The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-04-03
CANAL OPINION.
Engineer Burgess Wants Water,
and by the Best Plan.
he Proposes Reservoirs.

Many favor the canel-mOIe
think are opposed to it as planned
! but there are two things in Whic
! nearly all agree; they are that v
8 want more water AMI the WatE
ought to be good.
The proposition Of the City Cour
Gil to borrow $3.50, 600 to construt
the canal is opposed for variety {
reasons. Some citizens oppose it an
will vote no because they dread det
and increased taxation others be
cause they have so often seen simila
projects fall very short of what wa
promised them, and naturally fea
that this one may meet with q SINH
lar fate; and yet another and verl
numerous class Will, next Monday
vote no, because they think the Cal
for authority to borrow so large a sun
is premature. That IL, they thinl
the gentlemen of the City CouncI
have committed themselves to thG
construction OF a long and costly
canal, on an objectionable plan, with.
out first determining that there Wa;
no better means OF supplying the
city with water.
Citizens of the latter class-the
writer is one of them-have been led
to INQUIRE what means have been
used by the Council to ascertain thai
canal from the Jordan on the plan
and route adopted is the best way oil
adding to the water supply. They
find that about all the Council did be-
fore deciding was ID consult Surveyor
Fox about his surveys in Jordan
Valley, and send a committee of its
members up City Greek Canon to see
if reservoirs could be constructed.
The committee reported adversely;
Mr.. Fox favored the canal. and the
people are asked to vote $3.50, 900 to
dig canal that the Council think
Will cost only $50, 1000.
These feeble efforts to get at facts
and the best means of supplying a
g-eat want would be laughed at il
there was less at stake.
There is not a member of the
Council who is a hydraulic engineer,
and Mr.. Fox, though an excellent
gentleman and u man of fine attain
ments in some directions, has, 1 be-
lieved, had no experience IN hydraulic
engineering aside from surveying
irrigation canals over the plains and
side hills of the territory.
II the members of the Council,
without engineering knowledge
among themselves, failed 10 consult
hydraulic engineers, how can it con-
slstently be claimed that they have
found in the canal the best means OF
supplying the city with water?
appeal to you, Mr.. Editor, and to
the gentlemen of the Council: Do the
simple efforts made satisfy you that
there is no way out of tie difficulty
to load the city with a debt OF $3.50,
600 for a canal that at its best can
furnish nothing but filthy, unWhOle-
some water, and only a titful supply
of that? You don't believe it?-no in
telligent person in the community
believes il.
The city stands at the mouth of a
caGOn; there is a similar canon just
east OF Fort Douglas, and series OF
them breaking oat of the range a
little further south. All these canons
have creeks and the creeks
carry down large quantities OF water
that are wasted in the lake
seven or eight months out of the year.
The water that is wasted from the
caiions is clear and wholesome, while
that proposed to be brought by the
canal must in the nature OF things be
dirty and uuwbolesome.
Why not then. instead OF paying
$4,000 or $250,0O0 for impure
water, spend this or some less amount
for reservoirs in the csnons and secure
good water like We have now?
To this some will urge the objection
that committee of the City Council
examined City Creek canon and re-
ported that the soil and formation
were such az to render reservoirs there
impracticabe.
There is nothing in the objection.
The opinion OF members of the
Council, while worthy of the highest
consideration when relating to mat.
tiers with which they are familiar, is
of very little value when given upon
hydraulics and hydrostatics. The
members of the Council have not
been trained in those branches.
There are a number of gentlemen
in the territory, however, who have
spent years of their lives in studying
how to store, control and distribute
water, snd some of them have seer
or had to do with the construction o.
important water works in different
parts of the world. Why not have
tbs benefit Of their study, experience
and observation before going to grea
expense for bad water? They knoE
how or could devise ways to consiruc
reservoirs in City Creek and othe
canons that would save the floods o
water now going to waste without il
the least endangering the lives o
property of people living below them
The Council is not warranted in con
demuing the reservoir system, which
all prefer If feasible, without frs
having the ground examined an
reported upon by competent engineers
Neither Is that body justified j
adopting the canal-if canal it mu:
have-by the route lined out in il
address to the voters of Salt LAX
City without determining that ther
is no other way than to carry larg
stream of water to the Sugar Hous
and there waste four fiiths of 1t; fC
that amount of waste there must b
If 1t Is attempted TO conduct th
amount o! water carried by piece
canal with nineteen inches IA
through another piece Of the sam
section four miles long with no fall.
! Wasting water from a canal, cor
stTucted as it is proposed to construC
this one, | need not remind the Cit
/ Council, ia wasting the people
money-so is spending money at rar
dom nearly always wssteful, and
! proceed further without more light
clearly random work.
i WHAT then ought the council to dC
! They ought to do now what the
should have done before asking IL
people to vote authority to borro
$3.50, 600, viz: Ascertain by Il
most approved methods whether it
hest to supply the city with wat
through a canal or by the aid
reservoirs, and then lay detaile
plans. specifications and estimates