Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1897-04-15
ENGINEERS REPORT.
FAVORS THE DREDGING OF
UNION RIVER.
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST, S225, 900
ENGINEER THINKS OPERATIONS
SHOULD BE SUSPENDED ON
RIVERS IN WHICH MILL
WASTE IS DEPOSITED.

Col. 4. y. Damrell, of Portland, govern
ment engineer, has submitted his report
on the preliminary examination of Union
river to the chief of engineers of the war
department, who in turn has submitted it
to the secretary of war, through whom,
on March IS last, it reac he'd the House and
was referred to the committee on rivers
and harbors and ordered printed.
THE AMERICAN is this week enabled to
print the report in full. 1t follows:
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF UNION
| RIVER, NEAR THE CITY OF ELLSWORTH,
IN HANCOCK COUNTY, MAINE.
| UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
PORTLAND, Me-, Jan. 30, 1897.
| GENERAL: In accordance with instruc-
tions contained in your letter of June IS,
1896, have the honor Of submitting the
following report upon the preliminary
examination OF Union river, provided
for by the river and harbor act OF
June 3, 1896.
! This river was improved in 1S7l72 by
the removal of over 49, 900 cubic yards OF
mill waste, and more than 600 tons of
| powders, so as to give safe and we'll
marked channel with minimum depth
of three feet at mean low water, or fifteen
| feet at mean high water at a lew stage of
the river, and width of about 100 feet, at a
cost of so 800 81.
An examination made in 1855 and sur
vey made in 1889 showed that the previ-
Gus Improvement had been completely
destroyed by new accumulation of
mill waste.
My examinations made in 1896, showed
the conditions about a, reported i'll 1883
only perhaps "A little worse. The map
submitted at that time Is apparently
good at this time. 4he plan for improve
ment proposed is, in my opinion, a good
one. The estimated total cost, sos 600
is approximately correct. The price per
cubic yard for dredging can be reduced
probably one-half, but the number of
cubic yards that should be removed will
be nearly or quite double.
No new survey need be made.
Unsuccessful efforts were made to OBJ
proba bly, about the same as in 1889, when
they were as follows:
Total number Of vessels .................. 60
Total registered tonnage.... ......-...... 6i31
Total number of entrances and clearances 6s2
Total tonnage for all entrances etc ......4, ,0sj
Ii has been reported to me that the
practice OF dumping mill waste in the
| " ha N Y Htiu 81
further Improvement, has been stopped,
but | know of no State law forbidding it,,
and the United States laws We're appar-
| emily not made to cover navigable rivers
above the head of navigation or the trib-
utaries of navigabe rivers, from which
the trou BILE now comes.
Union river is not alone in this respect,
for nearly all the rivers in this State on
which improvements are under way or
contemplated have been more or less in
jured from the deposit of mill waste, and
the same rule should be applied to all.
Should Union river be improved, it is
probable that appropriations will be
needed for maintenance. 1t is impracti-
cable to state what this sum would be,
but it might approximate $4,000 per
annum.
In my opinion improvements should be
suspended on all rivers where it is evil
dent that the work consists in removal of
constantly recurring deposits OF mill
waste or other rubbish, until the United
States laws in regard to deposits in navi-
gable rivers are supplemented by State
laws OF similar character covering navi-
gable rivers above the head Of navigation
and tributaries of the same, from which
the deposits are carried into the navi-
gable waters.
In the particular case of Union river, as
Congress has appropriated for its i'm
provement, knowing the conditions, it
has apparently determined the worthi-
ness of the work.
Very respectfully, your obedient ser
want, A. N. DAMRELL,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers.
To Brig. Gen. w. p. CRAIGHILL,