GIFT OF 
 
GIFT 
 
 MAR 29 1915 
 
 SUITER BASIN BY-PASS 
 
 RIVER CONTROL and 
 
 JACKSON REPORT 
 
 Adopted by the 
 State of California 
 
 Statements of 
 
 HON. V. S. McCLATCHY 
 President of the State Reclamation Board 
 
 HON. W. T. ELLIS 
 of the State Reclamation Board, and 
 
 E. A. BAILEY 
 State Flood Control Engineer 
 
RECLAMATION DISTRICT No. 15OO 
 
 CALIFORNIA FRUIT BUILDING 
 SACRAMENTO, CAL. 
 
 March 10, 1915. 
 
 Hon. Hiram W. Johnson, Governor; 
 Hon J. M. Eshleman, Lieutenant Governor; 
 Hon. C. C. Young, Speaker of the Assembly, 
 and Members of the Senate and Assembly 
 of the State of California. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 The State of California has adopted the 
 report prepared by the Federal Engineers providing 
 for a systematic and comprehensive plan of river 
 control, and the State Reclamation Board, appointed 
 by the Governor to compel all work of reclamation 
 to- conform to that plan, has in the performance of 
 his duties laid out the lines of the by-passes for- 
 merly a part of that plan. Among others is the 
 so-called Sutter Basin by-pass. Reclamation Dis- 
 trict No. 1500 is now engaged in building one of 
 the lines of that by-pass, and bills are now 
 pending consideration in the Legislature, provid- 
 ing for the completion of such by-pass. Those 
 who are opposed to the action of the State author- 
 ities have indulged in much misrepresentation, 
 based probably on a misunderstanding of the facts. 
 They have been particularly insistent in charging 
 that those who are now engaged in reclaiming Sutter 
 Fasin, so as to convert a body of waste land into 
 fertile acres, induced the Reclamation Board to 
 change the location of the Sutter by-pass. 
 
 An answer to these charges is found in 
 the statements of Hon. V. S. McClatchy, President 
 of the State Reclamation Board, Hon. W. T. Ellis, a 
 member of such Board, and E. A. Bailey, State Flood 
 Control Engineer. These have appeared in the daily 
 press, but, as they may have escaped your atten- 
 tion, they have been herewith reproduced. 
 
 The State of California is pledged in 
 honor to proceed with the plans adopted by its 
 officers, on the faith of which owners of land in 
 Reclamation District No. 1500 are now engaged in 
 reclaiming land and in carrying out the policy of 
 the State. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 ... F. W. KIESEL, 
 
 '*V /-./Pj^sident of the Board of Trustees 
 .-. ;, .. [ b : f ''Reclamation District No. 1500. 
 
HON. V. S. McCLATCHY 
 
 The President of the Reclamation Board 
 
 (From Sacramento Bee, March 6, 1915.) 
 
 RECLAMATION BOARD'S ATTITUDE IN 
 
 ARMODR PROJECT STATED IN LETTER 
 
 President of Board Says Request for Change in Location of 
 
 Sutter By-Pass Did Not Come From Armour Project, But 
 
 at Suggestion of State Engineer; Declares Board's 
 
 Policy Has Been Misstated 
 
 MARYSVILLE (Yuba Co.), 
 
 March 6. A letter was writ- 
 ten by V. S. McClatchy, 
 President of the State Rec- 
 lamation Board, to R. V. Mc- 
 Cormick, Secretary of the 
 Committee of the Merchants' and Em- 
 ployers' Association of Marysville and 
 Yuba City, in connection with Sutter 
 County reclamation matters. 
 
 Board's Attitude Stated. 
 The letter was written in response 
 to an invitation to the State Recla- 
 mation Board to attend the Yuba and 
 Sutter County reclamation meeting 
 here yesterday afternoon. The invi- 
 tation was extended by McCormick. 
 The answer, written under date of 
 March 3rd, follows: 
 
 There was considered by the Recla- 
 mation Board at its meeting yester- 
 day, your letter of March 1st, invit- 
 ing the Board to be present at a mass 
 meeting in Marysville on Friday, 
 March 3rd, to learn "the attitude of 
 the property owners of Sutter and 
 adjacent counties in reference to the 
 Armour project, as at present out- 
 lined." The Board commissions me to 
 express its appreciation of the invi- 
 tation and further to say: 
 
 The Board is familiar with the atti- 
 tude of Sutter County in this matter, 
 as given out in a formal set of reso- 
 lutions adopted in a public meeting 
 on February 27th and in a petition 
 from the Board of Supervisors of that 
 County to the State Legislature now 
 sitting. 
 
