Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-05
0KOINAI DEFE(DVE

and in my humble Judgment 1t cannot be solved by
arepeal Of this law ana the stoppage of hydraulic
mining. We may simplify It we may render the
expense to the State less by stopping the mines, or
| making the miners take care OF their own tailings
(which really will result in closing down most Of
| the mines) but we have two points to consider
| when we conclude this course:
Frst-Though we reduce the aggregate expense
| to the State will We reduce the burden upon any
citizen OF the State in other words, will not cut
of SO much taxable property that we will not re-
| duce taxes anywhere? And
Second-Can we stop this industry, and if so, how
| long will it take to effect it Z!
Here is the cost of work for season OF 1850, taken
| from the Directors statement:
Total disbursements and liabilities .s463 1853 81
Cost of Yuba river dam. .Sl30,99S %
| Cost OF Bear river dam ..... 1881 A
Amount expended on river works. .s25s 573 "a
| Thus five ninths of the money expended during
the first season has been for rectfyng the damage
done in the past and not in building dams to hold
| back the sands which are nov being put into the
| canyons.
Future expense, inclusive OF foregoing, from the
State Engineers report 10 the Board OF Directors,
! page Is:
River works 81 900
Total estimate for the year 81, 600 900
Revenue from district and miners tax and assess
ment, year. s1ol 900 at same rate for ten years.
81, 0oo, more than enough to the esti-
mate of storage works.
If, then, Mr.. Speaker, we cannot solve this ques-
ton by purely legal course, the only remaining
possible solution is that ow so commonly discussed
| the solution offered by engineering science The
engineers have proposed to hold back the sand and
gravel in the tributary or upper streams by means
/ OF dams and other distractions to its flow and in
the mean time TO cause the lower rivers TO clear
| themselves and stop caving down their banks as
they now do. As unpalatable this dose may be-
shocking as it may be to the Of my friend
from Alameda, he and his people will have to take
| il Yet, in my judgment. For this is all evil yet
growing from the effects Of work done many years
ago, when nearly all of US or our fathers were min
ers We have let il go on, until now the case has
become chronic, and good habits virtuous paths and
early hours won tcure it. We must go to the doc
tors, even ii there is no hope OF our getting
entirely we'll 1t may be said that 1t is desired
to put the patieut low diet to stop this
pouring of the Sparkling debris down his gullet
| Well, that is another matter.
If you can stop hydraulic mining, in Gods name
do it Buy out the mines and pay for them, if you
can afford it. Get the General Government to take
them back, If you can. Stop them from putting in
their devish sands, if the Courts will let you. Reg
ulate them and their dumping, if the General Gov
| eminent will stand it. But don't commence at the
wrong end OF the subject, and repeal the Act that
Civ es you the only hope of solution of your prob
lem, until you prepared to and have up some
thing else equally efficient.
o. Does the welfare of California demand an en-
gineerng solution OF the problem-are the benefits
TO be derived from such a solution commensurate
with its cost!
Can California afford to dispense with the sacra-
mento and Feather rivers, the low lands and towns
adjacent to them and with the gold taken from the
mines?
From Governor Perkins special message these
statistics OF valley commerce, mining business etc,
are taken
Product OF hydraulic mines SO, 900, 900 to Sl5,-
COX, GOO; covered by sckens, 43 $40 acres.
Value landed property, 81 600, 000 value personal
property, 100000; total, s6,000,ooo. Wheat
crop of upper sacramento valley, 900 tons.
Destruction OF rivers would raise freights 81 per
ton, annual loss of 81, 600, 900: valley lands
menaced with destruction, $50 600 009; production
OF hydraulic mines to date, $3.50 600 600; population
supported by the hydraulic mines, 80 900 hydraulic
mines fixed capital, 100000, 000
(c) Are the principles OF this Drainage Act
measurably Just? From whence are the means to
be derived with which to carry these drainage
works.
