The Fallon standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1920-1958, 1921-10-12
More Details of
Drainage Plan
History of the Opposition is Recount
ed by Director Williamson
With Some Comments

Editor Standard: | believe the
fate of the proposed alternative
drainage plan is of sufficient inter-
est to most of your readers to justi-
fly further report on the subject,
resume of its recent history and a
suggestion for the future.
The plan was first definitely pro-
posed by me at a meeting of the
board of directors with the project
manager and Mr.. Burkholder early
in July. 1t was rejected without
ceremony by the project manager as
having been proposed too late and
conflicting with plans definitely set
tied.
At the August session l requested
the board to employ an Independent
engineer to investigate and report.
A committee was appointed instead
The committee reported at the
September session presenting a ma
previously published. Action was
postponed on the report on the al
legged grounds of insufficient infor-
nation or time for consideration
Mr. Harmon also stated, as a reason
why haste was unnecessary, that a
promise had been made that the Di-
agonal Drain would not be built By
whom or to whom this promise was
made was not stated.
AT the October session the sub
ject was again brought up and
talked around. No one showed
nerve enough to open the pot by
moving the adoption or rejection of
the majority. l could not consist
emily do so having signed the mi
nority report and desiring to offer
it as a substitute. Mr.. Dietz, the
president, stated that he had been
promised a report on the subject by
the project manager and did not
wish action to be taken until this
report was before us for considera-
tion. Neither Mr.. Richardson nor
the report had put in an appearance
before the late hour of adjournment.
Evidently the promise had no time
clause.
Postponement again resulted, but.
upon motion, another committee was
appointed to confer with Mr. Rich
ardson. Messrs. Kent, Veneil and
Harmon were named. The Utter flu
tility of this proceeding is evident
when 1t is remembered that the
whole controversy has arisen from
Mr.. Richardson's positive refusal TO
consider the proposed plan in the
first place. Any hope of a majority
report from this committee favor
able to the alternative plan may be
classed as pure theory.
The board also decided to make a
personal inspection of the site and
survey of the Diagonal Drain on Oc-
tober 14th.
1t is now stated that work ON the
Diagonal Drain will probably begin
about December 1st. If this is cor
rect, 1t will only need a few more
weeks of delay and sidestepping on
the part of the board and the Rich
ardson program win win by default.
Recent consideration of the yari-
Gus details has inclined me to the
opinion that the design of the Di-
agonal drain is an inexcusable engi-
neering blunder and, if constructed,
the drain will soon be abandoned as
unavoidable and worthless, total
loss, as now estimated. of S95, 900.
1t is not enough to rely on the pub
lie spirit, good intentions and tech
nical skill of the Reclamation Ser
vice engineers and officials. These
virtues did not prevent a waste of
100000 on the tile drains, now ad
mitted TO be a total failure, they did
not prevent the tractor land level
ling fiasco of more recent memory,
and they did not prevent the many
other engineering blunders familiar
to the residents of this project. The
service has not suddenly become in
fallible.
| assume that the people of the
district believe il worth while to
stop threatened waste of $4,000
of their money. If the facts and
opinions that l have published are
considered sufficient to raise the
presumption that such a danger is
threatened, they should immediate
ly take action to ascertain the truth
of the matter and to prevent the
loss.
The questions at issue are mainly
matters that are within the prov
inee of the technically trained engi-
neer and are not likely to be fully
understood or correctly solved by a
committee of farmers without the
benefit of expert advice. The prop
er method of solution is to secure
the services of a thoroughly compe-
tent and unbiased drainage and ag-
ricultural engineer and be guided by
his findings.
II seems probable that the major
ity of the board of directors are not
likely to take any action in the mat
ter that is not desired by the pro-
ject manager, unless the people of
the district let 1t be plainly under
stood that such a passive attitude
does not suit them. would sug-
gest that the public sentiment be
made known to the board by petit
tion or otherwise and positive ac-
tion be demanded.
Another method that might bring
results would be to appeal directly
to the Secretary of the Interior by
petition asking that a qualified and
unbiased expert be detailed to ex-