 \o \ew Facts Offered. 
 
 This attitude is based on opposi- 
 tion to a decision of the Board as to 
 
 the location of the Sutter by-pass. 
 Like a Court, the Board is not con- 
 cerned in criticism of its decisions 
 unless such criticism is based on 
 newly discovered facts. There have 
 been offered in this matter, so far 
 as the Board can learn, no facts that 
 were not passed upon by the Board 
 and the engineers at the time the de- 
 cision was made. 
 
 The request for the change of the 
 location of the Sutter by-pass did 
 not come originally from District 
 No. 1500, as the people of Sutter 
 County persist in stating. That Dis- 
 trict expected to base its application 
 on the central location of the by- 
 pass. It based it on the eastern lo- 
 cation at the suggestion of the State 
 Engineer, made while his field force 
 was completing surveys of the basin, 
 who had determined, because of data 
 secured therefrom, to recommend the 
 change of location to the Federal En- 
 gineers and to the Reclamation Board. 
 
 Board's Policy Misstated. 
 
 In some other matters the people 
 of Sutter, in their official declara- 
 tions, have misstated the policy and 
 action of this Board, due undoubtedly 
 to lack of knowledge of the facts. 
 These facts, however, can be readily 
 had from publications issued by the 
 Board and from the records supple- 
 mented, if necessary, by communica- 
 tion from this office. 
 
 The Board deprecates statements 
 of this nature based on misinforma- 
 tion as they create obstacles, more 
 or less serious, to a speedy comple- 
 tion of the general project for pro- 
 tection of the Sacramento Valley. 
 
 393264 
 
HON. W. T. ELLIS 
 
 of the Reclamation Board 
 
 (Sacramento Bee, March 6, 1915.) 
 
 Answers Critics of the 
 
 Reclamation Board 
 
 ELLIS TELLS 
 
 Member of State Board Springs 
 
 Surprise at Sutter-Yuba Mass 
 
 Meeting at Marysville; 
 
 Other Speakers 
 
 MARYSVILLE (Yuba Co.), 
 
 March 6. The accusation by 
 W. T. Ellis, a member of the 
 State Reclamation Board, that 
 Superior Judge K. S. Mahon 
 of Sutter County and A. Z. 
 Massey, Superintendent of the Tisdale 
 ranch, on the Sacramento River, are 
 not thoroughly conversant with the 
 plans of the California Debris Com- 
 mission for the improvement of Cali- 
 fornia rivers and waterways, and a 
 defense of the members of the State 
 Reclamation Board who are working 
 with him on reclamation work and 
 flood control, were the unexpected 
 features of the meeting held in this 
 city yesterday afternoon under the 
 auspices of the Marysville Chamber of 
 Commerce and the Merchants' and Em- 
 ployers' Association of Marysville and 
 Yuba City, creating a sentiment 
 against certain bills introduced in 
 the Legislature affecting reclamation 
 work in California. 
 
 The Marysville m-eeting was an ad- 
 journed session of a meeting held in 
 Yuba City last Saturday, at which 
 time the action of the Legislature and 
 the State Reclamation Board in chang- 
 ing the by-pass of the Sutter Basin 
 from the center to an easterly location 
 was decried. 
 
 Judge Mahon and A. Z. Massey had 
 concluded lengthy talks when Elli 
 was called upon to address the meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Defends Reclamation Board. 
 
 Replying to the assertion of Judge 
 Mahon that the change of the Sutter 
 Basin by-pass from the center loca- 
 tion to the easterly location was not 
 to promote reclamation, river im- 
 provement or flood control, Ellis made 
 the defense of his colleagues on the 
 State Reclamation Board in the follow- 
 ing language: 
 
 "Now, regarding the members of the 
 State Board of Reclamation, the orig- 
 inal members were Mr. V. S. McClatchy 
 of Sacramento, Peter Cook of Rib 
 Vista and myself. 
 
