The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
MARCH 25, 1925
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE ONIVBKSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XL NO. 19
E lUortal liuardi E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobba, Jr., L. R. WildDn, R. W Kniarhl, D D. Carroll, J, B, Ballltt, H. W. Odum,
fcl.iti;red aa Becond-ciaaa mutter NoTeinber 14, 1914, at the Pcstofflcaat Chapel Hill, N. C., ander the aetof Auffust 84, 1912
1. GAGING STREAMS
An adequate and pure water supply,
cheap and abundant power, safe and
inoffensive disposal of sewage, are three
prime necessities for the successful up
building of any community. In North
Carolina each of these factors is based
upon accurate knowledge of stream
flow, which can be secured only from
records assembled over a long period
of time.
Municipal Water Supply
. Most towns in the state have been
faced with a water shortage within
the past five years. This could have
been avoided had adequate stream flow
data been available and used. Many
cities in the state have had to abandon
costly water supply construction, some
times soon after its completion, because
the source has become inadequate. For
how many years in the future can a
source of water supply be depended
upon? What is the minimum flow
ever likely to occur? Will it be neces
sary to store excess flow in the winter
to be used in the summer? How much
storage will be needed? If a dam is to
be built how wide must the spillway be
to pass safely the largest flood that
may be expected? Will there be
enough water to use a surplus to pro
duce water power to pump, thereby
lowering costs of purchased power?
The only answer to all of these ques-'
tions is accurate stream flow records.
More and more North Carolina com
munities are being supplied with power
generated by falling water. Even
when ste^m is used to produce power,
large quantities of water are needed
for condensing purposes. How much
water power can be produced from a
given stream in the driest, times; in
average times; in flood times? How
much auxiliary steam power will be
needed? How much increase of power
will there be from storing flood water
and using it in dry periods? What will
be the effect of such storage in reduc
ing the damage from disastrous floods?
How great capacity is needed at dams
to pass with safety the floods? Is suf
ficient water for condensing available
in dry periods? Answers to all these
((uestions can be had only by securing
accurate stream flow records.
Sewage Disposal
A problem of increasing importance
to many North Carolina communities
is the safe and inoffensive disposal of
their sewage and trade wastes. Can
these be discharged into a stream with
out causing serious sanitary pollution,
offensive odors, or destruction of
fish life? If not, what degree of
treatment will be required? Answers
to these questions depend largely
upon the amount of dilution which the
stream affords, and this in turn can be
told only from accurate stream flow
records.
Basic data for planning for adequate
water supply, cheap power, and effi
cient waste disposal should be predi
cated upon accurate stream flow re
cords collected in advance of the day
of need and extending over a suffi
ciently long period to be representa
tive. Having been collected, the data
should be available in a form readily
adapted to use. What is North Caro
lina doing to collect and make avail
able this fundamental information?
Cooperative Effort
The United States Geological Survey
is charged with making and collecting
data on stream flow all over the coun
try. At various times some 90 stations
have been maintained on North Caro
lina streams, but many of these were
■operated only for a year or two, and
the records are thus of small value.
The Federal Survey is so restricted in
funds that it has to concentrate its
efforts in those states where there is
local cooperation, either on the part of
the state itself, or from private or
municipal sources. The North Carolina
Geological and Economic Survey has al
ways cooperated with the Federal Sur
vey in maintaining gaging stations in
this state. It was not until 1920, how
ever, when the Water Resources Divi
sion of the State Survey (now the De
partment of Conservation and Devel
opment) was established, that system
atic stream gaging under close state
oversight began in North Carolina. In
1920 there were 12 gaging stations
regularly operated in the state. The
number has steadily increased until at
present there are 40 such stations in op- j
eration. Through the Water Resources ^
Division of the Department of Con
servation and Development more i
stream gaging is being done by North
Carolina than by any other South At
lantic State, and nearly $10,000 of the '
$12,750 allocated to the use of this:
Division is expended in stream gaging
work. The Division was instrumental
in having the district office of the ■
United States Gcjological Survey moved
from Atlanta to Asheville, and prac
tically all of the funds for stream,
gaging are turned over to the Federal ’
Survey for the use of ii,s expert staff
of engineers who do nothing but I
j stream gaging work. j
The Water Resources Division is lo-!
