Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-07
THE LEvEEs AND DRAINAGE.

AS w. r. Knox, at present one " -
Directors of Drainage District No. l, wa
formerly one Of the Trustees of this city
and had extensive experience in relation
the city levees and drainage, and In protect
ing the city in time of floods, representa-
tive of the RECORD UNION yesterday GALES
nnon him to obtain his views with relation t
the propositions to be voted upon at tn
election to be held on the 18th instant
Upon the subject of the city levees general.
he said:
By referring to the Act Of 1878 it will b.
found that this city was authorized through
its Board of Trustees (who were by that Ac
made Levee Commissioners to adopt a sys
TEN of levees and drainage, and were full.
empowered to maintain and protect them II
the future without limit as to cost 1t wa
provided, however, that no system COSTING
more than 500, 900 could be adopted withou
having been submitted to and adopted by thu
electors at an election to be called for tina
purpose In accordance with that Act Two
plans or systems were submitted, and the one
from Brighton to Y street, including tht
drainage canal to Snodgrass Slough, wa
adopted by a majority Of four to one-sht
vote at the same time on the adoption OF the
Freeport leyee was four to one against It,
Now / take it that the system adopted al
that time was permanent one, ana gave tI
| the Board full power to maintain it without
| limit as to cost, and did not contemplate the
necessity of an election every time or any
time, if in the Judgment of the Board
additions or repairs were needed. am
of the opinion that the Board had
power to have levied any amount of
tax last spring they thought fit, and IN the
absence of having done sc, have now fuil
power to make such additions and repairs as
they think necessary, and pay for the same
next year. There is certainly no necessity
for submitting that portion OF their PROPOSE
lions to the voters, or of leyying and collect
| ing a special tax at this time.
! Q.-Hew about the canal?
A.-The power to complete the canal rests
on the same basis, and | think 1t should be
done this season-three-fourths OF the work
has been done, few thousand dollars Will
complete it. In its present unfinished condi-
ton it is damage to residents below Free
port, by discharging the water from District
No. on them which before the canal was cut
through the high land back of Freeport could
not reach them. | think tie city is legally
bound to complete il to Snodgrass slough,
and is liable for damages unless it is done
1t is Of vital importance to the city fol
drainage.
Q.-What 90 you think of the proposition
to give Levee District No. S27, 600.
Aft it is carried, will it be adopting the
! levee to Freeport as q part of our system
| And if so, will the city not In accordance
with the Act, have to assume entire charge
of it. and do all the work, and thencefortf
protect it, and relieve that district from al
responsibility, except for what benefit it may
be to them, as provided in the law before re
ferred to? And if doing SO does not adopt il
as ours, under what restrictions will the
money be given!
OFF we vote to give it to them, may
they not claim il without any conditions?
Ais not thatfidistrict as able Ito lmake
| that levee secure as we are to protect
| them from the American river and the
/ Sacramento to Y street? These are ques
tons which think difficult to satisfactorily
answer, therefore l shall vote against It. The
cause of all the breaks in that levee that has
occurred in the last three years was neglect
and what surety have we that it will not
again be neglected if we contribute that
amount and leave the care Of it to them?
Q.-How about the proposition to erect
pumping works?
Al am opposed to it at present. When
done it will involve careful engineering, and
ought to be accompanied with reconstruc.
ton of our entire sewer system, in order that
all privy matter may be carried in them, and
the disease breeding cesspools abandoned.
This will involve vast expense, and should
not be entered upon hastily. Many diff
culties will have to be overcome an impor-
taut one is that there is a State law prohibit
ing the pollution of the rivers with such mat
ter. No doubt an Injunction would lie
against it,
Q.-Where, in your opinion, are we in the
greatest danger from overflow!
Al think the greatest and the first ap-
proachipg danger to our levee defenses is al
Mrs. Wa!6r5n's place. The channel of the
American river at that point is fast approach
ing the leyee, and as the ground is much
lower near the levee than where the main
channel is now running, it will be but q
short time, If not prevented, until the current
at high water will be against the levee, and
the same trouble will occur that was had at
Rabers tannery in former years. A few
thousand dollars properly expended now in
turning the river at point higher up IN the
bend Of the river, will save many times the
amount in the near future, and probably
avoid much anxiety and danger in the mean
time.
Q.-Where do you consider the next great
est point of danger?
A.-Between Burns slough and the old
sugar factory, on the outside OF the levee, is
wide, open space that has been covered
with water several feet deep, extending up tc
and against the levee. a possible strong
north wind of a few hours, in such case,
might render the situation very precarious,
particularly as the levee is composed Of RED
earth that, when wet, becomes very soft ano
treacherous.
Q-How would you protect it
Al would increase the outside slope
! from two to one, as at present, to four to one,
and plant it with Bermuda grass. Ia two
years time it would be complete protec.
ton, and at trifing expenditure.
Q.-Are there other places that you con-
slider needs attention particularly?
A.-The spur levee on Twenty-third street
| 81 ould, I think, be materially strengthened.
! During food time the water is eight or ten feet
higher on the upper side than the ground Is
on the lower side of this levee. OK course,
should it give way the water would not come
| into the city, but might give great trouble to
| the levee from there to Twelfth street, as II
| did on a former occasion.
Q-How about the main line of levee from
Seventh street TO Brighton?
| Alt is in fine condition, high and stro1g
enough fer all present needs, and with the
precautions before noted, attended to, would
| be highly satisfactory to any one capable OF
! Judging. The bed of the American river is,
| however, filing up much faster than formerly,
and the flood hight, of course. is risirg core
| spondingly. 1t would be wise precaution,
| and. / think, would crafty public opinion,
! to widen the levee on the inside the whole
distance from Sixteenth street TO Brighton as
recommended by Engineer Bassett. In few
wears the hight could be added to. Were / q
! Leyee Commissioner l would have Bermuda
grass planted on the outside slopes of all the
! levees. regard it, after two or three years
growth, as a complete protection against tbs
action of either wind or waves. OF course,
4 should the channels of the river undermine
| the levee at any point. neither Bermuda
| grass, nor cobbles on its face, would save it,
! Bermuda grass can be seen on IL street, be
| tween Nineteenth and Twentieth, at corner
of Eleventh and streets, and on the south
side Of the Y-street levee. An effort to cul
through its sod would satisfy the most skep
| teal.
Q.-What Is your idea of the cobbles and
loose rock as proposed:
A,-The experience of the railroad com
pany between here and Davisville Is thai
rock, to be effectual, must be laid close
in large pieces, almost like stone
wall. To throw cobble or other small
stons on the slope of a levee, with
out being carefully placed, would seen
to me very like waste of money. While
am willing to have any reasonable sum o.
money expended in strengthening and pro
tecting the levee, am unwilling by my vott
to make it mandatory on the Trustees q
use 100000 IS proposed, on cobbies ane
loose stones flor this is what the propositioi
-. z ..AI 80