 "Mr. Cook is a man of high char- 
 acter, has lived in the vicinity of Rio 
 Vista many years, has many interests 
 there, and is of excellent standing and 
 a gentleman in every sense of the 
 word. He was not influenced by any 
 reasons only what he considered fair 
 and just reasons for that change. 
 
 "The same applies to Mr. Mc- 
 Clatchy. It is my duty to say here 
 that every member of the Reclama- 
 tion Board is doing what he thinks 
 fair and just." 
 
 Real Object of Board. 
 
 Continuing, Ellis said: 
 
 "From the talks by Mr. Massey and 
 Judge Mahon, I gather that they have 
 a very wrong conception of the 
 plans of the California Debris Com- 
 mission. It is unfortunate that the 
 public at large does not understand 
 the entire scope of the plans. Mr. 
 Massey states that the Reclamation 
 Board is going to do certain things. 
 
 "I will tell you about the State 
 Reclamation Board. A party came to 
 my office a few days ago and said: 
 
 " 'Bill, we never had any trouble 
 until we had a State Reclamation 
 Board; all trouble got started as soon 
 as the Board was inaugurated.' 
 
 "But he did grasp the fact that 
 trouble was coming long before the 
 Board was inaugurated, and that it 
 was organized to take care of the 
 trouble that was coming. This Board 
 of Reclamation is misunderstood. We 
 should have been called a Board to 
 look out for the rights and interests 
 of the Sacramento River and its trib- 
 utaries. The Sacramento River de- 
 mands that because it is physically 
 unable to take care of its own rights." 
 
 Explains Problem. 
 
 Before entering upon his talk Ellis 
 
impressed upon the meeting: that he 
 was not addressing the assemblage as I 
 a member of the State Reclamation 
 Board, but as a citizen and taxpayer 
 of Yuba County. He reviewed the his- 
 tory of flood control from 1880, and, 
 by aid of a map prepared by the State 
 Engineer's office, explained all the 
 problems now facing- the Board on the 
 Feather, American and Sacramento 
 Rivers, and in the vicinity of the City 
 of Sacramento. 
 
 How Change Was Made. 
 
 Ellis assured the meeting that the 
 shifting of the Sutter Basin by-pass 
 was not instituted by Armour and his 
 associates. It was done upon the sug- 
 
 gestion of State and Government en- 
 gineers, he said, and if any one was 
 guilty of an error it was the engi- 
 neers, whom he credited with being 
 honest in their conclusions, although, 
 personally, he did not agree with them. 
 
 "Either the center or easterly loca- 
 tion of the by-pass was satisfactory 
 to the Government from an engineer- 
 ing standpoint," said Ellis. 
 
 He stated that Reclamation District 
 No. 784, just south of Marysville, is a 
 failure, because the promoters at- 
 tempted to put a volume of water into 
 a choke where there was no room for 
 it, ignoring all rules of reclamation 
 projects such as are now made by the 
 Reclamation Board. 
 
 E. A. BAILEY 
 
 State Flood Control Engineer 
 
 (Sacramento Bee, March 6, 1915.) 
 
 How Sutter By-Pass 
 
 Came to Be Changed 
 
 E. A. Bailey, State Flood Control Engineer, Originated 
 
 Plan of Re-location from Surveys in the Field; 
 
 East-Side Location Found Decidedly Preferable 
 
 With respect to insinuations that have been made, to the effect that the 
 change of location of the Sutter Basin By-Pass was influenced or originally 
 suggested by the interests owning and controlling Reclamation District 1500, 
 in Sutter County, E. A. Bailey. Flood Control Engineer of the State Depart- 
 ment of Engineering, and assigned by the State Engineer to work with the 
 Reclamation Board, to-day made to a Bee reporter a full statement of the 
 facts in the matter, showing the change to have been due to his own personal 
 observations and surveys in the field, in accordance with his official duties. It 
 shows the insinuations in question to be entirely without foundation. 
 
