Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-01
WILL BE PROTECTED OR co TO A
PLACE OF SAFETY,

EDS. RECORD. UNION: We have noticed
what John Rider says about high water in
the American river in 1881; but for some
reason he is dumb as to the far worse condi-
ton of affairs in 1878. He says that in
1872 there was no water around his house,
and he could walk around it and not get his
feet wet. The reason for this was that dur
ing that food the levee broke near Rabel's
tannery, and this carried the American river
through that break. This is the all suffi cient
explanation why the water did not rise higher
at his house.
Mr.. Rider says: " Sincs then the ground
has filed up about two feet" 1t is noticed
that he does not say how that filling was
done; but the fact is it was by the food
waters Of 1868 and other years prior to
1881. In 1S67.S the water was higher on the
north levee than it has ever been. either be-
fore or since. In 1881 the river was not nearly
SO high IS in 1S67.S as shown by the well.
established fact that at Folsom the water did
not rise as high into about eight feet as it did
in 1872. This shows that the high waters
against our levees in 1881 was not on account
of the great volume of water in the American
river, but because the river bed had been
almost entirely filled with debris and the con-
held back the water at the junction of the
rivers and backed it up the American as far
as Brighton.
If the water in the Sacramento had been
as high in 1868 as it was in 1881, so as to
have held the American river back, nothing
would have saved the north leyee, and the
city would have been devastated and injured
to the extent of many hundred Thousand dol
lars. Not only that, but it would have cost
twenty times more to put the levees back
into as good condition even as at present, as
is Row asked to make them more secure.
AS simple proposition of paying taxes, we
have no desire for any increase of the amount
we are now paying, but we regard this mat.
ter of increasing the effectiveness of our levees
as the most vital question as business prop
osition, both for protection Of the property
we now have in the city. and also looking
to its increase of value and the prosperity of
the city in general. The only fault we have
to find with the proposed expenditure is that
it is far too small. We are in deep earnest
in this matter, and feel that the very least
that is practicable is to devote the $40, 900,
as proposed, to levee purposes,
We regret that there has been any opposi-
ton to this expenditure it is suicidal to
the best interests of the city to OPP
pose the measure. If through the pars-
mony of the residents of this city another
food is allowed to come in upon us, SIS it may
unless thorough precaution is taken, those of
US who simply make this our residence, be.
cause we like the place and people but are
carrying on business elsewhere-and there
are many such residents-we will certainly
leave and choose a safer place of abode. We
are willing to be taxed to any amount neces-
sary to secure the safety of Sacramento
against inundation, but the people must not
commit business suicide by voting down the
tax proposed to be devoted to the purposes of
securing our levee defenses As citizens
known to all, who have lived many years
with you, who have large interests in this
State. who love this people, but are not
bound to remain here by business ties, we
urge the adoption of the special levy.
FREDERICK Cox,
& W CTARKF