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

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,
making the miners take care of their own taiiings
| (which really will result in closing down most Of
| the mines), but We have two points to consider
when we conclude on this course:
| First-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 30 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
Here is the cost of work for season OF $780, taken
| from the Directors statement
Total disbursements and liabilities. $463 163 81
Cost OF Ylba river dam ,99S %
Cost of Bear river dam..... 1881 A
-- 2O4, $50 81
Amount expended river works. .s25S, 573 "a
| Thus five ninths of the money expended during
the first season has been for rectifying the damage
done in the past, and not in building dams to hold
| back the sands which are now being put into the
4 canyons
| Future expense, inclusive OF foregoing, from the
State Engineers report the Board OF Directors,
| page Is
River works $! ,o0o. 900
Storing sands 1000 900
Total estimate for the year ........... So COO 900
Revenue from district and miners tax ard assess
ment year S101 600 at rate for ten years.
81 ol0 co., or more than enough to cover the esti-
| mate OF storage works.
| If then. Mr. Speaker we cannot solve this cues.
| ton by purely legal course, the only remaining
possible solution is that 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 unpalatab!e as this dose may be,
shocking as it may be to the of my friend
from Alameda, he aud his people will have TO take
| il yet, in my judgment. For this is an evil yet
| growing from the effects of work done many years
ago, when nearly all of Us or our fathers min
| ers. We have let II go on, until now the case has
become chronic, and good habits vrtuous paths and
! early hours wont.cure it. We must go to the doc
| tors even if there is no hope of our getting
| entirely we'll 1t may be said that it is desired
| to put the patient on low diet to stop this
pouring OF the sparkling debris down his gullet.
| Well, that is another matter.
! Ii 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 devsh 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
gives you the only hope of solution OF your prob
lem, until you are prepared TO and have set up
! thing else equally efficient.
o. Does the wef,re of California demand an en-.
cheering solution OF the probem-are the benefits
| to be derived from such solution commensurate
| with it's cost?
Can California afford to dispense with the Sacra
msnto 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, $4,000, 900 to SIS,
00o, 600; area covered by slickens, 43 $40 acres
Value landed property, 81, 100000; value persona
property, 100000; total, s6,000,00o Whea
crop of upper sacramento valley, 100000 tons
Destruction OF rivers would raise freights 81 pei
ton, an annual loss of 100000; valley land,
menaced with destruction, 500, 000 600; production
OF hydraulic mines TO date, $3.50 100000 population
supported the hydraulic mines 30, 600 hydra ul,
mines fixed capital, 500 0Oe, O00.
90 Are the principles OF this Drainage Ac
measurably Just? From whence are the means Il
be derived with which to carry on these drainag,
worksf
Let us distinctly understand and appreciate thu
nature of the works which are necessary, and il
order to simplify the question, let us for the mo
ment consider that hydraulic mining were instanta
neOusly stopped, and no fresh additional tailing
were to be put into the canyons The following
well established facts must be borne in mind
EIrst-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 thu
past twenty years.
Third-There is before remarked. sufficient
sand and small gravel in the upper tributary river
and CANYONS to practically obterate the lower maiI
channels if it comes down and rests in them.
Fourth-Frcm the effect of the filling in of the
be $ of the main streams their waters are con
stantly seeking to spread, and caving down anC
d, stroying the natural banks, which, before thi;
great sahd-fiow commenced were remarkably firm
and unyeldiug.
Nov these effects are the result of the unrestrict
ed prosecution OF HYDRAULIC mining operations
Admitting that the State has always had the power
to regulate this industry-had the power to stop the
deposit of tailings in the tributary streams-we n(
that size has neglected 20 exercise that power unit
the matter has come TO such pass that millions
uponsmilions of dollars of private property a great
nayigable public highway OF unreasonable value L
the whole country, and to this broad valley paTticu
arly well as to the capital city of the State,
in danger. Yes, IN imminent danger and of ;
gradual annihilation
The question now arises as to what can be done tC
remedy the harm already effected-or to arrest thu
impending danger at least Two classes OF work.
are necessary to compass this object One class
designed to hold back or otherwise dispose of tht
debris in the upper tributary canyons anC
streams, and the other class to effect the improve
ment OF the lower or main river channels so thai
they may carry the flood waters presented to then
on at least all ordinary occasions.
Now, then, who is going to pay for tnis work
Remember we are supposing that the mines are NJ
longer in operaton-that they are stopped AnC
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 now settled in them
Who is going to pay for this work, l say! l have
heard that the General Government should that Il
is the policy of the General Government to improve
its navgable rivers Let me tell him who raises THU
point that the General Government never yet ha:
spent dollar on a river distinctively for
the purpose of improving Its flood carrying
capacity. There is difference between tht
improvement of the lowwater navigation of a river
and the treatment Of channel to make it carry it,
flood volumes. In the one case, local distractions
are removed, snags are pulled out, bars dredged
through, rocks blown away and in general term;
the owwater channel is rendered passable for ordi
nary river craft at such points Instructions exist
In the other case, the whole river system is treated
with the view of permanently bringing Its waters
into channel of nearly uniform width and gentl,
curvng alignment, in order that it may scour out t
depth sufficient to carry floods brought to it. The
first class o. improvements are temporary i'll the
nature and are repeated from year to year tn,
same ground, for the purpose Of helping navigation
for the season. The second class are designed to b,
permanent, and, carried out the works requlr,
afterward only TO be kept in good repair. Our Gen
eral Government concerns itself solely with navga
ton interests and has undertaken works othe
than those designed to facilitate internal commerce
If she ever does any thing more the Sacramento
river than improve its low-water navigation, it vii
be an exceptional case, and the question is Hav,
right to eXpect that she will make such tx
ceptlon IN TINS case? We may expect small an
nual appropriation, such as there has been in thu
past, for pulling snags and dredging or otherwise
removing bars at low water but upon what grounC
can confidently look to Washington for that sus
tanned and systematic treatment of these streams
necessary for their rectication or on what grounC
can hope to have the task of holding back the
sands already In the upper canyons and streams
taken OFF our handsf
Let us inquire moment into the attitude il
which this State stands on these questions now. The
Congress OF the United States by enactment of Sep
TENDER IS, 1850 Statutes at Large, vol 0, p. $40
K. s., 24T9), to enable the several States to con
struct the necessary levees and drains to reclaim th
swamp and overlooked lands therein granted thes,
swamp lands to the States they were situated in Cal
ifornia among Others accepted this grant on thes,