 The statement follows: 
 
 E. A. Bailey, Flood Control Engi- 
 neer of the State Department of En- 
 gineering, assigned to work with the 
 Reclamation Board, made the follow- 
 ing statement to-day to a Bee re- 
 porter: 
 
 I arrived in Sacramento and re- 
 ported to Mr. McClure for duty on 
 May 31, 1912. In the note book in 
 which I kept record of my work, I 
 find the following entry under that 
 date: 
 
 "Received letter of introduction to 
 Mr. Stanley of the U. S. Army Engi- 
 neers, with instructions from State 
 Engineer W. F. McClure to work 
 with Mr. Stanley on his work of de- 
 fining the by-pass proposed in plan 
 of flood control adopted by the State 
 Legislature, Chapter 25, 1911." 
 
 This indicates that it was Mr. M<-- 
 Clure's understanding at that time that 
 the definite location of by-passes had 
 not been made, and that the Army en- 
 gineers were conducting a survey for 
 that purpose. 
 
 I reached Mr. Stanley at Butte City 
 on June 2d, and found that he was 
 checking up elevations of existing 
 levees to find how much work had 
 been done since the Debris Commis- 
 sion report had been made, and that 
 he intended later to make surveys in 
 the Yolo Basin for tiie location of the 
 Yolo by-pass. 
 
 I assisted Mr. Stanley in his work, 
 covering the Sacramento River from 
 Butte City to the lower end of Grand 
 Island, reaching that point on June 
 18th. 
 
 An Opinion l!:is*l on Observation. 
 
 From a study of the Debris Com- 
 mission report and of the river dur- 
 ing this trip, I formed the opinion at 
 that time that it would be unsafe to 
 attempt to confine all the waters of 
 the Sacramento River to the river 
 overflow channel from Chico Creek to 
 the proposed Moulton weir location, 
 and that probably the Butte by-pass 
 should run further around the Buttes, 
 making the Buttes act as one levee 
 as far as possible, and extend up 
 
pretty well towards Chico Creek, and 
 that the by-passes of all the basins in 
 general should be located as nearly 
 as possible on a uniform grade be- 
 tween the fixed elevations at the head 
 and the outlet of each basin. 
 
 On June 18th I went to Rio Vista 
 and had a conference with Peter Cook, 
 as is indicated by the following quo- 
 tation from my note book: 
 
 "I found that Fred Thomas, Secre- 
 tary of Ryer Island, whom I expected 
 to see in regard to information from 
 his levee district, was out of town, 
 but that Peter Cook, who is one of the 
 members of the Reclamation Board, 
 lived at Rio Vista. I called upon him 
 and had an extended conversation with 
 him in regard to the work. He recom- 
 mended that our investigations con- 
 sider whether or not the Yolo By-Pass 
 might be moved to the west far enough 
 to occupy a strip of alkali land bor- 
 dering the tule lands, which was com- 
 paratively worthless. He also ques- 
 tioned the necessity of so wide a by- 
 pass, as from 8,000 to 12,000 feet." 
 
 This record shows that an addi- 
 tional reason was suggested for 
 changing the location of the by-pass, 
 namely, that of soil values. 
 
 Conferred With State Engineer. 
 
 On June 20th I returned to Sacra- 
 mento and talked with Mr. McClure 
 and Major Norboe, discussing these 
 points, and was instructed by Mr. Mc- 
 Clure to conduct our investigations 
 along these lines. I suggested tha'i 
 since existing reclamation districts 
 were not shown upon the maps of the 
 Debris Commission report, and as I 
 had found that in a number of cases 
 the by-pass lines, as indicated on those 
 maps, were run through existing dis- 
 tricts, one thing that was very much 
 needed was to obtain data upon all 
 existing reclamation districts and pre- 
 pare maps showing their locations. 
 
 This was agreed to and I worked 
 upon this matter until August 31st, 
 when I was requested by Mr. McClure 
 to obtain a party and make surveys 
 on the Feather River, from the mouth 
 of the Feather to the mouth of the 
 Bear River, for the purpose of deter- 
 mining 'whether or not the Feather 
 had scoured sufficiently so that the 
 overflow channel provided in the 
 Debris Commission plan of a width of 
 3,000 feet could be reduced to about 
 1,250 feet, as requested by Mr. Snook, 
 who was wishing to form a reclama- 
 tion district between the Sutter By- 
 Pass and the Feather River. The date 
 of the commencement of these surveys 
 is indicated by the following quota- 
 tion from my note book: "September 
 1st, 2d and 3d (holidays), spent in get- 
 ting survey party ready to start for 
 field to Verona." 
 