cated at Chapel Hill, where it is under,
the direction of the Professor of Hy- j
draulic and Sanitary Engineering in,
the School of Engineering at the Uni- ;
versity. This tie-up with the Univer-;
sity enables the services of specially
skilled instructors to be used during j^ands for it, and to consider and de-
their spare time at much less than the yelop projects for the future. The topic
cost of full-time personnel, and ex- before the Club for discusssion was
plains the very large amount of nota- : po^ts and Terminals for North Caro-
ble work which has been produced in jjna
i spite of extremely meape funds. The i xhe paper presented dealt with three
Division in general outlines where it is ■ clearly defined and inter-related phases
desired to have stream gaging stations | of this subject: (1) What are the
■ located, arranges for local cooperation ■ possibilities on the North Carolina
on the part of power interests and' coast for the development of inland
COOPERATE OH PERISH
If we have social warfare within
the civilized nations we shall not
emerge from it until tides of blood
have flowed. If we have an unrestrict
ed commercial war, a savage and
ruthless competition between great
powers out for world trades at all
costs against each other, the other
things will happen. The human tribes
in the next phase of history, now
approaching, must cooperate or
perish.
The Christian peoples at least are
dedicated ‘to peace, by words that
they caiinot-ignore without treach
ery to the spirit of their faith.
There is no Christianity in hatred,
none in class warfare, none in vio
lence against our neighbor, none
in envy of our neighbor’s goods,
none in denial of the laborer’s hire,
none without love and pity and self-
sacrifice. It is only by rededicating
ourselves to that spirit that we can
hope to solve the problems that
beset us on every side and exor
cise the evil powers in the heart of
humanity which are working for
destruction. —Sir ^Philip Gibbs, in
Collier’s..
: municipalities, supplies stream flow da
ta for other departments of the state,
several reports having been made for
the Highway Commission, and publishes
the records in convenient form. There
will shortly be sent to press a bulletin
giving weekly and monthly stream
flow at every gaging station ever
operated in North Carolina, and this
bulletin will be the most complete of
its kind ever issued by a state east of
the Mississippi.
Spends too Little
Although the stream gaging work in
North Carolina is something to be
proud of as being more adequately
carrjed on than in other southern states,
nevertheless expenditures for this pur
pose in North Carolina do not compare
favorably with such expenditures in
other states of the country. Con
sidering the United States as a whole,
North Carolina ranks twelfth in the
magnitude of her water powers,
but ranks twenty-fifth in total expendi
tures for stream gaging. Considering
states east of the Mississippi only,
North Carolina ranks second in poten
tial water power, but ranks eighth in
total expenditures for stream gaging.
Considering expenditures for the year
1923-24, North Carolina ranks thir
teenth in the country and fourth of the
states east of the Mississippi. For
instance, last year the state spent
only $5,920 in investigating her water
resources while Texas spent more than
ten times as much. We boast of our
enormous water resources but we
have spent all told only $18,138 in as
sembling the records which are ne
cessary in effectively conserving these
resources.
North Carolina has lagged behind
other states in investigating her water'
resources. There is nothing more
important in the economic devel
opment of this state than complete
and accurate data on the water re
sources of the state. It is only after
the facts have been assembled that
our great water resources can be con
served and developed most efficiently.
—Thorndike Saville,
WATER TRANSPORTATION
The formation of a State Transpor
tation Commission which would include
and control waterways as well as
highways was advocated by William T,
Couch before the regular bi-weekly
meeting of the North Carolina Club
Monday evening. He declared that
such a commission is the first and most
important step to be taken toward a
solution of the State’s transportation
problems. This body should have direc
tion of all transportation facilities -in
the state, waterways as well as roads,
to develop each according to the de
waterways, and for the development
of a modern port for sea-going vessels?
(2) Would it pay-to give further de
velopment to the port at Wilmington
and our inland waterways? (.3) If so,
how should this development be pro
moted?
Ample Possibilities
North Carolina’s coast line has ample
possibilities in so far as has to do with
physical conformation for the develop
ment of inland waterways; but this
does not mean that such a develop
ment necessarily would be a profitable
one from the beginning. The privately
owned shipping facilities at Wilmington
are adequate for the present, but addi
tional facilities will be needed in the
near future according to an authority
on the subject. Charleston on the south
and Norfolk on the north, shipping
points already well developed and
securing business with energy, deprive
Wilmington of much that she might do.
