DABTLETT CP THE INTER ICR

UNITED STATES RECLA]1ATICN SERVICE

REPORTON

SAN CARLOS PROJECTARIZONA

By

C. C,. Fisher, Engineer1920

ARIZONA HISTO;'L FOUNDATION

ZCNPFl DATION

S

DPj2RTii!EIT OP THE IITEBIOB

UNITED STATES REOLMLT ION VIOE

REPORTon

SAN CAP LOS PROJECTARIZONA

By

C. C. PISiER, Ji1neor,

1 9 2 0.

J1 / :L /

(4I6c/

Page.

Agricultural conditions 39Agreement beten "White" and. Indian land.s 1.- 5, 97, 102&Thi reservoir site - see "Beserv-oir site"Analysis of ground water 162Appropriations and, water available for San Carlos Project 1-4, 83Area cropped 39Areas irrigable above San CarJ.os reservoir 85Area irrigated, below Gila Crossing 161Area and, water sply, sumnary of 163Areas under propced canals, Plorence-Casa Grand,e unit 256

Cane.]. Losses 78, 80Canals, Farmers and ?inriing ditc1s 126Canal System 258Canal, main, Plorence-Casa GraMe 261

Pinia lateral 262Florence 262North Side 264extension, Florence-Casa Grande 265

Canal and, lateral system, !esarvation unit 270Climate 1 1, 35Cliff reservoir site-see "Reservoir site"Conclusions i 19Cost oi' lateral systems on U.S.R.S. projects 269Cost, division of 273Cost, estimate of 278

Unit costs 278Florence diversion dam 280Sacaton " " 262Main Canal 285Pima Lateral 287Lateral systn 26$Summary and, distribution of 1-8, 289

Crops, yields and. values 39

IN2iX, Cont'd.

Dan, San Caries 1-17, 273Dam Site, San Caries 1 12, 160

" " Spillway 183It Alma 204

It U , spi11way 206" Red. Rock, upper 224'I " lower 226

" mid.d.lo 227"

" Lower Cliff 243" Cliff 245

Decreed rights 1 5, 89Deripti on 3lainage areas 3

ai nags 57Drilling, log of, Alma dam site 205

" " Red. Bock dni site 2253)ty of water ]4, 77

It It I for San Caries project 83" "

" pumped. 1 9, 157

Elevation 1-4, 35Evapo rat ion, Ban Carlos reservoir 75

Flood. control by San Carios reservoir 1 12, 188Florence Diversioa dani 251Frosts, killing 35

Ground. water supply

" depth in Santa Crtiz valley

HistoricalP. H. Howell, letter of 1896 7J. B. Llppinoott, report of 1899 - - - - 7Second. An. Report of U.S.B.S. 9Third. I'

10W. A. Parish, report of 1904 11.11lis P. Lee " " "

13Boaaci of ngineers' " 1905 14LI. 0. Leighton report " 1910 15Secretary of the interior, decision of 1912 - 15J. H. uinton, reports of 1909, 1910, 1912 163. D. Schuyler, "

1910 and. 191]. 17-18W. H. Bosocrans, Report " 1912 17A.rny Board, " " 1914 19A. P. vis, letter of 1914 22We L. Marshall, report of 1914 23F. W. Rauua, letters of 1914 25

103116

Ral].r Oad.sRainfallReservoir, Picacho

1-8, 35,152263

Reservoirs, necessity of above $an Caries site 1-16, 248Reservoir site - see also San Carlos reservoirReservoir site, k1m,. 113, 19].

191Location and. descriptionSurveys 192Capity 192Required capacity 193Storage and, annual draft, Table No. 1 195

U ft ft U 2 -------- 200iit deposit in Alma reservoir 203

Aimp d.anj site 204Log of drilling 205Spiliway 206Road. to Alms reservoir site 208Plowage d.smage 208Status of lands 209Buildings submerged. 210Roads submerged. 212Purpose of .Llxoa reservoir 212Land. withdrawals 214Flood control value 232

Losses, transmission 143irrigation 144

sulnnary 15].Lower Cliff reservoir site-see "Reservr ette"

Marts 3

0aership 38

Pioacho reservoir 263Power plant and. pumping syate 1-17, 273Precipitation 35, 152Pumped water, area on which may be used. - 1-9, 158Pumping from wells, practicability of, 1-9, 155

rnDEx, Cont'd.

Indian Service, plans of 1 16, 250Irrigat ion plan 2, 42

Land. 11, 35Lateral system, Florence 1 17, 266

Casa Grande unit" Reservation unit 270

Location 2

LNDEX, Cont'd.

Reservoir site, Cliff 3. 15, 244Location and, description 244Darn sIte 245water sup1y 247Recommendations - - - - 24$

Reservoir site, Lower 011ff 1 15, 235Location and description 235Surveys 235Capacity 236

,Requlred capacity 238Storage and amaua2. draft 239Summary of waste a.od deficiency 242Efficiency 242Daa. sIte 243Recommendation 244

Reservoir site, Red. Bock 1-14, 215Location and. descrIption 215Surveys 215aapacity 216Required capacity 217Storage arid. annual draft 218Summary of waste and, deficiency 221Efficlency, cnpared with Alma 222Low run-off years 223Silt deposit 224Darn site, upper 224Log of drilling 225]n Site, 1or 226tt " niid.d2e 227F]. owage dange 228Lands submerged 228Build,tngs submerged. 229Roads submerged 231Laud *1, thdrawal s 231Purpose of reservoir 232Flood control value 232Reservoir site, San Carlos - - 1-10, 164Location and, descrIption 164Surveys 164Capacity 165

Runoff, Gila River at San Carlos 43Pt ft compared with Salt River 45u Table 47'It at Bed. Bock, Now iico 48It it It it II i Table - - - 51San Francisco River at Alma, N. N. 52It tt U t, " ' Table 58low years, Gila ccznpared with Salt 74bcornpar1so, at 1vin arid at San Carlos 108

Sacaton diversion darnSan Carlos darn

San Carlos reservoir-see also Beservoir'TI ft I, Table No. 1II TI II '

2II U ft It a 3

u " " 3, Supplementseepage-see also

" San Carlos reservoir" oanal" loss under Florence diversion dam

Rillito CreekShipping pointsSilt deposit in Sa Carlos reservoir" tests, recent, by University ' Arizona" deposit, reservoir capacity for' methods of d.esilt lug'! deposit, provisica for in 1st construction

Spill at Ploronce diversion darnS'pillway, San Carlos darn siteStorage and annual draft, San Carl os rose rye I roi1

Synopsis i-i

To ixpratureTopographyTos

Underfiow, sources and value offrom ueen Crook

" Salt River" " Santa Cruz River

----1-3,59

253

1 12, 180, 273

677274

74b

1-4, 7678, 80

104124

2

1 11,172176

1-11, 176a176a.

179106, 113183

36

35

352

104115116

117

Waste, surface, and, deep percolationWater, ground, analysis ofWater rights

It Lockwood decree" supply surface

" ground" and area, summary of

U n ground, summation ofWells, irrigation, in Qasa Grands valley

1-8, 1431-SQ, 162

1-5, 8, 8991

1-2, 431-6, 1031 10, 1631-9, 1541-8, 133, 135

flDEX, Cont'd.

Runoff, San. Pedro River near Fairbank 110Queen Creek 116

U Santa Cruz River 125,128,131'I Rfllito Creekft per sq. mi. of streams near project

129132

SAN CARLOS PROJECTReservation Unit

fl"T%' Florence-Casa Grand Unit

ito

1'Glose WHITE MOUNTL OR SAN CARLOS INDIAN RESEIWATION

ISanCarlos

Winkleman

4 5 6 7

Solomonsvi I le

Scale a Miles Inch

Lord. burg

OWER

ESERV

CLIFF)IR SI E

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORUNITED STATES REC6AMTION SERVICE

ASIZONA COOPERAVE WORI

SAN CARLOS PROJECTE ST 10 AT IONS

DRAWN ftMC.

VOMA.ARIZ. DEC

20PSL., OF BEPOBT

A brief outline of the subject rna.tter of the following report

is here submitted

General (pp. 1 to 6) The drainage area above the San Canoe

dam site is 13,455 square miles.

The proposed. project is divided into two units, the aila River

indian Reservation, and, the Florence-Casa Grands. The Reservation

contains 115,000 acres of irrigable land, iich is far in excess of

that proposed for irrigation. The Casa Grands Valley is a beautiful

tract of land with an area that can be easily reached by gravity

greatly in excess of that for which there is a depend.aba water

Supply.

Historical (pp. 7 to 34.) A brief abstract of previous in-

vest igations and, reports, including the principal findirgs and con-

olusions, is given.

Climate (p. 35.) Elevation of project 950 to 1,500 feet above

sea level. Temperatures; maxinnvn monthly mean 88 degrees, minimum

monthly mean 51 degrees, amlual mean 69 degrees. Precipitation,

mean annual, 9.7 inches. Frost season, Nov. 1 to February 20.

hand, (pp. 35 to 38.) Somewhat broken in river bottom; nooth

and. levelin Casa Grands Valley. Soils range fr gravelly loans

at higher elevations to heavy clays in river bottom. Surface drain-

a is generally good except in portions of river bottoin Ground

water will be ipt down by pu1ing for irrigation. The land. is all

in private ownership outside of the Reservation. The proposed area

1-1

of the project is 108,000 acres net, in the Plorence-Casa Grands

unit, and. 40,000 acres net, in the Reservation unit.

Irrigation Plan (p. 42.) The proposed plan ccutnplates the

construction o± the San Canoe reservoir; the Florence diversion

dam and a gravity canal system for the Florence-Casa Grahie unit;

the Sacaton. diversion darn and gravity canals therefrom for the

Reservation unit; a feeder canal fran the upper unit to the lower

unit; a power plant at the San. Canoe dam; and a pumping system

for tie development of' the ground water suly. Reservoirs on.

the head.waters of the stream, namely, at A1mt on the San Francisco

River and, at Bed. Book on the Gila River are eventually planned. for

supplemental storage and. for the purose of sluicing the San Canoe

reservoir.

Surface Water Supply (pp. 43 to 102-j.) The source of sxpp].y

Is the i1a River. The runoff record at San Caries began with the

year 1890, but it is not continuous. A canplete runoff table has

been worked up covering the sears 1895 to 1919, inclusive. Parts

of this have been estimated. The mean annual runoff for thisperiod.

is 431,000 acre feet. This record shows a nIod. of clx consecutive

iears - 1899 to 1904 inclusive - ix. which there was a very low runoff.

Therun.off data of the (lila River at Red. Rock, New Mexico,

covers the years 1905 to 1919, inclusive. part of this period is

also estimated, The mean. annual runoff for the period is 232,000

acre feet. This record also shows six oecutivo low years, nnely,

1908 to 1913, inclusIve.

The runoff data of the San Francisco River at Alma, New ibxIco,

1 ...2

covers the years 1905 to 1917, inclusive. This data as in the

previous cases has besu partJy estimated.. The accuracy of the

records at this station is subject to question. The mean annual

runoff for the period, is 115,000 acre feet. This record also

shows si consecutive very low years - 1908 to 1913 - which render

the stream of doubtful value for storage purposes.

Ztorage and. Annual Draft. San Carlos Reservoir. (pp. 59-to 74-c.)

An annual draft from San Carlos reservoir of 320,000 acre-feet has

been adopted. Computations have been made with three reservoir

capacities; the first two on the assumption of an em:pty reservoir

on Jan. 1, 1895, and with capacities of 2,420,000 and. 715,000 acre

feet respectively; and the third. on, the assumption of sufficient

capacity and, sufficient holdover on. Jan. 1, 1895, to furnish a com-

plete supply through the low period, ending with 1904. The deficiencies

are the same with a capacity of 2,420,000 acre feet as with a capacity

of 635,000 acre feet if there is no holdover on Jan. 1, 1895; these

deficiencies are: 1895, 18.6%; 1901, 19.6%; 1902, 69; 1903, 64.5>';

and. 1904, 49%. The third. plan shows that to insure a full stpply,

a holdover of 1,270,000 acre feet is necessary on Jan.. 1, 1895 and.

that an available capacity of 1,460,000 acre feet is required. It

is concluded that the actual available holdover would be something

less than the above amount and that the above deficiencies would not

be eliminated but waild. be reduced.. An annual thaft of 320,000 acre

feet and an available storage of 1,460,000 acre feet is recnend.ed,

in. case the project charge is not excessive. In case the cost of a

large reservoir is prohibitive, an available capacity of 635,000

'I -

acre feet is the minimum ad.visab] under a 320,000 acre feet annual

draft. To the above available capacities shDuli be added. 6,000 acre

feet for d.ead. storage below the outlet gates and. 111,000 acre feet

for silt storao.An estimate has been made of the runoff at San Carlos for the

period, Mar. 1891 to 1894, inclusive, fr the partial record for

this period of the Salt Liver iich shows a low runoff for the latter

stream. The third reservoir plan as above is then computed to cover

this period which rosz1ts in a required holdover and a required

available capacity oi'1,833,000 acre feet. These figures are based

on such meagre data, they are not cons! dared of cuff! cia it weight

to change the ccziclusions as above reached as to recanrnended. capacity.

Evatoration (p.75.) T1 net loss from evaporation on San

Carlos reservoir is estimated, at 5 feet in depth per annum.

Seepaze (p.76). No seepae loss is figured in San Carlosreservoir.

Duty of Water. pp.77 to 83.) The net duty, or duty at the land

is figu.red. at 3.0 acre feet; l03s in laterals, 20; lOss in canals,0.34 feet in cleith per day over the wetted area; dxity at &Lversion

4, feet. The loss o± 0.34 ft. in depth per day is the mean of

eight tests on the Salt River project.

4ProlDriatioias and Water Available for the San Carlos Project.(pp.83 to 3Z) There has been no genera], adjudication of the terrights of the G11a River.

According to a survey made by the U. S. Indian Service, there

were 41,868 acres under irrigation above the San Car1osdam site in.1914 and. 11,500 aores of additional lands susceptible of irrigation..

1-4

For many years the total low flow of the stream has been d.iverted. for

irrigation above the San. Caries reservoir site. There is no irrigable

land, on the main. strewn between the San Caries reservoir and, the

project lands, and, the sUe streams are too mn.teiittent to be of

material value.

The irrigated. lands below the San Car].os project rely anost

entirely on return flow; and, the irrigation o± lands above, including

the Salt flyer project, has made the water sup:ply of these lower

lands more dependable than in foxner iears. It also has been the

practice for rriany years to divert all the low flow of the stream for

the San. Carlos project land.s. The stream may be divided. into three

parts; the upper, the middle, and, the lower, of wh,ich the middle is

the portion belonging to the San Caries project. This middle division

is practically ind.epend.ent of the other tv d.urin.g the critical period,

of the stream so far as the natural flow is concerned. It is con-

cludad that the water as recorded, at San Caries is available for the

San CarJ.os project.

Decreed Bights. (pp. 89 to 97. j The priority and. acreage having

water rights on the Plorence-Casa Grande unit was d.etermined by the

Lockwood. decree of April 6, 1916 and, supplemental decree of Oct. 23,

1917. This decree covers 13,646 acres and. determines the duty of

water in miner's inches thereon.. It does not define the rights as

between the "Vhitet' and. Indian lands.

A.reernent between "White" and. Indian lands (pp.97 to 102-j.)

agreement has been recont1 d,'a up by the U. . Indian Service

for signature by the old. water7xolders of the "White" lands

1-5

in. which the division of the natural flow of the river as between

the white and Indian lands Is defined, and the Goverrrnent agrees

under certain conditions to construct the Florence &tver3ion darn

and certain canals. The division of water provided is as follaWs:

White lands Indian landsFirst 300 second feet or less 36.4% 60.6%Next 300 " U ft ft 483h7 51.7%

er 600 " 43.9% 56.1%

The project outlined in the Agreement is to cover an irrigable

area of 62,000 acres, of which 27,000 is to be "White" lands.

Sufficient signatures to the agreement have been secured o cover

the required "white" lands, and. the Florence dan was recently ad.-

vertised for construction by the Indian Service.

G;ound Water Sup1g (pp.103 to 163.) The sources of ground

water supply are:

Seepage under Florence diversion darn

ill at Florence diversion darn due to runoff below SanCarlos reservoire

Spill at Florence diversion darn clue to spill at San. Carlosreservoir

TJnderflow a supplied by Queen Creek

'I ft " Salt RiverU tt " Santa Cruz River

urfaco waste and deep percolation from irrigation aM canals

BaknfaJJ in Gila Basin below gaging stations.

The seepage under the Florence diversion dan is computed to be

7,000 acre feet per annum.

The runoff between San Carlos and. the Florence diversion dam is

estimated to be 16% of the runoff at Kelvin, or 84,000 acre feet per

annum, It is estimated that 72,000 acre feet of this will spill over

the Florence diversion dam and. that 36,000 acre feet will join the

ground water within the project.

With an available reservoir capacity of 1,460, 000 acre feet

there will be a spill in only two years out of the period of record.

The rate of absorption of the river bed between the Florence dam

and Gila Crossing is not less than 110 second feet. The spill for

the two years covered an 8 months period, which would permit at the

above rate of absorption of 52,800 acre feet joining the ground

water, or an. average of 2,200 acre feet per annum.

The mean annual flow of queen Creek is estimated to be 10,600

acre feet. This seldom roaches the mouth of the stream; It loses

'itself in the desert and joins the ground water on the north side

of the Reservation unit.

An undetermined, amount of the waters of the Salt hiver joins

the undarfiow of the Gila in the vicinity of Gila Crossing. It isestimated, that this with other sources of ground water is sufficientfor the irrigation of the required Roservatio.a lands below this point.

The ground. water of the Casa Graiacie Valley comes fran the Santa

Cruz Biver. The ground. water of the Santa Oruz at Tucson wil]. be

all developed, by lands in that vicinity. The mean annual surface

flow at Tucson below all diversions is about 23,000 acre feet and.

it is estimated that 8,000 of this will join the ground water of the

project. There is an. irnptant branch of the Santa Cruz, namely,

flhllito Greek, coning in a short d.istauco below Tucson which has a

mean annual surface flow near its mouth of 48,000 acre feet. It isestimated that 24,000 acre feet of this will join the ground. water

Of the project, maldng a total of 32,000 acre feet supplied by the

Santa Cruz drainage area.

IrrigatioA 11s in. Casa Grands Va1le:.r. (pp. 133 to 145, J

The wells of the Casa Grand.e Valley have been nasured. for the past

several years by the Irrigation Oeparthient of the University

Arizona. There are 134 irrigation. wells, most all being inside the

proposed project. The average discharge of the pumps is 1.72 second

feet and the maximum is about 4 second feet. The best pumping area.

is near the Gila River east of the Sacaton Mountains. The depth to

ground water ranges from 20 feet to 70 feet, and is quite constant

from year to year. Pumping from ground water is recomnend.ed. only

inside the 40 ft. depth contour.

Surface Waste and. ]ei) Percolation fran Irrigation. (pp. 143 to

152). It is planned. to d.ivert from the river 4 acre feet per acre

per annum or a total of 320,000 acre feet. It is estimated that 25%

of this or 80,000 acre feet will be lost in. transmission, and. that

of this 4,000 acre feet will be lost by evaporation and 76,000 aore

feet will join the ground water supply. ith a diversion of 320,000

acre feet and a traanissioa loss of 25% there will be 240,000 acre

feet delivered, to the land. It is estimated that two-thirds of the

amount app1ied. will be lost in. evaporation ath transpiration and.

that Due-third., or 80,000 acue feet, will join the ground. water.

The total transmission and, irrigation losses then that will again

be available asground.water is 156,000 acre feet.

Baiiffall in Gila Basin below Gaging Stations. (pp. 152 and. 153)

The nisan annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project is 90 ins.

It is figured that this is all lost by evaporation and, that nothin,g

1-8

is added thereby to the ground. water su.pply.

Summation of Ground. Water Supply. (pp. 154 and 155.) The total

ground water sly for the project fra the above sources amounts

to 244,000 acre feet per annum. It is concluded- that only that

supplied by surface waste arid. d.eep percolation frcn irrigation, or

156,000 acre feet can be depend8d. upon for pumping, arid. that the

balance o± the supply will be required- to hold. up the water table

to an economical depth. Experience may develop that a portion of

the balance may also be used.

practicability of Pv.mpin from Wells for Irriat ion. (pp. 155

to 157.) The better wells in the Casa Grand.e Valley have an. average

capacity of about 2 second feet, arid. the best ones, 4 second. feet.

Sa large wells drilled by the U. 3. ReclamatiOn Service on the

Reservation unit have an output of about 6 second. feet per well.

These wells have been in. successful operation for a number of 'earS.

It is concluded, that pumping from wells is practicable.

ity of Ptanped. Water. (p. 157.) The duty of pumped- water is

figured. to be 3 acre feet per acre at the pump.

Area on which Pumped Water lg be Used-. (pp.15B to 162). With

156,000 acre feet of ground water available for pumping above Gi.la

Crossing and a duty of 3 acre feet there will be a supply for 52,000

acres. The pump area planned. on the '1orence-CaSa Grands unit is

the land. lying inside the 40 ft. depth contour. The net area inside

this contour is 54,000 acres. One third of the supply on this area

is planned to be river water, or the area to be supplied by pumps is

equivalent to 36,000 acres. This leaves 16,000 acres to be supplied

by pumping on the Beservatioi unit above Gila Crossing, which if it

1-9

be mixed, with one-third. river water will serve 24,000 acres. In

addition to this it is planned. to furnish ground water to 18,000

acres on the Reservation below Gila Grossing in order to ma3e up

the 40,000 acres as planned for this wilt.

Anal.vsis o± Groan later. (pp. 162 to 163.) The ground water

of the project has been analyzed and. found. suitable for irrigation.

Suaimarv' of Area and Water 5u1j. (p. 163.)

;Net IrrlgaZurfaoe Water:G'round. Water:ble Area :at Diversion 2$.t PLmro.

(acres (a.f.) : (a.f.)eservat ion Uxit : :Above G11a Crossing 24,000 32,000 : 48,000

Below Gila Crossing : 16,000 : 00 : 48,000

Florenceasa Crand.e UnitBelow 40' depth contonr 54,000 : 72,000 : 108,000

Above 40' depth contour 54.000 : 216,000 00

Totals 148,000 : 320.000 ;. 204,000

San Carlos Reservoir lte (pp. 164 to 191.) The San Carlos

reservoir site was first surveyed by the Indian Service in 1915 and

the survey was extended, in the present investigation to the 2,575

contour. The capacity recommended. in case the project charge can

stand it is 1,577,000 acre feet gross. This wil]. require the

spiliway crest at elevation 2536, or 228 feet above the river bed..

The capacity table is ciputod to contour 2566, or 250 feet above

river bed., which shows a capacity of 2,420,000 acre feet.

The area of the proposed reservoir is 25,530 acres, divided

as follows: Irrigated, 568; susceptible of irrigation, 3,022;

grazing land., 21,940. This land is all in, the San Carlos Indian

1-10

-Beservation and. it is assumed it will have to be purchased.

The State plans on buildinL a highway around the reservoir SO

this item is not figareJ. as charable to the project .ecept for the

moving of a bridge across the San Garlos iUuitr.

The San Carlos Indian Agucy is located inside the servoir

site and the value of the propertyis included. in the estimated cost

of the store.ge.

About 30 miles of railroad, will recuire reeonstructi around

the reservoir ad this will enter as a large item of the cost of

St 0 rage.

Silt Deposit in San. Carlos fleservoir. (pp.172 to 176-a.)

Studies have been made and oolusiois reached at various times as

to the silt content of the Gila River at San Car].os. The most

extensive study was made by the Aiy Boaxd,frOm which it was con-

eluded that the total carried in suspension and. rolled on he bott

is 1.3 by volume of 70 lb. so!]. or 1% of 65 lb. soil, and thit 5/6

of this will be deposited in the reservoir. The latter figi2re -

l of 85 lb. soil - has been adopted in this report, which results in.

a deposit o± 3,700 acre feet of silt per annum. Some recent tests

were made by the Irrigation Departhieiit of the Un.iv erzity of Arizona

eoverin; the low water riod of October, 1917, to June, 1918, in-

clusive, which show only 0.3% O 70 lb. soil carried in suspneion.

This is not thought representative as it d..Ld. not include any flood

period.

,ltra Reservoir Cpacit.v for Silt Deposit. (pp.176-A to 180.)

Various methods o± d.esilting have been considered. The most

practical is that outlined in. Davis and i1son's 9lrrigation Eng!isr-

ing", Seventh Edition; namely, to construct ad.clitional reservoirs

on the head. waters of the stream for sluicing the main reservoir;

this is the eventual plan of the San Carlos project.

Extra oaoacity for silt storage is planned in the first con-

struction of the San Carlos reservoir to Drovid.e for a period of

30 years, or 111,000 acre feet. 1±' the reservoir were constructed

to a capacity of 2,420,000 acre feet (to ctour 2568) there would

be silt storae capacity, in addition to the requiid. available

capacity, sufficient for a period of 258 jears. Such a reservoir

capacity is feasible at San Carlos.

San. Carlos Dai Site. (pp.180 to 187). The foundat ion of the

lovzer dm site was first investitedby the U. S. Geological Survey

in 1899, and. again by the U. S. Ieclaznat ion. Service in. 1905. The

maximum depth to bed rock was found. to be 74 feet. The Army Board

in 1913 investigated, the upper site, 1,000 feet above the lor,

with the result that be d. rock was found at a maximum depth of about

20 feet. The upper site, though wider than. the lower, is preferred.

The maximum possible flood. at San Canoe is estimated. as 200,000

second feet. A siphon spiliway with a capacity of 110,000 second.

feet will handle such flood. with, a depth on spiliway crest not to

exceed. 10 feet. Sch a spi11war is advised.

Flood. Control by San. Carlos Reservoir. (pp. 188 to 191). The

San Carlos reservoir will have no great value for flood, control.

The principal flood.s on the lower Gila corns from below San Carlos,

especially frQxx the Salt River.

1-12

A].ma Beservoir Site. (pp. 191 to 214) The Alma reservoir site

was surveyed. to contour 5,050 or to 226 feet ahove the river bed at

the d.ai site. This elevation gives a capacity of 436,000 acre feet,

The capacity required. to utilize the an annual flow is 306,000 acre

feet (depth 200 ft.); this will provide an annual draft o± 80,000 acre

feet. The capacity required. for a 60,000 acre foot annual draft is

168,030 acre feet (depth 163 ft.). This latter is probably as large

a reservoir as is justifiable from a cost standpoint as the larger

reservoir is too low in efficiency. Fivo feet is roe iend.ed. to be

added. for silt storage, or to a capacity of 182,000 acre feet. This

is estimated to provide silt storage for a period. of 40 yearS.

The dam site is a narrow box canyon of volcanic rock of fair

quality. The width is 160 feet at river bed. and. the walls are quite

abrupt to sufficient height for the lam. 3orins wore made of the

foundation. seven holes were drilled, which shovad. the general ele-

vation of bed. rock to be about 42 feet below low water.

The greatest possible flood at Alma is estimated. at 50,000 second.

feet and. an overfall spiliway at the end. of the darn is panxd. to

provide for this.

The Alma site is 72 miles from Silver City and. 70 miles from

Tyrene, the nearest railroad. points. A good. state aid, road, is planned

for about half of this distance; the balance of the road. is in poor

o ond,i t ion.

The old, town of Alma is in. the reservoir site and, nearly half

of the area is in private ownership. The land. values are not high

and, the buildings in the towa are very old. and of but little vslue.

so the oost of right of way would. not be prohib,Ltive.

The purpose of the .ilina reservoir is f supplemental storage

for the San CarJ.cs project and for sluicing the San Carlos reservoir,

also 'or irrigation ath flood control for the valleys above San

Carlos.

Bed. flock Reservoir Site. (op.215 to 234.) The Red Rock reservoir

site was surveyei to contour 4040, or to 121 feet above low water

surface at the dan site. This is the lixnitiog contour on account of

the top of the canyon. Thze dan sites ere surveyed and the reser-

voir capacity figtzrea to the 4040 ooatour for the upper and lower

site; the middle site was not considered. seriously on account of the

wide canyon at this point. The capacity at the upr site Is l6,000

acre feet and at the 1or, 234,000. The upper site is favored on

account of the narror canyon and irobably better foundation con-

dition. This reservoir will sustain an annual draft of 1400O0 acre

feet with. two years deficiency in the period of record (l9 t 1919),

the eatest deficiency being 22. This reservoir has a much higher

efficiency than that of the A]a.

At the upper, or favored, dan site the canyon Is 150 feet wide

at river bed, and is fairly abrupt to a height of about 100 feet where

it flattens out. The rock is a conglomerate. Three holes were drilled

at this site which showed. a do:pth to rock of 102 feet.

One hole, only was drilled. t the 1owr site in which rock (vol-

canic tuff) was struck at 101 feet.

It is reoaiended that no fwther co,sid.eration 'se given the Bed,

flock site until other possible sites on the upper Gila are further

investited.

1-14

The flwage d.amage in the Bed Bock site would be of saiall

oonsequece as both the land and improvements are poor.

The purpose of the fled Bock or other reservoir on the upper Gila

would be the same as above described for the Alma.

,Lower Cliff Beservoir bite. (mD. 235 to 244.) This reservoir site

is located betou Bed Rock and. Cliff stations on the upper Gila.

Topora.hic maps of the reservoir and dan site re secured from an

old private survey made by C. E. Johnson of silver City, ITew xico.

This survey extends to a height of 200 feet above the river bed at

dam site and shows a capacity of 212,000 acre feet. By projeotin

the capacity curve to a height of 240 feet a capacity of 408,000

acre feet is secured. This latter capacity will sustain an annual

draft of l,000 acre feet with a two years deficiency from 1905 to

1919, the m.irnum being 30ó; and there will be a spill in five years

of this period..

The canyon at the darn site is 170 feet wide at river bed and.

80 feet at 200 feet up. The rock is volca1c and. of good quality.

There have been no tests of the found.atiou.

It is recomiended that this site be further investigated befox

any cicluzions are reached as to storae on the upper Gila.

Cliff Beservoir site. (pp. 244 to 248.) There is'a possible

larger reservoir site than those above discussed on the upper Gila,

at Cliff, which is just above the Lower Cliff site. This valley

is much wider than, at the other sites. No survey has been made here

except for the dc-n site. This daa site is wider than in the other

cases - it is 430 feet at river bed, and. 1070 feet at a height of

1-15

150 feet - but on account of the wid.e basin it is believed a corn-

paratively low dam will be reçuiid. The side walls are of a good

quality of volcanic rock. No tests have been made of the foundation.

It is estimated t1t the runoff at the ClIff site is 95 of

that at 1ed flock.

It is r8corauencled that this site be 1nvestiated. before any

conclusions are roaobe as to the best site on the upper Gi].a.

Nece55itT of Reservoirs above San Caries ite as Part of San

Caries Project. (pp.248 to 250). It is cc1ud.ed. from this study

that reservoirs above the San Caries site are not an essential

element in the fsasibilit,y of the San Car].os project, but that such

sites should be reserved in part for future use of the project as

supplemantal storage and for sluicing the San Caries reservoir.

Plans of the U. b. Indian Service for a Gila River Diversion

TDroject. (pp.250 to 265.) The U. S. Indian Service has prepared

plans and estimates and have allotted funds for the construction

of the 1orence and. Sacaton diversion dams; a main Canal, (capacity

1,000 second feet) from the Plonce dan to Picacho reservoir, a

distance of 21.6 miles; a "Pim&' Lateral, (capacity 750 -second. feet)

from the main canal back to the river above the Sacaton dam, a

distance of 11 miles; and a North Side Canal with a capacity of 60

second feet. 2bese plans and. estimates of quantities are adopted

and incorporated in this report. The dams are of the floating, Indian

weir t ype, resting on sand found.ations, with sheet piling cutoffs.

Diversion gates are planad. only on the south ends, and water is

conducted. to the north side by circular conduits through the dams.

1-16

The bacatoil site is not very favorable and it may be the better plan

to ouit It and. to extend the North Side Canal In lieu of !t.

The Main Canal will be an earth section except for the drop Into

Picacho reservoir which will be concrete lird. It will follow the

partly constructed old FloIuce-Casa Grande Canal; this will result

in a higki velocity and. riprapping or other steps will be required to

prevent cutting. The Pima Lateral will be concrete lined. here Lhe

grade is excessive.

The old. Plorence Canal will be abandoned sbove the Picacho

Reservoir as It closely parallels the proposed canal. 3elOw this

point it will be enarged. and, used, as a distributer.

The Main (Plorence-Casa Grancie) Caial was survoyed for an ox-

tension on a contour grade beyond Picacho Beservoir to cover about

20,000 acres adiitioal land. On account of the area being in

excess of the water supply, hover, this 20,000 acs is recommended

to be eliminated. from the project.

Lateral 7stem. (pp.266 to 272.) Jn unlined. lateral system is

planned, to be constructed to each farm unit. A detail system has

not been laid. out, but an estimate has been made instead on an acreage

basis, governed by the average cost on constructed Government projects

plus one-third for present increased. prices. This results in an

estimated cost of 2.O0 er acre.

San Carlos Dam. Por Plant and. Pumping ystem. (p. 273.)

Separate reports have been prepared. by the DesIiing ami Electrical

Departments of the Denver Office of the BeclaatiOn Service covering

the plans end estimates of the proposed. dais and. reservoirs, and por

and. pumping plants These reports are include cJ. as appoxid.ixeS to the

main ieport. Also a separate report has been written by ier

5. 5. arro1l covering the survey and, estimate of the proposed rail-

road around the San Carlos reservoir. This also is included in the

Appendix.

Estimate and, Division of Cost. (pp. 273 to 289)

It em

Florence-:Oasa 0-ranclo :Reservation

Unit : UnitDistribution Unit.

Florence diversion darn .272,400 30,200Sacaton diversion dam : 496,90011am Caiial to Pima Lateral 387,500 : 43,000Main Canal bel:w Nina Lateral : 162,600Nina Lateral 27,500 : 247,600Latsrral System 2,160,000 :6,620,000Pivnping system, including sub-stat! onsand secondary transmission

): 1,619,400 :1,131,400

Telephone system 5,000Operators buildings 15,000 5,000

Total distribution unit :4, 854,600 :2,581,100

5toraie Unit:

Beservoir (Capacity 1,600,000 acre feet) 8,813,500 979,300Por plant and main transmission 743,400 318,600

Gz'awi Total :14,411,500 :3,879,000

Cost per acre (108,000 acres in upperunit and. 31,000 acres new land. in lowerunit.) 133.00 125.00

0 0 N C L U S I C N S

As a result 3f this study the following concinsions are

presented:

There is a water suDply from the Gila flyer, with storage,

to furnish an annual draft of 320,000 acre feet, with possible heavy

shorts continuing from one to three years, at intervals of 25 to 30

years. with the duty of water recoeroended (4 acre feet er acre at

diversion), this will irrigate a project of ,000 acres. As there

is an excess of good land available, and as to reduce the prject

would result in a large waste of water, it is concluded that it is

in better iceeping with the plan. of conservation, and with the plan

of the greatest good to the greatest nnber, to build an 80,000 acre

project without a giaranted water right than to naterial1y reduce

the area and to guarantee a full suprly during the occasional low

pen Ocis.

Further adjucLLcations of the waters of the Gila Bivr are

not a recuisite to the building of the San Carlos project, as the

portion of the river in the vicinity of the project is practically

independent of further being afiocted. by diversions froii the natural

flow either on the upper or lor river.

There is a ground water szpp1y of 156,000 acre feet ter

anntn above Gila Crossing available f or aping. At the duty of

water rocoinended (3 acre feet per acre at the pump) this will

irrigate an. area of 52,000 acres. Below Gila Crossing there is an

addition9l ground water supply for 16,000 acres. The ground water

of the project is suitable for irrigation. Thiping is recomtended

only in the area whe the depth to ground ater is 40 feet or less.

1-19

Uany of the irrigation wells in the F].orence-Casa (-rande unit are

suitable in location, construction, capacity for incorporation

into the propod project; in such event proper credit s.ould. be

allowed the owners of these wells.

(d.) The project will be divided. into two units; the upper or

Florence - Oasa Grands unit, and the lower or Beservat ion unit. The

uDper unit will contain 72,000 acres waterci by surface water and

36,000 acres by ground. water. The lover unit will contain 8,000

acres watered by surface water and. 32,000 acres by ground water. The

cost of the project should be apportioned to the two units in pro-

portion to the benefits received.

(e) An. available reservoir capacity at the San Carlos site of

1,460,000 acre feet is recomnended. In case the project charge for

this capacity is considered excessive, it ay be reduced to a

minimum of 65,000 acre feet, net. Silt storage capacity sufficient

to provide for a period of 30 years should. be included in the first

construction. The gross capacity recomnend.ed, including silt storage,

is 1,577,000 acre feet. The reservoir is feasible fro:i an engineering

standpoint to a capacity of at least 2,420,000 acre feet; this would

furnish silt storade for a period of 258 iearz in addition to the

recommended available capacity.

(r) The San Carlos reservoir will not be of much value for flood

control on the lower river.

(g) Storage reservoirs aove the San Carlos reservoir are not a

requisite to t feasibility of the San Carlos project. such reser-

voirs, howevor, may be of future value for supplernentaJ. storage and

for sluicing the San Carlos reservoir, and. sites should be reserved.

1-20

for these purposes.

(h) The Llrna reservoir site on the an Francisco River is

feasible as to capacity and d.am site, but the runoff is so erratic

that to provide storaSe capacity to conserve the tnean unua1 flow

WI].]. result in an excessive cost per acre foot of annual draft.

$torae for a small annual draft Only is feasible at this site.

The Red Rock reservoir site on the upr Gila Iuiver is

not very favorable either as to capacit7 or as to fcundtion con-

ditions at the site. There are two other possible sites; nuely,

the Lover Cliff and. the Cliff, that should, be further iestiated.

before a final selection on the upper Gila is ade. This is a much

more favorable stream so far as quantity and constancy of flow is

concerned than is the San Francisco River.

The an Carlos project as a whole is feasible from an

engineering standpoint though a full water supply cannot be guaranteed

during occasional low years; also, though the storage feature will be

expensive, in view of the very favorable soil and climatic conditions

and the returns per re that will result therefrom, the project is

believed to be feasible from the standpoint o± cost.

1-21

SAN CiL0S P0JE0T. ABI0NA

L0C,TI0N AJD a BILL CIdF10N

Location

The propos;ed. San Caries project ic located, in. Pinal and. Liaricopa

Counties, Arizona, in Tps. 1 to V S.and. s. 1 to 11 .

Towns

The principal towns in the irrigaba area are Florence, near the

eastern edge, and Casa Grancie, near the stern ede, of the portion

of the project outside of the Gila Bivr Indian reservation. These

towns each he a population of from 1,500 to 2,000. The principal

station on the reservation is the Sacaton Agency, located, near the

eastern end. of the reservation.

Railroads

The niain line of ti-ia Southern Pacific Baiivay crosses the

southern portion of the project, on. which are located the town O±

Casa Graad.e; and the a11 station, Toltec, near the south boundary

of the prcjec. The branch of the Arizona Eastern Bailway between

Phoenix and V/inkelnian strikes the north bound.ary of the project just

across the Gila River fron Florence, and thence runs up the river

past the site of the diversion d.am. The branch of the Arizona. Eastern

Bai1say fren 3owie, on the main line of the Southern Pacific, to

Glcbe, passes tbrouh the San Carlos reservoir site, and. within about

seven miles of the darn site.

Shiing Points

The shipping ptations are Casa Grande and. Toltoc on. the Southern

-2-

Pacific Railway and. P].orence on the Arizona astern Railway.

Princi'pal lIar]ts

On account of the large tributary country with but little under

cu.J.tivat ion, including mining districts and live stock raue, there

is a local demand, for most products raised. 01' the ]arger, cities,

the most important markets are Phoenix ni Tucson, Arizona, arid.

Pacific Coast cities.

DescriDtion

A d.etaileci description of the Gila River drainao basin may be

found. in water upply Paper #395, page 95; and of the drainage basin

and, the San Caries roject, in the Array Board. report of Feb. 25, 1914,

pi 9 and 10, and, the C. EL Olborg report to the Commissioner ol'

Indian Affairs, of November 1, 1915, pp. 13 to 16.

The fol1owin description is mainly briefed. frii tile 0].berg

report. The Gila River water shed, enbaces practically the entire

region soatli of the 35th parallel of latitude in Arizona, and. con-

tains an area of aoproximatsly 72,000 square miles. The sources

of the river rise in the Mogollon Mountains, in New Mexico, at an

elevation of from 7,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level. This range

forms the continental divide between the Gulf of Mexicoand. the

Gulf of California. The Gila flows in a westerly direction, entering

Arizona at en elevation ci' about 3,600 feet, and emptying into the

Colorado River at an elevatio.e of approximately 120 feet above sea

level, and, at a distance of approxiriately 450 miles from its source.

are included, in its upper water shod., 7,000 square miles of

merchanto1e tLber; and. L.,000 square miles of wood].aiiö..

The principal tributaries enterinb' the ila above the proposed.

an Carlos oject are:

One of these tributaries, the an Pedro, enters the Gila

below the wi Car1s reservoir site, but above the diversion site.

it is noted that the drainage area of the an Pedro is quite large,

being larger than that of the an Piancisco. It is a much less

important stream, however, on account of the low altitude and.

barren conlition of the watershed., vnich results in a comparatively

a1l and. intermittent flow.

About seven miles east of the Arizona-New L1eico line the Gila

River canyon broadens into the Duncan Valley, which is the upper valley

of importance on the river. This valley is 30 niles long, and, a

maximum width of l miles. The irrigable area of this valley, accord.-

ing to the Olberg report, is 7,085 acres, of which 6,268 acres were

undar irrigation at the time of the survey, or 1914.

The an Francisco hiver enters the Gi].a about five ailes below

the 1 ewer end of the Dunc an Va lie y.

AZter leaving the Duncan Valley the Gil& passosthrough a

narrow box canyon for a distance of about twenty miles, where it

enterB the Solomonvilie Valley. This valley is about seventy miles

long with an average width of to 2 miles. The lower thirty miles

-4-

Streem

Drainage area,square miles levation

3,500 1900- 5,000an Pedro

an Caries 1,200 2,400- 4,000

axi Francisco 3,400 3,400-10,000

of the valley is in the San Caries Indian Poservation, and. it torrel-

nates in a box canyon, which is the location of the San Caries dazn

site, about seven miles below the mouth of the San Carlos Biver

and the san Caries Indian Anoy. The irrigable area of this valley,

exclusive 01 the Indian reservation, is, accordin to the Olberg

report, 35,100 acres, of which 26,633 acres were under irrigation in

1914. The area in the reservation irriable from tile Giia and San

Caries ivors was not d.etermined. in the Olberg report, but It is

stated. to be small; the irrigated area in 1914 is given as 1,000

acres under the Gdia and. 936 acres under the San Caries.

The d.rai 'e area o...the Gila IUvr basin above the San Caries

dam site is 13,455 square miles.

Prom the lower end of the Solomonville Vai].o. to the head. of the

Florence valley the river flows throuh a canyon for a distance of

70 miles. About midway of this distance the San Pedro enters from

the south, at the little \ink1eman Valley, where 335 acres are under

irrigation, accordJn to the survey of 1914.

The ila emerges from the mountains about 16 miles above Florence

and, enters the broad desert plain which extends from that point to the

confluence of the Gila and the Colorado Bivers at Yuma, a distance

of 243 miles.

The upper end, of this valley is the land proposed. to be irrigat-

ed under the San Caries project. These lands may be divided into

two units; namely, the Gila Biver Indian Beservation unit, and the

Plorence-Casa Grathe unit. The former, as the nnre implies, com-

prises tile irrigable lands of the Indian reservation. These lands

-5-

extend on either sile of the river, iran a point 1]. miles st O±

Florence, for a distance of 52 mileS clov.n the river, or to the con-

fluence 0:' the a1t and Gila Bivers. Tbe is an irrigable area on

this roseatiOn of arproximatelyl15,000 acres accord.iflg to a reDort

of epteioer 1913 by C. P.. Olberg; and according to the Olberg survey

of 1914, there vre 14,356 acres under irrigaiOfl at that time, and

there had previously been 11,315 acres under irrigation that were

then abandoned. In addition to the above, according to the 1913

Olberg report, there are 12,200 acres of river bed, and 37,375 acres

of alkaline or swampy land not suitable for irrigation in t roserva-

t i on.

The B'lorence-CaSa Urand.e unit cupriseS the valley lands south

of the river and. east of' the Indian reservation and. the Sacaton Mount-

ains, and also between the Sacaton Mountuins on the north nd the Casa

Grande Mountains on the south. To the west the lands extend to an

indefinite area, and the boundary of the project will be liMited only

by the water supml:. This unit is generally a beautifully amooth

and. level valley, and. is easily reached by a gravity canal. According

to the Olberg report, there was an area of 7,563 acres under irriga-

tion from the Gila Biver in 1914 on this tract; ai. there had been

previously irrigated, an area of 12,218 acres. The reason of the

apparent abandoment of land formerly irrigated, in this and also in

the reservation unit, is explained by the fact that greater diversions

f or irrigation in the upper valleys subseuex1t to, the d.evelopflent of

these lands; and. also to a long series of low water years ending with

-6-

the season, of 1904. This subject is discussed in detai' in previous

reports.

EITOBICAL

Following is a brief abstract of previous investigations on the

San. Caries rojeot, which data have been. consulted. in. the preparation

oi' the present report.

Letter of' F. H. Newell, hydrographor, to the Director of the

Geological Survey, dated. Movwnber 11, 1696:

"The investigation of the question of water storage in the Gila

watershed grew ot of the fact that by 1896 the dilversion of water

from the Gila by white settlers above the Gi].a Indian Beservat ion had

deprived the Pimas of much of their customary supply of water and re-

duceci. this nation, till then self-supporting, to dependence upon

national charity. The occasion of this investigation, (that of 1896)

lies in. the necessity of promptly providing water for use in agricul-

ture on this (the Gila Indian) reservation. The Indians heie located

have from time immemorial been self-supporting. They have carried on

irrigation for centuries by nans of' water taken frcm the Gila Ii'rer.

For a nber of years the United States has been and still is

rapidly disposing of' the land. along the river, it being well

that these lands have n.e value unless water is taken frcm the strewn,

and it has been equally apparent that by this action the Indians

would be pauperized by being deprived of their only ans of' support.

Pi..b1io attention has been called to this matter ±'rom time to time.

* * * Mawhi1e it is asserted. that the Indians, learning to depend.

upon the Government for food and. clothing, have been. rapidly losing

their capabilities for self-support and are becoming a poznan.ent

charge and. source of annual expense. If they are to be kept fromfurther degradation it is necessary that prompt action. be taken tOward

enabling them to practice sane means of self-support. This is possible

only by securing to them the means of obtaining an ample supply of

water. (Par. 23, p. U. Arny Board, Beport)

iepOrt of J. B. LippinoOtt, published in Water upp1y Paper No.

33, 1899. - In. the able report of Mr. Lippincott, which contains thefirst description of the San Canoe project, the following conclusionsre reached and nec omend.ations made:

-7-

"The available records of the discharge of Ineen Creel: at ihit-

low's ranch indicates that this stream would not afford a sufficient

and. reliable water suly for the irrigation of au area as ]arge as

is reanireLi for the rolief of the Indians on the Qua River Indian

Reservation."Because of the large amount of annual discharge of water by the

Gfla River and the high. 1erceutage of silt which it contains, it is not

advisable te construct a reservoir of small capacity on this stream on

account o±' the raoidJ.ty with which it would. fill vith silt.

"In case of the construction of any of the dams on the Gila River

the cost of putting the foundations do to bed rock is one of the

principal elements of e;ense. This cost wold ue a]most as large i±

a nall dam was built as in the case of a large one."The greatest economy to the G.ovaruent, whether the relief of

the Indian alone is considered, or the general d.evelopient of the arid.

lands in the neighborhood of the reservation is tain as a basis, lies

in the construction of a ]args reservoir. It is shown that the GOvern-

ment can build such a argereservOir, give water to the Indians with-

out charging them for it, and sell the remainder of the water Impounded

at such figure as wozld raDid.ly return all the original Investment made

by the Federal authorities."In the event of the construction of a large dam there will be

built up in the valley of the Gila River, where a desort now exists,

a conmmity of fully 40,000 souls, and the creation of many million

dollars of taqble wealth without -oeinanent outlay on the part of the

Gove rame nt.

"The cost er acre-foot of storage capacity of the dams as planned

in this report at the three principal reservoir sites upon which esti-

mates have been made is as follows:

Cost per acre-foot of water stored.Cost per

Location Amount Acre-footcre -foot

The Buttes 174,040 l5.l9

RIverside 221,138 9.01

San Carlos 241,396 4.30

"From this it will be seen that the cost of storing water at the

Buttes per acre-foot is 3.5 times the cost at San Carlos, and that the

cost at Riverside is 2.]. times the cost at San Carlos."The capacity of the iservoir, the character of the foundations

at the cLam site, the conservative and. well-known type of clam p1nned.,

and. the economy of construction all point to the selection of the San

Caries reservoir site as the place for the construction of the dam.

"Perhaps the most notable result of this investigation of thewater supply of the Gdla River has been the discovery of three lrgoreservoir sites the existence of which heretofore has been unknown.They are the Riverside, the San Carlos and. the Guthrie sites. * *

-8-

"Gila River rises in New lexico. As the main body of the basinis in Arizona, inter-State complications might arise in the future incase the reservoir re constructed, by private or local enterprise.Vith these questions the National Government only is competent tocope. Thus, from all points of view there is every reason why thisreservoir whould be constructed by the National Government and noreason why it should. not, while it is not only impracticable but em!-nently inad.visable for private enterprise to carry out the project.

"Owing to erratic nature o± the Gila River less than 3 per centof its water near Florence is now being used. for irrigation, and. theareas no; irrigated suffer intensely from summer draughts."

"cojiefld.ati0flS."Dnediately withdraw fran entry all the lands that may be irri-

gated. from this source of supply rending further action by Oongresson this matter.

"Segregate all the reservoir sites on the Oila River that may beused for the irrigat ion of these lands. The Butla and ueen Creekreservoir sites have already been segregated for this purpose The

Riverside, San Carios, and Guthrie reservoirs should. also be set aside."Mndntain observations on the Gila River."Construct the San Carlos darn."Give the Indians the water which they reauire withOut charge,

the Government to recoup itself for all expenditures from the saleof the remaining water rights.

POx a Federal irrigation district for tJie division of the water,which is to be delivered to the bead of th irrigation canals, for theconstruction o± these onals, ani for the gneral administrati0n of thedistrict." (pP 92-95)

The Second Anna1 Report of the U. . eolsmat iOn Service, 1902-

03, states in. part as follows:

"The investigation of water storage upon Gila River was inaugurat-ed in 1895 by Arthur P. Davis, in coanection with the problem of irri-gation upon the Giia River Indian Reservation. At that time pnmpingtests were made at various points on the reservation, and it was as-certained that a large quantity of water can be thus obtained, but thescarcity end high price of fuel prevented an adoption of this planfor the relief o± the Indians.

borings were made at Buttes, ueen Creek, Riverside1and, San Carlos during the first half of the year 1899. * * * Theresults were published, in. 1900 as Water Supply and. Irrigation Paar No.33.

"The great depth to bed rock and, the character of foundation atthe Buttes rendered this site impracticable; Riverside reservoir sitewas physically more practicable, but involved great difficulty andecpense on account of the large number o± mining claims that. would. besubmerged. Everything considered, the San Carlos site was by far thebest disco7ered on. Gila River, but the investigations of foundations

re incomplete, only two holes being snuk to bed rock, and, one of

these being near the edge of the cmyon. The bed-rook problem is Veryimportant at this point, and. there is a fault ia the strata a]mostdirectly across the canyon at the dam site, aii it became necessaryto locate the dam either above or below the nazrowest part of' the gorgein. order to avoid this fault.

Investigations of the foundation problem wore begun by the Be-clamat ion. Service in February, 1903. * The work was disc on-tinueci in August, 15 holes having been Sunk to bed. rock and diamond.drill cores being ta1n therefri. * *

"The general result shows that the depth to Bed. rock is somewhatless above the fault than. below it, and. this fact, together with thegeneral desirability of leaving the fault entirely out of the reser-voir, pointed. to the location above the fault as a more feasibleposition. for a high dam.

"Final conclusions with iference to this project have not beenreached, but the res].t of borings shows that the foundati on. diff I-culties are not by any means insuparable.

"Two other problems are, however, involved. in this storage projectwhich are o± a very serious nature. The quantity of sediment carriedby Gila iiiver is very large; and while it is believed that this prob].ncan be solved., it must e admitted that no plan has yet been submittedwhich meets with the general approval of experienced engineers. Theplan propose! for this purpose by Mr. Davis is published in the FirstAunual Report of the Beclamation Service, page 83.

"For properly carrying out this plan, or any similar one, it willbe necessary to find some auxiliary storage on the upper waters ofGila River. There is now no steady flow to depend upon for sluicingout the reservoir or for servin the lands below during the process.At present no such site is 1nov. except at York C-nyon. The treacher-ous nature of the abutments for the dam and the 'eat expense causedby the removal of the large amount of railroad. make the constructionof a d.ath at this point o± doubtful feasibility. Incomplete reconnais-sance of the upper basin made by Cyrus C. Babb in. 1899 failed to re-veal any feasible site. It is proposed to continue this reconn.alssancethe coming year.

"Stifl more serious than the sedinnt problem is that of thewater-supply. Since previous investigations were made there has beena progressive decrease in the flow of water past San Carlos, dueprobably to mois complete diversion of Gila waters in. the neighborhood.of Solomonville, in Graham County." (PP 88 to 91)

The Third. Annual Report of the U. . Beclrnation Service states:

"V. H. Code, Indian inspector and irrigation export, has madesome investigations and estimates of the water supply for irrigatingabout 10,000 acres of the Sacaton Indian Reservation by means of wells.The por for ptmiping this water is to be supplied. from one of thepovor plants along Salt River. The estimated cost of this project isfrom O to 35 per acre. There seems to be no quo stion as to theamount of underfiow. The investigations of Willis T. Lee, Mr. Code,

-10-

and. others, seem to make it certain that a large amount of veryfair water is available for irrigation by pumping throughout thewhole district southeast of Phcenix.'

"A dam on G4.la River about 5 miles below San Caries will createa reservoir of great capacity and. flood a large tract of country.Investigations as to the flow of this river and, the amount of siltcarried. have been conducted. for some years, arid, it has been ascertainedthat the Gila carries enormous quantities of silt whieh would. be d.e-positCU. in the reservoir.

"Duriu., the past suriaer 1nvestiatiOmZ ha'e been made on theupper Qila and. its branches by W. A. Parish, and two reservoir siteshave been located, one on San. Francisco River and. the other at Bed.Rock. The amount of silt carried by the water at these ioints formsa far ialler percentage than at Sn Carlos. F,zrther investigationsas to the flow will be carried. on for sme time.

"For the satisfactory ooration of the San Carlos reservoir it isnecessary that auxiliary reservoirs above should be provided, arid.these investigations seem to maJe it probable that erich reservoirsites have been discovered.

"Lluch of this stored water can be Ut ilized in Gd.ia Valley beforereaching San. Carlos, except at such time as it is necessary to use itfor sluicing out the silt from the latter reservoir.

"One of the principal objects of the San Carlos Trojeot has beento supply water for the Glia River Indian Reservation. It has beenfound,, however, tht water can. be pumped. for the use of these Indiansmore economically than it can. be stored., an.d. a pumping plant has a1'-ready been inst11ed., and It in. successful operation at Sacaton. Thequality of the water is excellent, and. the crops raised during theseason of l90 have been. notably good. The pumping plant was con-structed uiir the suervisiori of Indian InsDector W. Ti. Code. Wateris drawn from fIve wells, and the amount obtainec. is sufficient toirri.te 250 acres of alfalfa or other crops, if pumped nine hours aday for six days of the week. If operated. continuously 600 acreScald. be supplied.. The fuel used is wood, three cords mesquite beingsufficient for a twenty-four hour run.

"The investigations carried on by Mr. Willis T. lee, *

indicate that there is a large supply of water underground, and thatother pumping plants can be successfully erected.

"The principal question is that concerning the cost of fuel. Itis proposed to obviate the use of fuel continuously by obtainingelectric powr from the power plant at Roosevelt darn, or probably frtnindeteixtent power stations to be constructed on Salt River below theRoosevelt darn. Plans ax being made toward this end, arid, if suitableauthority can be obtained from Congress it isprobabie that an amplesupply of water for the Indians of this reservation can be had a$reasonable expense." (pp. 62, 156 and 157)

Report of W. A. Parish, dated. September 3, 1904, "regarding the

reservoir sites on the upper Gila and, San Francisco Rivers", is quoted.

-11-

in part as follows:

"Prom San Carlos to Gutbrie the G'ila River offers no opportunityfor water storage. At Guthrio there is a reservoir site which wassurveyed in. 1896 and is described in. water upplj Paper #33.

'This reservoir as survoyeci extends within three-fourths of amile of Duncan, Arizona. Iii the vicinity of Duncan the Oila flowsthrough a valley which extends a distance of fifteen miles above thetown, at which point the river after crossing the A.rizona line intoNew Mexico enters a canyon about eight miles in length which ends inSection 9, T. 19 ., B. 19 i. where the canyon broadens into a valleythat offers the only practical site for a reservoir besids the onesalready selected and investigated..

'This valley eitends about five miles above the postoffice ofRed Bock, N. i:., where the river again enters a narrow, rugged canyonabout six miles in length, which is oractically impassable owing tothe falls and, its extreme narrovness.

"1ThD BOOK B$EBV0Ifl SI

"In Sec. 9, T. 19 5., B. 19 /., the Gila enters a canyon bymeans of which it breaks through a low ran of hills situated betweenRed. Rock, New Mexico, and Duncan, Arizona. Three quarters of a milebelow the beginning of this canyon, id.iately above the mouth ofwhat is known as Corral Canyon, a wash entering the Gila from the sth,is a favorable location fora d.anl. 620 feet long on the crest, 180 feetlong at the level of the river and. 100 feet high. Owing to the topog-raphy of the site it is impossible to build a higher dam, as theground is level on. both. sides of the gorge for scnie cLLstane furnish-ing excellent opportunities for the construction of spillways.

5 FA1iCI5CO RIV

"The San Francisco River is the largest and. most imptant of theupper tributaries of the Gi].a, having a flow, during the dry seasonas great, or greater, than the Gila where it joins that stream abouttwenty-four miles above the town of Solomonville, Arizona. lowingthrough a high mountainous country it is confined throughout its courseto a narrow,and. in p1aes, d.eop canyon. This canyon in a few instanceswidens into vl1eys of restricted, area which he been settled aMare cultivated."

'BSVOTh SITES

9At the mouth of Dix CreeZ twenty-two miles above Clifton, thereis a small reservoir where a dam 110 feet high w1d impound about12,000 acre feet. At Pleasant on fifty-five miles above Clifton, thecanyon of the SanFrancisco widens into a valley approximately one-half mile by two miles in area, about 350 acres of which is in ahigh state of cultivation. Although I believe the bed. rock conditionsat the head, of the canyon oolcw Plea.san.ton are favorable for thefoundations the site is too wide wad, the hills too low for an economi-cal dam. One 150 feet high would probably stoze 25,000 ae feet.

-12-

Ten miles above Pleasanton the San Prancisco flows throuh the valleyin which Alma is situated. Prom the head. of this valley to withintwo miles of the mouth of the Negrito the San Francisco flows in acauyoll which widens at the above point (mouth of Negrito) into avalley one-f ou,rth mile by three miles in area, at the head of whichis the nall settlement of Prisco. A dam could be built at the mouthof this valley that would probably impound. 20,000 acre feet of water.

".ALM. BiSflVOIE Ai,rD DAM SITE

"Of these three sites the one imnd.iately below Alma is the best,Surrounded by steep hills and. bluff mesas it is topographically anideal place for the storage of water. The site selected for thelocation of the d.m is situated one-fourth mile below where the riverenters the canyon. The canyon at this point is 150 feet wide at thebottcni and. 275 feet wide at an elevation of 150 feet above the surfaceof the water. On the north side the canyon walls rise vertically tothis heiglt, while on the south they have an. average slope of about1.25 feet vertical to one foot horizontal. The canyon is cut througha volcanic stone sonewhat mixed in character and slightly shattered.on the outside, but of anle strength to withstand the Thrust of adam. The bed of the river is composed. of lava boulders and, a siltysand. The above dam would form a reservoir having an approximatearea o± 2700 acres a1T1 an approximate caracity of 135,000 acre feet."

