Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-05

ought to do with a mining ditch, or 1ume, or q
swamp land evee, or mountain-road grade, magines
himself civil engineer, but the State of California
does not elect him to the Legislature to display his
conceited ignorance on professional subjects.
There are other points-the poltico- economical
questions, on which can all talk learnedy, that
this bill on its merits. But before coming to these
must dispose of the other point of the engineering
question.
Will such dams have the effect of storing the
sands as desired?
find on rage Il of Part Ill of the State En-
gineers report published year ago the following
ct should be clearly understood that the obie and
effect OF these proposed dams would be to hold back
the sands and gravel and not the finer sediments
which discoor the waters.
On page "a of the same paper | find a statement
in tabular form of the amount of material washed
into the several rivers by the mines On page So
an outline of the storage plan and again, in the
report presented to this Legislature and just pub
lished, is to be found the whole subject recapitu-
lated and calculations of storage made. The result
is as testified to before the Committee on Water
Rights and Drainage by the State Engineer, there is
storage-room in sight on the Iuba and Bear rivers
to hold this detritu for twenty to twenty five years
Now these results are derived from actual survey
they have cost the State money; they have never
been disputed by any one who has looked into the
matter And il is idle for us, or for any OF us on
this floor to undertake to gainsay them without ex-
animation. If we do not have faith in these engi-
neers why then go into their Office, eXpend DAYS in
examnin, their figures and maps and plans before
we undertake to crit'clse their reports. l ask
whether any member on this floor has undertaken
to really inform himself in this way, SO that he
might speak knowingly on the subject And do
not hesitate to say that none have.
No, Mr. Speaker, this question as to whether or
not this great engineering problem can be solved is
not within province TO consider. The State En-
gneer has reported upon it, and three of the most
eminent engineers in the United States have Endorsed
his report We can with good grace let it alone.
The experience had thus far with the works COM
menced is just no experience at all, every just
man must acknowledge. The State was told very
plainly before the Drainage Act passed that this
work of time and every one of ordinary intel
ligence knows that it must necessarily be So
1t is all very WE'LL for purpose, to cry out here
that the works have faed it is all very well to say
they cannot be male a success Ii you gentlemen
who make use of such tactics reconcile your
course to your own consciences, for one am willing
that you have all the rope you desire But to those
reasonable gentlemen OF this body who come here
with determination of basng legislation in each
case upon its merits, say we have no right to look
upon this question from engineering point of view
this year any differently from what We looked on ii
last year The experiment is yet untred, and il we
are repeal the BILL must put it on some other
ground than that of failure OF the wcrks, else we
make asses of ourselves before the world.
the third question IN this engineer ng category is
of nature more susceptible of general discussion
(c Does this drainage law put into operation prop
machinery for its solution (he solution Of the en-
gineering problems of hOdI back the sands and
improving the ivers)?
We can only consider this question here as an en-
cheering one, for it comes up again in our second
category a politico- Economical question, in two
10 ms.
In BRIEF the Act to promote drainage creates 9
State Board of Drainage Commissioners, composed
OF the Governor the State Surveyor General anC
the State Engineer, who outline designate drain
age districts The Governor appoints a Board Of
Directors for each such district formed. The
n r.ar
and submits them to the District Board and this
Board after adopting them, by the aid OF its owl
engineer carries out the works designed.
We here have business possibility that bl eadtf
of treatment of the whole river system which is
essential to success 1t has been universally &C
knowledged that thA OF failure in river works
is the absence OF extended system. We can wei
understand that sustained and systematic treat
ment OF the streams Is necessary effect their rec
tiication and in order to do this general contro
over all works must be lodged in some competent
authority. In this respect therefore, the Drainag,
Act appears to be well adapted to the requirement:
of the case.
AS to specific works. as well as general plans, the
Act gives the scope SO essential success. 1t i.
supposed by some that the line OF Gcton is bound
down TO some preconceived definite plan already re
ported. Such is not the case. Whatever engineer
ing works may be necessary to accomplish the re
suits aimed at can be undertaken under this Act
and if particular course of action, from practical
point OF view, is at any time found unwise, it can
be changed, modified or abandoned to suit the case
IL has been SAID That this law should be repealed
because the system OF reSeryoring the sands would
not succeed; the sands ought to be run into the
deep basins or tule lands and there be stored Why
sir, that is no argument for repeating the law. II
it is proper thing i'll any case to store sands OF
slickens in the tule basins il can be done as well
under this law as under any other. The power ex.
lists under 1t to carry out any engineering work
which be paid for out of the revenue and which
will effect the desired result.
