed, and where human beings, loyal and devoted citizens of these United States, now have their homes and property, should be subject to overflow, with devastation, loss of property and danger to life, because of the neglect of the national government to control the nation's water, is a crying national disgrace. Surely the deserts can wait until the really vital problems of the nation are solved. Is the nation seeking homes for its increasing population? Here in the flood plain of the Mississippi are the richest lands within our borders, with areas broad enough to accommodate the teeming population of the whole country for a century to come. IK the call of humanity, to say nothing of national duty, that would prompt the nation to protect its people against disaster, without force? Who doubts for a moment that an invasion by a foreign foe of any part of our territory would promptly bring to that section the protection of the army and navy of the nation? Yet, here is a foe more inexorable and merciless than any human adversary, and how inadequate the national aid to prevent his approach! Surely the nation's policies need radical re- vision, that this neglect of plain duty may not continue. In this day of immense commercial development railroads are indispensable to this country. Yet, astute statesmen foresee the time not far distant when, with the completion of the Isthmian Ca- rial, the railroads will be unable to carry to our southern seaboard and bring therefrom the commerce of the great Mississippi valley, and they are casting about to devise ways of improving our inland waterways as a means of supplementing the railroads that lead to ihe Gulf ports, and at the same time to maintain wholesome com- petition with them. That the Mississippi will, of course, always be the chief north and south inland waterway there can be no doubt, but that there may be others seems not to have commanded other than local interest. One other, at least, seems quite possible, as will be shown in the course of this paper. 384767 DIVERSION OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER. The safest, most natural and most effective method of controll- ing the Mississippi in flood seasons is by diversion of the flood wa- ters of some of its large tributaries before they reach the Mississippi Leveeing as a sole means of protection against overflow is, has al- ways been, and always will be, in my opinion, an uncertain and dangerous expedient. To be at all effective it will be very expen- sive, and must be almost certainly from time to time, punctuated with great disasters, which will certainly grow greater with each recurrence, because of the greatly increased population and wealth in the danger districts with the passing of time. There can be no question that with the increase of population in the Mississippi Valley the larger part of the remaining forested areas will inevitably be reduced to open lands to furnish homes and farms for the people. The removal of the forests will as in- evitably cause the rapid run-off of rain falling upon these areas, and the tendency to flooding the streams will increase. Since at the present time the Mississippi River is the receptacle of all these waters, in my opinion, our children and grandchildren will experience greater danger from the Mississippi than we encounter today. With government aid, great systems of levees may be built that may vdthstand the floods for many years, but this will only accentuate the ultimate danger; for, strengthened in confidence as to their se- curity, hundreds of thousands of home-seekers will build homes, towns and cities in the low lands, and a break occurring then would entail such suffering and such lossof life and property that we stand appalled in contemplation of the possibility. Any attempts to control the Mississippi floods by reservoiring the upper waters of its tributaries would be wholly impracticable, as well as very dangerous in the dist ricts immediately below the stor- age reservoirs. To be at all adequate immense areas must be cov- ered with water, the lands of which should be devoted to other pur- poses in support of our growing population. To attempt to with- draw such areas in non-overflow states for the protection of lands in overflow states would precipiiate such opposition as to negative any efforts in that direction, and result in no action being taken. This is human nature. Tenacious preservation of our own is well developed in all of us Americans, in our brethren who live toward the headwaters of our streams no less than among us who live far- ther south on the great river. In view of the above consider atioms, only one plan suggests it- self as being adequate to meet the end, one that would bring only benefits and no disasters, and withal a most natural and sane me- thod to control the situation. This plan consists in diverting from the Mississippi the flood waters of some of its tributaries. The cen- tral idea of the plan is perfectly simple can be understood by any- one and has seemingly escaped serious consideration because of an apparent