Eeport on "The Underground iaters of Gila Valley, Arizoxm," by

i1lis P. Lee, 1904, published in Water. 8upply Paper No. 104. - The

"Resume" Of Mr. Lee is quoted in pert as follows:

"Since the purpose of this investition. is to determine thepossibility of developing the waters of the tin1erflow of the GilaValley for the benefit of the Indians, the following facts ant con-siderations are deemed worthy of special attention:

The Indians h-e a right by the law of priority to the useof the water of the 'ila River.

This water has been taken from them, the surface waters ofthe Gila no longer reaching the reservat ion, with the result that theland cultivated by them has been reduced from 14,000 to about 7,000acres, and even this reduced area is imperfectly supplied.

The valley fill is saturated with the water of the Gilaunds rf low.

Near Sacaton and, at Gila Crossing the underground watersreturn to the surface, to some extent formiig a surface flow.

Both experiment and computation based. on conservativeassumptions indicate that the volume of water in the Gila und,erf lowis probably greater than the estimated needs of the Indians.

"6. A omparative1y all amount of the underfiow returns to

-13--

surface as seepage water and. is used for irrigation.An amount of iinderflow su.fficient for t.he needs of the

Indians is near enough the surface to be witkin easy pumping distance.I8 The chemical character of the waters of the underfiow is

favorable to their use in irrigation."9. Pumping plants used in irrigation near Gila Valley prove

that waer can be pumped rapidly enough and. at a cost low enDugh tomake pumping a practicable method of securing water for irrigationfor the Indians, provid.eci its use is prorly directed.

"Report of board of United States Eeclaiation Service engineers,1905." - Under date of December 7, 1905, the following report on theSan Carlos project was simitted to fr. F. H. Newell, then ChiefEnineer 0±' the United. States Eeclaation Servicer

"In compliaoe with your instructions, the board of engineersdesignated to consider the San Carlos project he caiful].y con-sidered all of the available data bearing upon the matter, and. heto report as follows:

"A reservoir o± sufficient capacity at San Canoe to stoie 300,000acre-feet of water will require a dn 140 feet high, and, in view ofthe large amount of sediment carried by the flood waters of the (alaEiver,the dem would have to be 180 feet high to maintain such acapity for a period. of 60 years, as the silt deposited in the reser-voir would amount to about 7,500 acre feet yearly.

"The topograpbr of country around the proposed reservoir is ofsuch a nature that it will not be financially feasible to constructcanals around. the reservoir for flushing purposes.

Borings in the bed. of the San Caries River at the dam site mdi-cats that the bedrock on. which the dam will have to be founded isabout 60 feet below the low-water level of the £tream, making thestructure very expensive for the length of time that it can be ex-pected to serve a usefal purpose. The dip of the bedrock at the siteof San Carlos ]m is in the direction of flow, and may be a dangerousformation on. which to found the structure.

"]ring the years 1904 and. 1905 observations and investigationsmade upon the upper tributaries of the Gila and. San Pranisco Riversiii New Mexico indicate that reservoirs can be conetructed. upon thesestreams, of sufficient capacity, in connection with the natural flowof the (ala River to irrigate 40,000 acres, at less cost per acrethan by constructing the San. Qarlos dam.

"The San Caries reservoir site is 1ready occupied by the GilaValley, (lobe & Northern Railwaj, and the outhern Pacific Rat l.yCo. has located a line through the oenyon for its main transcontinentalline. Estimates for the cost of this line for an. elevation of about40 feet aM 150 feet above the river bed, show a difference of42,'773,000 in. favor of the lower location.

-14-

'The officials of the Southern Pacific Rai1vy Co. state that ifthe Rsc].axnat ion Service will abandon the an Caries dam site the rail-way company will withdraw application for right of way through reser-voir site on. San Francisco River, and, will gladly make any concessions -

that they consistently Ca ii, in other localities."In view of the above-mentioned facts and conditions we recnend

that the darn and reservoir site at San Car los be abancioraecl, and thatthe lands be restoid. to entry.

"We also recnmend. that observations for stream discharge becontinnd on the upper Gila and San Francisco River.

"A plate showing the araa, capacity, and useful life of thereservoir for different heights of dam is transmitted. herewith.

"The resolutions of the dixectors of the Louthern Pacific RailoyCo., withth'awin application for rights of way through the San PranciscoRiver reservoir site, will be transmitted as soon. as received.

"Respectfully submitted.A. P. Davis,Gea. Y. ;iSfler,d. N. Sanders,Louis 0. Hill,A. E. Chandler,

Board of Engineers."

"Report of Li. 0. Leighton, 1910. - Under date of February 8,1910, lTr. M. 0. Leight, Chief hydrographer, United States Geologicalurv'ey, simitted. a report on. the feasibility of the San Caries proj-

ect, and. the relative importance of the use of the reservoir site fora reservoir or by the railroad. This report treats chiefly of thequestion. of water supply, and expresses the conclusion that 'theproject should. not be p1antd on the basis of a greater actuallycultivated acreage than the equivalent of the acreage of the five dryyears (1900-1904). The average was 140,200 acre-feet, sufficient on.the basis of 4.355 acre-feet per acre (at the dam; 3 feet at the land.)to properly irrigate about 32,200 acres. 1±' we allow a margin fornonproductive land of 25 per cent we he a project of 43,000 acres,which represents all that is really warranted un4er the records athand.' J. Leighton recanmenJed. that the railroad be permitted tobuild through the dam site on the low line. Mr. Leighton's positionin regard to the hold-aver storage of water and basis on which it isadvisable to enter upon an irrigatioi project is not suppted. by theay board's invest1gation.' (p. 16, Army Board Report)

cision of the Secretary of the Interior unr date of bruary

17, 1912, regarding right of way applications in the San Carlos Reser-

voir site.

"In. 1906 the Arizona Eastern Railroad. Co. was granted a right of

-15-

way through the reservation and. the dam and. reservoir sites. Thisright expired by limitation. early in. 1909. Later in 1909 the. railroad.company filed a new application (under the act of March 2, 1899) andin. the same year Julius M. Janison applied for the right to constructthe San Carios dam and. reservoir (under the act of Mar. 3, 1891, asamended. by the act of May 11, 1898).

ttThe briefs submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by the rivalapplicants, and. the reports submitted by the applicants' engineers, re-view in detail the history of the San Carlos investigation and, the ad.-vantages and. disadvantages of the project in the light of the datathan available." (p. 14, Army Board Report)

After summing up the claims of the applicants the Secretary

rejects the same in the following language:

"A000rd.ingly, and in view of the foregoing, the application forright of way filed. by the Arizona Eastern Iailroad. Cc., August 3, 1909,is hereby rejected becanse of its interference with the San Carlosreservoir site, but ttiis rejection will not preclude the railroad.company from pre.nting another application for right of way for itsroad along the at such an elevation as will avoid interferencewith the reservoir site."

* * *"Upon the present record, therefore, the several applications for

rights of way for the reservoir site are accordingly hereby rejectedwithout prejudice to the right of said. applicants, or any one of them,to hereafter submit a new applioat ion, supported by such showing asshall reasonably demonstrate the feasibility of the scheme and.. thecapability of the applicants to carry the project to a successful con-clusion.

Samuel Adams,First Assistant Secretary."

"Reports of J. H. Quinton, - Mr. umn.ton, in his report ofSeptember 11, 1909, assumed. 260,000 acre-feet of water as the annualsupply that could be drawn from the San Canoe Reservoir, and estimated.that with a loss of 25 per cent in. tranaiission and, a duty of 3 feetat the land, 65,000 acres could be irrited, or allowing for waste land,100,000 acres.

"He realized. that the reservoir fornd. by a dan of the height hawas considering - 150 feet above the strewn bed. - would. soon have itscapacity seriously reduced by silt. As to the quantity o± silt carried.,he had. only Davis's estimate of 6,000 acre-feet (U.S.B.., 1st A..,p.85) ad. the estimate of the 1905 board of Reclamation Service engin-eers, namely, 7,500 acre-feet. He asstuici 5,000 acre-feet. *

"In a later report (Mar.12, 1910) Mr. uinton reviewed Mr.leighton's report, referred to above, and., revised his former estimateof' water available and, land that could be irrigated. He estimatedthat 46,000 acres of land, could receive a full sply of 3 acre-feetof water per acre (at the land.) and. 50,000 acres additional couldreceive 1 acre-feet, 1-i' acre-feet being sufficient for one crop'. Mr.Q.uintou also considerably increased his estimate of the cost of the

_,

project."] a third. report, dated September 3, 1912, submitted. after the

Secretary's decision, Mr. uinton estimated. the area irrigable froma reservoir formed by a dam 162 feet high at 50,000 acres. He assumed.that the United States would. require for the Indian lands stored waterf or one-third of that acreage, leaving 33,000 acres. He pointed, outthat there is own to be a cious supply of underground water underthe (i1a hiver Indian Reservation, and. suggested. that the possibilityof obtaining water within reasonable pumping lift under the land nearFlorence be investigated." (pp.16-i?, Any Beard. Report)

"Report of J. 1). Schuyler arid H. Hawgood.. - Messrs. Schuyler andHawgood, in a report dated Septnber 27, 1910, controvert Leighton'sstatement that the 'factor which determines the feasibility or non-feasibility of an irrigation project is not the abundant but thescarce sears of water supply.' They point out that 'If the ijin.u.a1water supply of dry seasons * * be used as a criterion for thefeasibility of irrigation projects in southern California there arefew which would be able to show a sufficient supply to be consideredas successful and safe irrigation projects,' and that in the GilaValley the water supply in dry years rray be supplemented by pumpingfrom the underground supply, which appears to be more than ordinarilyabundant. They show that following Leighton's treatment Of the SanCarlos storage the Roosevelt Reservoir would have been empty for monthsat a time during the years 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904. They exposeerrors in leighton's estimate of cost, and finally point out that thefigure he assumed for depth of evaporation fran the reservoir, 91 inches,is too great." (p. 17, Army Board Report)

"Report o± 3. D. Schuyler. - Mr. Schnyler, in a report 0± Septem-ber 28, 1910, dealt with the 'injustice which may be done In perpetuityto the present population arid. future inhabitants of the (lila RiverValley' by the granting of the right of way for a railr3ad through thedam and reservoir sites; with, the disadvantages (On the score of lessabundant water supply) of reservoir sites above San Oarlos; and. withthe water poser that might be develcped. at the dam for pumping or otherpurposes. He states that 'it is feasible and. practicable to ta1 careof the silt and, maintain the serviceability of the reservoir,' but hedoes not suggest a means." (p. 16, Army Board. Report)

"Re:prt Of i1lIam H. Boseorariz. - Mr. Vi11iam H. Rosecranz, con-sultin.g ingineer, was employed by the Interior 1partment to report onthe issues raised by the applicants for the dam and, reservoir sites.His report on 'Reservoir site at San. Carlos' is dated 1912. He be-lieves the railroad company's estimate of 68O,l9O,94 as the cost ofconstructing a new line around the reservoir is azp1e; is unable to seeany justiee in the claim that the cost of operating the new line wouldbe greater than, that of the present line; and. thinks that the railroad.Overestimates the cost of building thraigh the box canyon on the hIghline, as compared. with the cost of building on the low line. He reoon-mended that the application of the railway canpany for a right of wayon the low line through the dam site be not granted, but that the rail-

-17-

road. company be inforned. that application would. be entertained for aright of way on. the high line.

"Mr. Rosecrans reported the 1899 dn-sito location to be a poorone, because (1) depth to bedrock is too great,bein.g about 78 feet;(2) a fault crosses the site; (3) the strata cup downstream. He addsthat the quantity ci silt carried by the G-ila is so great that thereservoir would, fill up in a short time, and. desilting methods are tooexpensive to be ractioable; and that 'raising the dam is not feasiblein this instance, as the ci will have to be built to the greatestpracticable heiht in the first instance in order to impound sufficientwater to begin to justify the expenditure. A point up the river ashort d.istane from the present proposed location would make a feasibledam site where an absolutely safe structure could be built, alttghthe cost of such a atructure at the present value of irrigated lani.would be prohibitive."

" Mr. Rosecraxas discusses the question of available water supplyand concludes that 9 years out of 10 there would be available frcn theSan CarlosReservoir 260,000 acre-feet. He allots 90,000 acre-feet tothe Pima Indians; and, after allowing for loss by evaporation from thereservoir, and by evaporation, seepage, etc., from the canals, and.assuming a duty of 3 acre-feet, he arrives at 62,000 acres (gross) asthe acreage that could be supplied if a private cunpy iould buildthe system. The cost of the project he estimated as about 6O peracre for this acreage. He considers this prohibitive, apart from thefact that the reservoir would be filled up with silt in 50 psars. He

therefore concludes that a private company would find it impossibleto finance this project, and ha recaiiend.a that the applications ofJamison and the i?lorence-OaSa Granc]a Watc3r Userst *.ssociation be dis-approved.

"Mr. Rosecrans entertains the idea (similar to that expressed byMr. ciuy1er) that 'the silt problem may be satisfactorily solved with-in the next 10 years.' On this account he recommends t1t the SanCarlos Reservoir site be retq4ned.

"Under date of Jarliary 4, 1912, iIr. Rosecrans submitted a reporton (Irrit ion of the Pima Indian Reservation, Gila River Valley, Ariz.'In this he described the combined flood-water and. pumping system recent-ly installed on the north side of the Gila opposite Sacaton. Theflood ditch is 10 miles long and. has a capacity ci 400 second-feet.There are eight walls, each equipped with electric pimip and, capable of

furnishing 6 second-feet pr well. Connecting the wells is a ditchhaving a capacity of 80 second-feet; it is approximately parallel tothe flood-water ditch arxi just below it.

"Mr. liosecraus estimates that 12,000 acres can be irrigated frithe wells and flood waer. The cost of operation of the plant heestimates at 2 per acre per year, not including maintenance of theditches.

"The electric povr for drivin the pumps is tained from theSalt River project." (pp 18 and. 19 Aiy Board Report)

Report of J. D. Schi.y1er, Jceiber 5, 1911, on "\ater Supply

-18-

and. Proposed. Irrigation \orIcs of the Pina]. LIu.tual Irrigation Oampany

of Florence, Arizona." This project as contemplated was a flood, water

proposition supplemented. by pumping from wells; no stora was contem-

plated.. The conclusflflS as reached by Mr. Scuy1er are uoted in part

as follows:

The lands of the district outlined on the accnpanying mapcover an area of about 34,600 acres, of which not less than 12,000 normore than 25,000 acres are to be taken,.into the Droject.

The lands in the entire district are smooth, gent1j sloping,and. OQnpOsed of soil of great depth, generally a mellow sandy lawn,well adapted to irrigation. In quality these lands can not be excelled.They are capable of raising five or six crops per annum under irrigation.

The value of the lands with a sufficient water supply toenable them to be irrigated throughout the iear is conservatively esti-mated at 200 to 250 per acre. 7ith water supply for one crop eachyear they are worth '75 to 1OO -:ir acre.

The water supply available without storage is ample for safe-ly maturing one crop annually in at least 7 years out of 10. * *

By boring wells and. installing pumps it may be possible todevelop 50 ousocs for auxiliary sply in dry seasons, at a capitalcost of 130,000, and. a total annual cost for pumping 10,000 acre-feetof 22,000, assuming that the United States Goverument will furnishelectric pover at 0.5 per 1dlott hour.

It is feasible to build a safe diverting d of the tapeused, in India and. Eg3rDt for 62,540 (net).

The canal projected. and surveyed will carry 180 cic feetper second. on the grade and. dimensions adopted..

The canal as projected can be built at cost not to e;zcecd.U.8,o2o.

A storage reservoir on the upjer Gila or the San rancisRiver, in New ].xJ.00, may possLbly be a cheaper means of securin' an.auxiliary supply than wells arid. pumDs, and. should be investigated.

"12 A thorough test of the well-water supr].y should be madeunder expert direction and advice.

"13. By the expenditure of l8l,860 a system of irrigation can.be provided, for 25,000 acres arid, not less than 12,000 acres safelyirrigated in all ordinary seasons. If the burden 0±' cOst is borne by12,000 acres alone, the average of about 15 per acre would. be amoderate outlay. By the expenditure of about ].2.50 per acre, dis-tributed cwer 25,000 acres, it may be possible to increase the irri-gable area to cover 25,000 acres safelr and, to the fullest 4xtent de-sired." (p 22, Anny Board. heport)

Report of the Board, of Engineer Officers, U. . Anny, on the

'Sau Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona," dated Pebruary 25, 1914, and.

-19-

published. as H. B. Document No. 7.91&3d. 0onress, 2d Session.

The Azy Brd., composed. of Ccl. 'V. 0. Langfitt, Lieut. 001. C. H.

MeKinstry, and. liajor H. Burgess, wrote an exhaustive reDort on the

San Garlosproject inc1udUia a review o all previous d.ata avail-

able; an exnination of a second. d.am site at the San Carlos reser-

voir about 1000 feet above tho site previously examined., - this ex-

a2nixiation includ.ed. diamond. drill borings; a. design the storage

dam and an estimate of the cost of the project; and, a detail sti4y

of stream flow, evaporation, and, o± silt deposit and. methods of its

disposal.

No attempt is here made to review this report, but o:iiy the

findings of the Brd are quoted. in part as follows:

Pr4cticability and. advisability of Project.

t'The board. finds that the San Carlos irrigation project isentirely feasible from physical considerations.

Tha advisability of the projoct, * will depend. on Itscost as comDared. with the benefits to result from it.

"The cost of the project er acre will depend. upon the numberof acres that can be taken under the roject, and, this upon thequantity of water phys ica lly and legally aai lab le.

"The boaTd, has pointed. out that the following uncertaintiesexist as to the water sply legally available.

(a) It is not 1iown whether the run-off at San Canoe, asdetermined by the board, will continue to be available or whetheradditional d.iversions above that point will be made.

tt(b) It is not 1uown whether all of the water that can betaken into the main canal. will be available for lands under theproject or whether a part 0±' it will have to be delivered free tolands not entered. under the project.

'(c) It is not 1nowü. whether a Dart of the water that might betaken. into the main canal may not have to be left in the river tosatisfy rights below the reservation.

" Until these uncertainties are cleared up, either by an acijudi-cation or by competent legal iin.ion as Gongress may d.eterinino, itwould. be inadvisable for the United. states to proceed with thisproject. In the folloving discussion, therefore, it is assxxed. thatall o± the above questions are settled, in favor of the project, sothat the existing run-off at San Carlos is available for use underthe projects."

-20-

-A * A- *

tt$sfljing the availability of the existing run-off, it is pro-posed to include in the project 40,000 acres of land. on the Indianreservation (30,000 with full water rights and. 10,000 with halfrighte) and 55,000 acres of private land. near Florence. The costwill be about '70 per acre in. each case.

"The board is of opinion that, considering land, climate, etc.,70 an acre is not a prohibitive price in sout1rn Arizona for such a

water system as that contemplated. In this report. Under present con-ditions, hOvver, it is close to the limit. As times goes on the landprobably can. af:ord to pay more On this account, whateer be thedecision of ongress as to op'tth the san. Caries proffe at thepresent time or in the near future, the San Carlos iau site and. reser-voir site ought not to be given up. No railrad should. be permitted.to build through the dam site at a lower elevation than 200 feet abovethe stream, and any new railroad, construction in the reservoir Siteor any extensive relocation of present lines ought to be permitted onlyupon the understanding that no cnpensation will be due from theUnited. states if later these new railroad lines are forced. to movebecause of the carrying out of the San Carlos project.t'

* *"As regards the Indian lands, it is not so certain that the pro-

ject is a desirable one. * * * In. the beginning the Indianscan not be expected. to efficiently cultivate the entIre 40,000 acresproposed to be includè in the roject, nor in fact to cultivate anycouside:ably greater acreage than, that which will ford them a baresubsistence, and, ,et the failure to efficiently cultivate the entireacreage for which stored. water is provided. means that the lands willnot be earning an Inccrzie on the investnent and that some of the storedwater is not being put to beneficial use."

"From the above remarks, it appears that a project which Isfinancially advisable for white agriculturalists may not be so forIndians. It is true that the Indian will improve; but as the evolu-tion of the race will be a slow process, it wil]. be necessary for theUnited states to continue the clo supervision until the ility ofthe Indian as a far is safficiently well established. to warrantthe making of permanent allotments of the irrigated land. In themeantime, as above outlined., the surplus irrigated land over thatwell cultivated by the Indians should, be leased. to white farns raorotherwise farmed under the direction of the Indian Bureau. Onlywader this or sane other plan whereby beneficial use may be made ofall the water is the board convinced. of the desirability of the San.Carlos project for the benefit of the Indians."

Recmrnend.ati ens."The board. recanmends -(a) That the San Carlos irrigation roject, as described in this

report, be adopted. and carried. out by the United States, provided. itshall appear, either as the result o± an adjudication or of ca'npetent

- legal opinion, as Congress may elect, that the legally available

-21-

',ter supply is sufficiently close to that aeumed in this report tomake the cost of the project not more than 75 per acre.

"(b) That suit for an ad.judi,cat ion of water rights along theGila lUvorbe immediately brought in the United. States districtcourt (the United States being a party to the suit) and. that everyOther step be taken which will hasten an early adjudication.

That such executive and legal steps be taken as may benecessary to prevent the vesting of any water rights in addition tothose, it' any, now existing.

That in case the project is not undertaken until after anadjudication, a diversion dam on the reservation 'be constructed toImprove irrigation conditions on the Plina Reservati."

Letter frcm 4.. P. Davis to the Director, U. S. Reclamation

Service, dated April 2, 1914, on the San Carlos Reservoir. - This

letter is a discussion of the merits 01' the 5an Qarlos reservoir

site as compared with the Sentinel site, in which the latter is

favored. An interesting method of desalting, differing frcm the

method proposed 'by the Army Board., is outlid. in this letter, and

is here quoted in part as follows:

"4. The Rio Grande is the only strewn upon thich the ReclamationService has undertaken water storage which compares with the GilaRiver in magnitude of the mud. problem to be met aM solved. Theprogram adapted for this problem is as follows.

"5. First we construct a very large storage reservoir withcapacity sufficient to furnish storage for the mud for a period offorty to fifty years before seriously encroaching upon the storagecapacity necessary for water.

"6. When the stage capacity first provided becomes insufficientowing to the acciu1ation of mud. It is proposed. to build the d.nand, dike about twenty feet higher, which will again supply a capacitywhich will be sufficient for another forty years or so.

7. When the time arrives that the storage capacity provided bythe increased. construction becomes Insufficient for the needs of theproject it is proposed to build a reservoIr on the headwaters of theJamez or other mountain stream which will, store clear water and againincrease the storage supply for the project.

"8. When this stply beccues insufficient it will be manifested.by the rge reservoir on the main stream running empty. At suchtimes the moi.atain reservoir will be opened. and, water drawn throughthe large reservoir with its eat accumulation of sediment, end Itwill cut a channel through this long bed. of mud and will flow thruthe reservoir loaded with sediment to its uzost capacity.

-'22-

"9. By always drawig on the lower reservoir when.evcr the wateris available and using the upor only when the lower is empty thisprocess of sluicing the mud. through the reservoir will be repeatedwhenever the upper reservoir is used, and it is the theory that themud. removed. by this process will on the average be as great or greaterthan the periodical increments Di' mud, after that time. In this way,the condition of staole eajilibrium will be secured. and, the problemsolved. after the laDse of rhaps a hundred. years from the time themain reservoir is brought into use."

U12, The sane progr as outlined. on the Rio Grand,e can. befollod. by the construction of a reservoir on the San Francisco,which is a clear stream and has a good. reservoir site above the NewMexico line."

Report of General william L. Marshall to Hon. Franklin K. lane,

Secretary of the Interior, dated July 22, 1914. - Extracts are quoted

fvcan this reDort as f011o6:

"On April 10, 1914, you directed. me to consider the reports oftwo independent Advisory Boards.

A )oard. of urvey convened by the Secretary toconsider the selection. of laricis to be included in the SaltRiver Project, Arizona, consisting of F. . Hanna, Super-vising Engineer, Bec1nat ion Service and L A. Parish and.Prank H. Parir, representing the water Users Association.Report published January 15, 1914.

Report to the Secretary of War of a Board of ArmyEngineers, convened under the Indian appropriation Act ofAUrUSt 24, 1913, on the San Carlos Irrigation Project,Arizona, dated February 14, 1914, published as H. B. Joo..791- 63d Congress 2d. Session.."

* *

"I are directed to report upon the following specific questions:

"'&. Whether or not, under the conditions existing in SouthernArizona the sane assnptions should be made with reference to d,uty ofwater,evaporation, etc., in. the Salt River Valley and, in the GilaValley.

If the same assumptions should not be made, please explainth difference or give facts by which the De]rtment may explain toothers why it has not adopted a uniform practice.

If, in. your opinion, uri.iforuiity should. be pursd. in. theseand similar cases, please make suggestion as to which of the twobases should e adopted. or some mocUficati on of these.

In case you suggest adhering to either one or the other ofthese bases, or adopting a third, please ma1 cputation, withoutgoing into great refinement, to show what would be tàe result in theacreage and, cost of each project under the ]own conditions.'

-23-

tIAnswer: It is d,ifficult to ansr seperate1y the questions.It is believed. tlt the sane rules as to duty of water, evaporation,etc., shouJ4 oe applied. in the Salt River and Gila Biver Valleyprojects. These rules, hover, must be modified. in Salt niverValley to accord with judicial decrees, and, the Reclamation Act, inso far as affects the duty of water under present coud.ition$."

* * * *-* *-

"The assumption of a rate of evaporation of 91 inches per annumover the area of the Roosevelt Reservoir, neglecting rainfall, seemsexcessive."

* * **"Until extended careful observation shows more accurate value

aud. greater evaporatlo;, the depth o' 60 inches, neglecting rainfallover the reservoir area, seems a reasonable allonce for reservoirsin the Gi].a and Salt River Valleys."

* * * ** * It is noticeable that the al1ovance for evaporation made

in the Hni.a report is very materially greater than heretofore assumedfor the Salt River Project, which latter closely approximated theassumption in the San Qarlos report.

"Thity of dater.- This matter has also been referred. to in theremarks above. The Salt River Project is handicapped as shown above,the San Caries Is not. The estimates of project areas in the tworeports are made on different bases. The Salt River Board. statesthe water sply at the points of diversion, while the San. CariesBrd. states the water supply at the land.; the Salt River Board usesthe supply during the normal periods, while the San Caries states itfor the critical dry period. ' record., states the area might besplied each and. every year of record. by strict use of. the storedand, other sp1y at fixed, one crop rate of two feet depth on the laleach year. Under the Salt River assumptions there will be availableat the land, on the Salt River Project during normal years 3-3/10 acrefeet per acre per annwn but in dry years the actual supply to theSalt River iaad.s will be less than the one crop sp1y stated for theGila River Project.

" If, however, the Glia River Project were stated for the normalsupply of record, about three and, one-tenth acre feet can. be availableat the lands with occasional severe shortage when a minimum of oneacre foot or less per acre per annum may be reached,, which may be in-creased, by pumping. There is not, then,. such difference In practicalresults attainable under the assumptions of the tw projects, as atfirst glance might appear, fra the two reports."

* * *

"It must not be inferred from this report that the San Cariosirrigation scheme is recommended. to be now undertan at an estimatedcost of 7O or 75 per acre,

"It does not at this time seem advisable for at least threecontrolling reasons,

Because available water supply is unknown."2nd. Because the estimates are apparently made to fit a pxde-

termin.ed. cost per acre of irrited land, and in many elements are in-definite, in. large part opinions peswnbly based. on. experience else-

-24-

where and. evidently the best that could. oe done under the cDnd.itiOflScontrolling the Board's action., by one experienced body of engineers,but still not in sufficient detail. From want of maps also showinglocation, dimensions and. obaractOr of constructions, the data is in-sufficient to allow any definite estimates or checking up of est4-mates to be made for any structures except the reservoir dam.

"Such estimates are nearly always too low."3rd.. Because it is not shown that the San Carlos Project pro-

vicles for the best and cQplete utilization of the available waterof the Ci1a River drainage basin, or is a wise widertakixzg. This isa conclusive reason, in my mind, why all the water of the Gila Riverand tributaries shou].d. be Ooneered and used if possible.

"It is stated that there is a very much larger reservoir sitebelow the mouth of the Salt Elver, on the lower Gila near Senti1,Arizona, which may impound not only the flood waters of the Gila,but also of the Verde River, Hassayanr9a Creek and all surplus audreturn, waters from the Salt River and. G'iJ.a River irrigation projects,and, that there is sufficient irrigable land, much of it public land.under such. a reservoir to use economically all available water and.that the reservoir wold be of lonr life than the San. Oarlos reser-voir, and no more subject to silting in proportion to its capacity.

All these mgtters should be definitely settled and determinedbefore any final action is taken towards the construction of the SanCarlos works of irrigation, but meanwhile the San Carlos reservoirsite should be pezerved whether the lor reservoir is constructed.or not. No important rosdrvoir site in the arid, region should. besurrendered. 'Qhey camot be rep]aoed ri will all be required. and, intime used."

letters o± F. W. Hauna, bupervising Engineer of the Salt River

Project to jiiotor .'. H. Newell, and Consulting Engineer eneral

William L. Marshall; subject, "San. Carlos Reservoir." - On June 8,

1914, Mr Hanna trann1tted. a hyd.rograph based on a duty of water of

4 acre-feet per acre at diversion; an evaoration in the reservoir of

72 inches per annum, and. a project of 62,bOO acres. On July 29, 1914,

he transmitted. another hydrograph based. on a duty of water at diversiOn

of 3.75 acre-feet, an evapation in the reservoir of 60 inches per

annum, and, a project of 80,000 acres, and. in this letter he maias the

following comment:

"3. I believe that the assumptions on which I prepared. theAyd.rograph trannitted. ith my let Ler of June 8, 1914, are the properassumptions to ma1a in this case, particularly as to evaporation. Ido not consider that sixty inches allowance for evaporation is suffi-cient."

-25-

* It might be feasible to increase the acreage of theproject to 70,000 acres, but I do not consider it desirable toincrease it to 80,000 acres."

Report of 0. B. Olberg, Quperintendent of Irrigation, U. S.

Indian Service, dated NOvember 1, 1915, published as Vol. 2 of "Hear-

ings before the Oor.mittee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives,

66th Congress, lstSession, on the Condition of Various Tribes of

indians." This report by r. Olberg, including appendices 0A", ?13'I

and. "C", is the aatest and is the most ccmplete, with the possible

exception of the Atiny Board report, of any that has been written on

the San Carlos Project. This investigation and reDort is the result

of the recoinend.atjon of the Army Board as appearing in par. 217 of

its report of 'eb. 25, 1914; and, the purpose of the 01berg report and

its relation to the Army Board report, is set forth in said, report on

page 8 in the following language:

"in the preparation of the data presented heroin an effort hasbeen made to determine the amount of water physically available andto assemble facts which will be of assistance in the determination ofthe amount of water legally available, and, these studies, togetherwith a new estimate o± the cost of the project, form the body of thefollowing report. For this reason it may be regarded as supplementalto the report of the United States Army Board, and no effort is madeto include data published therein, references sbrply being made tothat docu..nezit."

The conclusions arid, reccimnendations of Mr. Olborg appear an pp.96 to 102 of his report, from which the following is quoted:

Conclus ions.

proposed San Carlos project is entirely practicable frau aconstruction standpoint, and, is eminently desirable in tat i willdevelop agricu:Lturally a large section of Arizona which is now unpro-ductive, but it has some serious faults, of a physical arid economicnature, that should receive careful consideration before any plan ofreclamation is adopted.

-

"The most serious physical objection to the construction of theproposed San Carl os project is that clue to the large accumulation ofsilt that will be annually deposited in the storage basin by the waterof the Qila River. This problem received careful consideration ofthe United States Ijmy Board of ngineers, and no improvement can be

suggested respecting the solution advised, Grave doubts re felt,however, respecting the succesá of this or any other method now knownto engineering science in accomplishing the d.esiltixig of the San Car-los Reservoir.

"The reservoir, with the maximum capacity o± 854,000 acre-feetas at present designel, anu. assuming 300,000 acre-feet draft, providesno lar excess capacity for silt accoxnnOdatiOfl. A darn designed toprovide such excess capacity and. to be moderately effective would.probably increase the initial cost of the project to a prohibitiveextent, and at best would only serve to postpone tbe evil day whendesilting would be necessary. It is probable that the detrimentaleffect of silt deposits will not be felt luring the first 8 or 10years; after that desilting will have to take place in order tomaintain the full capacity of the reservoir.

"If desilting does not take place, the effect of the silt de-posits will be seriously felt during the first period of dry years,nd the reservoir will theoretically oease to serve its full purpose

in 45 years."It seems possible, as mentiod in the report of the United

tates Army Board of Engineers, that with the advance o' engineeringscience soue method will be devised to successfully handle the silt.With. the present knowledge, it is known that a large portion of thesLit can be prevented from entering the reservoir. This can. beeffected by controlling the flow of the Gila above San Carlos, thoughthe construction of a series of nall reservoirs along the upperGila and. its tributaries, which wold also greatly d.imnish theannual d.uage from flood erosion. The retardation of the flow e,ould.also be assistad by the reforestation of the denuded, area of theupper watershed and. by the limitation of the grazing privileges. The

protection of the river bani would also assist in preventing erosion."An entire change of plan, which would inoluda these aller

reservoirs as an integral rather than an auxiliary feature, advantagebeing taken af the storage facilities, to permit a correspoing re-d.uction in the size of the Sara Carlos Reservoir, as now proposed.,may make possible the devising of a more desirable project fromseveral points of view, and one whose reclanation charge Der aremay not be greatly in excess of the plan under consideration.

"As to this, hOver, there is not sufficient data available atthis time, upon which to base a definite opinion.

"The most attractive plan so far considered for the San Qarlosproject is that esenting the minimum reclamation charge per acre..This is based on an annual draft from the reservoir of 300,000 acre-feet, enabling the irrigation of 80,000 acres of land, with a dutyof water at 3 acre-feet per annum. To attempt to reduce this chargewould be impracticable, for to increase the reservoir draft or in-crease the duty of water to supply a greater area would be extremelyhazardous.

-27-

"The annual draft of 300,000 acre-feet is based on the averagedischarge of the G11a lUver during a meac 9-year cycle and not on theleast low-water cycle, and. is. open to the objection that during thelatter cycie and, including the flow from the San Pedro the reservoirwould have been emptied. during a riod of 15 months. This could havebeen reduced. to a 'rriod o± four months through the storae of thewater now diverted to supply t1 26,o33 acres of land. irrigated. in the

olomonville-Safford Valley ábo the proped, reservoir. In defenseof this d.raft it may be stated. that it could have been maintathedduring the remaining period of the 21 years over which the recordsextend, and. being based on the mean discharge makes the greatesteconomic use of the run-off of the watershed.

"A reservoir of greater capacityan annual draft of 300,000 acre-feet,is not advisable; for to be effectiveover storage for a period of 15 yearsperiod of time its advantage wo.iid. beevap 0 rat ion ]nSsaa.

-28-

than that sufficient to furnishaside from the increased cost,it would have to provide a hold-or longer. During this longlargely nullified. by ad.Uitiol

"Under these conditions, to assure success with a high reclama-tion charge, it will be necessary to supply water continuously duringthe irrigation season, and, it would not e safe to assu the duty ofwater higher than 3 acre-feet rer annum, applied to the land.. Thisis borne out by the amount of approximately 3.3.'acre-feet applied tothe land. assigned. to the neighboring Salt River project.

* * '

t?The water rights now appurtenant to the land under irrigationnear )?lozence and on the Gila River Indian Reservation must be taiencare of in some way.

HIt is estimated that the purchase of these water rights willnot increase the per acre cost of the project and that the advantagesto be gained thereby make a purhase altogether the best solution ofthe problem.

In addition to the above, claims of rights to water may be madeon account of lands that have been irri,ted, at one time,but whichare no longer uriLr cultivation, and also on account of new projectsthat have not reached the point of actual use of water. The extinguish-ment of any existing rights of this character may slightly increasethe reclamation charge per acre.

"With this view- thatis, taking into consideration the impossi-bility of knowing that the land, when fully reclaimed would be worthmore than a sum it could now be said, with confidee was conservative,it is thought that that part of the project involving the constructionof the reservoir ought to be deferred.

"If the San (iar].os Reservoir is not constructed. in the immediatefuture some Other means must be found, to supply water for the irriga-tion of the lands belonging to the Pirna Indians on the Gdla RiverIndian Be servat ion.

"The facts herein recited show that their rights in the waters

of the Gila River antedate and it is believed, are superior, legallyand. morally, to any awl all of the rights of the whites.

*

"Assuniin that the storage foa'ures must be deferred. for thepresent the general end. sought can, in a measure be obtained. by build-ing simply the lower or both diversion dams contemplated as a partof the more extensive project that has been discussed. Under thisplan, however, only one crop irrigation can be safely practiced.except on lands with the earlier priorities or on lands where pumpingis economically practicable.

*]j is apparent from the present data that 190,000 acre-feet ofwater are available at the reservation or at F].orence during thekonths of October to June, incluSive, of a mean low-water year.During the same months of a mean. high-water year 400,000 acre-feetare available. These figures are ta1n from average conditions and.it is evident that during -rriods of protracted. drought the supplywould be greatly reduced. The one-crop irrigation in this caseprobably would. be cfined to the grains and. it is assumed that awater supply of l- acre-feet per acre would be sufficient.

'Accordingly with adequate diversion facilities and under averageconditions flood. water could be supplied on a one-crop basis to evena greater area than the maximum advocated for the onpleted SariCarlos project; but WWkhA view to the eventual construction of thereservoir it would be wise to limit the area to 80,000 acres.

* * * * * * *

"Under the plan involving the constrizotiOm of two diversion dams,the one above Florence aM the other on the reservation, the necessaryd.istributlon systems would not differ materially from that requiredby the proposed storage project, as the canals under that project weredesigned to accommodate the greatest practicable draft, in. order toprovide for the use of flood. water entering below the San CarlosBeservatioia. * **** *

Beconimendati one."It is reemnend.ed. that -

That iart ' the San Carlos project involving tie construc-tion of the San Carlos clam and, reservoir be deferred.

The two diversion dane across the Gila River described inthis report, one above Florence and. the second above Saoaton, withthe necessary feeder canals, be constructed in the immediate fnture.

The title to the San Carlos reservoir site and, as far aspractioable the title to the other reservoir sites along the Gila ann,its tributaries be retained by the United States.

The investigation to determine the effect of the irrigationin. the Duncan and, Solomonville Valleys upon the flow of the Gila atand near the G'ila River Reservation be oontinued. This is importantto enab]e the Government to properly protect the water rights of thereservation and, of the project here reccxnmend.ed.

"5. o provide for the construction of the diversion dans andmain canals, l,36l,l77 be appropriated o remain available until theCompletion of the work."

-29-

Report of 0. 0. Jacob, District Engineer, U. . Geological

Survey, on "Hydrographic Invetition o± Gila River Basin in

Ooøpratio. with the U. . Indian 3ervice, 1914-15." Mr. Jacob con-

d.uctec3. stream measurements at various points on the Gila River above

Sacaton during 1914 and 1915. As stated. in his report.

"The purnose of this investigetion was to determine the quantityof water flowing in the river at several definite points during theperiod covered by the study as well as the quantities diverted by thevarics canals in the three valleys4 In particular it was desired. todetermine the effect of all upper diversions on. the stream flow atthe uila Reservation line."

As stated in his conclusions, The period, covered by this study was

very unfavorable on account of the unusual weather conditions pevai1-

ing," so no very definite conclusiDns were reaohecL as to the effects

of the upper diversions on the water supply at San Carlos or at the

Gila indian. Reservation, or of the seepage losses above these points.

Mr. Jacob's report is published in "Exhibit B' o± the Olberg report

above mentioned.

Report of H. K. Palmer, Assistant Engineer, U. S. Indian Irriga-

tion Service, published in "Exhibit B" of Olberg rport of Nov. 1,

1915,. SUbject, ttHydroaphy, Gila Basin." - Mr. Palmer made a study

of the losses due to diversions and other causes, and. the gains in.

the Gila Bivr above Saoatai; basing his study upon the data secured.

by Mr. Jacob as noted above, and supplementing this with more or less

theoretical calculations based upon conclusions reached by different

authorities on ",Jnouat of evaporation from irr1ted land," "Relative

water requirements of plants," ?tlepth frci which soil evaporation will

ta1 plane," etc. The following is quoted. from the conclusions of Mr.

Pa 3mb r:

-30-

"Suxmnary of Plow Losses and. Gains Along the Gila.

"The following suitnar gives an estimate of the losses and gainstaking place between olomonville and. Sacaton.

"LosSesDiversion at Solomonville, taking the entire flow of the

stream, up to about 225 second-feet.Evaporation from river bed, between bolornonvilJ.,o and Ilvin,

amOunting to about 73 second-feet in June. This would increase some-what for higher stages of the river.

Diversions in the canals of the Fl.Drence district, thequantity depending on the amount of water in the river, but averagingabout 30 second-feet.

Seepage in the sa beton 11vin aAd Sacaton, amountingto 110 second-feet; more following a protracted drought.

"Gains.'1. Underground flow from adjacent watershed and, return flow

from eanals in Solomonville valley, amounting to from ]B3 to 300secondfeet. Decreasing the irrigation decreases the return flowin the approximate ratio of 0.7 acre-feet of return flow for eachacre-foot of diversion.

Plow of San Carlos River negligible during low water.Flow of San Pedro River varying from one-fifth the flow of

the G-ila at the dem site during low water to one-tenth of the flowduring high water.

"The above table shows the conditions as they exist today ac-ccrding to the most reasouab]e theory. Adopting the sie basis forcalculations as to effects under the assumption that no water bediverted at Solomonville end at Florence, we get the following results:

-31-

"In tabular foin this is as follows:

LOSSSecond-feet Second-feet

River discharge at Solomonville : 243Evaporation, Solomonvil&e to Icelvin : : 73Solomonville Canals

: 225Florence Canals

: 50Solomonvijje underground and return 180San Pedro River 35Seepage between Ilvi.0 and Sacaton : 110AvailabJ.e for Indian uses at Sacaton : - - -

Total : 458 : 458

"A cparison of t1 as two tables shows that the effect of di-verting 225 second-feet in the Solomonville Valley and 50 second-feet at '1orence is sufficient to diminish the flow at Sacaton by 95second-feet. The 50 second-feet diverted at J'1orence wazld be equiva-lent to 45 second-feet at Sacaton after deducting the trannissionloss ci' 10 per cent; therefore, the diversion of 225 second-feet atSolornonville represents 50 second-feet at Sacaton, or, in otherwords, the transmission loss is 78 per cent. This loss is muchgreater in proportion to the distance than the 10 per cent loss frKelvin to Sacaton. The transmission loss can not be stated as aconstant proportion of the run-off for all stages of the river, sincea large portion of it is a constant independent of the flow. At lowstages it is greater than 80 per cent, and. at hIgi stages it is less.For the average stage, hover, 60 per cent may be taken as the mostprobable value until a better value can be obtained by a series ofcareful iasureinsnts extending over several years."

History of Irri,stiou along the C+ila River. - Au exhaustive

report has been written by C. H. Southworth, of the U. S. Indian

Irrigatioti Service, on the"history of irrigation along the Gila

kiver", which is p.blished. a "Exhibit A" of the Olberg report above

mentioned. No such. history will therefore be included in this re-

port, and no review of the Sou.thworth report wil]. be attempted, except

to quote his "Summary and Conclusions Relative to Presentand. Fiture

Uses of ater along the Gila West of the Gila River fleserv-at ion", as

follows:

"1. The total area of land, at present (1914) under cultivationwest of the (i1a River Reservation and irrigated by nans of theeight ditches taking ter from the Gila River smounts to 24,095acres. Of this area, all but 1,100 acres is situated. within the GilaBend, the nerpriss, and. the Buckeye districts.

-32-

Oius : Loss

Mver discharge at SolomouvilleEvaporation, Solomonville to FelvinInflow, Solomonville a11eySan Pedro IliverSeeDage in sand, above SacatonTrannission loss between Ielvin and SacatonAvailable at Sacaton

Total

:Sec cud-feet: 243

: 11035

:Second.-feet

: 73

: 110

95288 288

That nearly all of the land at present under cultivation inthis section has been reclaimed within comparatively recent times(since 1660) while the older or first-irrigated. districts are nolonger cultivated, owing, aoparoatly,. to failure of the water sply.

That by far the greater portion of the area at presentunder cultivation below the Gila River Reservation is dependent uponreturn water flow for its successful irrigation, and that the fluc-tuations in. the flow of the Gila River are so great and the watersupply i so meager during the dry months as to preclude the possibil-ity of successful irrigation using flood water alone.

That the increased. irrigation on the Gila River lieservationand. at lorence, In. the event of a storage dam at San Oarlos, wouldincrease the return flow west of the reservation, and. that thissection would con$eently benefit thereby.

That the regulation and. control of the flood waters of theGila by a reservoir at San. Carlos would. not meet with the disapprovalof the majority 0±. the present water users west of the Gila RiverRe so rvat ion.

Past experiences have proven that irrigation projects inthis portion of the Gila Basin depending upon the noia1 or flood-water flow are at best very uncertain. ventures, and it is not ex-pected, nor is it at all likely, that further diversions will beattemp ted.

it is also fairly certain that no storage project involvinga high storage d to prOvide water for the irrigation of lands stof the Gila River )esarvation will be constructed by private orcorporate enterprises for thesa principal reasons:

"(a) The available water sply is insufficient, especially inview 0±' the imiestionable superior rights of other water usershigher up on the Gila and. its tributaries.

T(b) That the capital rcessary for the construction of a lar&storage reservoir pOjsct such as would be required. for this develop-ment wotld. not oe forthcoming from private sources, especially inview of the long time which must elapse before returns would berealized..

"(c) Doubtful existence of a suitable reservoir and dam site onthe lower Gila.

That below their confluence the waters of the Salt Riverhold, the sane relation. to the total available water supply as do thewaters of the Upper Gila Itself. In. the suit which adjudicated thewater rights on. the Salt River, resulting in. the Kent decree, theusers of water below the confluence were not made parties to thissuit. In. the adjudication. suit kaov as the Nels Benson v. JohnAllison et al., which is still pending and, which has for its objectthe adjudication of the relative rights o± the Buc3,ie Canal, noneo± the rties diverting water from the Gila River on or above theGila River Reservation or below the Buc1ye Canal were made partiesto this aetion, and their rights, of course, were not affected.

Accordingly, in. view oi the facts set forth above, the o0n-.clusion. is cLra that the present irrigation west of the Gila RiverReservation on. the Gila would not suffer in. the event of the SanCarlosproject, nor is it considered that the water rights, if any

tin

exist, west of the resorvatithxi, neet be taken into considøraticn inthe d.eterintio of the nount of water legally available for thean Carlos project."

-34-.

0LIM.TE

Elevation

The a].evation above sea level f the ila lilver Ind.iari. Peserva-

tioii lanls rnes from 1,400 feet on the east boundary of the reser-

vation, to 950 feet on the west. The elevation of the Plorence-Casa

Grande unit ranges from 1,350 to 1,500 feet above sea level.

Tem ratures.

The U. S. Weather Bureau record of Sacaton covering the years

1908 to 1918, inclusive, shows the following ternTeratures; maxinium

monthly mean (July) 88 d.erees; minimum monthly ian (January) 51

degrees; annual moan 69 degrees.

Precipitation

The U. b. Weather Bureau record at Sacaton for the years 1908 to

1918, inclusive, shows the following; dmum monthly an (July)

2.13 inches; minimum monthly mean (June) 0.22 inches; annual mean

9.72 inches.

The nean annual precipitation at San Carlos covering a period

o± 3]. years, is 13 inches.

Ktl].ixa Frosts

The last killing frost in the sDring is about February 20, and

the first in the fall about November 1.

LAND

Topograth

The irrigable land in the ('ila Biver Indian Reservation is more

or less broken by the river channel ard by slonghs or overflow channels

-35-.

analyses, together with accom)anying map, showing beat ion, of a numberof the samples tabu].ated. As is shown on the sheet, nearly all of thesoils examined are more or less black alkaline in character, most of'the samples representing 1 foot of s31].. In a few cases only thesalts are shown to contain an excess of calcium sulphate.

Accepting a common statement to the effect that 0.1 per cent ofblack alkali i a soil is li1ly, in the course, Of time, to prove in-jurious to most farm crops, it will be seen that this limit is occasion-ally exceeded, but that in. the majority of cases the amount of blackalkali contained, is much less than 0], of a r cent. Under the in-fluence of irrition and without precautionary measures, such asthorough cultivation, etc., black alkali and, other soluble salts maybe concentrated, from several feet in depth at or near the surface,thus increasing ercentages of black alkali which may originallyexist in virgin soils within reach of plant roots.

"On the other hand., valuable land.s threatened with injury byblack alkali may be treated, with gyps, which is an ant idote forsodium carbonate, or black alkali, in the soil. 'STe have treated,such lands at Tucson with gypsum obtained in carload lots at ouglas,Ariz., at an expense of 2.50 a ton laid, down at Tucson. The treat-ment has proven practicable and, economic with us under these coad.i-tiozis. Of course the a:'aount of gyps required varies with thequantity Of black alkali in. a stated, soil.

"Therefore, it may b stated that while nall but noteworthyamounts of black alkali generally pevail in the district, they aremanageable or can be rerne died.

'If further evidence is needed the crops grown in the valley,some of' then on farms of long standing, should, complete the proof.**** ** *

"1. The soils of the Qasa Grands Valley are physically desirable,but generally saking, contain noticeable, and sanetimes a&*ious,amounts of black alkali which it would bewell to consider in neralmeasures affecting the welfare 0±' the district."

DRAINA

The surface drainage is generally good n all of the project

except the river bottom lands in. the Gila River Indian Reservation,

where, according to the Indian Service report of Sept. 1913, by C.

B. Olberg, there are aoproxirnately 37,009 acres largely alkaline or

swampy anti not suitable for irrigation.

As to deep drainage necessitated by the rising ground water. dna

to irrigation, it is admitted that owing to the alkalies i the soils

as expssed by Prof. Forbes which may be brought to the surface in

-37-

injurious quantities, the ground. water table must be kept well below

the surface. A drainage system is not planned., hover, in the present

estimate, s it is planned t: provide an actd.itional water supply to

that furnished. by the river, by pmiping for irrigation from 1ls;

and, to so distribute these wells as to hold. down t1 ater pla over

the irrited area.OwnershiD

Outside of the Indian lands the area of the project is all in

private oership, or at least it Is filed upon, though there may be

some unpatenöd lands. The holdings are generally in units of 180 acres or less.

Are a

The irrible area ox' the project, as hereinafter determined

under the subject of "\'dter $uppl/t Is as follows:

Reservation UnitAbove Gila Crossing

Net Area Irrigated. from:River Water : Ground. Water

or Return plow

8,000 16,000;

There is no way of getting at the gross area on the Reservation

unit over which this water might be stread., as the place of use is

left to the d,i.retjou of the U. S. Indian ervice, and as provided.

In the "Agreement" between the Indian ervice and, the ttw1ijJ," lands,

this place of use may be shifted from ti to tire. To the l2orence-

Casa GraMe unit, however, there should, be addód. to the net area, to

-38-

Below Gila Crossing 0

Florence-Casa Gran.de Units 72,000 36,00080,000 6800

16,000

Totals

provide for waSte land, road.s, d.itohes, etc., about 1, or say a

gross area 01 175, 000 acres.

AGBICUIfL'URAL CONDITIONS

Area Oroed.

A recent census has not been made of the cropped. area of the

.p?oj8ct.

As stated. under the tIscriptiOnh of the project, there was

jrrigated in 1914 under the fleservatiOxi. unit, 14,356 aireS., aziii under

tIie Florence-Casa Grands unit, 7,563 acres.

Princioal Crops - Yie]4s and. Values

On account of the proximity of the Salt Biver project and to the

5imilarity of its soil and. climate, there can be no better criterion

Df what results may be expected. on the Ban Car].os project than t cite

*hat is being done on the neighbor project. This can best be done by

a crop report showing actual results. The latest crop report of the

Bait Biver project - year 1918-19 - is therefore here presented.,

.ich speaks for itself.

-39-

-40-

Year 1916-19

Crop

Area

:Unit

:(aores)

:of vld:per

Yield

Value

: Average

:

ac.

:

: Per Unit

Total

:of y]4.

: Per

Total

Alfalfa hay

65,651

:Tori

4262,604;

13.50

:.54.0O

:;3 545 154

Barley

11,516

:Cwt

.9:

218,804:

2.65

50.35

:579,830

Beans

180

:Lb

:950:

171,475:

80.75

:14,575

B errie $

155:

:450.00

:69,750

Cotton

66,146

:Lb

:1,000: 66,148,000:

.21

:Z10.00

:13,891,080

Frtiit, Citrus

:1,640

:do

:7O00: 12,880,000:

.05-

:385.00

:708,400

Fruit, Deciduous

1,884: :do

:10,000: 18,840,000:

:350.00

:659,400

Gard.en

923

::

:250.00

:230,750

Lettuce

150

:Crate :

275:

41,250:

1.05

:288.75

43,312

Grain, sorghum

:19,770

:Cwt.

:20:

395,400:

2.25

:45.00

889,650

Indian corn

Watermelons

4,085

:Lb

831

:Owt.

: :

]3800:

160:

7,349,400:

132,960:

.03

.90

:54.00

:144.00

:

220,482

119,664

Cantaloupes

4,429

:Crate :

190:

841,510:

1.15

:218.50

:967,737

Oat s

1,670

:Cwt

:2O-:

38,335:

3.05

62.52k

116,922

Pasture

Potatoes

Sudan grass

Vineyard

:

18,863

:

467

:Lb

1,276

:Ton

241

:Lh

: : :

2,300: 6:

7000:

1,074,300:

7,656:

1,687,000:

12.50

.11

30.00

57.50

:75.00

:770.00

: : :

565,890

26,852

95,700

185,570

Wheat

Total ard. average

:13,30

:Cwt.

:18:

239.418:

3.50

63.00

:837.963

:125.27

:23,768,232

Total acreage cropped (Not in-

cluding townsite areas)

213,578

Less aoreage cropped twice

25.346:

Net area cropped

188,232

Plus vacant land, including

roadways, ditches, etc.

,460

:

Plus home tracts, including

house lots, corrals, etc.

5.226:

Cro

p R

epor

t. Sa

lt R

iver

Pro

ject

. Arz

ona.

yea

r 19

18-1

9 -

cont

inue

dT

otal

acr

eage

rep

orte

d,le

ss d

uplic

ated

are

asPl

us to

wns

ite a

crea

ge o

n w

hich

no c

rop

was

rep

orte

dT

otal

acr

eage

rec

eivi

ngw

ater

ser

vice

fro

m p

roje

ct:

205,

064:

:

*A

ctua

l oas

h m

arke

t ret

urns

.

::

: 201

,918

:: :3

.146

:

: : .:

:: :

::

IBRIG-ATION PLAN

The "Project Plan" as ut1ined. in the Olberg report of Nov. 1,

1915, pp 7r8 n179 is quoted as follows:

"In neral, the project plan. ccnlprises an impounding darn on theGila River, about 7 miles below the mouth of the an Carl Os River1from which the water will flow down the present natural river channelfor a distae of abont 70 miles to a point about 12 miles aboveF1renoe, where a diversion dn will be built. At the diversion damthe water is taken into the main distributing canal on the south sideof the river.

"Part of the water is to be used in the vicinity of 'lorence, partto oe taken to the B1a1ater, Sacaton. agency, arid. Casa Blanca dis-tricts of the G-i].a River Indian Reservation and part to be returnedto the Gila River opposite Santan, and, again diverted to the bantandistrict on the north side of the Gila flyer by a cilvesion d.am tobe built at this point. This diversion dam will also be ueed. todivert flood water from the an Pedro and, other tributaries of theGila River, as well as the return flow from the ?lorence-Oasa Grandeirrigation. district, both to the Santon district, on the north side,and, to the Sacaton aency arid. Casa Blazica districts, on. the southside of the G'lla River."

'A na1l amount of water will be diverted on the north side ofthe ?lorence diversion dam for use on a tract 0± about 1,200 acresof private land. on the north side of the river arid aoout 12 milesbelow the darn."

The Olberg plan conforms in general to the plan now proposed

on condition of the following additions:

The development of the ound water suiDply o± the ro.otby pumping fran lls, the power to be developed at the an Carlos

dam site.

The eventual construction of reservoirs on the upper branchea

of the Lala River for the purpose of supplemental storage for the

San Carlos project arid, the valleys above the Sari Carlos reservo1r

and for the further purpose of sluicing the San Carlos reservoir.

-42-

SUA0E ATSR SUPPLY

Sourco

The surface water supply of the project is the Gila River, with

storage at San Canoe and possible storage on the upper branches of

the river.

Runoff records have been kept for variable periods at several

poi'nts on the Gila Rivr and. its principal branches, and for the

purpose of this report tables have been prepared showing the runoff

at the three reservoir sites now beir1g considered.

un.-off of G11a River a Sea Canoe Daai Site

The following t le has been prepared showing the rim-off of the

G11a River at the San Carlos darn site, covering the years l9O and

1895 to Sept. l9]B inclusive. The years 1890 to 1912 inclusive have

been copied from the Anir Board Report of Fbruary 25, 1914, page 28.

All figures in parentheses in this portion have been estimated by

the Aimy Board. Considerable study was given by the Board in esti-

mating these figures as outlined, in detail in the Board's report and

it is believed. that the conclusions reach can be accepted. as the

most probable quantities.

The years 1913 and 1914 have been. copied from the Indian Service

report or report of C. B. Olbeng, dated Novamber 1, 1915.

1915 to September, 1917, inclusive, has been copied from Water

Supply PaDer No. 450-A October, 1917 to Septomber, 191S inclusive,

has been secured from a blue print sheet furnished by the San Fran-

cisco office of the U. S. Geo1ogic. Survey.

There has been some question raised as to the accuracy of the

records at an Canoe for the 1-ow runoff period, of 1899 to 1904, so

in order to check these records as far as may be, a comparison has

been made in the following table of the runoff of the Gila at an

Canoe with that of the a1t River at 1cDowoll. The salt River has

been chosen as it is near and, is the most similar on which synchron-

ous records are available covering a sufficient period. The study

covers the period, 1899 to 1910, inclusive, except 1900 vhen there

vas no record, on the 4alt River. The mean for the eleven year

period is determined. and also th percent of the mean for each year.

For the low runoff period of this record, - 1899 to 1904 - this table

shows a greater relative shortage on the .alt River than on the Gila.

Another check may be made on the low year of 1899, from the

study of a table later presented in this report under thebjeot of

rtGround Water upp1y, showin the percentage relation of the flow of

the Gila at San Canoe with that at ielvin. Unfortunately the srzi-

ohronous records at these two stations include o1y one oi' these

short years. This shows the mean runoff at 3an Caries to be 84 of'

that at Kelvin, while the year 1899 is 81, or only 3 below the

mean ratio.

An attnpt has also been made to draw some conclusiona by com-

paring the flow of the G-ila at San Carlos with that at Yuina for the

period 1903 to 1917, but the relation is so erratic that no value is

placed on it. It may be said., however, that this record shows a

greater deficiency for the ].ow years of 1903 and 1904 at Yuma than

at Sau Canoe.

The table comparing th runoff of the (lila and. salt Rivers

follows:

unoff of Gila LUver at an Carlos Compared. "vith That of 1lt

Uver at McDowell.

Year

1899, except Dec.1901190219031904190519061907190819091910

Mea2l

: Gila at SanRunoff

Carlos

: a..: (a) 189,500 :

190,100 :99,940 :

1&2,O01,011,080 :

426,690 :635,900 :

: (a) 338,000 :273,380 :109,960 ;

322,730 :

of :mean

a1t :ij.ver atRunoff

the F1oroxce diversion dam the fol1ov.ng ciic1usiaiis froni previous

reports are given:

Aocordi: to Lip:pincott (1ater Supply Paper No. 33) the flow at

the Buttes, which is a short distance above ie diversion darn site,

is 10 greater than at San Canoe.

