The Fallon standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1920-1958, 1921-10-19
Williamson VS..
Richardson, ct al
Kepiies To Project Managers Criti-
cism OF Alternative Drainage
Plan for pasturage

Editor Standard. l would like to
comment on the published letter OF
Mr.. Richardson regarding drainage.
his historical data is admitted to
be substantially correct but 1t has
very little bearing on the question at
issue. One statement, however, is
apt to be misleading unless further
explained. The government has
spent $4,000 in the preliminary
work OF surveying and planning but
THIS expenditure IS all charged to
the district and will be repaid under
the drainage contract. 1t is in real
ity an expenditure OF the district.
II represents in the main part, the
cost OF the engineering service rem
dered to the district by the project
Office For this liberal sum we
should have received some very
nign class service. We got the plan
OF IL D4agolal dsaIl.
Regarding alkalinity, the only
lart OF the drainage flow containing &
ppreciaDIe amounts OF alkali is I'll }
actual underground water tapped by
the deep drains. This at present
constitutes and will probably always
constitute only a very small percent
age OF the flow handled by the drain
age system. The mucn greater part
consists OF surface waste and waste
from canal regulation, and this part
does not carry alkaii. The summer
now would De SO diluted as TO be
practically harmless, but the much
smaller volume OF concentrated win
ter hoW is likely to be harmful and
should be diverted onto waste area
OF poor soil and evaporated where
1t viii do no harm. this could be
done at very little expense.
lie asserts that the terrace reser-
yoirs proposed viii not furnish a
most important engineering question
at issue. The surveys and maps
show eonclusiyely to my mind that
he is wrong. But there must be
Intelligent planning, intelligent con-
stTuction and intelligent operation
10 secure the proper results. Around
this question has been concentrated
the most persistent efforts to mis-
lead and confuse the minds OF tho Sc
concerned in solving it. His state
son Lake is about 3912.4 to 3912.S
is a pertinent example of this propa-
ganda of misinformation. These
levels must have been taken some
where along the stream entering the
lake and far above the real level of
the main body of the lake. l am
quite certain, though lacking the
confirmation of an actual survey,
that the true lake level is not less
than two feet lower than he has
stated At an elevation of 3910.S,
the lake would cover 10000 acres,
and there is no such area now un-
der water He might have gone
farther upstream and secured still
higher water surface elevations. One
wonders at his moderation.
The question whether water will
move forward fast enough in the up
er reservoir is a real question and
cannot be positively answered with
out experiment. There is however,
plenty of opportunity to increase the
width and depth of the upper end of
the reservoir to any extent re-
quired by building the levee farther
down toward the lake bottom. The
h AFl am
pared to a ditch or channel. 1t is in
reality a lake three-fourths of mile
wide and two and one-half feet deep
at the levee side mot two feet as he
stated. With a fifty second foot in
now, the water would have to move
forward only one mile in six days.
In an ordinary ditch or channel, the
is about two feet per second
or 33 miles per day. Since the We
loeity of stream varies as the slope
or rate of fall, it is clear that, If the
velocity is reduced to one two-hun-
dredth of the velocity of an ordinary
stream, the required slope will also
be very largely reduced. 1t was
hardly an assumption but rather a
physical fact that
water would flow to the extreme end
(of the reservoir) without material
loss of head.
Some ingenious devices were used
to increase my cost estimate of the
alternative plan. Wet excavation is
A few months of in
telligent control of the inflow of the
lake would be sufficient to dry off
any part needed to work on. The
figure of ten cents per yard was
based on actual costs of similar
work performed some years back in
small contract units by many of the
local farmers with their own labor
and equipment. The addition of 100
structures at $50 each and addition
al width of levees would, of course,
add to the cost. No necessity exists
for either of these additions. Any
required structures for pasture irri-
CATION would be financed by pasture
income and should not be included
In the drainage disposal estimate.
A levee of four feet top width,
which would soon be naturally seed
ed and sodded with blue Joint, wire
grass or salt grass, would be so
thoroughly safe that 1t would not
even need to be constantly pa
trolled and repaired
The gradual filing up of the dis
charge channels is predicted, caus-
ing expensive maintenance and re-