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