The Aty Board report (. 108) states that "The factor 90 for

reducing Buttes d.eteiinationsto.San Qarlos is therefore accepted

with increased confidence". And as to the dependibility of this 1 n

McDowell: of

ApDroximateApproximate Roosevalt record taicen for April and MayRecord at Roosevelt - Record at McDowell for Jan., Feb., aid. :.ar.eq.:als 33967 a.f.; at RoosGv3lt for same period. equals 35,475.McDowell for 1901 equals 98 of Roosevelt; and 1903, 86% ofRoosevelt.

(dj Approximate. 86 of Roosevelt recod ta1en for 4ril and. May.

As to the av.labi1ity of the flow at an Carlos for diversion at

: : mean

59 (a) 252,000 : 2659 (b) 470,000 : 4831 (e) 211,500 2235 : 210,800 : 2250 249,400 : 26

314 3,708,000 : 381132 1,580,000 162197 : 1,260,000 130105 1,220,000 z 125

85-. 1,140,000 : 11734: 415,100 43

100 974,250 100

creased supiy at the Buttes for use, the Arwy Board report, p. 157

states that:

"While, therefore, one would probably be justified in countingupon the an Pedro for some water, itwoulci be impossible from thedata at present available to estimate its amount. It will thereforemerely be assed that the water released from the impounding dam sus-tains no loss. This conservation seems all the more wise then it isrealized that not all of the drainage area of the Si Pedro is in theUnited States and that possibly the flow in LIexico may some day bediverted."

The Olbcrg report, p. 234, states that 1A few of th3 observations

made during this investigation showed that the flow at the Buttes,

especi.11y during low stages of the river, to be 20 in. excess of the

flow at San. Car1os. * * * *' The data available at the present time

are not sufficiently clete to warrant our depending on receiving

from the Si Pedro and other sources of flow more than that recjuired

to make up for the evaporat ion below the dam site, which wo.ld probably

ount to abou 5,000 acre-feet per year."

Under the subject of 'tGround water Supply" in this report a tab1

is prepared showing the "omarison of Plow of Gila Uver at Kelvin

(or at the ttes) with Plow at San carlos," in which it is shov that

the flow at San. Garlos is 84 of that at Kelvin. This l& caning from

below San Carlos, however, is so inteittent that it is depended on

only for ground water storage.

- 46 -

1890 : 37,6: :28,890

1895 :(56,O44,t : :(14,000)

1896 : 21,41 :: 10,8241097 : 71,1 :: 44,1351898 : 35,4) :: 24,221699 : 17,59 : 11,946

1900 : (5,0't)::(1O,000)1901 : 8,6* :: 61,6001902 : 6,11! :: 3,076

1903 : lo,4op :: 2,960

1904 : 1,94 :: 1,875190 : 56,80 ::142,6441906 : 20,91 :: 53,0401907 :200,64 ::105,3601908 :(30,00 ) ::(72,000)

1909 : 11,4361 :: 17,760

1910 : 27,456I :; 12,683191]. : Z?,GSSj :: 19,239

1912 :1162 :: 7,7331.913 : 9,92O :* 14,7301914 : ].8,440 :: 19,3601915 :149,000( :;219,0001916 :787,000k ::189,000

191.7 :114,00 :: 53,5001918 : 12,100 :: 12,400

7):

un-0ff of Q.ila Riyer at Scii 0ar1osan Site.

Mar,

: 21,416: (5,000)

: 13,392: 38,849: 26,175

7,194:(50,000)

: 26,200: 625

: 2,200: 676:263,112:116,64068,520

:(42,000)

: 80,040: 11,165:114,290:123,530: 37,510: 26,600:220,000:178,000; 47,600: 16,800

Llean (189019

1916:1.919 : 18,20O :(I 36,200

1920 : 68900 : :192,000

Mean (1890-191.9):

Po11ovint subsoauently added.: :

: 21,500

67,600 :107,000 : 25,600 : 1,670 :108,000 :101,000 : 98,400

:55,200: : : : : : :

: : : : : :

Total

:1,011,082: 426,606: 535,904: (338,000)

: 13,116 : 273,384

: 9,944 : 109,956

a 15,895 : 375,767

a 14,542 : 383,972

a 22,800 : 230,330:379,450 : 742,350a 13,600 :1,023,350

a 21,300 :1,589,800

a 6,020:

: 23,244 : 7,662 : 7,877

: 5,346 : 7,788. : 11,440

: 29,590 a 54,340 : 17,985

a 21,021 a 18,612. : 14,845

a 19,350 a 25,000 : 29,260a 36,100 a 72,100 a 46,500

a 15,900 : 4,100 a 4,250

a 42,800 :199,000 a 26,300

a 2,870 a 1,710 : 2,750

a 1,490 a a

:

2,160 : 5,200

: 23,900 : 21100 : 28,600

Oct. Iov, Dec.

: 6,854 ; 8,690 : 11,353 : 15,218

: 43,485 : 87,269 : 59,070 ; 41,559

: 52,483 :229,381 : 55,535 : 34,808

:126,976: :(51,000) : (0) : (5,000)

: 14,459 : 4,372 : 5,409 : 16,878

: 24,800 :(15,000) :(10,000) : (5,000)

: 55,800 : 3)690 ; 10,500 : 6,270

: 12,600 : 4,150 : 13,300 : 6,760

: 5,821 : 0 : 0 : 34,286

: 13,300 ; 6,520 : 3,300 : 2,180

: 13,800 : 50,'? : 6,664 : 18,820

: 32,400 : 9,...O :112,020 ; 53,603

: 10,308 : 7,015 : 8,664 : 78,120

: 50,928 : 19,956 : 26,232 : 17,052

:(12,000) : (5,000) :(1l,000) ;(36,000)

: 293,670: 440,600

: 101,660

: 637,270

:431,000

: 329,908: 438,985; 554,585: 464,957: 327,512: 194,529: 153,965: 190,104: 99,936: 112,856; 162,697

Apr.

:

(Drai11ae Area, 13455 jij,.es}

May Jie July Au.

4,815 : 1,500 : 7,196 :173,60012,745: (0):(17,000) : (3,000) :( 25,000) : 87,602

: 9,640 : 1,771 268 79,744 : 44,825

: 37,166 : 12,396 2,765 : 31,267 : 44,216

: 29,294 : 16,159 ; 13,496 :1 11,895 : 29,716

: 3,320 : 996 276 73,300 : 25,100

; 306 : 150 33 : 16 : 12,200

: 3,530 ; 330 : 156 23,200 : 29,600

: 0 : 0 0: 1,309 : 48,698

: 3,010 : 136 : 6,370 : 3,280 : 59,200

; 315 : 535 0: 8,795 : 58,540

:237,396 : 55,519 1,200 : 6,120 : 27,100

: 58,800 : 20,652 : 5,22? ;. 8,820 : 34,484

: 44,400 : 21,456 : 13,236 15,564 : 52,560

:(38,000) : (9,000) (0) :( 33,000) :(50,000)

: 47,520 : 17,516 3,937 13,440 : 29,736

: 8,899 : 3,704 2,904 : 2,783 a 5,764

: 19,525 : 744 : 3,069 : 57,310 a 16,115

: 43,780 : 21,329 19,855 .; 64,240 22,660

: 28,820 : 14,900 7,340 0,300 : 1.2,400

: 13,170 : 510 4,320 : 59,500 a 66,300

:230,000 ; 69,500 : 11,500 55,800 a 30,700

: 64,300 ; 24,800 : 3,410 5,390 a 48,500

: 28,700 : 9,350 2,070 1,500 a 13,600

: 2,270 : 920 1,890 4,630 : 20,300

Bun-off of !la River at Bed. Bock. New Iiexico.

A tabulation of the runoff of the (]i1a River at the Red Rock reservoir

site has been prepared covering the years 1905 to 1919 inclu.sive. The

runoff records are not cciixplete dming this period but in order to

complete the table, from which to rnai studies of reservoir capacities,

ter supply, etc., the missing months have been estimated from the best

data available.

rixig the years 1905 to 1907, inclusive, the gaging station

was maintained nine miles below Cliff Postoffice, New iloxico, and one

half mile below the mouth of Mengas River. There are no tributaries

of consequence between this station and. the Red Rock reservoir site

and, therefore the flow at the Cliff station has been accepted without

correction for that at the Rod. Rock site. Subsequent to 1907 a gaging

station was maintained, four miles northeast of Rod. Bock Postoffice;

which is near the upper end. oi' the proposed. reservoir site.

All figures shown in the following runoff table in parenthesis

have bean estimated,.

In 1905 the months of January to May inclusive were estimated.

by the Army Board, in its report of Fbruary 25th, 1914, a shown on Page

110 of said, report. A±'ter conaid.erable stud4r this board, arrived at the

conclusion that the flow at Bed. Bock was 22 times that at Alma and in

this manner the abowe months were stz,pp1ied.

The year 1907 is not cnputed in the U.S.G.S. Water Supply

paper, though complete gage readings al'o there recorded. and a few

discharge measurements and, from this data the Army Board, computed the

discharge as shown on Page 111 of that report and, these figures hava

been used. in the following table.

There appears to be no record of runoff on the Cilia River for

1908 and. the Army Board., in ord.er to make a complete table of flow at

San Carios, resorted. to making an estimate from the rainfall records

for that year by the proportion, "That as the average rainfall for a

given month for a long period of years is to the rainfall in. the same

month of th year under consideration, so is the mean water supply of

that month for all the years In vEiich it has been. detexxiIed to the

probable supply of that missing month" (See Army Board. Report, page

108). The Army Board. also concluded, by comparison of the flow on the

upper and lower river that the flow at San. Carlos is equal to 120 per

cent of that at Alma plus Bed. Bock and, also that the flow at Bed. Rock

is 2.2 times the flow at Alma. (See Army Board. Report, page 110).

Using these conclusions a computation has been made of the runoff

for 1908 from the estimated. runoff for that year at San Canoe. It

is admitted. that this is but little better than a guess but in. order

to make the table complete it is here used..

There is no record at Red. Book for the year 1911 but there Is a

complete record. for the year at Guthnie, which is near the upper end,

of the Duncan Valley and. mar the ArizonaNew Mexico line. There are

no large tributaries entering tie stream between this and, the Red. Pock

gaging station. Comparing the runoff of these two stations d.unlng

periods in wtiich sinchronous records ire kept shows the following

relation. For the ca1end.a! year 1913 the Gu.thnie flow was

equal to 1.09 times the Bed. Bock flow. During the year ending

September 30, 1914 the G-uthrie flow s 1.17 times the Bed. Bock flow.

49.-

From this, then, it is concluded, that the Gath.rie flow may be taken

as 1.1 times the Red. Rock flow and in this manner the discharge for

the year has been computed.

The year 1912, for the months of January to July inclusive, has

been computed in the same manner as just described for 191]., and also

so has January for the year 1915.

The year 1916, for the months of February to April inclusive ani

June and. July, has been estimated. from the mean flow of part time

records at Bed. Rock. This is thought to be safe in these particular

months as in studying the flow during the same months at Gutkuie, it

is shown that no floods or large fluctuations occurred. during the

missing dates. The months o± January, May and October, 19],6,though

partial records were kept at fled flock, the mean flow was not used,

as the record at Guthrie showed that. large floods occurred during the

missing dates of record., therefore, for these months the same method

was used, as above dascribed for 1911, name1y by dividing the flow at

Guthrie by 1.1. The month of January for 191'? was also figured. in

the same manner as described for 1911.

The months of February and. March, 1918; were computed. by

taking the mean ±iow of part time records at fled Bock, the record at

Guthrie showing that no floods occurred during ti periods in which

no records were kept at fled Rock.

The table of run-off compiled and. computed. as above outlined

is sho'i on the following page.

(a) Years 1905 to 1907 measured 9 Miles below Cliff, N. M,Notes:

1905 - Figures in Parentheses estimated by Army Board.1907 - Computed by Arj Board - see report, p. 111.1906 - Figures in Parentheses estimated. from Arnt Board's estimate of flow at San Carlos as follows: San Canoe flow equals

120% of Alma plus Red. Rock; and Red. Rock equals 2.2 times Alma.

(1911 Estimated from Guthnie reading Guthrie equals 11 times Red Rock.

(1912 (Jan.-July). 1915 (Jan.). 1916 (Jan. May and. Oct.). 1917 (Jan.).

(1916 (Feb. to Apr., June and July ) Estimated from mean of part time records at Red. Rock.

(1918 (Feb. and Mar.)

Figures in parentheses are estimated.

- 51-

Run-oTT of G1].a River at Red. Rock. New Mexico.

Year Jan. : Feb. : Mar. : Apr. g May g June : July : Aug. : Seat. Oct. : Nov. : Dec. : Total

(a)1905 :(30,000):(75,000J :(l40,000J:(l25,000h(29,411 : 16,180 : 8,178 : 11,190: 11,420: 9,162 : 82,830 : 40,890 ; 579,300

(a)1906 : 14,500 : 31,900 : 65,200 : 35,100 : 14,600: 4,130 : 5,480 : 28,300: 5,370: 5,120 : 5,860 : 28,200 : 243,800

(a11907 :116,000 : 56,000 : 38,000 : 27,000 : 13,000: 9,000 ' 8,000 s 27,000: 35,000: 11,000 17,000 : 10,000 : 367,000

1908 :(l7,000):(40,000) :(24,000): (22,000): (5,500): (6,000) : (18,500): (29,000 : (7,000): (2,500): (6,00): 3,680 : (181,200)

1909 : 3,130 : 10,100 : 42,200 : 20,300 : 13,000 : 2,870 : 7,260 : 18,900: 15,200 : 5,610 : 5,850 : 9,100 : 153,500

1910 : 9,960 : 5,830 : 5,350 : 5,190 : 3,440 : 2,640 : 2,430 : 2,740: 2,660 : 3,480 : 4,500 : 5,740 : 54,000

1911 :(lO,300): (7,400) :(31,200) :. (8,000): (600): (2,500) : (32,400): ( 8,4001 (14,400):(18,800): ( 9,200): (7,200) : .(150 9400)

1912 : (5,700): (3,100) :(31,500) : (17,600): (5,500): (1,4001 : (15,800): 6,100: 5,550 : 5,340 : 5,120 : 5,060 : 107,600

1913 : 4,920 : 4,720 : 17,800 : 22,600 : 9,720 : 4,190 : 3,010 : 8,240: 8,210 : 11,900 : 14,500 : 9,590 : 119,400

1914 : 10,800 : 13,300 z 16,400 : 11,900 : 7,990 : 4,860 : 48,600 : 27,200: 16,800 : 29,800 : 24,200 : 78100 : 290,000

1915 :(52,5001: 34,300 : 77,500 : 81,200 : 33,800 : 13,400 : 28,900 : 22,700: 12,100 : 9,250 ; 6,840 : 8,220 : 380,700

1916 :(75,000):(35,000) :(36,000J : (8,500)g(16,400):(10,800) : ( 5,800): 34,000: 50,600 ;(75,000): 9,920 : 9,240 : 366,300

1917 :(60,000): 19,600 : 32,900 : 24,000 $ 13,500 : 6,600 z 4,910 : 4,670: 3,550 : 3,470 : 3,380 3,980 g 180,600

1918 : 5,130 : (3,600) :(10,000) : 4,330 : 4,240 : 3,320 : 2,460 : 5,230: 2,790 : 6,300 : 6,320 : 9,700 : 63,400

1919 $ 8,020 : 15,600 : 43,900 : 59,100 : 22,700 : 8,460 : 31,300 : 17,100: 10,300 : 6,470 : 7,850 : 12,400 : 243,200

Moan : : : : : : : : : :j232,000J

Bun-off of San Francisco Rivor at A]ma, N. J.

A tabulation of the run-off of the San Francisco River at the

A].na Reservoir site has been prepared covering the years 1905 to

Sept. 30, 1917. The records are not complete coverin, this period.

but in order to canpiete the table, estimates have been made covering

the missing months fran the best avai1&1 data.

During tIn years 1905 to 1910 inclusive, the gaging station

was located, one-half mile below Alma. This station was discontinued

on August 12, 1911. The record for 1911, hoever, is not used in

this tabulation for the reason as stated in Water Supply Paper No. 309

"Owing to the shifting character of the channel and. lack of sufficient

measurements, estimates of discharge cannot be made."

On August 1]., 1912, a station was established 1-b- miles below

Alma at the entrance of the canyon, which is a short distance above the

dansite. This station was maintained to February 24, 1914. As to the

accuracy of the measurements at this station, the following is quoted;

(Water Supply Paper No. 359 for 1913) "Estimates poor owing to shifting

bed.," and. (Water Supply Paper No. 369 for 1914) "Owing to shifting bed.

and lack of a sufficient number of nasurements of discharge, the

results at this station are poor." From August, 1912, to January, 1914,

a station was maintained. at this same point under the direction of the

State Engineer of New. Hexico and the records are published. in ttSurface

Water Supply of New ixioo 1888 to 1917." There is nothing stated. in

this publication as to the accuracy of these measurements.

Subsequent to January 1914 no records vro 1ept on the Sari Fran-

cisco River except at Clifton, which is near the mouth of the river,

- 52 -

and. in the following tabulation estimates have been made from this

station for the flow at A3.ma.

All figures shown in parentheses in this tabulation have been

estimated, the method adopted in each case being described as follows:

November and. Icember, 1905, the records vere not complete at the

A1m station and, the flow has been estimated as tue fraction 1/2.2 of

the flow at Cliff on the upper G-ila River. This fraction or relation

of the flow beten Alma and. Cliff or Red, Rock, which is practically

the same as Cliff, s determined, by the .Arrny Board in its report Of

February 25, 1914, br comparing synchronou.s readings at the two stations.

study has here been made also of this relation by comparing the

drainage areas of these tw stations. The area above Bed. Rook (See

Water Supply Paper No. 389) is 3,500 square miles and, that above the

Alma station (Water Supply Paper No. 309) is 1,670 square miles,

of the former is 2.1 times the latter, which verifies to a very nice

degree the conclusions reached by the Army Board, which s based

entirely upon the relative flows rather than the drainage areas. The

drainage area above Alma has been here checked. and. found to be 1,700

square miles as compared. with 1,670 as above stated and. also the area

above the Cliff station has been here measured and found to be 3,400

square miles, as compared with 3,500 square miles above Red, Book as

above stated,. The drainage area between these t'o stations is com-

paratively small and, therefore a fairly good. check is made on this area.

The present computation of area is made upon U. S. G. S. quadrangle

maps as far as they are available and, upon a small scale map prepared

by the U. S. Indian Service, in connection with Olberg Report, for the

- 53

balance of the area.

January, 1907, was estimated by the Army Board. as shown On page

21]. of its report, from part records at the Alma station.

The year 1908 has no records of flow on the Gila or San Francisco

Buyers and, the flow is therefore estimated. from the Army Board's estimate

at San Carlos, as described, i.md,er the cUscussion of "Bun-off of Gila

Buyer at fled flock" in this report, namely, the San Carlos flow is equal

to 12o of Alma plus Bed. flock, and Bed Bock is equal to 2.2 times the

flow at Alma.

1911 and. January to AugList, inclusive, 1912, has been estimated.

from the records at fled flock by divicUng the latter by 2.2 as above

described..

As previously stated, there are no records at Alma after January,

1914, and. in order to complete the table to a later date, estimates

have been made from the discharge records at Clifton. A. considerable

study has been. here made in order to arrive at a relative ratio bet'een

the flows at these tw stations and, in so doing it has developed that

there is. an evident error either in the records at Alma or in those

at Clifton. This s discovered by the Army Board In its study of the

various stations ot' the stream in making a comparison for the year 1910,

which is expressed on Page 111 0±' the Army Board report in the follow-

ing language: "but the Alma record (for 1910) seems erroneous in gage

height, or gage reading or in rating. Only four times during the year

s the discharge measured, one time giving a discharge of 28 second-

feet for a gage height of 0.96 foot, and, another giving 7.8 second-feat

for a gage height of 1.95, or a foot higher than before. That the

Alma discharge for 1910 mnst be erroneous is further evidenced by

syuchronous observations further down the river at Clifton, from October

23 to December 31. Alma anounts to only about a fourth of

the flow at Clifton." The Array Board, as is seen in this statement,

assumes the error to be in the Alma readings, which may or may not be

the case. A further comparison o± the flow at these two stations is

here made, as follows: Year 1910 (two months) Clifton equals 3.6 times

Alma. 1912 (two months) Clifton equals 4.75 times A].ma. 1913, (except

April) Clifton equals 4.6 t1ns Alma. 1914, (January) Clifton equals

3.65 times Alma. Mean of the above, Clifton, equals 4.]. times A].xna.

It is not apparent vthy there should be such a large difference as this

in. the flow at these twv stations, and in comparing the accuracy of the two

stations, above was quoted the accuracy statements of the Alma station,

and quoting from Water Supply Por No. 409 for 1915, regarding the

Clifton station, the following is noted: "Because of shifting control

and, lack of dischar measurements at high stages, records are poor

except for May, August and. September, for which they aie fair." It

apears then, that both stations are more or less subject to error and.

it is difficult from this todetermino which is the better, though

especially as to the later records at Clifton, it is believed that

greater vight should be given to these than. to the older records

at Alma.

A comparison Is also here made of the drainage areas above the

Clifton and, Alma stations, with the result of 3,000 square miles above

Clifton and, 1,700 square miles as previously stated., above Alma, or

the area above Clifton is 1.75 times that above Alma. This ratio of

area is greatly at variance with the relation in flow as above stated.

- 55 -

With these two ratios in mind,, namely, the ratio of area. and the ratio

of flow and, also considering the ratio of both flow and area. between

Red. Rook and. Alma of 2.2, a study has been made of the probable flow

at Alma based. upon those variouz metbod.s of calculation, using periods

at which s,yilchroxious measurements were taken at the stations under

consideration. The results of these stu&tes are shov in the first

three columns of the following table and the fourth column Is added.

showing a ratio., of 1/2.5, which Is nearly a mean betweon. the ratios

of area and run-off and which reaches practically the same result as

the ratio of lJ22 between Bed. Bock and. Alma. This ratio, 1/2.5, Is

here adopted in computing the discharge a.t .PJma as it is nearly In.

harmony with the fled Rook-Alma ratio, which latter, as stated. above,

has been corroborated. so far as can be, and the 1/2.5 ratio gives a

little more weight to the Clifton records rather than to the Alma,

as the former are believed. to be more accurate.

Comparative ResultsBy 'Different

1/1.75 of:Year : Clifton : j Of

-5G-

of figuring Alma FlowLthod.s.

: 1/2.2 :Clifton: of Bed. Book.:

1/2.5of Clifton

.

The months of January, February ani. March, 1916 are not cap1eto

for the Clifton station so the ratio 1/2.2 has been applied. to the Bed.

Bock readings to detexnine the flow at Alma.

1914 : 192,000 76,500 132,000 : 122,000

1915 : 330,000 : 130,000 173,000 208,000

1916 l50000 66,000 : 100,000 : 106,000Ezc.Jan.Peb. & :

1917 : 77 500 : 34,000 77,000 55,000(Jan. to Seit. :

Totals ., 749500 : 306500 482.000 ..j 491.000

The run-off record at the A]na Beservoir Site as above dscribed

is tabulated on the following page.

57-.

Run-off of San Francisco River at Alma, Now Mexico(Drainage Area 1,670 square miles)

Not 08:1905 (Nov. and Dec.) Estimated by dividing flow at Cliff for missing dateg by 2.2 (See Ar* Board. report p.110)

1907 (Jan.) Estimated (See Arnr Board report p.111)1908 - Estimated. - See Note under Red Rock run-off table for 1908,1911 & 1912 (Jan. to Aug.) 8stimated. by dividing Red. Rock estimate by 2.2.1914 (Except Jan.). 1915, 1916 (exoept Jan. Feb. and Mar.), and 1917 (to Sept.) estimated. as 1/25 flow at Clifton.1916 (Jan. Feb. and. Mar.) estimated as 1/2o2 times flow at Red. Rock.

- 58 -

Year : Jan. s Feb. : Mar. : Apr. : Msy : June : July : Aug. : Sept. : Oct. Nov. : Doe. : TotalI I : : : : * : : : :

19051906

,

:

17,340 : 43,8702,930 : 12,300

,

:

79,260 :32,000 :

72,830 :13,900 :

16,540,

2,610:1,297 :

226 :

1,463 :1,870 *

3,486 :3,770 :

10,120 : 2,804 :(3,220 $ 726 g

34,500)1,360

t:

(16,000)36,900 :

299,500111,800

1907 g (51,200): 31,800 : 19,1O0 : 10,000 : 4,880: 2,030 : 4,970 : 16,800 : 7,440 : 5,630 : 4,860 : 4,210 : 162,9001908 x (8,000)g(20,000) : (11,000): (10,000): (2,500) (00): (8,500): (13,000): ( 3,000): (1,500): (3,0001 : ( 1,700) : ( 82,200)

1909 : 6,400 : 4,700 : 24,500 : 19,300 : 1,680: 411 ; 3,940 : 5,880 : 4,170 : 775 : 714 : 1,830 : 74,300

1910 : 3,840 : 1,460 : 1,240 : 738 : 00: 00 : 31 : 640 : 559 : 787 : 1,080 : 1,490 : 11,900

1911 : (4,700): (3,400) : (14,200): (3,600): (300) (19100): (14,600): (3,800): (6,500): (8,500): (4,200) : ( 3,300) : ( 68,200)1912 : (2,600) (1,400) : (14,400): (8,000): (2,500) (600): (7,200): (2,800): 2,210: 2,240j, 90& * 1,090 : (45,900)

1913 : 1,140 : 1,490 : 3,280 : 3,760 : 497, 00 : 565 : 3,650 : 1,480 : 1,750 : 1,800 : 1,510 : 20,900

1914 : 1,260 : (1,500) : (3,700): (1,100): (1,000) (900): (12,000), (7,200): (4,700):(13,200): (10,200) : (65,000) * 121,800

1915 : (27,5O0)(28,O0OJ : (52,400): (53,600): (11,600) (3,800): (16,200): (5,600): (3,300): (2,200): ( 1,900) : (2,100) : (208,200)

19161917

:

:

(34,000):(16,000J(11,600): (8,500)

:

:

(16,400):

( 9,8001:

(16,000):(8,400):

(9,200)(5,000)

(1,400),(1,800):

(3,400):(3,400) :

(8,700):(2,800):

(7,800):(51,800):(2,700):

(4,200) :

I(3,100) : (172,000)

Moan : . . . : : : I (115,000)

torae and, Annual Draft - Sen, Garlos Beservoir.

A considerable study ha been. given to the question of required avail-

able storage and, allowable annual draft by previous investigators of the

San Caries project, and, their findings are here briefed as follows:

J. B. Liopincott, 1900 (Water Supply Paper ITo. 33), P.69. "Total amount

turned, out of reservoir for irrigation, 253,466 a.f. "From a

study of the water supply * * * a dam 130 feet in height, storing

241,396 a.f. is justified." It is evident from this that Mr. Lippineott

did. not figure on any considerable hold-over capacity In the reservoir,

and. it is shown i the report (p.69) that a full supply was planned for tho

lowest year then of record (year ending Oct.3].,1899), with a hold-over at

the end, of the year of 96,000 a.f.

The Army Board, in. Its report of Feb. 25, 1914, made an extensive

study by diagrams of the behavior of' reservoirs of various capacities under

different consumptlons as to annual draft. Seven of the most representative

of these diagrams were published in their report (pp.35 to 41), and, their

findings and conclusions are quoted from p. 32 of the report as follows:

"Diagram No. 1 shows that a reservoir Ipt by some d.esiltin.gprocess at a capacity of 600,000 re-feet iould, have fu.rnis.bed 200,000acre-feet iearly throughout the period 1898-1904.

"Diagram No. 2 shows that a reservoir kept b:i some d.esiltingprocess at a. capacity of 600,000 acre-feet would not have furnished,250,000 acre-feet i 1903 or 1904.

" Diagram No. 3 shows that a reservoir 1pt by some desiltingprocess at a capacity of 500,000 acre-feat would have furnished 200,000acre feet throughout the perIod 1898-1904, except for a slight deficiencyi 1904.

"Diagram No. 4 shows that the 500,000 acre-feet reservoir would, nothave supplied 250,000 acre-feet i 1902, 1903, or 1904.

"Diagram No. 5 shows that a reservoir ]pt by some desiltingprocess at 400,000 acre-feet capacity would not have furnished. 200000acre -feet throughout the period.

- 59 -

"From a stud.y of these &tagrns the board. concludes that thelargest quantity of water on which it would be safe to count, year Inand. year out,, is 200,000 acre-feet; and, that to deliver this quantitythe storage capacity of the reservoir must be maintained, at 500,000acre-feet."

Mr. P. W. Hanna in his report of June 8, 1914, prepared a

"gydrograph of Available ter Supply for San Canoe Project of 62,500

acres Based. on a Duty at the Points of Diversion of 4 acre Feet." This

Is equivalent to an.annual draft of 250,000 acre feet. The Hydrograph

covers the period 1895 to 1912, Inclusive. It is based on a reservoir

capacity at the beginning of the period of 710,000 ad., which reduces

on account of silt deposit at the rate of 4,000 ad. per annum.

Mr. Eanna concludes that,

"The suppositions indicate a sufficient water supply. for thetoi of years comsidered. with the exception of 1895, 1903, and 1904.The deficits for these years are as follows: 1895, 12.2%; 1903,27.2%;1904, 53.4%. The shortage In. 1904 Is very large and is about aslow as oould. well be In. an Irrigation project. It wou.ld.. appear,tJrefore,L that on the assumptions used, a project of about 60,000to 65,000 acres would be the maximum for the water stp1y available."

C. fl. Olberg, in. his report of Nov. 1, 1915, discovered that

the high and, low flow o± the G-ila River ran in nine year cycles, and.

that the mean annual run-off during one cycle was approximately

350,000 ad., and he concludes that the amount avcilable should be

based on this mean.

Mass curves vero prepared for the Olberg report (but not pub-

lished), showing the behavior of reservoirs of various capacities under

annual drafts ranging from 200,000 to 310,000 acre-feet. A study and.

discussion is entered into in considerable detail under the varying

conditions and, assumptions, and, the findings and conclusions are

briefed from ppa 29 to 3]. of the report as follows:

- .60 -

"On account of the necessity of storing two or three years' supply,a reservoir impounding 714,450 a.f. witha dam 100 feet high to thecrest of the spillwa.y was chosen.

"flegard.lesB as to whether we use a 200,000 a.f. or a 300,000 a.f.draft, the diagram shows plainly the necessity of providing ample hold-overcapacity and, it also appears that 500,000 a.f as assed b the Azn.y

Board should be the minim capacity of the reservoir."The Army Board. has based its calculations of the annual d.raft

on the critically dry period; which nans that there is a full watersupply guaranteed to the lands during a riod as dry as the driest onrecord.

"Considering all phases of the annual draft problein it is believedthat it would be better to reap the benefit o± the annual water supplydnring a greater portion of the time and to assume the risk of failure in.unusually dry years than to provide for a much more limited use of thewater at all times in order to insure against possible droughts dnringexceti onal years.

"The permissible annual draft of a practicable reservoir at San.Carlos, based on our present 1aowled.ge, should therefore lie between300,000 a.f. as an upper and. 250,000 a.f. as a lower limit. A greaterdraft would not be ter,nissible, thile a smaller draft would fail toutilize the possibilities of the 'oject.t'

Estimates of cost are prepared in the Olberg report on the

basis of an. annual draft of both 300,000 and 250,000 a.f. but the former

draft is advised.

It is. interesting to note that in the above conclusions, with

one exception, the later the date of the report, the higher is the

recommended annual draft. The one exception is the Lippincott report,

and. this can be explained by the fact that the report was written prior

to the low vter period of 190]. to 1904.

In the present study of anniw'l draft and required storage, later

run-off records are available, and. these records have tended to increase

the moan. an.nualrun-off. They do not, however, help out the low period of

1901 to 1904, except to give increased confidence In the probability

that such a high rwa-of±' period as has more recently been. experienoed.

occurred prior to the beginning of the run-off record, and at such a time

and. quantity as to furnish sufficient hold-over storage on Jan.. l

- 61 -.

1895 to tide over the period of low years.

In. all previous reports Only a comparatively na1l hold-over

storage capacity has been considered; and. in all cases it has been. assumed

that the reservoir was empty at the beginning of the run-off record., or

Jan. 1, 1895, wtiichmu.st be a&uitted. may or may nothavo been the case

had. sufficient storage capacity been provided. Mr. Olberg touched

upon the possibility of there being hold-over at the beginiiizg of the

record, but stated. that a fu.11 reservoir on that date would. have but

little e±'feot in. helping out the low years of 190]. to 1904. This is

admitted to be the case with a storage no larger than pland by Mr.

Olberg, as there would be spill in. 1896 and 1897. It would. not be

true, however, with a 1arer storage.

In view of the above, therefore, the present study is based. On

a larger annual draft, namely, 320,000 a.f. than was considered in

previous report.a, and in two of the three cases here considered, a

larger reservoir is planned. The results of these stwlies are tabulated

in the following "San Carlos Beservoir" tables, Nos. 1, 2 and. 3.

Table No. 1 has been wor1d out in. detail in bi-nonthly periods

for the entire period. of record. The reservoir capacity adopted in

this study is 2,420,000 a.f., or to contour 2568 (depth at dam 260 ft.),

which is arly the heigit to which the reservoir survey was recently

made. It is the purposd of this study to o onsicler the maximum probable

reservoir capacity. The table is based. on the assumption of an empty

reservoir on Jan.. 1, 1895; and. the an.iau.al deficiencies resu1ting the:re-

from are summarized, at the end of tAB table.

The monthly irrition draft and. evaporation as used. In. these

tables are hereinafter d.iscussed. under the subjeots of "luty of

- 62 -

Water" and. "Evaporation.."

Table No. 2 has been computed. under the swne assumptions, except

as to capacity, as Table No. 1; except that it has not been worked out

in. bi-nonthly periods, as it was found. by platting Table No. 1 in

a Mass Curve that generally to assume the draft plus the evaporation

as a straight line for the year would not change the result. Where

there are exceptions to this the year has been appropriately divided..

The reservoir ca:pacity adopted in this table is 715,000 a.f. (180 ft.

depth), which is the seme depth as that adopted by both the army Board.

and by Olberg. An examixiation of this table discloses the fact that

und.er the same assumption as to an empty reservoir on Jan. 1, 1695,

the deficiencies under a reservoir of 715,000 a.f., are thsame asunder a reservoir of 2,420,000 ad.; and, also, that this would be

further reduced by 80,000 a.f. or to 635,000, without increasing the

deficiencies. PMs last capacity (635,000) would cause an empty

reservoir on June 30, 1914.

Table No. 3 has been. canputed. by beginning with an empty reservoir

at the end, of the low period,, or the end of 1904, and by backing up On

the assumption of sufficient hold-over each preceding year to furnish

a full supply to the year in question. This backed, up to Jan. 1,1895,

would. require a hold-over on that date of 1,270,000 a.f.; and to fully

supply the low years; a reservoir capacity would be required of

1,460,000 a.f., which would be filled in 1897. Under this assumed.

condition of hold-over and, this resarvoir oapatity there would. be no

deficiency under a 320,000 a.f. anua2 draft during the entire periodof record of 24 years.

- 63 -

As previously stated., there may or may not be an..y hold-over

available on Jan. 1, 1895; but uzid.er tho theory that ttjsto1.y repeats

itself," it would appear as probable that there was sufficient hold-over

to supply the low yaars, as that there was none available. It is

concluded, therefore, that the actual hold-over would be at some point

between these two extremes. Accepting this, then, the deficiencies as

shown in Tables 3. and, 2 would be somewhat reduced, but would. not be

eliminated.

As stated. in the Olberg report, it is believed, better to utilize

more nearly the mean runoff of the river and to run some risk of shortage

than to insure a full supply during the low years ata big sacrifice in.

acreage. This is especially true on this project on account of the

plan to secure addlltion.al water by pumping from the ground. water, and.

these pumps can be Operated more continuously during these low periods

to assist the gravity supply.

The mean an.aua1 run-off is 440,600 a.f.; and, if It be assumed.

that it is impractical to store and. utilize an. annual run-off in. excess

of 1,000,000 a.f., this mean. will reduce to about 414,000 a.f. If the

mean annual storage be then estimated at 500,000 a.f. the evaporation.

will be about 50,000 s.f., which will reduce the moan runoff avail-

able for draft to 364,000 a.f., or 44,000 a.f. In excess of the annual

draft here adopted.

If a reservoir of 715,000 a.t. available capacity be adopted,

as in. Table No. 2, the total waste for the period, of record will be

2,250,760 a.f., which would. reduce the mean available ran-off to about

346,000 a.f. This, under a 320,000 s.f. annual draft, leaves only

26,000 a.Z. for evaporation, which would be sufficient with a mean annual

storage of a little loss than. 200,000 a.f. As a matter of fact, hovor

as is shown by this table, the average evaporation is greater than this

there is some hold-over at the end. of the period, and, a shortage exists

in five years of the period.

If a. reservoir of 1,460,000 a.f. available capacity be adopted.

as in Table No. 3, arid, if the assumptions as there adopted. as to hold-

over at the beginning of the period be in accordance with the fact, there

will be a total waste during the period. of 1,177,110 s.f., which would.

reduce the mean avai].able run-off to about 391,000 s.f., aM with au

annual draft of 320,000 a0f. there is remaining 71,000 a.f. for

evaporation, which would be sufficient for a mean. annual storage of

nearly 800,000 a.f..

It is concluded, from the above that a project area under a

gravity water supply is justifiable figured. on an annual draft of

320,000 a.f.; with the understanding that a full supply is not

guaranteed during a succession of low run-off years, and that a

higher duty must prevail at such times.

Regarding the matter of available storage that should be

maintained., that is, that should, not be allowed to diminish by silt

deposit; from the results of the following three tables as above

discussed, this seems a very debatable question. The most desired con-

dition. would be as in Table No. 3, that Is, to n''intain a capacity Of

1,460,000 a.f., iIch under the condition there assumed would. furnish

a full water supply through. out the period of record. It must be

aduitted, however, that the assumption there adopted as to hold-over

storage is founded on probability rather than on fact; arid in case

- 65 -

this assumption does not conform to the fact, it is shown by comparison

Of Tab]e No. 2 With Table No. 1, that a maintained. capacity of 635,000

a.f. would, furnish the sane delivery service as one of a capacity of

2,420,000 a.f. These computations have been based on the assumption

that the entire capacity of the reservoir as shown by the capacity

table, is available for draft. It is probable, however, that the lower

irrigation outlet gates shou.]4 be o].aced. at about 50 feet above the

river bed in order to furnish power for pumping, and, this would, make

e dead storage of about 6,000 a.f., vich should be added to the above

figures. Adding this to the 635,000 a.f. would make a total of

641,000 a.f. which it is believed should be the absolute minimum

storage that should. be maintained. It is also believed. that the

minimum storage capacity that should be considered for first construct-

ion is 1,460,000 a.f. plus 6,000 a0f. for dead storage; and, that in. case

it is found feasible to do so, that this capacity should be maintained

against the Inroads of silt as a better factor of safety against low

years.

The three reservoir study tables above discussed are here

inserted, and. they have also been platted. in the form of a Mass

Diagram, which diagran appears in the appendix of this report. This

diagram shows at a glance the relation between the rnn-off and, the

draft under the d.Ifferent conditions assumed. The vertical distance

between the run-off curve an4 the draft curve represents the storage.

- 66 -

Table No. 1

Study based. on aunual draft o± 320,000 acre feet, and reservoir

capacity of 2,420,000 a.f. (260 ft. depth). Beservoir assumed to be

empty on January 1, 1895.

Period :

:

Inflow

a.f

:

:

:

:

Irriga-tionDraft

a.f.

: Mean : Evapo-: area : ration

; water::surfaOe:

: Acres: a.f.

:

:

:

Storageend. of

Period

a.f.

: Waste (: or Deft-

: ciency ()

a.f.lB5 : : :(Approx)Jan.-Peb. : 70,000 : 32,000 : 1,200 : 300 : 37,700 :

Mar.-Apr. : 5,000 : 48,000 : 1,000 : 900 : 00 : -6,200Ma.y-June : 20,000 : 73,600 : 00 L 00 : 00 : -53,600July-Aug : 112,600 : 67,200 : 1,400 : 1,500 : 33,900 :

Sept.-Oct. : 130,750 : 64,000 : 2,400 : 2,200 : 98450 :

Nov.-Ic. : 100.630 : 35.200 : 4,000 : 1,400 : 162,480 g

438,980 : 320,000 :

1896 : : : : :

Jan.-Pb. : 32,740 : 32,000 : 4,600 : 1,100 : 162,120 :

Mar.-Apr. : 23,030 : 48,000 : 4,300 : 3,700 : 133,450May-June : 2,040 : 73,600 : 3,400 : 5,200 : 56690 :

July-Aug. : 124,570 : 67,200 : 3,000 : 3,300 : 110,760 :

Sept.-Oct. : 281,860 : 64,000 : 5,700 : 5,300 : 323,320 :

Nov.-3c. 90340 : 35,200 : 8,000 : 3,000 : 375,460554,580 : : : :

1897 : : : : : S

Jau.-Peb. : 115,300 : 32,000 : 9,200 : 2,100 : 456,660 :

Ma.r.-Apr. : 76,020 : 48,000 :10,000 : 8,600 : 476,080 :

May-June : 15,180 : 73600 : 9,600 : 14600 : 403,060 :

July-Aug. : 75,480 : 67,200 : 9,000 : 9,700 401,640 :

Sept.-Oct. g 17'7,980 : 64,000 : 9,700 : 9,000 : 506,620 :

Nov.-Dec. : 5000 : 35,200 :10,200 : 3,800 : 472,620 :

: 464,960 :

1898 : : : :

Jan.-Peb. 59,660 : 32,000 :10,200 ; 2,400 : 497,880 :

Mar.-Apr. : 55,470 : 48,000 :10300 : 8,900 : 496,450 :

: 29,650 : 73,600 :10,000 : 15,300 : 437,200 :

July-Aug. : 141,610 : 67,200 :10,000 : 10,800 : 500,810 :

Sept.-Oot. : 18,830 : 64,000 :10,000 : 9,300 : 446,340 :

Nov.-Deo. : 22,290 : 35,200 : 9,400 : 3,500 : 429,930 :

327,510 : :

1899 : : : : :

Jan.-Peb. : 29,540 32,000 z 9,200 : 2,100 : 425,370 :

Iar.-Apr. : 10,510 : 48,000 : 8,900 : 7,600 : 380,280 :

May-June : 1,270 : 73,600 : 7,800 : 12,000 : 295,950 :

July-Aug. : 98,400 : 67,200 : 7,500 : 8,100 : 319,050 :

Bept.-Oct. : 39,800 : 64,000 : 7,200 : 6,700 : 288,150 :

Nov.-Dec, : 15.000 : 35,200 : 6,600 : 2,500 : 265,450 :

: 194,520 :

- 67 -

- 68 -

Table No. . - oontd..

Period. : Inflow :IrrltiOn: Area Evap. : Storage : Deflc4en&v1900Jan -Feb. : 15,000 : 32,000 : 6500 : 1,500 : 246,950Mar -Apr. : 50,300 : 48,000 : 6,300 : 5,400 : 243,850May-June 1.80 : 73,600 : 5,600 : 8,500 161,930Ju1y-Aug. : 12,220 : 67,200 : 4,000 : 4,300 : 10265OSept .-Oct. : 59,490 : 64,000 : 3,500 : 3,300 : 94,840Nov. -Dec 16.770 35,200 : 3,000 : 1,100 : 75,310

: 153,960 : :

1901Jai -Feb. : 70,270 : 32,000 : 3,300 : 800 : 112,780Mr. -Apr. : 29,730 : 48,000 : 360O : 3,100 : 9l,410 :

May-June 490 : 73,600 : 2,400 : 3,700 : 14,600 :

July-Aug. : 52,800 : 67,20O : 600 700 : : 500Sept. -Oct. : 16,750 : 64,000 : 00 : : -47,250Nov -Dec. : 20,060 : 35,20:0 : 00 : : -15,140

: 190,100 : : :

1902.Jan. -Fob : 9,200 : 32,000 : 00 : : -22,800liar. -Apr. 630 : 48,000 : 00 : : -47,370May-June. 00 73,600 : 00 : : eJ13;6O0July-Aug.Sept.-Oct.

: 50,010: 5,8Z0

:

:

67,20064,000

: 00

:

:

:

:

:

-17,190,

-58,180Nov.-Dec. : 34290 : 35,200 : : 910

: 99,950 : : : :

1903 * : :

Jan. -Feb. : 13,360 32,000 : 00 : : -18,640Mar. -Apr. : 5,210 48,000 : 00 : : .42,790May-June : 6510 : 73,600 : 00 : : -67,090July-Aug. * 62,480 : 67,200 : 00 : : -4720Sept. -Oct. * 19,820 : 64,000 : 00 : 44,180Nai-..-Dec. * 5.480 : 35,200 00 : : 9,720

* 112860 : :

1904Jan .-Peb. 3820 : 32,000 00 : 8,180Mar.-Apr. 990 : 48,000 : 00 : : : -4T,01OMar -June : 540 : 736O0 : 00 : ; -73,060July-Aug. : 67,330 : 67,200 : 00 : : 130 :

Sept.-Oct. * 64,530 : 64,000 : 00 : 660 :

Nov.-Dec. : 25;480 ; 35,200 : 00 : : -9,060* 162,690 : :

1905

Jan.-Feb. * 199,450 : 32,000 : 3,900 : 900 : 166550 :

lIar .-Apr. : 500,510 : 48,000 : 6,700 : 7,500 : 611.560 :

4r-JUne : 70,720 : 73,600 :11,700 :17,900 : 596,540 :

July-Aug. : 33,220 : 67,200 :11,3O0 :12,200 * 550,'360 :

Sept . -Oct. ; 41560 : 64,000 :10,800 :10,000 : 51792O :

Nov .-Dec. * 165620 : 35,200 :11,300 * 4,200 :644,140 :

1,011,080 :

-t

69 -

Table No. 1 - Gout.Period. : Inflow : Irrig'n : Area : Evap. : torage : Deficiency.

1906. : :Jan..-Feb. : 73,960 : 32,000 : 12,500: 2,900 : 683200:LIar.-Apr. 175,440 : 48,000 : 13,600: 10,200 : 600,440:May-June : 25,880 ; 73,600 ; 13,900: 21,300 : 731,420:July-Aug. : 47,300 : 67,200 : 13,300: 13,400 : 698,120:Bept.-Oot. : 17,320 : 64,000 : 12,600: 11700 : 639,740:Nov.-Deo. : 86,780 : 35,200 : 12,500: 4,600 : 686,720:

426,680 : :1907. : : : :Jan.-Peb. : 306,000 :. 32,000 : 14,500: 3,300 : 957,420:kar.-Apr. : 112,920 : 48,000 : 1b,000: 13,800 : 1,008,540:kay-June : 34,690 : 73, bOO : 10,000: 24,500 : 945,130:July-Aug. : 68,120 : 67,200 : 15,600: 16,800 : 929,250:Sept.-Oct. : 70,880 : 64,000 : 15,500: 14400 : 921730:Nov.-Dec. ; 43,280 : 35,200 : 15,400: 5,700 924,110:

635,890 : :1908. : :Jan.-Feb. : 102,000 : 32,000 : 15,700: 3,600 : 990,510:Mar.-Apz'. : 80,000 : 48,000 : 16,000: 13,800 : 1,006,710:May-June : 9,000 : '73,600 : 15,800: 24,200 : 919,910:July-Aug. : 83,000 : 67,200 : 15,400: 16,600 : 919,110:ept.-0ct. : 17,000 : 64,000 : 15,100: 14,000 : 858,110:

Nov.-Doo. : 47,000 : 35,200 : 14,900: 5,500 : 864,410:: 338,000 :

1909. : : : : :Jan..-Peb. : 29,200 : 32,000 : 14,900: 3,400 : 858,210:Mar.-.pr. : 127,560 : 48,000 : 15,00: 13,100 924670;May-Juile : 21,550 : 73,600 : 15,200: 23,200 : 849,420:.July-Aug. : 43,180 : 67,200 : 14,600: 15,800 : 809,600:Sept.-Oct. : 30,910 : 64,000 : 14,100: 13,100 : 763,410:Nov.-Dec. : 20,990 : 35,200 : 13,700: 5,100 : 744,100:

273,390 :1910. : : : :Jan.-Pob. 40,140 : 32,000 : 13,600: 3,100 : 749,140:kar.-Apr. : 20,060 : 48,000 13,400: 10,200 : 711,000:May-June : 6,690 : 73,600 : 12,100: 19,400 : G24690:July-Aug. : 8,550 : 67200 : 11,500: 12,400 : 553640:Bept.-Oct. : 13,130 : 64,000 : 10,600: 9,800 : 492,970:Nov.-Dec. ; 21,380 : 35,200 : 10,200: 3,800 : 47535Ø:

: 109,950 :1911. : : : : :Jan..-Feb. : 46,900 : 32,000 : 10,000: 2,300 : 487,950:Lar.-Apr. : 133,810 : 48,000 : 10,700: 9,200 : 564,560:May-June : 3,810 : 73,600 : 10,700: 16,400 : 478,370:July-Aug. : 73,430 : 67,200 : 10,000: 10,800 : 473800:Sept.-Oct. : 83,930 : 64,000 : 10,100: 9400 : 484,330:Nuv.-Dec. : 33,880 : 35,200 : 10,100: 3,700 : 479,310:

: 375,760 :

293,670

; Storage : Deficiency

464,570: 574,780: 525560: 533,660: 499,300: 489,780

480,030489,560

: 423,200: 367,100

339,750: 353,610

: 357,510: 342,280: 262,210

313210 :

350,110

: 736,860

1,069,260: l,4542&0: 1,428,260: 1,424,060 :

: 1,360,000g 1,335,010

: 2,273,210: 2,420,000: 2,328,610: 2,283500: 2,420,000: 2420,000

2,420,000: 2,420,000: 2,311,820: 2,152,300: 2,152,300: 2,115,470

S z

- 70 -

S

S

21,910

13,t500

1,200

128,5002300

Table No. 1 - cant.Period. : Inflow Irrig'n. Area Evap.

1912Jan.-Peb. 19,560 32,000 9,900 2,300iUar.-Apr. : 167,310 : 48,000 : 10,600 : 9,100May - June : 41480 73,600 : 11,000 : 16,600July-Aug. 86,900 : 67,200 10,700 11,600Sept.-Oct. : 39,630 : 64,000 : 10,600 : 9,900Nov.-Dea. : 29390 35,200 : 10,300 : 3,800

: 383,9701913 :

Jan.-?eb,.uar.-Apr.

24,650: 66,330 :

32,00048,000

10,20010,200

,

:

2,4008,600

kay- June : 22,240 73,600 : 9,800 : 15,000July-Aug. 20,700 : 67,200 8,900 : 9,600Sept.-Oct. : 44,350 64,000 : 8,200 ; 7,700Nov.-1c. : 52,060 : 35,200 : 8,000 3,000

: 230,330 :.

1914Jan.-Feb. 37,800 : 32,000 8,200 : 1,900Mr.-Apr. 39i70 48,000 : 8,200 ; 7,000May-June : 483O 73,600 : 7,400 : 11,300July-Aug. 125,800 : 67,200 7,000 : 7,600Sept.-Oot. 108,200 ; 64,000 7,800 : 7,300Nov.-Dec. : 425,950 : 35,200 : 10,800 : 4,000

: 742,350 :

1915Jan.-Peb. 368,000 : 32,000 15,700 3,600iIar.-Apr. 450000 48,000 19,700 1 17,000i:a,y-June : 81,000 : 73,600 : 21,800 : 33,400July-Aug. : 86,500 67,200 : 21,700 : 23,500Sept.-Oct. : 20,000 : 64,000 : 21,600 g 20,000Nov.-Ic. : 17,850 35,200 : 20,800 ; 7,700

: 1,023,350 :

1916Jan.-Peb. : 976,000 32,000 : 25,000 : 5,800Mar.-Apr. j 242,300 : 48,000 ; 29,800 25,600May-June 28,210 : 73,600 30,000 : 46,000Ju1y-Augst : 53,890 : 67,200. : 29,400 ; 31,800Sept.-Oct. : 241,800 : 64,000 ; 29,800 : 27,800Nov.-Deo. : 47,600 35,200 : 30,200 : 11,200

589, 8001917

: 167,500 32,000 : 30,200 7,000Mar.-Apr. : 76,300 ; 48,000 : 30,200 ; 26,000May-June : 1]. 420 73,600 : 30,000 46,000July-Aug. 25,100 : 67,200 : 2,000 : 31,500Sept.-Oot. : 4,580 64,000 28,300 : 26,500Nov.-Deo. :_Q,770 : 35,200 : 28,000 : 1040O

Period. : Infloy1916.Jau.-Feb. : 24,500Mar.-Apr. : 19,070May-June : 2,810July-Aug. : 24,930

Year

1895

1901

1902

1903

1904

PaJle N. 1 Cont.: Ihjg'n. : Area

S

: 32,000 : 27,800:: 48,000 : 27,500;: 73,600 : 26,800:

67,200 26,000:

Note: Annual deficiencies of 'ter stp1y at San Canoe reservoir d.u.ningthe period. 1895 to 1918, based. on a th'aft of 320,000 a.f. per annum; a netevaporation loss of 5 feet in depth per annum; no seepage loss in reser-voir; and, on ti assumption of an empty reservoir at the beginning of t1study-, or Jan.. 1, 1895, are as follows:

Deficiency.ore-foet

59,600

62,900

220,000

207, 100

157,300

Total (z year period) : 707,100

71

vap. : Storage : ficiencj

6,400 2,101,570:23,600 : 2,049,040:41,000 : 1,937,250:28,000: 1,866,980:

Deficiencyter cent

9 1?

64. 5Q

49. o

Table No. 2.

SAN CA.RLC RSV0IB.

Stu&y based. on annual draft of 320,000 acre-feet and reservoir

Capacity of 715,000 (180 Beservoir assuned to bea.f. ft. depth).

empty On. January 1, 1895.

wastotj-)Irrigation : vapora- Storage end. : ]ficiency (-)

Period. : Inflow :. Drai't : tion : of period :

; a.f. : a.f. a.f. : a.f. a.f.

1895 : 438,980 : 320,000 : 6,300 : 162,480 - 59,8001896 : 554,580 320,000 21,600 375,460].897 : 464,960 : 320,000 : 47,800 : 472,6201898 : 327,510 : 320,000 : 50,200 429,9301899 : 194,520 : 320,000 39,000 : 265,4501900 : 153,960 : 320,000 24,100 : 75,3101901 : 190,100 320,000 8,300 : 00 - 62,9001902 : 99,950 320,000 : 00 : 00 : - 220,0001903 : 112,860 : 320,000 : 00 : 00 - 207,0001904 : 162,690 : 320,000 00 : 00 - 157,3001905 : 1,011,080 320,000 : 52,700 : 644,140 :

1906.Jan.-Peb. 73,960 : 32,000 : 2,900 : 683.200Mar.-Apr. 175,440 : 4-8,000 : 11200 : 715,000 : 4- 84,440Liay-Ju.e : 25,880 : 73,600 : 20,000 : 647,280July-Aug. : 47,300 : 67,200 13,000 : 614,380Sept.-Oct : 17,320 : 64,000 : 11,200 : 556,500Nov.-Dec. 86,780 35,200 : 4,400 : 603,680

1907 ; 635,690 320,000 : 61,000 : 715,000 :-t 2435701908 : :

Jan.-Apr. : 182,000 : 80,000 : 14,000 : 715,000 : -i- 88,000May-c. 156,000 240,000 : 49,000 : 582,000

1909 : 273,390 : 320,000 : 55,000 : 480,4001910 : 109,950 : 320,000 43,000 227,3001911 : 375,760 : 320,000 32,000 251,1001912 ; 383,970 320,000 : 34,500 : 260,6001913 230,330 : 320,000 : 30,600 : 160,3001914. :

Jan.-June : 82,400 153,600 : 10,400 : 78,700July-Dec. : 659,950 l66400 19,000 : 553,250

1915 : 1,023,350 : 320,000 : 60000 715,000 vt' 461,5501916 : 1,589,800 : 320,000 : 66,000 : 715,000 41,203800191'?. :

Jan..-Apr. 243,800 : 80,000 14400 : 715,000 :- 149,400May-!o. : 49,870 : 240,000 46000 : 478,8701918-Jan-Aug. 71,310 : 220,800 : 33,400 296,000

*

- 72 -

Note: The figures in th table are the sanie as in Table NO. 1 prior

to 1906. The deficiencies for a 320,000 a.f. draft are therefore no

greater for a reservoir of 715,000 a.f. than for a reservoir of 2,420,000

a.f. capacity during the period, of record.. If the capacity ro reduced.

another 80,000 a.f., or to 635,000 a.f. the reservoir would be npty

in June 1914, but the deficiencies would not be increased.

- 73 -

Table No. 3

2N CABLOS BSV0IB.

Study based on aaual d.raft of 320,000 a.f., and an assumption of

suffjjent storage on Jan. 1, 1895, to furnish full supply through low

years of 1901 to 1904 To meet this requirement, a storage of 1,270,000

a.±. is required on Jan. 1, 1695, and a reservoir capacity of 1,450,000

a.f. is required.

Note: Years 1905 to 1915, inclusive, figures in this table same as inTable No. 1.

Prom this table it is seen that with a maintained available capacity

of 1,460,000 s.f. and with an anni i], draft of 320,000 4.f. there

- 74 -

Period Inflow :7.

Irrige.ti on

Drafta. fe

:

vap0a-tiona.f0

:

:

:

;

Storage endof period

a.f.

: Waste (i-)

: Deficiency (-j:

a.f.1894 : : 1,269,3001895 : 438,960 : 320,000 : 100,000 : 1,288,300 :

1696 : 554,580 : 320,000 : 102,000 : 1,420,850 :

1897 : 464,960 : 32 0,000 : 106,000 : 1,457,800 :

1898 : 327,510 : 320,000 : 104,000 : 1,361,300 :

1899 : 194,520 : 320,000 : 95,000 : 1,140,800 :

1900 : 153 960 : 320,000 85,000 : 689,800 :

190]. : 190,100 : 320,000 71,000 : 688,9001902 : 99,950 : 320,000 : 54000 : 414,8001903 : 112860 : 320,000 : 35,400 : 172,300 :

1904 : 162,690 : 320,000 : 15,000 : 00 :

1905 : 1,011,080 : 320,000 : 52,700 : 644,140 :

1906 : 426,680 : 320,000 : 64,100 : 686,720 :

1907 : 635,890 : 320,000 78,500 : 924,110 :

1908 : 338,000 : 320,000 77,700 : 864,410 ;

1909 : 273,390 : 320,000 73,700 : 744,100 :

1910 : 109,950 ; 320,000 56,700 : 475,350 :

1911 : 375,760 : 320,000 51,800 : 479,3101912 : 38Z7 : 320,000 : 53,500 : 489,780 :

1913 : 230,330 : 320,000 46,500 : 353,610 :

1914 : 742,350 320,000 39,100 : 736,860 :

1915 : 1,023,350 : 320,000 105,200 : 1,335,010 :

1916 : 1,589,800 g 320,000 : l07,T500 : 1,460,000 :+1,037,3101917: :

Jan.-Apr. : 243,800 80,000 ; 24,000 1,460,0O0 It 139,800Ma-Deo. : 49,870 : 240,000 : 83,500 : 1,186,400 :

1918: :

Ji.-Aug. : 71,310 : 220,800 ; 67,000 ; 959,900

would. be no deficiency during the period of record., on condition that

there was 1,270,000 a.f. storage on Jan. 1, 1895.

SAM C.BLOS EEVOIB.

Study extended. bk to 1891 with. floW at Sazi Car].os estimated from

record or from estimate of flow of Salt River at Roosevelt.