Neither of those ports is doing what
it might, however, and Wilmington
with a budget of one to two hundred
thousand dollars a year for a number
of years for advertising purposes and
a channel with a minimum width of 500
feet and a minimum depth of 30 feet
at low tide could easily become an im
portant point for water shipping.
East-West TrunK Line
A modern port at Wilmington would
avail little unless there were also pro
vided railway facilities, linking the
east with the west. The readiness
with which railway companies would
accept the responsibility of provid
ing such a line is purely conjectural.
If the state assumed the responsibility,
the cost would surpass estimates made
previously by those giving study to the
problem. The insufficiency of trans
portation facilities in the United
States.at the present time does not
guarantee that Wilmington would prof
it by a port development. Crowded
conditions exist, but only in certain
well established commercial channels;
and Wilmington, lacking an east-west
trunk line, is not included in those
lanes of commerce. In accordance
with recommendations of the Board of
Engineers, shipping facilities at Bay-
boro, New Bern, Oriental, Beaufort,
and Fayetteville could be provided at a
relatively small cost, and should be in
order to promote inland waterway com
merce. The relatively low-cost of
water transportation—it being about
one-third as costly as rail—makes such
inland development a reasonably prof
itable proposition.
As to the best method for such de
velopment, it was argued, upon author
ity, that public ownership and opera
tion of terminals is much preferable
to private ownership. An analogy
was drawn here between the state
highway system and a water system,
and it was shown that the state should
be as much concerned in one system as
the other. The extent to which the-
state should invest in waterways and
terminal facilities or any other proj
ects should be determined in exactly
the same way as expenditures on state
roads are determined, by the same or
ganization and with the same purpose
of developing the state resources.
TRUE vs TAXABLE WEALTH
The richest state per inhabitant in
the Union, both as shown by the tax
books and in true wealth as estimated
by the Federal Department of Com
merce, is Nevada. The poorest state,
on the tax books, is South Carolina,
while the Federal authorities estimate
that on the basis of true wealth per
inhabitant, Mississippi is the poorest.
The Federal census authorities esti
mate the true wealth of North Caro
lina at $4,543,110,000, or $1,703 per
inhabitant, for the year 1922, and our
rank among the states in wealth per
inhabitant as forty-second. Six states
rank below North Carolina in esti
mated true wealth per inhabitant, but
eighteen states rank below us in the
per inhabitant amount of property
listed for taxation. The table which
appears elsewhere shows the rank of
the states in estimated true wealth
per inhabitant, and the parallel
column shows the amount of property
listed for taxes and subject to the gen
eral property tax.
Two Billions Untaxed
If all taxable property in the] state
had been listed at its true value in
1922, we would have had on the tax
books $4,381,177,(100. As a matter
of fact, we had listed for taxation
$2,521,115,000, which leaves $1,860,-
062,000 of wealth that was taxable
but not listed, due to the policy of our
one hundred counties of assessing
property at varying percents of its
true value, but in no county at its true
value. The state over, only 57 per
cent of the value of property that is
taxable is actually listed for taxes.
Nearly two billion dollars remains off
the tax books, and it is well to remem
ber that the census authorities are al
ways conservative in all their reports
and estimates.
The wealth of North Carolina not
subject to the property tax totals
$161,993,000—property owned by the
state, counties, churches, and other
exempt properties.
The Main Concern
The main trouble in North Carolina
lies not in the fact that nearly two
billion dollars of values escapes taxes,
but in the unequal assessments on the
part of the 100 counties. Property
the state over should be listed at some
uniform percent of its true value, pref
erably at 100 percent, but uniformly,
whatever the percent. It is the only
way out of our tax difficulties. Every
body agrees that this is so, but what
is being done about it? How, for in
stance, can tlie state school equaliza
tion fund ever be equitably distributed
with property listed at widely varying
percents of its true value by the va
rious counties?
Land
To illustrate the unequal assess
ments we will present a'few facts as
shown by the recent report of the
State Commissoner oi Revenue. Land
is assessed in one county at $130.86
per acre, in another at $4.36. Land
varies greatly in value, to be sure, but
in adjoining counties with similar con
ditions the assessed values vary widely.
