Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-07-29
HAMILTON smIrH ON The YuBA DAM.

11tAiItOu DHlsl, oA., upon tiiO uDa Oasii'
The report is supplemented by letter
from Colonel Mendell, and both these docu-
ments go to show that the system of brush |
dams is not the failure it has been alleged to |
be by prejudiced, ignorant and hasty critics,
but that it has already accomplished much
good, and that it is in all respects well
calculated to do what was expected from 1t.
Mr.. Smith has examined the Yuba dam
carefully, and his opinion as an engineer is
clear and positive as to its usefulness. he
calculates that it has already held back
nearly five million cubic yards OF debris,
and that it is capable of impounding
&c, 500, 900 cubic yards more. He believes
that for an expenditure of $4,000 the dam
can be made as strong as ever, and that it
would be practicable to make contract
responsible parties on the condition that
this gum should not be paid unless the dam
held its own until the summer of 1882. MIR.
Smith believes that this dam saved Marys
vile from inundation last winter, and that
nothing else could have done this. This
is a curious commentary upon the hostility
to the dam system which the people of
Marysville have lately manifested. Had
the five million yards of debris which the
dam held back been added to the food
which even with this subtracted almost
overtopped her levees at one time, it is
extremely probable that all the efforts of
her citizens would have proved unavailing
to keep out the water or save the town.
Mr.. Smith thinks that whether or not
the hydraulic mines are stopped, the
Yuba dam ought to be repaired, since it
Twill be of great service in holding back
the large deposits of sand and gravel
already gathered above it in the beds of
the river and its branches" If the
mines are stopped, however, the question
of where the money is to come from for
this or any other protective works will
become very embarrassing one. At
present the hydraulic miners are evincing
disposition to build dams on their own
account. SO as to prevent the tailings from
their mines entering the rivers. Sew
eral companies have already undertaken
works of this kind, but If they are en-
joined they will of course be obliged to
abandon their dams, and they will be
equally incapacitated from taking any
interest in the repair and maintenance of the
brush dams lower down. Mr. Smith ex-
presses hope that the miners will them.
selves undertake the repair of the Yuba
dam, and suggests that should this dam
abe restored, and hold back from the
"Yuba and Feather rivers the injurious
"flow of sand and gravel-all of which l
"believe that it will do-the bitter contest
"now pending between miners and farm
''ers can be brought to an end, before the
"strife has inflicted irreparable injury on
{" either or both parties. This is public
spirited and generous hope, no doubt, but
in order that it may be realized it is neces-
sary that the matters in issue should be
discussed soberly and temporarily, and as
far as possible without prejudice or anger.
The farmers have unquestionably had
great cause of aggravation. They are en-.
titled to full protection against the flow of
debris, and they have perfect right to in
sist that nothing less than this full protec-
ton shall be accorded them. But it re-
mains true that if it can be made evident
that such protection is compatible with the
continued working of the mines, and if it
can be shown that the adoption OF we'll
matured engineering plans will afford them
this protection, they ought to rest content
with the rescue and salvation of their
lands, and they ought not to demand the
destruction of the mining interest in addi-
ton. In this controversy so far the grounds
of difference have been more apparent than
real. The belief that nothing short of the
absolute and permanent cessation of hy-
draulic mining will afford security to the
valley rests upon no sufficient evidence.
It's actual origin was a totally erroneous
view OF the plans of the engineers. AS we
have repeatedly Shown, the engineering
plans were condemned before they had been
fairly commenced. No engineer OF any
reputation or experience has up to the
present time expressed a doubt of the
efficiency of the methods which it was in
tended to apply. On the contrary, many
of the most eminent engineers in the coun
try have strongly approved and Endorsed
those methods. Colonel Mendell in the
report we publish today, says the fact
g that breaks were made in the dam dur
6 ing the past winter does not impair my
confidence in the stability of this kind OF
construction" and he further declares
that in his judgment the dam, if repaired,
"must be efficacious in impounding large
quantity (of debris) which, if not ar
crested, cannot fail to do great injury be-
low"
The plain truth is that the hostility to
the engineering plans cannot be defended
or justified on rational grounds. 1t is
emphatically not true thai she dams have
been failures, even though they have
been impaired. A dam which even when
broken holds back FIVE million cubic yards
of debris, and which saves city from de.
struction, is certainly remarkable in
stance of failure" In fact, the dams did |
not fail, and judging from the successful
operation Of this fragmentary part of the
engineering scheme, unprecedented observ-
ers are justified in inferring that the whole
project, if allowed to be completed, would
produce all the good results expected from
it. What has been wanting throughout
this controversy on the part of the public
is patience. They would not wait long
enough to give Science chance to show
what it could do. They insisted upon
having the work of five years done in four
months, and because this was impossible
they condemned the whole undertaking.
But this condemnation cannot be sus-
tanned or defended. 1t has no foundation
in fact. 1t was made in open defiance Of
the facts, indeed. And now Science comes