Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-28
LEYEE PROTECTION.
Statement from omcial Source in Relation
TO Y-street Levee.

short time since in these columns, IN which
the abandonment of the river levee between
this city and Freeport was discussed. and in
that connection the condition and sufficiency
Of TIRE Y.street levee to afford protection to
Sacramento against backwater and overflow,
provided the river was allowed to flow upon
and submerge Lsvee District No. l, just be-
low the city. AS portion Of the property
owners in the levee district mentioned have
advocated adopting the mound System in
stead Of maintaining the levee between Y
street and Freeport, which plan it was stated
by such advocates would leave the city de-
fenseless against overflow from the south,
City Engineer L. f. Bassett was called upon,
ana in answer to inquiries furnished the fol-
lowing information:
Question-It has been recently stated, Mr..
Bassett, in connection with the question of
keeping up the river levee between this city
and Freeport. and the liability to the city
from effects Of water backing up from Levee
District No. l, that the Ystreet levee is now
as high as it can be constructed with effect,
as it starts at and Thirty first streets upon
level with the plains and surrounding
country, and is built through west to the
river levee upon level with that point, and
hence that it would be impossible for the city
to do anything more toward shutting out
food water from that direction than has al
ready been done. AS City Engineer you are
probably in possession Of the facts upon this
subject. Will you please inform me whether
the above statement of the situation Is cor
rect?
Answer-This would certainly seem to me
as wrong statement of the situation. Hav-
ing repeatedly taken levels in that direction
am Of course in a position to give the exact
facts. They are as follows The Y-street
leyee as at present constructed begins at
Twenty-third and Y streets, and is built
thence west to Cemetery hill at Eleventh
street on a level with 10 feet on the river
gauge at the foot Of X street. Starting again
imrnediately west of Ninth street, it Is built
across the Sacramento river leyee on level
with 20 feet on the gauge at the foot OF K
street. Going east from Twenty. third street
the ground rises gradually to level at
Thirty-frst street, with "a feet on the gauge
at the foot of K street, and east of Thirty first
street it is still rising quite rapidly. At
Twenty fourth and Y streets, in front Of Mr..
OdelIs slaughter house, the natural surface
of the street is level with 20. am informed
by Mr.. Odell that in the great flood Of 1862,
when the water came into the city on the
north from the American river, that the water
was not over the ground upon which his
slaughter-house stands. Certainly, therefore,
if in the 1862 food, when the water came in
from ADORE us. and the whole country was
as it never has been since, the
water did not rise at Y street to greater
hight than % or % feet, we should not expect
it TO rise to "a feet with the water coming
from Jelolc, even taking into consideration
any subsequent rise of the river bed.
Oft has been further stated in this con-
nection that the Y-strees levee, when upon a
level with the plains at Thirty.first street,
would be upon a level with the 19-foot mark
of the river gauge at the foot of K
street that last winter the water. Ia
tins tules on the west side Of tho river
opposite this city rose to over twenty
four feet, by reason of the levee being
swept away, aud hence, that with the levee
similarly gone between street and Free
port. the water would have risen to hight
of five feet above the Y-street levee. What
are your views upon this statement?
A.-The first part of this question is
answered by the information given in my re-
ply to the last AS TO my views concerning
the hight to which the back-water might
rise. will say that I do not agree with the
views set forth in the question. l viii gre
my reasons for thinking as do as follows :
We may speak of the two overlooked dis
tricts as being located, the one on the west
side of the Sacramento from knights Land
ing to the Montezuma hills, and the other
on the east side of the Sacramento,
from Sacramento city to the outlet
into the bay via Snodgfass slough and
the Nlokelumne and San Joaquin river.
Taking the district on the west side of the
Sacramento, we find that at the head of the
district there is in all floods considerable
difference between the water in the river and
that in the overflow. Opposite Sacramento
the difference amounts (if the information
stated in the question is correctl to only from
two to four feet; while, from short distance
below Clarksburg to the Montezuma hills, the
water is actually higher in the overflow than
in the river, and the water between those points
flows back into the Sacramento river again.
We find a similar state of affairs existing on
this side of the river, with the difference that
in this case Sacramento is at the head of the
overhowed district, instead of being nearly
opposite its central point Here the differ
snce between the water in the river and in
the overflow Is eonsiderable-eight to ten
feet. About opposite CORTLAND we find
about the same difference existing in the
water in the river and in the overflow on the
east, that exists here between the water IN the
river and the overflow in the west, while
still further down the overflow on the east
side is again discharged into the Sacramento
through the Mokelumne and San Joaquin
rivers, In the one case Knights Landing is
at the head of the overlooked district; in the
other it is Sacramento and in both cases the
difference between the nights OF the water Ia
the river and in the overflow is considerable,
and, in my opinion, viii remain SO, no matter
how many or great the breaks in the leeves
below us, or, in fact, if they were taken en-
tirely away. Further reasons for supposing
that the back water would not rise
materially higher than the floods of 1878
and 1881 may be stated as follows Inc
country below Sacramento may be Hkened
to long and shallow basin, with very
sloping sides and one end raised higher than
the other Now il we discharge a small
stream of water at the upper end or any
where along the sides of our artificial basin,
the result will be that the basin will first fill
quite rapidly until the water begins to run
out at the lower end, and then, although we
NAV continue to keep our stream running,
the water will not rise 80 a higher point. In
deed. if we turn in stream of twice, or even
ten times the volume, still the hight of the
water would not be materially increased, the
water simply discharging from the lower end
of the basin as fast as it is received at Its up
per end. The situation below Sacramento is
precisely similar to the above. Should
small DrSAk bAkS DtdCo dGJ NllCiO eNiObS etiO
line OF the river levee, the result would be
that the water would rise quite rapidly until
the basin was full and the water discharges
over the lower rim OF the basin at Freepprt,
when there would be no further rise in the
back-water Now, if our break enlsrges SO
that many times the amount of water is be-
ing discharged into the basin, or if the levee
breaks in several other places, still the hight
of the water will remain nearly the same,
because the water can escape at the
lower end of the basin as fast as
il is discharged into it from above.
Very nearly the above conditions existed
during the high water Of last winter. There
is built across the lower rim of the basin,
back of Freepert. a levee Originally built as
a railroad embankmen9, the top of which is
three feet lower than the top of the Y-street
leyee. When the breaks occurred last winter
the water below the city continued to rise
until it began to run over the top of this
leyee. As soon as the water began to run
over this levee it began to wash it down, and
from that time the water below the city
commenced falling and fell total of two feet
before it became stationary, although the
water in the river maintained its hight, and
TIE breaks kept widening and deepening
Had other breaks taken place at the same
time. / do not think the water could have
attained hight OF over eighteen feet against
the Y.street levee, unless they had taken
place Immediately below the city,.
Q.-Have you ever made an estimate as TO