impossibility of accomplishment. But it is not only pos- sible, but, in our opinion, can be done more cheaply, more quickly, and with greater .benefits to the \vhole country, with hurt to no section, than by any other method that has so far been suggested or considered. Naturally, the question arises: "What tributaries can be so di- verted?" It appears feasible to divert the flood waters of the Ten nessee River, and it is probable that the surplus water of the Red River can also be diverted, both large affluents of the Mississippi. In the extreme northeast corner of Mississippi, Yellow Creek ripes in southwestern Tishomingo County and flows north into the Tennessee River a disitance of nineteen miles. On the southern side of a narrow divide, less than half a mile from the source of Yellow Creek, is the source of Mackey's Creek, the headwaters of the Toniibigibee River. The plan sugested contemplates diverting the Tennessee River through Yellow Creek into Mackey's Creek, the chief headwaters of the Tombigibee, as just stated. The Red River is to be turned through one of its western tributaries below Shreveport into the upper Sabine. In both cases a narrow divide can be cut through to the level ofthe larger streams, the short trib- utary lowered so as to reverse its flow, and the large stream will find its way by a much shorter and steeper channel to the Gulf of Mexico. This is notably the case with the Tennessee River, which from the mouth of Yellow Creek flows almost directly north across Tennessee and Kentucky into the Ohio, and thence its waters flow down the Ohio to the Mississippi, and follow its long and tortuous course to the Gulf; whereas by diversion into the Tombigbee the floodwaters of the Tennessee would reach the Gulf by a direct route, one-fourth the distance. Before going further into this disicussion we should try to ans- wer a question that will naturally arise here: "Will the diversion of the floodwaters at this point materially affect the flood con- dition of the Misisssippi?" I regret to say that we are not in pos- session of exact figures covering this point, but when I state that the Tennessee at this point is 600 yards wide and in flood season rises to a height of 33 feet, there can hardly be any doubt that the diversion of this much water will affect very decidedly the flood stage of the lower Ohio and Mississippi. Can the Tennessee be diverted to the Tomibigbee? What facts have we to justify the belief? At the gate entering the field of S. A. Bonds at the mouth of Yellow Creek is a bench mark of the government survey showing an elevation above sea-level of 390.2 feet, the B. M. being 22 feet above low water at the junction of Yellow Creek with the Tennes- see River. Other government elevation marks farther up the creek show that at least two different parties surveyed along the Tennes see, and a discrepancy in their results of as much as 15 feet was noted. For example, on the hills a'bove the creek on land of Mr. Bonds were two B. M. at the same point, one giving 447 and the other 462 feet elevatiton. Mr. Bonds, who was living here when both parties made their surveys, identified the mark 447 as being record- ed by the same party that made the record 390.2 at the mouth of the creek. This is mentioned because, while only one party seems to have left a record at the creek's mouth, had the other left one it would probably have been 15 feet higher, and so have reduced the estimat- ed fall of Yellow Creek by that much. The elevation at the Southern Railroad station at Burnsville, \vhioh. is 15 miles in a line following Yellow Creek bottom, from the Tennessee River, is 467 feet (R. R. survey), which is five feet high- er than the railroad where it crosses Yellow Creek one mile east, t which point the railroad track is six feet above the water surface ! n Yellow Creek, so that here the surface in Yellow Creek is 456 feet above sea-level (supposing there is no disagreement between the railroad and government surveys) giving a fall to the creek of practically six feet to the mile between the mouth and the cross- ing of the Southern Railroad. The Birmingham branch of the I. C. Railroad crosses Yellow Creek at a point four miles south of Burnsville; at this crossing the railroad track (railroad survey) is 478 feet above sea-level. The track is six feet above the level of the creek surface, making the latter 472. Hence, between the railroad points of crossing (if theii surveys coincide) the fall of Yellov/ Creek is four feet to the mile. In the face of discrepancies between the two government sur- veys and the possible disagreement between the government and railroad surveys, we have consulted another line of evidence. Back- water from the Tennessee River, when it reaches the 33 foot stage ai the mouth of Yellow Creek, reaches up to a point in Yellow Creek Valley which in a straight line is ten miles from the junc- tion of the streams. This fact is obtained from Mr. J. M. Foote, Fii intelligent raftman of Burnsville, who has floated logs on Yel- low Creek to the Tennessee for many years. He also states that when