Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Passaic Flood of 1903
Author: Leighton, Marshall Ora, 1874-1958
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Passaic Flood of 1903" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 92
Series M, General Hydrographic Investigations, 8

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR

THE PASSAIC FLOOD OF 1903

BY

MARSHALL ORA LEIGHTON

[Illustration]

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1904



CONTENTS.


                                                                Page.
Letter of transmittal                                              7

Introduction                                                       9

Precipitation                                                     11

Descent of flood                                                  14
  Highland tributaries and Central Basin                          14
  Flood at Macopin dam                                            15
  Flood at Beattie's dam, Little Falls                            16
  Flood flow over Dundee dam                                      17

Damages                                                           23
  General statements                                              23
  Highland tributaries                                            23
    Ramapo River                                                  23
    Pequanac and Wanaque rivers                                   24
  Central Basin                                                   25
  Lower Valley                                                    25
    Paterson                                                      26
    Passaic and vicinity                                          27

Preventive measures                                               28
  General discussion                                              28
  Lower valley improvements                                       29
  Flood catchment                                                 31
    Pompton reservoir                                             31
    Ramapo system                                                 33
    Wanaque system                                                34
      Midvale reservoir                                           34
      Ringwood reservoir                                          35
      West Brook reservoir                                        35
    Pequanac system                                               35
      Newfoundland reservoir                                      36
      Stickle Pond reservoir                                      36
    Rockaway system                                               37
      Powerville reservoir                                        37
      Longwood Valley reservoir                                   37
      Splitrock Pond                                              38
    Upper Passaic Basin                                           38
      Millington reservoir                                        38
    Saddle River                                                  39
    Summary of flood-catchments projects                          40
  Preferable reservoir sites                                      40

General conclusions                                               44

Index                                                             47



ILLUSTRATIONS.


                                                                Page.
PLATE I. _A_, Beattie's dam, Little Falls, N. J., in flood; _B_,
Flood-water lines in residence district, Paterson, N. J.          16

II. _A_, Pompton Lakes dam and water front of Ludlum Steel and Iron
Company; _B_, Dry bed of Pompton Lake                        24

III. Flood district of Paterson, N. J.                            24

IV. _A_, Washout at Spruce street, Paterson, N. J.; _B_,
River street, Paterson, N. J., after flood                        26

V. _A_, Effects of flood in mill district, Paterson, N. J.; _B_,
The wreck of a hotel in Paterson, N. J.                           26

VI. _A_, Devastation in Hebrew quarter, Paterson, N. J.; _B_,
A common example of flood damage                                  28

VII. _A_, Inundated lands at Passaic, N. J.; _B_, Undamaged bridge
across Passaic River after partial subsidence of flood            28

FIG. 1. Comparative flood run-off at Dundee dam, March, 1902, and
October, 1903                                                     18

2. Diagram of flood flow at Dundee dam, flood of 1903             20



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
HYDROGRAPHIC BRANCH,

_Washington, D. C., December 4, 1903._


SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled,
"Passaic Flood of 1903," prepared by Marshall Ora Leighton, and to
request that it be published as one of the series of Water-Supply and
Irrigation Papers.

This paper is a continuation of Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No.
88, by George B. Hollister and Mr. Leighton, and describes the flood of
October, 1903, which was higher and far more disastrous than the flood
of 1902. The occurrence of two great floods in the same basin during so
short a period makes the subject worthy of attention, especially as the
district is, from a manufacturing and commercial standpoint, one of the
most important along the Atlantic coast.

Very respectfully,

F. H. NEWELL,
_Chief Engineer_.

HON. CHARLES D. WALCOTT
_Director United States Geological Survey_.



THE PASSAIC FLOOD OF 1903.

By MARSHALL O. LEIGHTON.


INTRODUCTION.

In the following pages is given a brief history of the disastrous flood
which occurred in the Passaic River Basin in October, 1903. In the
report by George Buell Hollister and the writer, entitled "The Passaic
Flood of 1902," and published by the United States Geological Survey as
Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 88, are discussed the principal
physiographic features of the drainage basin and their general relations
to the stream flow. This report will not repeat this information, and
the discussion will be confined to the flood itself. References to local
features will be made without explanation, the presumption being that
this publication shall accompany the earlier one and be, as it is, a
continuation of it. In the present report more attention is given to an
estimate of damages than in the earlier work, and remedies by which
devastation may be avoided are briefly considered.

Passaic River overflowed its banks on October 8, 1903, and remained in
flood until October 19. Between these dates there occurred the greatest
and most destructive flood ever known along this stream. Ordinarily the
channel of the lower Passaic at full bank carries about 12,000 cubic
feet of water per second, but at the height of this flood it carried
about 35,700 cubic feet per second.

The flood period for the entire stream can not be exactly stated, as the
overflow did not occur at the same time in different parts of the basin.
For example, the gage-height records at Dundee dam show that the flood
began to rise on October 8 at 6.30 a. m., and reached a maximum of 9-1/2
inches over the dam crest at 9 p. m. on October 10. Similarly, on
Beattie's dam at Little Falls the flood began to rise at midnight on
October 7, and reached its maximum at 2 p. m. on October 10, or about
thirty-eight hours after the initial rise, the height of the water being
1.29 inches over the crest of the dam.

The flood rose on the highland tributaries as follows: On Ramapo River
the flood crest passed Hillborn at about 10 a. m. on October 9 and
reached Pompton, at the mouth of the river, shortly after noon of the
same day.

The highest reading recorded on the Geological Survey gage at the feeder
of Morris Canal, in Pompton Plains, was 14.3 feet, at about 6 o'clock on
the morning of October 10. As this gage is read only once daily it is
probable that this reading does not represent the height of the flood
crest. Evidence shows that it passed this point on the previous day.
Records of the Newark water department show that the flood on Pequanac
River began to rise at Macopin dam on October 8 at noon, and rose
rapidly to the maximum of 6,000 cubic feet per second at 4 p. m. on
October 10.

No records are available with reference to the rise of flood on Wanaque
River.

Observations made on Pompton Plains on the morning of the 11th show that
Pompton River was well within its banks at that time; therefore the
Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac must have discharged their flood waters
some time previous to this hour. The fact is important when considered
in connection with the height of water in the main stream at that
period. This observation was made only eighteen hours after the maximum
height over Beattie's dam at Little Falls, and twelve hours after the
flood crest passed Dundee dam. The conditions here outlined illustrate
the rapidity with which flood waters are discharged from the Pompton
drainage area, and the deterring effect of Great Piece Meadows upon the
flood.

The rise of the flood on Rockaway River at Old Boonton was almost
coincident with that on Pequanac River at Macopin dam. The maximum flow
occurred fourteen hours later than the maximum on the Ramapo at Pompton.

The flood crest did not reach Chatham on upper Passaic River until the
morning of October 11, or about twenty-four hours later than the flood
heights in Pompton and Rockaway rivers, and about twelve hours later
than the maximum over Dundee dam.

Adequate reasons for these differences in flood periods between
neighboring points are abundant. They are apparent after a review of the
physiographic conditions described in Water-Supply Paper No. 88.

The flood of 1903 was the immediate result of an enormous rainfall, and
not, as is often the case in north temperate latitudes, the combined
effect of rainfall and the rapid melting of accumulated snows. The
records of weather-observation stations in northern New Jersey and New
York fail to show, throughout their entire observation periods, as great
an amount of precipitation in so short a period. The storm which was the
immediate cause of the flood occurred principally between October 8 and
11. During that interval rain fell to an average depth of 11.74 inches
over the Passaic Basin.

The Passaic Basin is fairly well supplied with storage facilities,
which, under ordinary circumstances, would temper the severity of floods
by holding back a large amount of water. In this case no such effect was
produced, as the reservoirs, lakes, and ponds on the drainage area were
filled, or practically so, at the beginning of the storm, and there was
consequently no available space in which to hold back even an
appreciable part of the run-off water. Over some of the dams in the
highland region a comparatively small amount of water was being
discharged at the beginning of the storm. Therefore, while these storage
basins may have had a certain deterring effect upon the rate of flood
accumulation, they could not, in the end, assist materially in
preventing damages in the lower part of the drainage area.


PRECIPITATION.

The precipitation records for June, July, August, and September are
given below:

_Precipitation, in inches, in Passaic Valley and vicinity, June to
September, 1903._

-----------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------
                 |    June.     |    July.     |   August.    |  September.
-----------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------
                 |Normal.       |Normal.       |Normal.       |Normal.
                 |     Observed.|     Observed.|     Observed.|   Observed.
-----------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------
Highland region: |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  Dover          | 3.29 | 15.02 | 5.54 | 5.47  | 5.08 |  9.04 | 4.02 | 3.39
  Chester        | 3.48 | 12.80 | 6.42 | 7.59  | 5.16 |  9.35 | 4.60 |  ...
  Charlotteburg  | 3.52 |  9.45 | 5.54 | 3.97  | 4.98 |  7.78 | 4.80 | 3.29
  Ringwood       |  ... | 10.13 |  ... | 3.08  |  ... |  6.17 |  ... | 3.06
Red Sandstone    |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
plain:           |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  Paterson       | 4.31 | 11.17 | 5.32 | 5.40  | 4.31 | 10.89 | 4.86 | 2.88
  Hanover        | 3.32 |   ... | 5.23 | 5.40  | 5.20 |  9.40 | 4.52 |  ...
  River Vale     | 3.17 | 10.62 | 4.87 | 3.41  | 4.17 |   ... | 3.61 | 2.90
  Essex Fells    | 3.08 |   ... | 7.03 |  ...  | 5.95 |   ... | 3.67 | 1.80
  Newark         | 3.60 | 11.51 | 4.48 | 4.27  | 4.75 | 14.54 | 3.83 | 4.56
  South Orange   | 3.57 |  9.28 | 5.43 | 4.22  | 5.05 | 13.75 | 4.04 | 3.80
  New York City  | 3.13 |  7.42 | 4.26 | 3.23  | 4.70 |  5.96 | 3.72 | 2.60
  Plainfield     | 3.62 | 10.14 | 5.86 | 4.70  | 4.37 |  6.87 | 4.42 | 7.10
  Elizabeth      | 3.68 |  8.76 | 5.74 | 4.31  | 4.26 |  7.15 | 4.14 | 4.38
-----------------+--------------+--------------+------|-------+------+-----

An examination of the above table shows that throughout the summer of
1903 the precipitation was considerably above normal. The records for
June and August indicate extremely wet months, and the July figures are
slightly above while the September figures are somewhat below normal.
The important fact shown by this table is that disastrous floods may
occur after long periods of abundant rains. It has been observed that
heavy precipitation may be expected after protracted periods of drought.
Such a belief is not altogether fanciful. In the northeastern part of
this country the total amount of precipitation is approximately uniform
from year to year. The variations, comparatively speaking, are not very
wide, and we are therefore led to expect that there are in operation
influences which serve to compensate for excesses or deficiencies in our
annual rainfall. Therefore after the abundant precipitation of the
summer of 1903, an observer might have had some measure of justification
in predicting a normally or abnormally dry fall. In view of the actual
events the fact must be emphasized that in adopting measures to prevent
floods the margin of safety must be extremely wide. The extraordinary
rainfall of those three October days can not with assurance be accepted
as the maximum.

_Precipitation, in inches, in Passaic Valley and vicinity, October 7 to
11, 1903._

---------------------+------------------+------------------+--------
                     |   From--         |    To--          |
Station.             +------+-----------+------+-----------+ Amount.
                     | Day. |  Hour.    | Day. |  Hour.    |
---------------------+------+-----------+------+-----------+--------
Highland region:     |      |           |      |           |
    Dover            |   7  |           |  11  | 9 p.m.    | 10.13
    Little Falls     |   7  | 4 a.m.    |  11  | 7 a.m.    | 14.13
    Charlotteburg    |   7  |           |  10  |           | 12.67
    Ringwood         |   8  | 11 a.m.   |   9  | 8 p.m.    | 10.63
                     |      |           |      |           |
Red Sandstone plain: |      |           |      |           |
    Paterson         |   7  | 5 a.m.    |   9  | 3.45 p.m. | 15.04
    River Vale       |   8  | 8 a.m.    |  11  | 6 p.m.    | 12.55
    Essex Fells      |   8  |           |   9  | 4 p.m.    | 10.66
    Newark           |   8  | 8.30 a.m. |  11  | 5 a.m.    | 12.09
    South Orange     |   8  | 6 a.m.    |  10  | Night     | 10.48
---------------------+------+-----------+------+-----------+--------

The extremely rapid rate of precipitation during the crucial part of the
storm is shown by the recording gages placed at observation stations in
Newark and New York City.

_Hourly records of precipitation at New York observation station,
October 8 and 9, 1903_.

                                  Inches.

Oct. 8, 9 to 10 a. m.              0.08
        10 to 11 a. m.              .02
        11 to 12 m.                 .32
        12 m. to 1 p. m.            .10
        1 to 2 p. m.                .05
        2 to 3 p. m.                .06
        3 to 4 p. m.                .34
        4 to 5 p. m.                .01
        5 to 6 p. m.                .10
        6 to 7 p. m.                .02
        7 to 8 p. m.                .93
        8 to 9 p. m.                .32
        9 to 10 p. m.               .24
        10 to 11 p. m.              .27
        11 to 12 p. m.              .26
     9, 12 to 1 a. m.               .30
Oct. 9, 1 to 2 a. m.               0.25
        2 to 3 a. m.                .75
        3 to 4 a. m.                .34
        4 to 5 a. m.                .46
        5 to 6 a. m.                .41
        6 to 7 a. m.                .29
        7 to 8 a. m.                .51
        8 to 9 a. m.               1.38
        9 to 10 a. m.              1.04
        10 to 11 a. m.              .08
        11 to 12 m.                 .23
        12 m. to 1 p. m.            .24
        1 to 2 p. m.                .31
        2 to 3 p. m.                .32
        3 to 4 p. m.                .01
                                  _____
          Total                    6.92

_Hourly record of precipitation at Newark observation station, October
8-11, 1903_.

                                   Inches.