Ii has been urged that this law ought te he re
pealed because the miners ought to take care Of
their own detritus | submit, Mr.. Speaker that
that is no argument for the repeal of this law. We
all admit that the State, or some authority Other
than the miners alone, must hold back the sands
and gravel already in the tributary streams can
yons, and restore the large rivers TO their formei
condition. This Drainage Act provides the maehih
cry for that purpose, q if hydraulic mining were
stopped tomorrow, still would it be necessary tc
carry forward the very works now projected
careful review of the field leads me to the BELLE
that this Act to promote drainage does put il
operation machinery of a nature calculated to solve
the problem to be dealt WITH and that there can be
no point urged for its repeal this ground If il
its ails it is detective, that would consttut,
reason for amendment and not repeal
II. We now come, Mr.. Speaker, to consider this
subject from the standpoint Of the statesman, the
legislator. We have great question forced upor
US by the improvidence of the General Government
and by our own negligence.
a. What possible solutions of this question are
there?
We may say that great public question is solved
when it no longer agitates the public mind and fol
the sake Of argument We will look upon this matter
in that light. To stop agitation we must stop in
jury or compensate the injured-for 80 long somt
is being ruined he will continue to agitate ant
we know by experience in this State that person
can stir up mucn noise and popular sentiment wheI
the newspapers help him (and the newspapers are
certainly on the side of noise in this matter) Tt
completely stop the injury that is in progress, anC
that we hear so much complaint about, means
~ To stop hydraulic mining ~ to spend about
three to four millions Of money holding back the
sands and gravel already in the upper streams, an6
in rectifying restoring the lower or larger river!
to their former condition of greater capacity. Or
alternative, during the next ten years to spenC
perhaps mill on OF dollars more in holding bach
the sands put in by the mines during that period
and allow them to go on with their work in the
meantime.
Here let distinctly call to mind the fact that il
Is with the results OF this mining produced in the
past that we are called upon now TO fight the hardest
battle Sands have been put into these rivers fol
the past twenty five years, and just now
suffering the result of the work OF all that long
period. The repeal Of the Act to promote drainage
will not stop the injury. IL will not stop the injury
that is direct and caused by the submergence Of
property by sands, or that which is indirect ans
caused by the filling OF the river channels and
sequent spreading of the waters
Above the city of Marysville in the Yuba river
and Its canyons there rests according to the esti
mates of the State Engineer, made from actual sur
vey and examination, S4 746, 100 cubic yards of ma
terial, mostly coarse sand. gravel and small bowl
ders, which is in position to be swept into the
Feather river, and down upon the lands adjacent
In like manner, in the Bear river, its canyons
dumps, etc, the quantity of these tailings have
been estimated at S6,160,360 cubic yards in the
American river, 90, $50 600 cubic wards in the up
per Feather river, 81 100000 cubic yards. Here is
grand total of material liable be brought into the
main streams-the lower Feather and Sacramento
rivers aggregating 300 $50, 46O cubic yards.
Now the sum total of the filing that has already
taken place in the large rivers-the Feather below
0roville and the Sacramento below the Feather
has been estimated by the State Engineer part III
of Report 1s7s-79, p. III, at 49,, SAG cubic
yards. In other words, there is more than twice as
much of this material yet to come into these mair
rvers-aready mined out and on the way to them
as has already reached them. And that which i;
yet 10 come is Of heavier coarser kind which vii
not sweep out, but will lodge and stay somewhere
in the main channel, and there is sufficient in guam
tity to obliterate that channel from Rio Vista t.
Marysville.
We must understand that this material is moi
largely resting far up in the mountains where thu
canyons are steep and narrow-for these sweep ou
to considerable extent each period O
high water-but on the Yuba river. Fol
instance, the great mass of it is below