the water of Yellow Creek rises four feet against the dam of the water mill at Burnsville the backwater reaches 2 1-2 miles up stream, which would give the creek a fall above Burnsville of 1.6 feet per mile. By his observations the fall below Burnsville would be three feet to the mile. "Undoubtedly the fall is much less above Burnsville and for some distance below than in the lower part of the stream. Of course, Mr. Foote's estimate of distance might not have been very accurate, and so would modify the results. These estimates are introduced to show that by all line of evidence which we have been able as yet to consult we have used as the basis of our calculations that which we regard as most reliable, and which at the same time gives the maximum fall to Yellow Creek. The other line of evidence, as far as it goes, would make the prob- lem of diversion smaller by half a* least. One and one-half miles (I. C. R. R. survey) southeast of the I. C. crossing over Yellow Creek headwaters, is Holcut Station with an elevation of 500 feet. The dividing ridge between Yellow Creek and Mackey's Creek, headwaters of the Tombigbee, is 1 1-2 miles southeast of Holcut. The rise from Holcut to the crest (railroad track level) is 27 feet, making this divide at railroad level 527 feet above sea level. The railroad crosses the crest in a cut 50 feet deep, making the actual height of the ridge 577 feet, but the upper 25-30 feet is a narrow rim less than 100 feet across the top. The width of the dividing ridge at base is about 400 yards. The slope on the southeast side of the divide toward the Tom bigbee is much steeper. The railroad level at Paden, 3 1-2 miles miles down on the Tombigbee side o* the crest, is 455 feet, and the level of the water surface of Mackey's Creek is 25 feet lower than the railroad track, giving the creek here an elevation of 430 feet. Assuming that the head of Mackey's Creek is as high as the station at Holcut (and it is certainly that high / the fall of Mackey's Creek for the first 3 1-2 miles to Paden is 70 feet, or 20 feet to the mile. Supposing the average fall for the next four miles below Paden to be 15 feet to the mile it is probably more rather than less at that distance the stream has reached the level of the Tennessee River at the mouth of Yellow Creek. The total distance, following the two streams from the Tennes- see River to an equal elevation on Mackey's Creek, is 29 miles. It will thus be seen that the deepest cut would be through a narrow ridge of 100-200 feet, having a depth of 208.8 feet, the aver- age depth for the divide (400 yards) being 182 feet. The material to be encountered in cutting a channel through the divide is soft sands of the Eutaw Formation that could be removed with the greatest ease. All the material on both sides of the divide is of this nature, as is also the material along the upper Yellow Creek. On the lower Yellow Creek, while the hard cherl and shale and limestone appear in the bordering hills, the stream flows through a broad valley of alluvial deposits, no hard rock ap- pearing anywhere. On Mackey's Creek, as far as cutting would need to be done, the material is all loose Cretaceous sands in the bordering hills and alluvial deposits in the valley. We believe that in order to turn the flood waters of the Tennessee into the Tombigbee it would not be necessary to cut through any hard rock whatsoever, but that the material to be removed would be even less resistant 'than much of the alluvial deposits of the Mississippi delta. We have made the statement that though the lower Yellow Creek valley is cut out of hard rock, it is our belief that the al- luvial deposits of the creek are so deep that no hard rock would be encountered in cutting a channel to the level of the Tennessee. The reasons for this belief are these: 1st. The even flow of the stream is not interrupted anywhere by rapidis or irregularities due to outcropping hard beds. 2nd. The alluvial flats are from 1 1-2 to 3 miles wide and of fine texture, justifying the inference that the deposits are probably deep. 3rd. At Burnsville a well driven by Dr. Light in the Yellow Creek flat driven wells can only be sunk in soft material encountered hard rock only after reaching a depth of 96 feet, a depth that would not be reached in cutting a channel to divert the excess waters of the Tennessee across the divide. 