 Locating the Sutter By-Pass. 
 
 This survey was completed and Flood 
 Control Report No. 2 made to Mr. Mc- 
 Clure September 28, 1912. Upon the 
 completion of that survey my instruc- 
 tions were to continue the field party 
 on surveys on the entire Sutter Basin 
 for the purpose of defining the loca- 
 tion of the Sutter by-pass, as it was 
 understood that the Army engineers 
 intended to confine their work to the 
 Yolo Basin. The instructions were also 
 to make test bearings and take soil 
 
 samples to be analyzed for plant food 
 'values. 
 
 This survey, including the soil sam- 
 pling, was completed on December 24, 
 1912, as indicated on page 51 of orig- 
 inal note book marked "S. B. No. 20." 
 
 During the progress of this survey 
 I traveled over the Basin, covering 
 practically all the portions of the 
 Basin. 
 
 The idea which I had for the loca- 
 tion of the Sutter Basin at that, time 
 is shown by the location on the ''Ele- 
 vation Map of Sutter Basin" of a line 
 running from the Southwest corner of 
 Levee District No. 1, at the quarter 
 corner between Sections 14 and 23 of 
 Township 13 north, Range 2 east, in a 
 southeasterly direction to approxi- 
 mately the quarter corner between 
 Sections 5 and 8 of Township 12 north, 
 Range 3 east. This line was run on 
 the ground between November 7th ana 
 14th, 1912, as sho\\n by original notes 
 in transit book No. 2, marked "S. B. 
 No. 11." 
 
 + Origin of Change of Plan. > 
 
 O This record proves that we 
 O were working upon a plan for 
 
 an eastern location of the Sutter 
 < > by-pass before any request was 
 <> made for any change in the by- 
 ^ pass from any of the parties in- 
 
 > terested in District 15OO, as the 
 
 ' ^ purchase of the Wyneman prop- 
 
 [ erty was not made until Novem- 
 
 [ ber 12th, and Mr. Handle was not 
 
 * employed as engineer for the 
 
 Slitter Dasin Company until No- 
 
 ' vember 18, 1912, and he made a 
 
 . ^ report to his company upon the 
 
 ^ ^ central location of the by-pass 
 
 ^ on December 1O, 1JH2. 
 
 I have no record of the date, but I 
 believe that it was after Mr. Randle's 
 report upon the central location that 
 he called at our office in the Fair 
 grounds in regard to plans for District 
 1500, and at which time I asked him 
 to wait until we had completed our 
 surveys and worked out a location for 
 the Sutter by-pass, because I did not 
 believe the central location was the 
 best one for the Sutter by-pass. 
 District 1500 Followed Suit. 
 This Mr. Randle did, and as soon as 
 we had completed our calculations 
 and made our location of the by-pass, 
 
 1 advised Mr. Randle that the proper 
 method of procedure would be for his 
 district to present an application to 
 the Reclamation Board for approval of 
 plans following the location worked 
 out by the Department of Engineering. 
 
 Flood Control Reports Nos. 9 and 10, 
 from the State Department of Engi- 
 neering to the Reclamation Board, 
 showing our reasons for advising the 
 change in the Sutter by-pass, were 
 completed February 21, 1913. 
 
 Application for the approval of plans 
 for District 1500 was made to the 
 Board February 25, 1913. 
 
 Randle Confirms Bailey's Statement. 
 
 Engineer Randle to-day confirmed to 
 The Bee the correctness of the above 
 statement by Engineer Bailey, as re- 
 peated to him in substance by tele- 
 phone, with regard to the latter' s 
 statements concerning District 1500 
 and the origin of the plan for chang- 
 ing the location of the Sutter by- 
 pass. 
 
(Sacramento Union, March 6, 1915.) 
 
 TELLS OF LOCATION OF 
 SUTTER BASIN BY-PASS 
 
 Engineer Bailey of the State Reclamation 
 
 Board Says He Himself Suggested 
 
 the Change in Route 
 
 The suggestion that Gerber or the Chicago capitalists or any other person 
 connected willi the Slitter Basin company suggested the change in the by-pass 
 from the center to the eastern location is not true. It vas the other way. I 
 suggested the change in route from the trough of the basin to the eastern 
 rim as the only feasible location. E. A. BAILEY, reclamation engineer. 
 