The incomplete records of the runoff of Salt River at Roosevelt

show a low runoff prior to the record. the Gila, back to March, 1891,

and. it is probable therefore, that the low period. of runoff of the Gila

also extended baek to that date. Just prior to March, 1891, the record

shows a big flood In the Salt. The lowest period. of this year, namely,

1892, is largely a guess as appearing in the record (w. S. Paper #73)

as during five monthe of the year there vvre no records at any point on

the river. Also for Other portions of this period the flow at Roosevelt

has been, estimated from the record at points lower down on the river.

In view of the questionable accuracy of the estimates at

Roosevelt, any estimates of the flow of the Gila based on these data

can be given but little weight. However, for that it may be worth

an estimate is here made of the flow at San Canoe for the eriod of

March, 189]. to December, 1894, by d.eteniiining the percentage relation

of the flow of the Gus to that of the Salt for all low runoff years

of the Salt subsequent to the beginning of the Gila record. High

runoff years are omitted as the relation of flow in high years is not

the same as in low and. it is a low period that is to be estimated.

- 74-a -

Low Runoff Years.Salt River at Roosevelt, and.

011a at San Carlos.

Runoff of Qua at San CanoeEstiniated. as 64% of that of Salt River

at Roosevelt.

Lth the above estinrnte of the flow at San Caries, Table No. 3,

p. 74, is here backed. up to 1, 1891, as follOws:

- 74 1,. -

Year : Salt Riverat Roosevelt

Gd.la atSan. Caries.

PercentQua of Salt

acre-feet) (acre-feet I1895 : 865,960 438,980 511896 : 399,. 120 554,590 1391897 : 835 980 464,960 551898 : 291,060 627,510 1121899 : 261,690 194,530 741900 : 153,390 153,960 1001901 : 477,700 190,100 401902 : 211,500 99,940 : 471903 : 253,680 112,860 441904 : 24.0,900 162,700 671910 z 388470 109,960 281911 761,610 375,770 491912 : 451,910 383,970 651913 : 406,900 230,330 561914 : 640,500 742,350 1161917 622,020 293,670 471918 : 413.400 10 1L6 25

452.000 291.000 64

Year Roosevelt Sari Car].os

acre-feet ) : ( acre-feet)1894 : 254,450 163,0001693 789,420 505,0001692 : 166,500 108,0001891 551,680 353000

:ar.to c.

Table No. 3 (Suup1eant)

Prom the above figures it appears that in order to guarantee a

full annual tha...t of 320,000 a.f, for the entire low period extending fr

March, 1891, to 1904, inclusive, an available reservoir capacity of

1,833,000 a.f. would be required. AS stated previously, hovver, these

early figures are based on. such rager data, it is not believed justifiable

to plan a1arr reservoir than is necessary to provide for the period.

of authentic record., or beginning with the year 1895.

- 74 0 -,

Period. : Inflow

a.f.:

Irrition:Draft :

a.f. :

vaporationa.f.

: Storage end.

of perioda.f.

1894 163,000 320,000 : 101,000 1,269,000

1893 505,000 320,000 107,0O0 1,527,000

1892 108,000 ; 320,000 : 117,000 1,449,000

1891 353,000 288,000 ; 120,000 1,778,000Mar. to Deo.):har.1, 1891. ; l,800,000

Evaporation - San Carlos Reservoir.

The Army 3oard' in. its report of Feb. 25, 1914, made a very careful

study of the question of evaporation, from the Ban Carlos reservoir, and.

the findings as appears on Pace 106 of the report are here adLpted.

The following table, to which has been ad.od. a column, of net loss per

month in feet, is copied from this report.

Net Monthly EvaporationFrom Ban Caries Reservoir.

- 75 -

1ioxit

Gross AverageEvaporation

;

:

Average :Rainfall :

;

Net Loss :Net LossIn feet

Inche $ : Inches : InchesJanuary 2.48 : 1.36 : 1.12 0.09February : 3.14 1.49 : 1.65 0614March 5 04 : 1.15 : 3.89 0.32April 6 86 : 39 : 6.47 0.54May 8.69 : 26 : 8.43 0.70June 10 08 : .1.6 : 9.92 0.83July 9.27 1.64 7 63Angust 7.81 2.55 5 26 0.44September 7.15 .99 6 16 0.51October : 5.9]. : .89 5.02 0.42November : 3. b5 .84 : 2.81 0.23December : 2.92 1.28 : 1.64 0.14

Total : 73.00 13.00 : 60.00 5.00

Annual Evaporation from San Carlos Reservoir for Ufferent

Seepag - San Caries Reservoir.

Regarding t1 question of seepage from the San ar1os Reservoir, the

A1ny Board, report, p. 28, states;

"Thero is nothing in the appearance of any part of t1 area to becovered b the reservoir to indicate that any considerable loss may beexpected from seepage. Accordingly no allowance for Seepage from thereservpir is made. Neither is excess storage in the ground. counted.upon, though this will make a certain quantity of ter avi1ab1e at lowstages when most needed."

The conclusjor reached b,7 the Army Board that there will no

seepage is a reasonably safe assumption, especially in view of the fact

that any seepa.e occurring will probably appear in the river below the

darn as return flow, and will thexfore be available for project use.

It is concluded., therefore, that there will be no seepage from

the San Canoe reservoir.

- 76 -

mean volumes; At 5 ft. d.pth er annum.

Volume inReservoir.

a.f.

:

:

AreaAcres

:

:

AnnualEvaporationa.f.

: Psrcent of: Storage Evaporation.

200,000 : 5,500 : 27,500 : 13.8400,000 : 9,000 45,000 : 11.2600,000 : 11,500 : 57,500 9.6800,000 : 14,500 : 72,500 : 9.0

1, 000,000 : 17,000 : 85,000 8.51,200,000 : 19,000 ; 95,000 7.91400,000 : 215O0 : 107,500 : 7.61,600,000 23,500 : 117,500 : 7o31,600,000 : 25,000 : 125,000 7.02,000,000 : 26,500 : 132,500 6.62,200,000 : 28,508 : 142,500 : 6.52,400,000 30,000 : 150,000 6.2

Dutg of Water

In making a study of the duty of water to be adopted. on the San

Carlos project consid.eration has been given to the available records

of use on the adjacent Salt River project, and, also to the duty as adopted.

by previous investigators as is shown by the following table. The duty

here given for the Salt River project is the mean of five years, beginning

with the year 1912-13, as is given on P. 7 of"Drainage Report, Salt River

Valley Water Users' Association, 1919, by W. B. Elliott, D. VT. rphr and.

VT. H. Code." A net duty of 2.72 s.f. f the year 1918-19 has also been

secured from the Project Ma,ager, Mr. T. B. Elliott. This is .08 a.i.

less than the previous 5-year mean, and, is consistent with the principal

of a higher duty on older projects. It is to be regretted that the receit

monthly duty on the Salt River project has not been made available for this

report. The older records of these monthly duties have been used In previous

studies of the San Carlos project, as is given by percent in the following

table, and, they are considered sufficient for the present estimate.

The monthly percentage used. by the Any Board. "are those

furnished. by the Phoenix office of the Reo1nation Service as the result of

five years' experience (1908-1912) under the Salt River project." The

duty adopted by the Army Board,, (2 a.f0 at the land.) has generally been

considered. as insufficient b. later investigators, and. it Is admitted

by the ,&riny Board that one crop project is planned, and. that "2 s.f.

is less than enough for alfalfa and most fruits."

Mr. Hanna is adopting a monthly percentage duty, "assumed that

-. 77 -

the conditions would be about the sw on this projeot as they have been

assi t.o be on the Salt River project.t' It is presumed that in selecting

an annual duty he also foll0d. the practice or the adopted duty on. the

Salt Pi.ver project, though he does not say so in his report.

Mr. 0].berg, for convenience in platting his mass curves, assumes

the draft equa1 throughout the 12 months of the. sear. He admits that

this does not conform to the fact, but concludes that it does not affect

the final result. As to the annual duty, he states that, "it would not

be sage to assume the duty of ter at more than 3 a.f. per annum, applied

to the land. This is borne out by the duty assigned to t1 neighboring

Salt River project of 3.3 a.f. per annum."

The last column of the following "Duty of Water" table shows the

monthly percentage and, the annual duty adopted for this report. The

monthly percentages have been copied from those adopted by Mr. Hanna on

the Salt River project. The riot annual duty, (3 a.f.), has been selected

to coufoi generally, to the judnent of other investigators, and. to the

use on the Salt River project; and the gross or &Iversion duty has been

computed in the following manner:

Duty at land. 3.0 a.f.

Loss in. laterals 20

Duty at heads of laterals 3.75 a.f.

Loss in main canal, in depth per dayover tted area

etted perimeter, main canal

length Ii tt

tted area it tt

Canal loss 0.34 x 300 x

- 78 -

0.34 ft.

62 feet

40 miles

300 acreS

51 C..f.

Canal capacity, 973 ft. Loss

Duty at diversion 3.95 ad., say 4 ad.The 20% loss in the lateral system is an assumed figure, but it is

believed, to be consistent with the experience of other similar lateral

systems, espeo.al1y where the ater is silt laden and. temis to puci4le

the laterals, as is the case with the Gila River water. The soil in this

valley is narally deep and, of a fine, silty, non-porous texture which

is also favorable to a small percentage of loss.

The figure, 0.34 ft. in. depth per day over the wetted area o± the main

canal, baa been chosen as it is the mean result of eight tests on the Salt

River project, as is tabulated. on p. 5 of the above mentioned. "Drainage

Report" by Elliott, Murphy and. Code. These tests vre made on different

canals and. laterals, and, on lengths ranging from 1.19 miles to 6 miles,

with an aggregate length of 28.12 miles. The loss in the various tests

ranged from 0.11 ft. to 0.74 ft. in depth per day, with a mean of 0.34 ft.

This is a surprisingly low loss, and, as the conditions are similar on

the two projects, it is believed, this argues for an unlined canal and

lateral system on the San Carlos project, except where porous, gravelly

sections may be found.

This loss in d.epth per day is closely corroborated by a limited

sot of tests of seepage losses on the San Carlos project, made by the

Irrigetion Department of the University of irina as appears in thefollowing table of "Seepage Measurements in the Florence Canal."

The loss in depth per day over the water sura'ace has been computed by

the writer from the data secured from the University. It was necessary

79

icY4/0

to figure the loss over the water suraoe, rather than the usual method.

of over the wetted area, as the latter could not be canputed. from the data

furnished. Eowevor, a correction may be applied by assuming an economical

section of canal, that is, one in which the depth of water is -- the basewidth of canal, and. tie side slopes are l- to 1. In this case tie wettedperinietod. is 1.12 times the water surface, and. app1yin this correctionto the mean loss as shown by the table, or 0.41 ft., makes a loss of0.365 ft. over the wetted area per day.

Seepa lZoasurements in the Florence Canal belowPicacj.o Reservoir.

Ipt., University of ArizonaFta secured from Irrition

gVid.th. ft. Dist-: Disckargo:At : : ance : 5/17/16 : LossPoint : : : : : Second- :Depth per d.a.

:Point: Mean.: : Second- : Feet :Over waterg : Feet : :surfaceIii1es

feetPloacho Reservoir 32 : : 19.8 :(200' below outlet) : :: 26 : 4.5 : : 2.6 0.36:Bluewator road. : 20 : : 17.2 :(near S.W.00r.Sec.30, : : : :6 S., 8 L) 16 5.0 : 2.4 : 0.49

White Bridge : 12 14.8 :(S.line Sec.32 ..7E. : : 15.5; 4.5 : : 0.5 ; 0.12Tucson Road. : 19 : : 14.3 :(xni.v,coi W line Sec 3: : 2.0 : : 0.9 :73.6E.) : : :: :Jack Rabbit road. : : : : 13.4 :(S W Cor.Sec.5,7S.6E.); : : :Di,scharge :

:5/19/16. :Pacacho Reservoir : 32 : : : 19.4 :: 26 : 4.5 : : 3.2 0.45Bluewater Road. ; 20 : : : 16.2 :: 16 ; 5.0 : : 1.2 0.25White Bri.dge : 12 : : 15.0 :a 15.5: 4.5 : : 3.0 0.71Tucson Road. : 19 : : : 12.0

PointWidth.!t. :Dist.: Discharge: lossPointMoan:L1jless 3/3120 : S.F. : Detth per da.

The above argument 0±' enail transmission loss on the Salt River

project does not Seem consistent with the figure as shown irt the followingtable, or 37.'? loss. Prom the writer's experience in the operation of

Government canals, however, he is of the belief that a substantial portiono this loss is not dna to seepage and. evaporation, but to over delivery tothe fainer. ThJs belief is substantiated by the following: In the Salt RiverValley drainage report above referred to, the authors in attempting to

explain the "wide differenoelt between the quantity diverted and the quantitydelivered, state that, "Vie believe, however, that the differonne is greaterthan actual canal losses and. that the true explanation must be in the lossaccurate methods of inaid.ng measurements of water deliveries to inctividtzal

users on. the farms, - in other words, that the water actually charged for

to individual users, has been. less than the quantities delivered."In further substa,ntiatioii of the above belief, the following

conclusion is quoted from Mr. E. A. Moritz, n.neer, TI. S. fl. S.in the March, 1920, issue of the "Reclamation Record" in which he

compiles the answers to a questionnaire ad.dressed. to all of the

Pieacho Reservoir : 39.59: 26 : 6.3 : 2.8]. : 0.28

N.W.cor.Sec.36,65,7E.: : : 36.78 :

:5/17/16Byan Lateral at head : 7.2 : : 4.77 :

: 6.85 3.2 : : 0.82 : 0.6].Ryan I.at.SE Cor.Seo26: 6.5 : : 3.95 :3s.5E. : : : :

: Mean : : 0.4].2 2 2

Government projects, as to the accuracy Of measurements of water to the

farmer. Mr. Moritz concludes that,

"In most cases the error is that the quantities shown as having been.applied, to the land. are too na11 by the percent noted noted in column(f) of Table 2. The most crmn cause for this is that the farmer isusually given good measure in. water delivered, and is not charged for thefull amount."

In column (f), Table 2, above quoted, under the Salt River project,

is given the figures io% to 15%. If the mean of this were deducted from the

loss of 37.7% sho for the Salt River project, the result would substantiate

the percentage loss, hare adopted for the San Canoe project, Dr 25%, as

given in the following table.

The above wetted perimeter and. capacity of the main canal have been

tain from the canal planned and partly constructed in. 1914 by the Casa

Grand.e Water Users' Association, iich cstruction can probably be

utilized in. the present plan. The properties of this proposed canal,

as appearing on p. 158 of the Olberg report, are as follows: Base

width, 40 ft.; depth of vtor 6 ft.; side slopeS,l to 1; grade 2 ft.

'oer mile; capacity 957 s.f. The capacity has been here recomputed

with the following assumptions and, results: S . .00038; N .025;

ve1ocity3.31 ft. per second,; capacity..973s.f.

As to the sufficiency of this canal for the project planned.,

it may be said that In. order to carry 320,000 a.f. per annum with a

maximum requirement of 12% In. 30 d.ays, would require a capacity of

640 S.f. or the above canal is LIore than ample. It Is believed,

however, that In. order to ta1 advantage of the floods from the

San Pedro River and other streams in below t1 reservoir, and, also

- 82

of the spill from the reservoir, the above canal 0±' 973 s.f. capacityis justifiable.

The various dnties of ater considered in the study of the San Carics

project, and. the duty adopted. in this report are tabulated as follows:

Duty of Water for San Carlos Pro.jeot,:*Salt River: Army : L 0. : F. W. : O.R. : Present

Month : Project : Board ;Leihton: Hanna :O1ber: stimate: ; ad0 : :a.f:5 2 a.f: b :a.f: :af: a.f.

January ; 4.7 2 4 ; ; ; ; 4Pebr.iarr : : 2 5.4 : : 5 : : 6 : : " : : 6Mah : : 9.Og : 7 : 6 " : 6_A.pril : i l.2: 9 : : 9 : : " : : 9 :

May : : :10.6: :14 : : .1 : : : '1 11June : : : 8.7: :14 : : 12 : : : : 12 :July : : : 9.7: :13 : : : : " : '1 11 :

Au&tst : : :12.8: :13 : : 10 : : " : : 10 :September : : :10.12 :11 : 10 : : 10October 2 : : 6.4: : 8 : : 10 : : " : : 10Noventhor : 6.6 : 2 : 7 : : " : : 7 :

Deceniber 2 :4.8: : 2 : : 4 :_j.. " : 4

Total {Net) ;100; 2.8 :c 2.8: 3.0:1 3.21003.O : 3.0Trazianissjon. : : : : : : : : : : :

Loss :37.7 1.7 ; 20 :0,5: 30; 1.3: 20 :0.8: 20 5; 25 1.0Dttyat : : : : : : : : :Diversion 2 4.5 : :2.5: : 4o3: :4.0: :3.': : 4.0

* Mean of 5 Years L1913-18)

Appropriations and Water Availablefor San Canoe Project.

There has never been a general ad.jud.ication of the ter rightsof the Gila River, and this fact has been considered by previous in-

vesti&ators as an obstacle in the way of the feasibility of the 8ev. Carlosproject. This view is expressed by the Army Board in its "Recommenda-

tions" in the following ]an&ua&e:

- 83 -

The Board. recommends, "ia) That the San Carlos irrigation projóct,as described. in this report, be ad.opted. and. carried. out by the UnitedStates, provided it shall appear, either as the result of an. adjud.Ioatiouor of canpetont legal opinion, as Congress may elect, that the legallyavailable water supply is sufficiently close to that assumed. in thisreport to make the cost of the project not more than 75 per acre.

"(b). That suit for an adjudication of water rights along theGlla Liver be immediately brought in. the United States District Court(the United States being a party to the suit) and. that every otherstep be taken which will hasten an early adjudication."

The Indian aDpropriation act, under which authority the

Olberg investigation and. report mere made, provided in part for, "jnves.

tigations recomniend.od by the Board. of Engineer Officers of the U. S. A.rmy

- - - -, and. report as to the supply of the legally available water,

and, the probable cost of adjudication of water rights along

the Gila River necessary thereto, and, to ta1e the steps necessary to prevent

the vesting of any water rights j addition to those, if any, now existinguntil further action by Congress."

In accordance with this authority one 0±' tie principal objectsof the Olberg investigation was to determine, "the amount of water legally

available for the San Cerlos pro ject.It And as stated on. p. 8 of hisreport, " this subject depends upon a determination of all of the waterrights along the strean. TO obtain the requisite information respectingexisting water rights, it was necessary to determine the past and presentuse of water along tie Gj],a River and all 0±' its tributaries, with theexception of the Salt River, the waters of which already have been

adjudicated. This necessitated a careful survey of the land now undercultivation, as sell as o± that which was previously cultivated,

and, the collection of all data having a bearing on the pastand. present use of water. This data thus assembled constituted, a

84

history of irrigation along the Gila and. its tributaries."

This "HistDry of irrigation along the Gila Biver" was prepared by

C. H.Southworth, of the U. S. Indian Irrigation Service, and. it appears

as "Lppend.ix A" of the Oloerg report. The Southworth report is quite

extended., and, it is believed. it oanpletely covers the subject of aterrights and the use of water as affecting the San. Carlos project, to the dateof the report, or 1914.

Prom the findings of this investigation the following tabulation

is made as to areas under irrigation in. 1914, and, as to additional

irrigablo areas above the San Carlas reservoir.

-85 -

The "Additjo1 irrigab].e area" is given in. the above table inorder to show the possible further diversions that might affect the

San. Car].os reservoir, or that might be tered from the upper reservoirs

Considered elsewhere in this report.

In addition to the "Additional IrrIgIon area" as determined bythe Olberg survey, a survey has recont],y been made (November, 1919) and

an application made by J. F. McGrath and J. D. Ni11dn.a to the

State Engineer of New Mexico for a pezit to divert from the southside of the Gila flyer In the northwest corner of SectIon 21, 2. 19 5.,

Location.Irrigated :area1914.

M.dI t I coalIrri gableArea

Duncan Valley 6,268 817Solomonvi lie - Safford. Valley 2,633 8,467San Carlos Indian fleservat ion. 1,936 na1lUpper Gus. and tributaries : 3,621 00San Francisco and, tributaries 2,730 : 1,500Ea1e CreekMisce].],atjeous

563117

00716

Total above San Caries reservoir 41,868 ll,500

fl. 20 W., N.M.P.M. and to construct a d.iversiou darn and the "Franiiiu"

canal to irrigate 7,985 acres. This point of diversion is in the box

canyon above the valley and is about 5 miles above the present

upper diversion on the sith side; the land, to be irrigated is

on the Frrn.k1in Flat. As to the feasibility of this project the

Olberg report states:

"Several cUfferent projects have 1an proposed and. surveys madefor the irrigation of 4,000 or 5,000 acres of lai in the vicinity ofFranklin Flat, which is a part of the Duncan Valley, situated above thepresent canals. The irrigation of this area would require, besidesa. diversion darn, a long and very expensive canal, and, the advisabilityof this project is extremely questionable. V1th the exception of surveys,no work has been done on these projects, and. an.y initiated rights maybe considered to have elapsed for want of due diuince."

The above "Irrigated, area" has been under irrigation for so

long a time (Irrigation in the Duncan Valley, the latest of these valleys

to be irrigated, was begun on a considerable scale in 1895) that the

water rijhts, though they may not be decreed, may be said to be estab-

lished beyond question. And as the diversions were in &eneral made

prior to the beginning of the stream gaging record, the run-off atSan Carlos as hereinbefore tabulated, may be said to be available for

other lands.

As to the possibility 0±' greater diversions in the upper valleyseither for the present irrigated areas or possible extensions, from

the natural flow of the river, that would affect the San Canoe reser-

voir, it may be said, that this would be physically impossible to any

material degree, as for many years past all of the normal flow has

been diverted in the two upper valleys. This is especially true of

the Solomonvillo-Safford Valley, where, as is stated on p. 237 of the

- 86 -

O1berg report.

"Except during the fairly high stages of tin river the total quantityof .ter diverted, for the several canals of the Bolomonvi].le-Safford.Valley excoed.s the flo'' of the river at the head. of the valley. Thisapparently paradoxical corLdiltion is the result of a relatively largereturn flow of water."

In addition to the above, the survey of 1914 showed the following

Lower Cilia {west of Gila River Reservation24,045 '

The Winics].nian section is above the point of diversion of t1 San

Carlos project, but there is no ±'urther irrigable area here, and. owing to

the sandy character of the soil and to the nearness of the land to the

river, the return flow is so great that the net loss is negligible, as

found by the Clberg investigation.

The San Pedro is also above the diversion point, but as stated.

on p. 71 of the Clberg report:

"The present diversions from the San Pedro or the San Caries Rivers havevery little effect on the vater supply of the diversions lower downon the Gila. The discharge of either of these streams is not largeduring dry seasons, and the greater part of the flow contributed to theGila is during times of floods or vthen there is sufficient ter Luboth rivers for all requirements."

There is further irrigablo laud on the San Pedro and, there is a

possible storage project above Benson on. this stream thicii has been

considered. to some extent by the U. S. Rec1nation Service. But for

the reasons as above stated, that is, that generally no water reaches

the Gila during the. low period, the construction of this project wuld.not materially affect the surace ter supply of the San Canoe

- 87 -

1azis under irrigation below Ban Carlos rsservoirj

WinkeJman section 335 acresSan Pedro BiverBasis, 6,660 "Florence-Casa Grand.e Valley 7,563 "Gila River Indian Reservation 14,356 "

project. The ilnpound.ing Of t1 flood. waters of the San Pedro, however,

would, tend, to reduce the ground water supply in the Gila Valley below

Florence, as with the flood, waters of the (lila stored, at San Canoe, themain souzce of o12nd. water wou.ld. be the San Pedro floods and the seepagefrom the San Carios project. The probabilities of early constructionof the San Pedro project are, however, quite remote, and it may beconsidered that any storage rights acquired, thereby would be secondaryto the rights of the San Caries project.

The land.s under irrigation in the Florence-Casa Grande Yalley,and, in the Gila River Indian Reservation are pre sumed to be includedin the proposed, San Caries project, and, that the water rights belongingthereto will he absorbed by the project, and. will, therefore be availableas part of the project water supply.

The irrigation of lands from the lower C11a, west of the ('ilaIndian Reservation, is dependent almost entirely upon return flow, andit would, not be compatible with the principle of conservation torequire a Sufficient supply to pass the San Cabs project to carry aSurface supply through the river to these lands, on account of theexcessive Seepage loss. Furthermore, it is a matter of record thatstorage and irrigation on the Salt River and irrigation on the Gila,above these lands, have increased and. ma& more dependable their watersupply. This is expressed, in the conclflgjn of iir. Southwortb, on p.223 of the Olberg zport as follows:

"That the increased. irrigation on the Giia River Reservation and.at Florence, in the event Of a storage darn at San Canoe, would increasethe return flow west of the reservation, and, that this section wouldCcasequently benefit thereby."

And, also regard,jng the rights 0±' these lands, ha says;

- 88

"Accord..tng].y, in vew of the facts set forth above, the conclusion isdrawn that the present irrigation west of the Gila River Reservationon the Gila would not suffer in the event of the San arlcs project,nor is it considered that the water rights, if any exist, west of thereservation, need be tain into consideration in the determinationof the amount of water legally available for the San Carlos project."

The conclusion is reached from the above study and, review of

available data, that the water supply at San Canoe as tabulated, in this

report is available for the San Carlos project.

eozeed Bights

As stated above there has been no neral decree of the Gila River

waters, though such decree was considered an. important itn in the

working Out of the plan of the San Caries project, by the Al2y Board,.

And also the same idea was held, by the U. S. Indian. Service and one

of the prime objects of the Oiberg investigations was to gather informa-

tion f or such decree. The facts gathered. by the Olberg investigation;

however, do not bear out this opinion, as may be shown by the following:

So far as the normal flow is concerned the river is divided. into

at least three divisions; the Upper, the Middle, and. the Lower. The

upper division ends with the SOlOmOnvilio..$afford. Valley where it has

been the practice for miny years past to completely divert the low

flow of the river. The middle division comprises the large of the

project, whore the low flow is again all diverted. This division may

more properly be subdivided into the Florence and, the Gila Reservation

divisions, as it has been the practice to divert all the low water

that the crij.e diversion structures would permit, above Florence, for

the "white" lands and. only the return waters were available for the

- 59 -

Reservation. The plan of the project, however, is to divert aJ.l the low

flow above Florence, but to carry a portion of it on to the Beservatiou,

so it will have to be consid.ered. as one division of the river. The lower

division is that portion of the river below the Roserva Jon, where the

irrition diversions are practically al]. from return flow.

It is soon from the above, therefore, that these three divisions

of the river are practically independant of each other during the critical

period of the stream. It is admitted that this is trne only on condition

that diversions be made in the future as in the past; that is, that each

division will continue to divert all the water that it can set, or all

that it wants, as the case maybe. It is assumed. in this study that these

rights of diversion as practiced. in the past are established, by usage,

and that therefore none of the low ter is required. to be let go past

one division for the use of the others.

So far as the unregulated. flow of the river is c cerned. then.

the San. Canoe project is not materially concerned. with an adjudication

of its ri'ts relative to those of the upper or lower river, except as it

may hope to take away some of the low flow from the upper lands that have

enjoyed the use thereof for uiaxty years; or to protect itself from similar

possible claims from the lower river, which possibility is very remote

for reasons as previously stated., and for the further reason that the

rights on the lower river are much later than those of the project.

If this analysis be correct, then the only d.ecree in which the

project could. be materially concerned, would be the one within itself to

define the rights o± the individuals, one with the other, or to define

-. 90 -'

the rights as between the Indian lands and, the "white" lands. Since

the writing of the Olberg report, such a decree has been rendered,, Imown

as the "Lockwood Deoree", which defines the rights of the "white" lands

as to priority and, acreage, but unfortunately it does not define the

rights as between the Indian lands and the "white" lands. An abstract

of this decree follows:

Abstrt of

Judge Lockwood, cree of Gila River Waters.

Following is an abstract of the Judge A. C. Lockwood decree of

the waters of the Gila River in the Florence-Casa Grande Valley, dated

April 6, 1916; also suppinental decree of October 23,1917.

Fundamental PrinciDlesL Law of Arizona:

"(a) The prior appropriation in point of time has the firstright to the water so long as it Is befioially used.

Any aroprIation is appurtenant to SOnS specific piece Ofland, and is not personal.

Such appropriation once vested can only be divested by abandon-ment or adverse use for the eriod, of limitation provided by statute."

Dutg of Water:

"This court will hold, that 46 miner's inches constant flow to thequarter section of land, nasured and, delivered at the land is the dutyof water for the purpose of this case, subject, hover, to an increaseor decrease of such standard as conditions may hereafter require."

Canal Losses:

"An allowance for loss by seepage and, evaporation will be made ofOne per cent of the nount of water diverted for each mile of the lengthof the diversion canal from its head to the distributary lateralsupplying the land."

Tabulation of Decreed Biphts.

- 91 -

= :

0000

0Cj0

.JE

--f-

100

0Q

D

4S

tS

i.4

S5

a.5

l-i-i

-i-.

czO

iOa'

c

.0

O0w

o-1

4* 4

isS

.44

45

t:cj

toc

lii I

1111

11

ac 00to0

O00

0w00

0

lIliti

tuilI

ll

a.in

i.

ci-

ci-

ci-

rtci

- ci

-co

iE'..

jftQ

T'p

CL

i-..

ocx

(,1c

00O

cz o '0

c,0D

0-00

acD

1hi

) -i c+ci

-

00 H

3

itS

.S

tS

t

0

bC.i

a)-I

C31

0I-J

a)0 S

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

Itt I

S

tI1Iil

tlIIII

IIIIlI

IIiI-

Jw

tow

0too

Id44

.4 .

__&

a) '0

'tt')

L\)

'0 0

1 C

?;l

b00

0 cO

O 0

00C

Ya)

0

4 a

.4 a

S.

fl a

.411

- 93 -

1RI0BITY: ]ELPTI0NSec. T. B. : Acres

1878 11W- 21 4 10 301879 lTh* 8? 31 4 10 40

: SSW 3]. 4 10 1020 4 10 80

: Part 21 4 10 801880 : N: S% 29 4 10 371884 : 2- W- N and part 1 29 4 10 252/31685 : 1 5 0 1101686 : 34 25 4 9 701887 : 15 5 9 70I,

15 5 9 8011 5 9 25

: N- 6 5 10 301890 : Part SW N3 2 5 9 3tt

29 4 10 20ij 14 and E- 1- 30 5 9 : 1201891 : N- N 28 4 10 12

33 6 6 : 12032 6 6 : 120

PartI 29 6 6 1625 5 8 12025 5 8 160

and. E 1Th3 24 5 9 : 230

1892it

Lot 1, blk.38, Arlzola Tcwnsite-1: 25 5 8

12

40

1693I!

"4: Lot 2, blk.39, Arizola Townsite

35 5 8 : 805

1894 Part N.1 3Eç3125

5

6

9

5

:

:

16010

Part E 24 6 5 10Part S I 23 6 5 15

US.sv

2325

6

655

4065

it

1895

3E:NBLots 5,6,7,8,10,11,12

1 Part I

232536

5

5

4

8

7: 12

40

26 6 5 50

I,24 6 5 : 60

32. 6 7 : 2025 6 5 80

V*N 26 4 10 80: Part - SW: 28 4 10 8

ii

36 4 9 : 8036 4 9 21

: SESW 28 6 6 40SESE 31 6 7 2.5and 3 7 6 : 113

5 7 7 7

PBICBITY DESC1IPTION ISec. T. B. Acres

1695 32 6 7 g 15SW; 32 6 7 : 10W1 25 6 5 : 80

6 5 9 : 50: Lots 5,6,7, and 8, B].k .,

Add.ition. to F1oxncoTurner's

1696 IB; I'1E 35 6 5 : 40: 15 6 5 25: SV 26 6 5 20:NV 26 5 8 : 10: E1fl; 26 6 7 : 80

1a21clS 15 6 5 : 95; 14 6 : 40

198 Part 1 5 9 : 9Part S 36 4 9 : 20

S 30 6 6 : 101699 : Part NV 28 4 10 9190]. : 6 5 9 : 401904 3SIE 23 5 8 451908 : VT SW 3 5 9 : 60

3 5 9 : 1204 5 9 : 230

1909 3E 29 5 9 50It

;99

55

88 :

4020

9 5 8 120" : 10 5 8 : 40

1910 Part SW. SW- Si IW 19 6 6 : 20ft 3 acres N. of O.T. Cairn). 3]. 4 10 : 3" : Part v4 35 4 9 : 15

: SV SW 21 4 10 : 341912 : 1 5 9 : 601913 : Part SW: 30 4 10 20

29 5 9 160: 30 5 9 : 160

32 4 10 80" SW1 29 4 10 : 80It C'l 35 5 8 : 80

S S 9 5 9 : 80and E NW 19 5 9 400

30 5 9 160It SV 29 5 9 : 160

31 5 9 1601914 S & 29 6 6 : 30

: Lots 2,3, ani 4 6 6 9 70ItS 1 6 9 : 160It

21 5 8 : 60'I I N 11 5 9 25It iw 32 5 9 : 150It25 5 8 : 160

1U arid N- S 35 4 9 : 160

ft

Oct 1

1916., bb.1Mar.25Apr. 1Juno 1It

: B].ks.1,2,25,26 and. 27, Jrizo1a TowiasitePart\-N 32 6 7: 1E and. 1 I'fl 11 6 8

1]. 6 8- and. Lots 9 and. 10 1 6 8

6 7 79 5 97 5 9

18 6 625 6 516 5 916 5 9

- 95 -

R.88

32030

:iO,392

: 8016080

: 160: 43

30

: 60

: 40: 80: 160

16944

103402080

50: 77

c

1015

: 30353040

: 45:44: 10

5: 20: 20: 5: 90: 20: 130

23: 80: 35: 30

30160

: 80

1Lots 9 and. 10 azad 1

Total original decree

(SuDD1nerita1 dacree of October 21

6

1917)5

1 : 19 51 : VTh* 30 51 24 &

1 : 29 420 4

: I'1B 15 4and 14 4and S SW II 4Part S] 29 4E-SB 27 5

25 5: SB. 22 5

Lot 13 azid.part 27 523 5

: BW 8 14 52]. 5

: 21 5NV- aM E 30 acres

15 .5S 1'W- and part N SV 11 5

: Bik 10,Vstern Ad.cIitlon to FlorenceSB 23 6

23 624 6

1

26 623 6

PartBW 23 6: 2 29 6g SSEI1W3 20 6

20 6BBS 19 6

Soc. T.PRIORITY : DE)C BIPT ION

1915

1910, Aug.1911, Aug.1912, Jan.1915, Jan.

Aug.1,

It

ft

It

ft

It

It

'I'II,I,

I,

ItItIt

II

ItII

ItIt

ftI,ft

I,I,

I,It

It

II'I

8999

101010 J

101010

88

888889

99

5555555666.6

Grand Total

- 96 -

:15, 64&

There may be some question in the interpretation Of th Lockwood.

decree as to the duty of water; that is, whether it is meant, 48 inches

to 160 acres of irrigable laud., or 48 inches to each legal subdivision

of a quarter section of land. The former interpretation is here made,

and, this, for the total decreed acreage, would, require the delivery of102.3 second. feet. Estimating the average length of carriage in themain canal as 15 miles, the carriage loss as prcvided. in. the decree

would, be 15%, or there would. tie a diversion requirement of about 120second, feet. In passing it may be said, that this loss of one percentper mile is excessive except in comparatively small ditches, and suchloss is not borne out by the tests on the Salt River project or in theFlorence canal previously mentioned.

The Lockwood, decree is, of course, of the unregulated flow of theriver, and in comparing the above diversion requirement under the decreewith the amount actually diverted, it was found by the Olberg lye sti.ga-tion that the "Diversions in the canals of the Florence district depend

PflIQ1ITY TIE IPT ION :AEASec. T. B. : Acres

1916,Aug.]. SW: B 2]. 5 9 S 40Zept.1

ftNSB-and SESPart S-

2921

5 99

: 120: 160

NfrlTh 11 5 9 : 50No?. 1 23 5 8 : 40io. 1 5 5 9 : 15

19].? Feb.l Part NEt 34 6 8 : 10Mar. 1 5 6 8 : 40Mar. 12 31 4 10 : 40Apr. 1

ft275

55

8

9: 35

20N5* 23 6 5 :. 50May 1 16 5 9 : 320

Total supplemental decree 3,254

on the amount of water in the river, but average about 50 second. feet."

There is also nothing in the decree to require any water to be let go

past these diversions for the Indian lands below, and it is understoodthat such is not the practice. These fants are brought out to show

that the duty of water as provided in the Lockwood decree is of no

material importance, as the amount diverted is limited only by the

amount in the river as a minimum and the canal capacity as a maximum.

The only real value then of the Lockwood decree, - and this is a valueof prime importance - is to determine the lands to which a water

right is appnrtenant, and, to fix the priority of such rights.

reement between iitet iads and. Indian Lands.

The "missing link" in the Lockwood, decree, - the dividing of thewater between the "white" lands and, the Ind.ian lands - is being accom-plished by an. agreement now in process of execution, between the. land,

owners of the ttwhjteU lands an.d. the Secretary of the Interior in behalfOf the (lila River Indian Reservation lands. The work of preparing

the agreement and. the carrying out of its execution, is under thedirection of the U. S. rndian Service and. it is a requisite to theconstruction of the diversion dam above Florence and. of the main canalof the project, for which money has been allotted to the Indian Serviceand, which construction work is now being contemplated by that Service.

In case this agreement Is completed to the satisfaction of theSecreta.ry of the Interior, as It seems now will be done, one of the bigobstacles to the feasibility of the San Cerlos project will be removed,Previous investigators have recoc,,.ized the importance of the fixing of

- 97 -.

the water rights as affecting this oject, and have nera1ly recoin-

mended that the construction of the project be deferred, until such

time as this may be accomplished. With the Lckwooc3. decree, however,

and, with the favorable prospects of an early settlement as between the

"White" and. Indian land.s, it is believed that no further postponement

need be advised, on account of the question of water rights.

This agreement does not supplant the Lockwood decree, but superpedesit, and completes the adjudication of the rights of the project. The

agreement provides that the United States shall take over all waterrights and, it fixes the method of determining the lands to which

project water rights will attach, giving preference to "Any or all land,e* * * * * decreed, to have water rights" SC determined by the "LockwoodDecree." And. as to the prioritje the agreement provides that "TheSecretary o± the Interior is hereby authorized to give to lands coveredby the original Lockwood. decree aforesaid., the priorities assigned.them by said decree."

Division of the waters of the river as bot the whites and, theIndians, with provision for trannj.ssjon losses so that, "no waterright under the project shall enjoy any advantage of location," isprovided for in the"agrsenient" as follows

First 300 second feet or lessNext ZOO " ,, tt uOver 600 " ' tt n

The acreage of the project as planned by the U. S. Indian Servic,and on which the above of water are to be made, is alsodetermined. in the agreement, to be a total of 62,000 acres of which

or 43.5% are "white" lands, it is not shown In the agreement

- 98 -

White 'ands Indian lends

39.4 60.6%48.3% 51.7%43. 56.1%

what was the line of reasoning in 1ecting the above percentag in

the d.ivision of water, as in no case d.c they agree with the division

of land. i,ssum!1g, however, that these percentages are now fixed, it

is not important as to how they vere deluced, except that it is

unfortunate from the operator's point of view that the division of

water was not made simply in proportion to the acreage of land..

The project as planned in this "Agremeiat" by the U. S. Indian

Service is "based exclusively upon diversions of only the unstored.

flow of the Gila River," and. the above percentages of division o± the

water would therefore not apply to storage water as planned in this

report. In the case of the larr project as here planned it Is

presumed that the storage water will be divided, on the "White" and.

Indian land.s in a manner consistent with an ecorinIoal duty of water

on all lands of the project. md in regard. to the selection of thenew lands of the project; l.a as mu.ch as the present plan of the U.S.

Indian Service as embodied In thi 'Mreement" provides for the water-ingof 35,000 acres of Indian lands i.a addition to the 5,000 anres

now watered, by pumping from ground water, or a fficient area toprovide a 10 acre tract for each Imlian on the reservation with a

margin of safety for an increase in population, it is here presumedthat the lncreaseã acreage will be of lands outside of the reservation.

Referring again to the above percentage In the division of waterbetween the "whites" and, the Indians; it will be assumed, that the

division is equitable - though it is not strictly true on an acreagebasis. It would then continue to be equitable in case theenlargementof the project were so handled. as beteen the "white" and Indian lands

- 99 -

as to keep the proportion of acreage the seine. In case, however, the

increase in acreage is all in the "white" lands this would, not be the

case. In the case of a flow of over 600 second. feet a point is soon

reached. where if 56.1% is delivered. to the Indian lands it will lead.

to an excessive delivery to these lands and, to an injustice to the

"white"land,s. On the basis of a diversion duty of 4 acre feet and. a

maximum use of 12% in ) days, as previously adopted in this report,

a maximum diversion of 1 second. foot to 125 acres is required.. Zn

order to deliver a full supply at this rate to 35,000 acres, 280 second.

feet is required., and, this anount is 56.1% of 500 second feet. Or in

other words, when the flow of the river reaches 500 second feet, under

the percentage provided. in the "Agreement" the Indian lands would. be

receiving their full ity of water In the maximum month of use.

In view of this fact, a new contract should be drawn covering

this point in case a large storage project is constructed, with the

increased acreage selected. outside of the Indian reservation. Also

in such contract provision should, be made for delivering pumped water

to the Indian lamis in lieu of river water.

Two more tangled. problems in the consideration of the feasibility

of the project have been disposed of in a very commendable way in this

"Agreement"; namely, (a) the disposition of the Dresent Irrigation

works, and. (b) the disposition of the old water rights, and. the

fixing of the relation of the construction charge as between the old.

and, the new water right lands. In the first case, or the disposition ofthe present Irriatjon works, it is provided that these shall be turned.

over to the project - except as to the partially constructed Casa

Grande Carmi - without compensation except that the owners thereof

- ].00 -

are permitted to select certain of the new la.nda to conB into the

project. In the second, case, it is providec3. that the old water rights

shall be taken over by the project, without coriipensation except thatthe lands to which they are appurtenant siall retain their prioritiesin the unregulated flow of the river, in accordance with the Lockwood

decree, which is interpreted that the ooustructlon charge shall beprorated. on an aoreage basis on old, and new water right lRn,1 alike.

Generally speaking, then, this "Agreement" beten the "white"and Indian lands will fit in with, and be an aid, to, the proposed

enlarged, project, on condition that the above ad.justments thereincan be made.

This "Agreement" is of such Importance in the consideration ofthe San Carlos project that it is here inserted in full:

* 10]. -

AGT OF LPd.WOWNS TO 1MDUOR SECBETART OP THEINTIOB TO tJNDEBT THE FLOBEICE-CASA GBLNDE IRRIGA-TION PROJECT, .tND FOR HE BUILDING UTD OPERATION Th-OF IN CASE THE SALLE IS JECLBED FEASIBLE.

Whreas the act of Congress approved May 18,1916 (commonlycalled the Indian appropriation act for the fiscai. year ending June30, 1917, 39 Stat. L., 123-130), provides, among other things, asfollows:

' 'For beginning theconstruction by the Indian Servioeof a diversion dam and, necessary controlling works for di-verting water from the Gila River at a site above Florence,Arizona, as estimated, by the Board of Engineer Officers ofthe United States Army in paragraph one hundred and, thirty-eight of its report to the Secretary of War of Februaryfourteenth, nineteen hundred and. fourteen (House Documentnumbered seven hundred and ninety-one),C75,000, to remainavailable until expended, the total cost not to exceed

175,O0O: Provided, That said, dam shall be constructed asa part of a project for the irrigation from,the natural flowof the G.i].a River of Indiaxi lands on the Gria River IndianReservation and private and. public lands in Pinal County,Arizona: AM provided further, That the water diverted fromthe Gila River by said, diversion dam shall be distributedby the Secretary of the Iutprior to the Indian lands ol'said, reservation and to the private a,nd public lands in saidcounty in accordance with the respective rights and priori-ties of such, lands to the beneficial use of said, waters asmay be determined, by agreement of the owners thereof withthe Secretary of the Interior or by a court of competentjurisdiction: And, provided further, That the constructioncharge for the actual cost of said diversion dam and otherworks and. rights shall be d.ivid,ed. equitably by the Secretary0±' the Interior between the Lad.Ian lands and the privateand, public lands in said county; and said, cost as fixed forsaid, Indian 1a148 shall be reimbursable, as provided. insection two of the act of August twenty-fourth, nineteenhundred and, twelve (Thirty-seventh Statutes at Large, pagefive hundred and twenty-two); but the construction chargeas fixed for the private and public lands in said, countyshall be çaid. by the oiner or ontryinan in accordance withthe terms of an act extending the reriod of pa,yment underreclamation projects, approved August thirteenth, nineteenhundred and fourteen (Thirty-eighth Statutes at Large, pagesix hundred and. oighty-six)g And provided ±rther, Thatsaid project shall only be u.ndertaksn i± the Secretary of theInterior shall be able to make or provide for what he shalldeem to be satisfactory adjustments of the rights to thewater to be diverted by said, diversion dam or carried in

- 102 -

canals, and. satisfactory arrangements for the inclusion o±lands within said, project and. the purchase of propertyrights which ha shall deem necessary to be acquired, andshall determine and. declare said, project to be feasible."

And whereas the und.ersiz3ed. declare that is/are theowner o the following described lands in the Florence-Casa-Grand.e

Valley, Pinal County, Arizona, which wish to have in-clud,ed. in said project, to-wit:

And, declare -_further that of said lands:The following parcels have heretofore been irrigated and, that water

has been decreed for or used, upon the same as follows, to wit:

And. that the following parcels thereof are not irrigated, to wit:

And the undersigned. desire to have included in said, projectall or as much of said lands as the Secretary of th Interior mayfind, it feasible so to include and, t 0 have said, lands assigned waterrights under said project in a000rdence with the determinationsof the said, Secretary as hereinafter provided..

Now, therefore, and in order to aid. in the accomplisnentof' the purpose of said. act and, to induce the Secretary of theInterior to undartak the project therein mentioned, hereafterto be lnwwn as the Plorence-Casa Grands project, and, to beginthe constructio4 of the works thereof, the said. undersigned.owner of the lands aforesaid. hereby covenant priiseand, agroe_ to and. with the Secretary of the Interior and, withall other la.n,ci owners who may be included within said, projectin consideration of the premises, the promises of said, otherland, owners and. the preliminary surveys made and, other workalready done or which may hereafter be done by the United. Statesin connection with said project, that if and. v/nan the Secretaryof the Interior shall within one jear from May 1, 1919, declarethe said, project to be feasible and. shall at the same time announcethat it is his intention to start the construction of the worksthereof within two yars fran said date and. if he shall includein said project all, or part of the hereinabove described, landsof the undersigned, then such of the said, lands of theund,arsigned, as by order of. the Secretary of the Interior ashereafter provided, for shall be included within said, project,and, the water rights attached,, appurtenant to or used Inconnection therewith, and, all water rights of the undersigned In theGila flyer for use upon lands in the Floreuce-Casa Graude Valleywhether vested or inchoate, and whether attached. to said, lands or not,shall be included, In and, become part of said project, and said waterrights shall at once be and, become the property of the United Statesfor use upon arid. in connection with said, project; and all of said,lands so included, in said, project, together with ,, interest in the

- 102 a

water rigb.ts of said, project, shall at once be and. b8ome burdened.with and subject to a first lien to secure to the United. States thefull paiment of a pro rats share of the entire cost of said, project,and of all betterment and. operation and. maintenance charges, and.penalties in coniection therewith; and, the undersigned further herebyagreo_ that, If and, when notified so to do by the Secretary of theInterior or his duly authorized agent or agents will promptlyconvey, or cause to be conveyed, to the United States by good. and.sufficient deeds or other instruments satisfactory to the Secretaryof the Interior, for use upon and, in connection with said. projectthe water rights now appurtenant to said. lands; and further agreethat will by good and sufficieut mortgages, deeds of trust,contracts, or other instrwiien,ts of writing satisfactory to theSecretary of the Interior cause the pro rats share of the entirecost of said, project, properly apportionable to said. lands, and, allbetterment and operation and maintenance charges In connection there-with to become a first lien upon said lands, and upon interestin the water rights of said, project.

The said, project to consist of and, be constructed, operatedand controlled as follows:

The project works and structures shall consist of (1) adiversion dam in and, across the Gila River at a place to be selectedby the engineers of the Indian, Service In the west half of thenorthwest quarter of section 8, townshIp 4 south, range 11 east ofthe Gus and Salt River principal meridian I the County of Pi.ual,State of Arizona, together with Its necessary cOntrolling works;a canal hereinafter called the Southsid,e Canal, which said, canalshall have a oapaeity of not less than 1,000 second-feet of water,to extend, from said dam to the Picaclio reservoir, with a branchthereof lmown as the Pima branch extending toward. the said Gila RiverIndian Reservation, said. branch to end, at a point to be fixed by theSecretary of the Interior, so that the cost of constructI said.branch shall not exceed the cost of constructing that part of said.maitn canal which is to lie between the Pioacho Reservoir and thatpoint on. said main canal where the Pima branch diverges therefrom;a canal herejn.after called the Northsjde Ganal to extend fromsaid dam to a point to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior,said. Secretary to determjn the length Of said, canal so asto equalize as nearly as may be project costs and, benefits, whichsaid Northaida Canal shall have a capacity of not less than 60second-feet of water; and. (4 of such gntes, drops, andother structures and appliances to make efficient and, to be used.in connection with said darn and, canals as shall be determined uponas necessary or appropriate by the Secretary o± the Interior.The water rights which shall be attached to and used Inconnection with said, project shall consist of all wator rights nowappurtenant to or used, in connection with the private lands whichshaJ,], be included. in said project and, water rights which shallbecome to said lands before said. project shall be declared.feasible by the Secretary of the Interior, except well-water rights;and of all water rights, whether vested or inchoate, wh&oh theundersigned. now ha or shall obtain In or fromthe Gila Biver for use UPOn. lands in the Florence...

Caaa Granie Valley, whether or not connected with said. lands prior tothe time when said project shall be declared feasible, as above pro-vided., and, of all water ri'hts, (eept well-water rijhts) reservedappropriated, or otherwise acquired. by the United States for saidproject, and also of so much of the water rights from the Gila Riverabove the confluence th rewit,& of the Salt River now owned by theUnited. States or said, Indians for or on, account of or apDurtenan.t tothe Said Gila River Indian Reservation oD the lands thereof, exceptwell-water rights,s, together with all the other water rights ofsaid, project, regaajess of whether or not any of them shall be orshall have become appurtenant to particular laiwis prior to the timewhen the Secretary of the Interior shall declare said, project feasibleas aforesaid, shall be available for use on or in connection withthe lands embraced in said, project, as hereinafter provided..

Neither by pooling the water rights of said, project as hereinprovided nor otherw1s is it the intention of the parties hereto toabandon any rights of priority or any other rights whatsoever asagainst persons whose water rights are not included within saidproject, the intention being that all water rights used, upon thelands of said, project, or any of them, with their original priorities,shall be preserved, for and applied to the benefit of said project.Inasmuch as it has been deemed advisable that the said projectinclude 62,000 acres of land, and, that the water rights therefor bedivided so as to fall in a general way into two classes, heretoforereferred. to in preliminary diacussiozt.as Class A and class B, but Onaccount of the peculiar needs of the Indians and, the desirability ofpreserving certain priorities of the whites as beten themselves, itis impracticable to fix the acreage upon which the Indian water rightsshall be used, or to accurately divide the white water rights intotwo classes, lands shall be included in. said project, and, the waterrights of said, project shall be divided, as follows:The lands embraced in said. project and to be irrigated thereundershall include: (1) Such lands in said, Indian reservation as theSecretary of the Interior shall at any time or from time to timedesignate as tempori].y entitled. to be irrigated. as a part of saidproject, or to which he shall Permanently devote the Indian waterrights of said, project; (2) twenty-seven thousand acres of Privatelyowned. lands in PIn.al County, Arizona, to be selected by the Secretaryof the Interior from the lands of persons who sign this agreement, said.Slctj ons to be made so as to bring Into the said, project suchprivately owned lands in the Florence-Casa Grands Valley as, in thejudnont of the said. Secretary, have the best right to the use ofth waters of t1 Gila River and. will in conjunction with the land.sin the said, Indian reservat10 best form an economically feasibleirrigation project to be irrigated from the project works as abovedescribed.In. se1ectin said. lands the Secretary of the Interior is herebyauthorized by the undersjed. to inbiude in said projects (1) Jny orall lands amounting to 11,039 acres more or 2,ess decreed to have waterrights in the Gila River In an. by the originaj. decree of the SuperiorCourt of Pina], County, Aiizj, in that certain cause entitled. Lobb v.Avenente et al, which decree is herein elsewhere referred. to as "The

- 102 c -

Lockwood. Decree;" (2) approxiinate].y 1,961 acres, of which about 981acres shall be lands lying above what is Imown as the McClellan washand, approximately 980 acres sballbo lands lying below said. wash, and,(3) 14,000 acres which shall consist of an equal number of acres aboveand below the said Mc1e1lan wash and of which the Secretary of theInterior is hereby authorized and, requested to permit the board ofdirectors of the Casa Grands Water Users' Association to designatetwo thousand acres of the said seven thousand acres lying above thesaid, wash, and, to permit Charles B. 3].igh, his heirs, executors,orassigns to designate 1,500 acres of said, 7,000 acres lying belowsaid, wash, and 2,080 acres lying above the said, wash, upon the condition,however, that the said, Charles B. Sligh, his heirs, executors, orassigns will cause such of the water-service corporations as he controls,and, which have or claim rights in the waters of the G11a River or haveor claim title to irrition systems, canals, or reservoirs in thesaid. Plorence-Casa Granda Valley, to convey all their right, tAtle, and,interest therein, as said Secretary ahail direct, in whole or in. partto the United, States for use in connection with said project, or in partto a corporate organization o± the private landowners in said, projector otherwise.

Suitable devices for measuring the flow of water available and,susceptible of being diverted. by the aforesaid dam to the canals ofthe project shall be maintained and daily or more frequent measurementsof said flow shall be made and. the first 300 second.foet or less ofwater flowing in the river at the said, darn ansi available and susceptibleof being diverted for the said, project shall be distributed, lessdeductions for project canal losses as hereinafter provided, sixty and,Six-tenths per cout thereof to the said Indians and, thirty-nine andfour-tenths per centujn thereof for use on privately Owned lands. Ofthe next 300 second-feet of water or less thus flowing and available,less deductions on. account of losses as aforesaid, fifty-one and.seven-tenths per centum thereof shall be given to the said. Indians,and Iorty-ej,ght and, three-tenths per centum thereof shall be distributedfor use on privately owned, lands.Al]. water available for distribution in excess of said 600second-feet shall be divided,, less deductions on account of losses asaforesaid, by giving to the said, Indians fifty-six and One-tenth percentum and to said, privately owned lands forty-three and nine-tenths percent, except that during periode of high water when it shall bepossible and, practicable to divert water for the use of the Indian landswithin said project, or sons of them, by nans of the proposed. SacatonDam, if and. when that darn shall be constructed, and in operation, theentire amount of water diverted for the said. project by the Said Florencedana shall be used for the irrigation of privately owned lands and,only such of said Indian lands as can not be adequately supplied from saidSacaton, Dam.

There shall be attached, and made permanently appurtenant to theprivately owned lands in said project water rights in the use of thewaters to be devoted. to said. privately owned, lands, under the divisionbetween Indians and. whites hereinabove provided, for as follows: (I,)13,000 acres of said privately owned. lands shall be given prioritiesin the use of' said, water so that the lamis that now enjoy the earliestand, best water rights as determined by the Secretary Of the Interior

- 102 d, -

shall have the better priorities, and, the Secretary of the Interior ishereby authorized, to ive to lands covered, by the ori4nal Lockwood,decree aforesaid, the priorities assied them by said decree and togive to the approximately 1,961 acres which he shall determine ashaving the next best right to the use of water a cnmnon priorityLiniediately subsequent to that of the laat priority fixed by theabove mentioned original Lockwood, decree; (2) the remai.ning 14,000acres of' said, privately owned lands shall ha'e a common. priority,and the seme shall be Lmed.iately subseqint to that of the 1,961acres last hereinabove mentioned,

In determining what privately Owned lands shall be included, insaid, project and what water rights shall be attached to the variousparcels thereof, the Secretary of the Interior shall have in mind, thesaid, original Lockwood. decree, and, its supplements heretofore made,the claimed rights of the members of the said, Case Grande Water Users'ssocjatjon because of certain notices of appropriation of water posted

and filed, in the ,ysar 1911, and, the work clone in pursuance thereof, and.also the rights anti claims of other persons, and, shall give all theseand, other relevant facts and, considerations clue weight, but none of' themshall he binding upon him except in so far as he shall d.eern just and.equitable.

The Secretary of' the Interior or his agents shall from time totime determine and fix the duty of water for all privately owned landsin said, project and. in diviciing the waters Of the said, project shall seethat the losses of water in the whole system of project canals areshared as equitably as may be to the end that, with reect to sh losses,no water right under the project shall enjoy any advantage of location,position or otherwise over any other project water right; but lossesoccurring in the Indian and private canals leading from said, projectcanals shall be disregarded in the division of water hereinaby pro-'vid,ed, for; and. furthermore whenever the quantity of water divertedinto the canals of said, project shall, in the aggregate, be so snailthat, after ded.ucting the losses of transmission in the project canalsand. then divicung the residue between the Indian lands and the lands inprivate ownership as hereinabove provided. for, the share allotted, tothe Indian rigbts would, b too snail to reach the Indian reservation,the Secretary of the Interior, or his agent in oharge of said, project,shall permit all o± said, water to be applied to the irrigation ofprivately owned lands in accordance with their priorities.

The owners o±' the private lands which shall be includad in saidproject hereby authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry in thecpls o±' said, project water other than that belonging to said projectwhether the same comes from lls or otherwise, and, generally to permitall uses of the facilities and works of' said project that he may thinkproper and which shall not be inconsistent with the purposes andinterests of the project, al], on such terms of compensation to beapplied to the benefit of' said, project and, under snob, conditions andrestrictions as he shall decide to be for the best interests of saidproject. Said owners furthermore agree and. promise bhat they will,as soon as possible after the said Secretary shall have declared said,

- 102 e -

project feasible, organize themselves into a water users' association,or other corporation, so as to handle and control the private distributingsystems leading from said, project canals and be able to act as a unit inall dealings with the said. Secretary, and such organization in form and.nature shall be made in all respects satisfactory to the Secretary Of theInterior.

When or before the Secretary of the Interior shall declare saidproject to be feasible as above provided, for, he shall finally and.definitely fix and. desc:ibe the lands in private ovvuership that are tobe included in said. project and the water rights which shall lB attachedthereto as above provided.The project works and water rights, subject to the individualrights for which provision is herein made, shall, until otherwise pro-vided, by Congress, be and, remain the property of the United States andshall be under the eiclusjve control and operation thereof, but theUnited States shall not be under any obligation to deliver the wateror to cijatribute the same otherwise than from said, project canals,and the Sscretary of the Interior shall fix the site of said, dam and.determine where said, canals Shall be run and their capacity within thelimitations herejnbofore fixed,, amid. shall determine the kind of damn,canals, and. other structures to be built, amid. shall build them, and,he shall also operate and, maintain the same and all project works.The Secretary of the Interior shall be under no obligation todeliver water to the various private canals for lamids not ready to makebeneficial use thereof for irrigation; amid those in control of such.private canals shall not deliver water to lands under said canals theowners whereof the Secretary of the Interior or his agent shall declareto be in default in any of their patnents herein provided for, orwhich for other reasons shall not be entitled to water. If the ownersof the private lands in said project shall fail to provide adequatecanals arid ditches to carry the water of said project to each legalsubdlvlsion of such private lands within two years fr the time whenwater therelor shall be available in said, project canals, then theowner or owners of such lands as said private ditches shall not reachwithin said, time shall forfeit the right to have their said, lands sosituated remain in Said project, and, thø Secretary of the Interior may,at his discretion, declae such forfeituj'e and. exclude said lands fromsaid project, and upon such, terms as he shall consider just maysubstitute other private lands therefor.

