The record-union., 1896-03-30

low such structures, even If they were
constructed by experts. Mr.. Ford and
his clients have no use for impounding
dams if they may not use them for fu-
ture mining. That is not what he is at
Washington for Since no one having
any knowledge on the subject will dis
pute this proposition, it follows that the
impounding is to be done at Govern
ment expense, at valley and Federal
risk, and for the sole benefit of the hy-
draulic miner. The 3 per cent. contri-
button on gross proceeds is a bait too
thin to require even daylight to pene-
trate to the barb. Will Congress catch
on?
Now it is reported that Representa-
tives Barham and Johnson appeared be-
fore the House Committee on Rivers
and Harbors in behalf of an appropria-
tion of $250,000, to be used with SINH
lar appropriation made by California,
TO impound the debris in canyons tribu-
tary to the Yuba and Feather Rivers.
Barham pointed out that the money
was not to be asked for the purpose of
rehabilitating hydraulic mining, but
for the erection of impounding works to
restrain debris which is now in torren-
tial streams to prevent it from clogging
Up the navigable rivers and from over
| flowing on farm lands.
The committee not being familiar
with torrential streams, Barham went
| into a terse explanation. He argued
| that the works which would be built
with the money asked for would be of
great benefit, both 10 the miners and
farmers and to the Government, as we'll
as for the reason that unless the works
were constructed the Government would
be put to ten times the expense in later
years in cleaning out the rivers so as to
make them navigable.
If Mr.. Barham is sincere in the above
assertion, or if he believes the miners
are, let him insert a clause in the bill
forever prohibiting the dumping of
mining debris into public streams, or
into such places where the same may
be, or be liable to be- washed by floods
or storms into the navigable streams
or their tributaries. When he does this
he will find out in whose interest the
dams are wanted
1t would, of course. be foolish for the
valley to oppose river restoration by
| the Government in any manner it saw
proper; but it would be still more fool
ish, if not criminal, if it showed fur
ther willingness to expose its habita-
bic existence to the feeble restraining
efforts of men while the process of
dissolution continues
Representative Johnson then took the
stand, referred to the Act of October 1,
1888 (CaminettD, the Acts and reports
made in accordance Herewith, and is
do n " hn nnhric G
sion that the bulk of the debris could
be restrained by dams erected at vari-
Gus points recommended by them"
OF course all such assertions have
been refuted by writers on the sub
ject, and by the almost universal fall
ures attending the best and most costly
efforts. Even those having the indorse-
ment of the most eminent engineers of
America went out almost in the twinkle
of the eye when exposed to the first in
Considerable freshet A half-million
dollars of State money was sunk in a
| night, and the courts said such folly
shall not be repeated Smaller water
sheds and much stronger dams, even
those built of rocks, have gone the same
way.
A circumstance enters into this i'm
pounding theory that has escaped al
| most universal attention. I am sure
that neither Congressman Johnson nor
Barham can have thought of it, and
while Mr.. Ford undoubtedly under
stands the subject he is too shrewd to
expose it..
This circumstance is present in the
valley rivers chiefly in the Sacramento
and the Feather, but also. to a lesser
degree in all the mining streams cours-
ing through valley lands. It is related
in the report Of the Government En-
gineers in Executive Document No. 267
Fifty-first Congress, second session, at
page 19. In speaking of the Sacramento
River, the commission gives the dis
tance between the mouth of the Sac
ramento and the mouth of the Feather
River at S12 miles 'In this distance
the river has a fall of sixteen feet, which
gives it an average slope or grade of
about "a inches per mile. Over the
greater portion of this length mining
debris has been lodged to very unequal
hights.'
In their report of 1895, at page 4, ,053,
they say: "As to the quantity of ma
terial now in the Feather and Sacra-
memo Rivers below Marysville the fol-
lowing may be said: Estimates and OBJ
servations, more or less reliable, in
dicate that the average raising of the
river bottom at Sacramento since 1850
has been a least fifteen feet, and not less
than that at Marysville. The average
fill at Collinsville (the head of Suisun
Bay) at the same time is about five feet
Assuming the mean fill to be nine feet
for an area of 100000 cubic yards
Something greater than the low-water
area), we have 120,000.000 cubic yards
now in the Sacramento and Feather
Rivers below Marysville."
On the same page, in referring to the
fill in Suisun Bay, a long and narrow
body of water through which courses
the combined waters of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers, and giving
such data as was available, the COM
mission say:
Taking the above figures as reliable,
there were deposited in Suisun Bay, be-
tween 1850 and 1878 407, 10000 cubic
yards. Assuming that the fill since
1878 has been at the same rate for the
whole bay as that shown at the mouth
OF the river, the indications are that the
rate of deposit in the bay was about
10000,000 cubic yards per year from
| 1873 to 1885"
These figures, they assert, while more
or less approximate, indicate that the
possible filling up of Suisun Bay and
the consequent removal of the mouth
of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers from near Collinsville to near