Oct. 8, 8.25 to 9 a. m.            0.05
        9 to 10 a. m.               .04
        10 to 11 a. m.              .00
        11 to 12 m.                 .00
        12 m. to 1 p. m.            .14
        1 to 2 p. m.                .72
        2 to 3 p. m.                .49
        3 to 4 p. m.                .11
        4 to 5 p. m.               1.05
        5 to 6 p. m.                .45
        6 to 7 p. m.               1.20
        7 to 8 p. m.                .60
        8 to 9 p. m.                .24
        9 to 10 p. m.               .24
        10 to 11 p. m.              .13
        11 to 12 p. m.              .17
     9, 12 to 1 a. m.               .29
        1 to 2 a. m.                .33
        2 to 3 a. m.                .62
        3 to 4 a. m.                .29
        4 to 5 a. m.                .35
        5 to 6 a. m.                .26
        6 to 7 a. m.                .13
Oct. 9, 7 to 8 a. m.               0.29
        8 to 9 a. m.                .69
        9 to 10 a. m.               .69
        10 to 11 a. m.              .39
        11 to 12m.                  .20
        12m. to 1 p. m.             .39
        1 to 2 p. m.                .28
        2 to 3 p. m.                .34
        3 to 3.25 p. m.             .13
        11.50 to 11.55 p. m.        .01
    10, 3 to 4 a. m.                .02
        7 to 8 p. m.                .07
        8 to 9 p. m.                .09
        9 to 10 p. m.               .02
        10 to 11 p. m.              .04
        11 to 12 p. m.              .04
    11, 12 to 1 a. m.               .06
        1 to 2 a. m.                .09
        2 to 3 a. m.                .03
        3 to 4 a. m.                .05
        4 to 5 a. m.                .01
                                  _____
         Total                    11.83

From the above tables it may be seen that the maximum rate of
precipitation per hour was 1.38 inches at New York and 1.2 inches at
Newark. Comparison of the tables on pages 11 and 12 gives an excellent
idea of the intensity of the storm. The amount of water falling in a
single storm is nearly equal to the total for June, a month of unusual
precipitation.

The average of the total amounts of precipitation recorded at the
various stations in the Passaic area is 11.74 inches. These totals are
fairly uniform, none of them varying widely from the average. Therefore
the figure 11.74 represents a conservative mean for a calculation of
total amount of water over the drainage area. Assuming this as the
correct depth, the amount of water which fell on each square mile of the
Passaic drainage area during the storm was 27,273,000 cubic feet, or for
the whole Passaic drainage area over 27,000,000,000 cubic feet, weighing
about 852,000,000 tons. This amount of water would, if properly stored,
fill a lake with twenty times the capacity of Greenwood Lake, would
cover Central Park in New York City, which has an area of about 1.5
square miles, to a height of 645 feet, and, at the present rate of water
consumption in the city of Newark, N. J., would supply the city with
water for twenty years.


DESCENT OF FLOOD.

HIGHLAND TRIBUTARIES AND CENTRAL BASIN.

A description of the descent of flood waters from the highland
tributaries into the Central Basin has been given in Water-Supply Paper
No. 88. It has been shown that the lands of the Central Basin are
covered even in ordinary freshets, and that in the event of a great
flood the waters merely rise higher, being, for the greater extent,
almost quiescent, and beyond the flooding of houses and barns and the
destruction of crops, little damage is done. In other words, the flood
along this portion is not torrential in character.

During the flood of 1903 the water fell so quickly all over this basin,
and was collected so rapidly by the small tributaries, that a lake was
formed at once which served as a cushion against which the raging
torrent of the highland tributaries spent itself without doing
extraordinary damage in that immediate region. Bridges which might have
been lost in a smaller flood like that of 1902 were actually standing in
slack water by the time the mountain torrents appeared in force. These
streams caused much destruction higher up in the mountains, but in the
Central Basin their energy became potential--a gathering of forces to be
loosed upon the lower valley. A discussion of the effects of this will
be taken up under the heading "Damages."

In Water-Supply Paper No. 88 is given the proportion of flood waters
contributed to the Central Basin by each of the tributaries. These
figures were computed from the results of gagings maintained for a
period sufficient to afford this information within a reasonable
approximation. In the case of the storm which resulted in the flood of
1903 it is probable that data referred to can not be safely applied.

The flood of 1902 was the result of abundant rains following upon and
melting a heavy snow. Weather Bureau records show that neither the depth
of the snow nor the amount of subsequent rainfall was uniform, or even
approximately so, over the Passaic drainage area. Indeed, so marked was
the variation that it was believed that the mean rainfall for all the
observation stations on the basin did not bear sufficient relation to
observed run-off to allow of any reliable deductions. In the case of the
October storm, however, the distribution of rainfall was more nearly
uniform, and the run-off from the highland tributaries into the Central
Basin must have been proportionately different in amount from that
indicated in the upland tributary tables in the report of the previous
flood. The data given for the 1902 flood can not, therefore, in the case
of the highland tributaries, be applied to the conditions which obtained
in the flood of 1903.


FLOOD AT MACOPIN DAM.

Mr. Morris R. Sherrerd, engineer of the Newark city water board, has
furnished flow computations over Macopin intake dam, which is the head
of the Newark pipe line. As about 73 per cent of the Pequanac drainage
area lies above this intake, the table on page 16 shows roughly an
equivalent percentage of the flow contributed by Pequanac River to the
Central Basin of the Passaic. In consulting this table it should be
borne in mind that the entire run-off of the drainage area above Macopin
is about 25,000,000 gallons per day more than the amounts presented in
this table. All reservoirs and ponds connected with the conservancy
system of the Newark water supply were filled except that at Oakridge,
which was about 1.5 feet below the crest of the spillway.

_Flow of Pequanac River over Macopin dam, October 7-24, 1903._

[From Newark water department.]

                                   Cubic feet.
Oct. 8, 6 a. m. to 12 m.               240,600
        12m. to 4 p. m.                347,600
         4 to 6 p. m.                  842,200

    8-9, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.         40,110,000

      9, 6 a. m. to 12 m.           51,870,000
        12m. to 1 p. m.             15,100,000
        1 to 5 p. m.                62,430,000
        5 to 10 p. m.               89,040,000
        10 to 11 p. m.              19,520,000

    9-10, 10 p. m. to 8 a. m.      201,350,000

    10, 8 a. m. to 12 m.            75,670,000
        12 m. to 6 p. m.           103,650,000
        6 to 12 p. m.               73,530,000

    11, 12 to 6 a. m.               56,820,000
        6 a. m. to 12m.             41,440,000
        12 m. to 6 p. m.            32,755,000
        6 to 12 p. m.               25,665,000

    12, 12 to 6 a. m.               23,800,000
        6 a. m. to 12m.             20,725,000
        12 m. to 6 p. m.            18,450,000
        6 to 12 p. m.               15,105,000
    13, 12 to 6 a. m.               13,370,000
        6 a. m. to 12 m.            11,890,000
        12 m. to 6 p. m.            11,230,000
        6 to 12 p. m.               11,230,000

    14, 12 to 6 a. m.                9,626,000
        6 a. m. to 12 m.             8,690,000
        12 m. to 6 p. m.             8,022,000
        6 to 12 p. m.                7,353,000

    15, 12 to 6 a. m.                6,952,000
        6 a. m. to 6 p. m.          12,700,000
       15-16, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.    10,965,000

    16, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.          10,025,000
       16-17, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     9,091,000

    17, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           8,690,000
       17-18, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     9,893,000

    18, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.          10,565,000
       18-19, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     8,690,000

    19, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           6,952,000
       19-20, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     6,150,000

    20, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           5,882,000
       20-21, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     5,749,000

    21, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           5,481,000
       21-22, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     5,214,000

    22, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           4,144,000
       22-23, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     3,677,000

    23, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           3,877,000
       23-24, 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.     5,749,000

    24, 6 a. m. to 6 p. m.           5,615,000


FLOOD AT BEATTIE'S DAM, LITTLE FALLS.

The flow over Beattie's dam at Little Falls, has been calculated
according to coefficients used for the same dam in Water-Supply Paper
No. 88. Recorded gage heights show that over the main dam there was a
maximum depth of 11.12 feet, which continued from 2 to 8 p. m., on
October 10, representing a maximum flow of 31,675 cubic feet per second.
(See Pl. I, A.) In the following table is set forth the flow of the
river over Beattie's dam during the flood, and for purposes of
comparison, the figures for the flood period of March, 1902. It should
be borne in mind in consulting this table, that in the case of the flood
of 1903 exact dates and hours are given, while the figures for the 1902
flood represent flow determinations at six-hour intervals, beginning
with the initial rise of that flood.

       *       *       *       *       *

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. I

[Illustration: _A._ BEATTIE'S DAM, LITTLE FALLS, N. J., IN FLOOD.]


[Illustration: _B._ FLOOD-WATER LINES IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PATERSON,
N. J.]

       *       *       *       *       *

_Flood flow over Beattie's dam during floods of 1902 and 1903._

-----------------+------------+------------+
Date and hour.   |    1903.   |   1902.[A] |
-----------------+------------+------------+
                 | Sec.-feet. | Sec.-feet. |
Oct. 8. 12 p.m   |    1,645   |      490   |
     9.  6 a.m.  |    4,235   |      700   |
        12 m.    |    8,560   |    1,350   |
         6 p.m.  |   15,755   |    2,120   |
        12 p.m.  |   23,927   |    3,540   |
     10. 6 a.m.  |   28,370   |    4,250   |
        12 m.    |   31,305   |    4,600   |
         6 p.m.  |   31,675   |    5,000   |
        12 p.m.  |   30,770   |    6,500   |
     11. 6 a.m.  |   29,840   |    7,600   |
        12 m.    |   28,950   |    8,250   |
         6 p.m.  |   26,960   |    9,000   |
        12 p.m.  |   25,530   |   10,200   |
     12. 6 a.m.  |   24,435   |   11,450   |
        12 m.    |   22,625   |   14,700   |
         6 p.m.  |   20,810   |   18,150   |
        12 p.m.  |   18,655   |   20,650   |
     13. 6 a.m.  |   17,930   |   22,200   |
        12 m.    |   16,190   |   22,700   |
         6 p.m.  |   14,900   |   23,400   |
        12 p.m.  |   13,615   |   23,300   |
     14. 6 a.m.  |   12,340   |   22,950   |
         12 m.   |   11,740   |   22,650   |
          6 p.m. |   10,975   |   22,350   |
         12 p.m. |    9,820   |   22,100   |
     15.  6 a.m. |    9,180   |   21,150   |
         12 m.   |    8,330   |   19,900   |
          6 p.m. |    7,700   |   18,900   |
         12 p.m. |    7,005   |   17,350   |
     16.  6 a.m. |    6,695   |   15,750   |
         12 m.   |    5,920   |   13,900   |
          6 p.m. |    5,620   |   13,300   |
         12 p.m. |    5,360   |   11,800   |
     17.  6 a.m. |    4,855   |   10,650   |
         Below full bank      |    8,900   |
             Do.              |    8,500   |
             Do.              |    8,100   |
             Do.              |    8,200   |
             Do.              |    7,000   |
             Do.              |    6,250   |
             Do.              |    5,900   |
             Do.              |    5,300   |
             Do.              |    5,200   |
             Do.              |    4,900   |
-----------------+------------+------------+
[Footnote A: At six-hour intervals.]


FLOOD FLOW OVER DUNDEE DAM.

The flood, as indicated by gage heights at Dundee dam, lasted from about
6.30 p. m. October 8 to about midnight October 18. Although the maximum
recorded gage height was 19 inches higher than during the flood of 1902,
the actual time during which the river was out of its banks was
forty-five hours less than at the earlier flood. Examination of fig. 1
shows that the flood of 1903 was decidedly more intense than that of
1902, the maximum height being reached in 1903 in about sixty hours,
while in 1902 the maximum was not reached until the expiration of about
one hundred and twenty hours.

At Dundee dam the familiar break in the progress of the flood took place
about thirty-five hours after the initial rise. It occurred before the
time of the maximum gage height at the mouth of Pompton River, and there
is nothing to indicate that it was caused, as has been claimed, by slack
water from the Pompton flood being forced back into Great Piece Meadows.
There is no doubt that a part of the Pompton flood was so diverted, but
there was maintained throughout at Little Falls a steady pressure, which
constantly increased to maximum. This flood check, at Dundee dam was
observed in 1902, but it could not be shown to arise from the frequently
mentioned phenomena at the mouth of Pompton River. It is important to
prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it were found to be true, it
could be advantageously taken into consideration in connection with
measures for the prevention of flood damages. As the Pompton had no such
effect upon the flood flow at Dundee dam in two consecutive historic
floods, the writer is inclined to believe that the idea is entirely
erroneous.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Comparative flood run-off at Dundee dam, March,
1902, and October, 1903.]

Since the flow curves in fig. 1 were drawn it has been found by careful
observation that the depressions which occur in the rise of every flood
over Dundee dam are probably due to the carrying away of the flashboards
which are placed upon the dam crest in times of low water. A review of
the gage heights recorded by floods for several years past shows that
the break occurs when the height of water over the dam crest reaches
from 40 to 60 inches. The flashboards used upon this dam are usually 18
inches wide, and as they are supported by iron rods, which are of
approximately the same strength and are placed upon the dam by one crew
of workmen, it may be safely assumed that they are of approximately
equal stability and might be expected to fail almost simultaneously
along the length of the dam crest. So sudden a decrease in the effectual
height of the dam must lower the water on the dam crest markedly, and as
every other probable cause has been eliminated in the case of the recent
flood, the explanation of the check in the progress of floods over this
dam may be safety accepted as due to carrying away of flashboards. This
effect should be apparent in the gage-height records only.

In the flow diagrams (figs. 1 and 2) the effect would not be the same,
but the curve would rise more sharply. Similarly, the measurements at
the beginning are not correct, as they are calculated according to gage
heights measured from the stone crest of the dam. Therefore, a true
flood curve at this point would be much flatter at the beginning and
rise sharply at a period coincident with the carrying away of the
flashboards.

