Page images

Temple Street by tributary inflow. A flood in 1922 attained a peak discharge of 1,550 cubic feet per second at the south city limits of which 960 cubic feet per second followed Surplus Canal and 590 cubic feet per second flowed down the river. Local inflow increased the river discharge to 940 cubic feet per second at North Temple Street. In addition, floods ranging from 550 to 750 cubic feet per second occurred at Salt Lake City in 1918, 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927, and 1929. Minor floods are an almost annual occurrence. Investigations of the district engineer indicate that at the head of Surplus Canal a peak discharge of 3,300 cubic feet per second may be expected with an average frequency of once in 100 years. Such a flood would inundate about 6.5 square miles within the city occupied by about 2,000 residences, 15 to 20 small business and industrial plants, a large power plant, highway and railroad facilities, 2 city parks, the State Fair Grounds, and irrigation canals. About 900 acres are agricultural lands. Lands subject to inundations by overflows from Surplus Canal are largely unimproved and resulting damages are not great. The district engineer estimates the future average annual direct and indirect flood damages at Salt Lake City from floods up to the largest to be expected with an average frequency of once in 100 year's at $37,000.

7. Floods on Little Valley Wash at Magna are usually the result of summer cloudburst storms. Incomplete data indicate that at least seven floods have been experienced since 1922. The district engineer estimates that major floods may be expected with an average frequency of once in 10 years and a peak discharge of 3,900 cubic feet per second once in 100 years. Large floods usually fill the small artificial channel, which has a capacity of 250 cubic feet per second, with debris rendering it ineffective. About 580 acres are subject to flooding at Magna. The area includes some farm land north of the town, unimproved lands to its west, a park and recreational center in addition to about 600 residences, 70 business establishments, and various civic improvements. The district engineer estimates the average flood damages at Magna at $9,310 annually.

8. Local interests desire improvement of Jordan River through Salt Lake City, of Surplus Canal, and of Little Valley Wash at Magna to afford relief from flood damages, enhance property values, and encourage further development. They have indicated their willingness to furnish the required lands and rightsof way, to beat the costs of the necessary alterations of highways, irrigation structures, and other utilities except railroads, to operate and maintain the improvements after completion and to hold the United States free from damages due to the construction,

9. The district engineer reports that it would not be practicable to control floods in Jordan River by regulating the discharges from Utah Lake because the greater part of the damage through Salt Lake City is caused by floods originating below the lake and that no suitable sites for flood-control reservoirs are available. His plan provides for improvement of the river channel at Salt Lake City, a distance of 45,000 feet via the new alinement and enlargement of Surplus Canal. It includes an intercepting levee to guide floodwaters from above the city into the river channel at the head of Surplus Canal, a levee along the northeast side of the canal to prevent any canal overflows from entering the downstream city area and levees along the river through the city. For a short distance above Surplus Canal the river would be enlarged to a capacity of 2,000 cubic feet per second, thence to North Temple Street to capacity of 500 to 800 cubic feet per second and from that point to the lower end of the improvement enlarged and straightened to have a capacity of 1,000 cubic feet per second. Included is replacement of the diversion dam just below Surplus Canal, which would he operated so as to limit the flow in the river to the improved channel capacity. Any excess waters would follow the Surplus Canal, which would be enlarged to a capacity of 1,500 cubic feet per second, realined in minor respects, and extended a short distance at its lower end. During unusual floods Surplus Canal would continue to overflow onto the unimproved lands to its south, but little damage would result. The river work also includes substitution of pumping plants for the three irrigation dams, replacement of the power company's dam, extension of two highway bridges, and an irrigation flume, construction of a foot bridge, and lowering of a sewer. Additional work along Surplus Canal includes control works at its head, replacement of the irrigation dam, construction of three highway bridges, a railroad trestle, and an irrigation flume, and the extension of four railroad trestles, an irrigation flume, and a drainage siphon. The district engineer considers that local interests should furnish the necessary lands, bear the costs of all utility changes except for railroad bridges and except for the river and canal control works at their junction, hold the United States

free from damages resulting from the improvement, and maintain and operate the works after completion. On that basis he estimates the first cost to the United States at $412,000 for construction and to local interests for rights-of-way and utility changes at about $174,000, a total of $586,000. The estimated total annual cost is $30,740. Estimated annual tangible benefits consist of $37,000 for the prevention of flood damages, $1,960 for restoration of improved property values, and $7,500 for making unimproved lands suitable for a more valuable use, a total of $46,160. This indicates a ratio of costs to benefits for the work of about 1 to 1.5.