4th. The hard rock of the Carboniferous that underlies this region- in the immediate vicinity of the Tennessee River dips toward the southward and westward at an angle of 20-30 feet to the mile. It forms high precipitous hills near the Tennesseee, but passes beneath the later Cretaceous sands several miles to the north of Burnsville, and is struck in wells in the vicinity of Corinth at a depth of 450 feet, Corinth being almost on an east and west line from the divide between Yellow and Mackey's Creeks. Of course, the only certain WLy of determining whether the hard rock would be encountered in cutting the diversion channel would be to put down at frequent intervals along the course of the proposed channel drill holes, going to a depth corresponding to the bottom of the channel. Before final and accurate estimates of cost: of this work could be made such borings would have to be made, especially in the lower parts of the Yellow Creek valley. As regards the capacity of Yellow and Mackey's Creeks to hold and carry the water to be diverted, it may be said that the stream themselves are not large and now carry a rather small volume of water, Yellow Creek flows through a deep valley 100-250 feet be- low the hills and one and one-half to three miles wide from mouth to source in fact, the valley is so wide that on viewing it from the hills as it sweeps broadly among them, one is irresistably im- pressed with the posibility that it might have been once the course at the Tennessee itself. The valley of Mackey's Creek is less impos- ing, but has a width at the source of at least 50 to 400 yards, and widens to half a mile at Paden, less than four miles beyond the divide. It will thus be seen that these valleys could easily carry a", the diverted waters of the Tennessee. A channel 300 yards wide could carry as much as the Tennessee of twice that breadth, be- cause of the much greater fall per mile through the diversion chan nel and the Tombigbee, the distance being about one-fourth to the Gulf and the fall to sea level being the same. It would, be un- necessary to cut a channel wide enough to accommodate this vol- ume of water. A passage having once been made, the velocity of the current, once it is diverted, would rapidly cut the channel wider through the slightly resisting material of the divide, until wide enough to carry the desired quantity of water, after which it would be necessary to protect the diversion channel from further cutting. This, however, would need to be done only for a few miles. In this connection it may ibe well to state explicitly mat this plan does not contemplate the complete diversion of the Tennessee, which would be undesirable, but merely to turn its floodwaters in- to the Tombigbee; navigation of the lower Tennessee would not be affected. Such protection as would insure this result would of course, be necessary at the mouth of Yellow Creek. During low water stages the canal would be made navigable by means of locks In estimating the cost of such a diversion scheme, we believe it would be less than any other method of controlling the floods on the Mississippi, and it would have the added benefit of controlling the floods of the lower Ohio from Paducah to Cairo. The actual length of this channel, most of which consists of deepening the upper Yellow Creek so as to reverse it& flow, would be twenty-nine miles. The actual divide is less than one-fourth of a mile across. The average depth of the cut across this dividing ridge (400 yards wide) would be 183 feet deep, all in soft materials, the deepest cut would be 208 feet. Of course the whole twenty-nine miles would be much less. We have estimated the average depth to be sixty-seven feet, all in soft material so soft and yielding, in fact that it would melt down like a recent sand bar before a hy- draulic jet. It would be merely child's play for the machinery now at work on the Panama Canal. We do not wish it inferred, how- ever, that to carry out this diversion scheme would be child's play. P is a big undertaking, but easily within the bounds of possibility for the United States government. It is from its very nature and of necessity a national undertaking. The control and improvement of internal waterways affecting directly the interests of several states is a national problem. This diversion channel would begin just within the state of Tennessee, continue into Mississippi, and the di- verted waters would flow through Alabama. So that only the nation could undertake its execution. We have made a rough estimate, based upon the cubic contents of a channel twenty-nine miles long, sixty-seven feet deep and 300 feet wide, the removal of the material to cost 10 cents per cubic yard, and find that the cost of such a channel would be about $11,000,000. This sum looks large, but to engineers whose estimates of material to be handled often run into the millions of cubic yards, it is not by any means animpracticahle expenditure, for ben- efits so decided to the whole country as we believe would accrue. It is extremely probable that deep cute in the soft sands could l?e worked more cheaply than indicated in the figure given by un- dercutting by hydraulic jets, causing the high banks to slump. Besides the above figures, certain lands along Yellow Creek, on the divide, and on Meckey's Creek would have to be condemned for the use of the canal; but fortunately little development has as yet been made along the proposed line, and land values are very low, so that this item of expense is negligible. However, to protect lands on the Tomibigbee from overflow, this stream would need to have a system of good strong levees. This, howeveer, will be a positive benefit, will reclaim hundreds of thousands of acres' of low lands, will necessitate a proper care of the stream channel, and will en- courage