The construction charges for the actual cost of said, diversiondam, canals, amid other works of said, project arid the cost and expenseOf securing any and, all water rights, rights Of way, and other rightsforming a part of said project, and the whole cost of said, project,as finally determined. by the Secretary f the Interior, shall beapportioned upon a per acre basis between the Indian amid white landsin said projeot,thirty....five sixty-seconds to said Indian lands andtwenty-seven sixty-S000rids to the lands in private ownership. Thesaid. cost amid charge as fixed for said. Indian lends shall be reimnburs-able as provided by the act of May 18, 1916, first above mentioned., butthe cost and charge as fixed. for private lands in said, project sh1lbe paid. by the owner in accoroe with the terms of an act extending

- 102 f -

the period of payment under reclamation projects, approved. Augu.st 13,1914 (38 Stat. L. 686).

The initial payment of the whole cost of said, project due onaccount of the private land.s included in said. project shall be due and.payable when the charge per acre for said project shall be established..

In addition to the charge for the whole cost of said projectand. beginning when water is first available in. said, project canals everyowner of private land under said, project shall also pay for the irrig-tion of his land., whether or not he has facilities for using said, wateron his land, or diverting it from said project canals thereto, or hasactually so used, or diverted it, a betterment and an operation and.maintenance charge to be iixed. from time to time by the Secretary ofthe Interior, based upon the total annual cost of the betterments and.operation and maintenance Of the project, and, such charge shall beuniform throughout said, project and, shall be divided between the Indianland.s and, privately owned. lands, thirty-five sixty-seconds to saidIndian lands and twenty-seven sixty-seconds to said privately ownedlands, and, each acre of such privately owned. land shall be charged, withand required to pay its pro rata share of the said, total operation,maintenance, and, betterment charges of aa.tci project.

The Secretary of the Interior may fix the betterment, operation.,and. maintenance charge for each year or for any year in advance andbase the same upon an estimate of the actual cost thereof for thatyear, but in. all cases where the charge shall be fixed in advance allexcesses over the actual cost that shall have been paid. shall be creditedto the payer thereof on. his next year's betterment, operation andmaintenance charge, and, deficiencies shall be added to said next year'scharge. All betterment, operation and maintenance charge shall eachyear become due and payable on the date fixed for said, project by theSecretary of the Interior, and. if such charge is unpaid on the firstday of the third calendar month thereafter, a penalty of one per centurnof the amount unpaid shall be added thereto, and thereafter an additionalpenalty of one per centum of the amount unpaid shall lB added. on the firstday of each calendar month if such charge and, penalties shall remainunpaid., and no water shall be delivered, to the lands of any privateowner or to any ditch or canal for him who shall l in arrears formore than one calendar year for the payment of any charge for Operationand. maintenance or any annual construction charge or any betterment chargeor penalties or any part thereof. If any private land. owner shall beone year in arrears for betterment, operation or maintenance charges orpenalties, or any part thereof, the lion upon his land, to secure saidpayments may b. forthwith forecicsed,.

The undersigned, further agree to furnish the Secretary of theInterior or his agents, within thirty days from demand by any suchagent, proper abstracts of title covering said. land.s; and.failing so to do hereby authorizes him or his said agents to obtainthe same at said. owner_ expense. Said, abstracts, after oxaminationshall be returned to their owner. The undersigned further agree_

- 102 g

that if the Secretar,r of the Interior shall be of the opinion that thesaid undersigned, is/are not the owner of the lands hereinabovederibed,, or, being tha owner, ha been unable to place said. landsin said, project so that all project chars shall be a first lionthereon, then the Secretary of the Interior may, at his discretion,allow the true owner thereof to become a sirer of this instrumentarid represent said, lands or allow other lands to be bronght into said.project in. place thereof.

,,4.fter the said project shall be declared feasible by the Secretaryof the Interior, and until said Florence im and said, project canalsand, other works shall be built and, in. Operation, and, the Secretary of theInterior may determine when said, project works are In operation for thepurposes of this paragraph, the United States shall be under no obligationwith regard to the distribution of water or the maintenance of existingdiversion dams, ditches, or canals, but the Secretary of the Interiorthrouh his duly authorized agents may if he find, it practicable ariddesirable so to do, distribute or provide for the distribution of thewaters belonging to said project according to the principles of theforegoing agreement and, with special regard to insuring th continuanceand protection of present U805 until such said, works are built, inthe manner that he shall find, to be feasible and, just under the circum-stauce a.Ii' the Secretary shall find said. '7roject not to be feasible orshall not declare it feasible within the time hereiribefore limited,then this agreement shall, be of no further effect.This agreement may be expressed and, executed in and. by as manyseparate instruments, In the foregoing form, as may be convenient,all of which said. instinerits shall be taken together as evidencing ajoint and several agreement for the project purposes aforesaid,, andthe Same shall be binding upon. and, Inure to the benefit of the heirs,executors,adujnjstrators, arid. assigns of the parties thereto.The undersigned fully realize that the aforesaid project beingbased. exOluSie1y i.on diversions of only the unstored flow of the CiliaRiver will not give full irrigation to said, project.landg and. willonly make the uncertain flow of said, river more available by provid,tngbetter diversion and transmission facilities.In witnes5 whereof the undersigned ha hereunto sethand. and seal this day of' , 1919.

State of' ArizonaCounty of PInai, s:This instrument s acknowledged before me this day of,1919, by the above named andhis wife.In wjtriess whereof I have hereunto set roy hand. and. seal of office.

- 102 ii -

Notary PUbliCe

State of Arizona,Gaunty of Pinal, Cs:This instrument was acku

1919, byowledged. before me this day of

president of the above named, a corporation, and, by

such officers, respectively, for and. on.its secretary, both acting asbehalf of said corporation.

Inwitness whereof I have hereunto set my hahci and seal of offlee.

Notary Public.

Waiver of Lien.

The undersigned, being the owner of a lien upon the above describedlands and, water rights of the said.

evidenced. by a recorded in vol. of therecords of Pinal County, Arizona, at page , in considerationof the enhanced, value of said, lands aiad. water rights resulting frantheir inclusion within the project described. in the foregoing agree-ment hereby consent and. agree,, to the inclusion of said. lan.d.s and.water rights in said, project and the conveyance of said water rightsto the United States and covenant and, agree that all costs and.charges against said. lands and. water rights on account of theirinclusion in said, project shall be a first lien upon said lands and.water rights superior to and. prior to our/my said, lien.

State of Arizona,

County of Pinal,ss:This instrument 'was acknowledged before me this day of

,l919, by the above namedand.

his wife.In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of

office.

Notary Public.

- 102 j -

SECOND WATEE SUPPLY

A detailed study and report of "The Underground. Vaters of Gila

Valley, Arizona" was made by Willis T. Lee, and was published, in 1904

a8 U.S.G.S. ter Supply Paper No. 104. This study included., the

compiling of well records with a view to determining the character

of material, the depth to water, and, the capacity of the wells; coin-

putations to determine the probable quantity of underfiow; analyses

of the water to test its suitability for irrigation; and, a study of

the practicabIlity of pumping from wells for irrigation.

The purpose o± the lee Investigation was "to determine the

possibility of developing the waters of the underflow of the Gila

Valley for the benefit of the Indians." He does not draw any very

definite conclusions as to the quantity of the underfiow, though

in his "resume" he states in part as follows:

"T)e valley fill is saturated with the water of the Gilaun4erflow.

"Both experiment and computation based. on conservativeassuniptions indicate that the volume of wator in the .Gila undarfiowIs probably greater than the estimated needs of the Indiana." (Heestimated the needs of the Indians at 40,000 acre feet per year.)

"An nouat of underflow sufficient for th needs of theIndians is near enough to the surface to be within easy pumpingdistance.

"The chemical charter of the waters of the und,erflow isfavorable to their use in irrigation.t'Pumping plants used. in irrigation near I1a Valley

prove that water can be pwnpad rapidly enough and, at a cost lowenough to make pumping a practicable method of securing water forirrigation for the Indian,s, provided, its use is properly directed.."

In, other reports on the San Garlos project no account has been

made of the und,erflow as one of the sources of supply for th,o proj-

ect, though mention has been made in sone cases to the fct that

there is such, a supply. There is at least one eeption to this,

- 103

and. that is a report by J. D. Schu.yler, dated December 5, 1911, in.

which he IDlanned on 10 pumping stations along the south bank of the

Gila at intervals of 500 feet, each to consist of two 15 inch wells.

Ho estimated. that these 10 stations would. deliver 10,000 acre feet

In 100 days.

Sources and Volume of Tjnd.erflow.

As stated, by Lir. Lee, "To obtain even the roughest qntitive

estimate of the uv.derflow it would be necessary to determine the

volume of water entering the valley," and accordingly an attempt is

here made to detenjne this volume. In making this study the follow-

ing sources of uud.erflow are taken into account;

a) Seepage under the Florence diversion dam

Spill at Florence diversion dam due to run-off below San.Carlos Reservoir

Spill at Florence diversion dam due to spill at San Carlosreservoir

Id) Und.er±'low as supplIed by ueen Creek

Is) I, I'" Salt River

(±1 TI IT It TI Santa Cruz River

Suri'ace waste and deep percolation from Irrigation and canals

Rainfall in Gila Basin. below gaging stations.

These sources of unlierfiow are ta3n up in the order above named,

and a study and estimate made as to their volumes, as follows:

SeeDa9 Loss under Florence Diversion Darn

Test borings were made of the Florence dana site by the Indian

Service in 1916-17. (See *Profile of Florence Dam Site in Appendix).

Bed, rock s found only near the sides of the stream. The greatest

- 104 -

depth drilled, without striking rook was 85 feet. The material above

the bed. rock is d.eribed. by H. V. Clotte, Supervising Engineer,

U. S. Indian Service, in. letter of May 1, 1920, as, "sand., gavel

and, enall boulders for about the first 18 feet, and. larger boulders

vre struck below this depth.',

The following data pertaining to the Florence diversion dam

are taken from the Olberg report of Nov. 1, 1915:

Breadth of weir and aprons 70 feet

Height of weir above river bed.(910V.156l) 8 "

Thickness of base at toe of weir 5 "

length of sheet piling below concrete 11

From the above data, and assuming the maximum depth to bed rock

to be 120 feet, (the maximum depth at the Buttes about 3 miles above

is 123 feet) the area of porous material below the sheet piling is

estimated to be 12,400 square feet.

In order to estimate the proba.blo seepage under the dam,

Professor C. S. Slichter's formula as outlined. under the subject of

"The Motions of Uncieround. Waters," in Water Supply Paper No. 67,

and as applied by Willis !. Leo in his studies of "The Undarground,

Vätors of Gila Valley, Arizona," as appearing in Water Supply Paper

No. 104, will be applied. This formula is as follows:

2 1 1q 11pPds

(1+0.0187. (t-32) cubic feet per minute

In this formula "q" is the quantity of water tranitted in one

minute; "p" is the difference in pressure at the ends of the section

considered, or the head under which the flow takes place; "8" is the

- 105 -

area of the CrOSS section considered., asured. in square feet; "bY'

is the length of the section considered in feet; "ci" is the mean

d.iovietor of the soil grains nwasured in millimeters; "k" is a

constant which d.epend.s upon the porosity of the sani; and Itttt is the

teeraturo of the water in Fahrenheit.

The value applied to these terms may be stated, as follows:

P 8 feet, the height of weir.

ci z 0,72 nmi which is the effective size of water bearing

material in Salt River Valley as d.etermid by

Professor Slichter.

- 12,400 square feet

ii 94 feet, the breadth of weir and aprons plus twice the

length of piling, which is the d.istano the water will

travel to roach toe of dam.

k - 20.318, corresponding to a porosity of 40, which was

d.etei,njned by Professor Slichter for the Salt River

Valley.

t - 30 degrees P., which is the value used by 7.T. Lee.

Applying these values to the Slicbter formula a seepa of 7,000 acre

feet per annum is the result.

Assing the Slicjiter formula with the above values applied,

then 7,000 acre feet per annum is the nount of water that will pass

und.er the diversion ciwn to contribute to the ground water supply of

the project.

Spill at Florence Jiverejon Dam dna to Runoffbelow San. Car].os Reservoir.

Mr. J. B. Lippincott C '.S. Paper No. 33,p. 22) determined.

- 106 -

that ic of the flow at the Buttes comes frcn below the Sari Carlos

reservoir site, and, that the most of this comes from the San Pedro.

This conclusion was later verified by the Axmy Board, as epressed.

by the following language in its report, (p.108):

"The factor 90 for reducing Buttes determin.ations to San

Carlos is therefore accepted with increased confidence.tt

And. on. p. 31 of the Olberg report it is stated that,"The

observations made during this investitjon se to indicate that the

flow (of the san dro) varies from 1/5 of the flow of the (i1a River

during low water to 1/10 during flood. periods. For lack of better

information the flow of the San Pedro has been. assumed, to be i/io

of the flow of the Gila.

A comparison is here made of the flow at lvin, which is

about 12 miles above the Buttes with no draina,go area of consequence

beten, and early records at the Buttes, with the flow at San Carlos,

during the period of synchronous records. This shows that the mean.

flow at San Car],os is 84 o± that at Ilvin.

- 107 -

Comparison of Plow of Gila flyer at Kelvin( or at the Buttes ) with flow at San Carlos

Plow at : Plow at : Patio of San Carlos: San Carlos :Kelvin (or Buttes) to Kelvin

Period. acre feet : acre feet

Sept.1, 1889 toAu.3l, 1890 329,908 : 366,63l 90%1895 :Aug. 1 to Iec.3l: 318,985 : 354,429 : 90%1896 : 554,585 : 616,206 : 90%

1897 :(a) 464,957 (a) 570,205 73%

1898 : 327,512 : 363,902 90%1899 :

Jan.1 toSept.30 164,530 : 203,910 : 81%

1912 384,000 : 451,000 :: 85%

1913 23O,3 : 228,000 101%

1914,exeept c.: 362,350 : 503,000 72%

1915 1,025,350 : 1,610,230 64%

1916 : 1,589,800 : 1,548,310 102%

1917, to SeDt.30: 283.400 ; 329,100

Total : 6,033,707 : 7.144,653 341

(a) 4proximate

Note: Record, at Buttes prior to Sept. 30,1899. copied. from

Llppincott report ( V. S. Paper #33).

Dec. 1914 omitted because of unusually 1ar nm-off at Kelvin(1,260, 000 acre feet) which is pobab1y inaccurate.

There are no run-off records of the San Pedro at its mouth,

though there has been an inconplete record 1pt since 1905 near

Pairbaik, ..rizona, which is in T. 20 5. B. 21 . and. is about 100

- 108 -

miles above the mouth of the stream. The total drainage area of the

San Pedro, as determined. by Mr. Lippincott is 3,500 square miles,

while that above the caging station is only about 670 square miles.

Though the principal drainage area lies below the gaging station,

this portion is low in altitude and. is quite barren, and, it is not

probable that it will add, much to the runoff. It is a matter ofconon. Imowiedge that the flow at the mouth is much more intenittent

than at Fairbank and. that only in flood, periods is there any surface

flow reaches the Gila. It is probable, hiovver, that there is con-

siderable underfiow from the Sen Pedro, which for this stud,y is

equivalent to suriace flow.

The following table shows the runoff of the San Pedro at Fairbnk,which shows a m3an annual flow of 58,500 acre feet. This is 7 of therun-off at 1lvin as shown by anparison with the preceding table.

This leaves 9 of the eess flow at 1lvin yet to be accounted foras coming from the San d_p below Pairbank and from the other

drainage area below San Carlos. Though the above ratio of the flowat San Canoe and at 1lvin is determined, from too short a period

to be conclusive, it is believed. more reliable than to ta1 only

the flow of the San Pedro at Fairbank and, to ignore thø balance

of the drainage area. It also should, be more reliable than theratio of 9 as determiied, in previous reports as there is now a

lon&er period, of s,ynchronous records.

- 109 -

Thu-off of San Pedro River near Fairbarñ. Arizona

DrAinage Area C Atrnrozjmate ) 670 scivare miles,

a a : a : : a : : a; Jan. Feb. a Mar, a Apr, a May a June a July a A ug. a Sett. a Oct. , Nov. a Dee. a Totala a : a a a :(l) a a a(2) :(3) :1905 : 2,423 a 4,254 a 9,346 a 3,957 a 1,832 a 1,821 a 2,902 a 5,702 a 4,784 a 2,502 a 3,976 a 1,705 a 45,200a a a a a a a a a a1906 a 3,490 : 7,220 a 4,010 a 1,720 a 1,150 a 476 a 2,010 a 9,040 a a : aa a a a a a a a1912 a a a a a a a a 1,090 a 762 a 538 a

1913 : 695 : 1,850 a 781 : 219 188 3,320 : 8,360 5,70 : 210 : 3,450 492 a 25,500a : a a a a a a a a a a a1914 922 611 a 535 a 422 a 258 a 292 a 8,670 al26,000 a 6,420 a 2,910 a 1,940 a(4)857 a 149,840a(S) a a a a a a a a a1915 a 2,820 a 12,100 a 9,830 g 3,020 a 1,520 a 1,20 12,300 a 5,410 5,370 a 842 : 1,150 a 1,140 : 57,740

a a a a a a a a1916 a 5,250 a 1,200 a 713 a 393 a 387 a 161 a 8,420 a 11,100 a 3,450 : a

a a a a a a a a a a aMean 2,600 a 4,539 a 4,202 a 1,615 a 894 a 696 a 6,270 a 27,602 : 5,355 a 1,511 a 2,256 a 946 a 58,500a a a a a : a a a a a a

(1) Aug. 9 31. (2) Nov. 1 - 28. (3) Dec. 17 - 31. (4) Dec. 1 18. (5) Jan. 22 3O

4 jew of the foregoing it is conclud.ed. that the flow at San.

Garlos is 84 of the unregulated flow, including und.erflow, at the

diversion site. It is admitted that the underfiow is not inclu.ded.

in the measurements at Kelvin, but this would, be an inconsiderable

amount without the artificial head. produced. by the diversion dam,

as the head is only about 13 feet per mile, as compared to a head of

6 feet in 94 eot with the dam constructed. Based on the mean annual

flow at San Carlos then, or 440,600 re feet for the total period

of record, the mean increased, annual flow at the diversion dam over

that at. San Canoe is 84,000 acre feet.

In figuring the water available for storage and, diversion

previously in this report, no account s taken of this increased

flow at the diversion site over that at San Canoe, except to assume

as vas doxe in previous reports, that this increased flow would take

care of lose in. transmission from the reservoir to the diversion,

the unavoidable spill over the diversion dam, and the seepage under

it. Though this increased flow is in addition to the trannissionlosses in the unregulated, river, it is believed that in, transmittingwater from the reservoir the evaporation. loss in the river should be

deducted from this excess. The distance from the San Caries dam tothe diversion darn is about 70 miles, and. the mean width of the regu-

lated river is estimated at i500 feet. The not annual evaporation

as previously deteid is 5 feet, which applied to the area of theriver bed amounts to 5,000 acre feet.

The net ainoi.mt of water, therefore, coming from below Sac,

Carlos either to be spilled. over the diversion darn or taken into the

caimi in excess of the diversion as previously fIgured, is 84,00O

acre feet less the seepage under the dam or 7,000 acre feet, less

evaporation, loss between San Canoe and the diversion of 5,000 acre

feet; or the net artowit per annum is 72,000 acre feet.

On account of the erratic nature of the run-off of the streams

betvexi San. Canoe and the diversion dmn, it is not believed thatthis water can be depended. upon to any considerable extent for

diversion and that practically the full amount required must be

turned out of the reservoir. it is therefore concluded that therewill be 72,000 acre feet of spill at the diversion darn coming from

the drainage area below the San Canoe reservoir.

It may be said that this spill will be in the nature of suddenfloods and that a part of it will pass beyond, the bounds Of theproject as surfaoe runoff; an it is admitted, that this may be trueto some extent. trowever, with the floods of the Gi].a proper con-trolled, at the Ban Cabs reservoir, and. with part of the floods ofthe San. Pedro diverted at both the Florence and the Sacaton diversion.sites, which it is probable will generally be ti caM, it Isbelieved that not more than 50% will be lost in surface floods beyond

the project; or in other words, It is estimated, that 36,000 a.f.will join the grouwi. ter within the project. As Is hereinafterdiscussed, under tie subjeot of spill from San Canlos reservoir,the absorbing capacity of the river bed from the Florence diversiondani totheGliacrossjn,g, is at least 6,600 acre feet per month.This amounts to 79,200 acre feet per anntn as compared, to the 36,000acre feet to be absorbed, as above estimatç,.

- 112 -

Spill at Florence Diversion Im dueto Spill at San Calos Reservoir.

For this study it will be assumed that a reservoir will be

constructed. with a maintained available capacity of 1,460,000 acre

feet as is shown by "Table No. 3, San Carlos Reservoir" previously

in this report. It is shown by that table that out of 24 years of

record, there would, be only two years of spill; namely, 1916, with

1,037,310 acree feet spill, and. 1917 with 139,800 acre feet apiLl.

On first thought It would seem that owing to the great mire-

quency of these spills, this water could not be figured on to add.

to the ground, water supply for the project. On irther study,

however, it is found that a portion of this water Is available for

this purpose.

Lllis T. lee 7.S. Paper #104), found that there is an irmnense

und.erground, reservoir capacity In the Gila Valley, varying from

1,120,000 acre Iet to 1,960,000 acre feet, depending on the porosity

of the soil, for a lering of the water table of 25 feet. Heal

found, by applying Professor Slichter's formula as above described.,

that the velocity of the ground, water is 1360 feet per year, and

ho then concluded that the porosity might be such that the velocity

might be as much as 2 miles per year. cepting this maximum

estimated, velocity, then, it wild. take 35 years for any particle

of water to flow from the diversion dam to the lor end. of the

Gila Reservation. With teso facts in mind,, then, it is apparent that

with an average spill of one year in 12, so much of this water as

joins the ground water will be available for project use.

It now remains to determine vthat portion of the above spill

will join the ground, water within the area to be available for

- 113 -

for project use. There are two points on the river within the projectWhere a portion of the ground. water comes to the surI'ace a.ncl. is avail-

able for direct diversion; nanely, at the Sacaton diversion dam sitea few miles above Sacaton, and, at Gila Crossing, or where the railroad.between Maricopa and, Phoenix crosses the river. This latter point Isabout 50 miles below the Florence diversIon dam, and, about 20 milesabove the lower and. of the Reservation. Mr. Lee states rerd1ng"the abund.a of seepa water in the low lazds near Gila Crossing,that, "it is probable that the large amount of undargrou waterevIdut in this region; an amount sufficient to satzrate the valleyfill and, still give an overflow of more than 2,000 inches, Is duo

to the junction of the thro un,cjerflows - Gila, Salt River and, SantaCruz." It would appear from this that there will be suffIcIent waterby direct diversion and, by pumping, for the need,s of the Indiansbelow the G11a Crossing regardless of what pumping may be clone abovethis point. This supply will also be further augnented, by the factthat the undarfiow figured as available for irrigation on the upperportion of the project will again be avaI],j0, in part, for use belowGila Crossing. For those reasons, therefore, only the amount of theabove spill that sinks above Gila Crossing will be considered Inthis study.

In the Olberg Investigations it was deternjned from measementathat between iejvj.n anu Sacaton there is "a seepage loss of 110second, feet takes place dunn the low stages of tie river, with an.additional transmission loss of 10 of t remaining flow." Therehave been no measurements made of ths Seepage loss from the diversiondam to Gi],a, Crossj,ng but as the distance is practically the sane as

- 114 -

'I

from Kelvin to Sacaton it will be safe to assume that the seepage willbe at least as great, so it will therefore be taken as 110 secondfeet.

The record, shows that the spill in 1915 and 1917 occurred, during

an 8 months' period; namely, January to April and September and Octo-

ber, 1916, arid January and Pbruary, 1917. If this be absorbed atthe rate of 110 second feet, the total amount of the two years' floodjoining the ground. water supply of the project will be 52,800 acrefeet, or an average of 2,200 acre feet per annum for the 24 years Di'record.

as suDplied. lr Q,uoen Greek

"UOOfl Creek rises in the mountains, to the westward of the SilverElng Mining camp, in Piiaa3, County, Arizona., and, flows in a generalsouthwesterly direction, leaving the mountains below a point amo ashitlowt Lanoh, approzimate].y 18 miles north of the Buttes. Inordinary years it loses itself ira the desert north 0±' the G1J.a RiverIndian Reservation." ( '.S. Paper #33).Willis T. Ie ( Vi. S. Paper #104) in discussing the probability

o± a portion of th undrf1 of the Salt River entering the CiliaValley in the vicinity of Gila Crossing, states that,

"With this und.erflow may be included that of Queen Creek, enteringfrom north of' the Sacaton Mountains, lthough the nouat of wateryielded by the creek is thought to be. very small compared with thatfrom Salt River."

The run-off records of ueen Creek are very meager,though four sears ' record, 1896 to 1899, are found in Water SupplyPaper No. 33, which ere iartiy estimated by Lipincott.

- 115 -

punoff of ueen Creek near urorior. hriza

In order to estimate the mean flow for a greater period,, the

ratio of the mean flow of the G1la at an Carlos for the above period.

to the mean flow for the 24 sears of record has been d.etex,nined, and.

thi s ratio I s then applied to the above mean. This ratio Is 126,

which makes the nan annual flow of Caeen Creek for the 24 year

period, 10,600 acre feet.

As stated by Mr. Lipplucott this water "loses Itself in. the

desert", and, as the natural course for it to pursue is toward the

Gila River, it is concluded it joins the ground water supply of the

project.

TJnd.erflow as Supp1j. b. Salt River

Regarding the subject of the underground waters of the Gila

Valley as supplied by the underflow from the Salt River, V/hue T. Lee,

(W.S. Paper #104) states, in addition. to the quotations hereinbefore

made, that,

"There are reasons for believing that the underground waters of SaltRiver Valley find, their way, to sOme extent at least, by underground.

- 116 -

Drainage Area 142 square miles

Year Acre Feet

1896 io,r

1897 13,110

1898 6,000

;].899,Jan.1 to Aug.11 12,527

;Oct.1915 to).ug.1916 24.000

Moan 13.300 :

passages between Salt River Mountains and. Sacaton Mountains, joiningthe Gila underfiow west of where the railroad crosses the Gila. * ** * * * It may be said that the abuncince of seepage or return waternear Gila Crossing is in part due to the Salt River un.d.erflow.tt

This conclusion of Mr. Lee's, as it is based on a special study

of the unc1ergrouna waters of both the Gila and Salt River Valleys, willbe here accepted. It appears, however, that this water is available

Only below the Gila Crossing; and, as further determined by Mr. Lee,

it here joins the und.erilow of the Gila, the Santa Cruz, and. Queen

Creek, which waters are forced up to or near the sur.aoe on account

of the narrowing of the basin at this point; and, thus, tt1ater occurs

near the suraco over a large part of the lowlands of the western

third of the reservation," and, "Bogs and slou.ghs are of frequent

occurrence."

In view of these facts, then, without attpting to determinethe amount of this und.erfjow from the Salt River, it is concluded,, as

was previously stated, that the total supply below G11a Crossing, is

sufficient for the needs of the Indian lands below this point, ifproperly developed by pumping.

Undertlow as suDplled bji Santa Oru.z ILver.

A special study has been under way for the past several yearsby the Irrigation lpartment of the University of Arizona under thedirection of Professor G.E.P. nIth, on the subjsct of the ground

water supply of the Casa Grands Valley. It is to be regretted thatthis studr and the report as to conclusions reached, are not yetcompleted, from which valuable information might be received; though

- 117 -

such a report isprcniised within the next year or so. Howover,through

the courtesy of Professor Siinith, considerable valuable infoz,nation has

boon ftrnishecI the writer, incJnd.jng a large number of well record.s in

the Casa Grande Valley, and. a partly completed map showing the location

of these wells and also the ground water contours. From this datafurnished,, a tabulation of "Irrigation Wells in Casa GrandeVal1ei"

has been mada and. is included, later in this report, and, a map incor-porating the iafonatjon in that zrnished. by Professor ith hasbeen prepared., and is includ,-d in the appendix hereof. vo profiløshave also been prepared. from this information (see Appendix), onealong the line of the railroad from Picacho on the Southeast toilaricopa on the northwest, and tha other along the range line betweenRanges 7 and 8 East, from the TOVnSh1p line between Townships 8 and9 South, north to the Gi].a River. These profiles show the ground,

sur'ace, the ground water line, and, the log of wells in. the vicinityof the profiles.

Also th following table has been compiled, from data furnishedthrough Professor Smith, showing the depth ta water at various pointsalong the Santa Cruz Valley fron rioo-pa on the west to about 15miles south of Tucson on the east:

Depth to Vater in the Santa Cruz Vallesr:Distance: Depth to :Location from Water : Remarks.

: (Miles): (Poet ) gMaricopa 0.0 : 43 : Railroad Company WellBon Station ; 10.2 100 On RailroadNunoz Station 15.]. 100 , " 9

Casa kande ; 21.4 ; City WellArizola ; 26.6 : railroad

-pth to water iii the Santa Cruz Valley (contdlLocation : li stance : a Bemarks

From an emnjnatjon of these data, the evidence seems conclusivethat, ecept for a nrow strip adjacent to the Gila. River and east ofthe Sacaton Mountains, the ground. water of the Oasa Grande Valley

comes from the Santa Cruz, and not from the Gila. This is shown, byt1 fact that the direct! on of the ground water contours shows thatthis water is flowing in a. northwesterly direction, or in the directionof the Santa Cruz wash; and, also, the north and. south profile abovementioned. shows that the ground water table within four miles north ofthe river is above the water surface of the highest floods of the GilaRiver, n.d, that south of this the water table rises very rapicUy and.

- 119 -

: (Miles) a (Feet)Toltec 31.]. a 60 : On. railroad

Eloy : 35.6 a 85 a

Picacho 39.8a

116 Railroad Company Well: (Iave Railroad)

N;,Sec.22. 10 S., 9 B. a 53.0 : 128 a 5.6 i:iles SWof Red. Rod

SB Sec.36.10 8., 9 E. a 56.7a

127 5 111.8 end 2 Mi. W ofa Bed Rock.11.8ec.3, l2S.11E. 66.0 : 158 :3 Iii. S. of Iiarana$ta.a (near ra!lroadj

ii- Sec.6,12 8 12 3.a

68.0 a

:

89 a 1 Mi. BW of flhllito Sta.a (near railroad)

S1 Sec.9, 12 S. 12 . a 69.0 a 30 a Near Bhllito Sta.IE Sec. 34, 12 8. 12 E. a 74.0 : 29 : 5 Mi. SE of flullito Sta.i eo. 18, 13 5. 1 B. a 76.0 a

a

11 1 Near Mouth of Billitoa Creek.

Tucson a 85.0 a 30 a At Tucson

Sec. 35, 14 8. 13 B. 89.0 : 23 a 4 Mi. S. of Tucson

nec. 2, lb S. 13 E. a 96.0 a 14 a 11 ml. S. of Tucson.

Sec. 30, 16 8. 14 B. : 100.0 a 50 a 15 in!. 5. of Tucson

due to its elevation it cou].d. not come from the Gila Hivor. It may be

argued that it may come by artesian action from higher up on the Cilia,

but this possibility seems quite remote as the ground, water table near

Picacho is only 200 feet lower than the river bed. at Win31man, which is

at a distance of 45 miles up the Odla fliver.

In ad.d,ition to the above, it may be said, that the Casa Grande

Valley is the Santa Cruz Valley; that the Santa Cruz has a large drainage

area (about 5,800 square miles above Toltec, or above the project);

and, that generally the run-off of the Santa Cruz, except what is diverted

for irrigation above Tucson, entirely sinks before it reaches the project.

willis T. Lee (W.S. Paper #104) in discussing the und.erflow of the

Santa Cruz, states that,

"The waters of the Santa Cruz ordinarily sink beneath the surfacelong before they reach the region shown in the accompanying map.(Northwest of Maricopa.) The floods of the Santa Cruz, however, aresaid to find, their way over the plain near Casa Grand.e and. Maricopaand finally reach the (lila north of Estrella Mountains."

om the above data it is ccacluded, that the present ground, water

supply of the Casa Grand,e Valley (except the seepage from the Florence

Canal irrigation) is from the Santa Cruz, so it now remains to determine,

as near as may be, the volte of und.erflow from this stream contributing

to the supply 0±' the project. The physical conditin are such on this

stream as to preclude the possibility of determining the underfiow in.

the vicinity of the project with any great degree o± accuracy. This

is true because of the fact that the only gaging station on the main

stream where it could be said, the water is on the surface is near the

head, of the stream - that is, near Nogales, vith only 780 square miles

of drainage area above it - while the total drainage area of tf stream

above the project is 5,800 square miles. It is true that the San Pedro

-120-

is a similar stream in that the noial flow sinks many nibs above its

mouth, but in the 3.atter case, the underfiow can be measured after it

joins the Gila viriere the water is forced to the surface by the out-

crppThg of bed rock as at the Butts. It would. also be of useless

value to deteiiie r. th any degree of ref ineient the underfiow in the

vicinity of the gaging station at Tucsi, as irrigation by p'irJg

fro1n wells is being rapidly developed in the Tucson Valley, and. there

is a large area of suitable land for irrigation extondLillg from above

Tucsii to the east boundary of the project oi which such development

might be made. 'rom a letter recently received fron the Dertnent of

Irrigation, University at rizOna it is learned that the Tucson ?arms

Company have irndor irrigation below Tucson, about 3500 acreS. This is

watered by 12 wells in the dlistrict and from Flowing ells Ditch, the water

being pumped into concrete lined ditches; that below the Tucson 'aras

Corn any or in the vicinity of RillitO, is located the dwin R. Post

Company lands vioh are just being developed, and. it is planned to drill

28 wells this seas on that there has been for several years about 250

acres under irrigation, fim the river and. from two wells, near RillitO

station whii is some 16 miles below ucson, and. "That t1is is about

all the lands that are watered between Tucson and. Red. Rock." (Red Rock

is about 30 miles below Tucson and. about 24 miles above Toltec).

Assuming that the above 40 wells of the two companies have an

average capacity the sathe as the average of the irrigation wells in the

Casa Grande Valley - which is 1.72 s.f. - and. assuming that the 40 wells

are run continuously for the madirnim irrigati on month, and. that the use

of water for this month is 12 of the arniuni use, as determined previously

in this rort under the stuclyof the duty of water; then the annu

draft of these 40 wells would be about 34,000 a.f. or thirteen

per cent more than the ran aimual

-121-

surface flow of the river at Tucson, icludiag the amount diverted by

the Paiiers an4 Ining ditches. Without attempting to determine the

underfi at Tucson, it would appear from the above that the oniy limit

iii thedevelopment of p ping for irrigati on in. the Tucson Vafle::, is the

limit of the ground water supply and that, therefore, it would not be safe

to figure any of this as available fon the Car]os Project.

There is, hov.revor, a surface flow of the .anta ruz at Tucson which,

as shown on the following runoff table, amounts to a mean annw1 of 23,190

a. f. This gaging station is below all diversions of consequence, and the

runoff at this point is too intermittent to permit of successful diversion.

The normal flow of the stream is sal diverted above this point, so it may

be said that only floods of short duration pass the gage. s stated in

W.3. Paper ::L289 in describing the Santa Cruz River,

"The waters of the lower portion are finally lost inthe sands not far from Tucson."

but as stated b:T Mr. Lee (W..Paper l04,

"The floods are . . . said to find their way over the plain

near Casa Grande and : ricopa and finally reach the Gila north

of strella Mountain."

Prn an examination of the tabulation of "Depth to Iator in the Janta

Cruz Valley" previously given, it is seen that from Tucso to Rillito, a

distance of 16 nibs, is good pumpiag ground due to the shallow depth of

water; that at flhllito there is an underground waterfall; the water

dropDing fr a depth o 30' to 89' in one mile, and that fran here to

Toltec, near the upper edge of tho project, a distance of 30 miles, the

water is at a depth generally of over 100 ft. or too great to be attract-

ive for ruaing. The wells being drilled by the dwin R.

Post 0omany are located in this shallow ground water area just

above i11ito and the lands lamed, to be irrigated, lie below

-l22

the station.

It wo1d aear from the ab ye that a portion of the surface water

at the Tucsi caging 3tation, or for an estimate, sa: one-third or 8,000

a.f. wanld escaDe, the draft from thispimping area aad. voald join the

ground waters of the Sna Ca:los Proet.

La ahiiti o. to tlic runoff of the Santa Su proper, there is ai

important branch, Jillito Qroeh, vfuich joirm tue Santa 2ruz about iine

miles below Tucson.. The measurements of this streu, as shovrn by the

following runoff table, show a mean annual flow of 46,140 a.f. near its

mouth. There are no impo rtant divers io:iis of this water below the gaging

station, except by pumping, as above stated. This 15 also an intermittent

stren arid th same may be said, as to the actions of its floode, as of the

Santa Cruz. The distance from the mouth of this stream to Toltec is about

45 miles but as shova by the depth to ground water tabulation previas1y

given, the w,ter t&ilo throu.gh all but the first seven miles of this

distance, is too far below the surface for very profitable irrigation

pumping. It is, therefore concluded that a part of this water or say, fifty

percent or 24,000 a.f. will escape this pumping area d will join the

ground water sup1r of the project. This mates a total underfiow of 32,000

a.f. per annum, reaching the project from the Santa Cruz. par.t of this

flow runs south of the Casa Grande Mountains and, therefore, outsihe of the

bounds of the oroject proper, but it may be considered as available in the

Oasa Grarde Valley.

S. detailed study of the Rillito may be found in University of S.riona

Bulletin Uo. "Groundwater Supply & Irrigation. in the lUllito ValleyT,

by G..P. Smith, hay 12, 1l0. Tics following tabulation is teien fran this

-123-

Bulletin which shows a mean percenta&e seepage loss in the Rillito

0±' 63 in the seven mile stretch above the gaging station at the Oracle

Road. Brid.ge north of Tucson.

MITO SPAGE LOBS FIRST SRVEN 1ILES BOVE GACE.

DIZC'WGE ALORIE ROADSL. PT.

LOSS rn 7 lLMS P10EEAG LOSS

S]'O. FT.

459 156 2546 15927 71 72-

103 9020 00 8012 48 801 44 98

35 96 7320 151 880 66 100

- 66 230 78634 109.4 63 M A i

It should be borne in mind. in studying this table that 63 of the

rate of surface flow does not necessarily represent the of underfiow,

but ratier it represents ,ound storage and, the rate of u.nderflow may be

very much loss, This is true on account of the fact that t1 surface

flow above shown, generally represents floods of short duration and.

during these floods the groundwater reservoir is being filled and

then, it slowly lors or cirins out as a result of the under±2ow..

As in the case of the Santa Cruz it is assumed, that all of the

underfiow at the gaging station will be utilized by pumping between

this point and. Billito Station about 11 miles below.

The runoff 0±' the Santa Cruz at Tucson and of flh11it (reek is

given in the follcwlug discussions and, tables:

- 124 -

OP SANT& CLUZ 1IVR J.T TUCSON, IZOiA.

Incomplete records have been ipt since 1905 o± the runoff of the

Santa Cruz River at Ttc son, Arizona, the results of which are shown iu

the following table. The measurements have been made at the Congress

Street Bridge in Tucson, which is just below the diversion point of

the Manning and Farmers Ditches and, therefore, in order to determine

the flow Of the river, the discharge of these canals should be added

to the figures as shown in the runoff table. L record Of tA flow of

these ditches is reported in U. S. . S. 'Vater Supply Papers Nos. 21].

and 269 from which the following is compiled:

- 125 -

FLO

W I

N A

CR

B T

. OF

PAR

1RS

AN

D M

&N

NIN

DIT

CH

ES.

1905

.19

06.

1906

.19

09.

F.A

BiE

R8g

MA

NN

ING

::

IUIA

NN

ING

::F

AR

Mz

M.iN

ING

:: F

AR

M: M

JNIN

G s

MO

ITH

DIT

CH

DIT

CH

: T

OT

AL

ER

SE

RS

::

1RS

::

ME

AN

:DIT

CH

: D

ITC

H: T

OT

AL

:DIT

CH

:D

ITC

H :

TO

TA

L :

DIT

CH

:D

ITC

H: T

OT

AL

tT

OT

AL

;;

;;

;Ja

n.29

0:

0:

290

240

:60

064

028

0:

430

:71

0t

610

Feb.

221

:15

938

0:

120

240

:36

0:

260

:54

080

0g

510

SS

SS

SS

S

Mar

.; 4

20:

496

:91

638

0 :

660

:10

40;

250

510

:76

091

0S

:A

pr.

: 371

:66

11.

032

;30

0 :

420

:72

0:

240

:40

0:

640

:80

0

May

:22

969

4:

923

:30

0 :

530

:83

0:

200

:30

0:

500

:75

0

June

318

:50

882

6 :

250

300

550

180

;24

0:

420

:60

0

July

:23

1:

324

:55

5 :

:46

0:

460

:12

0:

120

:24

0:

420

S:

:A

ug.

; 179

386

:56

5 :

40 :

225

:26

5:

g13

041

.0S

:t

SS

Sept

.s

224

:39

0:

614

t21

0 :

430

:64

0:

z50

0s

630

S

Oct

.: 2

63g

423

:68

625

0 g

490

:74

0:

710

SS

S:

S

Nov

.13

4t

308

t44

2g

182

:51

.369

524

047

0z

710

:62

0S

S

Deo

rs

00

088

:43

8:

526

:70

:18

0:

250

t5

390

The mean annual flow for the period of record, of the

Paners and. Manning Ditches as shown from the above is 7,360

acre feot. Froni the ezamination of this record. it seems pro-

bable that the amount cUverted. into these two ditches is fairly

constant from year to year and, therefore, this sum (7,360 a.f.)

should be added to the runoff of the Santa Cruz, as shown by the

following table, in. order to determine the total annual surface

flow of the strewn at Tucson.

- 127 -

RT

JNO

FF O

SA1'

TA

CR

UZ

RIV

ER

AT

TU

OSO

N A

RIZ

ON

A.

DR

AIN

AG

E A

BE

L (

APP

R0x

.,) 2

300

ScI.

MIL

ES.

YE

AR

JAN

.11

B.

MA

R.

APR

.N

AY

JUN

E J

UL

YA

UG

.SE

I.O

OT

.N

OV

.D

EC

.T

OT

AL

1905

12.8

002.

190

j906

615

90 2

,080

00

00

00

00

2.64

014

.700

1907

15,3

3050

00

00

00

1900

130

170

130

9081

0022

8018

7078

0

1909

120

140

130

230

5058

2075

1012

6020

016

020

0

1910

000

140

7044

4069

0.0

100

240

1912

130

300

610

1913

770

6*0

900

00

0

760

190

960

70 0

0

170

20 360

20

54,9

00

1,81

0

57,2

1014

180

020

00

40

1915

10,4

0011

,200

3070

00

060

00

00

024

.730

1916

24.5

0058

70

00

027

0081

8013

3014

00

037

,440

1917

GD

00

00

085

9010

500

9410

00

0 79

28.5

00

5.07

019

180

3214

00

7822

546

200

220

1919

00

00

00

1550

099

2021

90

Mea

i4.

715

2019

473

2911

1341

9940

7714

6776

1364

4743

23.1

90

* E

etlm

ated

.

RU

NO

FF O

F R

ILL

ITO

CR

F.E

K N

EA

R T

UC

SON

. AR

IZ.

DR

AIN

AG

E A

RR

A (

APP

RO

X.)

135

0 $q

.MIL

ES.

YE

AR

JAW

.FE

B.

MA

R.

APR

.W

i.Y.

JU1E

JUL

YA

UG

.3E

P..

OC

T.

NO

V.

DE

C.

TO

TA

L.

1913

00

0

1914

822

00

012

2470

2920

2590

9213

6010

7000

1172

70

1915

2130

Q25

500

1040

012

000

05

00

00

058

400

1916

3710

022

0036

0060

00

910

7750

684

280

052

330

1917

1720

274

80

00

5110

2840

643

00

010

600

1918

07

*7o

042

6048

814

77

039

65

1280

0

1919

1581

533

266

80

031

.000

4150

467

Mea

n10

022

4936

3693

321

710

8366

0729

4673

126

228

1783

448

140

AS a matter of record. the flow of the Santa Cruz near Noga].es,

which is near where the stream enters the United. States from Uex1co

is here tabulated, cnd in order to benefit by the lonier record atTucson, the relation of the flow at the two stations is determinedby ciparing synchronous records, and the flow at Nogales is then

determined, by applying this percentage relation. This gives a mean

annual runoff at Nogales of 25,000 A.P.

With a view to studying the possible underflow at Tucson a tableis also prepared. showing the an.nua]. runoff per sq. mile on the variousstreams studied in this report. This shows a very anall runoffbetween Nogales and. Tucson and by comparison with the runoff of theother streams, it would indicate that there is a considerable underfiowat Tucson. It may be said, that the rainfall at Tucson is nearly asmuch as near Nogales and is greater than at Benson on the San Iic3.ro.It would. seen reasonable,therefore, that the runoff between Nogalesand Tucson should be as great per Sq. mile as that on the Gi].a betweenSan Carlos and the Buttes as the latter is mainly from the San Pedrowhich is similar in. altitude and, character to the Santa Cruz. Ifthis rate of runoff (l58 a.f. per sq. mile) were applied to the formerarea, it would result in a runoff fran the area between Nogalos and.Tucson of 24,000 a.f. of which about 19,000 a.f. would be underfiow.

However, regardless of what this flow is, as previously statecjit is figured that it will all be used in the Tucson Valley and thatnone of it will be available for the San Carlos project.

- 130

COMiISON OP FLOW OF SANTA CRtJZ BIVR AT TUCS WITH PLOW AT NOGALES.

36O a.f. per annum added. to record, of flow at gage for d.iversion.

In Fa.xners and. Manning Ditches.

Mean anrn.u.1 flow at Nogales figured as 82% of flow at Tuoson is

25,000 a.f.

- 13]. -

PERIODAT

TUtJSON

A.F. :

PLOW ATNOGALESA.F.

RATIO OF: NOGALES TO

TUCSON.

Year 1913 9,170 3,450

Year Ending Sept.30,19].4. 9,180 13,100

ft II It 30,1915.(except December)

ft " " 1916,(except July )

32,270

41,540

4t,460

12,590

T 0 T A L - 92,160 75,600 82%

LL' RUiTOP I: AOi PT pa 5iJAL iIL OF STiA iS

liT ViCILY OF i EOS PI0IiT.

:DiIiTGE:LiTT :iUiOPF PRJRjA :TO:S.LI..2.

:S._iI. : ...F.

*82? ol' flow at Tcsi,

**B1etin TT0. 61-, Lniversity of .riona, gives this area as

947 sç. miles. The above area is d.etermine. fr the genersi.

map of àrizora and. it aay be in error.

-132-

Gila at an Car1 13,455 440,600 32.8

" between Buttes & San Carlos 5,300 84,000 15.6

San Ped.ro at irbaic 670 58,500 87.3

u.een Creek at Superior 142 10,600 74.6

Sita Cruz at ucson 2,300 30,550 13.3

lUllito CreeT at 2ucson ** 1,350 48,140 35.6

Santa Cruz at Noa1es 760 *25,000 32.0

I, be tween ioga1es &'2ucson 1,520 5,560 3.7

I]RIGLTI0Ii Ls II: G1Di VàJ.2Y.

.s previouslj mentioned., a tabulation of the irrigation

wells in the Casa Ci-rande V2lley, has boon prepared. and is in-

cluded in this report as a matter of record. and with a view to

showin tile individual progBess to date in the attnpt to

irrigate the project by ground water pumpin-. s receivoci from

the University of irizona, this data also included the logs of

many of these wells, but for the saite of brevity, the logs havehere

been omitted. In addition to this list, the water tablewas measured in many domestic wells under the direction of the

Tfniversit;., as is aoi by the ground water contour map previously

mentioned, progress record.was iept of these wells coverin a

period of several years, and it was found that the water table

remained quite constant from year to year. It is to be regretted.

that in this study of the irrigation wells, the "Draw downu while

piunping was not determined..

There are 134 wells recorded in the following list, of which

a record, or at least estimate, was made of the discharge of

78 wells. This record aov a mean discharge of 1.72 secoi. feet

per well, and if this mean beappliod. to the balanco, the combined

capacity of the 134 wells woJd be 230 second ft. tp to the presen

only a coiaratively small number of these wells have been in opara

tion for the irrigation of any considerable acreage, thu.ui in secases, good sized farms are under irrigation from tale source. In

one case, for eamp1e, the writer was shown a section of land, that

was all under successful irrigation from three wells.

133

In ease these 134 wells should, be operated at their maximum

capacity, which it will be assumed as coütinuous operation for the

month of maximum demand, and assuming this maximum months demand to

be 12 of' the yearly demand, as previously determined. under the

subject of the "Monthly duty of water", the total draft on the ground

water supply would be 115,000 a.f., or nearly four tmes the u.nderflow

available from the Santa Cruz, as herein date rininod,. It should be

n.otod,, however, that no such continuous operation as this is 1II1y

with these wells; though it is altogether likely that more wells

will ctinue to be drilled until such time as the water table lowers

to a point where no further wells are profitable. As yet the ter

table ha8 not been perceptibly lowered by this pumping. It should

also be noted that these wells have in addition to the Santa Cruz

water, the seepage from the Florence Canal irrigation, and, east of the

Scaton J,Iountajns, the i1a River und.orflow, upon which to draw.

It is Interesting to note here that according to the observations

under the direction of the University of Arizona, the most successful

wells in the Florence, Casa randa unit of the project are those

located east of the Sacaton Mountains where the Gila und.erflow, aunentb,

by the Santa Cruz, is available.

- 134 -

IBIGA.TION V'ELLS IN GASA GEJDE V.LLEY.

(mtTA SEDUBED OLI IBLIGATION iTPT., UNIVJBSITY OP EIZONA.)

80 H.P. V.0.

Npte: I&B Layne & Bowler 3-J Byron-Jac1on V.a.-.- iiorizota. Centri3.. T.C. - Turbine Centriuga1.P.M. - Fairbanks Morse.

- 135 -

: depth :KIND & SI: DIS0}L4BGE

SIZE : OP : OF:

CASING: ENGLNIft PU':GAL.Pfl:TEASTJEELITTN.LCC.ATION :OP LL:TO WATER:

SEC. T.R. : PT. . I&B :

SE SE 32 4 3 : 210 46 16" 50 HP 15" : 1100Charter BJ

SE 34 " : 200 50 16" 140 HP 12" 2450 WEIB

V0Cmrter B-'J

SE 28 4 4 400 65 20" 50 H P 18" : 940Turb.

IE 1357 :104 24 16"

Steaans Caton:34 : 52 23 12" 3.5 H.P. H.C. 800

We stern AM.NW '

" 50 24" 40 H.P LC. 1200 GUESSWestern I&B

5J " " : 192 27 24" 50 H.P. T.G. 1880 t'eir

WE 25 U U : 368 28 24" " " " 2200 F1o.tsC0nnercia]. Kroh.ft " " : 150 28 16" 50 H.P H.C. 1P0 tbirGiant B-J

NW NW 26 Ii 118 26 16" 50 HP H.C. 901- Ifroh.

?t.' 57 " : 33 16" W.Ltte H.G. 150 GueseNoer Worth-

SE 27 "" : 12" 25 UP in.-.

ton

LC.Charter i&B

SW SE 28 " : 16" 45 H.p. Ver-tica].

1435

Connor-cia]. Eogh.

NW: 27 2 H.P. }i.C. 813

Chator Worth-SE SW " " : 201 16" 25 H.P. ing

ton. HG755 ft

Coner-75 27 cia]. Krogli

'

20 HP H.C. 64935 " ."

: 30 U U V.a.

36 " 1

16" Western B-J60 HP H.C.

Cent. 9 5 8 : 89 16" F.-M. B-J50 H.P. H.C.

'I 10 5 " 155 16" P.-LI. B-J

IGATION WELIZ CAA GRJNDE VATJY.

(D1. SUBED Oi: 1iBIGàT ION flPT. UNIVEBSITY OF iZOHA. 3

LmATION

E P T HKIIID & $. DISOEtB(

SIZE OF OP G&L.:CAING: ENG. PIThP : PB: : : N.

: OP : TO: LL:WATEB

TS.

Sec. T. R. : . :

Si 12 5 8 ; 82: 14 : 12" : P.I. 3J11.0.

BV SW 19 " " 92: 26 ' 12" PM BJ

ft ft U

25 HP Borlz.

24" itte Krohlo H.P. H.C. 606 Ieir

NW 20 " " 112:Corn. I&B

1E 23 " "

2: 172: 54 24" 60 H.p. T.C,

Charter Pm.

W 30 " " 179 29 16" 35 H.P. H.0. 862Charter BJ

S 31 " " : 227 34 16" 45 H.P.

32 " ": 35 24" Witte B-3

22 H.P. 11.0.

NW 35 " " : 115 50 6"

E 15 63 :138 114

SV 8 6 4 : 163 93 10" P.M. kaos12 H.P. P1uner

7 6 5 :274 12" St. Wood.s

Nary's. Thpe11er 900 Net40 H.P.

SW SE C " " : 162 12" Corn. Iogh 70042 H.P. 4tage

SE 9 " " : 128 69 16"

NW 12 " " : 82 31

" " ": 76

13 " : 109 30 10" Corn. Krogh 34020 H.P. V.0.

IW 13 " " : 53 27 16" P.M. Iogh20 H.P. 11.0.

SE SW 19 " U 222 100

SE 23 If : 102 16" Corn. I&B 92060 H.P0 16"

SE 24" 82 45 16" L&B 400T.C.

136 -.

IBBIGABION LLS IN CASA GRANJ1: VALLEIY.

DATA 3URED 0L BIt.TION IEPT. UNIVERSITY OP ARIZ(A. 3

: D2TH : :KIND & SIZE :

:OP :!O : :OP : OP GAL. : DISOHAR(:I.L:WATM: SIZE ;ENG. : PU1 :PEB H. :MPASUBE

g : CASING.: : : : MNTS.LAION :

T. B. : FT.: : :

- 137 -

S.EJW

SE

26

ft

6 5 145

120

16"

12"

Charter B-J50 H.P. T.0 93]. :.WeirCharter I&B45 H.P. TO 612

30 " " 300 105 12" Ccn. Greg-7 H.P. ory 120

NE ft H ft 180 103 12"

35 ft ft 108 61 12" Cflarter I&B 310 ft

20 H.P. Tu.rbine

Casa Grande esternCity Well 150 44 16" 80 H.P..

13 6 6 150 39 16" P.N. Erogh 39625 H.P. V.C.

NE 1? " " 87 30 12" " B-JV. C.

18 " " 45 35

NE 19 U. ft 97 37 12"

Western IgghSE 24 " " 43 35 H.P. V.C. 725 'I

29 " 150 49 12" Giant Wood.s 340 Eat25 H.P. Impel-

ler

NE 29 " " 625 42 8"

SW 33 " " 227 49 16" Charter I&B 700 E..45 H.P. Ceat.

SW 35 I, It 230 121t Sipaon50 H.P.

SW 1 6 7 16" P.11. Fresno25 H.P. H.C. 566

SW 1 6 7 155 36 12" M. I&B 540 Weir40 H.P. T.C.

NE 2 " " 163 16" Charter Am. 92245 H.P. V.C.

SE SE 9 " " 192 39 Otto40 H.P. V.C.

S.E. SE 1& tt " 117 36 12" Coni. " 344 ft

15 H.P.

IBLIGATION LIS IN CASA (ANDE VALTY.

( D.A2A SECURED PROM IBBIGLTION DEPT. UNIVERSITY OP AEIZONA ).

-

- 138 -

LOCATION

: SIZECASING

N) & SIZE : DISCUBCEOP : TOWELL: WATER:

: OP : OP :GAL. StJRE

ENG. : PUHI :PEB H .:MENJS.

NE

SE SW

SE SE

SE

SE NE

SE SE

SE

SW NW

SE

SW

SE

SEC.11

16

17

18

18

19

19

21

22

23

25

26

6

"

"

"

"

"

6

"

"

T. B.7

"

"

"

"

"

7

"

"

"

:

:

: 325

260

105

112

210

190

152

:

45

42

40

42

46

46

45

42

45

.:

: 16"

12"

16"

12"

20"

16"

16"

16"

16"

Western40 H.P.

West-erGo H.P.

F.B.32 H.P.

Stov-er16 H.P.

Bease-mar25 H.P.

P-

40 H.P.

Charter45 H.P.

est.40 H.P.

Charter50 H.P.

Corn.

25 H.P.

Char-ter

50 H.P.

Iogh: 1000H.C.

I&B 850Turb.

I&B 639Turb.

190

Van 260WieTO

Turb. 900

B-J 710P.C.

3-JV-f

I&B 522Turb.

I&B 1130

Irogb 630V.0.

" " 734

Float

Est.

VIeir

WoIr

Weir

Weir

IBBIGAT ION TELLS IN CASA GRANDE V.LULEY.

DATE SURED FROM IBBIGATION IZPT. UNIVEBSITY OF .BIZONA. )

ND & SIZE DIRA1GIPTH : OP g OP : GAL :MEASTJ1tE

OF TO SIZE : : PUMP :k' N. g MLNTS

lOCATION. : 'ELI : W411P2:CA.SING.:

- 139 -

SW SE

P. B. : .

225

.

16" Can. I&B42 H.P. P.C.

3]. 6 7

SE SW 32 " " : 332 56 16" Corn. L&B

GO H.P. Turb. 617 lz'

SW SW 32 " 244 54 12" Corn. " 663 "42 H.P.

NE SW " " " : 231 60 16" " I&B 586P.C.

SE SW 35 " " : 145 52 16" F-B VJortb.-40 H.P. lug-

ton.We.

1E 2 6 8 : 156 72 6"

3 ft 99 40 20" Oharter B-J50 H.P. P.C.

SE SE 5 " " 16" " B-J 1304

6 : 319 33 24" Charter st. 190l "60 H.P. P.C.

IW 9 " " : 126 36 Wltte Ioh 3008 H.P. V.0.

SE 19 " 12" Charter I&B 130450 H.P. P.C.

IW 20 " " : 264 40 Besse- I&Bmer 24"60 H.P. P.C.

SW 27 : 216 37 20" West- l&Bem P.C.50 II.?.

1200 1,

30 : 150 12"

RIGIQN WELLS IN CAZA GBARDE VATTYJ CONTi1'TJD.

- 140 -

LtAION

DJ2TH.: SI

IND & SIZE DISCH4YE: OP : TO

:EIL :ATE1IOF : GPEN. PtTh

:GL. : iZtJBE-PER IL,: TS: OiWING'.:

Sec. T. B. .NW 3]. 6 8 115 51 12" P-M

20 H.P. V.0.

1 7 5 60 56 Moline imesCy1.

SE SE 3 7 5 160 100 16"

7 7 5 218 121 12" 'Vest- Tood.se rn

800 Est.

50 H.P.

8 7 5 113 12" P-M60 H.P. " 850

NENW U " " 69 66

SE 14 7 5 104 58 16" West- ogh8111 V.0.40 H.P.

SE SE 15 7 5 72 F-Ia T&B

50 H.P. Turb 709 Weir

NW 17 7 5 60 Baclne B-J 301

SE 22 " " 157 87 12" F-B Woo.s 86432 H.P. PoD-

poll.SE 24 " " 13 52 12" Corn. cro 427

20 H.P. V.0.

N2 " 9 112 55 St. B- 500Iiary's V.0.25 H.P.

SE 7 7 6 67 46 16"

SE 8 7 6 132 49 12" P-M I&B Ve1125 H.P. 12" N.G.

V.T.

SW 12 " " 215 62 16" West. IB 700 Guess50 ILP. V.T.

SE 12 " " 238 12" P-N I&B32 H.P. P.C.

( IRRI I0 VELL$ I N GAS A GRANI VtLLEY ) C ONT ImJED.

- 141

L(XA.TION.

:::

TH :IND & SI :SI : OF : OP : GAL.

: CASING ENG. : PUMP : PER Li.

XZCULBOF :V1L:

TO

WAT

I1W

1'E

BEG. T. B. : PT.

12"

12"

12

!I

7

U

6

U

134

188

54

-SE SW 18 " ' 78 48 12" Corn. ogJi 400 Woir

20 H.P. V.0.

SE SE 19 " 124 50 12" Cons. 600 Est.42 H.P.

SE 30 " " 12" 40 H.p. B-J 645 eLrV.0. *

SE 31 " " 200 56 9-5/8"

iE 1 7 7 50 12" Inb- )ood.sert Imp-

522

25 H.P. oilerSE 1 7 7 67 West- Eclipse

em V.0.580 'I

35 H.P.

IE 2 I' 76 53 16" Intral Woods 250 Est20 H.P. Impell.

NW ft It ft 150 52 12" Case 1kB40 H.P. T.C.

SW 4 It 14" PI Eclipse 564 Weir40 H.p. V.P.

NW 5 II ft 10" Charter 'roods25 H.P.

iE I, II It 150 59 12" It Am.V.0.

637

SE 6 ft 201 62 16" Western I&B 663 We$40 H.P. T.C.

NW 11 I' 130 60 12"

IE 14 I, 146 57 16" Cha'tor I&B20H.P. P.C.

200 Est.

NW 18 I' Alamo Erough60 H.P. V.0.

( flBIGAION LLS fl CASA GBA1DE VALLEY ) CONTINUED.

Total discharge of 78 Wells 60,014 g.p.m. or 134 s.f.

- 142 -

LCCATION.

DEPTH

:LL :TO SIZE

: CAXW

: KIND & IZ DISCHARGE

NT3g OP OP GAL. :2SUREENG. : PUMP : PER M.:VAT

T. R. PT.SE 2]. 7 7 60 20" St. Kimball

Mary's L'pe11or50 H.P.

SE 26 7 7 195 67 10" Charter I&B 1286 WeIr45 H.P. 16"

T..C.

IW 27 '9 215 64 16" Western I&B80 H.P. T.C.

SE 29 I, 287 67 16" Besse- PennIng- 536mar ton

It

60 H.P. T.C.

32 '9 " 40 Wood. 400 Eat.HP. Screw

NWNE 33 I? 'I 14" " Am. 850Cont.

I NW n ,t i 65 26" " 60 " 850H.P.

34 I1 283 70 14" Besse- I&B 1000mer

WeIr

70 H.P.

SE 36 " " 222 16" West- I&Bem T.060 HP

N2 7 7 8 66 54 Stayer JIm. 850 Bet.20 H.P. V.0.

SW 30 " " 204 67 12" P-N I&B 300 WeIr40 H.P. T.C.

SW 10 8 7 275 West-em

60 HPSE 6 8 8 320 16"

SW 15 "" 107 16" P-N I&B

32 H.P. TurbIne.

Mean. Discharge of 78 Wells 770 g.p.m. or 1.72 s.f.

Total (Eat.) tl34* l03,18O g.p0ni. or 230 t.f.

*134 wells is the number lisiBd. above.

StJBRACE WJ8TE LW 1IE> RC OI4TION FROM IBBI CATIOI.

One of the principal souroes of ground water supply for

the project will be the surace waste and, the deep percolation of the

waters diverted, from the Qua. River at the Florence diversion dam.

This water will be available for pumping, especially onto the lower

lands, and may in part be available for surface flow for direct

diversion at the Sacaton diversion dam.

It was hereinbef ore determined, that the supply for

diversion would. be 320,000 a.f. per annum, with a possible occasional

shortages and, it was decided, that the acreage should not be reduced

on account of this possible shortage, but that a higher duty should

prevail at such, times instead. The sane plan will be here followed.

in figuring this ground water supply; that is, that the source of tie

supply will be the 320,000 s.f. annual diversion.

It now remains to determine what portion or this supply

is lost In. surface waste and seepage and which is again available for

use in distinction from that lost by evaporation and, transpiration

and. which is nOt again available for use. These Josses may be again

divided into transmission losses and. irrigation losses.

TBLNSIIISSION LOSSES.

Under the subject of "Duty Of Water" elsewhere in. this report,

it was estimated. that 25 of the amount diverted would be lost in,

transmission or a total of 80,000 a.f. This loss, though generally

- 143 -

termed. seepage loss, also included, evaporation from the water surface

in the canals and laterals. In estimating these transmission losses,

the loss in depth per day over the wetted, area was tain from the

result of experiments on the Salt River irojeot, or 0.34 feet.

In order to determine what proportion o± this loss is evapo-

ration, a s!nall correction should be applied. to the above to reduce

wetted perimeter to water surface, but as this correction is very

small, the error will be ignored which is on Ghe side of conservation

and, will provide for evaporation from the saturated shore lines o±

the canals; 0,34 ft. in depth per day amounts to 124 ft. per year.

In comparison to this, the evaporation from a water surface at Tempe

.rizona, which is near the project, as given in Davis & Wilson's

Irrigation Enineering, p. 70, is 85.5 inches per annum. Deducting

the rainfall from this, the net evaporation is 76 inches, which is

5 of the total loss of 124 ft. This leaves 95 of the total trans-

mission loss of 80,000 a.f. or 76,000 a.f. as the seepage loss which

will join the ound water supply of the project.

JBIGATI0N LOSSES.

From the above it is Seen that of the 320,000 a.f. diverted,

240,000 a.f. or 3 a.f. per acre, is estimated t be delivered to the

land; and this latter amomt is then consumed in part by evaporation

and, transpiration, and the balance is lost by surface waste or deep

percolation, and thus joins the ground water supply.

In determining the division of the losses in the above net d..uty

of 3 a.f. per acre, the following data is considered:

(a) From experiments made on the United. States Beclamation

- 144 -

Service Project at Boise, Idaho, it was foundthat under average

con.cUtions acre feet er acre was consumed, in evaporation and.

transpiration and the balance was lost in surface waste and. deep

perc o].ati on.

From the experiments of Don H. Bark, U. . apartment of

Agriculture, on the duty of water in Idaho, he concluded that,

The duty for projects planted. to diversified.crops on the average clay loam soils of south Idaho,should be sufficient so th 2 acre ft. per acre canbe retained. on each irrigated acre."

Bulletin No. 1, California State Department of gineering,

In discussing "Investigations of Duty of 7ater, in. Imperial Vally,"

states that

"The average duty in 1913 was approximately 2.25 a.f. per acre."

It is presumed that this was the amount delivered in addition to the

rainfall and it is also probable that some of this was lost in deep

percolation.

(d.) In the Olberg report on the San Carlos project, po 238, It

is stated. that in Bowies' "Practical Irrigation" the amount of evapor-

ation from irri,atod land when covered. with a 4-inch dry mulch is 3O

of the evaporation from a water surface, and he than assumed that the

transpiration from areas covered. with vegetation will be at the same

rate as the evaporation from the bare soil. AppiyIn this percentage

to the gross evaporation from a water surface, as determined, above,

or 85 inches, results in an. annual loss by evaporation and transpira-

tion of 25.7 inches, or, d,ed,uctin,g rainfall, a new loss of 16 inches.

- 145 -

In 1vis & Wilson's "Irrition Engineering' p. 70, it

is stated that

"The nouzat of evaporation from ordinaryso!]. is about the same as that from water."

and. in Wid,tsoe's "Principles of Irrigation Practice", p. 51, it is

shown that the evaporation from a soil covered with 3 inches of dry

mulch is 43 of that from a soil with no mulch. Assuming that

these conditions fit the case in hand., that Is, that the conditions

of so!]. anci. vegetation are equivalent in. evaporation properties to

3 inches of dry mulch and. that the evaporation from ul2mulched sol].

is the sane as from a water surface; then. the loss by evaporation

and, transpiration would, be 43% of 85 inches or 36.6 inches and d.e-

d.ucting rainfall, the net loss would be 7 inches.

i:essrs. Elliott, Murphy and Coda, In. their "Drainage Report,

Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, 1919", estimated that any

water applied to the land. in excess of 0.5 a.!'. in one irrigation,

is wasted. u deep percolation. They then give the results of a test

on the Salt River project, the test covering 219 farms, agregatS,xig

a total irrigated. area of 14,192 acres. The mean result of this test

was that the nount of water applied. was 33.5% in excess of 0.5 a.f.

per acre for each irrigation and, this percent was figured. as waste.

It is not stated In this test how ranch water was delivered per annum

to these lands, but assuming 3 a.f. as is here estimated for the

San Canoe Project, the amount lost In deep percolation, and. surface

waste would be 1 a.!'. per acre.

- 146 -

(g) Mr. J. C. Stevens, in "Proceedings" of the merican. Society

of Civil Engineers, Vol. XLVI, March, 1920, has written an. excellent

paper on. "The Duty of Water in. the Pacific Northwest," in which he

has made an analytical analysis of the use and losses of the water

applied.. lIr, Stevens divides his subject under the following

boa dings:

Beceipts:

(I) - Irrigation water applied (net Duty).

(B) - flainfall (mean).

Disbursements:

(Er.) ..L'vaporation. from rainfall.

ft It

'I

irrigation.

soil storage.

(Pr.) - Percolation from rainfall.

(Pi.) ft tt irrigation.

(Sr.) Surface waste " rainfall

Si.) 'I It ti irrigation.

(C) Plant consumption or transpiration.

Of the above items under "Disbursements," (Er.h tEl.) (Eg) and (a)

are lost to further possible use, while (Pr.), (Pi.), (Sr.) and (Si.)

may be considered as either joining the ground water or the return

flow of the river and. thus will be available for use as ground. water

supply. As it has been previously decided. toapp1y three acre feet

per acre to the land, in. addition to the rainfall, it is Only neces-

sary to determine the three evaporation loesos and, the plant constunp-

tion and tho ount available for the ground water supply may then

- 147 -

be determined by subtraction. Theat items will be deterxnined.

in the order above given as follows:

(Er.) Evaporation from Rainfall.

For determining the evaporati on from rainfall Mr. Stevens

furnishes the formula:

Er. T/lOO V B

in which Er. = evaporation from precipitation in inches per month.

T mean montlly temperature in degrees Fahrenheit,

B MOnthly precipitation in inches.

As the variation in the nai monthly temperature on the San

Carios project is small, and, as the mean annual rainfall is light,the

mean. annuals are applied to the above equation as the error In so

doing is very small. Applying the proper values,then, this equation

be cone S:

Er. 69/lOOj/ 9.72 2.15 inches per annum.

(El.) Evaporation fr Irrigation.

Regarding this loss, Mr. Stevens states that, "Experi-

ments show that lO of the amount applied is a conservative figure

for ntly rolling or level lands. For steeper lands, from 15 to 25%

may be allowed. Losses in excess of these quantities are readily

prevented and. cnot be considered a beneficial use of ter.tt

As the San Caries project lands ao "gently rolling or level,"

io; or 3.6 Inches is determined. s the annual loss.4ue to evaporation

from irrigation.

148 -

(Eg.) Evaporation. from Soil Storage.

In.studylzig this subject Mr. Stevens considers the results

secured by Chas. H. Lee in his exceriments on soil evaporation in

Owens Valley, California, as pub11shd. in 7. S. Paper No. 294, U.S.G.S.

From these results Mr. Stevens deduces the following formula, with the

statement that, "The only claim for it is that it aproximate1y fits

the results of Lee's experimen.ts in Owens Valley."

Eg. 0.18/V iI(T-32) K.

in which,

Eg. evaporation from 501]. in inches per month.

V. percentage of voids in the soil,

ii free moisture content of the soil, in percentage by volume.

- mean monthly temperature,

K 1 - 1/So (T-32).

The value of "V" as given by Mr. Stevens for sandy loam is 40.

Regarding the value of "Lv' he states that, "The properaverage soil

moisture for the standard farm crops is a fruitful line of research on.

which there are little or no actual data. It is believed. for the case in

hand. that an average soil moisture of 12 to l4 should be maintained0"

Lean value will therefore be tain as 13%. Bege.r&Lng the value of "T"

this should be the mean for the month and the equation should be wOr1d.

out for each month of the year, but as in the rev1ous equation the error

will be anal]. by applying the mean annua 1 temperature. This I s there fore

done and. the result is multiplied. by 12 to get the value of (Eg.) for the

- 149 -

year.

Eg. -

pp1ying these values, this

0/18/0.40 0.13 (69-32)

equation becomes,

- 1/80 (69 - 32J x 12 14 inches.

C) Plant Consumption.

In. the matter of p1an consuxnpti on Mr. Stevens has accepted the

results of tests by Liesers. Briggs and Shantz at Akron, Colorado, in

1911-15 on "Plant Consumption in Pou.nds of Water per pound Kiln-Dried

Matter and o± Grain", as published in. Bulletin 285, Buresu of P].an.t

Industry, U. S. D.A. Regarding this Subject, Mr. Stevens says:

ttBy far the most extensive expsrLnents on. the water consump-tion of plants are those of issrs. Briggs and. Shantz atAkron, Co1rado, 1911-15,

"For forage crops, the consumption ratio must 'be reducedto texis of' cured hay instead of dry matter. Ordinarilyabout ?0,o of the consumption for dry matter can be used, withsafety. Making this reduction. for alfalfa and clover, thewater consumption is 0.42 ft. in depth per ton of cured hayproduced. For the gr.ins, wheat will require 0.03 ft.; oats,0.02 ft.; rye, 0.04 ft.; and barley and corn, 0.025 ft., indepth per bushel of yie1d"

In applyipg these figures to the San Carlos project a study of the

crop report for the year 1918-19 on the Salt River project is made, as

appearing in. April, 1920, Reclnatjon Record. It is seen from this that35 of the net acreage cropped was in. alfalfa, with. n average yield o±

four tons per acre; and that 35 was iii cotton, and the balance in grainsand miscellaneous. The yield of vthaat is given at 30 bushels per sore.It is concluded from this that to figure one-third the project in alfalfa,at a yield o± four tons jr acre nd the other two-thirds in. wheat ( orits ec,Luivalent ) at a yield of thirty bushels per acre will fairlyrepresent the San. Carlos project.

Applying these figures, the ±'ollowing results are reached:1/3 acre of alfalfa at 4 tons at 0.42 ft. depth of water 0.56 a.f.2/3 ft " wheat at 30 Bu. at 0.03 " ft 7, 7, 0.60 a.f.

Total mean plant consumption per acre , 1.16 a.f.

150 -

Sunnation of 7ater.

Mr. Stevens gives the following equation as b1an.oing the total water

receipts and disbursements.

1-4-B -Er.+-E1. Eg.CPr.+Pi.+Sr.+ Si.By transposing and substituting the above d.eteziined values this

equation becouss:

Pr. +Pi.*Sr. fSi. - 36 *7 - 2.2 - 3.6 - 14.0 - 14.0 12".

0r in. othar words, of the aiount of ;ter applied., ore a'e ft. per

acre will be avai11e as ground water supply.

A summary of conclusions reached fri the above several sources,

assuming a delivery of three acre feet per acre in. each case, may be

made as follows:

This mean loss by surface waste and deep percolation, though based

partly on assumptions, is believed to be the mist probable, and

it is therefore hare adopted. This nDunts to one-third of theestimated annual delivery, or 80,000 acre feet. The total trans-mission and irrigation losses then. that will join. the ground water

- 151 -

Surface WasteAuthority & Location. &

Deep Percolationa.f. per acre.

Evaporation&

Transpirations.f. per acre.

Boise Project, Idaho. 0.8 2.2

Don H. Bark, Idaho. 1.0 2.0Bulletin Io.,Ca1if.,Lnperial Valley 0.75 .25C. B. Olberg, San. Canoe Project 1.67 1.33Davis & /i1son's"Irnig'n. Eng'ning" &John A.Widt sos' s "Principles ofIrrigation Practice" 0.75 2.25

Elliott, Murphy & Code, Salt BiverProjeot. 1 .00 2,00

J. C. Stevens, applied to SanC.arlos Project. 1.00 2 00

ean 1.00 2.00

supply of the project is 156,000 re feet per annum.

From a stu&y of the 'ound. water contour map it is seen that

the water table is held up in the vicinity of Casa Grands, probably

due to the constriction of the valley fill beten. the Casa Grands

and Sacton Mountabis. This condition tends to divert that portion

of the Santa Cru.z und,rf low runutug north of the Casa Grande LIountain

north around the east end, of the Sacaton Mountains, when it joins the

Gila underfiow. This ph.yica1 condition of the Casa Grands Valley

fill will tend, also to cause the underfiow from the tranission and.

irrigation losses Co tai the same ocurse except for that on a snail

portion of the west end, of the project, where it will flow northwesterly

toward Maricopa.

flAFATT, IM GILA BASIN BELOW GAGING STATIONS.

In figuring the wiclerfiow as supplied. by the Gila River, by

ueen Greek and, by the Santa Cruz, only the water supply at the gaging

stations or points considared was included. This' leaves a large catch-

mont basin below these points and above the lor end of the project

which has not t been considered, except for the 80,000 acres on which

the direct diversion from the Gila is to 'be applied, where the rain-

fall has been considered in figuring the net loss due to evaporation

and, transpiration. Figuring the lower end, of the project as Gi].a

Crossing on the Reservation unit, and, the range line beten Ranges

6 and.? E. on the Florence-Casa Grand.e unit, the drainage area above

this and, blw the Florence diversion dam on the Gus., the gaging

station on Queen Creek, and the mouth of Billito Creek on the Santa

Cru is roughly 3,550 square miles. ducting tAe 80,000 acres

mentioned above, leaves 3,425 square miles on which to consider the

rainfall as affecting the ground water supply of the project.

- 152 -

The mean annual rainfall at Sacaton as previously stated; is

9.72 inches, and. this is probably close to the mean on the above area.

This area is nerally flat, is low in elevation, and. is barren; and.

due to the light rainfall, and. considering the very light surface

runoff from the Santa Cruz from the area between Tucson and. Nogales

as previously herein determined., the surface run-off of this area

may be consi&3red. as negligible.

The annual precipitationon this area is a small fraction of the

annual evaporation from ordinary soil, which, as stated in 1tvis &

Wilson's "Irrigation Engineering", "is about the same as that from

water". This is understood. to be saturated soil, as otherwise there

would be no such nount of water to evaporate. It is also less than

half the annual evaporation and, transpiration from irrigated land. as

determined above. It would appear therefore that this rainal1 would

be quickly evaporated and that none of it would. reach such a depth as

to join the grounii water. These mine, however, especially in the

summer season, often come in heavy downpours, or ."cloud. bursts", and.

it is probable that soon of the ter in this *a sinks to such a

depth as to go beyond the at1on of capillarity and. evaporation.

Willis T. Lee ( W.S. Paper No. 104), in discussing the subject of the

rainfall as adding to the ground water in the Gila Valley, states that;

"Much of the water soon evaporates from the surface, but Some flO doubt

finds its way into the und.erf].ow. This is eepecially true when the

precipitation occurs, as is liksly to be the case, in short, heavy

shoers or cloud hursts."

It is concluded therefore, that a small but indeterminate amount

of the rainfall on the area adjacent to the project joins the ground

water supply of the project; but inasmuch as there are also some in-

determinate losses by evaporation fran the streams here considered after

- 153 -

passing t point at which they are measured and. before being absorbed

by the valley fill, it will be assumed that the rainfall and the evapo-

ration on this area will be equal.

SULAT ION OF GROUNDT SUPPLY OF SAt CLOS PROJ1CT.ABOVE GIM CROSSING.

Source Acre Poet

Seepage Loss under Florence Diversion lm

Spill dize to runoff below San Carlos Reservoirt, Spill at It

Queen Creek und.erflow

Santa Cruz River und.erflow

Surface waste and deep percolation

7,000

36000

2 200

10,600

32,000

156.000

Total 244,000

Though th above stzimiation shows a total estimated ground

water supply of 244,000 acre feet per annum after the projeot is

fully developed, it is not to be supposed that this amount can be

pumped each year, as to do so would lower t) ground water table

possibly to a point where pumping would no longer be profitable.

It should be borne in mind, In this connection that any pumping, where

the ground water is supplied only fr natural srcos, will tend tolower the water plain, as an equilibrium has long since been reached

between the inflow and the outflow, and therefore to pump from this

supply has the same effect on the water table as to rednue the inflow

by the Same amount. In Other words, 1±' the ground water table Is to

be maintained at its present elevation, only the und.erflow, as in-

creased by the consrutiou and operation of the project, can be

pumped. In the above summation only the last item, or "sur±aco waste

and deep percolation", is artificial or ad.d,ed. underf],ow, and in case the

first three items in this table are sufficient to supply the natural- 154 -

underf low of tie Gi].a, this this last item, or 156,000 acre feet, will

be available for pumping without 1oring the water table. It is pro-

bable, however, that under the storage and. diversion conditions as

plarned. for the project, the amount of water passing the diversion dam

will not be sufficient to maintain the ground water table along the C-ha

where it is at pre sent. Though on account of the shallow depth to water

along the river bottom, the water table could be vel1 lowered. in this

section which would tend, to balance the shortage of the supply.

In view of these facts, auti the further fact that the water table

in. most of the Plorence-Casa G.rand.e wilt of the project is now fairly

deep- from 30 to 70 feet-- it is concluded that for present considera-

tion, or until such time as tests may prove the contrary, the ground.

water supply available for pumping should be figured as not to exceed

156,000 acre feet per annum. It is probable that exjerience will show

that at least 50; of the baJ.ence of the und.erflow as above determined

can be pumped without lowering the water table a prohibitive amount, but

with a view to caution on account of the uncertainties connected with

the question of grnd water supply anti its availability for pumping,

this add.jtjonnl pumping is not now recommended.

PRACTICABILITY CF P1LflC- .h0LI LLS F IflBIGTI0N.

Aside fiorn the question. of the quantity of underflow that may

exist within the bounds of the project, in considering the question

of the practicability of pumping this uter for irriation, the matter

of the rate at which thi $ water may supply a vl1 must bo considered;

or, in other words, is the water bearing material of su.fficiont porosity

to permit a rate of flow into a well of reasonable diameter and depth,

sufficient to furnish an irrigation head. A lengthy study or dicussi

need not be made upon. this subject, as there is a suffjcjn.t ntber of

wells now in successful operation on this project to demonstrate their-155-

feasibility from thio staxi.cipoint; that is, they are successful on.

condition that they are properly constru.cted. an.d. equipped., and. located.

in favorable territory. This statement implies that not all of the

wells on the project are a success, which Is in accordance with the fact.

Cf the L54 wells previously herein listed. a moderate percentage

are poor producers, d.u.e to insufficient machinery, to lack of sufflojent

dineter or depth of vll, or to insufficient ter supply. Though the

average output of all ofthese vlls {1.72 s.f.) is sufficient for an

irrigation head., the poor ones should be stricken from the list Inconsidering the output of irrigation wells on the project. Some of the

best of these, which are located. in the more favorable territory, or

east of the Sacaton Mountains., produce as much as four S,f,. which

It must be anittod, is an excellent output. If the poorer ones were

eliminated., the average would be about two E.f. which is a satisfactory

output for individual use on a large farm, or for several naU users.The most prominent irrigation. wells at present In operation on

the project Is a series of nine wells drilled by the U. S. Reclamation

Service in. 1908 and. 1909 on the Gun. Indian Reservation across theriver from Sacaton. The rriter was recently informed by the Chief

Engineer of the J. 2. Indian Service that no record had. been kept of

the disc1mr of these wells. i's. little light may be thrown on the subject,

however, by quoting from a report b U. ii. Roscran,s, under date ofJanuary 4, 1912, on "Irrigation of the Pima Indian Reservation, Gila

River Valley, Arizona", in. which he states, "There are eight wells, each

equipped with electric pump and capable of furnishing six second. feet

per well"; and. he estimated. "that 12,000 acres can be irrigated. from thewells and. from flood. water." (See Army Board, report, p.19). It may

be explained that it is the plan to use flood. water In addition to thepumping, when. available.

- 156 -

It Is also stated in the Olberg report, p. 135, In discussing

this pumping project, "At the ti of this survey (1q15) there was

under cultivation under this canal the pump cari.al) a total area of

3,319 acre8. but much land. was being cleared. and, other efforts

were being mad.e at that time to increase this area. It is proposed

by the Ind.iau Service to Irrigate at least 10,000 acres under this

project."

In contradiction to this statement of acreage that can be

watered. by these pumps, on p. 2i7 of the Olberg report it is stated.

that, "5,000 acres are. already supplied by pumps." Accepting the

smaller of these two figures, the wells have a capacity for the

Irrigetion of 560 acres each, which is abundantly sufficient from

the standpoint of practical capacity.

There are also other instances of successful irrigation pump-

ing in this vicinity, especially the series of 1ls at the Sacaton

Agency which has been In successful operation for a number of years;

and also the A. 3. 1ansen series of four 12" wells located 10 miles

south of Tompe aoci just north of the reservation from which the yield.

as estimated. In V. S. Paper #104, is "smiething over 5,000 g.p.m.";

with a draw do,. of 9' - 3".

DUTY OF PUI.2EDTEB.

The dnty of the gravity water as previously herein determined.

is four a.f. at diversion and. three a0f. at the farmer's head.gato. On

account of the nall capacity o± the individual pump it will be con-

sidered that the pump is located. at the farmer's headgate, so the canal

and lateral loss will be eliminated.. The duty, then, of the pumped

water will be three a.f. per acre at the pump.

- 157 -

.ELflEA ON HICH PUIED WATER MAY BI IJSM).

On the basis of a duty of three a.f. per acre at the pump, and

with the mjnjjnum nount of ground water supply recommemled. for first

development, or 156,000 a.f., there will be a ground water supply for

52,000 acres for that portion of the project above the Gila Crossing.

From the stand.point only of economy in pumping this area should

be selected mainly from the Reservation unit of the Droject, with a

nall area in the Floren.co-Casa Granxie unit lying east of tin Sacatozi

Mountains and. adjacent to the river. This is on account of the fact

of the greater porosity of the soil and. the greater ground water supply

in this territory and, also to the shallower depth to water than on

the higher portions of the Casa Grande Valley. It will also be advisa-

ble to do the major portion of the pumping in this territory in orderto prevent water logging of these lower areas. On the other hand there

are two reasons why this pumping shDulci be done as far as jossible

on the upper end of the project. (1) In order to divide the pumped

water as between the whitesTt and, the IncUans; and. (2) So as to peznit

this pumped water to in part again join the ground, water and, be avail-

able for pumping again before it leaves the project.

The matter cf a portion 0±' the water being available for use a

third time was not considered in figuring the ground water supply, except

to state that it wDuld, be available below dilla. Crossing. As a matter of

fact, however, on account of the great length of the Reservation along

the river it is probable a portion of this will be available above thispoint. On the same line ol' reasoning in determining that a third of

the gravity water delivered to the land will join the ground water, itmay be said, that one third, or 52,000 a.f. of the pumped water will

ajn join the ground. water. It caunot be said what portion of this-158-

su.pply will be available above the Gila Crossing, aiid it is therefore

believed, safe only to figure that it will be available below that point.

In order to aid in selecting the best territory, from th stand-

point of depth to vter, for pnping on the Florenoe-Caa Grande un1t;

"d.opth contours", showing ho depth to grou.nd. water, have been platted

on the attached ground water contour map. The area inside the 40 ft.

depth contour has then been selected. for the pumping district. This is not

done with the idea that 40 ft. is the limit of feasible lift, but rather

with the idea that there is sufficient area for umpin.g within this limit,

The 40 ft. depth contour runs southwesterly from near Florence for about

eight miles, thence southerly to near the Picacb.o reservoir,thenoe sst-

erly, passing just north of Gaas Grand.e, thence circling to the north

about three miles, and thence east and, north around the Sacaton Mountains.

The gross area inside this contour, west of Florence south of ti river;

ant outside of the Reservation, is approximately 64,000 acres. If l5:

be deducted. from this for waste and non-irrigated, land., which is about

the ri.ht percentage in land 01' this character, the net irrigable area

will be 54,000 acres. Assuming 33-lJ3 of te water applied to this

land, to be river water in order to apply silt to maintain the fertility

of the soil, then the eanivalent of 36,000 acres will be supDlied

with pumped water in this area.

On this plan a ground water supply will remain f'or 16000 acres

on the Reservation unit above Gila Crossing. II' this water 1 delivered.

to the land in the sane rroportiQn of pumped and river water as above

pland. for the "white" lands, that is, one-third river water. then thu

pumped supply will be spread over 24,000 acres.

In order to detoiine t sufficiency o± this acreage for the needs

- 159 -

of the Indians, the area o±' the Reservation unit as planned by the

U. S. Indian Service ahould be again considered. J previously discussed,

the "Agreement" between the IncLian Service ani the "whites" provides

for a project of 62,000 acres, of which 27,000 are "white" lands. This

leaves 35,000 acres f or the Reservation unit; and it was aSsumed in this

study that any additional water supply developed by stora and pumping

would, be available for additional "whit&' lands. This 35,000 acres for

the Reservation unit, howver, is understood, to be in addition to the5,000 acres now under pumping near Sacaton, as it is stated in theOlberg report, p. 257, that,

"Contending, as did, the Army Board, that the Indians shouldat least have sufficient water to supply 10 acres per capita presentpopulation, the total Indian lands to be supplied with water wouldnount to 40,000 acres. Of this area, 5,000 acres are alreadysupplied by pumps, as in. the Sacaton district, so that the totalarea of Indian lands to be supplied by the San. Carlos projectwould amount to 35,000 acres."

In view of this the area to be irrigated in. the Reservation unit will

be taken as 40,000 acres. The location of this acreage to be irrigatedin the Reservation is not defined, either in the Olberg report or in the"Agreement" above mentioned. This "Agreement" states regarding thismatter that, "It is impracticable to fix the acrea upon which the

Indian water rights shall be used!'; and also,

"The lands embraced in. said project and, to be irrigated, thereundershall include (1:) Such lands in ajd Indian Reservation as theSecretary of the Interior shall at any time Or from time to timedesignate as temporarily entitled to be irrigated as a part Ofsaid, project, or to which he shall permanently devote the Indianwater rights of said project."

It is not possible under these conditiøns to d.esign.ato.what portionof this 40,000 acres shall be below Gila Crossing, though it is safe toassume that some of it may be. That irrigation is practical and, is beiacc1Xt from the return flow in this portion of the riveris evid, by the fact that there are a number of ditches divertingbelow the Gi].a Crossing, the oldest of which, it is said,, has been

- 169 -

in operation since 1873. .2ccorciing to the Olberg survey there was in

1914 over 4,000 acres under cultivation under these ditches, the water

supply being almost entirely from return flow. A tabulation of these

d.itches with the area irrigated thereun,d.er in 1914, as shown in the Olberg

report, is as follows:

LA1DS IRRI ON RESVATION BELW GIIJ1 C0SSING IN 1914.

Gila River Hallen 660

Santa Cruz Breckenrid 5

G-ila River Hoover 954

John Thomas 587

Joseph Pead. 139

Co-operation 594

U Oscar Walker 13

Salt River Maricopa 1273.

Total - 4223Frog an examination of the topographic map of the Gila Reservation

(See Appeniix), it is seen that there is a large area of comparatively

level valley lying west of the Gila Crossing and below the elevation of

the river at that point. A measurement of this area, using contour

elevation 1120, which crosses the river a short distance below Gila

Crossing, as the east boundary, shows a gross area of 74,000 acres, It

is admitted that a considerable portion of' this area is non-agricultural

on acouit of river bed., sloughs, and. a]J1i and swamped land; but not-

withstanding this it seems safe to assume that there is enough good. irri-

gable land in this area that can be reclaimed by direct diversion of return

flow and, by pumping to make up the balance of the 40,000 acres of

the reservation unit, or 16,000 acres, which is Only 22 of the total

area below Gila Crossing as above described. That there i s at least- 161 -

Source Ditch Area Irrigated

this much good land. in this area is verified by the fact that the differ-

ence, or £58,000 acres, is greater than the total waste land in the Reserva-

tion due to alkali, swamp and, river bed as thoin by the following classifi-

cation Of all the land.s of the Reservation as made by Mr. Olberg in 1913:

Lend cultivated or formerly cultivated 44,900

Additional irrigablo area 70,080

Level land., largely alkaline or swnpy 37,375

Fertile high lan.d., suitable for grazing 96445

Mountainous land 99000

River bed 12,200Total 360,000

Regarding the water supply for this 16,000 acres, as previously

stated, without attempting to determine the amount of the und.erflow below

Gila Crossing, on account of the junction at this point of the Gila, the

Salt, and. the Santa Cruz u.ncler±lows, it is believed safe to assume that it

is sufficient for the irrition of this area if prorly developed by

pumping. This seems abund.antly.safo when it is considered that the seepage

from the pumped. water on the upjer Dortion of the project, which is esti-

mated to amount to 52,000 a.f., will also be available for this land, and

this a1ox is more than three a.f. per acre for the area considered.

JJALSI OF GROITD WATER.

Aiaalyses of both the surface and. ground. waters of the Gila Valley

have been made bj Willis T. Lee (W.S.Paper 104) and Prof. ii. H.

Forbes of the University o± Arizona (See Army Board, report). Withou.t

copying these tests here, it is sufficient to state that the findings

are generally favorable to successful irrigation. Mr. Lee states tbat

"The underground water at Sacaton is better or irrigation, so far asthe salt content is caucerned,, than the average surface water of the river."

- 162 -

And Prof. Forbes states, in cLtscussing both rouzLi water anL surlace

water, "Aside from discussions more or less theoretical in character,

the history of the district for the last twenty years shows that for

the most part wherever abundant irrition water is available large

and proitable crops may be gro."

SUMIBY OF EL AND SUPPLY.

As a result of the above stud,y of the water supply, botha

surface and. ground water, and. of its distribution on t1 two units of

the project, the following summary may be made

- 163 -

Net. Irrig.Area

Surface waterat Diversion

Ac.ft.

Ground Waterat Pump.

Ac.ft.

Reservation Unit.Above gUs Crossing 24,000 32,000 48,000Below 9 16.000 00 48,000

Sub Total 40,000 32,000 96,000

Plorenco-Casa rwada Unit

Below 40'depth Contr. 54,000 72,000 108,000Above " 54, 000 2l6, 000 00.

Sub Total lG000 288,000 108,000

GRAND TOTAL 143,000 320,000 204,000

RESERVOIRS

Three reservoirs have been considered in the present study of the

San Carlos project; namely, the San Car].os on the lower river, the Alma

on the San Francisco River, and, the fled. Rock on ho upper Cilia. In

ad.dition there are two possible sites on. the upper Glia near Cliff,

New Mexico, that ax briefly considered..

StN CAflLOS RESERVOIR SIE.

Location and Descri'ption.

The San Carlos Reservoir site is located, on the San Carlos

Indian Reservation in the vicinity of San Caries Station at the junc-

tion of the San Cabs River with the Gibe. The d.ai site is located

at the head of the box canyon about seven miles below t1 mouth of the

San Garios Bjver The back water of tlB reservoir will extend, up the

San Carbos to a point a few miles below where the railroad leaves the

river, and will extend. up the Gila to a few miles below the east boundary

ol' the Iiid.ian Reservation.

Surveys.

The original field topographic maps, on a scale of 1000 ft.- 1 in..,

were secured for this investigation from the U. S. Indian Service, which

service had. made the survey in. 1915 for the Olberg report. The topography

was not taken to a sufficient elevation on the west half of the reservoir

for the present stu&y, so a party was sent to the field to extend. t1 work

to the 2575 contour. This required the taking of 19 sq.miles of topography

in addition to the old wOrk. This survey was made by Mr. LW. Burchard.,

Aset. Topographer, U.S.G.S., who was loaned to the U.S.B.S. by that Depart-

ment for the topographical surveys in connection with the present investigation,The drainage area above the San Carbos reservoir is 13,455 Sq. miles.

- 164 -

CapacIty.

The behavior of the reservoir under various capacities is herein-

before diussed. under the subject of "Storage and &nnal Draft", and. It

is there shown that the minimum available storage that should be consider-

ed. is 635,000 a.f., but for the best insurance against shortage a

capacity of 1,460,000 a.f. should b maintained. This latter capacity

is therefore here advised. In case it is found to be economical, and. to

this should be added 6,000 a.f. of dead. storage below the irriation

outlets, and also 111,000 a.f. extra storage to provide for silt deposit

for a period. of 30 years as elsewhere herein discussed under the subject

of "Silt Deposit". This will mai a gross storage capacity of 1,577,000

a.f., which will require a height of d from river bed to splllway of

228 ft., or aroxImately to contour 2536.

The capacity table of this reservoir as extended by the recent

survey, or to an elevation of 260 ft. above the river bed at the darn

site, follows:

- 165 -

Cacity Table, San Carlos P.essrvoir.

NOTE: Capacity belowcontour 2468 copied. fromOlberg report. Abovethis elevation areashave beanmeasured forthis report on originaltopography sheets on.scab of one inch

1,000 ft.

Flowa Dna

On. tho basis of a reservoir of a gross capacity of 1,577,000 a.f. asdetermineci and. with a freeboard of say 12 ft. or to a m.ximi. flood elevation

of 2548 ft., the submerged. area would. be 25,530 ores.A land classification of the San Carlos reservoir was made by the U. S.

Indian Service in 1913 for ;the Army Board report and aLcain in 1915 for the

Olberg report, below elevation 2497, or 190 ft. above river bed.. This classifi-

cation as corrected. by the 115 survey is hers accepted., and to it is acl.ded. the

areas beten the 2487 and. the 2458 contours as determined. froni the topography

sheets, with the following results:

- 166 -

Contour AreaAcres

CapacityAcre ft.

2306 00 002318 17 852328 41 3752338 84 10002348 210 24702358 488 59602368 934 130702378 1549 254852388 2195 442052398 2624 663002408 3475 987952418 4148 1369102428 519]. 1836052438 6230 2407102448 7380 3087602458 8698 3891502468 10148 4833802478 11433 5912852468 13200 7144502498 15240 8566502508 16800 10168502518 18820 11949502528 21400 13960502538 23170 16189002548 25530 10624002558 27940 21297502568 30240 2420650

Irrigated Icjland susceptible of'

irriat ion.razi.ng Land

- 167 -

1915 Present Totalburvej Increase

443 125 568

1522 1500 3022

12285 9655 21940

Totals - 14250 11280 25530

The appraised. value of these three classes of land as determined by the

Indian Service for the Army Board. report, is 100, 15, and. l.25, per acre,respectively. For the present estimate, owing to increased values, it isbelieved these prices shou.la be increased by about so%, or say to 'l50, '22.5O,

and. ç;2.00, respectively.

Hi,hwa-rs 3ubnered. - In the Army Board report, p. 145, the fo1lowju isstated:

"The board's project includes a road, to run on the north sideof the reservoir from the railroad to t1 dem. It is understoodthat if the Government will build brid.es across the Gun and.San. Canoe flyers above the reservoir flow line, Graham and. GilaCounties stand ready to construct a road betven them. This' willleave not more than 10 miles of road, to be constructed, and. re-d.uces the item for roads to ç10,0oO."

This estimate was made after considenin a prior estimate that had. been

submitted to the Army Board, by Mr. Olberg of the Indian Service in which itwas stated that it would. be necessary to construct not less than 25 milesof new roads and, that these would Cost not less than ç100o per mile.

By ear.eination of ths Olber report on the San Curbs project, p.266,it is apparent that it s his intention to accept the Army Bound's estimateof the d.mnae to roads and. also to the wkiole San Curios esorvo1r. However, on.

p. 273 of the 01ber report, where the estimate appears, the l0,000 for roadsis omitted and also a sn of 12,222 which as added by the Army Board to roundOut the total to 20O, 000 and was an. "allowance for moving Government stores

and the effects of whites and. Indians, and for ContJ,nericies."

It is evident frolii the above estimate of the ny Board. that the

cost of the brids across the Gila and. San Carls Rivers which were to

be constructed. by the Government, not Included. as an item of cost

chargeable to the proect. The Olbor report to the Army Board, as

appearing on p. 142 of the Board's report states that money for construct-

ion of bridges across the San Carlos and. G-ila Rivers was appropriated

in the Indian Service bill for the fiscal year 1914, and. it is therefore

presumed that this Is the Govermnont work referred. to b the Arrfly 3oard..

These brid.ges as provided for in. the Indian appropriation have

been constructed, but they ar both below the proposed. flow line of the

reservoir. The one across the Gila was put out of service shortly after

its construction, by the river changing its channel around the bridge,

in which condition it still stands.

Later developnents have verified the judgment of tin Army Board

in that the construction of this highway around the reservoir, including

these two bridges, Is contemplated with funds other than. those chargeable

to the Sari Carlos project. This is shown from the following extracts

from a letter from the State njneer's office of Arizona, addressed, to

Hon. Pranklin E. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, under date of June

27, 1919:

' The Arizona Highway ipartment contemplates the constructionof a 1iihway from Globe, Arizona, to Geronimo, Arizona, which willeventually connect up with Safford and. Clifton, being the maineast and west hihway through the state.

" In connection with the Globe-Geronimo project a bridge acrossthe Gila River will be necessary - - - The present brid acrossthe Gila River cannot be used owing to the fact that the river hasout a new channel around one end of the bridge making It inaccessi-ble. An extension of 510 ft. would be requed. at that end. to makeit reach the bank. It appears also that this

- 168

bridge would. bo submerged in case the San Carlos dam were built and. wehave decided It would be acijsabJ.o to go a considerable distance abovethe present bridge site.

"A bridge site selected by our locating engineer would put the floorof the bridge at an elevation of 2540 ft. which we thirk would, be ampleso far as the reservoir is concerned,, but we would. li1 to have thiscorroborated by the proper authorities at Washington.

"The State of Arizona has appropriated 65,000 for the constructionof this bridge, and. e believe that by covering this amount with PederalAid or a special approprIation by Congress that funds will be ampleto ta1 care of the entire project."

Answer was made to this letter by the Acting Secretary of the

Interior under date of July 8, 1919, in which it is stated that, "the

engineers best acquainted with this project b6lieve that to make a. feasible

enterprise it would be necessary to build a dam considerably higher than

heretofore proosod,, and that probahly 250 or 260 ft. in height would. be

necessary for the purpose. This would. require the new'bridge to be at

an elevation, according to your figures, of about 2570 ft."

It is not clear from the above whether or not it is planned by

the State Highway Department to construct the road entirely above the

proposed flow line, though it is so stated regarding the bridge across

the Cilia. However, there is no construction yet undertaken on this pro-

posed state highway within the bounds of the reservoir site, and. in view

of the notice from the Secretary of the Interior's office that the flow

line would, be about at elevation 2570 ft., it does not seem probable that

any construct joV. wil]. be urxd.ertaken below this level, except possibly to

connect with the present bridge across the San Carlos which is at elevation2501.

In. view of the above facts, therefore, no estimate is here included

to cover the cost of the reconstruction of this highay, except for themoving of t1 bridge acoss the San Caries to a higher elevation, which,

with the construction of miscellaneous side roads as estimated in the

Army Board. report, is here estimated at 20,000.

- 169 -

Bulld.ings and, other Irzrnrovements Submerged.. An itemized, estimate 'was

prepared. by Ir. Olberg for the Army Board. of the cost of reproduction and, the

depreciation of the buildings and. other improvements of' the San Caries Ind.tan

Agency, and. also an estimate of the value of the buildings belonging to the

Indians that would. be submerged. by the proposed. reservoir. This estimate

appears onpp. 143 and. 144 of the Army Board. report. The Board accepted.

the depreciated value as estimated by Olberg of the Agency property as

the proper charge against the San Caries oroject, nounting to 64,Ol3;to

and also his estimate of the buildings belonging/the Indi.ans, nounting to

'19OO. These values were also later accepted by Olberg in his report on the

Sari Caries project.

There are no further buildings of csecjuence that will be submersed.

br the enlarged. reservoir, so the &oove figures are accepted. as correct for

the time in which they ere made; and. to cover the advance in values at the

pro sent time, apDrozimately 757 is added, or say 15O, 000 for the Agency

property, and. 3,5OO for the Indians' buildings.

Railroad. Submered. On page 42 of the Army Board. report is found. a

brief of an estimate submitted. by the Arizona Eastern Railroad Company to

the Secretary of the Interior in 1909, on the cost of building a rei line

to avoid. the water line of tio proposed. reservoir, in which it is stated.

that it involves the constict ion of 12.6329 miles of main line and 1.7045

miles of siding, nn that it will cost 660,i90.94. An estimate is also

included of the increased. cost of operation of ti.ie new line, and. this is

capitalized. at 5 which amounts to l,352,991, makinga total demage

suffered by the railroad canpany of 2,033,l81.94. The estimated, cost

of reconstruction v.s accepted. by the Army Board., but the justice of the

capitalized increased. cost of operation s denied., and the item was not

allowed in its estimate.

Regarding the rights of the railroad. company on the reservation and,

- 170 -

the claims of the company for increased, cost of operation, the Iriny Board.

ma1s this sinifjcant statennt:

"The act Vol.28, Stat.L., p.668) under which the railroad.line vs constructed across this reservation contains the clausethat Congress shall have at all times power to alter, amend, orrepeal this act and revoke all riGhts therundei'. 'Yihether ornot, under strict legal construction, this would, release theUnitei States from paimont of the cost of relocating the line,the Board believes that if t)e Uuitd States finds it advisableto establish a reservoir at this site, such as to require a reloca-tion of the railroad; the railroad would. have no just claim forcOmpensation because o' increased cost of operation, &Vfl if thereactually is such an 1icrease."

On account of the froposed larer reservoir than previously considered,

It has bean found necessary to make a nev survey and, estimate o± the relocation

of' the railroad. The ±'ieli, party on this work was put in char of LIr. S. S.

Carroll, an experienced enineor on railroad location work. The instructions

under which I. Carroll worked, were, that the line should be kept above the

2575 contour if possible within reasonable economy, and that 2550 should be the

absolute minimum, that the iaximum grade and curvature of the line to be

changed. should, if possible, not be exceeded; that an alininent and profile

should, b run in sufficient detail, with hand.level toporaphy and. sufficient

examination of material, to make a reasonably accurate estimato of quantities

and, cost. The field. work was done d.urIn Mar to Au1st, 1920. The results

of this survey may be found. in the "Estimate of Cost" of the project, and.

profile and, aliment in the append.ix.

I

T 171 -

Silt Deiosit in. San Carlos Reservoir.

In xnaking a stu&y- of the probab]e silt deposit in. the proposed

San. Carlos reservoir, a brief iview of studies and. conclusions from

previous reports is hero presented..

In. the report of Mr. A. P. Ivis, of 1896, on. the proposed. 3an

Carlos project, it is stated:

"The most important and, reliable of these (silt measurements)were those made by Mr. Albert T. Colton in the month endingAugust '7, 1893, and. by Mr. VT. IIichins at the Buttes. Mr.Colton.

found the percentage of silt by volume averaged 2.2%. Athese observations were taken and, reduced. by Mr. Colton, who isa competent engineer, they are adopted. as correct.tt

It should be noted. In defense of this high percentage of silt that

the observations vere taken at The Buttes, which is below the nouth

of tlB San. Pedro River, and, as. this is an especially rnud.d.,y stream,

there is no d.oubt but that this p6rcentae has been considerably affected.

by the fact that this stream enters the C-ha above the point at which

the eperimonts re made. In corroboration. of the effect of the

San Pedro on the silt of the G-jla River, Professor B. U. Forbes

of the University of Arizona, In. University Bulletin. No. 44, states that,

"The San Pedro is perhaps the mud4lest tributary of the Gila,t' and.

again, the First Annual Report of the ReclamatIon Service states that

"Investigation baa shown - - - - that a large proportion of the silt

received. by the C-ha waters comes from the basin of the San. Pedro River.

- The San Garlos reservoir is located above the San Pedro basin

- it escapes the silt laden waters of the San Bdro, which joins

the river below. From those considerations it is believed that less

sediment will be encountered In the waters of the C-ha at San arlos

than at The Buttes. Observations have been made which confirm this

expectation.

- 172 -

Mr. J. B. Lippincott, in his report o' 1900 on the San CarloS

project, published as V/ater Supply Paper No. 33, on pages 38 and 40,

tabulates the available silt records of the Gila River and, arrives at

2, 0i solids as the amount of silt carried by the strei. The silt

studies considered, by IJr. Lippincott vre alsc made at The Buttes and

therefore are subject t.o the same criticism as are those of Mr. ]Zwis,

namely, that the point of stu4y is below the mouth of tM Ban Pedro River.

The mean flow of the Gila at San Carlos as determined by Mr. Lippincott

is 422,184 acre-feet and. 2Z of this, representing the silt carried by

the stream, is 8,443 acre feet.

Mr. LI. 0. eigton in his report of February 8, 1910, to the

Director, U. S. Geological Survey, states that, "The San Carlos La

probably the mudd,iest river in the United. States. Its annual yield of

sedJ.men.t In the dry state amounts aroxImately to 7,500 acre-feet."

It is believed Mr. I.eihton meant the Gila rather than the San Carlos

River as it is evident there would not be such an arnouiit of silt ca.rrIe

by the latter stream though it, of course, would contribute Its portion

to the sed.jnent carried by the Gi.a. Mr. Iighton gives no information

as to how ho arrives at this figure.

Mr. D. E. Hughes, in his report published as .,ppendiz G of the

Army Board. report o February 25, 1914, made an exhaustive study of the

silt problem on the Gila River, tabulatin and. digesting all available

data on the subject. His conclusions as found. in paragraph. 79, page 140

of the A2y Board. report are quoted as follows;

ttIn conclusion, the writer would say, in round. ninibeis, that40 per cent of the rearly water supply flowing in the fourmuddy months bears 2-- per cent, and 60 per cent In t1 cleanmonths one-third of 1 per cent, making a total carried Insuspension and, rolled on the botttn of lo3 per cent of 70-poundsoil, such as would need, to be sluiced or dredged to maintainthe reservoir, or 1 per cent of 85-'pound. cI1 such as would beused to calculate the reservoir's natural life."

- 173 -

The findings of Mr. Hughes vre accepted. by the Array Board as

appear on pa 30 of that port in the following ilguage:

"Using 70 pounds per cubic foot with all of these silt observations,Mr. Hughes arrives at 1.3 as the percentage of silt by volume carried.by the river at San Carlos and. the Board. adopts this figure. Thispercentage includes that rolled along the bed, of the stre, whichISthought ta be about l0 per cent Of the ount carried in suspension.The average yearly run-off of tJ. river being about 346,000 acrefeet,the verage amout of silt carried. each year past San Carlos damsiteis about 4,500 acre-feet. - - - - Not all of the silt entering thereservoir will be retained there. A portion will flow through insuspension and. a portion will be sluiced. through at times of low waterin the reservoir. No war i known by which the proportion

Of the sed.Lent pomanent1y retained. in the reservoir can be calculatedbut it is assumed, that 1/6 will pass trrough the reservoir in suspensionand. by sluicing and, that 5/6 will remain in the reservoir. The annualamount of filling f the reservoir is therefore estimated to be about3750 acre-feet."

Previous reports recognize that not all of the silt cro-ild reiain

in the reservoir, but the Army Board. was the first tr atteript to determine

what proportion woald pass through the reservoir and. what proportion

would, remain. The later silt stuiies of the ila River which were avail-

able for the Army Board. Report were taken at San Carlos or above the

mouth 0± the San tho Liver id therefore wro more reliable as to the

silt deposits in the ban Carlos reservoir, and. it is noted that the

percent as found by the Army Boa'd. is less than the older investigations,

which ,ers based. entirely on studies made below the mouth of the San

Pedro River.

LT. F.. Hann.a, Supervising rngineer of the Salt River project,

in his report of Juno 8, 1914, to the Director, on the sujoct: "San

Carlos Report", makes a study of the water supply and. reservoir capaci-

ties o± the ban Q.rlcs reservoir and. adopts '1,000 acre-feet as the annualsilting up of the reservoir. In adopting this figure, it ispresumod

he accepted the findings of the Ainy Board. but merely rounded out the figures

from 3,750 to 4,000.

- 174 -

Liz'. C. B. 0]dberg, in his report to the Indian 3eiice, of November

1, 1915, on page 25 of the report, mentionc the findings of the Army

Board as to silt carrying ant silt deposit in the San Canoe reservoir

and. adopts the se in his report.

In view of the detailed study made br the J,z1ny Board on this sub-

ject, and, in view of the fact that in later reports the Army Board's

findings have been accepted, they will be here accepted for the present

report as to percentage y weiht of silt carried and proportion

deposited in the reservoir.

However, the Army Board's determination of the weight of dry silt

namely, 70 .bs. per cubic foot, as mainly from surface deposits, that is,

not under pressure, and. is therefore not believed to represent the true

condition of a deep deposit of silt such as would exist in the reservoir,

the bottan of which mu8t be aiiitted to be in a compact condition through

pressure0 The weight of cnpact earth in dry foxi is generally accepted

as 100 lbs. per cubic foot., and, it is believed that Etmoan of this and.

the 70 lbs. determined by the Army Board, or 85 lbs., will more nearly

conform to fact, and. this figtzro is here adopted; and as quoted. above,

iLr. Hughes found that 1 by voltve of 85 lbs. soil was carried by the

Gila River at San Carlcs. This conclusion to adopt 85 lbs. as the average

ight of a deep silt deposit is further justified by the Hues study

as apoears in his discussion on pp. 122 and 126 of the Amy Board report

as follows:

"Equally reasonable is it then that old deep deposits fillinga large reservoir here would. average 85j&, which is the figure some-times used, by engineers0

"Though the 85 lbs. would now be used with much confidencein cnputing the life of the proposed San Canlos reservoir, conserva-tion requires the use of as low as 70 lbs. in calculating the amountof annual dredging that would be required to maintain the reservoircapacity; for the greater portion of the dredging would. be in. theless compressed comparatively shallow deposits, and a part of itwould be of still lighter mass from which excess water had. not had anoUportunity to escape - - - -

- 175 -

"The above result supports, in a general way, the assumptionthat in a once deep reservoir filled with, sedimentary soilthe increasing density toward the bottom wld raise the averageweight of soil in place to about 65 lbs. per cubic foot, w1ndried."

Duo to later stream flow record.s, the mean annual flow covering the

years 1895 to 1917 inclusive is now determined to be 440,600 acre-feet

rather than 346,000 acre-feet as determined by the Liny Board, and there-

fore, applying the percentage as here adopted, namely, 1.0 per cent

carried in the stream and 5/6 of this deposited in the reservoir, the

following figures are the results Silt carried in Qua River at San.

Genoa per anrn 4,400 acre-feet; silt deposited in reservoir per annn

3,670 acre--feet. This last figure, then, or say 3,700 acre-feet in.

round numbers, is the amount of silt per num that must be provided for

in the construction of the San Carlos reservoir, either by enlarging the

reservoir or by desititing methods, or both.

Recent Silt Tests b. University of ,rizOna.

Since writing the abovo, Prof. Q. E. P. ith, Irrigation gineer,

University 0±' Arizon, has written a report, dated December 15, 1920;

subject, "Silt Content Studies on the Qua River in 1917 and 1918." In

this report Professor Smith has given the results of tests just c-

ploted. under his direction of about 1,100 silt samples taIen at several

points on the Gun River by the U. 5. Goological Survey in 1917 and 1918.

But very few of those samples were taken at San Carlos - not enugL to

be of much value - so in order to approxiiate the conditions at San

Car los he has tabulated the results o± extensive tests covering a nine

- 176 -

monthst period, at in,i3man, which station is a short distance above

the mouth of the San Pedro awl there are no stres of consequence

entering beten this station nd San Carlos, so the silt conditions

should be imi1ar at th two points.

The mean of the Vin1w1mau. tests, which coveid. the period. from

October, 19].? to June, 1918, inclusive, shows the reniar1b1y low figure

of 0.3 by volume of 70 pound silt. This is quite gratifying as corn-

paroi with the older tests. The samples, howave, were taken during

an especially dry year and, they did. not include any period. of flood,

Llso, this percentage does not include material rolled. along the bed.

of the stream, which 1s been estimated. as l0 of that carried. in

suspension. This figure, then, (0.3;o} cannot he taacen as applying to a

normal year, including flDod,s, but It does give assurance that the

figure adapted. in this report (l by volume of 65 lb. silt) is 11

on the side of safety for figuring required silt storage capacity.

Extra fleservoir Capacity for Silt ips1t.

The irr11y Board made quite an. extensive studr of methods of

silting in order to preserve the required capacity of the an Carlos

reservoir. This study included. the methods of sluicing, lateral, canal

conduit on bed. of reservoir, "uinton's Method", and by dredging. The

conclusion of the Board was that "the most promising method, Indeed

the only practicable method., is dred.ging." An estimate is thøn made

that it will be necessary to dredge 6,000,000 cubic yards annually,

and. that this can be done at a cost of five cents per cubic yard. a

total annual cost of 3OO,00O.

In considering this method it need only be said. that a cost of

five cents per cubic yard. for dredging anounts to nearly 80.00 per

acre foot, a. therefore it is fallacy to consider dredging so long

- 176 a -

as it is reasonably feasible to furnish additional storage capacity either

by raisins the dam or bi cistructing additional reservoirs as needed, as

it must be a very nnfavorable storaée site that could not be developed for

less than 8Oper acre-foot.

As a matter of fact, it does aiear feasible to raise the San Caries

dam as need.s require in the future to at least the 2568 contour or to a

capacity of 2,420,000 acre-feet as shown by the capacity table. This would

furnish a capacity in addition to that here recommended for first construct-

ion, of 843,000 acre feet, or eroug1i to provide for silt deposit for a

period of 228 years in addition to the 30 years silt storage capacity

recomended. to be provided for in the first construction. In addition

to this there are reservoir sites On the upper branches of the river that

are being considered. in this investigation that may be developed in lieu

of raising the San Carlos darn as economy dictates, or even in addition

thereto. This provision f future additional stora to provide for

silt deposit should be made an inseparable feature of the an Carlos

project, awl such reservoirs as nay be needed theretor should be withheld

f or future development.

These upper reservoir sites are in the )uher mountains where much

less silt is carried than at Sari Caries, and they wüci therefore be less

subject to silti.n up. They would also aid in the sluiciia of the

an Caries reservoir at such times as the latter may be empty and, thus

prolong its life. Th SanGarlos is especially favorable for such

sluicing inasmuch as it is deep and narrow and on a steep grade. The

conditions on thi s project as to torage and silt are quite similar to

those on the Rio Graude project, - except that the Gila River is more

favorable in that it carries a naller percentage of silt--, and, the

same methods as planned for handling the Problem on the Rio Grande

will apply to the an Caries project. This method as planned for the

- 177

former is best described, by a quotation from "Irrigation Engineering" by

Davis & Wilson, Seventh Edition pp. 377-379, as follows:

"The figures show an acculation of sediment so rapid that unless 'wecan provide soie means Of disposing of it and of preserving the storagecapacity, it would be unwise to construct the reservoir and build thehomes that must d.opend upon it, as without reliable storage they must beabandoned..

"The method proposed as feasible for solving this problem on theiUo Grands Is applicable to many other streams, and a description of itmay therefore be of value here. It is recognized, that to excavate themud from the reservoir and transport it to locations outside of thereservoir by ordinary mechanical methods would be ire ry expensive, and.at present values prohibitive. Even if it could be accomplished at aprice of 5 cents per cubic yard, that would amount to about 80 peracre foot, whereas the cost of constructing the reservoir was about

per acre foot, and, an eulargemont of 50 per cent can probably beaccomplished, at about the sane rate.

"Therefore, a first stop in the solution of th silt problemit was decided to construct a reservoir of nearly twice the capacityabsolutely needed to coutrol the flow of the river, so that theacownulations of sed.innt will not seriously encroach upon the necessarystorage capacity for a period of perhaps 40 to 50 years. At that t1n theworks will have been long paid. for, and the develoiment of the valleywill be such that an enlargement can easily be made which will furnishstorage capacity sufficient for another period of 40 or 50 years. Thereservoir thus formed will be over 50 miles long, and, will not be verywide at any point.

"On the head,watere of the stream ani its tributaries are severalamaller reservoir sites, capable of d.evelop2lent to the amount of severalhu.uthed. thousand acrefeet at moderate cost, which are fed by meltingSnows and will fill with water carrying very little sediment. Wheneverthe reservoir at Elephant Butte is so far filled with mud that additionalstorage is needed., one or more of the mountain reservoirs ca be built,and the necessary storage capacity thus provided.