An important difference between the two floods is that the earlier
continued longer, but the later one was much higher. The flood of 1902
was caused by the turning of an equivalent of approximately 6 inches of
precipitation into the main channel during a period of six days. In the
deluge of 1903 there fell 11.74 inches of rain, the greater part of
which was precipitated in 36 hours. Thus it is seen that there was in
the flood of 1903 a larger rainfall during a much shorter period than in
the flood of 1902. Computation shows that the total run-off from the
drainage area above Dundee dam during the earlier flood was
13,379,000,000 cubic feet, and that on account of the frozen condition
of the ground at that time this amount of water represented practically
all of the precipitation. During the flood of 1903 there was a total
run-off for the same area of 14,772,000,000 cubic feet, which represents
about 66 per cent of the observed precipitation. According to these
figures the total amount of run-off in the 1903 flood was only 10 per
cent greater than that in 1902, while the actual flood height during the
1903 flood was 27 per cent higher than during the flood of 1902. The
above comparison shows, in a striking manner, the effect of the
condition of the surface. In the case of the later flood we had, as has
been stated in previous pages, an area which had been well watered
during the previous summer, and the observed ground-water levels were
fairly high. There was, however, sufficient storage capacity in the
basin to retain about 34 per cent of the precipitation occurring between
October 7 and 11. This water must have been largely absorbed by the
earth. The general relations of the floods of 1903 and 1902 can
therefore be briefly stated as follows:

_General relations of floods of 1903 and 1902._

-----+--------------+--------------+-------------+------------->
     |Average       |  Duration of | Maximum     | Total
     |precipitation.|precipitation.| flood flow. | run-off.
     |              |              |             |
-----+--------------+--------------+-------------+------------->
     |  _Inches._   |   _Days._    |_Sec.-feet._ | _Cubic feet._
1902 |      6       |      6       |   24,800    |13,379,000,000
1903 |     11.74    |      3       |   35,700    |14,772,000,000
-----+--------------+--------------+-------------+------------->

<-----------+-------------
Run-off.    | Duration of
            | flood at
            | Dundee dam.
<-----------+-------------
 _Per cent._| _Hours._
  [B]100    |    270
     66     |    225
<-----------+-------------
[Footnote B: Approximately]


In the following table and fig. 2 are recorded gage heights taken at
hourly intervals during the crucial part of the flood and the amount of
water expressed in cubic feet per second flowing over the crest of the
dam at each gage height.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Diagram of flood flow at Dundee dam, flood of
1903.]

_Flow of Passaic River at Dundee dam, 1903._

-------------------------------------------
Date and hour.       | Gage. |   Flow.
---------------------+-------+-------------
                     |_Feet._| _Sec.-feet._
 Oct. 8. 6.30 a. m.  |  0.66 |      780
         1 p. m.     |  1.50 |    3,175
         6.30 p. m.  |  2.17 |    5,500
         8 p. m.     |  2.59 |    7,300
         10 p. m.    |  3.00 |    9,125
         11 p. m.    |  3.33 |   10,700
         12 p. m.    |  3.50 |   11,525
      9. 1 a. m.     |  3.50 |   11,550
         2.30 a. m.  |  3.59 |   11,950
         4 a. m.     |  3.50 |   11,525
         6 a. m.     |  3.66 |   12,300
         8.30 a. m.  |  3.75 |   12,775
         9.40 a. m.  |  4.00 |   14,075
         10.55 a. m. |  4.66 |   17,650
         12 m.       |  4.75 |   18,200
         1 p. m.     |  5.25 |   21,050
         2 p. m.     |  5.37 |   21,750
         3 p. m.     |  5.45 |   22,250
         3.45 p. m.  |  5.37 |   21,750
         4.25 p. m.  |  5.29 |   21,300
         5 p. m.     |  5.23 |   20,950
         5.45 p. m.  |  5.19 |   20,700
         6.30 p. m.  |  5.17 |   20,600
         7 p. m.     |  5.11 |   20,250
         8 p. m.     |  5.13 |   20,350
         9 p. m.     |  5.17 |   20,600
         10 p. m.    |  5.21 |   20,750
         11 p. m.    |  5.27 |   21,150
         12 p. m.    |  5.4  |   21,950
     10. 1 a. m.     |  5.5  |   22,500
         2 a. m.     |  5.66 |   23,500
         3 a. m.     |  5.73 |   23,900
         4 a. m.     |  5.91 |   25,050
         5 a. m.     |  6.00 |   25,650
         6 a. m.     |  6.2  |   26,900
         7 a. m.     |  6.33 |   27,700
         8 a. m.     |  6.4  |   28,150
         9 a. m.     |  6.6  |   29,400
         10 a. m.    |  6.83 |   30,750
         11 a. m.    |  6.89 |   31,250
         11.35 a. m. |  6.97 |   31,750
         12 m.       |  6.93 |   31,450
         1 p. m.     |  6.95 |   31,650
         2 p. m.     |  7.13 |   32,800
         3 p. m.     |  7.19 |   33,150
         4 p. m.     |  7.25 |   33,500
         5 p. m.     |  7.39 |   34,450
         6 p. m.     |  7.39 |   34,450
         7 p. m.     |  7.40 |   34,500
         8 p. m.     |  7.54 |   35,350
         9 p. m.     |  7.62 |   35,800
         10 p. m.    |  7.60 |   35,700
         11 p. m.    |  7.57 |   35,500
         12 p. m.    |  7.43 |   34,650
     11. 1 a. m.     |  7.47 |   34,950
         2 a. m.     |  7.5  |   35,100
         3 a. m.     |  7.42 |   34,700
         4 a. m.     |  7.3  |   34,450
         5 a. m.     |  7.3  |   34,150
         6 a. m.     |  7.3  |   34,150
         7 a. m.     |  7.37 |   34,300
         8 a. m.     |  7.33 |   34,100
         9 a. m.     |  7.31 |   33,900
         10 a. m.    |  7.23 |   33,450
         11 a. m.    |  7.25 |   32,525
         12 m.       |  7.18 |   33,100
         1 p. m.     |  7.18 |   33,100
         2 p. m.     |  7.17 |   33,300
         3 p. m.     |  7.08 |   32,450
         4 p. m.     |  7.00 |   31,950
         5 p. m.     |  6.96 |   31,700
         6 p. m.     |  6.89 |   31,250
         7 p. m.     |  6.86 |   31,050
         8 p. m.     |  6.83 |   30,850
         9 p. m.     |  6.79 |   30,600
         10 p. m.    |  6.81 |   30,700
         11 p. m.    |  6.73 |   30,200
         12 p. m.    |  6.71 |   30,100
     12. 1 a. m.     |  6.63 |   29,600
         2 a. m.     |  6.59 |   29,350
         3 a. m.     |  6.55 |   29,100
         4 a. m.     |  6.51 |   28,800
         5 a. m.     |  6.42 |   28,250
         6 a. m.     |  6.42 |   28,250
         7 a. m.     |  6.39 |   28,100
         8 a. m.     |  6.39 |   28,100
         9 a. m.     |  6.25 |   27,200
         10 a. m.    |  6.21 |   26,950
         11 a. m.    |  6.17 |   26,700
         12 m.       |  6.05 |   26,100
         1 p. m.     |  6.06 |   26,050
         2 p. m      |  5.93 |   25,200
         3 p. m.     |  5.89 |   24,950
         4 p. m.     |  5.87 |   24,800
         5 p. m.     |  5.79 |   24,300
         6 p. m      |  5.77 |   24,150
         7 p. m.     |  5.75 |   24,250
         8 p. m.     |  5.73 |   23,950
         9 p. m      |  5.63 |   23,300
         10 p. m.    |  5.59 |   23,100
         11 p. m.    |  5.54 |   22,750
         12 p. m.    |  5.49 |   22,450
     13. 1 a. m.     |  5.44 |   22,200
         2 a. m.     |  5.39 |   21,000
         3 a. m.     |  5.35 |   21,650
         4 a. m.     |  5.30 |   21,350
         5 a. m.     |  5.24 |   21,000
         6 a. m.     |  5.21 |   20,850
         7 a. m.     |  5.16 |   20,525
         8 a. m.     |  5.13 |   20,350
         9 a. m.     |  5.08 |   20,100
         10 a. m.    |  5.04 |   19,800
         11 a. m.    |  5.00 |   19,560
         12 m.       |  4.94 |   19,200
         1 p. m.     |  4.89 |   18,900
         2 p. m.     |  4.85 |   18,700
         3 p. m.     |  4.84 |   18,650
         4 p. m.     |  4.75 |   18,200
         5 p. m.     |  4.71 |   17,900
         6 p. m.     |  4.66 |   17,650
         7 p. m.     |  4.64 |   17,550
         8 p. m.     |  4.59 |   17,250
         9 p. m.     |  4.54 |   17,000
         10 p. m.    |  4.51 |   16,750
         11 p. m.    |  4.49 |   16,700
         12 p. m.    |  4.37 |   16,000
     14. 1 a. m.     |  4.37 |   16,000
         2 a. m.     |  4.35 |   15,925
         3 a. m.     |  4.35 |   15,925
         4 a. m.     |  4.33 |   15,800
         5 a. m.     |  4.34 |   15,850
         6 a. m.     |  4.31 |   15,700
         7 a. m.     |  4.27 |   15,500
         8 a. m.     |  4.25 |   15,300
         9 a. m.     |  4.17 |   14,900
         10 a. m.    |  4.08 |   14,500
         11 a. m.    |  4.05 |   14,325
         12 m.       |  4.02 |   14,150
         1 p. m.     |  4.02 |   14,150
         2 p. m.     |  4.01 |   14,100
         3 p. m.     |  3.97 |   13,900
         4 p. m.     |  3.94 |   13,750
         5 p. m.     |  3.85 |   13,300
         6 p. m.     |  3.75 |   12,775
         7 p. m.     |  3.75 |   12,775
         9 p. m.     |  3.71 |   12,550
         12 p. m.    |  3.66 |   12,300
     15. 6.30 a. m.  |  3.50 |   11,525
         1 p. m.     |  3.41 |   11,050
         6.30 p. m.  |  3.41 |   11,050
     16. 6.30 a. m.  |  3.00 |    9,125
         1 p. m.     |  3.00 |    9,125
         6.30 p. m.  |  2.91 |    8,700
     17. 6.30 a. m.  |  2.5  |    6,900
         1 p. m.     |  2.5  |    6,900
         6.30 p. m.  |  2.5  |    6,900
     18. 6.30 a. m.  |  2.5  |    6,900
         1 p.m.      |  2.41 |    6,500
         6.30 p. m.  |  2.33 |    6,200
     19. 6.30 a. m.  |  2    |    4,900
         1 p. m.     |  2    |    4,900
         6.30 p. m.  |  2    |    4,900



DAMAGES.

GENERAL STATEMENTS.


Estimates of flood damages are always approximations only. It is
possible to determine with a fair degree of assurance the cost of
replacing structures which have been carried away, to estimate the value
of goods destroyed--especially if they be commodities stored in shops or
warehouses--to calculate the amount of operatives' wages lost, and in
the case of general mercantile business to estimate the damages incurred
through consequent reduction of trade. Destruction by flood, however
vast, is incomplete. It differs materially from destruction by fire, for
often destructible property is of value after floods have passed.
Buildings which are inundated still retain value, and many kinds of
merchandise are not totally destroyed. Therefore when the amount of
damages is calculated there is always to be taken into consideration the
fact that a part of the material which has been flooded can be
reclaimed, and retains some proportion, at least, of the value which it
had previously possessed. Furthermore, damages by flood enter into
practically every detail of social and business affairs. There are
losses which are severe to one or more persons, and which can not be
appreciated except by those whom the floods have actually overtaken.
Therefore estimations of flood damages can be only approximate, and
while a measure of accuracy may be reached with respect to a part of the
losses, there remains a necessity for approximation which can not be
classed with carefully computed damages along other lines.


HIGHLAND TRIBUTARIES.

Along the three northern tributaries, the Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac,
and at their confluence with the Pompton, the destruction by flood
waters was far greater than along the Rockaway, Whippany, and upper
Passaic, or in that area described as the Central Basin. In the drainage
areas of the three tributaries last mentioned the waters were higher
than in the flood of 1902, but the general effects were of the same
nature, and consisted principally of flooded lands, houses, and
washouts. There were few radical cases of complete destruction like
those which marked the course of the flood in the northern tributaries.
The principal interest is therefore confined to the Pompton and the
three highland tributaries which discharge into it.

_Ramapo River._--The greatest destruction was along the Ramapo. It is
the largest of the upland branches, and was therefore the heaviest
contributor to the main stream. Throughout the flood period the stream
was especially violent, causing great apprehension in the lower valley.

The destruction along several stretches of the valley was almost
complete. Nearly all the dams failed, and every bridge across the river,
with one exception, was carried away. Some small villages were swept
bare, and the damages to realty value and personal property were
excessive.

It was only by strenuous measures that the dam impounding the waters of
Tuxedo Lake was saved. If this had failed the destruction along the
entire course of the river, even to the cities in the lower valley,
would have been enormously increased.

The dam at Cranberry Pond, in Arden, failed in the early part of the
storm, the flood waters disabling the Tuxedo electric-light plant and
inundating the Italian settlements along the river below. The failure of
the dam conserving the waters of Nigger Pond, which lies at the head of
a small tributary emptying into the Ramapo below Tuxedo, resulted in the
inundation of Ramapo village. The village of Sloatsburg was practically
obliterated.

The damage at Pompton Lakes was especially severe. During the early part
of the flood the timber dam of the Ludlum Steel and Iron Company, which
raised the water to a height of 27 feet, and afforded 7.04 horsepower
per foot fall, was carried away with a part of the headrace. (See Pl.
II, _A._) This sudden emptying of Pompton Lake, an expanse of 196 acres
(see Pl. II, _B_), was extremely destructive to Pompton Plains, and the
destruction of the dams above on Ramapo River, which followed some time
after the bursting of the lower dam, refilled Pompton Lake above its
former level, and caused greater damage than that which resulted from
the failure of Pompton dam itself. The large iron bridge just below the
dam was carried away, with the stores of the Ludlum Steel and Iron
Company. The river front along this company's property was destroyed,
along with coal docks at the head of Morris Canal feeder. The channel of
the river below the dam is filled with débris, which will raise the
height of the water in the tailrace, and unless it is cleared will
diminish the available power at the iron works. It has been
authoritatively announced, however, that the power facilities will not
be restored, as the Ludlum Steel and Iron Company is preparing to use
steam power exclusively.

_Pequanac and Wanaque rivers._--Along Pequanac River the principal
damage consisted of washed-out roads and destroyed bridges. The large
ponded area in this basin was practically full at the time of the flood,
and, as measurements at Macopin dam show, the run-off per square mile
was extremely large. In the Wanaque drainage area the storage facilities
afforded at Greenwood Lake were probably useful in holding back a part
of the water for a brief period, but the damages along the stream are
comparable to those of the Pequanac.

The effect of the flow from these two streams, added to that of the
Ramapo, was particularly disastrous over the Pompton Plains. Three

       *       *       *       *       *

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. II

[Illustration: _A._ POMPTON LAKES DAM AND WATER FRONT OF LUDLUM STEEL
AND IRON COMPANY.]

[Illustration: _B._ DRY BED OF POMPTON LAKE.]

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. III

[Illustration: FLOOD DISTRICT OF PATERSON, N. J.]

       *       *       *       *       *

bridges at Pompton station, over Wanaque and Pequanac rivers, were
carried away, and in the end one bridge only remained over Pompton
River, that at Pequanac station. In all about 100 houses were inundated
on Pompton Plains, and the damage to roads and culverts was particularly
severe.

The total loss in the drainage area of Pompton River was $350,000.


CENTRAL BASIN.

Over the Central Basin there was the usual impounding of flood waters,
but the effects were not materially different from those described in
the report on the flood of 1902. The damage along this basin from floods
of this character is accumulative by reason of the fact that the
presence of water over the land for so long a period kills the desirable
feed grasses and fosters in their place the coarse meadow grass. This
effect has been observed for some years, particularly since the flood of
1896. It is estimated that over the Central Basin the damage to crops
and arable land alone arising from the floods of 1902 and 1903 amounts
to $300,000. A statement of the damage arising from the later flood can
not separately be made, as its effect upon the fertility of the meadow
lands can not be determined without the experience of a planting season.


LOWER VALLEY.

The flow of the stream through the constricted channel at Little Falls
and on to Great Falls at Paterson is given in the weir measurements on
page 17. It was attended by comparatively large damages, the features of
which were not materially different from those described in the previous
report. The pumping station of the East Jersey Water Company, situated
just below Little Falls dam, did not suffer as severely as during the
previous flood, by reason of the fact that extensive and effective
barricades were placed so as to keep a large part of the water away from
the pumps. This was not accomplished in the flood of 1902. The total
damage in this district amounted to nearly $200,000.

The channel contours were changed somewhat in this portion of the
stream. In the river at the pumping station of the East Jersey Water
Company there was completed a somewhat interesting cycle of changes,
described in the following extract of a letter from Mr. G. Waldo Smith,
chief engineer for the New York aqueduct commissioners, and formerly
engineer and superintendent of the East Jersey Water Company:

"No better illustration of the old adage, 'The river claims its own,'
could be given than that offered by the action of Passaic River at
Little Falls, New Jersey, at the point where the works of the East
Jersey Water Company have been constructed. These works were built
between 1897 and 1900. In the course of the work the river channel for a
distance of several thousand feet down stream from the power house was
drained and improved, so that the head on the wheels at the ordinary
stage of the river was increased about 6 feet. From the time this
improvement was completed to March, 1902, through the action of the
ordinary flow of water and moderate floods, this head had been reduced
about one-third. The great freshet of March, 1902, cut off about another
third, and the recent flood has completed the cycle and entirely wiped
out the benefit due to the river improvement, and the water at the
pumping station stands now at almost precisely the same level that it
stood before any improvements were undertaken. New bars were formed in
approximately the same location as they existed before, and, so far as
possible, except for the changed conditions brought about by the
building of the power station, the condition of the river is not
dissimilar to that existing when the work was commenced.

"In this connection it might be well to state that a New Jersey drainage
commission, in blasting out a channel below the Little Falls dam some
years ago, dumped a considerable portion of the excavation in the deep
water under the Morris Canal viaduct.

"The action of the two great floods, March, 1902, and October, 1903, has
washed a large part of this material out of this deep hole and piled it
up in the river about 300 feet below where the river widens, and reduces
the force of the current.

"I have made no estimate of the amount of material deposited in the
river, but offhand should say that it would be at least 100,000 yards."

_Paterson._--The flood district in the city of Paterson (see Pl. III)
comprised 196 acres and involved the temporary obstruction of 10.3 miles
of streets. Along the streets close to the river banks the height of
water was 12 feet, sufficient to inundate the first floors of all the
buildings (see Pl. I, _B_), and in some cases to reach to the second
floor. During this flood period householders who remained at their homes
were compelled to use boats, while in the more exposed places the danger
was too great to admit of remaining, and at one time 1,200 persons were
housed and fed in the National Guard armory at Paterson.

The bridges crossing Passaic River in Passaic, Essex, and Bergen
counties were almost completely destroyed, and the damage amounted to
$654,811. Within the limits of Paterson, below Great Falls, all of the
highway bridges except two were either severely damaged or completely
carried away. West street bridge, the first below the falls, was a Melan
concrete, steel-arch structure, built in 1897, and costing $65,000. It
was composed of three spans, each about 90 feet long. The flood
practically split two spans longitudinally, the upstream side of each,
equal to about one-third of the width of the bridge, being carried

       *       *       *       *       *

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. IV

[Illustration: _A._ WASHOUT AT SPRUCE STREET, PATERSON, N. J.]

[Illustration: _B._ RIVER STREET, PATERSON, N. J., AFTER FLOOD.]

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. V

[Illustration: _A._ EFFECTS OF FLOOD IN MILL DISTRICT, PATERSON, N. J.]

[Illustration: _B._ THE WRECK OF A HOTEL IN PATERSON, N. J.]

       *       *       *       *       *

away. This structure was built to conform to the established grades of
streets on both sides of the river and was completely inundated, forming
a barrier for floating débris and practically making a dam in the river.
Main street bridge is a 3-span, steel-arch structure, which was
completely covered during the flood, but was only slightly injured. Arch
street bridge, built in 1902 to take the place of a structure carried
away by the March flood, was a concrete-arch bridge of three spans. It
was undermined at the north pier and collapsed, being practically
destroyed. The original cost of this bridge was $34,000. Its piers
presented a serious obstruction to the flow of the stream, especially as
the channel is very narrow at this point. In addition to this, the
bridge was of low grade and admirably adapted for deterring flood flow.
Below Arch street bridge all the other structures crossing the Passaic
were of iron and were carried away, with the exception of Sixth avenue
and Wesel bridges. Those destroyed were designated as follows: Straight
street, Hillman street, Moffat, Wagaraw, Fifth avenue, East Thirty-third
street, and Broadway bridges. All these structures were built too low,
and were inundated during the early stages of the flood.

The damage to real property, stock, and household goods in the city of
Paterson amounted, according to certified returns, to about $2,700,000.
It is impossible to secure correct figures, because merchants and
manufacturers refuse to give details of losses, fearing that the
publication thereof would affect their credit. General ideas concerning
the destruction by the flood can be gathered from Pls. I, _B_, III, IV,
V, and VI.

_Passaic and vicinity._--Below the city of Paterson destruction was as
complete as in Paterson, although the damage was not as great because
the improvements were not as valuable. Damage to property, exclusive of
public works, in this region, amounted to about $1,250,000. This
estimate does not take into consideration losses by manufacturers
arising from destruction of raw materials or finished products. The
flood was about 4-1/2 feet higher than that of 1902. (See Pl. VII, _A._)

On the right bank of Passaic River, in the city of Passaic, the damage
was severe, especially to manufacturing plants. In addition to the flood
in the Passaic itself, the bursting of Morris Canal, a few miles east of
Passaic, flooded Wesel Brook, which in Passaic is used as the tail-race
of the Dundee Power Company. The capacity of Wesel Brook channel is
limited, and the extraordinary amount of water which was turned into it
carried away all culverts and bridges from Richfield to Passaic.

Below Passaic, along the river front of Essex County, the damages to
bridges amounted to $50,000. (See Pl. VII, _B._) The loss due to
washouts in roads throughout the county amounted to $15,000. The
effects of the flood were apparent along the entire length of the river
and into Newark Bay. The damage from inundation in Newark and vicinity
amounted to $753,199.

The figures above given with reference to damage along Passaic River are
uncommonly accurate, being for the most part the result of a
house-to-house canvass by the northern New Jersey flood commission. As
has been stated above, tradesmen are reluctant to give full details with
reference to their losses through fear of injured credit. Roughly
estimating the damage as a whole, and taking into consideration factors
which were given to the writer confidentially, the damage throughout the
drainage area from this flood will amount to not less than $7,000,000.


PREVENTIVE MEASURES.

GENERAL DISCUSSION.

In the consideration of means of preventing damages by floods every plan
proposed falls under one of two general heads--the storage of flood
waters or an increase in the capacity of the streams.

The first plan involves the construction at selected localities of
reservoirs of sufficient size to hold all or a greater part of the
waters which run over the surface during and after storms. This plan is
not practicable except where valleys or plains are inclosed by high
ridges and these ridges approach sufficiently near each other to admit
of the economical construction of a bank or dam across the gorge or bed
of the stream which flows through, so that the inclosure will be
complete and form a water-tight basin. Where such a reservoir exists the
water can be held back and gradually let down through properly provided
gates so that the channel will not be flooded.

For flood purposes alone it would be necessary to provide reservoirs of
sufficient capacity to contain the run-off waters resulting from the
largest storms. With such provisions it would be necessary to entirely
empty the reservoir as soon as possible after a storm had passed and
leave its full capacity available for the next storm. It is therefore
better, wherever possible, to provide a reservoir capacity considerably
larger than that represented by the run-off from the heaviest storms, so
that water may be stored for use as power or domestic supply. With such
provision it is necessary merely to draw from the reservoir water to a
depth equivalent to the stream run-off in the drainage area above.

The second plan for prevention of flood damages involves provisions for
letting the flood water out rapidly by removing obstructions to its flow
by straightening and deepening the channels and providing long
embankments, dikes, or levees which rise above the ordinary river level
to a height exceeding that of the stream during its highest floods. This
plan is most generally followed in the case of large rivers like

       *       *       *       *       *

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. VI

[Illustration: _A._ DEVASTATION IN HEBREW QUARTER, PATERSON, N. J.]

[Illustration: _B._ A COMMON EXAMPLE OF FLOOD DAMAGE.]

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 92 PL. VII

[Illustration: _A._ INUNDATED LANDS AT PASSAIC, N. J.]

[Illustration: _B._ UNDAMAGED BRIDGE ACROSS PASSAIC RIVER AFTER PARTIAL
SUBSIDENCE OF FLOOD.]

       *       *       *       *       *

the Mississippi, where the contributing area is enormous and the
conservation of the waters would be impracticable even if the nature of
the country would admit of the construction of reservoirs. In
Switzerland, where the torrents occasioned by the rapidly melting snows
are especially destructive, the flood waters are confined by a series of
parallel dikes on each side of the river, which have the effect of
dividing the flow into several parallel streams. As the main river
channel fills and overflows the inner dikes, the overflow water collects
into the first series of parallel channels, and when a height is reached
at which the second dikes are overflowed the water collects into the
third, and so on. This gives an enormous carrying capacity, the limit of
which is approached slowly, and therefore abundant opportunity is
afforded for preparation upon the part of the riparian owner.

The drainage basin of Passaic River is admirably adapted to the
development of the conservation system. At its headwaters in the
mountains of northern New Jersey are numerous sites for reservoirs. The
comparatively limited area draining into Passaic River makes such a
scheme relatively inexpensive. On the other hand there is abundant
opportunity for effective work in removing obstructions and
straightening and deepening the channel of the lower river. So that, all
things considered, the prevention of flood damages in the Passaic Basin
can be best accomplished by a combination of the two general methods
above outlined.


LOWER VALLEY IMPROVEMENTS.

The channel of Passaic River below Great Falls, at Paterson, is of
limited capacity. To anyone making an inspection, especially within the
city of Paterson, it is readily apparent that the river bed has for
years been considered a legitimate field for encroachment. Owners of
lands fronting on the river have increased their holdings by filling in
beyond the channel line. Buildings have been erected upon these tracts
and the builders have not hesitated to extend retaining walls still
farther into the river bed. Refuse from the city's streets, light and
unstable in character, has been freely deposited upon the bank to be
carried out into the river. Thus the channel has been constricted
laterally, the bottom raised, and there is left for the flood waters no
alternative than that of extending themselves in the upward direction.
It would seem that this, at least, should have been unobstructed. Such,
however, is not the case.

The bridges across the Passaic have apparently been erected without
reference to channel capacity. The authorities have evidently considered
it more important to retain established approach levels than to provide
proper capacity for river water. As an example the following instance
may be cited: During the flood of 1902 a steel truss bridge across the
river in Paterson was carried away. The point of crossing was one of
the narrowest places in the stream and it should have been clear to
everyone that the space beneath the bridge was not large enough to carry
flood waters. It should have been apparent that a new bridge, if erected
at that point, must be higher than the old one, to be thoroughly safe.
Notwithstanding, the new bridge was erected at the level of the old one,
and in addition to this, it was a concrete arch structure, and the great
piers and low arch springs reduced the former channel capacity about 15
per cent. This new bridge, as might be expected, collapsed during the
October flood.

Along the entire course of the stream in the lower valley we find a
continuation of instances of unreasonable encroachment and
ill-considered bridge engineering, and there is opportunity for
relieving a large part of the purely local obstructions by straightening
the channel at chosen points.

Although this matter has not been thoroughly investigated it is readily
apparent to one traversing the river bank that considerable relief may
be secured in this manner. Damage, however, can not be prevented by this
means alone. It would, of course, be possible to erect high and
resistant levees along the entire course of the river, but this would be
extremely expensive and would destroy the water front for commercial
purposes. In fact, such a plan is quite visionary. At the present time
there are no obstructions in lower Passaic River the removal of which
would give relief in the event of floods like those of 1902 and 1903.
When one considers the amount of water which was carried into the lower
valley, the heights which it reached, and the area which it inundated,
the futility of any local improvement except levee construction is
emphasized. The present channel of the river will not carry without
damage the amount of water recently thrown into it, and while it is
important to provide regulations which will in the future prevent
encroachment, and which will correct the evils now present along the
channel, these measures can not, operating of themselves, give relief
from flood devastation. Immunity from flood destruction in the Passaic
must come, if it ever comes, from the construction of flood-catchment
reservoirs in the uplands.

It is not necessary to spend any great amount of time in determining the
cause of floods upon the Passaic. A review of the flood history of this
river shows that in every case floods arise from extraordinary
precipitation. High waters occur through the melting of snows and during
periods of abundant rain. The heavy floods which have been regarded as
extraordinary are clearly the result of unusual conditions of
precipitation. The river carries the usual flood waters, and no damage
is done until the water poured into it is far beyond its carrying
capacity. Therefore the provisions which are made for preventing damage
by floods must, if they be effective, be designed to meet extraordinary
conditions, and means which would prove effectual in ordinary cases
will not stand the test. In order to appreciate the extent of the flood
in the lower valley it is necessary to visit the flooded area and
observe the points of flood height. Unless one does this he will be very
readily deceived when he considers means of flood prevention.


FLOOD CATCHMENT.

Among the highland tributaries of Passaic River there are three
principal areas where storage reservoirs for flood catchment may be
placed: (1) The Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac drainage basins, from
which the waters are carried into the central basin by Pompton River;
(2) the Rockaway drainage basin, and (3) the upper Passaic drainage
basin. The remaining principal tributary of Passaic River, the Whippany,
is not well provided with storage reservoir sites. The combined capacity
of catchment reservoirs which could be constructed in these drainage
areas is considerably more than the volume of the heaviest known
rainfall, that of October 8-11, 1903.

In the description of reservoir possibilities in the following pages the
data with reference to many of the basins are computed from planimeter
and other measurements, the United States Geological Survey topographic
maps being used as a base. The measurements are therefore not of refined
accuracy but suffice for the purpose in view--that of showing flood
catchment possibilities.


POMPTON RESERVOIR.

There are in the Pompton system several sites on Ramapo, Wanaque, and
Pequanac rivers which, if utilized, would afford sufficient storage for
flood catchment purposes, but the entire flow of the river system may be
conserved in what has been described as the Pompton reservoir. This
project was first presented by Mr. C. C. Vermeule in the year 1884, the
details being described at some length in the Engineering News, of April
12 of that year, pages 169-171. In this article Mr. Vermeule presented
the possibilities of Pompton reservoir for use as an additional water
supply for the city of New York, at the time when the Quaker Bridge
reservoir on the Croton watershed was being considered. A few pertinent
quotations from this article may be of interest:

     This basin, subdivided by minor ridges which cross it, furnishes
     several admirable sites for large storage reservoirs, with
     catchments from 50 to 400 square miles in area, lying above on the
     primitive rock of the Highlands. About 6 miles of the northeastern
     end of the basin is cut off by Hook Mountain, a small ridge of trap
     which crosses it from east to west, inclosing a basin 21 square
     miles in area, known as Pompton Plains, having its outlet at
     Mountain View, 5 miles west of Paterson, at a pass in Hook
     Mountain, through which the Pompton River flows to join the
     Passaic, 2 miles below. This pass is the gateway by which the
     Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, the New York and
     Greenwood Lake Railway, and the Morris Canal enter the plains. The
     basin is also crossed near its head, above Pompton, by the New
     York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad.

     The Pompton River has a drainage area above Mountain View of 420
     square miles. It is formed near the head of the basin by the
     confluence of the Pequanac from the northwest, the Wanaque from the
     north, and the Ramapo from the northeast. * * *

     The entire flow from this watershed may be stored by building a dam
     across the gap at Mountain View and converting Pompton Plains into
     a great lake covering an area of 21 square miles. The elevation of
     the river at the gap is 168 feet. The slopes in the basin being
     gentle up to an elevation of 220 feet and abrupt beyond it, it will
     be advisable to take this as the minimum or low-water level of our
     reservoir. It is generally estimated that 25 per cent of the volume
     of the mean annual rain on a given catchment is sufficient
     reservoir capacity to fully utilize the flood flows. We have long
     series of observations of rainfall at three points, which may be
     taken to fairly represent the Passaic catchment. At Newark the mean
     annual rainfall is 46.2 inches, at Paterson, 50 inches, and at Lake
     Hopatcong, 42. The last being on the Highlands, like most of our
     watersheds, is perhaps the safest to use. Now, 25 per cent of 42.5
     inches, 10.62 inches, which, on 420 square miles, give a volume of
     10,362,000,000 cubic feet, the necessary capacity of reservoir.

     By raising our reservoir to 240 feet when full we secure a capacity
     of 10,493,000,000 cubic feet, or ample to utilize the heaviest
     floods of the watershed. This gives a beautiful sheet of water 21.1
     square miles in area, with bold, rocky shores, and a depth at dam
     of 72 feet. We secure the above capacity by uncovering but 22 per
     cent of the reservoir bottom; and, as we shall presently see, we
     shall rarely need more than half this storage, and probably not
     oftener than once in ten years will we expose over 10 per cent of
     the area. By building side dams to keep certain flats always flowed
     this may be reduced to 5 per cent; and this area will be pretty
     evenly distributed around 36 miles of uninhabited shore line,
     leaving the reservoir open to no valid sanitary objections. On the
     contrary, by relieving the remainder of the Passaic Basin of the
     flood waters of the Pompton, which now flow large areas of flat
     land during wet seasons, the sanitary condition of the valley would
     be much improved.

In constructing this reservoir Mr. Vermeule stated that the following
work would be necessary:

     The removal of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad from
     the basin by changing the alignment for 6 miles. It may be done
     without increase of length or detriment to the alignment.

     Three and one-fourth miles of the Morris Canal must be rebuilt. No
     engineering difficulties are involved.

     Of the New York and Greenwood Lake Railway, 9 miles would have to
     be rebuilt.

     The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad would be slightly
     shifted or raised for 3-3/4 miles.

     A dam 2,400 feet long and 80 feet in height, with tunnels,
     wasteweir, and accessory works would be required at Mountain View.
     The situation is such that an ample wasteweir may be built at a
     low-side dam on the solid rock of Hook Mountain remote from the
     dam, and outlets may be had by tunneling the same ridge. Hence the
     dam may be a plain, heavy earthen embankment; built, of course,
     with every precaution but subject to less than the usual dangers of
     such works. However, a masonry dam might readily be substituted.

     There would be 14,000 acres of arable land, swamps, and rough
     mountain land flowed.

     The works are estimated to cost as follows:

     Railroad and canal diversions                $505,000
     Dam and accessory works                     1,162,000
     Land damages                                1,400,000
                                                 _________
     Total                                       3,067,000

A recomputation of the drainage area above Mountain View, made by the
northern New Jersey flood commission, shows that it is 380 square miles
in extent. It was decided by this commission that the construction of
this reservoir would be the most approved method of preventing
disastrous floods in the lower valley of the Passaic. By raising a dam
to a height of 202 feet above tide, 8 inches of water on the drainage
area above might be held back, which, it was believed, would be a
sufficient maximum for flood catchment. With this amount of storage the
estimates of the flood commission showed that the remainder of the
drainage area would not turn a sufficient amount of water into the lower
valley channel to cause flood damages.

It was also demonstrated by the flood commission that by increasing the
height of the dam an opportunity would be afforded for conserving water,
and at the maximum height of 220 feet above tide sufficient storage
capacity would be available to provide 5,000 horsepower at Little Falls,
Great Falls, and Dundee dam throughout all dry seasons. The value of
such a storage reservoir for municipal water-supply purposes is
self-evident.

The cost of Mountain View reservoir would be about $3,340,000. Developed
for flood catchment with the spillway of the dam at 202 feet above sea
level the area of the reservoir would be 13.4 square miles, and the
storage capacity 7,200,000,000 cubic feet.


RAMAPO SYSTEM.

Along the Ramapo Valley there are alternative propositions, one of which
involves the construction of a dam below Darlington and another across
the head of Pompton Lake.

In either case the water might be raised to the 300-foot contour, and if
the dam across Pompton Lake were constructed a continuous lake would be
formed extending 10-1/2 miles to Hillburn, N. Y. The improvement in
either case would be positive, for as the country surrounding is hilly
or mountainous it affords excellent opportunity for the location of
summer homes and parks, the lake being a potent factor in beautifying
the situation and increasing the value of the surrounding region. There
are, nevertheless, several things to be taken into consideration, the
most important of which are the improvements which have been made by
wealthy residents along the valley where it has already been developed
as a summer resort.

By the construction of a dam at Darlington 1,100 feet long and 70 feet
high, the water would be raised to the 300-foot contour. The reservoir
would have a water area of 2,064 acres, and the approximate storage
capacity of 2,325,000,000 cubic feet.

A dam across the head of Pompton Lake 2,850 feet long and 100 feet high
would raise the surface of the proposed lake to the 300-foot contour.
This reservoir would have an area of 6.19 square miles and a capacity
of 6,300,000,000 cubic feet, equal to 17.5 inches run-off from the
drainage area. Here the measure of safety is wide, and if there were
drawn from the lake an amount of water equal to 12 inches on the
drainage area there would still be 5.5 inches which could be used for
compensating purposes.

The construction of either one of the above-described reservoirs would
involve interstate complications, as the 300-foot contour in Ramapo
Valley includes a considerable part of the State of New York. This
obstacle was deemed insurmountable by the northern New Jersey flood
commission, and that commission directed studies to a reservoir which at
the time of maximum flood would not back water into New York State to a
greater height than it already rises during such floods. The following
description is taken from the report of the engineering committee of the
flood commission:

     An admirable dam site is offered on Ramapo River about 2 miles
     above Oakland village. The drainage area tributary to this point is
     about 140 square miles in extent, the country for the most part
     being quick-spilling and upland. By constructing there a dam 700
     feet long and 65 feet high a reservoir with a water surface of 2.8
     square miles would be afforded, the flow-line elevation being 280
     feet above tide. The capacity of such a reservoir would be
     1,768,000,000 cubic feet, equal to about 5.5 inches on the drainage
     area.


WANAQUE SYSTEM.

Near the headwaters of Wanaque River is Greenwood Lake, a large body of
water described in Water-Supply Paper No. 88. Its value as a flood
catchment basin is somewhat uncertain, as it is used as a storage feeder
for Morris Canal. The surface level of this lake is controlled by gates,
which naturally are operated by the canal authorities for the benefit of
the canal. Therefore it is the object to store as great a volume of
water as possible, and the water falls below the dam crest at the outlet
of the lake only when the dam opens in dry seasons and makes it
necessary. Under such conditions there is no certainty that storage
capacity will be available during the time of a great storm, and in fact
Greenwood Lake has been overflowing at the commencement of the storms
which caused both of the recent floods.

In view of the condition expressed above it will be necessary in
providing for flood catchment in the Wanaque drainage area to omit
entirely from consideration the possibility of assistance from Greenwood
Lake. Below this point in the basin are several sites at which could be
raised dams, which would effectually retain a large proportion at least
of storm run-off. They may be described as follows:

_Midvale reservoir_.--By building a dam 60 feet high and 1,200 feet long
across Wanaque River near Midvale, a reservoir would be formed which
would have a water surface of 2.1 square miles and a capacity of
1,491,000,000 cubic feet. The drainage area above this site is 83 square
miles, and the storage capacity would therefore be equal to about 7.7
inches on the drainage area. The construction of this project would
involve the relocation of about 4-1/2 miles of the New York and
Greenwood Lake Railroad; the damages apart from this would be nominal,
the cost of the entire reservoir construction being about $1,000,000.

_Ringwood reservoir_.--Ringwood Creek runs through a gorge about 1 mile
above its confluence with the Wanaque. Above this is a well-defined
basin. A dam about 70 feet high and 585 feet long would create a lake
having an area of 520 acres, the surface of which would be 380 feet
above sea level. The drainage area tributary to this point has an area
of about 20 square miles, and as the proposed reservoir would have a
capacity of 915,800,000 cubic feet, there could be conserved a run-off
of 20 inches. Allowing for a flood run-off of 12 inches there would
still be available for compensating purposes 8 inches on the basin,
equal to 373,550,000 cubic feet. The construction of this reservoir
would involve the relocation of about 2 miles of the Ringwood branch of
the New York and Greenwood Lake Railroad, and the condemnation of
comparatively valuable improvements in the proposed basin.

_West Brook reservoir_.--The drainage from 5.7 square miles might be
conserved by the erection of a dam on West Brook, a tributary of Wanaque
River, which enters it from the west. There is an available site at
which a dam 280 feet high might be erected. At this elevation the length
along the top would be about 1,150 feet and about 2,330,000,000 cubic
feet of water would be impounded. Little benefit would be derived from
such a reservoir, as the limited drainage area affords a comparatively
small proportion of flood run-off that might be well cared for at a
lower point. For compensating purposes, however, a reservoir might be
constructed here, the capacity of which could be adjusted to the actual
demands. If the dam were raised to a height of about 280 feet from the
base the storage afforded would be equal to 176 inches on the watershed,
or about four average years of precipitation, which is far beyond all
probable storage necessities. The maximum available storage capacity is
given in this case merely to show possibilities.


PEQUANAC SYSTEM.

There are few available reservoir sites of large size along the lower
reaches of Pequanac River. In the upper basin, however, there is a
sufficient available storage capacity to afford almost complete control
of destructive floods from that part of the drainage area. Large tracts
are already reserved by the city of Newark for collection of municipal
supply, and the storage capacity developed is sufficient to serve the
city throughout the driest seasons. The total capacity of Clinton,
Oakridge, and Canistear reservoirs is about 1,155,000,000 cubic feet.
These basins are not available for flood catchment, as the water is used
for city purposes and an endeavor is made to have in storage at all
times the largest possible amount. The condition is exactly similar to
that described in the case of Greenwood Lake. In considering the means
for the construction of flood-catchment reservoirs in Pequanac Basin
there must be taken into account the conservation and delivery of the
Newark supply. The adjustments with reference to the amount of water
available at Macopin intake would have to be met, and if the system were
interfered with compensation therefore would be taken into
consideration.

_Newfoundland reservoir_.--Pequanac River passes through a deep gorge
between Copperas and Kanouse mountains, just below the village of
Newfoundland. This point has been considered an excellent site for the
construction of a dam, and in the installation of the present
water-supply system of Newark it is proposed that the entire valley in
which Newfoundland is situated be overflowed. The site is one of the
most advantageous known for the creation of a flood-catchment basin. If
a dam 50 feet high were erected across this gorge, a lake would be
formed which would have a surface area of 3.15 square miles and a
capacity of 3,267,200,000 cubic feet, equal to a storage of about 30.5
inches on the 46.12 square miles of contributing drainage area. This
would afford complete protection in case of a sudden run-off of 12
inches, would provide for the supply of the city of Newark without
greatly disturbing the present storage system of that city, and would
still yield a large amount of water for compensating purposes in dry
seasons.

The construction of Newfoundland reservoir would be very expensive, as
it would involve the flooding of Newfoundland Village, in which there is
considerable improved property. About 3 miles of the track of the New
York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad would be submerged, as well as a
considerable mileage of macadamized highways. On the whole, however, the
Newfoundland reservoir project is the most favorable which can be found
on the Pequanac Basin. There are above this point numerous reservoir
sites, but their combined capacity would not be equal to that of the
proposed Newfoundland reservoir, and the construction would be probably
quite as expensive.

_Stickle Pond reservoir_.--Below Newfoundland there are few available
places at which water could be stored. Stickle Pond is probably the best
adapted of any of those available. If a dam 1,050 feet long and 80 feet
high were erected across the river about 1 mile below the present outlet
of Stickle Pond, a lake would be formed having a surface area of 422
acres and a storage capacity of about 800,000,000 cubic feet. The
drainage area above this dam would be approximately 4 square miles. This
is a comparatively small amount of storage, yet it would provide for all
flood catchment in that comparatively limited area and would be of
assistance at times in compensating the dry flow of the Pequanac.


ROCKAWAY SYSTEM.

Rockaway River offers a greater number of available reservoir sites than
either of the other highland tributaries of the Passaic. Some of the
reservoirs which could be constructed could be used solely as catchment
areas to hold back flood waters, while the capacity of others would be
so much greater than any single flood run-off that they might serve also
as compensating reservoirs. A large dam is now in process of erection at
Old Boonton, conserving a considerable amount for the water for the
municipal supply of Jersey City. This reservoir can not be depended upon
as a flood-catchment area, as it will be the aim of those in authority
to maintain the water in it as high as possible.

_Powerville reservoir_.--A short distance above Boonton the erection of
a comparatively small dam would flood a large, irregular, flat basin
having an area of a little more than 4-1/2 square miles and extending up
the Rockaway Valley to Rockaway Village, up Beaver Brook to Beech Glen,
and north and south for considerable distances. The probable capacity of
this reservoir has been estimated, and it is fairly certain that it is
considerably more than would be sufficient for flood catchment. Its
construction would, moreover, improve the entire valley and be of
advantage to many interests.

The northern New Jersey flood commission has selected for investigation
a reservoir site on Rockaway River at Powerville. By the erection of a
dam across the stream at this point, 28 feet in height and 470 feet
long, a reservoir 4.6 square miles in area, with a capacity of
1,565,000,000 cubic feet, would be afforded. The drainage area above
this point is 114 square miles. The cost of such a reservoir is
estimated at $600,000.

North from Powerville, near the confines of the proposed Powerville
reservoir, there is an available reservoir site along Stony Brook. By
the erection of a dam 1,100 feet long and 120 feet high a lake would be
formed 645 acres in extent, which would serve as a flood-catchment basin
and a compensating reservoir. This reservoir would hold approximately
850,000,000 cubic feet. The construction of a reservoir at this place
offers no engineering difficulties, and the project may be regarded as
extremely favorable.

Dixons Pond, west of Rockaway Valley and northwest of Powerville, is a
small sheet of water which lies in a valley which might be flooded to a
greater height. By the erection of a dam 450 feet long and 30 feet high
a lake of 136 acres would be created, which would form a part of the
flood catchment and compensating service.

_Longwood Valley reservoir_.--A large storage basin is afforded in
Longwood Valley which, if developed to its full extent, would extend
from a point about a mile below Lower Longwood 7 miles up the headwaters
and reach to about 1-1/2 miles above Petersburg. An alternative
proposition is afforded which involves the submerging of less than half
this area.

A dam 800 feet long and 55 feet high might be erected across a gorge
about 1 mile south of Petersburg. There would be formed a lake of about
1.247 square miles, or 800 acres in extent. The hamlet of Petersburg
would be submerged, but the damages from the destruction of improved
property would not be very great, as the improvements and the land are
not especially valuable. This reservoir would have a capacity of about
964,000,000 cubic feet and the surface would be at a height of 800 feet
above sea level.

The alternative plan, that of using a longer stretch of the valley for
reservoir purposes, would involve the construction about 1 mile below
Lower Longwood of a dam 1,300 feet long and 110 feet high. The reservoir
thus formed would be 1,900 acres in extent and contain approximately
3,447,000,000 cubic feet. The drainage area above this dam is limited,
and if the reservoir were drawn down to an amount equivalent to 15
inches upon the drainage area there would still remain an enormous
amount of water which could be used in a compensatory way to tide over
dry seasons.

_Splitrock Pond._--By erecting a dam 550 feet long and 30 feet high
across a gorge at the outlet of Splitrock Pond, a lake could be formed
having an area of 625 acres and adding to the present storage capacity
of the lake an amount approximately equal to 475,000,000 cubic feet,
equivalent to 38.75 inches on the drainage area.

Thus it is seen that if this reservoir were drawn down an amount
equivalent to 15 inches on the drainage area, which would without doubt
give sufficient protection from all floods, there would still remain a
storage capacity of 23.75 inches for compensating purposes in addition
to the amount now available in Splitrock Pond. This project is one of
the most attractive in the Rockaway Basin, as the damages which would be
caused by flooding would be, comparatively speaking, nil. The property
is, however, now owned by the East Jersey Water Company, and is prized
highly as a reservoir site by that corporation.


UPPER PASSAIC BASIN.

_Millington reservoir._--There is an area of swamp land, comprising a
part of the drainage area of upper Passaic River above Millington, which
is known as Great Passaic Swamp. It is bounded on the south by a long,
narrow trap ridge known as Long Hill, the summit of which ranges from
400 to 500 feet in elevation, or roughly 200 feet above the border of
this swamp. To the northwest the land rises gradually toward Trowbridge
Mountains, while to the northeast is the terminal moraine. The outlet of
Passaic River at Millington is by a narrow gorge, which offers natural
facilities for the erection of a dam.

The whole situation is exceptionally good, and the surface of a
reservoir might be fixed at any elevation between 240 and 300 feet above
sea level. With the surface of the reservoir at 300 feet a dam 1,600
feet long and 90 feet high would be required. This lake would have an
area of 28.46 square miles. The drainage area above Millington has,
however, an area of only 53.6 square miles, and the proposed reservoir
would therefore cover more than half of this. Therefore the conservation
of so large a quantity of water would not be necessary nor advisable,
unless the beautifying of the surrounding country were an object to be
taken into consideration, which might be profitable.

A better project, however, would be to construct a dam at Millington 900
feet long and 50 feet high, the crest being about 260 feet above sea
level. There would be formed a lake with an area of 19.41 square miles,
and a capacity of 1,477,600,000 cubic feet, equal to 9.864 feet on the
drainage area. This project is too great for the necessities here
presented, and would not be wisely considered unless it were found
advantageous to improve the country generally as a place of suburban
residence. The land which would be flooded with the reservoir crest at
260 feet is of a wet, swampy character, and its value for agricultural
purposes is somewhat doubtful. Such construction would involve the
flooding of 13 miles of road, which, however, would not involve a great
loss of invested capital, as the roads generally are of a poor
character.

A second alternative would involve the construction of a dam across the
Millington gorge, 550 feet long and 30 feet high, raising the water to
240 feet above sea level and creating a lake of 14.40 square miles. This
would conserve 4,026,000,000 cubic feet, equal to 2.69 feet on the
drainage area. This would be ample for flood purposes and would still
afford a large impounded area, as the drawing off of an amount equal to
10 or even 15 inches on the watershed would not reduce the size of the
lake to any great extent.

The whole project here presented involves few difficulties, and as the
drainage area above is of small extent, the mere question of conserving
the flood waters could be met without great difficulty. The natural
advantages, however, are so great and the land included within Great
Passaic Swamp is of so little value that the surrounding country would
be improved and beautified by the construction of such a reservoir. The
opportunity for varying the character of the reservoir to meet the ideas
of those interested seems unexampled, and as a whole it presents an
extremely interesting field which may be profitably exploited.


SADDLE RIVER.

This stream has been described in the report on the flood of 1902,
already referred to. It contributes a large amount of water to the main
artery of the Passaic below Dundee dam, and as the river channel at that
point is overburdened under the present conditions because of lack of
slope and numerous catchments, together with what is known as the
Wallington Bend, it increases very materially the damage caused by
floods.

The most effectual remedy in the case of Saddle River floods is that of
construction of flood catchments. No studies have been made of the
situation in the Saddle River drainage area, but a superficial
inspection of the basin shows that opportunities for the construction of
flood-catchment reservoirs are not numerous.


SUMMARY OF FLOOD-CATCHMENT PROJECTS.

By following the plans described in the preceding pages absolute flood
catchments may be provided above Little Falls on the Passaic Basin for
551.7 square miles, leaving only 221.2 square miles from which flood
run-off would flow immediately. The accomplishment of this would involve
the construction of Pompton reservoir, which would withhold all flood
waters from the northern tributaries. It would leave unprovided for 20.2
square miles on the Rockaway, 71.7 square miles on the Whippany, 46.2
square miles on the upper Passaic, and 83.7 square miles tributary to
the Central Basin and not included above.

Leaving Pompton reservoir out of consideration, and conserving flood
run-off on the Ramapo, Wanaque, and Pequanac rivers, there would be
absolute flood catchment up to a 12-inch run-off over 494.8 square miles
above Little Falls. This would leave 278.1 square miles unprovided for,
the run-off from which would not overburden the channel in the lower
valley, provided, of course, that channel were improved to a maximum
carrying capacity.


PREFERABLE RESERVOIR SITES.

The following table and discussion of preferable sites for flood
prevention are taken from the report of the engineering committee of the
northern New Jersey flood commission:

Table showing detailed facts regarding possible reservoir sites on
Passaic drainage basin.

KEY:
A: Area of watershed.
B: Area of reservoir.
C: Height of dam.
D: Length of dam.
E: Elevation of flow line.
F: Storage, watershed.
G: Storage capacity.
H: Total cost.

--------------+-----+------+-----+------+------+-------+-------+---------
Reservoir.    |  A  |  B   | C   |   D  |   E  |   F   |  G    |   H
--------------+-----+------+-----+------+------+-------+-------+---------
              | Sq. | Sq.  |Feet.| Feet.| Feet.|Inches.|Million|
              | mi. | mi.  |     |      |      |       | c.f.  |
Ramapo        | 140 |  2.8 | 65  | 1,700| 280  |   5.5 | 1,768 | $900,000
Wanaque       |  83 |  2.1 | 60  | 1,200| 275  |   7.7 | 1,491 |1,000,000
Newfoundland  |  52 |  1.8 | 40  |   430| 780  |   8   |   966 |1,800,000
Rockaway      | 114 |  4.6 | 28  |   470| 520  |   6   | 1,565 |  600,000
Millington    |  56 | 15.8 | 25  |   220| 245  |  31   | 4,060 |  370,000
Great Piece   | 773 |  37  | 21  | 1,500| 178.5|   9[C]| 8,950 |2,625,000
Mountain View | 380 | 13.4 | 42  | 2,150| 202  |   8   | 7,200 |3,340,000
  Do.         | 380 | 13.9 | 44  | 2,380| 204  |   9   | 7,900 |3,460,000
  Do.         | 380 | 14.3 | 46  | 2,470| 206  |  10   | 8,700 |3,590,000
  Do.         | 380 | 17.4 | 60  | 3,000| 220  |  17   |15,000 |5,260,000
--------------+-----+------+-----+------+------+-------+-------+---------

[Footnote C: Including water discharged through fixed openings,
in a flood similar to that of October, 1903.
Maximum discharge, 12,000 cubic feet per second.]

     With the exception of the Millington reservoir site where the cost
     of the dam is a small factor, the elevation of flow line in the
     various reservoirs which determines the capacity was fixed so as to
     afford an approximate storage equal to a run-off of about 8 inches
     from the drainage area above each dam site. This amount is somewhat
     in excess of the run-off for the flood of October, 1903. It was
     found impracticable on the Rockaway reservoir site to provide for a
     storage greater than 6 inches. On the Wanaque the amount which can
     be stored falls slightly under 8 inches, while on the Ramapo it is
     possible to obtain only 5-1/2 inches, by reason of the fact that
     with a greater storage capacity the slack water would reach into
     New York State. The economical height for a dam at the lower end of
     the Great Piece Meadow, if such dam is provided with fixed
     discharge openings which will carry a maximum outflow of 12,000
     cubic feet per second, will provide a reservoir which will dispose
     of a run-off of 9 inches on the drainage area above.

     The following combinations of reservoir sites, with their
     respective drainage areas, proportional storage, and estimated
     costs, give the facts necessary for final deductions:

--------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------
              | Drainage      |  Water    |  Equivalent   |
  Site.       |  area.        |collected. |     area      |   Cost.
              |               |           |   retarded.   |
--------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------
              |_Square miles._| _Inches._ |_Square miles._|
Ramapo        |          140  |      5.5  |        96.25  |   $900,000
Wanaque       |           83  |      7.7  |        80     |  1,000,000
Pequanac      |           52  |      8    |        52     |  1,800,000
Rockaway      |          114  |      6    |        85.5   |    600,000
              |---------------+-----------+----------------+----------
Total         |          389  |           |       313.75  |  4,300,000
              |=======================================================
Ramapo        |          140  |      5.5  |        96.25  |    900,000
Wanaque       |           83  |      7.7  |        80     |  1,000,000
Rockaway      |          114  |       6   |        85.5   |    600,000
Millington    |           56  |      31   |        56     |    370,000
Total         |          393  |           |       317.75  |  3,870,000
              |=======================================================
Great Piece   |          773  |      4.5  |       435     |  2,625,000
Mountain View |          380  |       8   |       380     |  3,340,000
--------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------

     The necessity to retard the flow of or provide storage for
     approximately 380 square miles of highland drainage area has been
     determined after careful study, and there has been deduced an
     amount which may safely be expected to represent the maximum for
     the highest floods. When the highland tributaries are sufficiently
     checked the natural storage on Great Piece Meadow in its effect
     upon flood control becomes more apparent. Our investigations show
     that the holding back of the flood flow--that is, 8 inches run-off
     on approximately 380 square miles of flashy drainage area above
     Great Piece Meadow--is necessary to reduce the discharge in the
     river through the city of Paterson to 14,000 cubic feet per second
     for a flood similar to that of 1903.

     From the foregoing table, in which different reservoir projects are
     compared, it is seen that only the reservoirs designated as Great
     Piece and Mountain View will fulfill the requirements within a
     reasonable limit of cost. It is also shown that a combination of
     any other available sites would involve the expenditure of more
     money for their construction and the control of less tributary
     drainage area than is fulfilled by the demands of the Passaic
     drainage basin. We are therefore brought to the conclusion that
     only two of the projects above set forth will be effective. First,
     the construction of a regulating dam on the main stream above
     Little Falls, which we have called the "Great Piece" Meadow
     Reservoir, and second, the building of a dam at Mountain View
     across Pompton River. The relative cost of these reservoirs,
     constructed for flood control exclusively, is $2,625,000 for that
     on Great Piece Meadow and $3,340,000 for the Mountain View site.
     Details of these estimates are as follows:

_Estimate of cost of Great Piece Reservoir, dam at Little Falls._

[Elevation of flow line, 178.5 feet. Storage and disposal of 9 inches
collected.[D]]

Earth excavation, 17,600 cubic yards, at 35 cents           $6,160
Rock excavation, 8,800 cubic yards, at $2                   17,600
Rubble masonry, 29,100 cubic yards, at $5                  145,500
Ashlar masonry, 1,800 cubic yards, at $12                   21,600
Facework of rubble masonry, 2,850 square yards, at $1.50     4,275
Concrete masonry, 250 cubic yards, at $6                     1,500
Slope paving, 300 cubic yards, at $2                           600
Crushed stone, 150 cubic yards, at $1.50                       225
60-inch cast-iron pipe in place, 360 tons, at $35           12,600
Relocation of railroads, Erie, 5 miles, at $20,000;
  Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, 4.5 miles, at $40,000  280,000
Relocation of highways                                     170,000
Real estate:
  Above Mountain View                                      500,000
  Additional for village of Singac                         100,000
  22,000 acres, at $50                                   1,100,000
                                                        ----------
                                                         2,360,000
Add for engineering and contingencies                      240,000
                                                        ----------
                                                         2,600,000
Protection of pipe lines, Newark and Jersey City            25,000
                                                        ----------
                                                         2,625,000

     The effectiveness of a reservoir built upon the lines proposed in
     the case of Great Piece Meadow depends upon the adjustment of
     outflow so that the channel below will not be overborne, while at
     the same time sufficient storage capacity is afforded to hold
     temporarily the water which enters above the dam in amount greater
     than the carrying capacity of the outflow apertures. The dam across
     Passaic River above Little Falls would be provided with apertures
     which would discharge 12,000 cubic feet per second under the
     maximum head in the storage basin. As the flood rises these
     apertures would discharge a constantly increasing amount of water
     to the maximum, and for a considerable time thereafter the maximum
     would be maintained, the discharge decreasing after the flood
     according to the height of water remaining in the reservoir.

[Footnote D: Includes water discharged through fixed openings for a
flood similar to that of October, 1903. Maximum flow, 12,000 cubic feet
per second.]

_Estimated cost of Mountain View Reservoir._

[Elevation of flow line, 202 feet. Storage of 8 inches on watershed.]

Earth excavation:
  Stripping dam base, 83,500 cubic yards, at $0.30            $25,050
  Core wall trench, 24,900 cubic yards, at $1                  24,900
Rock excavation, 10,100 cubic yards, at $2                     20,200
Rock fill in dam, 197,000 cubic yards, at $1.25               246,250
Rubble masonry, 23,200 cubic yards, at $5                     116,000
Concrete, 30,000 cubic yards, at $6                           180,000
Gate chambers and tunnels                                      65,000
Reconstruction of highways                                    142,400
Reconstruction of railroads                                   815,000
Real estate                                                 1,360,000
                                                           ----------
                                                            2,994,800
Engineering and contingencies                                 325,200
                                                           ----------
                                                            3,320,000
Protection of Newark pipe line                                 20,000
                                                           ----------
      Total cost                                            3,340,000

[Same for elevation of flow line, 204 feet. Storage of 9 inches on
watershed.]

Earth excavation:
    Stripping dam base, 85,200 cubic yards, at $0.30          $25,560
    Core wall trench, 26,000 cubic yards, at $1                26,000
Rock excavation, 10,600 cubic yards, at $2                     21,200
Rock fill in dam, 214,000 cubic yards, at $1.25               267,500
Rubble masonry, 24,500 cubic yards, at $5                     122,500
Concrete, 30,500 cubic yards, at $6                           183,000
Gate chambers and tunnels                                      65,000
Reconstruction of highways                                    142,400
Reconstruction of railroads                                   815,000
Real estate                                                 1,435,000
                                                           ----------
                                                            3,103,160
Engineering and contingencies                                 336,840
                                                           ----------
                                                            3,440,000
Protection of Newark pipe line                                 20,000
                                                           ----------
      Total cost                                            3,460,000

     The final recommendation of the committee involves the
     consideration of two projects for flood storage, one on Great Piece
     Meadow and the other above Mountain View on the Pompton. In making
     such recommendations the committee is of the opinion that it must
     take into account matters of engineering policy with regard to
     future needs and contingencies, as well as the bare necessities of
     the present.

     If there were none other than the single problem of prevention the
     committee would advise the construction of the reservoir on Great
     Piece Meadow by reason of its smaller probable cost and its equal
     efficiency. It is plain, however, that there are many important
     features of public policy involved in the subject at hand.
     Population in the valley of the Passaic is developing so rapidly
     that in only a few years the present sources of water supply will
     be inadequate. The whole subject of water supply for northern New
     Jersey demands immediate consideration, and it would not be wise to
     take up the matter of prevention of flood damage in the Passaic
     without basing the value of every project upon its adaptability
     for use in future water-supply needs.

     By expending $2,600,000 a great reservoir could be constructed upon
     Great Piece Meadow which could not be adapted for any purposes
     except to regulate floods; it would stand in season and out of
     season a huge feature of the valley and entirely useless and
     inoperative save on the occasion of high water. However great might
     be the needs of the inhabitants of the Passaic Valley for a
     conserved water supply, the construction on the meadows,
     representing an enormous expenditure, would furnish no solution of
     the problem. It would admit of no enlargement for water-supply
     storage and would be available for no purpose except flood
     regulation.

     When we consider the Mountain View project, however, we find that
     as a measure for the prevention of flood damages it fulfills all
     the requirements and provides in addition all the possibilities and
     advantages demanded inevitably in the near future. The Mountain
     View site is an ideal one for the reservoir, and its initial
     development for flood catchment does not involve the expenditure of
     a dollar that would be lost in the development of the basin to
     greater capacities for water supply. From its lowest level, at 202
     feet above tide, to its maximum capacity, at a level of 220, there
     would be no depreciation. Every dollar spent in the initial
     construction would be effective in the maximum development.

     The probable cost of Mountain View reservoir, estimated at
     $3,340,000, exceeds that of Great Piece by $700,000. It is realized
     that to many persons this margin may seem very wide. Let us
     consider briefly just what it really represents.

     Suppose, for example, that the Great Piece project is constructed
     at a cost of $2,600,000. After the elapse of a few years it will be
     necessary to provide additional storage in the Passaic highlands
     for water supply or the maintenance of water power. The Mountain
     View reservoir, or its equivalent in capacity and cost, will then
     be necessary. The situation will then be as follows: By
     constructing the Great Piece reservoir in preference to the
     Mountain View for flood catchment, $700,000 would be saved. We can
     consider that this amount might be expended to pay a part of the
     cost of additional conservation above referred to. If, on the other
     hand, Mountain View had been constructed, there would have been
     paid on the final cost of conservance the sum of $3,340,000, which,
     as stated in previous pages, would also have effected flood relief.
     There would then be the difference between $2,600,000 and $700,000,
     or $1,900,000, which represents the actual loss which would accrue
     by reason of the construction of Great Piece reservoir.

     The engineering committee, after presenting the merits of both
     Great Piece Meadow and Mountain View projects, therefore recommends
     the adoption of the latter in spite of its greater cost, because it
     is believed that in the end the construction of the Great Piece
     project would involve an expenditure not warranted by public
     economy or general expediency.



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.


1. Great floods in the Passaic Basin arise only after a specially
violent precipitation.

2. Under present conditions floods may be expected at frequent
intervals.

3. A part of the damage along the lower valley is the result of
encroachments on the part of individuals and public and private
corporations.

4. The channel in the lower valley may be improved at certain points by
straightening it and judiciously making cut-offs.

5. Without the construction of numerous levees the lower valley channel
can not be made to carry great flood waters without damage.

6. Immunity from floods can be effected only by the construction of
catchment reservoirs in the highlands or levees in the lowlands.

7. Levee construction would involve more damage than is now caused by
floods, and the cost thereof would be prohibitive.

8. Flood catchment reservoirs may be constructed economically and
provide storage to compensate for the dry-season flow, thereby
maintaining water power at Paterson, Passaic, and other points, and
providing for municipal water supply in the future.



INDEX.


Arch street bridge, Paterson, destruction of; 27


Beattie's dam, flood flow at; 16-17
  flood period at; 9
  view of; 16

Bridges, destruction of; 26-27


Capacity of streams, increase in; 28

Central Basin, damage in; 24
  flood in, descent of; 14-15

Charlotteburg, rainfall at; 11, 12

Chatham, flood period at; 10

Chester, rainfall at; 11

Cranberry Pond, dam at, failure of; 24


Damages, discussion of; 23-28

Darlington, reservoir site at; 33

Dixons Pond, reservoir site at; 37

Dover, rainfall at; 11, 12

Drought, relation of rainfall to; 12

Dundee dam, flood flow over; 17-22
  flood flow over, diagram showing; 20
  flood period at; 9
  floods at, comparison of, figure showing; 18


East Jersey Water Company, damage at pumping station of; 25-26

Elizabeth, rainfall at; 11

Essex Fells, rainfall at; 11, 12


Flood, descent of; 14-22
  period of; 9-10
  prevention of; 28-44

Flood damage, plates showing; 26, 28

Floods, general conclusions concerning; 44-45


Great Passaic Swamp, reservoir site at; 38-39

Great Piece reservoir, cost of, estimate of; 42

Greenwood Lake, use of; 34


Hanover, rainfall at; 11

Hebrew quarter, Paterson, devastation in, plate showing; 28

Highland tributaries, damages along; 23-25
  descent of flood in; 14-15

Hotel, wreck of, plate showing; 26

Little Falls, dam at, view of; 16
  damage at; 25-26
  flood flow at; 16-17
  flood period at; 9
  rainfall at; 12

Longwood Valley, reservoir site in; 37

Lower Longwood, reservoir site near; 38

Lower Valley, damage in; 25-28
  improvements in, discussion of; 29-31

Ludlum Steel and Iron Company, water front of; 24


Macopin dam, flood flow at; 15-16
  flood period at; 10

Main street bridge, Paterson, destruction of; 27

Midvale, proposed reservoir near; 34

Mill district, Paterson, effects of flood in, plate showing; 26

Millington, reservoir site near; 38-39, 40

Mountain View, reservoir site at; 31-33, 40

Mountain View reservoir, cost of, estimate of; 43


New York City, rainfall at; 11, 13

Newark, rainfall at; 11, 12, 13

Newark water department, information furnished by; 16

Newell, F. H., letter of transmittal by; 7

Newfoundland, reservoir site near; 36, 40

Nigger Pond, dam at, failure of; 24


Oakland, reservoir site near; 34

Obstructions to flow of Passaic River, discussion of; 29-30

Old Boonton, flood period at; 10


Passaic, damage at; 27-28
  inundated lands at, plate showing; 28

Passaic Basin, reservoir sites in upper; 38-39
  storage facilities in, effect of; 11

Passaic River, bridge over, plate showing; 28
  flood flow of; 17-22
    diagram showing; 20
  flood period on; 10
  floods on, comparison of, diagram showing; 18
  flow of, obstructions to; 29-30

Passaic Valley, rainfall in; 11, 12

Paterson, damage at; 26-27
  flood district of, plate showing; 24
  flood-water lines in residence district of, plate showing; 16

Hebrew quarter in, devastation in, plate showing; 28
  mill district, effects of flood in, plate showing; 26
  rainfall at; 11, 12
  residence district, flood-water lines in, plate showing; 16
  views in; 16, 24, 26, 28