and facilitate development all along that stream. The benefits to accrue from such a diversion scheme will be manifold. Some are as follows: First .Such a volume of water diverted from the Mississippi in flood season, we believe, will bring the flood rise of the lower Ohio and the Mississippi within the danger limit under the present sys- tem of levees, properly strengthened and maintained, and so perma- nently and effectually remove the excess of pressure against the le- vees. , Second The diverging of these waters through the Tomibigbee would necessitate the building of strong levees along that stream. There are about 1 1-4 million acres of low lands along the Tombig- bee, much of which needs reclaiming. Protected by strong levees reclamation is possible and land values would rapidly rise. It would lead to effective drainage of lands that are now practically useless. Third Next in importatnce to the benefit first mentioned if indeed not first in importance and far-reaching effect is the one no^s to be mentioned. A new waterway, which by all means should be made navigable throughout would be opened up, extending from Mobile Bay almost due north to the Ohio River at Paducah, Ky. By glancing at the map, this will be seen to run almost parallel to the Mississippi River, through a territory rich in resources, much of which awaits development, and which is without a waterway to the sea the cheapest transportation in the world. Such a water- way would be of immense commercial importance, especially so as the Isthmian Canal is now nearing completion, and all the outlets on the Gulf will enhance in importance. To facilitate navigation by barges and other craft it would probably be necessary to construct locks which could be used in low water season and thrown open dur ing high water. Fourth S.uch a navigable waterway would have great military importance, making it possible for torpedo boats and the small war craft ito ascend to the interior of the country, and even to the Great Lakes when that canal is opened. I f would be of manifest benefit to the country to have besides the Mississippi another waterway to the interior of the country. Two would be less liable to be closed by an enemy than one. Fifth Almost surely large and important water powers would be developed along the diversion channel as a side benefit. While the divide separating Yellow Creek and Mackey's Creek has been considered in this plan as the most favorable one, others have sugested themselves. A narrow divide separates the western head of Yellow Creek from Little Brown Creek. This route has no* been as yet carefully examined, and the elevations are not known except approximately. Tie route is more direct and shorter by perhaps two or three miles than the one by Mackey's Creek, and if other conditions should prove as favorable, would prove the more acceptable route of the two. The divide between Bear Creek and an eastern source of the) Tombigjbee, I think, would prove impracticable because of the greater length of Bear Creek the course of which would have to be reversed, but principally because Bear Creek runs in a channel of hard rock from mouth almost to source. Either of the more wes- tern routes would be more practicable because of the softer material. The Geological Survey contemplates at an early date putting par ties in the field to run levels along these various divides and to sur- vey out the most feasible route. These surveys will put us in posses sion of accurate data with which the problem can be attacked with certainty. No attempt will be made here to discuss the feasibility of divert- ing the Red River into the Sabine, for the reason that at present my l knowledge of the conditions there is of a very general nature, my personal acquaintance with the locality being limited to that obtain- ed in one visit a good many years ago, before I had given any thought to diversion or other schemes to relieve flood conditions of the Mississippi. A more detailed examination of the area may be undertaken later and conditions there reported upon. In the mean time, it seems probable that diversion of Red River could be accomplished without great difficulty. The altitude of the region is not great, the ma- terials probably all moderately soft. A short tributary of Red River south of Shreveport has its source near the Sabine, and its course is made up largely of lakes, indicating sluggish flow. Most probably this could be made the route of a diversion channel. The benefits to the lower parishes of Louisiana following such a diversion are evident, With the floodwaters of the Tennessee and the Red Rivers diverted, the excessive pressure on the leveesi of the Mississippi would be relieved, and those parishes would be safe against floods even with the present levees. It will be observed that by this diver sion scheme, where the danger is greatest in the lower parishes of Louisiana the measure of relief is greatest. THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. FEB 15 103"? LD 21-100m-8,'34 YC 107656 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY