Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-28

Virginia and Maryland shores, and If the
assumption that the proportion Of right OF
control OF the water flowing in an unnavt-
gable channel. held by each of the two op-
posite riparian owners, does rot depend on
the relative lengths of their shore lines be
correct, then 1t would appear that the Unit
| ed states has as much of the right of con-
troll or the water flowing on each side of
Conn'S Island as have the owners of the
island. Land on the Maryland shore at
Great Falls may be worth 500 an acre. but
not more 1 am told that land on the Vir-
ginia shore is worth from $40 to $50 an
acre"
In reference to the original bill, Col Ell
hot says: The bill requires that the land
and water rights at Great Falls are to be
| taken to the extent that they may be deem
ed necessary for the present and future
supply OF said District of Columbia. the wa
| ter so taken to be used for any and all pur-
poses This Is not contained in the act
which the bill proposes to amend The
present supply to the city is about 45,0O0.OOO
gallons per diem. If provision Is to be made
for future supply. either in this bill or else
where, the amount should, / think, be stat
ed at 2D0,0000O0 gallons per diem. This for
the reason that from computations that
made after the last census of Washington
QSU) found the supply per diem per cap
tia TO be about 2O0 gallons, and am of the
opinion that if We are now to make ar
rangements for all time provision should be
made for not less than 1,0Oo,0oO inhabit-
ants"
How the River Flows.
After remarking about the contemplated
co-ownership of the water rights between
the United States and private corporations,
the colonel continues: In a suit against the
United States for damages in the sum of
100000 by the Great Falls Manufacturing
Company, as owners Of Conns Island Qn
which judgment was rendered in 1879
against the United States for s156p2), 1t
was agreed on by counsel and accepted by
the court that the low-water flow of the
Potomac should be stated at LOGS cubic feet
per second, say 1OO,OOO,OO0 gallons per diem.
Excluding the times of freshets, the aver
age flow may be said to be at least $780,
100000 gallons per diem. In times of very
and IN the food OF 1889 it was at the rate
probably, of not less than 3o5. $50. 0OO. wv
gallons per diem.
prof. Babb, American Society Civil En-
gineers of the Geological Survey. in a paper
] on the photography Of the Potomac Basin
| QS9l), gives the following daily averages of
flow of the Potomac at Great Falls. His
statements are in cubic feet, and have re-
duced them to gallons.
1850. S,1OI, 12SOOO
!ool t,6SS,24ooO0
iSsS. 1885, 900
iooS- 21.32l,62
loSV.. IL, SIG, 464 600
lS9l 1I.449,3 44 UOO
In regard to the value of the rights to
De taken the report goes on: THE value
to each of the owners of the water rights at
Great Falls Is the value of his share of the
water Of the river flowing at that point
| and may be stated at rate per 1000 900
| gallons per diem. The share may be, used
| by its owner for supply for domestic pur5
poses. or for power, or Tor both, or he may
| sell II. The value of the land, apart from
| the value of the water rights is it's value
| for sites OF manufactures below the falls;
/ for sites of dwellings for workmen and
| others and for the location of canals lead
| Ing from the head Of the falls to the works
! In the case supposed, the United States
I takes nndar af 1T
| the bill. that is. secures a right to take, a
| water supply for a population of Loco, 900
Inhabitants. say. 2oO.OoO,0OO gallons per
| diem. This is the water right taken The
United States also takes about twenty-one
| acres of land, about one-half of 1t being
| in the bed of the Potomac and the other
/ half being a rocky and uncultivable strip
! across COINS Island. This is the land
| taken"
No Partnershfps.
| Col Elliot takes firm ground in opposing
| co-ownershtp. He argues from past ex-
perience to show the difficulties that are
| sure to arise under such conditions.
THAT caution should be observed" he
says. lin the consideration of what the bill
contains is made manifest By comparing
the magnitude of the extravagant claims
| for damages already filed with the very
small proportion of the water now diverted
and of the water that can under the terms
of the bill be diverted to Washington as
and by comparing also the amount of these
claims with the amount (s45, O009 that Con-
gress in its act of 1882 deemed sufficient to
pay for all the land and water rights at
Great Falls that were to be taken under
the act.
by an inspection of the plat entitled
Great Falls of the Potomac and Vicinity
which accompanies this report, it will be
seen that, thanks to the wise foresight
about forty years ago of the late Gen
Meigs, the United States is owner of a
tract (of about six acres) at the Virginia
end of the dam; that 1t is the owner of
tract (of about twenty acres) called 'Resur-
vey of Hard to come at that it Is half
owner of tract (of about ninety-nine
acres) called 'Resurvey on Hard to come
at including Falls Island, and that 1t is
owner of a lot (of about five and a half
acres), on which stands the Waterman
| gatekeeper's house, being a part of tract
called Goose Pond The total area of these
| lands is about $50 1-2 acres, and their cost
to the United States, including the cost
of the water rights belonging to them, was
$3.120. 1t is also owner of the right (con-
ferred by the decision In 1879 in the case
of the suit Of the Great Falls Manufacture
ing Company against the United States)
of maintaining the dam across the Mary
land channel at it's present height of las
feet above the height of low tide at the
navy yard at Washington,
LAS the purchases of the land mentioned
carried with them all the water rights be-
longing to them, it would appear and I
L
can. discover, not heretofore been stated or
asserted that the United States is of right
entitled to more than one-third of all the
water rights at Great Falls, and is there
fore entitled to more than one-third of all
the water flowing there. For the reason
that the 100000 gallons per diem now
diverted from the river for the supply of
Washin gton is, as has been before stated,
but a small fraction of this proportional
part of the water, and for the reason that
even if there should be diverted the 2O0,-
OoO,OU0 gallons per diem required for a pop
ulation of 1,0OOOOO of Inhabitants. this
proportional part would still not be nearly
reached, l think IL extremely doubtful If in
respect to their water rights the other own
ers Of land adjacent to the falls have ever
been, or will ever be, damaged by the
/ United States by the withdrawal from the
river Of the water supply of Washington"
| Quoting from court proceedings, the officer
says:
II my inference drawn from this state
/ ment be the true one, then the Great Falls
Manufacturing Company, apart from the
| rights conferred by its ownership Of Conn s
Island above the falls, has no interest in
/ the water rights (water) at Great Falls,
and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com
panys land, being cut of from the main
channel of the river by the interposlng land
of the United States bordering on this
channel. called hard to come at the United
J States owns of right by far the greater
part OF all the water rights at the falls.
Without regard to it's water rights the
u r. e-.wx