Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-09-30
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT TT


iect that should havo the instant attention
of every resident Of the city of Sacramento,
for it more nearly relates to their vital inter-
ests than any other local matter. We
refer to the report of Surveyor Boyd as to
the fall of the drainage canal, and which
report we print elsewhere this morning.
AT the time the Supervisors, Trustees
and low landowners took up the question
of widening and deepening the drainage
canal, the RECORD UNION protested against
any action looking to the expenditure of
money until it had been officially ascer-
tanned that the route of the canal has
sufficient fall to carry off the natural drain
age of this section.
No attention was paid to the warning Of
this paper except to fout it as absurd.
But the authorities went on and built up
the basis for an agreement between the
low landowners, the county and city for
the building of costly dredger, the exca-
waiting of the canal so as to treble its width
and greatly deepen it, and complete it to
Underwater at the head of Snodgrass slough.
Again and again the RECORD UNION
called attention to the absolute necessity
of first ascertaining the fall of the land
before taking any definite steps, and we
asserted that natural drainage, as contem-
plated, could not be had by the canal, and
that survey would demonstrate it.
Finally survey was ordered, and now
the result is before the people. 1t shows
that the fall between the bottom of the
canal where it joins the sewer system of
the city, and the terminus of the canal
where it should enter Snodgrass Slough is,
at mean low tide, only five and seven
tenths feet, or less than three inches to The
mile. That at high water, when we have
most need for the drain, the exit of the
canal, twenty-one miles distant, will be
more than fre feet higher than at its head.
That is to say, at high water as taken last
year. the waters in the canal will actually
flow towards the city and into it, until
there is established a water level five feet
plus, above our sewer bottom when there
would be dead water, ne flow at all.
That is exactly what happened last win
ter, when all the sewers choked, the water
backed up into the house drains and scores
of yards were flooded, and beneath houses
on the old grade the water accumulated,
driving many people out Of their base
ments. 1t is to be accepted without any
further debate that money invested in the
drainage canal will be money thrown
away, and will benefit no one except the
contractors. What then should the city
do?
It should do as a score of other cities
have done, and Are doing to-day, and with
complete success. Lift the drainage of the
city by powerful pumps fifteen or twenty
feet and discharge it into the river or into
iume, and send it by gravity to tide
water. If the latter plan is adopted then
along the route the low land residents
can lift their land drainage into the
same pipe or fume, and thus the entire
down-river district will be kept dry in
highest water. That the low-land people
will be rid of water in any other way is
not at all probable That the fume will
cost less than the excavation of the canal
We believe. But if it costs three times as
much it viii be an infinitely preferable
system. In fact, it is the only feasible sys-
TEN. All the engineers have told US that
there is moi sufficient natural fall 10 drain
the city, and that the only resource is to
make artificial fall, and there is no use in
longer scouting their opinions.
The pump we now have on the line OF
Y street is a very poor concern. 1t is not
nearly equal to the task of lifting the
drainage Let US at once take steps to
place there some such pump as they have
in the Pearson District, for instance, that
discharges 100000 gallons minute. To
lift the water fifteen or twenty feet, how
ever, would lessen that capacity and re-
quire pump of different pattern. But
one of capacity sufficient for the task can
be secured and at the output of not great
deal of money.
Since we deposit no solid matter in our
sewers, the liquid is water from domestic
use and rainfall, we believe that there is
no insuperable obstacle to our discharge
of the drainage into the river. Similar
drainage of very large cities is emptied
into the Missouri, the Mississippi and the
Ohio and no objection is made. There
are no towns or cities on the river below
us, and contamination of the stream would
not, it is held, result from the diversion of
our drainage into the river. II that is
done, we can Just as well as not put
proper pump in place inside of the next
forty days and have the city free of water
all the coming winter. But if this
cannot be done-though why the Sacra-
mento should be deemed better than the
Ohio or Mississippi we cannot understand
there win be left to US the question of con-
structing a fume to point sufficiently far
south to secure drainage into the nearest
salt water slough.
Would the lowland residents object to
this? We think not, since it would be to
their best interests and secure exactly
what they have lcng been contending for,
the abatement of the pestilential drain
age canal pestilential simply because its
waters cannot be made to flow away from
the lands Indeed, the lowland residents
ought 10 hail with pleasure the PROPOSE
ton to construct an artificial drain, and
should contribute largely to its cost. We
believe, as already said, that such cost will
be very much less than the cost OF the
proposed widening and deepening Of the
inefficient drainage canal, to say nothing