Let US distinctly understand and appreciate the
nature of tie works which are necessary and in
order to simplify the question, let US for tine mo-
ment consider that hydraulic mining were instanta-
neously stopped and no fresh or additional tailings
were to be put into the canyons. The following
well established facts must be borne in mind
First-Ihe large river channels of the valley are
not in their present condition. capable of carrying
away the floods of ordinary volume
Second-They have been brought to their lament
able state by the flow Of sands into them for the
past twenty years.
| Third-There is, as before remarked, sufficient
sand and small gravel in the upper tributary rivers
and CANYONS TO practically obliterate the lower main
channels if it comes down aud rests in them.
Fourth--From the effect of the filling in of the
| be s of the main streams their waters are con-
stantly seeking to spread, and eaving down and
d, stroying the natural banks which, before this
great sand-iow commenced, were remarkably firm
and unyieldiug.
Nov these effects the result of the unresrict-
ed prosecution OF hydraulic mining operations
Admitting that the State has always had the power
TO regulate this lndustryhad the power to stop the
deposit of tailings in the tributary streams-we find
that size has neglected 10 exercise that power until
the matter has come to such pass that millions
upons milions of dollars of private property great
navigable public Highway OF Unreasonable value to
the whole country, and to this broad valley partcu
larry, as we'll as to the capital city of the State,
| in danger. Yes, imminent danger and of u
| gradual humiliation.
The question now arises as to what can be done to
remedy the harm already etfected-or to arrest the
impending danger at least. Two classes Of works
are necessary to compass this object One class.
designed TO hold back or otherwise dispose of the
debris in the upper or tributary canyons and
streams, and the other class to effect the improve
ment of the lower or main river channels so that
they may carry the food waters presented to them
on at least all ordinary occasions.
Now, then, who Is going to pay for tnis work ?
| Remember we are supposing that the mines are no
longer III OperdblOn-lildt Jney are stopped ana
distinctly understand that We are in the position
that something has to be done in holding back the
gravel already in the streams above and in clearing
the rivers below OF the sands settled in them.
Who is going to pay for this work. l says | have
heard that the General Government should that it
is the policy OF the General Government to improve
its nayigabe rivers. Let tell him who raises this
point that the General Government never yet has
spent a dollar on river distinctyely for
the purpose of improving Its flood carrying
capacity. There is difference between the
improvement of the low-water navigation of a river,
and the treatment OF channel to make it carry its
flood volumes. In the one case, local distractions
are removed, snags are pulled out, bars dredged
through, rocks blown away and in general terms
the lowwater channel is rendered passable for ord
nary river craft at such points distractions exist
la the other case, the whole river system is treated
with the view of permanently bringing Its waters
| into a channel OF nearly uniform width and gently
curving alignment i'll order that it may out to
adepth sufficient carry floods brought to it. The
first class o. improvements temporary i'll their
nature, and are repeated from year year the
same ground, for the purpose of helping navigation
for the season. The second class designed to be
permanent, and once carried out the works require
afterward only TO be kept in good repair. Our Gen
eral Government itself solely with naviga-
ton interests and has never undertaken orks other
than those designed to facilitate internal commerce
| If she ever does anything more the Sacramento
river than improve Its low-water navigation it will
be an exceptional case, and the question is, Have
We a right to eXlect that she will make such
| ception in this case? We may expect small an-
nual Appropriation, such as there has been in the
past, for pulling snags and dredging or otherwise
removing bars at low water; but upon what ground
can we confidently look to Washington for that
tanned and systematic treatment OF these streams
necessary for their rectfcation? or what ground
can We hope to have the task OF holding back the
| sands already in the upper CANYONS and streams
| taken OFF our hands?
Let us inquire moment into the attitude in
which this State stands these questions The
Congress of the United States by enactment of Sep
| fSta ftITas x,nI n
X. s., 2479) "to enable the several States to con-
sruct the necessary eyees and drains to reclaim the