Pequanac Basin, reservoir sites in; 35-36, 40, 41

Pequanac River, damage along; 24
  flood flow of; 16
  flood period on; 10

Petersburg, reservoir site near; 37

Plainfield, rainfall at; 11

Pompton Lake, dry bed of, plate showing; 24
  reservoir site at; 33-35

Pompton Lakes, damage at; 24

Pompton Lakes dam, plate showing; 24

Pompton Plains, damage at; 24
  highest water at; 10

Pompton reservoir, discussion of; 31-33

Powerville, reservoir site near;  37

Precipitation, amount of; 11-14

Prevention of floods, discussion of; 28-45


Rainfall, amount of; 11-14
  relation of drought to; 12

Ramapo River, damages along; 23-24
  flood on, time of; 9

Ramapo Valley, reservoir sites in; 33-34, 40, 41

Reservoir sites, comparison of; 40-44

Reservoirs for preventing floods, discussion of; 28, 31-40

Residence district, Paterson, flood-water lines in, plate showing; 16

Ringwood, rainfall at; 11, 12

Ringwood Creek, reservoir site on; 35

River street, Paterson, view of; 26

River Vale, rainfall at; 11, 12

Rockaway Basin, reservoir sites on; 37-38, 40, 41

Rockaway River, flood period on; 10


Saddle River, reservoir sites on; 39-40

Sherrerd, M. R., aid by; 15

Smith, G. W., quoted on changes in channel at Little Falls; 25

South Orange, rainfall at; 11, 12

Splitrock Pond, reservoir site on; 38

Spruce street, Paterson, washout at, plate showing; 26

Stickle Pond, proposed reservoir at; 36

Stony Brook, reservoir site on; 37

Storage reservoirs for preventing floods, discussion of; 28, 31-40

Streams, capacity of, increase in; 28


Vermeule, C. C., quoted on Pompton reservoir; 31-32


Wanaque Basin, reservoir sites in; 34-35, 40, 41

West Street Bridge, Paterson, destruction of; 26

West Brook, reservoir site on; 35



PUBLICATIONS OF UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

The 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, folios thereof. The classes
numbered 2, 7, and 8 are sold at cost of publication; the others are
distributed free. A circular giving complete lists may be had on
application.

The Bulletins, Professional Papers, 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; I, Irrigation; J, Water storage; K,
Pumping water; L, Quality of water; M, General hydrographic
investigations; N, Water power; O, Underground waters; P, Hydrographic
progress reports. The following Water-Supply Papers are out of stock,
and can no longer be supplied: Nos. 1-14, 19, 20, 22, 29-33, 46, 57-64.
Complete lists of series I to P follow. (WS=Water-Supply Paper;
B=Bulletin; PP=Professional Paper.)

SERIES I--IRRIGATION.

     WS 2. Irrigation near Phoenix, Ariz., by A. P. Davis. 1897. 98 pp.,
     31 pls. and maps.

     WS 5. Irrigation practice on the Great Plains, by E. B. Cowgill.
     1897. 39 pp., 11 pls.

     WS 9. Irrigation near Greeley, Colo., by David Boyd. 1897. 90 pp.,
     21 pls.

     WS 10. Irrigation in Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, by F. C. Barker.
     1898. 51 pp., 11 pls.

     WS 13. Irrigation systems in Texas, by W. F. Hutson. 1898. 68 pp.,
     10 pls.

     WS 17. Irrigation near Bakersfield, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1898.
     96 pp., 16 pls.

     WS 18. Irrigation near Fresno, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1898. 94
     pp., 14 pls.

     WS 19. Irrigation near Merced, Cal., by C. E. Grunsky. 1899. 59
     pp., 11 pls.

     WS 23. Water-right problems of Bighorn Mountains, by Elwood Mead.
     1899. 62 pp., 7 pls.

     WS 32. Water resources of Porto Rico, by H. M. Wilson. 1899. 48
     pp., 17 pls. and maps.

     WS 43. Conveyance of water in irrigation canals, flumes, and pipes,
     by Samuel Fortier. 1901. 86 pp., 15 pls.

     WS 70. Geology and water resources of the Patrick and Goshen Hole
     quadrangles, Wyoming, by G. I. Adams. 1902. 50 pp., 11 pls.

     WS 71. Irrigation systems of Texas, by T. U. Taylor. 1902. 137 pp.,
     9 pls.

     WS 74. Water resources of the State of Colorado, by A. L. Fellows.
     1902. 151 pp., 14 pls.

     WS 87. Irrigation in India (second edition), by H. M. Wilson. 1903.
     238 pp., 27 pls.

The following papers also relate especially to irrigation: Irrigation in
India, by H. M. Wilson, in Twelfth Annual, Pt. II; two papers on
irrigation engineering, by H. M. Wilson, in Thirteenth Annual, Pt. III.


SERIES J--WATER STORAGE.

     WS 33. Storage of water on Gila River, Arizona, by J. B.
     Lippincott. 1900. 98 pp., 33 pls.

     WS 40. The Austin dam, by Thomas U. Taylor. 1900. 51 pp., 16 pls.

     WS 45. Water storage on Cache Creek, California, by A. E. Chandler.
     1901. 48 pp., 10 pls.

     WS 46. Physical characteristics of Kern River, California, by F. H.
     Olmsted, and Reconnaissance of Yuba River, California, by Marsden
     Manson. 1901. 57 pp., 8 pls.

     WS 58. Storage of water on Kings River, California, by J. B.
     Lippincott. 1902. 100 pp., 32 pls.

     WS 68. Water storage in Truckee Basin, California-Nevada, by L. H.
     Taylor. 1902. 90 pp., 8 pls.

     WS 73. Water storage on Salt River, Arizona, by A. P. Davis. 1902.
     54 pp., 25 pls.

     WS 86. Storage reservoirs of Stony Creek, California, by Burt Cole.
     1903. 62 pp., 16 pls.

     WS 89. Water resources of Salinas Valley, California, by Homer
     Hamlin. 1903.--pp., 12 pls.

The following paper also should be noted under this heading: Reservoirs
for irrigation, by J. D. Schuyler, in Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV.


SERIES K--PUMPING WATER.

     WS 1. Pumping water for irrigation, by Herbert M. Wilson. 1896. 57
     pp., 9 pls.

     WS 8. Windmills for irrigation, by E. C. Murphy. 1897. 49 pp., 8
     pls.

     WS 14. Tests of pumps and water lifts used in irrigation, by O. P.
     Hood. 1898. 91 pp., 1 pl.

     WS 20. Experiments with windmills, by T. O. Perry. 1899. 97 pp., 12
     pls.

     WS 29. Wells and windmills in Nebraska, by E. H. Barbour. 1899. 85
     pp., 27 pls.

     WS 41. The windmill; its efficiency and economic use, Pt. I, by E.
     C. Murphy. 1901. 72 pp., 14 pls.

     WS 42. The windmill, Pt. II (continuation of No. 41). 1901. 73-147
     pp., 15-16 pls.

     WS 91. Natural features and economic development of Sandusky,
     Maumee, Muskingum, and Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Flynn
     and M. S. Flynn. 1904.--pp.


SERIES L--QUALITY OF WATER.

     WS 3. Sewage irrigation, by G. W. Rafter. 1897. 100 pp., 4 pls.

     WS 22. Sewage irrigation, Pt. II, by G. W. Rafter. 1899. 100 pp., 7
     pls.

     WS 72. Sewage pollution near New York City, by M. O. Leighton.
     1902. 75 pp., 8 pls.

     WS 76. Flow of rivers near New York City, by H. A. Pressey. 1903.
     108 pp., 13 pls.

     WS 79. Normal and polluted waters in northeastern United States, by
     M. O. Leighton. 1903. 192 pp., 15 pls.


SERIES M--GENERAL HYDROGRAPHIC INVESTIGATIONS.

     WS 56. Methods of stream measurement. 1901. 51 pp., 12 pls.

     WS 64. Accuracy of stream measurements, by E. C. Murphy. 1902. 99
     pp., 4 pls.

     WS 76. Observations on the flow of rivers in the vicinity of New
     York City, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 108 pp., 13 pls.

     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 pl.

     WS 88. The Passaic flood of 1902, by G. B. Hollister and M. O.
     Leighton. 1903. 56 pp., 15 pls.

     WS 91. Natural features and economic development of the Sandusky,
     Maumee, Muskingum, and Miami drainage areas in Ohio, by B. H. Flynn
     and M. S. Flynn. 1904.--pp.

     WS 92. The Passaic flood of 1903, by M. O. Leighton. 1904.--pp., 7
     pls.


SERIES N--WATER POWER.

     WS 24. Water resources of State of New York, Pt. I, by G. W.
     Rafter. 1899. 92 pp., 13 pls.

     WS 25. Water resources of State of New York, Pt. II, by G. W.
     Rafter. 1899. 100-200 pp., 12 pls.

     WS 44. Profiles of rivers, by Henry Gannett. 1901. 100 pp., 11 pls.

     WS 62. Hydrography of the Southern Appalachian Mountain region, Pt.
     I, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 95 pp., 25 pls.

     WS 63. Hydrography of the Southern Appalachian Mountain region, Pt.
     II, by H. A. Pressey. 1902. 96-190 pp., 26-44 pls.

     WS 69. Water powers of the State of Maine, by H. A. Pressey. 1902.
     124 pp., 14 pls.



SERIES O--UNDERGROUND WATERS.

     WS 4. A reconnaissance in southeastern Washington, by I. C.
     Russell. 1897. 96 pp., 7 pls.

     WS 6. Underground waters of southwestern Kansas, by Erasmus
     Haworth. 1897. 65 pp., 12 pls.

     WS 7. Seepage waters of northern Utah, by Samuel Fortier. 1897. 50
     pp., 3 pls.

     WS 12. Underground waters of southeastern Nebraska, by N. H.
     Darton. 1898. 56 pp., 21 pls.

     WS 21. Wells of northern Indiana, by Frank Leverett. 1899. 82 pp.,
     2 pls.

     WS 26. Wells of southern Indiana (continuation of No. 21), by Frank
     Leverett. 1899. 64 pp.

     WS 30. Water resources of the lower peninsula of Michigan, by A. C.
     Lane. 1899. 97 pp., 7 pls.

     WS 31. Lower Michigan mineral waters, by A. C. Lane. 1899. 97 pp.,
     4 pls.

     WS 34. Geology and water resources of a portion of southeastern
     South Dakota, by J. E. Todd. 1900. 34 pp., 19 pls.

     WS 53. Geology and water resources of Nez Perces County, Idaho, Pt.
     I, by I. C. Russell. 1901. 86 pp., 10 pls.

     WS 54. Geology and water resources of Nez Perces County, Idaho, Pt.
     II, by I. C. Russell. 1901. 87-141 pp.

     WS 55. Geology and water resources of a portion of Yakima County,
     Wash., by G. O. Smith. 1901. 68 pp., 7 pls.

     WS 57. Preliminary list of deep borings in the United States, Pt.
     I, by N. H. Darton. 1902. 60 pp.

     WS 59. Development and application of water in southern California,
     Pt. I, by J. B. Lippincott. 1902. 95 pp., 11 pls.

     WS 60. Development and application of water in southern California,
     Pt. II, by J. B. Lippincott. 1902. 96-140 pp.

     WS 61. Preliminary list of deep borings in the United States, Pt.
     II, by N. H. Darton. 1902. 67 pp.

     WS 67. The motions of underground waters, by C. S. Slichter. 1902.
     106 pp., 8 pls.

     B 199. Geology and water resources of the Snake River Plains of
     Idaho, by I. C. Russell. 1902. 192 pp., 25 pls.

     WS 77. Water resources of Molokai, Hawaiian Islands, by Waldemar
     Lindgren. 1903. 62 pp., 4 pls.

     WS 78. Preliminary report on artesian basins in southwestern Idaho
     and southeastern Oregon, by I. C. Russell. 1903. 52 pp., 2 pls.

     PP 17. Preliminary report on the geology and water resources of
     Nebraska west of the one hundred and third meridian, by N. H.
     Darton. 1903. 69 pp., 43 pls.

     WS 90. Geology and water resources of a part of the lower James
     River Valley, South Dakota, by J. E. Todd and C. M. Hall.
     1904.--pp., 23 pls.

The following papers also relate to this subject: Underground waters of
Arkansas Valley in eastern Colorado, by G. K. Gilbert, in Seventeenth
Annual, Pt. II; Preliminary report on artesian waters of a portion of
the Dakotas, by N. H. Darton, in Seventeenth Annual, Pt. II; Water
resources of Illinois, by Frank Leverett, in Seventeenth Annual, Pt. II;
Water resources of Indiana and Ohio, by Frank Leverett, in Eighteenth
Annual, Pt. IV; New developments in well boring and irrigation in
eastern South Dakota, by N. H. Darton, in Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV;
Rock waters of Ohio, by Edward Orton, in Nineteenth Annual, Pt. IV;
Artesian well prospects in Atlantic Coastal Plain region, by N. H.
Darton, Bulletin No. 138.


SERIES P--HYDROGRAPHIC PROGRESS REPORTS.

Progress reports may be found in the following publications: For
1888-89, Tenth Annual, Pt. II; for 1889-90, Eleventh Annual, Pt. II; for
1890-91, Twelfth Annual, Pt. II; for 1891-92, Thirteenth Annual, Pt.
III; for 1893-94, Bulletin No. 131; for 1895, Bulletin No. 140; for
1896, Eighteenth Annual, Pt. IV, WS 11; for 1897, Nineteenth Annual, Pt.
IV, WS 15, 16; for 1898, Twentieth Annual, Pt. IV, WS 27, 28; for 1899,
Twenty-first Annual, Pt. IV, WS 35-39; for 1900, Twenty-second Annual,
Pt. IV, WS 47-52; for 1901, WS 65, 66, 76; for 1902, WS 82-85.


Correspondence should be addressed to

THE DIRECTOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
WASHINGTON, D. C.





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Passaic Flood of 1903" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home