 This is the story of the Sutter by-! 
 pass as told by the man who first fixed; 
 its location along the eastern rim of 
 Sutter basin. Around this proposed! 
 drainage channel for the flood waters! 
 of the upper Sacramento a controversy; 
 of increasing bitterness has raged. 
 
 Five counties have united to oppose: 
 the state reclamation board's action in: 
 locating the by-pass along the eastern; 
 edge of the Sutter basin. 
 
 Charges have been made that the lo- 
 cation of the by-pass was fixed along: 
 the line finally chosen by the state 
 reclamation board engineers simply to; 
 suit the purposes of certain Eastern 
 capitalists and at their instigation.- 
 There have been intimations of undue* 
 influence, but no one has openly made: 
 such charges. 
 
 The by-pass system is one of thej 
 vital features of thes system of flood 
 control prepared by the California 
 debris commission report and included 
 in the so-called Jackson report of that 
 body. 
 
 That portion of the by-pass skirting 
 Sutter basin over which a controversy 
 is raging is the first unit of the great 
 flood control project to be begun with 
 the exception of dredging the mouth 
 of the river, which has been in prog- 
 ress for months. 
 
 In consequence, the history of the 
 location of the drainage channel is not 
 only of deep interest, but it is also 
 vital to a clear understanding of the 
 dispute between the people of Sutter. 
 Yuba and other northern counties and 
 the Sutter Basin company. 
 
 STORY OP THE ENGINEER. 
 
 E. A. Bailey, the engineer of the 
 state reclamation board, made the sur- 
 veys and this is his account of the 
 work: 
 
 "In the beginning I would like to say 
 that when the map of the proposed by- 
 pass system was prepared by the debris 
 commission and embodied in the so- i 
 
 called Jackson report the drainage 
 channels or by-passes were simply laid 
 down on the geological survey map 
 without regard to reclamation districts 
 or other improvements made by the 
 people of California. 
 
 "In its lower course the by-pass cut 
 Ryer Island in two, and if constructed 
 along the route indicated would de- 
 stroy an immense area of fertile and 
 well reclaimed land. It ran straight 
 through the Glide district, south of 
 Sacramento, and also cut West Sacra- 
 mento in two. 
 
 "The Jackson report laid down as a 
 general principle the proposition that 
 the by-passes were to follow the 
 '.roughs of the basins,' and in follow- 
 ing out this principle the by-passes 
 were laid out on the map by the con- 
 tours of the geological survey along 
 these depressions in the land. 
 
 "I was appointed to the state engi- 
 neering department by Engineer Mc- 
 Clure, assigned to the reclamation 
 board, and began work on June 12, 
 1912. The army engineers were then 
 in the field making a survey of the 
 river in connection with the work of 
 the debris commission, and I was di- 
 rected to accompany these engineers. 
 
 FACING GREAT PROBLEM. 
 
 "I soon found that we were facing a 
 gigantic problem, and secured the per- 
 mission of McClure to take up a sep- 
 arate branch of the work. I saw we 
 needed a map showing the exact loca- 
 tion of all reclamation districts and ail 
 levees along the rivers, as the govern- 
 ment maps included none of these 
 things. 
 
 "For two months I worked on this 
 division of the problem. I covered the 
 country thoroughly from Butte City to 
 Rio Vista. I studied the problem from 
 all angles, and finally reached the con- 
 clusion that the plan suggested by the 
 Jackson report, to run the by-passes 
 
through the troughs of the basins was 
 wrong for two reasons. 
 
 "In the first place it would compel 
 the running of water down hill into 
 the deepest parts of the basins and 
 then up over high ground* In other 
 words, it would simply impound a por 
 tion of the flood water in the deep 
 portions of the channel. I found that 
 this plan would also take a large 
 amount of the best land for the by- 
 passes and reclaim inferior land along 
 the rim of the basins. 
 
 FAVORS CHANGE I IV PLAN. 
 
 "I reached the conclusion that far 
 better results, from an engineering 
 standpoint, could be obtained by run- 
 ning the by-passes as we would ditches 
 or canals along a grade as nearly uni- 
 form as possible. We could then use 
 for the waste waterways the inferior 
 land along the margins of the basin? 
 and save for cultivation the good land 
 in the troughs of the*, oasin. 
 