"In the management of the storage works It would. be the policyto hold, the mountain reservoir full of water as long as possible, anddraw on, the lower reservoir for needed water as long as anywater remains there to be drawn. ben the lower reservoirbecomes empty , th natural flow of the river, reinforced. ifrequired, by water from the upper reservoir, would flow through.the sea of mud. accwnulated, in the lower reservoir, and cut a channeltherein, carrying the mud thus eroded. out of the reservoir throughthe open gates as the water i s noded. for irrigation. Such a channelextending 60 miles through the axis of the reservoir varying in depth fri240 feet at the dn to zero at the head, of the reservoir, and, having abottom width of 250 feet, and, aide slopes of 3 to 1 would itself have avolume of over 500,000 acrefeet. AU the water flowing through thereservoir, both natural flow and, stored, would carry from 10

- 178 -

to 15 per cent of its volume 0±' mud until such a channel was cut, andnearly as much for a lone time after, by cutting the banks 0±' thechannel, and because of their natural tend.ency to slide and slcugh.

"1n this vay, an equilibrium could be established, by whichthe amount of sediment flowing in annually would be offset by the,verage amount annually discharged as above. Just how much mountainstorage would be necessary to accplish this could be establishedonly by experience, but until such e!librium is established the needsof storage would be supplied, by building reservoirs, which is cheaper.than mechanical removal of silt, provided good. reservoir sites exist,as they do in the basin of the Rio Grande.

"It will be scan that the application of such a romed.y dependsupon the topographic and, hyd.rographic characteristics of the drainagebasin, Including the shape of the reservoir, a long narrow and deepreseoir being most favorable. These conditions would not be foundin every case, and, each prohiem would require special consideration."

Provision for Silt Deposit in Pirst Construction.

The question of the amount o± extra reservoir capacity that should

be provided In the first construction to take care of' the deposit of silt

revolves itself largely into.a matter of equity as between the pioneers of

the project and, the generations that follow. It must be admitted that

the pioneer in y event must stand, the greater burden In the development

of an irrigation project, as he must improve the faain and also pay the

construction charge; and in contrast to this, his children presumably

inherit the paid up and the "going" concern. In view of' this it is not

believed just that the pioneer should be required to pay for an excess

storage capity in which he has no direct concern and which is Only for

the benefit of his children to come.

Another argument against the plan of' a large extra storage capacity

in the first construction is that it will tie up a large sum of money,

the benefits from which will lie doant for a generation. This money

could be put to a better use by spending it where it would put more

acres uxi&r irrigation to supply the needs Of the present home seelwr.

- 179 -

It is assumed. that the project will be ooristructed, - if ccmstrizcted

at all- - wider the terms of the Reclamation xten.sion Act, which provides

that the coustruction payments shall be made in a period of 20 years from

the date of the canpletion of the project as announced by the Secretary

of the Interior. ind it is believed that the pioneer should, not be burdened

with any more construction of extra storaga to provide for silt deposit

than will provide for tliLs construction pa,ment period plus, say five ars

for the costruotion period plus a reasonable margin, or say a total period

of 30 years. In order to pro'vid.e for this 30-year period, at the annual

rate of silt deposit of 3,700 acre feet as previously determined, an extra

storage capacity of 111,000 acre feet is required, and this is therefore

the mount reconiended for first construction.

San Carlos am Site.

The first investigtionof the San Canoe d.n site was made in

1899, o the 1]. 8. 0.8., and is described in detail in the Lippincott

report (W.S. Paper #33) including plans and, estimates of the darn.

Regarding the location and. description of tie site, 1cr. Lippincott

states (p. 67):

"Six miles below the San Canoe Agey, where the river entersthe box canyon an.L approximately a half mile below the begimiirig 0±the box, is a point where the canyon is about 90 feet wide at thewater line and where its walls rise very abruptly directly from theriver.- - - The dam will be located at the point where the wall ofthe canyon is shown, to be most abrupt. - - - t a point approximately100 feet above the upper face of the location selected for the damthere has apparently been a fault in the rock of the canyon. If thedam were located above this fault, thore Would be the possibilityof aleak occurring between the strata and of water passing through thefault to th channel of the river below the dams If the darn is builtwhere located, this will be Obviated.."

D!nond. drill borings re made at that time, but on account of

shortage of funds and c ontinuing high water the work was not

- 180 -

carried, to canpietion. The record of this drilling is copied from the

Idppincott report, p. 70, as follows:

li Two holes were put clown approximately on the lower toe of the

dem. No. 1 was 33 feet to the richt of bench mark No. 4, which ISlocated. on the left abutment, and No. 2 was 6 feet frn the leftabutment and approximately 30 feet from the right abutment. Thed.epth to bed rock at hole No. 1 was 23 feet. The bed rock encoun-tered. is a very fine-grainod. and flinty limestone. it was so hardthat only 2 feet 9 inches a day could be drilled into it with thedinond. drills, hioh is about one-fourth the rate of progress in

ordinary granite. The depth drilled into bed rock at this pointwas 12.5 feet.

"Hole No. 2 detoriined the depth to bed. rock to be 74 feet.Gravel was encountered at 72 feet. The rock at this hole is a bluelimestone and. is more easily drilled. than the rock i. hole NO. 1.The total depth to the bottom of this hole was 81.82 feet, the depthdrilled. into bed. rock being 7.82 feet. A third hole was put down

in the center . the bed of the canyon L0 feet fróri the left abut-ment and 100 feet above line No. 1. A 2-inch pipe was driven toa depth of 56 feet and 2 inches, when it was found. to be bent twofeet from the bottom. The pipe was then pulled. up and 2k-inchpipe driven to a depth of 51 fe:t in the same hole. No furtherprogress could be made on account of' the high water, and, this holewas abandoned and, all work stopped. on July 31, 1899."

Lr. Llppinoott planned on a dam with spiliway crest 130 feet above

the river bed..

The drilling of this site was again taken up in 1903 by the U.S.LS.,

and the results of the work are reported. in the 2nd Annual Report of

the Reclamation ServIce, pp. 88 to 91. The following is quoted fran this

report:

"The bed-rock problem is very important at this point, as thereis a fault in the strata almost directly across the canyon at thedajii site, and it became necessary to locate the darn either above orbelow the narrowest part o± the gorge in Order to avoid this fault.

"Investigations of t1e foundation problem were begun by theReclamation Service in February, 1903. The team diamond. drill andthe pipe apparatus were placed. in charge of W. G. Steward. under thegeneral direction of 0. P. Olberg. The work was discontinued In.August, 15 holes having been sunk to bed. rock and, diamond-drill coresbeing tain therefrom. These are shown in fIg. 2 and P1. XI.

"The general result shows that the depth to bed, rock issomewhat less above the fault than, below it, and this fact, together

with the general desirability of leaving the fault entirely out ofthe reservoir pointed. to the location above the fault as a morefeasible position for a high irmi.

- 181 -

"Final conc2isions with reference to this project have not beenreached., but the result of borings shows that the foundation ddffi-cultios are not by any means insuperable. "

The final investition of the San Carls ilam sits was made in 1913

under the ciirectioLl of the Army Board, and the results are reported. in

full in the Board.'s report; including a review of the previous investi-

gations, logs of drilling, map showing location of holes, and, profiles

of the several lines of holes ctrillecl.

The Army Board planned. on a heit of darn from river be ci to

spillway crest of 180 feet.

The following extracts are copied. from the Army Board report:

"60. The bor1ns of 1899 and. 1903 had shown that bedrock atthe 1899 site is at considerable depth, and. this site was iovnto be open to the further objection that it is intersected by aault. The board at its first inspection decided to begin

boring about 1,000 feet upstream from the 1899 site, at a placewhere abutments of favorable appearance are found., and, where thecanyon is sufficiently wider at the stream level than at the 1899to sugst that bedrock might be encountered at less depth. 1±'this site rovsd to be unfavorable, and in any event if timepermitted, the board decided. to supplement by additional boringsthe work done in 1899 and, 1903 at the lower site.

"64. liaps Nos. 4 and 5 and. Plates No. 2 to 11 show the canyonin which the dn sites now to be discussed are found, the loca-tion of holes drilled. in 1899, 1903, and. 1913, arid, the informationobtained from the borings as to the depth to the bedrock. Twoholes were drilled on line E (map No. 4) in 1899 bi the UnitedStates Geological Survey. In 1903 the United States BeclamationService completed. line E and drilled lines D,C, and B and, theeasterly part of line A. Under the direction of the presentboard., line A was completed and. line X drilled; also lines G, H,I, J, K, and Li.

"67. The borings Of 1903 as supplemented, by those of 1913show that the maximum depth to bedrock decreases from about 50feet at line B to 42 feet at line A and to 33 feat at line LThe borings of 1913 also show that at the upper site the inaximimidepth to bedrock is about 20 feet. - - -

"75L The board, belivs that a masonry dam of reasonableheight could be safely built at either site, yet, notwithstandJ,njthat the yardage at the lower site is about a tenth less, theboard decidedly prefers and reconien4s the upper site. At theupper site the depth to bedrock is much lass, which, in connect-ion with the somewhat greater width of canyon at streómlevel, would make the handling of the river during constructionless difficult. The distance of the dam from the nearest fault

- 2.82 -

is several times greater than in the ceee of the lower dam. Therock is quartzite or quartzitic Se Istoxie while at the lowersite it is limestone and, contains warm springs, indicating thepossibilities of cavities. The abutments above strewn level arewholly in sight and, are sound, while at the lower site the lowerpart 0±' the right bank abutment is somewhat shattered and. maypossibly be detached. from the nass of the hillside. The ind.ica-tions are that a branch of th fault below it ii.zas obliquelyupstren approdmately parallel to the bluff line and some 4o or50 feet behind it, and, that one or more fractures extend from theface of the cliff back to this branch. Even the advantage of thelower site in respect to the quantity of material in the darn mightprove illusory when the preparation of the abutment on the rightbank was u.nd.ertalcen, for the removal of a considerable quantityof rock might be foUnd necessary there. Pinally the upper siteis more accessible for construction purposes than is the lower,and. is nearer to the area in which d.redin for desilting willbe required.."

The maps mentioned. in the above quotation, showing the locations

and, the profiles of the several lines of drill holes, are reproduced. in

the appendix of this report.

S'pillwar - San Carlos Darn Site.

There are no accurate data as to the volume of the maximum floods

at San Carlos. flegarciing this subject, '7. S. Paper No. 450,L (1919)

states that, "the discharge varies from zero flow to enormous floods,

probably exceeding 100,000 s.f. No accurate measurements of extreme

flood,s have beon macte'Z

The rny Board. estimated that, "in 1905 a flood. of approximately

150,000 5.1. passed. San Carlos; but a flow of exceeding 50,000 .f. isof rare occurrence. Coasidarjn&' the moderat1n effect of a reservoirwith so lare an area, seldom, if ever, will more than 25,000 p.1. need

to pass Over the spillway. - - - 2th water running 10 ft. deep over a

spiliway 300 ft. long, the discharge wi1d, be about 33,000 P.f., and.

accordingly the maximum flow line is assimied, at the 190 ft. contour."

- 183 -

The O].berg report stato, regarding the Sari Carlos sillway:

"In d.eterrn!nin the capacity and, size of the spiliways thehyd.roraph of the December, 1914, flood. was used, but with thed.izohare ordin.ates doubled. - - - It was found that with a300 ft. clear spillway a depth of 11,5 ft. over the crest willbe required. Assuming that 10 feet automatic sates are Installedanl the clear opening cut dowa to 240 ft. piers, a depth of14.5 ft. will be required.. Ov;in to the toporaphio featuresat the dem site, ft was decided to construct a spiliway 150 ft.iii. 1snth at each end. Of the dam. Tia creet of the rn is made20 ft. above the crest of tire spillway, thereby allowing a freeboard of 5.5 ft. over t sates."

In esti:atin the probable maximum flood that may be oDected

at an Carlos, consid.oratio is Ivcn to the m:imuni floods of record

on the Salt, the Verde, and. the Gila Elvers, thou' the two former

are imowa to be subject to much more violent floods than the latter,

owing to the steeper charter of their water sheds. The maximum

flood records are as followa:

At the ArIzona darn on the Salt Eiver there vs a flood.

recorded in Pebruary, 1891, with, a peak of 306,000 s.f. and. the

f1oc1 lasting about 7 days. There is a drainage area above this point

of 12,600 Sq. miles.

At the :ooseve1t darn on the Salt Biver a peak flood of

79,200 s.f. was recorded In Jari.rary, 1916, and, the flood lasted 6

days. The drainas area here .Ls 4,200 sq. miles.

(o) On the same date (January, 1916) a flood, was recorded on.

the Gila at Solomonville (drainage area 8,000 Sc],. miles), with a peak

of 73,600 SeC. ft., and. lasted. for 6 days.

The flood discharge of the Verde Biver at icDowo11

(Drainage area 6,000 sq. miles) in 1920 was estimate.d at 175,000 s.f.

In 1905 the flood discharge of the Gila flyer at San Carlos

(drainage area 13,455 sq. miles) was estimated at 150,000 s .f.WIth the above flood data in mind, and with a view to providing

-184-

for an mp1e margin of safety in spillway capacity, the followingpossible maximum flood. at 3an Caries is estimated.:

1st day 12,000 f.

2nd. " 60,000 "

3rd. " 140,000 "

4th 200,000 "

5th 100,000 'I

6th 60,000 Pt

7th 20,000

In fizri the required. spiliway capacity to acconrniod.ate the above

flood it is assumed. that the mazimwn permissible depth above the

spiliway crest is appro:imately 10 ft., and the 'rozs reservoir capacity

to spiliway crest adopted is 1,577,000 a.f., as previously herein d.eter

mined. under the subject of "C0paclty". Prom the reservoir capacity table,

-. 185.-

By application of the above data a computation is made showing

the behavior of the reservoir under rnazimum flood. conditions on the

aasuniptions, first, of a siphon spillway of 110,000 s.f. capacity,

the foi1owi is d.9termined:

ContourJpth OverS'pillway

Areawater Surface

Capacitya.f.

2,536 0 22,820 1,574,700

37 1 22,990 1,595,700

38 2 23,170 1,618,900

39 3 23,400 1,642,300

40 4 23,640 1,665,900

41 5 23,880 1,689,800

42 6 24,110 1,713,900

43 7 24,350 1,738,30044 8 24,590 1,762,90045 9 24,820 1,787,70046 10 25,060 1,812,700

and, second., an overfall spLllway with crest length of 1400 ft.

The siphon spi].lway plan, with a maximum &tschar of 110,000 s.f.

shows a maximum depth of above spillway crest of 8.8 ft. The overfaL].

spil].way plan thows a maximum d.ischar of l70,000 s.f, and, a maxi!m

depth above spillwa.y crest of 11.0 ft.

These spillway capacities are not intended as necessarily the

finaJ. word, as to the required capacities, but only as approximations

of what will be required. In case 10 ft. is the limit of depth on

spi11wa,r crest, then the siphon spillway, as above, can be somewhat

reduced in capacity, while the ovora11 splllway will have to be

wideied. a little, perhaps to 1,500 ft., to 1'er within this limit.

Other things being equal, the siphon spiliway may be considered,

preferable, as it will better control the floods below the dern. Also,

in case suitable &Tavol is found near the site for concrete aggregate

(which appsas to be the case) so that quarrying stone from the spill-

way site for this purpose is not necessary, it is probable the siphon

spiliway will be Thun.d. more economical. This matter will be further

nsidered, in the design and. estimate of cOst of the dam.

The canputatjons of the behavior of the reservoir under maximum

flood caid,jtions, as above discussed, is shown in the following tabie:

- 186 -

- 18'? -

0C)

Reservoir Flood. Bepulations.

Beservoir Area, 23,500 Acres.

River ; 11O,000s.f. Siphon Spillwa.y:1400 ft.Overflow Spi11warHour Dischg. Inflow Siphon Depth Retained. Depth Spill. Betained.

a.f. : Cap. above in : above Disch. in.

.f. Sp.way Reservoir: p.way a.±. Reservoir- a.f. a.f.

Noon 12,000 0 0 0

6 P.11. 24,000 9,000 55,000 0 0 0.4 200 8800

12 N. 36,000 15,000 55,000 0 0 1.0 1,500 22,300

6 A.Li. 48,000 21,000 - 55,000 0 0 1.7 3,700 39,600

soon 60,000 27,000 55,000 0 0 2.5 7,200 59,400

6 P N 80,000 35,000 55,000 0 0 3.5 12,200 82,200

12 11 100,000 45,000 55,000 0 0 4.6 19,100 108,100

6 A M 120,000 55,000 55,000 0 0 5.8 28,000 135,100

Noon l40000 65,000 55,000 0.4 10,00Q 6.9 37,300 162,000

6 P M 155,000 73,750 55,000 1.2 28,750 8.0 47450 189400

l2 170,000 81,250 55,000 2.4 55,000 9.0 58,450 211;900

6 A M 185000 86750 55,000 3.8 88750 9.9 6750 232,700

Noon 200,000 96,250 55,000 5.5 130,000 10.7 77,950 251O00

6 P N 175,000 93,750 55,000 7.1 138,750 11.0 84,350 260,400

12 N 150,000 81,250 55000 8.2 195,000 109 84850 256,800

6 A N 125,000 68750 55,000 8.7 208,750 10.3 81,350 244,200

Noon 100,000 56,250 55,000 6.8 210,000

6 P N 90,000 47,500 55000

12 N 80,000 42,500 55,000

Flood. Control b San Carlos Reservoir.

recent study end. report (July,1920) has been made by Engineer,

1. 3. Debler of the Denver office of the U. . fl.S. on the subject, "Flood.

control by San Carlos Reservoir", in which the following conclusions are

re ae bed:

"Flood control at San Carlos Reervoir for the prevention of flood.d.ama above the mouth of Salt River is practical but with correspond-ing benefits un)o. For th prevention of flood. damage on theColorado River, San Carlos Reservoir is of no practical value from astudy of floods of the past thirty years th to the runoff from theGila at San Carlos being overshadowed by that of the San Pedro, Salt,Verde, Aua Fria, Eassayampa and. other rivers where flood dischargeis uncontrolled.."

The history of floods on the Gila and its various branches, and, the effeots

of these ±'lodz on the Colorado River at thia have been compiled. in the Debler

report, and, the Smo is here quoted as follows:

"February, 1890Selt River at Arizona D, iiimin 143,000 Sec. Pt.Gila - no record, but probably low.Increase in Colorado River, estimated 50,000 S.F.

" February, 1891Salt River at Arizona Dan, 300,000 S.F.Gila at Buttes, estimated. 1)0,000 S.F.

Increase in Colorado River, estimated. 105000 S.F.This flood on Salt River extended over a period of seven days.

"I'arch, 1893

Salt River at Arizona Dam, 340,000 S.F.Gila River not highIncrease in Colorado River very aU.Flood lasted only about one day on Salt River and producedno noticeable effect at ma.

"February, 1903.Salt River at Roosevelt, Peb.4, 31,400 S.F.Verde River at LTcDowell, Feb. 4-5, 32,970 S.F.Gila at San Carlos, Fob. 4, estimated. 8,000 S.F.Gila at Dome, Feb. 8, 82,000 S.F.kt this time floods wer general throughout th G'ila RiverBasin, and. the flood. at Dome, twenty miles above !na,represents the net effect of many tributaries in additionto the ones noted.

- 188 -

- 189 -

Colorado River at Yuma, increaseJan.. 18-22, 233,000 "

This flood was general throughout the Gila Basin aept onSan Pedro River and with high dl scharges preceding causedabnormal effects at Yurna. It was followed nine dayslater by another flood. which although only about half aslarge on. upper rivers caused. a. rise at Yuma of 140,000second. feet In. two days due to the Gila River beingIn perfect condition to traa&Llit flood. waters.

F1ods occurred In November, 1919, and, February, 1920, on SaltRiver due to the Verde River but they were not supported.by Salt or G.ila River floods. Data on these floodsis not at hand, but from general information nothingunusual occurred on the Colorado River."

"January, 1916Salt River at Boosvelt, Jan.. 19 - 79,200 S.F.Tonto Creek near iDowe11 " " - ft15,800Verde River near McDowell " "Gila River at KelvIn, Jan. 20

8'-

I,53,350ft76,200

Agua Fria at Glendale Jan.. 19 - ft29,500

"March, 1905Salt River at Roosevelt, Mar. 1? - 39,800 S.F.Verde River at McDowell Mar. 17 - 29,410 ft

Gila River at San Canoe Mar. 17 - 15000 " st.Gi1a Diver at Dome, Mar. 20 - 95,000 ft

This flood, was a wave on top of flood. conditionsin G11a Rivor extending over a considerable period.and. with flood conditions prevailing over the entirewatershed..

"November, 1905Salt River at Roosevelt, Nov. 27, - 97,710 S.F.Verde River at McDo11, No'v. 27, - 61,460 "

Gila River at San Canlos,Nov. 28, - 150,000 " Eat.San 1iro River, Nov. 28, - 40,000 "GiJ.a at Dome, Nov. 29 - 95,000 "This flood was very sudden without any preceding high

water and. lasted. only two days on. the upper streemswith result that effect was lost lower dowa.

"December, 1914Salt River at Roosevelt, Dec. 20 - 19,400 S.F.Verde River at McDowell, Dee, 25 - 2,000 "

Gila River at KelvIn, Dec. 24 - 90,000 "Colorado River at L1ia, increase - 40,000 "This flood extended, over a number of days with the maximum

preceded b,;r a number of days of high discharges withthe result that the effect on the Colorado wasunusually severe, for a relatively anall flood..

It is seen fran this record. that, nera1].y speaking, the floods

at Ban Carlos are of minor significance on the lower Gus axaci especially

on the Colorado, as ccmparect with the larger floods of the Salt River,

and. an account of the dissipatixk effect of the long, sandy, arid, wide

charuel of the Gus.

Regarding the (lila floods betvon. San Carlos arid, the mouth of

Salt River, it may be said that the larger portion of this d.iwtauce, or

to a point near Florence, the river is in a canyon and. no material

d.aznage results from floods. From the mouth of the canyon to the confluence

with the Salt River the river bottn lends are generally of inferior

quality due to alkali, slughs, arid. vter logging; this being especially

true on the lower half of the Reservation; an.ct there Is an. overabundance,

as compared. with the water supply, of better grade land. bac1 from the

river that is easily accessible for irrigntion under the Ban Caries project.

Furtheora, on account of the long periods of low runoff years

to which the Gila River is subject, in order to conserve for irrigntion

the normal flow of the river, it Is necessary to provide large holdover

capacity iii the Ban Carlos reservoir, or as previously herein recommended.

In. case it is found to be feasible, a gross capacity of l,5'77,000 s.f.

If this capacity be constructed, it is shown in the reservoir study

table that there will be a spill in. only two years out of the period of

record. from 1895 to date; or, in. other words, the reservoir capacity

necessary at San Caries for t storage of water for the irritIon of

a large project, will control the floods at that point except at very

rare intervals.

In view of the above facts arid. conditions it is therefore concluded.:

(a) That the control of the Gus River floods at San. Carlos will

have but minor effect on the floods of the lower Gila or the Colorado River.

- 190 -

That the catrol of floods for the protection of lands between

San. Carlos a.u.d. the mouth of the Salt Biver is not justifiable on account

of the overabundance of good. land susceptible of irrigation on tJ San.

Carlos project.

That in. order to provide sufficient hold.over storage at San.

Carlos for the conservation of the normal flow of the river for irriga-

tion, the floods wil]. be etrolled. at that point except at very rare intervals.

L]1JA RESV01B SITE

Location and Desciption.

The Alma reservoir site is located. on the San Francisco Bivor, in

the southwest corner of Socorro County, New Mexico, in Townships 10 and.

11, S., flange 20 W., N.M.P.M., azxl. is about 75 miles northwest of Silver

City, New Mexico, the nearest railroad. point. It is 5 miles from

G-].enwood., the nearest point on. the Silver CityMogollan State road. The

old town. of Alma is located in the reservoir site. This, in the earlier

days, s the principal town in this vicinity, but the development of

the liogollan mines and. the building of a town of that name about 6 miles

east of Alma has thrown the latter off the mainline of traffic, so

Glenwood. has largely tan away its trade and. its people as well.

The reservoir site is a natural basin, or snail valley on the

river teninatIn in a narrow box canyon of lava rock. The limiting

feature in the capacity of the site is the saddle through which the

main road. entering the valley passes. This saddle is 213 ft. above the

river bed. at the dam site. The reservoir will have a length Of about '7

miles and a maximum width of about 3 miles.

The drainage area. above this site is 1670 sq. miles.

- 191 -

Survesrs.

A topographic survey of the Alma reservoir site was made in April,

1920. The work was done by Mr. R. . Burchard, Assistant Topographer,

U.S.G.S., under the d.irection of the Reclamation Service. The work was

d.ox on a scale of 2000 ft. t the inch, with a 10 ft. contour interval.

In addition to this a detail map was made of the dern site and, vicinity

an. a scale of 200 ft. to the inch. These maps and. also photos of the

di site are included in. the Apnd.ix of this report.

CaDacitg.

The capacity of the reservoir site was measured from the original

field map, and. vis determined to the maximum elevation, surveyed., or to

contour 5050 ( sea level datum), which is 226 ft. above river bed, at

the dam site. The capacity table followa

Capacity Table, Alma Reservoir Site.

Low water level at d site 4824, (sea level datum).CaDacity required to utilize mean annual flow.

eatjz of sad,d].e - 5037, leading out Of reservoir.(ci) Caacity required for 60,000 a.f. annual draft.

* 192 -

Contour AreaAcs.

CapacityAc. ft.

Contour AreaAcs.

Capacity.Ac. ft.

(a) 4830 00 00 4,950 1,770 8225040 20 100 60 2,080 101,50050 50 450 70 2340 123,60060 120 1,300 80 2,600 148,300

4,987 Cd.) 2890 168,00070 250 3,150 90 3,000 17630080 450 6,650 5,000 3,390 208,25090 600 11,900 10 3840 244,400

4,900 830 19,050 20 4,300 285,1005,025 4510 (b) 306;000

10 1050 28,450 30 4,750 330,35020 1180 39,600 (c) 40 5,290 38055030 1320 52,100 5,050 5,820 436,10040 1470 66,050

Required Capacity, Alma Reservoir.

A computation has been made in tl following table, "Storage

& Aun'ia1 Draft, Alma Reservoir", to deteins the required reservoir

capacity in order to utilize the mean annual flow without loss. As

a. basis for this canputation 80,000 a.f. "Irrigation Draft" was

tentatively chosen., vich is 7 of the mean. annual flow. The irriga-'

tion draft chosen in t1 case of the San Carlos reservoir was 72%

of the mean annual flow. The same monthly percentage rate of irriga-

tion draft, and the same net evaporation per month, vere chosen as

in the computation on. tile $an Caries reservoir. This rate of evaporation

is on the side of safety as the evaporation will be a little less and.

the rainfall a little greater on account of the greater elevation than.

at San Carics.

The "Inflow" in this tabulation is taen from the table of

"Runoff of San Francisco River at Alma, N.M.,", as previously given

under the subject of "Surface Water Suppir. The "Period" considered.

is bi-non.thly rather than monthly, for the sake of brevity, and, as it

does not affect the results. The reservoir was assumed to be npty

at the beginning of the period of record, or January 1, l895 this

is the correct assumption in this case Di]. account of the fact of the

record of a series of low runoff years at San Canoe, ending with

1904. The mean annual flow a.t Alma for the years 1905 to 1916,

inclusive, is 115,000 a.f.; and from an. examination of the runoff

table it is seen that there are six consecutive years, 1908 to

1913 -- that are below this norma],. Comparing this with the longer

period. of record at San Canoe, it is seen that in. the latter case

them is also a maximum of six consecutive low years, namely, 1899 to

1904, inclusive. It would appear, therefore, that to adopt a storage

capacity and. an annual draft at Alma that would, tide over this lowperiod with a reasonable limit of shortage, would be a logical and.safe assuniption for the future. - 193 -

As.stated. above, an aunnal irrition draft of 80,000 a.f. was

tentatively chosen, and. the storage was then c cxnputed. by bi-mnth1y

periodM for the period. of record.. ThiS computation shows a maxim

storage of 306,000 a.f. in March and. April, 1907, with no spill d.uring

the entire ieriod.; and. it also shows only one period. of shortage; that

is, 15,000 a.f. or 19 of required. draft in May and. June, 1914. There

is a stQrage at the end. of the record - - September 30, 1907 - of

230,000 a.f.; however, as it is known that generally in the southwest,

the years 1918 and. 1919 were low runoff years, it is believed. that this

holdover is not excessive to provide for this period.. On the basis of

the shortage deemed permissible in the case of the San Canoe reservoir,

this annual d.ra±'t might be increased. by a anall percentage, or possibly to

85,000 a.f.

It is ccacluded., therefore, that the required available reservoir

capacity at the A]Jna site for complete conservation of water is 306;000

a.f., and, that the permissible awaual draft is from 80,000 to 85,000 a.f.

This capecity will require a water surface at elevation 5025, or 201 ft.

above the river at the dam site. In order to provide for silt deposit,

as later cUscussed., a little additional depth should be added., or say

to elevation 5030, which womid. ma3. a total storage of' 330,000 a.t., and

a wtor surface 2O ft. above the river bad, and 7 ft. below the lowest

saddle leading out of the basin.

The canpu.tations as above discussed are tabulated as follows:

- 194 -

Table No. 1

Storage & Annual Draft, Alma Reservoir.

Study based on annual draft of 80,000 a.f.and, reservoir capacity of 306,000 s.f.

(201 ft. depth). Reservoir assumed, to beempty on January 1, 1905.

- 195 -

19051. Jan-Feb. 61,210 8,000 1,000 230 52,980

2. Mar-Apr. 152,090 12,000 2,300 1,960 191,090

3. May-Jime 17,840 18,400 3,200 4900 185,630

4. July-Aug. 4,950 16,800 3,100 3,350 170,430

5. Sept-'Oct. 12,920 16,000 2,900 2,700 163,650

Nov.-Dec. 50500 8,880 3,100 1,150 204,200

299,510 80,000

1906.

1. 15,230 6,000 3,300 760 210,670

2. 45,900 12,000 3,600 3,100 241,470

3. 2,840 18,400 3,700 5,650 220,260

4. 5,640 16,800 3,400 3,660 205440

5. 3,940 16,000 3,300 3,060 190,320

6. 38,260 8,800 3,300 1,220 218,560

111,610

Inflow Irrition Mean. Area Evap- Storage WastePeriod. (a.f.J Draft Water Sin'- oration End, of Deft-

(a.f.) face (Acs.) (A.f.) Period ciancy-(4pprox.) (s.f.) (s.f.)

- 1.96 -

Perio& jnflcw Draft Area vap. torae1907

1. Jan-Feb. 83,000 6,000 4,000 920 292,640

2. Mar.-.&pr. 29,100 12,000 4,400 3,800 305,940

3. May-June. 6910 18,400 4,400 6,740 287,710

4. July-Aug. 21,770 16,800 4,300 4,650 268,030

5. Sopt-Oot. 13,070 16,000 4,300 4,000 281,100

6. Nov.-Ioo. 9,070 8,800 4,300 1,600 279,770162,920

19081. 28,000 8,000 4,300 990 2,7802. 21,000 12,000 4,400 3,770 304010

3. 2500 16,400 4,400 6,750 281,360

4, 21,500 16,800 4,200 4,540 261,520

5. 4,500 16,000 4,200 3,900 266;120

6. 4,700 8,800 4,100 1,520 260,50082,200

1909.1. 11,100 8,000 4,100 940 262,670

2. 43,800 12,000 4,200 3,600 290,870

3. 2,090 18,400 4,300 6,600 267,960

4. 9,820 16,800 4,100 4,440 256,680

5. 4,950 16,000 3,900 3,620 240,910

6. 2,540 6,800 3,700 1,370 233,28074,300

1910.

1. 5,300 8,000 3,700 850 229,730

2. 1,980 12,000 3,500 3,000 216710

3. 00 18,400 3,300 5,05 193,260

4. 670 16,800 3,100 3,350 173,780

5. 1,350 16,000 2,900 2,700 156,430

6. 2570 8,800 2700 1,000 1420011,870

-15430

- 197 -

Period. 113.flow raft Area Evat. 8torae

1911.1. 8,100 8,000 2,700 620 148,680

2. 17,800 12,000 2,800 2,400 152,080

3. 1,400 18,400 2,500 3,830 131,250

4. 18,400 16,800 2,500 2,700 130,150

5. 15,000 16,000 2,400 2,240 126,910

6. 7,500 8,800 2,400 890 124,72068,200

19121. 4,000 8,000 2,300 530 120,190

2. 22,4O0 12,000 2,400 2,060 128,530

3. 3,100 16,400 2,300 3,520 109;710

4. 10000 18,800 2,200 2370 1oo54o

5. 4,450 16,000 1,900 1,760 87,230

6. 1,990 8,800 1,800 870 79,75045,940

1913

1. 2630 8,000 1,600 370 74,010

2. 7,040 12,000 1,500 1,280 67,770

3. 500 18,400 1,400 2,140 47,730

4. 4,210 16,800 1,200 1,300 33,840

5. 3,230 13,000 1,000 930 20,140

6. 3.310 8800 750 280 14,37020,920

19141. 2,760 8,000 600 140 8,990

2. 4,800 12,000 400 340 2,450

3. 1,900 18,400 50 80 00

4. 19;200 16,800 100 110 2,290

5. 17,900 16,000 250 230 3,960

6. 75,200 6,800 1,100 410 69,950121,760

- 198 -

er1od Inflow Draft rea vap. Stora1e

1915

1. 55,000 80OO 1,950 450 117,000

2. 106,000 12,000 2,900 2,500 208,500

3. 15,400 18,400 3,000 5,000 200,500

4. 21,800 16,800 3,300 3,550 201,950

5. 5,500 16,000 3300 3,060 198,3$O

4O00 6,800 3,100 1,150 182,'HO208,200

1916

1. 50,000 8000 3300 760 223,680

2. 32,400 12,000 3,800 3,270 240,810

3 io;&oo 18,400 3,800 3,800 227,210

4. 12,100 16,600 3,600 3,680 218,630

5. 59,600 16,000 3,800 3,540 256,690

6. 73O0 8,800 4,000 1,480 255,710172,000

1917

1. 20,100 8000 4,100 940 266,870

18,200 12,000 4,150 3560 269,510

3. 6,800 18,400 4,100 6,300 251,610

4. July-Aug. 6,200 16,800 3,900 4,200 236,810

$ept. 2700 8,000 3,800 1,40 229,57054,000

After mputing tie reservoir as previously discussed.; that is,

with an available capacity of 306OOO a.f., a plan of dam and an. estimate

of cost vs prepared. by the Design.in Department of ths Denver Office of

the U.s. R.S. This estimate resulted in an excessive cost per sore foot of

annual draft. This is due largely to tie low efficiency of the reservoir;

that is, the large capacity as compared to the enall ann.ual draft it will

sustain.

With the id.ea of increasing the efficiency and thus with the hope

of reducing the cost per acre foot of draft, a analler reservoir has

been figured as zhcwn in the following Table 110. 2. An annual draft of

60,000 a.f was selected., aaci in orier to be consistent with the previous

computation of tliø larger reservoir, a 20 deficiency s asszned. at the

end of the low period., or for the year 1914; and, the computation was then

made backward from this point throngh tie low period. in order to determine

the required capacity. This reqiired. capacity figured to be 168,000

a.f., or to water surface elevation 4,987. II' five feet in depth be added.

to this (to elevation 4,992) for silt storage, the gross capacity v11 be

162,000. This silt storage capacity is sufficient to provide for a

period of 40 years according to the annual rate of deposit as hereinafter

determined,.

The last three years in. thi s computation are not cLivided. into

bi-monthly periods for the sa1 of brevity, and, as they are not critical

years. The computation just described is as follows:

- 199 -

Table NO. 2.

Stora and. .ualIraft, 1.iina Beservoir.

Stud.y based. on annual c1rat of 60,000 a.f. and.reservoir capacity of 168,000 a.f. (163 ft.d.epth).

- 200 -

Porlod..

Inflow(a.f.)

IrrigationDraft(a.f.)

Mean AreaWater Surface

(AresJ

Evap-oration(a.f)

Storaie Waste(-'j

End, of Deficlen-Friod. qy (-3(a.f.) (a.f.)

2.905

61,210 6,000 1,000 230 549801. Jan-Feb.

2. Mar-Apr. 152,090 9,000 2,200 1,900 168,000 +2,170

3. May-June 17,840 13,800 2,900 4,450 167590

4. Ju].y.-Au. 4,950 12,600 2,850 3,100 156840

5. Sept-Oct. 12920 12000 2,700 2500 155,260

6. Nov.-Doo. 60500 6,600 2,800 ].040 168,000 + 30,120299,510

1906

15,230 6,000 2,900 670 168,000 + 8,560

2. 45,900 9,000 2,900 2,500 168,000 +34400

3. 2,840 13,800 2,850 4,350 152690

4. 5640 12 600 2,650 2860 142,870

5. 3,940 12,000 2,500 2,330 132,480

6. 38.260 6,600 2650 980 163;1601ii;eio

1907

1. 83,000 6,ODO 2,800 650 168000 -f 71,510

2. 29,100 9,000 29.00 2,500 166,000 .J- 17600

3. 6910 13,800 2,850 4350 156760

4. 21,770 12,600 2,850 3,060 162870

5. 13070 12,000 285O 2650 161,290

6. 9,070 6,600 2,830 1060 162,700162,920

- 201 -

Per'iod. Inflow Irr1ti on Area vap. Stora ste

1908.

1. 28,000 6,000 90O 670 168,000 + 16,030

2. 21,000 9,000 2,900 z;soo 168,000 -J- 9,500

3. 2,500 13,800 2,850 4350 152350

4. 21,500 12,600 2,800 3,030 158,220

4500 12,000 2,750 2,550 148,170

6. 4;700 6,600 2,550 940 145;33082,200

1909

1. 11,100 6,000 2550 590 149,840

2. 43,800 9,000 2B00 2,400 168,420 - 13,820

3. 2,090 13,800 2,750 4,200 isz;sio

4. 9,820 12,600 2,600 2,800 146,930

5. 4950 12,000 2,500 2,330 137,550

6. 2.40 6,600 2,500 930 132,56074 300

19]0

1. 5,300 6,000 2,400 550 131,310

2. 1,9 9,000 2,400 2,060 122,230

3. 00 13800 2200 3,400 105,030

4. 670 12,600 1,900 2050 91,050

5. 1,350 iz;000 1,700 1,580 77,820

6. 2570 6,600 1,650 610 7318011,870

- 202 -

Period IA±1ow Irriiation Aroa vat. Storage

1911

8,100 6,000 1,600 370 14,910

2. 17,800 9,000 1,700 1,460 82,250

3. 1,400 13800 1,600 2,450 67,400

4. 10,400 12600 1,500 1,600 716O0

5. 15,000 12,000 1,550 1,440 73,160

6. 7,500 6,600 1,550 570 73,49058,200

1912

1. 4,000 6,000 1,550 360 71,130

2. 22,400 9,000 1,600 1,370 83460

3. 3,100 13,800 1,600 2,450 70,010

4. 10,000 12,600 1,500 1,600 65,810

5. 4,450 12,000 1,400 1,300 56,960

6. 1,990 6,600 1,350 500 51,85045,940

1913

1. 2,630 6,000 1,300 300 48,180

2. 7,040 9,000 1,250 1,100 45,120

3. 500 13800 1,100 1,700 30,120

4. 4,210 12,600 1,000 1,080 20,650

5. 3230 12,000 700 650 11,230

6. 3,310 6,600 500 160 7,76020,920

Note: Table figured backwards from My-June 1914, to Mar.-Apr., 1909.Bogan. with 20 shortage for year 1914.

Silt DelDosit in Alma Reservoir.

There have been no tests made to d.etoinine the percentage of silt

carried in the San Francisco River at Alma. From a general ]aow1edge of the

strean, however, it may be said to be comparatively clear in contrast

to the GUs at Ban Carlos. Without any tests it may be considered

safe to say the percentage of silt at Alma does not exceed one

third that at San Caries, or say 3/10 of one per cent of the mean annual

flow will be deposited in the reservoir, or MS a.f. of silt per anntn.

If 5 ft. additional depth he added to the reservoir for this purpose as

previously stated, this will ada. 24,000 a.f. to the reservoir as shown

in Table #1, whiOh at the above rate of deposit, will taI care of the

silt for a period of 70 years. Adding 5 ft. to ti reservoir as shown

- 203 -

Poiod Inflow Irrigation Area Evap. Storage

1914

1. 2760 6,000 400 90 4,430

2. 4,800 9,000 150 130 100

3. 1,900 13,800 00 00 00* -12,000

4. 19,200 12,600 250 270 6,330

5. 17,900 12,000 500 470 11,760

6. 75,200 6,600 1,250 460 79,900

121,760 60,000

1915 208,200 60,000 2,000 10,000 168,000 4-110,100

1916 172,000 60,000 2,900 14,500 166,000 97,500

1917 to Sep. 54,000 47,500 2,900 12,200 162,300

in Table No. 2 will. add 14,000 a.f., or sufficient for silt stor'age for

40 'ears.

Alma Dam Site.

The Alma. dam site is located about a halt mile below the entrance

to the box canyon and 1- miles baJ,w the town of Alma. It is just above

the center, or apex, of a very abrupt horseshoe curve in the river.

The canyon at the dam site is 160 ft. wide at the bottom

(elevation 4,824), 250 ft. wide at elevation 4980, the top of the cliff,

and. 415 ft. wide at elevation 5030. Thex is a sa.d,d.le through the heel

of the horseshoe, which is about '750 ft. upstream from the center line

of the darn si.ta, which is at elevation 5151, or 12]. ft. above the spiJ.lway

crest of the dam as proposed. in Table No. 1. The distance through the

sadd.le at the elevatioh 5030 is 560 ft., and, at river bed. it is 900 ft.

The formation at the dam site is described in. the report of W.A.

Parish, (1904) as "volcanic stone somewhat mixed in character and, slightly

shattered. on the outside, but of ample strength to withstand, the thrust

of a darn. The bed of the river is composed. of lava boulders and, a

silty sand."

Diamond drill borings vere made of this site in irch and April,

1920, und.er the direction of the U. .B.S.; the drilling being under the

immediate charge of Geo. A. Hamoud, Diamond. Drill Poroman. Seven holes

in all 'ere drilled.; three on. line "A" which s selected, as the probable

center line of the dam; two on line "3", 155 ft. below line "A";

and. two on line "C", 150 ft. ab eve line "A". This drilling showed the

bed, rock to be quite uniform in. elevation at about 42 ft. below the river

bed. and. to be the sane ormation as the side walls.

Arnap of the darn site, showing the location of the drill holes, and.

profiles of the three lines of holes are given in the Appendix.

- 204 -

The log of the drilling is as ±'ollows:

0±' Drl].ing at Alina Dn Site.

- 205 -

Line HoleElevation.Surface Depth Liato na].

A

A

A

1

2

3

4,825.6

4823.5

0 to 2].

2]. to 27

27 to 30

30 to 38

38 to 41

41 to 67

0 to 18

18to25

25 to 28

28 to 37

37 to 3.9

39to40

40 to 42

42 to 49

49 to 67

0 to 12

12 to 33

33 to 37

37 to 41.5

41.5 to 45

45 to 48

48 to 68

Cobbles and. gravel

Sand.

Large cobbles

Sand, cobbles & c1ar

Cobbles & Gravel

Bed rock--lava, with structuralchanges of variable thickiaesses.Recovered. 37 of core.

Cobbles & Gravel

Sand

Cobbles - large

Sand, cobbles & clay

Cobbles & gravel

Lava.

Gravel

Lava & grit - porous

Lava - cores bedRecovered. 22% of core

Cobbles & gravel

Lava lumps & gravel

Lava - Recovered. 25,7 core

Sand.

Lava. - Recovered. 2% core

" -No core - shot and.put casin,g down, to 48 ft.

- 20% core - soft & porous.

Book did not core good., butthere mere no sand. or gravel seaxns.

Soillwa.v - £ma Dam Site.

The rnaximu flood. of record. at Alma s in 1907, and. amou.nted to

only 5,200 s.f.; it is probable, however, that the peak of the floods vere

not recorded. The drainage area above Alma is 1,670 sq. miles, so that the

runoff ar Sq. mile for the above flood nounted to about 3 5 .f.

The isimuin flood. recorded, at Clifton near the mouth of the San

Francisco River, was, in. 1915, and amounted. to 23,000 ..f. The drainage area

above this station is 3,000 sq. miles, or the flood amounted to nearly 8

6.1. per sq. rni1e

At San Carlos the Ar.tay Board. estimated. the flood, of 1905 .t 150,000

s.f. which would, amount to abou,t U S,f, per sq. mile.

Begarciing the "extremes of disobar" at San Carlos, 7ater Supply

- 206 -

B 4 4,823.5 0 to 25 Large cobbles

25 to 30 Cobbles & ravel

35 to 43 Sand.

43 to 11 Lava Recovered. 48% of core

B 5 4,826.7 0 to 45 Cobbles & gravel

45 to 62.7 Lava - Recovered. 66% of core

C 6 4625.G 0 to 43.3 Lar&e cobbles & gravel

43.3 to 63.7 Lava - Porous & soft but lightRecovered 26% of core.

C 7 4,824.0 0 to 42 Gobbles & gravel

42 to 44 San.d.stone * recovered. 0.2' of core

44 to 52 Lava " 0.6 " "

52 to 58 it ft 1.1'

58 to 68 ti " 1.75

Paper No. 430-A states that, "Discharge varies from zero flow to enormous

floods, probably exceeding 100,000 s.f. No accurate measurements of extreme

floods have been made."

It is not believed. safe to depend. on these records for determining the

rnaxinum possible flood., so instead, a modification of the Bur1a-6ieglez' flood.

formula has been applied. with a value of the coefficient, "C" of 1.5.

The application o± this empirical fozu1a to determine the greatest

possible flood at £lnie. results in a 50,000 s.f. flood, slid the spillway has

been designed a000rciingly (see plans and, estimates in Appendix). This

formula is expressed. as follows, in which "" is the maximum discharge in

ec. ft., "C" is the coefficient above referred to, and "A" is the area In

BqUare miles:q3

..l27C/A

There Is a good location for a spillwa.y through. the saddle a short

distance above the darn site, though a maximum cut of 121 ft. would be

?equired for a crest at elevation 5030. This saddle Is through solid lava rock

except for a shallow depth ef earth on the surface, so but little if any

eoncretiug would be necessary In the spIl].way. The rcxk excavated from the

pi11way could conveniently be used as "plugs" (?) in the dem and. also could be

rus1ied. for concrete aggregate.

There is another saddle about a mile east of the dan site that Is at

ievation 5037. Tha excavation would be very much cheaper at this point; how-

lver, there is no bedrock in evidence here, and In case it cannot be found.

da reasonable depth it would probably cost more to proteót the spll2.w.y from

4511 here than to excavate the rock out at the Other site. Test pits should

h dug at this site before finally d.eoid.Izig the location of the, spillway.

- 207 -

Comparative estimates have been made between the cost of a spiliway

in the saddle near the dern at crest elevation 5030 wIth the cost of an overfall

spiliway around. the end, of the dora, with the result that the latter proved the

cheaper. (see plan, and, estimate in Append.Ii.

Road, to Alma Reservoir Site.

At present the main highway to Alma goes out from Silver City which Is

the terminus of branch line of the Santa Fe. The distance frau Silver City

to Alma is about 72 miles, and the road passes over the continental dIvide near

Silver City, though the grade is not severe. This is the stage road to the

Liogol].on miles and it passes within 5 miles of the d.aiu site. It is not

necessary, hovver, to cross over the continental cUvida to reach the railroad,

as another branch of the Santa re crosses the divide to the mining town Of

Tyrone which is on the head,waters of the River, a branch o' t19 Gila.

From Tyrone the distance to Alma is about 7o miles. There is at present a

road down the Iang from Tyrono, o omneot lug with the stage road,. A good.

road is now being Dianned for early construction from Silver City to Cliff

(about 30 miles) which is near where the road, crosses the Gila. There Is a

steel bridge here across the river. It is therefore not plamied, that any con-

struction chargeable to the reservoir will be necessary on this portion of the

road. Prom Cliff to Alma, however, a distance of about 40 miles, the road is

in rather poor condition and, considerable work would. be necessary. It is esti-mated. this road czld. be put in reasonably good, condition for l,00O per mllo

with, say l0,00O added, for niaizitexiarce, or a total of 50,000.

Plowa Dama. Alma Re sorvoir.

lands Bubuierocl. The total axa in the proposed. reservoir, under the

- 206 -

5050 contour, is 5820 acres; 3540 acres of this is public la and is

withdrawn by the U. 8. fOr reservoir purposes. The status of t1 entered.

and, patented. land.s is shown in the following table, which data was secured.

from the recent survey. Fr this It is seen there Is 514 acres of irrigated.

land, and. 1765 acres of grazing land, in addition to the public land,. The

irrigated land, is estiniated. to be wcrth 1O0 per acre, and the grazing land,

5.00 per acre.

Status of lands in A3.ma Reservoir site.

(e below 5050 c out our)

T. 10 5. B 20 1

Sec.8

Note: The balance of the area in the reservoir site (3,540 ace.)is public land, and, is withdrawn by the U. S. for reservoir purposes.

- 209-

- 14 3 11.

N 8-,B- svsv;i 144 7 137Sec.9 - 27 7 20Sec.17- SV & 218 77 141Sec.19- S 40 40Sec.20- 4 4 160 5 155Sec.28- vt' S- 80 35 45beo.29- ffj 160 160Sec .30- 2 *L 40

40See.32- NB 4-0

Sec .33- W' N:, V&S; s 380 104 256eo.34- flB1'. & iTJ

m 11 ' b

40 40

SSJ. a.c.0 a.

Sec.2 - Lots 6,7,8,11,& 12 142 68 74Sec. 3 - Lots 5,9,10,12,13,14,15 and 16 293 83 210Soc. 4 - Lots 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,16,17 403 115 288

SB 40 3 37Sec. 5 - Lots 9 and. 18. 16 16

LotlO 23 7 16Totals 103 2,177 514 1,766

Desoription. Entered. patented Irrigated. G'razlfl(acs.) (Acs.) (Ace.) (Ace.)

Bui1diws Subnierd.. An inventory was made in the recent survey of

the buildings in the reservoir site with an. estimate of their percentage

depreciation. This IiIVeXitDry, Including an estimate of the present value,

is tabulated, as follows:

- 210 -

1uventory of BmildIns In. Alma Reservoir Site.

Location DeecyiptionEstimated

Material Size DepreciationEstimated.

PresentValue

14' z 20SV- Sec.?'? Rosid.en.ce Prne & Log 18' x 12' 50 160

" 20 It Frame 23 x 22' 33-1/3 690

" 19 " Adobe 33 x 27 50 910

30 Frae 14 x 25 10 630

U 33 ft 1/3 Brick 30 x 602/3 Adobe 60 z 60 50 5,400

Two 20 270U Storehouses Adobe 16 X 24 25 430

" 4 Residence flock Dugout 10 x 16 20 360

Alma Ton Mall Pranie 30 z 61 25 2,760

" Residence Adobe 24 x 26 80 250

It " 2 Story 32 z 24 30 2,290

U Store 80 X 53 30 4,4509 Residence Frne 22 40 25 1,320

ft It II 22 z 42 90 190

ft U 23 x 15 75 210

" 32 x 24 20 1820ft ft 26 z 25 50 650

U U ft 12' 1& 90 50

ft ft 32 x 24 10 1,360II It 17 x 25 40 510

It II It 33 x 33 25 1,640

30x25 70 450

36 z 12 20 720

Note: Cost of new bui1in figured as follows: Residences 2.00 per Sq.ft.; store houses 1.50 per sq. ft.; barns 1.00 per sq. ft.

- 211 -

52,8 90

U 39 x 17 10 1,300

ft ft 35 x 14-i 20 770

U ft ft 17x24 25 620

Miara1 Crk. it 29 x 30 25 1,300

'I It II 33x33 40 1,310

It

it

ii

ft

ft

2 Barns

Residence. Frame &Adobe

ii Frame

25x22

90 x 4690 z 3

12 z 2828

37 x 27

1627

20

10

50

5

15

880

6,560

790

1,900

730

Alma School 27,x 24-i- 20 1,060

It Storehouse " 60 x 30 25 2,000

It Residence " 49 z 27 30 1,850

I,

ft

it Adobe

Pool Hall

41 x 52

27 x 61

50

25

2,140

2,480

Estimated. Estimated

Location Description Material Size Depreciation PresentValue.

Alma Residence Frsme 36 z 12k- 20

Road.s Subrnered.. There is a road. leading up through tie Alma

reservoir site to Reserve, a sottlnen.t farther up the river. It is said.

this road. is. in. very poor c ondiltiozi. Near the upper end of the reservoir

the-road. crosses the river to the west side, and., as there is comparatively

flat bench land. on this sid.e, it apears the logical place for the road.,

though no survey has been made to datenine its location. There is also a

road. leadJ.ng out of the A3.ma basin to the west which wofld probably have

to be replaced, and. the one road wu1d. do for the two purposes. This road

will be required. to cross the dam and spillways; and. it will require about

10 miles of new road..

On the east side it will probably be necessary to connect with the

MinereJ. Crook road, which would require about 3 miles of new construction.

This also is on bench land, and is fairly easy constructio@.

It is estimated these roads can be constructed in at least as good.

cond.ltion as the present roads at a cost of l5O0 per mile, or a total

cost of LS,500. This does not include the cost of crossing the dam

and. splllway which will be included in. the cost of the dam.

Purpose o Alma Reservoir.

The primary purpose f the Alma reservoir in the present consideration

is for sup.J.emontal storage for the San Carlos project,. and for sluicing

the San Carlos reservoir as previously discussed. Draft will be

made upon it for this purpose only when the San Carlos reservoir is

npty. Should. the San Carlos reservoir be built to the capacity here

recommended., that is, with extra capacity sui'ficient to take care of

the silt deposit for a period, of' 30 years then there will be no need.

of the construction of the A2m.a reservoir until the end. of tM s period..

212 -

In this case the estimated. cost of the Alma. reservoir should. not

be Included in the estimated first cost of the project, but, instead,

should. be considered at the ti the work becomes necessary, as an item of

supplemental construction. It may, however, prove to be more economical

In first construction t build. the Alma reservoir, at the tirie the B'n Caries

is constructed., and to reduce the capacity the attez' by an nount equiva-

lent in irrigation value to that of the Alma. That this plan is cheaper,.

though, could hardly be expected. when it is considered that to red.uce the

capacity of the San Carlos reservoir from that recommended., by the amount

of the larr Alma reservoir - 306,000 s.f. -- would lower the San. Oarlos

dam only about 14 ft.

As to other lands than the San Carlos project that might be irri-

gable from the Alma reservoir, it may be said. that there are no arable lands

of consequence on the San Francisco river below the Alma site. Below the

mouth of the San Francisco and above the San Caries resrvolr site is the

Solonionville-Safford Valley, which, according to the 0lbex report, contains

an area susceptible of irrigation of 35,100 wires of which, all but 9,000

acres were under irrigation in. 1914. The actual use of zter in 1914 on the

26,000 acres under irrigation in. this valley was, according to the Olberg

survey, 7]. s.f. per acre at diversion. Mr. Olberg c cncluded. that,

with a reasonable duty of water, the additIonal 9,000 acres could be irri-

gated. with the same amount of water. In spite of the extravagant use of

water Iii this valley, there Is a shortage In low .years, so these lands

would probably be in. the market for some stored water in case it re

available. A storage right could be sold, to these lands on condition that

a reasonable duty be maintained., which would. be to the mutual benefit of

the SoiomonvI11e-afford, Valley and, the San Caries project, as it would.

increase rather than reduce the supply to the iatter and, would make the

- 213 -

spiy to the former more d.epend.able. It may be said., therefore, that the

purpose of the A1xna reservoir waild be both for the SolamonvilleSafford.

Valley and, for the San. Caries project.

The Alma reservoir will also have a value for flood control which will

be later discussed uMer that subject.

Laud. Withdrawals for Alma Reservoir.

The I ollowin deBoribed. lands, excepting any tract the title to which

has passed out of th U.S., have been withdrawn from public entry, under the

first form of withdrawal, as provided in Sec. 3, Act of June 17, 1902

(32 Stat., 388:

Withdrawn jan. 18, 1906:

T. 10 S., L20 N. N.M.P.M.

Sec. 17; Sea. 19; Soc. 20; V and. SE- Sec. 28;

all. Sec. 29; E' Sec. 32; all See. 33; Sec. 34.

T. 1]. 8., B. 20 W. .T.M.P.M.

W' Sec.. 2; all Sees. 3 and. 4; Sec. 8; all Sec. 9; N' Sec. 10.

Withd.rawn Mar. 15, l920

P. 10 8., B. 20 We N. N. P.M.

N and. S- 880.8; Sj- Sec. 9; SB Sec. 17; N. Sec. 18; all

See. 30; iv See. 32.

P. 1]. 3. B. 20 N. N. N. p N.

E- Sec. 2; N?- and. S Sec. 5; all Sec. 15; See. 21;

W' Sec. 22; 8 Sec. 26; all Bee. 27.

Withdrawn May 25, 1920.

P. 10 S., B. 20 IV. N.I.P.M.

All See. 4; S Sec. 6; B Sec. 7; N Sec. 9; iB Sec. 17;SV Sec. 18; 4 Sec. 19; B- Sec. 20; Z Sec. 2].; S Sec. 27;1 Sec 28; B- Sec 34.

- 214 -

ID BK V0IB SITE.

Location and. Description..

The fled Bock Beservoir site is located, on the upper Gila River

in. New Mexico in. TownshiDs 18 and, 19 5. flanges 18 and. 19 W. N.M.P.M.

It is about 26 miles north of the town of Lord.sburg on the main line of

the Southern Pacific, from which point it is reached. by wagon road.. The

site occupies the lower end. of a anall valley (fled. Rock Valley) below iich

the river enters a canyon for a &tstance of about 9 miles where it again

opens out into Duncan Valley. fled. Bock Valley is of but little value as

agricultural land, as the bottan area is naU and, the lands mostly sandy

and, subject in part to over;low.

The reservoir is limited, in. capacity, on account of the lijnttod.

helgit of the canyrn walls, to about 166,000 a.f. at the upper d.mi site

and, to 33,00O a.±'. at the lawer site.

The reservoir site is about & miles long from the upper darn,

and, about 9 miles long from the lower, and, the maximum width is about

ii' miles.

The drainage area above the Bed Bock site is about 3,500 squaro miles.

SurVe.

A tcographic survey of the fled flock reservoir site was made

in i1ajr. 1920, by Mr. B. V. Burchard, Ah6istant Topographer, U.S.B.S.,

under the direction of the (.S.B.S. The work was clone On a scale of

2,000 ft. to the inch., with a 10ft. contour interval. Also a detailtopographic sTvey was made of three possible clam sites on a scale of100 ft. to the inch. These maps and. also photos of the dam sites may

be found. in the AppeoiTx of this report.

- 215 -

Capacity.

The capacity of the reservoir site was measured. from the oriin&1

field, map to the maximum hei!it of the survey or to the 4040 contour (sea

level datum), for the upper and, lower dmn sites. This mais a depth of 12].

ft. at the uper site and 158 ft. at the loiver. The capacity table follows:

* Low water Sur'ace at dm site.

- 216 -

Uier

OnDacity Table, Red Rock Reservoir Site.

n Lower Dam

Contour Area (&cs4.Capacitsr (a.f.): Contour Area (Acs.) Capacitg (a.fo'36623890 10 00

3000 40 250

*3919 3910 100 1,350

3920 20 00 20 270 5,400

30 40 300 30 330 6,600

40 160 1,300 40 510 10,900

50 390 4,050 50 000 17,350

60 650 9,260 60 1,110 26,900

70 960 17,300 70 1,450 39,700

80 1,290 28,550 80 1,819 56,000

90 1,600 43,000 90 2,160 75,830

4000 1,900 60,500 4000 2,500 99,130

10 2,260 61,300 10 2,920 126,250

20 2,620 105,700 20 3,340 157,300

30 3,030 133,950 30 3,810 193,300

40 3,440 166,300 40 4,280 233,750

Recuired. Capacitj, Red. Rock Reservoir.