In one mountain county land is as
sessed at 38 dollars per acre. In an
other mountain county with similar
conditions it is assessed at 8 dollars
per acre. In one piedmont county
land is assessed at $18.i6 per acre,
and in an adjoining county at $75.52
per acre. And so on ad infinitum, ad
nauseam.
LivestocK
In Alleghany county horses are as
sessed at 80 dollars, and mules at 76
dollars, upon an average, while in an
other mountain county, Macon, horses
are assessed at $10.20 and mules at
$10.35, upon an average! How can
that be explained? In one mountain
county horses are assessed at 75 dollars
each upon an average, and in the same
county mules are assessed at $7.86,
and so on and on. .
In Bladen all cattle average 21 dol
lars on the tax books, while in Bertie,
comparable with Bladen, they average
$10.60 each.’ Cattle are listed at two
and a half times as much upon an av
erage in Caswell as in Currituck. In
one tidewater county cattle average 46
dollars each while in another tidewater
county they average 9 dollars, or one-
fifth as much, on the tax books.
Sheep are listed at an average of $4.30
in Person, and 79 cents in Pamlico.
Personal property listed for taxation
averages 1,480 dollars per inhabitant
in one county and 93 dollars in an
other.
For low comedy see the value of
dogs as reported by the tax books of
the various counties!
The main point is not that two bil
lion dollars of wealth escapes taxation
in North Carolina but that it escapes
unequally, and the low Bssessment
counties are the beneficiaries.
Would that it were possible to com
pare the 100 counties of the state, true
wealth in one column, and wealth as
reported for taxation in a parallel
column, as it is done for the states in
the accompanying table. —S. H. H.,Jr.
TRUE AND TAXABLE WEALTH
Per Inhabitant by States in 1922
The following table, based on recent publications issued by the Federal De
partment of Commerce relating to wealth, debt, and taxation, shows (1) the
rank the states in estimated true value of all property, and (2) the per
inhabitant-amount of property listed for taxation and subject to the gen
eral property tax. j
Nevada leads, both in true wealth and in wealth listed for taxation per in
habitant. Mississippi ranks last in true wealth per inhabitant, while South
Carolina ranks last in property listed for taxes per inhabitant.
In estimated true wealth per inhabitant six states rank below North Caro
lina, while eighteen states rank below us in taxables listed per inhabitant or
SO in 1922.
U. S. average of true wealth per inhabitant $2,918, and of wealth listed for
taxation $1,146.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank States Prop. Listed Est. True
for Taxes Wealth
per Inhab. per Inhab.
1 Nevada $2,630 $6,998
2 Wyoming 1,782 4,663
3 South Dakota.... 3,064 4,482
4 Iowa 723 4,274
6 Oregon 1,248 4,182
6 California 1,163- 4,007
7 Nebraska 2,422 4,004
8 North Dakota.... 1,979 3,692
9 Montana 779 3,691
10 Connecticut 1,367 3,614
11 Washington 791 3,600
12 New Jersey 1,249 3,624
13 Arizona 2,034 3,612
14 Kansas 1,991 3,493
15 Minnesota 960 3,442
16 New York 1,446 3,436
17 Idaho 1,047 3,301
18 Illinois 601 3,295
19 Colorado 1,591 3,285
20 Utah 1,346 3,247
21 Massachusetts..,. 1,429 3,243
22 Pennsylvania.... 1,087 3,187
23 Rhode Island.... 1,687' 3,086
24 New Hampshire. 1,386 3,074
Rank States Prop. Listed Est. True
for Taxes Weaith
per Inhab. per Inhab.
25 Ohio $1,746 $3,048
26 West Virginia.... 1,382' 3,040
27 Indiana 1,761 2,942
28 Missouri 1,360 2,903
29 Michigan 1,642 2,899
30 Wisconsin 1,896 2,887
31 Delaware 994 2,728
32 Maryland 1,135 2,665
33 Maine 824 2,586
34 Vermont 872 2,389
36 Florida 412 2,368
36 New Mexico 895 2,299
37 Virginia 772 2,060
38 Texas 670 2,010
39 Oklahoma 802 1,864
40 Louisiana 851 1,865
41 Tennessee 730 1,753
42 North Carolina.... 952 1,703
43 Kentucky 984 1,459
44 Arkansas 323 1,439
45 South Carolina... 252 1,385
46 Georgia 401 1,306
47 Alabama 393 1,244
48 Mississippi 396 1,21'-