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.