 "Up to this time I had in mind no 
 particular section of the proposed by- 
 pass. I was studying the great prob- 
 lem in all its aspects and was seek- 
 ing to establish a general principle for 
 the work we had to do. 
 
 "I discussed the matter with Peter 
 Cook, then a member of the reclama- 
 tion board, who is probably as familiar 
 with reclamation work as any man in 
 the state. I found that he. too, was 
 strongly in favor of running the by- 
 passes along the contours. He pointed 
 out that good land could be saved by 
 this method. 
 
 "In September I was recalled to Sac- 
 ramento to make a survey of the 
 Feather river to ascertain if the width 
 of the by-pass along that river fixed 
 in the Jackson report at 3.000 feet 
 could be safely reduced in width. 
 
 "This survey was made at the re- 
 quest of Frank Snook ~.nd others who 
 proposed to reclaim some of the land 
 along the Feather river. I found that 
 it would not be safe to reduce the 
 width of the by-pass. Snook and his 
 associates then abandoned their plan. 
 This survey was made in September, 
 1912. 
 
 "I then turned my attention to the 
 Sutter basin proper. At this time, it 
 should be stated, the only location for 
 the by-pass was that fixed on the map 
 of the Jackson report, which ignored 
 all the millions of dollars' worth of 
 work done by the various reclamation 
 districts. In addition to the 3,000-foot 
 by-pass along the Feather river a simi- 
 lar waterway line ran through the 
 trough of Sutter basin, joining * tfre 
 Feather by-pass at the ju'nctJOJb Of 
 that river with the Sacramento. * ^ 
 
 "We made a complete survey of the 
 
 Sutter basin, and by about the first of 
 February, 1913, we had the contours 
 and profiles of this region. Up to this 
 time there had been no sug'gestion 
 from any one as to the location of the 
 by-pass except that contained in the 
 Jackson report. 
 
 "I had made a tentative location for 
 the by-pass well to the east of the line 
 fixed in the debris commission report, 
 but when I had all the data I found 
 that my location was still too far west, 
 and we w r ere forced to extend our lines 
 to give the proper location according 
 to the contour and secure canal grade. 
 "About this time George Handle was 
 appointed engineer of the Sutter Basin 
 company, ajnd he came to me to fix the 
 exact location of the by-pass along the 
 line indicated by the Jackson maps. 
 
 "I told him my theory as to the 
 proper location of the by-pass, and said 
 I was sure the center location in the 
 trough of the basin was wrong. At 
 this time I had not completed my work, 
 and told him to wait a few days. 
 
 "When I finished my surveys I told 
 Randle that the figures confirmed my 
 opinion and showed him the by-pass as 
 at present fixed on the map by the 
 action of the reclamation board. 
 
 "This system brings the Feather by- 
 pass and the Sutter basin by-pass to- 
 gether some distance above the mouth 
 of the Feather and gives a wide chan- 
 nel for the flood waters. 
 
 "The suggestion that Gerber or the 
 Chicago capitalists or any other per- 
 son connected with the Sutter Basin 
 company suggested the change of the 
 by-pass from the center to the eastertp 
 location is not true. It was the other 
 way. I myself suggested the change 
 in route from the trough of the basin 
 to the eastern rim as the only feasible 
 location. 
 
 "The Sutter basin people simply ac- 
 cepted the change and their work was 
 done according to the plans laid down 
 by the reclamation board. 
 
 "I would like to say in conclusion 
 that there seems to be a serious mis- 
 understanding of this by-pass matter, 
 The by-pass consists of two levees and 
 the land that lies between them. The 
 cost of the construction of the entire 
 work must be apportioned among the 
 owners of the land benefited by the 
 by-pass in proportion to the amount of 
 the benefit. 
 
 "In other words, the west levee of 
 the by-pass is not the levee of the 
 Sutter basin. Nor is the east levee of 
 the by-pass the levee of the land own- 
 ers on the east of the waterway. But 
 both levees are the levees of the by- 
 pass which is part of the flood con- 
 trol svstem of the state." 
 
 News Print 
 
 Sacramento 
 
Gayiord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 Syracuf N. Y. 
 
 YC 1 07657 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk ot any 
 University of California Library