10. The major item of the district engineer's plan for improvement of Little Valley Wash at Magna consists of a channel 5,800 feet long extending from the mouth of the canyon along the west side of the town to the existing debris basin. The channel would have a capacity of 3,900 cubic feet per second, would be concrete lined in its upper 5,000 feet, where the slope is steep, and would be bordered on the town side by a levee. At its head channel crossings for a branch railroad, truck road, and a canal carrying water for irrigation and smelting and an entrance for a drainage canal would be provided, but damage from the resulting capacity of the debris pond would be exceeded, but damage from the resulting overflow would be slight. Costs to the United States for construction of the channel, levee, and railroad culvert are estimated at $222,000 and to local interests for rights-of-way, the flume, and road crossing at $10,000, a total of $232,000. Average annual costs and tangible benefits are estimated at $12,070 and $12,310, respectively. The district engineer considers that moderately large intangible benefits would also result as relief would be afforded from the present threat of floods.

11. The district and division engineers concur in recommending the improvement of Jordan River, Surplus Canal, and Little Valley Wash in accordance with the plans presented subject to the conditions that local interests furnish the lands required ; hold the United States free from claims for damages due to the works; bear the costs of reconstructing, relocating or altering existing utility improvements except railroad bridges, and the proposed control structures at the junction of Surplus Canal and Jordan River; and agree to operate and maintain the works after completion.

12. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors agrees in general with the views of the reporting officers and recommends the proposed improvements at Salt Lake City and Magna, Utah, subject to the stated conditions of local cooperation.

13. After due consideration I concur with the Board and recommend improvement of Jordan River, Utah, at Salt Lake City, by enlargement, straightening, and removal of obstructive works from its channel, levee construction and provision of control works just below the Surplus Canal and improvement of Surplus Canal by enlargement, extension, and removal of obstructions, provision of a control structure at its head, levee construction along its northeast bank, and railroad bridge extensions and construction, in general accordance with the plans of the district engineer as shown on the accompanying drawings with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost to the United States of $412,000 for construction; and improvement of Little Valley Wash at Magna, Utah, by construction of a channel about 5,800 feet long with a levee along its east side bordering Magna and by related work, in general accordance with the plans of the district engineer as shown on the accompanying drawings with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost to the United States of $222,000 for construction ; provided that no work shall be undertaken at either of the two localities until, for the improvement concerned, responsible local agencies have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the works, including in this provision the undertaking of all necessary alterations and constructions of highway facilities, irrigation works, and other utilities except railroad bridges and except control structures at the junction of Jordan River and the Surplus Canal, (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, and (C) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.

Lieutenant General,

Chief of Engineers.



Washington, D. C.: Have had our engineers carefully examine interim report on Jordan River at Salt Lake City and Little Valley Wash, Magna, Utah. They are enthusiastic over report. We sincerely appreciate your efforts and will support you in your recommendations.


Governor of Utah.


Washington 25, D. C., February 20, 1946. Lt. Gen. R. A. WHEELER,

Chief of Engineers, War Department. MY DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: On November 30, 1945, you transmitted to this Department a copy of your report on Jordan River at Salt Lake City, Utah, and Little Valley Wash at Magna, Utah."

I have reviewed the report and find that the proposed flood-protection works do not conflict with any existing or proposed water-conservation projects. The improvements recommended are for an alleviation of local flood problems and appear to be highly desirable for that purpose. Sincerely yours,


Acting Secretary of the Interior. Mr. ROBINSON. I think it should be noted that while you mention Salt Lake City, it really covers the entire county of Salt Lake, and none of this is within several miles of the populated area of the city. It is outside of the populated area. It happens that Salt Lake City owns some of these lands west of the city. So it is really a project that includes all of Salt Lake County.

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. Mr. ROBINSON. I want to recommend this project to the committee. I am glad to know that it has gone along as far as it has. I think it is a very worthy project.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robinson, generally, would you say that local interests out there are prepared to furnish the rights-of-way?

Mr. ROBINSON. The local interests are extremely interested in this, as the Governor's letter suggests. There will be no question about the cooperation of the people there. They will do whatever they can and whatever is required to help in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any reclamation presently along the Jordan River ? Mr. ROBINSON. Not that I know of.

Mr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, there is reclamation in that area, but we think this project will be highly beneficial.

The CHAIRMAN. There is reclamation in the Jordan Valley area? Mr. Dixon. Some water is diverted from the Jordan River and used in adjacent lands.

Colonel HERB. Surplus Canal, which diverts floodwaters past Salt Lake City, also carries water for irrigation. Surplus Canal was built by local interests back in 1885, according to the records we have.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Federal Government any reclamation there?

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir.

: Dk this projecThere is diverted f

udlus Canal, whication. Surpbords we havenzation

Mr. ROBINSON. What is in that area by the Federal Government?

Mr. Dixon. We are doing some work there that has to do with the extension of the existing canal.

Mr. ROBINSON. That is the canal that runs through this area. That does not come from the Jordan River. It is in this area. There is reclamation along the Jordan River to a certain extent. There is no Federal project there other than this one.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by members of the committee? Any further matter that you think should be developed, Colonel Herb?

Colonel HERB. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any persons present who oppose either one of these two projects? Is there any person present who desires to make any further statement ? Mr. Dixon, do you desire to make any further statement ? Mr. Dixon. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We thus complete all of the projects that are before us.

It had been anticipated; in fact, the Chief of Engineers had hoped that at least the León River, Tex., project would be before the Congress or at least before the Budget. We know of the interest of Mr. Poage, our colleague, in this general Leon River project, and we know particularly of his interest in the Belton Reservoir and local protection for Eastland, Tex.

Before we take that up, Mr. Poage, I would like to ask Mr. Rising a question. He is from Idaho. I may say that what I have said with respect to the Leon project is also applicable to the Boise project. That project is not before the Budget and has not been transmitted to the Congress. There is nothing this committee can do about that matter until it has been submitted to the Budget. Representative White did say that he would like to make a statement about the matter. He cannot be here, and he will submit a statement respecting it. As I understand it, you would like to say something about this Boise project.


IDAHO WATER CONSERVATION PROJECT, INC. Mr. Rising. Due to the conditions you have explained, I would like to have the opportunity of making a short statement on behalf of the people of Boise Valley.

The Watermaster on Boise River expected to be here to testify this morning, but due to the very serious flood conditions that exist there now, a flood that may cause $1,000,000 damage, he has not been able to get away from his work and come here, but he has sent a telegram which I would like to have the privilege of reading into the record at the present time. [Reading:]

Snow surveys and precipitation records indicate total run-off Boise River this year about 130 percent of normal anticipated peak flow throughout Boise Valley between 16,000 and 20,000 second-feet. Estimated damages in my judgment based upon 21 years' experience as watermaster of Boise River will amount to several hundred thousand dollars and if the flow should reach or exceed 20,000 secondfeet for several days duration the damages might easily exceed $1,000,000. The physical features of the Boise River watershed are such that with precipitation

and snowfall 30 percent above normal a serious or even catastrophic flood may easily result from a bad break in the weather. Emergency levees recently constructed by Army engineers will be most helpful but not adequate to control excessive floods. The only means of permanently eliminating this hazard is by construction of the proposed Lucky Peak Dam.

WILLIAM E. WELSH. I am appearing as the representative of the people of Boise Valley, Idaho, who are experiencing damages from floods that occur in varying degree of intensity 9 years out of 10, as shown by records of the last 50 years.

Location of area: The main stem of Boise River in southwestern Idaho is formed by three forks which rise in mountainous territory with elevations reaching 10,000 feet and having annual snow depths of from 10 to 15 feet. Early spring thaws and water from melting snow, covering a 3,000 square mile area, racing down the steep gorges of the forks of the river to converge in forming the main river which then flows on through a very rich agricultural valley for 90 miles, finally emptying into the channel of the Snake River.

Flood damages are almost entirely confined to a 55-mile stretch of the main Boise River, beginning at Diversion Dam, a few miles southeast of Boise and the mouth of the river, just west of Parma, Idaho.

Annual farm income: As a basis for computing flood damages, I am sure you will be interested in knowing that the annual farm income from the 340,000 acres of irrigated land in Boise Valley is in excess of $50,000,000. The principal items being as follows: Dairy products (60,000

| Potatoes, onions, lettuce, cows)----------------- $15, 000, 000 peas, carrots, and other Poultry--

2,500,000 vegetables

$7,000,000 Vegetable seed --

4, 000, 000 | Hay and grain--- -- 1, 000, 000 Fruit. 2, 500,000 | Livestock.

15, 000, 000 Sugar beets ----

4, 000, 000 Flood years and safe carrying capacity, Boise River: According to survey of the Army engineers, the safe carrying capacity of the channel of the main river below the city of Boise is limited to 6,500 c. f. s. From statement prepared by William E. Welsh, watermaster of Boise River, I find that there have been only 5 years in the last 50, when the flow of the Boise River has not exceeded its safe carrying capacity. Expressed in another way, floods of some degree of intensity have occurred in Boise Valley 45 out of the last 50 years. We may divide these floods into four classes as follows:

Class 1: 23 years when maximum flow was between 1 and 2 times sa fe capacity.

Class 2: 12 times when maximum flow was between 2 and 3 times safe capacity.

Class 3: 8 times when maximum flow was between 3 and 4 times safe capacity.

Class 4: 2 times when maximum flow was in excess of 4 times safe capacity.

In years of comparatively light floods, class 1, damages run from $80,000 to $300,000. Damages for a class 2 flood run from $300,000 to $450,000. The damages during our 1943 flood which falls within class 3, exceeded $1,000,000, and would have been far in excess of that amount if the temperature had not suddenly dropped on the sixth day of the peak flow period. The rate of flow on the sixth day was nearly four times the safe carrying capacity of the river channel.

[ocr errors]


« PreviousContinue »