As in the case of the Alma Reservoir, a computation is here maci.e of

the "Storage and Annual Draft Red. Bock Reservoir". Bt in this case

the maximum available capacity of the reservoir at the upper darn site

is used instead of the required. capacity for the coflservation of the

moan flow of the river, as tin £ozner is the controlling feature in. this

case. The upir dam site is selected in this computation as it is the

most favorable on account of width aM foundation conditions, thougb. it

may be said that none of the darn sites for this reservoir are very favor

le for one reason or another.

Trial ciputations re maci.e of the behavior of the reservoir with

cUfferent annual drafts and. with the fixed capacity of 166,000 a.f.;

and finally an. annual draft of 140,000 a.f. was selected.. Under these

conditions the following table shows that during the period of record.

(1905 to 19193 there would. be Seven years of waste and, two years of

deficiency, the greatest deficiency being 22; 140,000 a.f. annual draft,

then, or at a diversion d.ity of 4 a.f. per acre, 35,000 acres Is about

the project that could. be supplied from this reservoir, and this with

an occasional short year.

As In the case of the computations for the Alma reservoir, the

same monthly percentage rate of draft, and the Same monthly evaporatio4

rate, are adapted. as in the San Carlos reservoir. As in the other cases,

also, no seepage loss is figured., though In. case the dam foundation

is not put down to bed rock on account of its great depth, there

should be some seepage figured, though it would liily be a small

- 217 -

item and would not very materially affect the results of tlD: omiputa-

tion.

The computatiorE showing the behavior of the reservoir under the above

assumptions as to annual rat etc., are given in the following table:

Store and 4prival Draft, Bed. Bock Reservoir (Uor.er Den)

Reservoir assumed empty on Jan. 1, 1905,annual draft figured at 140,000 a.f. anddepth of ter of 121 ft. at daii.

Irrigation Mean Area Evapo- Storage Waste (-3Period Inflow Draft Water Sur- ration. nd of Deficiency-

(a.f.) faoe(Acs.) (a.f.) Period( a.f.)

- 218 -

1905

1. Jan-Feb. 105,000 14,000 1,700 400 90,'6002. Mar-Apr. 265,000 21,000 3,000 2,600 16600O -4- 166,0003. May-June 45,600 32,000 3,400 5,000 166000 + 8,4004. July-Aug. 19,400 30,000 3,300 3,600 151,8005. Sept.Oct. 20,600 28,000 3,300 3O00 1414006. NOv-Dec. 123,700 15000 3,400 1,300 166,000 + 82,800

579,300 140,000

1906.

1. 46,400 14,000 3,400 800 166,000 4- 31,6002. 100,300 21,000 3,400 2,900 166000 4- 76,4003. 18,700 32,000 3,300 5,100 14,9004. 33,800 30,000 3,300 3,600 147,1005. 10,500 28,000 3,100 2,900 126,7006. 34.100 15000 3,100 1,200 144,600

243,800

1907.

1. 172,000 14,000 3,300 899 166,000 -4- 135,6002. 65,000 21,000 3,400 2,900 166,000 + 41,1003. 22,000 32,000 3,400 5,200 150,8004. 35,000 30,000 3,300 3,600 152,2005. 46,000 28,000 3,400 3,200 166,000 + 1,0006. 27.000 15,000 3,400 1,300 165b00

--10,700

367,000

- 219 -

Period. Inflow Irriat ion Area, Evaporation BtoraRe Wastø

19081. 57,000 14,000 3,400 800 166,000 -f 42,2002. 46,000 21,000 3,400 2,900 166,000 -f- 2,2003. 11,500 32,000 3,300 5,100 140,4004. 47,500 30,000 3,300 3,600 154,3005. 9,500 28,000 3,100 2,900 132,9006. 9,700 15,000 3,000 1,100 126,500

181, 200

1909

1. 13,200 14,000 2,800 600 125,1002. 62,500 21,000 3,200 2,800 163,8003. 15,900 32,000 3,300 5,100 142,6004. 26,200 30,000 3,100 3,300 135,5005. 20,800 28,000 3,000 2,800 125,5006. 14,900 15,000 2,900 1,100 124,300

153, :500

1910

1. 15,800 14,000 2,900 700 15,4002. 10,5O0 21,000 2,800 2,400 112,5003. 6,100 32,000 2,500 3,800 82,8004. 5,200 30,000 2,100 2,300 55,7005. 6,100 20,000 1,600 1,500 32,3006. 10,200 15,000 1,300 500 27,000

53,900

1911.

1. 17,700 14,000 130o 300 30,4002. 39,200 21,000 1,500 1,300 47,3003. 3,100 32,000 1,400 2,200 162004. 40,800 30,000 1,100 1,300 25,7005. 33,200 26,000 1,300 1,200 29,7006. 16,400 15,000 1,300 500 30,600

150,400

1912.

1. 8,800 14,000 1,300 500 25,1002. 49,100 21,000 1,500 1,300 51,9003. 6,900 32,000 1,500 2,300 24,5004. 21,900 30,000 1,100 1,200 15,2005. 10,900 28000 500 500 00 --2,4006. 10,200 15,000 00 00 00 - 4,800

107,800

VJaste

- 4,400

- 100-18,800- 7,900

-f- 56,500+134,800+ 9,800+ 17,900

+ 84,30020,600

90,3002,900

-4- 64,800-J- 33,000

180,600

- 220 -

Period. Inflow Irrit ion Area Evaporation tora

1913.

1. 9,600 14,000 00 00 002. 404.00 21,000 600 500 13,9003. 13,900 32,000 600 900 004. 11,200 30,000 00 00 005. 20,100 28,000 00 00 006. 24,100 15,000 400 100 9,000

119,4001914

1. 24100 14,000 800 200 18,9002. 28,300 21,000 1,100 900 25,3003. 12,800 32,000 900 1,400 4,7004. 75,800 30,000 1,200 1,300 49,2005. 46,600 28,000 1,800 1,700 66,1OQ6. 10230O 15,000 2,700 900 152,500289,900

1915

1. 86,800 14,000 3,300 800 166,0002. 158'?OO 21,000 3,400 2,900 166,0003. 47,200 32,000 3,400 5,400 166,0004. 51,600 30,000 3,400 3,700 1660005. 21,300 26,000 3,300 3,100 156,2006. 15100 15,000 3,200 1,200 155400380,700

1916

1. 110,000 14,000 3,300 8 166,0002. 44500 21,000 3,400 2,900 166,0003. 27,200 32,000 3,400 5,400 155,8004. 39,800 30,000 3,400 3,700 161,9005. 125,600 28,000 3,400 3,200 166,0006. 19,200 15,000 3,400 1,300 166,000366,300

1917

1. 79,600 14,000 3,400 800 166,0002. 26,900 21,000 3,400 2,900 166,0003. 20,100 32,000 3,300 5,100 149,0004. 9,600 30,000 3,100 3,300 125,3005. 7,000 28,000 2,800 2,600 101,7006. 7,400 15,000 2,500 900 93,200

Waste

Totals 1,135,000 38,400 27

- 221 -

Period.

1918

Inflow Irrigation Area Evaporation Storage

1. 8,700 14,000 2,300 500 87,4002. 14,300 21,000 2,300 2,000 78'?003. 7,600 32,000 2,000 3,100 51,2004. 7,700 30,000 1,500 1,600 27,3005. 9,100 29,000 1,000 900 7,5006. 16000 15,000 600 200 8,300

63,400

1919

1. 23,600 14,000 800 200 17,7002. 103,000 21,000 1,800 1,500 98,2003. 31,200 32,000 2,500 3,800 93,6004. 40,400 30,000 2,500 2,700 109,3005. 16,800 28,000 2,500 2,300 95,8006. 20,200 15,000 2,500 900 100,100

243,200

Lean 232,000

Sunirnary of' Waste wad. )ef'icioxcy.

Year Waste Deficiency(a.f01 A.'. Per cent

1905 257,200

1906 108,000

1907 188,600

1908 64,300

1912 7,200 5

1913 31,200 22

1915 221,000

1916 198,100

1917 97,800

Efficiency of Bed. Bock as Compaed. to Alma Reservoir.

It is interesting to note the following comparisons between the A)"

and. Bed. Bock reservWirsl

It is seen from the above that there is a great deal higher efficiency

in the fled Rook than in either of the Alma reservoirs; that is, in the

former 60 of the mean annua1 flow is conserved. for irri.tion with a

reservoir capacity of 72% of the mean f1ow while in the latter case, for

the 1arer reservoir, a reservoir capacity of 266% of the mean flow is

necessary to conserve 70% of the mean flow. This greater efficiency in

the Bed. flock site as above figured. is accounted for by the fact that though

there is the same period. of low years in both streams (6 year period), the

percentage below normal at the Alma site is considerably greater than atthe fled Rock site as is shown, by the following table of conparisi Of these

low years; or in Other words, the upper Gila is a more cistant flow stream

than the San 'rancisco, and. therefore more attractive for storage purposes

in case reservoir sites of equal merit can be fnund OU the two streams.

- 222 -

,Alma fled, Bock.

Mean an,nw1 flow 113,000 115000 a.f. 232,000 . feReservoir Capacity 168,000 386,000 " 166,000 "

ianua1 Draft 60,000 80,000 " 140,000 "

Relation ci' reservoir capacityto mean. annual flaw 146% 266% 72%

Relation of reservoir draftto mean anmiL flow 52% 70% 60%

G'roatest Deficiency 20 19% 22%

Pe.flt.Def±o2ency - ratio ofdrait to capacity. 36% 26% 84%

low Runoff Years on. San Francisco and. Uvier Gi].a Rivers.

* For total period of Becord.

** For çeriod of low years

Other things being equa., it necessarily follows that t1 greeter

holdover capacity figured in a reservoir the less will be its efficiency,

as the less will be the prqportion of the capacity utilized each. year. How-

ever, in. such. cases as on the San Carlos project where the ter supply

is the limiting feature, or where there is a great deal more of good larLd.

available than the total ter sply can. irrigate, it does not follow that

the most efficient reservoir capacity is the one to be adopted, but, instead,

it should be the capacity that will do the greatest good. to the greatest

number within. Dracticable limits of cost; or in. Other words, the

capacity that will most nearly conserve the total flow of the river

within the practical limits is the one that should be adLpted. This

desired capacity has been found in. the £Iina site, but in. the case of

the Red Rock site, due to the limitations in the possible height of the

dam, this result cannot be attained and, large quantities of vter must

- 223 -

Year San Francisco at Alma G11a at Red. Bock.Annual Flay

(s.f.)Percent

Below Normal.Annual Flow Percent(a.±.) Below NoI7na.

1908 82200 28 l8l200 22

1909 74,300 35 153,500 34

1910 11,900 90 53,900 '7'?

1911 63,200 40 150,400 3.5

1912 45;900 60 107,800 54

1913 20.900 82 119400 48

Mean *]]50O0 56 *232, 000

be let o to waste.

Silt Deposit in Bed. Rock Reservoir.

The upper Gila may be said to be a clear stream in the same sense as

streams iii the northwest, for example, are cleaz streams; that is, it is

entirely clear except in flood. periods. On the visits of the writer to

this and the San Fran.cisco Rivers, he found dizrIn noi,ial flow, that the

Q-ila was entirely clear while the San Francisco, even in low water, was

somewhat mud,&y. This cUfierence in. the two streams is to be expected when

the fact is lcaown that the channel of the former is more rocky than the

latter and. also the water shed. is more heavily timbered.

In view of these facts, therefore, it is concluded, that silt deposit

In any reservoirs on the Upper Gila will be so insignificant in quantity

that It may be ignored. in any study of reservoir capacities.

Bed. Bock am Site iUier).

The upper Be Rock dam site Is the one described In. the W. A. Parish

report of Seotember 3, 1904, In which he described it as located three

quarters of a mile below the head of the canyon and. immediately above the

mouth of Corral Cn.yon. Mr. Parish states that the dam Is limited to a

height of 100 feet and. that it will form a reservoir of approzimatoly

80,000 acre feet. In the present mn.vestition, however, it has been

surveyed to a depth of 121 feet at the dam site, which will provide a

capacity of 166,000 'ore feet. This height is feasible b,y the construction

of &ykes at either end. of the dam.

The canyon at the dam site Is 150 feet wide at low water surface

(elevation 3919), and 640 ft. wide at elevation 4020. Abovø this elevation

- 224 -

it is coirparatively flat so that d,y1os would be necessary for any greater

height of dam. On account of the flat top above the canyon walls at the di

site, and due to Corral Canyon coming in just below te site, an excellent

opportunity is a2'ford,ed. on the swth side for an overfall spi].lway of

moderate cost.

The canyon walls at the darn site are a reddish colored conglomerate

a fair dagree of hardness. The imbeid.ed rock is a hard blue lava, and

the whole is prbbab].y of volcanic origin.

Diiond. drill borings ere made of this site in May and June, 1920,

tho work being done by GeO. A. Hanmond., iimond. Drill Foreman, U.S. B..

Three holes, only, vere drilled, which proved so unsatisfactory that the

work 'as stopped. at this point in the hopes that a better site could be

found. The locationa of those holes, also profiles of Line "A", are

shown on the detail topograpb.y map of the dam site in the Appendix of this

report. The log of the drilling is ai follows:

LO oDri1lin Red. Book (Utrnor) D 1te..

lev.Line io1e Surface pth. aterjal

A 1 3919 0 to 78 Loose gravel

78 to 83 Dark basalt - hard - 7O core

83 to 83 Soft red, lava - 77 core

A 2 39i19 0 to 96 Loose gravel

96 to 102 Cobbles

102 to 120 Bed. lava conglomerateBock fair - Recovered 50 of core

B 3 3919 0 to 94 Gravel and nall cobbles

94 to 104 Soft lava clay with cobblesAbandoned 1ao1 at1104 ft., asthere was no indication ofrook,

225,

Bed. Bock Darn Site (Lower).

The lower Bed. Bock dam site is located about 2- miles below the upper

site. The canyon here is 235 ft. wide at the bottom (elevation 3882), and.

at the top (elevation 4000) it is 305 ft. wide. The surface above this

elevation is quite flat for some distance bank on either side; so in

order to build a dam to a higher elevation, rather long dykiug would be

required..

There is a sharp turn in the river to the north a short distance below

the darn site, and also on. the north side there is a saddle at elevation

4040 about 400 ft. upstream from the center line of the darn. There Is an.

excellent opportunity for an. overfall spiliway through this saddle at crest

elevation of 4040, viich would afford a much more desirable reservoir

capacity than at the upper site.

Only one hole was drilled at this site when the work was dropped on.

account of the unfavorable showing, and also on account of the hurry to

transfer the diamond drill outfit to the Boulder Canyon investigation work

on the Colorado River. The work was done in. June, 1920, by the same equip-

ment and, crew that drilled the upper site.

The location of this drill hole is shown on the detail topography

map of the lower Bed Book dana site in the Appendix hereof; and, the log of

the hole is as followag

Elevation ground surface - 3886

0' to 69' cobbles and gravel

69 to 76 gravel with less cobbles

78 to 10]. heavy cobbles and gravel

101 to 11]. Volcanic tuff.

Recovered 40 of core.

- 226 -

Red. Rock Dn site I M.td.&le.

The midcUe Bed. Bock dam site is located about a half mile below the

upper site, and is just above the mouth of Blue Canyon coming in from the

north. The canyon walls here are higher (to about elevation 4100), so

a much. larger capacity reservoir could be secured by the use of this site.

However, the canyon is so wida at this point (560 ft. at bottom, elevation

3913, and. 1000 at top, elevation 4100 ft4 that it Is rather unattractive

as a dam site; this is especially true nness the foundation conditions

should prove to be very favorable, which is not to be eected in view of

the great depth to bed rock, both above and below it. This site was

therefore, not drilled on account of these unfavorable cowiitions.

A detailed survey was made of this darn site by Mr. B. W. Burch,ard.,

In camection with his other surveys of the reservoir site, and the map

of the same is included in the Append1 of this report as a matter of record.,.

but it is not recommended. that any further consideration be given to It.

Becctuiendations as to Red. Rock Reservoir Site.

Due to the unfavorable foundation conditions, at the two darn sites

investigated; and, also due to the fact that, especially at the upper or

more favorable site, there is in.aufficj.ent storage capacity for the consérvw-

tion of the water supply of the stream; and further, due to the possibilityof finding a better site elsewhere on the upper (Ila, it Is recomiendad.

that no further consideration be given the Bed. Rock site or estimate made

therein until such other sites are investigated. and, unless such Other

investigations do not prove to be more favoib1e.

- 227 -

Flowae Dama, ed flock Reservoir.

In view of the above findings and rcomendations, no estimate

will be made of the flowae d.ama or other features of cost of the Bed.

flock reservoir for this report, but the following data. which v.s secured

during tJs recent survey will be included. as a matter of record.

Lands Submered.. The total area In the Red Rock reservoir under

the upper dam site and, below the 4040 contour is 3440 acres, and, the

status of these lands as of Aug.6, 1920, is shown In the following table.

The irrigated, and, grazing lands are worth about the same per acre as in

the Alma reservoir site.

Status of lands in Bed. Bock Reservoir Site (Upper .m)

LAroas below 4040 contour)

utered Patented Irrigated. GrazingDescription C Acs.) (&os.J C tcs.) ( .A.cS.)

Twzl. 18 S. B. 18 .7.

- 228 -

Sec. , 3. 19 19

Sec. 31 E- 1 38 16 22

" 51 S S I 283 16 265

" 32 N14-, V S 205 45 180

Twn. 19 S., B. 18 W.

..

Sec. 6, j2

tt 'I

ft '7 NNV

18

338

48

119

18

219

48

II 7 SV/: 5 5

Twn. 19 8., B. 19 W.

Sec. 1, Lot 4. 10 10

De3eripti o

Sec. 1 T. 19, Ctd.

9 Lot 1, S N- & S- 425 167 258

9 2, S- Iç,' 8T N\ & S 440 170 270

"3, I:S2- 40 40

"3, 8-- 160 60 100

It 4 3 5 40 14 26

9 9, S 22 22

" 9 SW S,11E Si-.155 10

" 10,NY, N NJ, SWSB 325 55 270N1iSB- BSW-

9 11 40 40

SN 97 97

72 72

" 12, &- I 32 32

" 16, IThi 141 14].

Totals 262 2691 674 2,279

Note: The ba1nce of the area in the reservoir site (487, acreejispublic land, and is ithdrawn by the United. States for reservoirpurposes.

Bui1d.tns Subxnered,. Au inventory was made in the recent survey

of the buildings in the reservoir site with an estimate of their percentage

depreciation, and, this data is tabulated. as follows:

- 229 -

nterac1 Patented. Irrigated. Grazing(Acs.) U.cs.) LAs.i lAos..)

- 230 -

Inventory of Buildings in Bed. Bock (Upper) Reservoir Site.

Location Description Material SizeEstimatedDepreciation.

T 19 5. B 19 7.

S

I'W

iIB

Sec. 4 Residence

iiSec.1O

itSec.10

it" 3

Frame

Adobe

Frame

Adobe

38' x 23'

30 x 13

12x10

30 x 15

33l/3,

20 't

10 "

25 '

IiIt 10 Frame 30 x 20 20 "

It2 Ii 26x20 00

2 II it 24z21 5

'IS% Sec. ]. Adobe 24 x 21 25 "

wytt ft 35x27 20

SBtI It1 Frame 35z35 10 "

T. 19 5. B. 18 W.

S Sec. 6 It It 16x22)20 "

iB Sec. 6 11

Adobe 29 x 22

17 40.50

Frame 17x10

T. 18 S. B. 19 7

AdObe 19 x 33 25 iiSB

m

ItBee. 36

S. -I . .A. .?

S Sec. 31 Store & P.O. Frame 27 x 22 25 ft

31 Garage Gal. Iron 19 x 18 0

ii3]. Residence Frame 28 x 13 20 "

" 31 School 29 x 20 15 "

3]. Residence " 28 x 14 5 II

Sfl.. " 3]. 20 z 20 10 "

SB " 31 School 24 x 16 10 "SJ " 3]. Residence Adobe 20 x 14 5 "

I'i" 32 Ad.dbe 'I 30 x 14 5 ii

Roads Submerged. There are no roads leading through t1 reservoir site

that wouli require reconstruction on account of tl construction of the

reservoir. Hocever, as a convenience for a cattle driveway, and. possibly

for aroad.way to the north side of the reservoir, a roadway should be pro-

vided across the d.&i and. spilJ.way. It is not believed necessary to provide

a bridge over the spiliway, as this will be a wide shallow cut in rock, and

a ford, will be sufficient on the crest of the spiliway.

land Withdrawals for fled Bock Reservoir.

The following described, lands, ezeepting any tract the title to which

has passed. out of the United. States, have been witMrawn fron public entry,

under the first form of withdrawal, as provided in Sec. 3, ct Of June 17,

1902,( 32 Stat. 288).

Withdrawn Mar. 15, 1920:

T 18 5, B 17 Ti, N.M.P.M.

Al]. Sec.5; E' Seo. 6; all Sec. 7; N- See. 8; & SV- Sec. 18.

T 18 6, B 18 W, N.M.P.Li.fl Sec.12; Al]. Sees, 13 to 23,inclusive; - Sec. 24; all Sees.26 to 35, inclusive.

T 19 5, B 18 W, N.iI.P.M.All Sees. 4 to S, inclusive.

T 18 6, B 19 W, N.M.P.l.All Sees. 13,24,25, 29, 32 to 36, inclusive.

T 19 6, B 19 W. N.N.P.M.All Sees. 1 to 5, inclusive; 8 to 12, inclusIve; 15 to 22,incluslvej 30 and. 3],.

T 19 5, B 20 W, N.IJ.P.M.A1. Secs. 7 to 24, inclusive.

Note: A pOrtton of the above lands are outside of th reservoir assurveped, and can be released upon request.

- 231-

Puose of Bed. ockflaservoir.

As in the case of the Alma reservoir, the primary purpose of a reservoir

at Bed Book, or at any other point on the upper Gila, would. be for supplemental

stora for the San Caries project and, for sluicing the SanCarlos reservoir,

as previously discussed.. The Red. Bock reservoir wild also be available

for the furnishing of' stored water to the Solomonvillo-Safford Valley, as

would. be the Alma site; and, in addition, it would furnish stored water, if

any should. be required., for the Duncan Valley. There is a ial1 new project

flow under consideration in the Duncan Valley, which, though it does not

appear very feasible from the U. S. Indian Service report, as previously

mentioned, if it should. be constructed it would likely be in the mar3t for

storage.

Flood Control Value of Alma and. Rod. Bock Reservoirs

and. Flood Control Ropor of Prank H. Oimstead..

An elaborate report has been written on "C41a River Flood Control in

Graham County, Ariz." by Prank H. Oimstead., and, the seine was printed in 1919

as Senate Document No. 436, 65th Congress, 3rd. Session. The report was

authorized by an .Lct of Congress approved May 18, 1916, and. ths sum of 4].O,OOO

was appropriated therefor. The report covers only control for the protection

of laxIs in the Solomonville-Safford. Valley, extending from the mouth of

the San Cazlos River on the west to the head, of the valley on the east, a

length of 67 miles of river channel.

Without reviewing the question of the need, of flood control for this

invalley, It is sufficient evidence of the demand for such control/that

Congress appropriated 1O,OOO for sri lnvestigt ion and, report.

Briefly, the method. of control outlined in the Olmstead. report Is,

- 232 -

first, by a system of river bnk protection by means of a series of floatng

wooden panels anchored to concrete piles; and. second, by the constru.ction of

innumerable small, retardation, check dams in the anall side channels of the

upper water shed, and. also by the reforestation of the upper water shed. The

author is at least entitled to the credit of oriivality in his proposed

methods of flood control. It does not ajpear in the report that he recOnen.dS

reservoir construction either for flood control or for irrigation. The only

mention in the report of the ossibi1ities of reservoir construction is found.

on pp. 34 and. 36, and is here quoted in fuj.1 as follows:

"The San Carlos storage reservoir proposition, to hold some 700,000acre-feet of water, and to cost over 5,O00,000, is probably the mostattractive storage proposition on the Gila.

"The writer believes the silt factor can be largely eliminated by theworks herein recommended..

"There are many good. darn sites in the Upper Gila, but very few good.reservoir propositiona, and. the only satisfactory conbination, that ofGuthrie, is unfortunate in being on the branch of the Gila, having lesspronounced flood flows, as well as the fact that the reservoir site hasbeen occupied by the Arizona & New Mexico Railroad.

"The following sites have been reported upon, and might later beconsidered practical if the watershed above thorn were treated and.eroslo4 oheokd.

"The six 1aat-ned reservoirs are in.cludeci in the power project Ofa private corporation, and. vth.ile at the present time dormant might laterbe revived. The writer is convinced that certainly for the present and.perhaps for long years there will be no sufficient demand for power withinfeasible distance to warrant these expenditures, and, for flood relief oran increased. irrigation water supply there is at hand, a surer an.d, bettersoluti oh."

The last six reservoir sites mentioned in the above quotation are

near the headwaters ol' the upper Gila and, are far above any sites con-

- 233 -

Location Acre-feet

Height Esti- LocationmatedCost

Acre-feet Height

Est1nated.

Cost.

Guth.rie 255,800 140 Two Forks 82,000 150 l,310,000Bed Rock 80,000 100 T.J.Bazich 73,000 150 840,000Dix Crk. (San.

Francisco Ply. 12,000 110 31k, Canyon4b,000 200 1,710,000A1mR, (San Fran-cisco River) 135,000 150 Mentoyos 28,000 150 1,009,000Aln Canyon 38,000 150 ],2,455, 000.

sidered in the present report. It is noted. that the author finds that the

San Francisco is a stream of greater pr.ounced. flood.s than the upper

Gi].a, which is in agreement with the. present study; he does not, hosever,

recognize the excellent qualities of the Alma reservoir site for complete

flood control at the point for the period of record. as 1l as its con-

servation of the total ilow of the stream for irrigation purposes, as is

previously shown herein. It is admitted, that the principal branch of the

San Francisco, or the Blue River, comes in below the AL"ia site, and, that

it is subject to heavy flood.s; but with complete, or nearly complete,

control at Alma, a material reduction in the floods at the mouth of the

San Francisco could be expected.

As to the fled. Bock reservoir site, the available capacity at thispoint is too anall to be of any considerable value for flood control inaddition to its use for irrition, as is seen from the large amounts of

spill shown in the study table of "Storage and. Annual TXLaft." It ishoped., however, that further invest1gatio will develop the fact that

there is a satisfactory reservoir site at Cliff with sufficient capacity

for cnpleto, or nearly complete, flood control, and the conservation

of the total runoff, as near as is practicable, for irrigation purposes.

If this desired result can be accomplished., it would be expected that the

floode of the Glia above the mouth of the San ancisoo would be con-

trolled., as thero are no la.rge tributaries below the Cliff site. Flood

control by storage reservoirs at Alma and on the upper QUa would practi-

cal].y solve the flood. problem in the Solomonvifle-Safforj. 'Valley, eceptfor minor floods originating below the reservoirs.

- 234 -

LOEB 0IIPP S3BV0IB BITE.

Locati on and. Description.

The Lower Cliff fleservoir site is located. on. the upper G.ila Biver, in

New Lexico, in Townships 16 and 17 3., R. 17 W., N.M.P.M. The back

water of the reservoir as surveyed. reaches within a short distanne of

the steel highwa,y bridge across the river near C1iff arid, the lower dam

site is about 12 miles below and, is located, near the quarter corner

between Sections 32 and 33, Township 17 S., B. 17 W. The site is long

and. narrow and. consists of two nall valleys more or less dJ.sconnected.;

and. in ad,dition it extends a short &tstance into the main Cliff valley

but noit enough to got much benefit from it.

The main highway from Silver Cit7 to Cliff, and. on. to the Alma

reservoir site, strikes the river near the upper end. of the site. The

distance fran Silver City to this point is approxImately 30 miles. There

Is also a fair wagon road. leading down the river through t1 reservoir

site to a point near the dam site. This road only serves lands Inside

the site; so in case tin reservoir should. be constructed it would not

need to be replaced.

The right 01' way question In this case would. be fairly simple

and, reasonable In cost, though there are two well developed. ranches in

the site.

Surveys.

Surveys of the lower Cliff site were made a number of 'ears previous

to the date of this report, the work being done by a private engineer,

Mr. C. E. Johnson, of Silver City, N.M. The work was done in the Interest

of a power company and. was for a por project, though some storage forIrrigation was incid.ental]y oonteiplated.

- 235 -

The work d.ono by Mr. Jolmsoxi consisted. of the making of a transit

topographic survey of the reservoir site and, the mapping of the same

on a scale of 500 ft. to one inch, with 10-foot contour intervals; and.

also the survey and platting of the dam site on a. scale of 60 ft. to

one inch, with 10 ft. contour intervals. Assumed elevation datum was

used. in the survey. Those data were secured. through the courtesy of

Mr. Johnson, and, the maps of the reservoir and. dam site are inc1udd,

In the Appendi.x of this report.

In the beginning ol' the present investigation it was not contem-

plated. to inolu.da in the report any stud4r of this reservoir site. In

fact the existence of the site was not known except to Mr. Johnson and

a few Other local people. The fact that a reservoir survey had, been

made at this point was learned by mere chance by the writer while

passing through Silver City on a trip to Alma; and, as Mr, Johnson

was willing to furnish the data, it was thought of sufficient Interest

to Include the maps with a brief discussion In. the report. No attempt

will be made to make an estimate of the cost of storage at this site

as no tests have been made of the foundation conditions at the dam site.

Capaoitg.

The capacity of the reservoir site was measured. from the original

scale maps (500 ft. 1 in.) to the height of the survey or 200 ft. above

river bed a.t the dam site. The capacity was then estimated to an addi-

tional height of 40 ft., by platting and extending the capacity curve.

This was done as the height of the canyon wnlls will permit of a higher

dam, and, with a view to making a study of the necessary reservoir capacity

to conserve all, or nearly all, of the flow of the stream for IrrItjonand, with the additional Incidental value of flood control. In case

- 236 -

fou.nation coud.itions prove favorable here for a high darn, thi. s site may

prove more .vorab1e than the Red. Bock site on. t1 principle that ttn

object sought is the greatest good, to the greatest number within feasible

limits of cost.

The capacity table follows:

* Add. approximately 1150 ft. for sea level datum.

** irea wal capacity estimated above contour 3300.

- 237 -

Capacity Table Ipwer Cliff Beservoir Site.

Contou.v

(Assumed,

Datum)

Area. Capacity(Acs.) (jjc.ft.) Contour

4zea

(Acs.)Capacity(.a. ft.)

* 3100 00 00 3200 840 23,400

10 4 20 10 920 32,200

20 16 120 20 1,060 42,100

30 40 400 30 1,270 53,750

40 70 950 40 1,510 67,650

50 120 1,900 50 1,800 84,200

60 220 3600 60 2,080 103600

70 310 6,250 70 2,350 125,750

80 490 10,250 80 2,620 150,600

90 650 15,950 90 3,040 178,900

3,300 3530 211750

10

20

4,130

4,840

250,

294,850

30 5,660 347,350

3340 6,600 400,650

Recuired Catacitsr Lower Cliff Reservoir.

As in the case of the previous reservoirs studied, a cctnpUtatioXL has

been made of the ttstorage and. Anru'.l Draft, Lower CUff Reservoir." In

this case a maximum storage capacity 'was chosen of 408,000 s.f. (height,

river bed to spiliway, approximately 240 ft), or sufficient to reduce the

waste to a comparatively amall amount for the period of record (1905 to

1919). Computations were made with tentative values of annual draft, with

the result of the adoption of 180,000 s.f. which sppears to best fit the

water supply with the above reservoir capacity. This combination results

in a spill five years in the period of record, with a maximum annual spill

of 124,000 s.f. and a total spill of 342,000 s.f.; and in a deficiency In

two years with a maximum annual deficiency of 30%. A somewhat larger

draft could be made by tho enlargement of the reservoir to, say, 450,000

s.f., which would reduce the waste to a negligible qtntity; but it is

believed the above figures are near, If not quite, the limit within economy,

especially at this site whore such a high dam is necessary.

The annual runoff at this site is figured as being the same as at

the Red. Rock site, as the Bed Bock gaging station is only a few miles below

the Lower Cliff dam site with, no streams of consequence coming in between.

use, a part of the Red. Rook runoff as tabulated previously wider the sub-

ject of "Surface Water Supply", was detennined from a gage just below the

mouth of the Mangas River (it should be called a creek), which comes into

the G11a near the upper end, of the Lower Cliff site. The percentage

monthly draft and, the reservoir losses are figured in the same manner as

for the San Carlos reservoir.

- 236 -

1905

The ctiputation of storage and. annual iiraft are tabulated, as follows:

Storage said. Annual Lower Cliff Bpservoir.

Reservoir assumed. ipty on Jau.1, 1905. Annualdraft figured, at 180,000 a.f0, and. mai.njuni reser-voir capacity at 408,000 a.f. or a depth of vterof approximately 240 ft. at darn.

Irri,tjon Mean Area Evapo- Stora.&eDraft Water Surface ra- end of(a.f.) (Acs.) tion. Period.

(a.f.J a.f.)

- 239 -

'aste-Defi -

ciency -

+ 62,700

+91,700+32,300

1. Jan-Feb. 105,000 18,000 1,100 300 86,7002. Mar-Apr. 265,000 27,000 3,400 2,900 321,8003. May-June 45,600 41,000 5,300 8,100 318,3004. July-Aug 19,400 38,000 5,000 5,400 294,3005. Sept-Oct. 20,600 36,000 4,700 4,400 274,5005. Nov-Dec. 123,700 20,000 8;soo 2,000 376,200

579,300 180,000

19061. 46,400 18,000 6,400 1,500 403,1002. 100,300 27,000 6,600 5,700 408,0003. 18,700 41,000 6,000 9,200 376,5004. 33,600 38,000 5,900 6,400 365, 9005. 10,500 36,000 5,700 5,300 335,9006. 34,100 20,000 5,600 2,100 347,100

243,8001907

1.

2.3.

4.5.6.

172,00065,00022,00035,00046,00027,000

18,00027,00041,00038,00036,00020,000

6,1006,6006,5006,1006,1006,100

1,4005,700

10,0006,6005,7002,300

408,000408,000379,C00369,400373,700378,400

367,0001908

1.

2.

3.

4.5.

57,00046,00011,50047,5009,500

18,00027,00041,00038,00036,000

6,4006,6006,4006 1005,800

1,5005,7009,6006,6005,400

408,000408,000366,700371800339,700t. 9.700 20,000 5,500 2,000 327,400

181,200

Period. Inflow(a.f.)

Period. Inflow IrrIgation .Area Evoration Storage

19091. 13;200 18,000 5,300 1,200 321,4002. 62,500 27,000 5,500 4,700 352,2003. 15,900 41,000 5,500 8400 318,7004. 26,200 38,000 5,000 5,400 301,5005. 20,800 36,000 4,800 4,500 2818006. 14,900 20,000 4,500 1,700 275,000

153,500

19101. 15,800 16,000 4,500 1,000 271,6002. 10,500 27,000 4,300 3,700 251,6003. 6,100 41,000 3,800 5,800 210,9004. 5,200 38,000 3,300 3,600 174,5005. 6,100 36,000 2,700 2,500 142,1006. 10,200 20,000 2,400 900 131,400

53 900

1911.1. 17,700 18,000 2,400 600 130,5002. 39,200 27,000 2,400 2,100 1406003. 3,100 41,000 2,200 3,400 99,3004. 40,600 38,000 2,000 2,200 99,9005. 33,200 36,000 2,000 1,900 95,2006. 16,400 20,000 1,900 700 90,900

150,400

19121. 8,800 18,000 1,800 400 813002. 49,100 27,000 1,900 1,600 1018003. 6,900 41,000 1800 2,700 650004. 21,900 38,000 1,300 1,400 475005. 10,900 36,000 1,000 900 21,5006. 10200 20,000 650 200 11'500

1o7;600

1913

1. 9,600 18,000 350 100 30002. 40,400 27,000 400 3003. 13,900 41,000 200 300 00 -11,3004. 11,200 38,000 00 00 00 --26,8005. 20,100 36000 00 00 00 --159006. 24W, 100 20,000 00 00 4,100119 400

19141. 24,100 18,000 400 100 10,1002. 26,300 27,000 500 400 110003. 12,800 41,000 250 400 00 - 17,6004. 75,800 38,000 700 800 57,0005. 46:600 36,000 1000 900 46,7006. 102,30O 20,000 1,900 700 128,300289,900

- 240 -

Period Inflow Irriat1on ea Evaporation $tora

19151. 86,800 16000 2,800 600 196,5002. 158,700 27,000 4,300 5,700 3245003. 47,200 41,000 5,300 8,100 322,6004. 51,600 38,000 5,300 5,700 330,5005. 21,300 36,000 5,200 4,800 311,0006. 3.5,100 20,000 5,000 1,900 304,200

380, .700

19161. 110,000 18,000 5,700 1,300 394,9002. 44500 27,000 6,500 5,600 406,8003. 27,200 41,000 6,500 10,000 3850004. 39,800 38,000 5,100 6,600 378,2005. 125,600 36,000 6,400 6,000 408,000f 53,8006. 19,200 20,000 6600 2,400 404800

366 300

19171. 79,600 18,000 6,600 1,500 408,000-f56,9002. 56,900 27,000 6,600 5,700 408,0Q0f.24,2003. 2:0,100 41,000 6,400 9,800 377,L3004. 9,600 38,000 6,000 6,500 342,4005. 7,000 36,000 5,400 5,000 308,400

7,400 20,000 4,900 1,800 294,000180,600

19181. 8,700 18,000 4,700 1,100 283,6002. ]4300 27,000 4,400 3,800 267,1003. 7600 41,000 4,100 6,300 227,4004. 7,700 38,000 3,500 3,800 193,3005. 9,100 36,000 3,100 2,900 163,5006. 16,000 20,000 2,800 1,000 158,500

65 400

1919

1. 23,600 18,000 2,800 600 163,5002. 103,000 27,000 3,400 2,900 236,6003. 3].200 41,000 3,800 5,800 2210004. 48,400 38,000 3,700 .4,000 227,4005. 16,800 36,000 3,600 3,400 204,8006. 20,200 20,000 3,500 1,300 203,700243,200

fficieno.v' of Iaor 11ff fleservoir.

Mean annual flow 232,000 a.f.

Reservoir capacity 408,000 a.f.

Annual Draft 180,000 "

Reservoir capacity 178% o mean flow

Annual draft - 7> of nsan flow

Effioiency,draft 44 of reservoir capacity.

- 242 -

Year

Sunma of Waste and. Defjcjencg.

Waste(a.f.)

DeficiencyJa.f.} percent.

1906 62,700

1907 124,000

1908 2]. 200

1913 54.000 30

1914 17,600 10

1916 53.800

1917 81,100

Totals 342,800 7l600

Lower Cliff Dam Site.

The Lower Cliff daa site as located by Mr. Johnson, as previously

stated, Is near the quarter section cOrner between Sections 32 and. 33,

T. 17 5., B 17 W. The canyon here Is approximately 170 ft. wide at the

bottom and 980 ft. wide at a height of 200 ft. There is a projecting

cliff at the east abutment through which a spillway could. be conveniently

constructed..

About three quarters of a mile above thi s dam site there i another

possible site, which, Mr. Johnson states,. was favored by a consulting

engineer board. that passed upon his work for the power conpany. At this

upper site the width at the bottom of the canyon is about the sane as at

the lower site, but at the top contour of the survey it Is about 180 ft.

narrower than at the lower site, or about Boo feet wide. The upper site

also has the advantao of about 20 ft. greater elevation In the stren

bed, with but very little loss in stora capacity between the two sites.

The opportunities for a. spillway are believed to be about equal at the

two sites.

It Is also stated by Mr. Johnson that sane distance below the lower

dani site the canyon is very much narrower, and, the canyon walls more

precipitous ami higher, so that a much higher darn C ld be built with

a comparatively short crest. In fact, Mr. Johnson had. made a traverse

survey of the backwater itha for a 500ft. dam at this lower point. This

line covered all of the main Cliff basin in addition to the lower Cliffsite. In case this reservoir site is further investigated, the feasibilityof a high darn at this lower point should be looked into.

The canyon walls in the vicinity of the darn site are ccuposed. of a

hard. dense volcanic rock of grayish color. The river bed. noral1y is

- 243 -

gravel of a good. quality for concrete aggregate. There has been no tostin

done to detexnina the character of the foundations of those sites.

;Reccmend.ation as to Lwor Cliff Reservoir Site.

It is recommended, that, before any definite action is taken towards

approving or rejecting the Rod. Bock reservoir site, and, especially in

case the upper, or main Cliff reservoir site does not prove to be feasible,

the Loar Cliff site be further investigated, to d.etenine Its feasibility

as canpared with that of the Bed, Bock site.

CLIFF 1VOIB SITE.

Location and. Description.

The Cliff reservoir site is located. on the upper Gila River in

New Mexico in T. 15 and. 16 S., B. 17 W. N.M.P.M. It consists of the

main Cliff or Glia basin, and. is where the road. from Silver City to Alma

and. Mogollon crosses the Gi].a River. The basin here is quite wide and.

includes several branches, the principal one being Duck Creek Valley

coming in from the northwest. There has been no survey made to detexine

its capacity, but it is believed from an inspection that the desired.

capacity (about 450,000 af.) can be secured. by the construction of a dam

of moderate height. This site looks to be the largest pOssibility of

storage on the upper GUs, at least above the Duncan Valley.

The right of way question at the Cliff site would. be more of an

item than in any of the other three upper reservoirs considered in thisreport. The bottom lands geiarally are und.er irrigation and are well un-

proved. Also there are three stations or road.houses: Gus, which foxnorly

was the principal station and. trading post, but is now the head,-

quarters of a big ranch ctmipany; Cliff, the present stage station,

1nc]ud.1ug hotel and store; and, Biverside a new road, house store. The

irrigated laid would probably be worth 15O per acre, with the principal

buildings at these stations valued separately. The stage road, from Silver

City to Mogollon also passes through tJ. site, including a steel truss

bridge across the Cilia. This road, would. have to be reconstructed around

the reservoir, probably crossing the dam. Is a roadway would be required

to the crest oI' the dam anyway, this portion would be chargeable to the

construction of the darn, and, the portion conxiecting up from the darn to

the pre sent road on Duck Creek would be c crnparatively short (po rhaps 8

miles) and would not be especially heavy construction. The present

steel bridge across the G-ila could. lily be used. over the splllway in

case an overfal]. spiliway should be adopted.

This reservoir site is about 30 miles from Silver City by the stage

road. This road, is now in fair condition, but a first class Government

Aid, road. is plamied, between these points for early construction. Alsa

a water grade railroad c onlcl be c onstruc ted from Tyrone, down the Mangas

Bivei and up the Gila, a d,istaaioe of about 25 miles.

Cliff Darn Site.

The Cliff darn site is located. in the northeast quarter of Section

21, T. 16 5., B. 17 W., and, is immediately above the mouth of Stamore

Creek coming in fran the west. It is about two miles below the backwater

line of the Lower Cliff site, wad i'ts location may be seen on the map of

the lor site. It is about three-quarters of a mile below the mouth of

Greenwood Creek where the stage road stri1s the river. There is a fair

wagon road, from the stage road, down, to the darn site, but this would have

only temporary value as it would bee ane submerged,. A permanent road, could

be built to the dam either from above the backwater line on Greenwood Creek

245 -.

going doWn the river, or by continuing the stage road. from the point where

it leaves the Mangas River, clovn the Lngas to its mouth, a distance of

about five miles and. there joining the present road. down the Gila at a

point about three and a half miles below the dam site. There is an

excellent camp site a short distance below the dam site, and. this would.

probably be mo'e accessible by the latter plan.

A detail survey was made of the Cliff d.a'n site on a scale of 200 ft.

to o inch, by Mr. B. W. Burchard, in y, 1920, viile on his way out from

the A3zna to the Bed Bock reservoir site. This survey was not directly

authorized under the contract of January 9, 1920, betv.en the United States

and, the State of Ariza, under which the present investigation is beingmada, but as the survey party was passing through Cliff on the road to,Bed. Bock, and, as the work took only three days to canpiete, it was thought

justifiable to extend this much in Order to get a map of the dam site for

inclusion in. the report. This was especially thought desirable after aninspection of the Bed Bock site, from which it was doubted, if sufficient

capacity could be obtained at the latter point.

From this detail map (see Appendix), it is seen that the dam siteis rather wide and therefore not very favorable in. this respect. It isabout 430 ft.' wide at the bottom, 1070 ft. wide at a depth of 150 ft., and.

1250 ft. wide at 00 ft. It l.a expected, however, that the favorablecharacter of the basin will canpensate, at least in. part, for this unfavor-able, width of dam site. Back of the abutment on. the west s1d there is asaddle at an elevation of about 200 ft. above the river that would provide

an. excellent opportunity for an overfall spiliway. This spillway would

discharge into Sycamore Creek and, would be well away from the toe of the dam.The canyon walls at the dam site are a hard, dense, volcanic rOck,

of a grayish color. The right abutment is a cliff with no soil covering,

- 246 -

whilo the left abutinen.t is a more ntle slope aud. has a shallow covering

of earth,. The rock is ll exposed, however,in the little side ravine

shown on the map, also by projections at various other points. At the

left edge of the river bott there is a flat surface of bed. rock exposed,

which ;vuld indicate that at least on this side of the cyon the depth to

rock will be found shallow. There have been no tests me.d.e of the foun-

d.ation conditions at this site. The river bed generlly is of gravel

of a good. looking quality for concrete aggregate.

Water SuoplI at Cliff site.

There is only one stream worthy of mtion - the I111gas River --

coming in between the Cliff dn site and, the Bed. Rock gaging station. The

d.rainae area between these two points, which is mainly the Liangas River

area, is about 300 Sq. miles as detennined from a small scale map. This

is e% o± the total area of 3500 sq. miles above the Rod Rook station.

The drainage area of the Mangas is in a cxiparatively low altitude,.

and, the strewn is dry throu out the greater portion of the year. Itwould. not be fair, therefore to assume that its runoff as cnpared. with

the total runoff of the Gila above Red. Bock, is in proportion to its

drainage area, but, instead, that it would. be something less than this

proportion. It is estimated,, therefore, that the runoff at the Cliff

site is 95 of the mean annual flow ci' 232,000 aa±'. at Red Rock, or

220,000 a.f.

As the Mangas runs onLy in the flood soason, this percentage

rednction will not ajiply throughout the several months O the year,

but only to this flood season.

- 247 -

B000nviendatiozis as to Cliff Reservoir Site.

It is recornnend.ed that before any conclusions are reached as to the

most feasible reservoir site on the upper Gila River, the Cliff site be

investigated as to capacity aaI as to foundation conditions at dam site

in sufficient detail to d.eteine its feasibility as coared with other

possible sites. In case fund.s are not made available during the

present investigation for this further work, the completion of this

report should not be suspended. thereby, but this data, when available,

should be made the material of a supplemental report at some future date.

NECESSITY OP B 3EIVOIBS ABOVE SAN CABLOS

SITE AS PABT OF SAN O.ABWS PBOT.

In the stu&y of the San Carlos reservoir herein, it has been found

that a darn with spi].lway crest 228 ft. (elevation 2536) above river bed.

will have a gross storage capacity of 1,577,000 a.f. and, that such a

capacity will practically conserve for irrigation the entire flow of the

stream at that point, and in. addition will furnish silt storage for a

period of 30 years. It is also shown from the surveys that conditions

are favorable for the construction of a darn at least to a height of

250 ft. (elevation 2568) above river bed, and that such a height will

provide a storage capacity of 2,420,000 a.f., or sufficient capacity in

addition to that required for irrigation storage, for th storage of silt

for a period of 258 years.

In the relocation of the railroad around the reservoir in connec-

tion with the present stud.,y the line has been kept above the 2575 contour,

or the mazimum height of the reservoir survey, with. a view to providing for

this long period of silt storage. This location, though in rougcountry,

is found to be feasible. As to other improvements than the rai1road

- 248 -

there is only one station of conseqi.ztce, naniely San Canoe, that would.

come within this large reservoir, and. this also would. be flooded. by a nall

reservoir.

It appears from the above that there are no physical causes for objeot-

ion to a large reservoir at San Caries, and. o1.t with. such. a capacity the

San Canoe reservoir would. be complete within itself so far as the needs

of the San Caries project are concerned., without regard to the feasibility

of other storage sites, except for the providing for silt storage, or silt

removal, in the r.note future. It is therefore concluded, that the Ban.

Caries project is not immediately interested in the reservoir sites on

the upper branches of the Gila River, except as it may be possible

to secure cheaper storage at these sites, which, from the physical

conditions there existing, does not seem probable; and, that the feasibility

or non-feasibility of these upper sites at the present time

should not ntrol the feasibility of the San Caries project; for a reser-

voir that may not be ±asible at the present time may be entirely so at

some future time. However, as previously stated., these upper sites should

be reserved. for the future needs of the San Caries project, anti, also for

storage and, for flood. control for the upper valleys of the Cils. So far

as the San Caries project alone is concerned, the date of the construction

of these upper sites may be left to future generations and. the cost would.

be incurred. by them and would not be assessed. against the present proposed.

project. In case, however, the upper valleys should. become sufficiently

interested, in storage for irrigation anti. flood control to *ss a substan-

tial portion of the cost of construction-- which seems possible in view

of the Ol1nstaad report on the necessity of flood control in the Solomonville-

Safford. Valley-- the work might he un&rtaken. in the near future in case funds

should. be made available. In this event, then, the San Caries prjaet- 249 -

cculd well afford, to join in the movement and. assume an equitable proportion

of the cost of stich storage for the greater sa'ety in water supply and, the

future benefit that would be derived from it. The question of the adjustment

of cost in this event wnong the several interests is matter to be determined.

by an. assessment of benefits through the proper irrigation or flood districts

at the time the work is PrOposed..

PL!AJ OF T U. S. INDLAi SERVICB FOB

A GILA. BIVR DIV2SION PROJECT.

The U. S. Indian Service has recently prared. detailed plans and

specifications and made estimates thereon for a diversion project from the

Gi].a River to cov'er a portion of the ssme land,s as here pinried. for the

San. Carlos project. These plans include, briefly, the cistruotion of

two diversion dems in the Gila River; namely, the Florence and. Sacaton

dams; the construction of a large South Side, or Florence-Casa Grande Canal

from the Florence diversion d.ani to the Picacbo Reservoir; the construction

of a small North Side Canal from the Florence dam; and. the construction of

the Pinia Lateral from the Plorence-Casa Granda Canal to the Little Gila

River and thence back into the main Gila above the Sacaton dam, or through

a conduit to the north side of the river and. directly into the Sacatozi ditch.

The Pirna Laterial is primarily for the Reservation unit of the project and.

its object is to avoid the large seepage loss that would result by running the

water directly down the river from the Florence d.am and, also to deliver

to Reservatiou lands that cannot be reached from the Sacaton dam. It alsomay be used, as ad.istributor for a small area of "white" lands. The engi-

ne,ring plans of the Indian Service are all complete for this project, and.

money has been. appropriated, by Congress for its construction by the Indian

Service; and, also advertisement for bids has recently been. made for the

- 250 -

construction of the Florence cLiversion dam.

The plans of the Indian Service, so far as they go, are in harmony

with the plans of the larr stora project here contemplated; so they

have been adopted in their entirety in this report, an-i sane Of the prin-

cipal drawings of the Indian Service showing the nera1 plans of the two

diversion clams are included in the Appendi.X hereof without a chan in

title in order that the credit - and also the responsibility for the

details of the designs-- may be given to the office in which the plans

were prepared.

FLC DIVBI0N DL.

The Florence diversion dam site is located, about 12 miles above

Florence, in the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Tovnship 4 5., Ran

1]. E. It is a short distance below the beading of the old. Florence

Canal. The river channel here is confined between two solid lava rock

points affording excellent abutments for a dam. The width between

abutments at low water level is about 320 ft.

Diamond drill borings vre made to determine foundation conditions

at this site by the U. S. Indian Service in locomber, 1916, and. January;

1917. Nine holes in all were drilled of which five struck bed. rock. The

two deepest ones went to a depth 0±' 85 ft. without striking rock. There

is a width of about 200 ft. in the center of the stream where bed. rk

vas not found. The results of the drilling are shown platted on Indian

Service drawing No. 22-15, in the Appendix. The record shows the material

above bed rock to be sand, gravel; and. amall boulders for about the first

18 ft. with larr boulders below this depth.

The design of the dam as planned by the Indian Service is of the

- 253. -

Indian ir or floating type on account of the great (ieptb to bed, rock.

As stated in. the Indian Service report, "In. this type, destructive perco-

lation under the dam d.ua to the head Of water back of the darn is overcome

by coiastructing.impervious concrete aprons and driving sheet piling, thus

controlling the path. and, the velocity 0±' percolation under the dam." The

upstream apron is planned to be 16 ft. wid.e and the ova mu width of the

dam, includ.ing both aprons, 212 ft. The lower portions of the downstream

apron will be flexible so it wil]. drop down in. case of undarcutting. Two

rows of sheet piling are provided, 30 ft. apart; the maXiirnrni length of

piling to be 14 ft. The length of crest of the dam is about 400 ft., and.

an additional length of spiliway Is provided on the north end by excavating

the rook abutment of a little over 200 ft. The spiliway crest will be

at elevation 1562 or about 9 ft. above river bed, and 7 ft. above the

grad.e of the canal. The canal intake gates (9 - 4'x8 gates) are all onthe south end. of the dam. They are of the overfall or s1dnning type In.

order to minimize the silt entering the canal. These gates are nearly

at right angles to the line of the dam, extending upstream. In front

of these inlet gates and in. line with, the dam are 4 - 4'xS' sluice gates.

The inta1e gates have sufficient capacity for the enlarged. project hareplanned.

Qua unique feature of the darn as proposed by the Indian Service is

that there is to be no head.gate at the north end. for the north sidecana1 but instead this is to be supplied from the down stream gate,

on the south side and through a. 3' -6" pipe extending through the dam.

This will have the advantage of not requiring a sluiceway in the north

side, but It will also have the disadvantage In operation that the

ditch operator on the north canal will not have direct access to his

- 252 -

headgate.

General plans of the clam are given in Indian. Service drawings Nos.

22-14, 22-15, and 22-16, hereto attached, and. d.etail drawings of the

various features of the dam are on. file in the U. S. Indian Service office

in Los Angeles, California.

SAC.4TON IVEBSION DJ.

The Sacaton diversion dai is located. about 20 miles below Florence,

and. three miles above the Sacaton Indian Agency. It is near the southeast

corner of Section 12, Township 4 5. Range 6 E.

According to the Olberg report of November, 1915, the width o the

flood channel at this point was 1,700 ft. in November, 1914, and 2,200 ft.

in November, 1915, and. according to the Indian Service map (No. 19-11)

dated July, 1918, the width is 2,400 ft. The Olberg report states rogs.rd.ing

this dam site that, " the north side the bank is a high rocky butte, while

the bmilc on. the south side is about 8 or 10 ft. in height. The channel

is narrower here than at other points in this vicinity, and. the rocky

point would furnish all the rock needed, for the construction of the dam."

There has been no drilling done at the Sacaton d.n site to determine

the foundation conditions, but it is a practical certainty that no bedrock aid be found. within a reasonable depth.

The design. of thi s dai as prepared by the Indian Service is similarto the Florence dam; that is, It is the floating weir type with. sheet

piling cutoff, a.ncl a flexible, or articulated, cloeastream apron. The

width overall is 92 ft. and. the height of the crest above river bed.

is about 4 ft. The length of spiliway is 2,000 ft., and In. addition

there is a 400-ft. approach on the south end. Canal headings and.

- 253 -

s].uicewa.ys are planned. at each end. of the clam similar in type to the one

at the Florence darn. The one at the north ei4 wi].l divert into the present'

Sacaton canal heading, and, the one at the south end will divert back into

the Little Gila. LI1 the Florence dam, a con.d.u.it is provided. through

the length of the dam for the purpose of carrying water across the river

to feed, the Sacaton canal on the north from the Pima lateral on the south.

A highway bridge is also planned over the clown-stream apron of the dam;

the bridge to be supported on concrete piers, 50 ft. on centers, and, the

piers to be supported on pile foundations. The top of the brid, piers

will be 10.5 ft. above the crest of the dan

The general plans of the Sacaton dam are shown on nd.iazi Service

drawings Nos. 19-11, 19-13, 19-14, and 19-18, attached hereto, and, the

detail plans are on file in the Indian Service office in Los Angeles.

The aivisabi1ity of the construction of the Sacaton dan as a

part of the plan. of the project, is snewhat questionable in the mind, of

the writer. This is especially so on account of the fact that the damsite

is not very favorable due to the great width of the river and. to the saz,

foundation and, to the absence of a good abuthent at the south end. In

describing the purpose o± the dam the Olberg report states, teit will be

used to divert flood water oning from the San Pedro and. other tributaries

of the Gila between the San Carlos darn and. this point, to the Sacaton

district, for which the Beclwimtion Service has already constructed canals J

and headings, on the north side of the river, and to the Sacaton Agency

and. asa Blanca districts on the south side of the river. It will alsøbe used, to divert to the Sacaton district the water turned into the

Gila River just above this point from the Pizna Canal."

- 254 -

This same result, however, will be accomplished so far as the

south side is concerned, by the construction of a large canal, which is

planned, from the Florence dan, and, the Pima Lateral dropping into the

Little G.Ila; and the same result could. 1e accomplished, on the north

side by enlarging the North Side Cana1 from that planned, and by

exten.d.ing it to connect with the acaton ditch. No comparative estimates

have been made to the ]aowlodge of the writer to weigh the cost of

enlarging and. extending the North Canal with the cost of constructing

the Sacaton darn, but without such estimate it would seem that the fOiner

would be the cheaper It is adnii t ted that with the two darn a a larger

amount of flood ter could. be diverted. owing to the limiting ad,visable

capacities of the canals from the upper darn, but with storage available

it does not seem important to maim such large flood. diversions. The

Sacaton dan would also have a value in diverting any return flow that

may appear in the river at this point, but with the w1de deep, sand.

river bottom, it is believed that this will be a negligible quantity.

The Indian Service, however, have included the Sacaton dam

in their fizial plane of the "3Ila River Diversion Project," and money

has been allotted. for its construction; and, in. case it is constructed

the work will be done by the Indian Service and, will be charged entirely

to the Reservation unit of the project. Li view of these facts,

therefore, it is here included, as a part of the plan of the larger

project, without investigating the comparative costs of the Sacaton

dam with the enlarged. and, extended. North Side Ctl.

- 255 -

AREAS UNIiEB PB OPOSED CLNAI

FLQREIWE-CASA GRLITDE UNIT.

Before taking up the discussion of the canal system, it is well

to briefly consider the areas under the several proposed. canals of the

Plorezice-Casa Grand.e unit. This consideration is especially necessary

on account of the fact that there is a greater acreage available than.

the water supply will cover. As previously heroin detezmined. there is a

water supply, including surface and ground water, sufficient to irrigate

a total not acreage of 148,000 acres, of which 108,000 acres are

planned for the Floronce-Casa Grand,e unit.

A tabulation has been prepared showing the gross acreage and.

also the estimated net acreage under each of the several canals as

tentatively proposed. (See map of Florenco-Casa Gran.d,e Unit for location

of canals). It is seen from this that there is an excess acreage of

approximately 20,000 acres, net, and, that therefore an elimination of

this amount must be made.

Under the North Side Canal as laid, out by the Indian Service, which

extends from the Florence dam to the east line of the Besorvation, there

is a net acreage, after making a liberal deduction for waste land., of

4,300 acres. This canal is a "shoe string" proposition; that is, it

covers a long narrow area; and, also the land. is more or loss rough; so,

everything considered, it is not as favorable as the lands on, the south

side of the river. However, this c'na1 Wi].]. serve some old. ter right

lands, mainly near the lower end., and, will replace at least two present

operated ditches. With. this in mind, therefore, it is not deemed. advi-

sable eliminate the North Side Canal; and so long as it is to be con-

strzoted., it will be in line with economy to bring in all the good.

laud. under it. The diameter of pipe (3'-6") through the Florence darn

- 256 -

for delivering to the North Side Canal as planned. by the Indian Service,

is sufficient for this area with a capacity of ox second foot to 100 acres

and with a velocity in the pipe of 4.5 per second.

Under the old Floreie Canal, including that portion below the

Pioaoho Reservation, there are old, water rigb.t lands scattered. thouboat

the area, extending to the end. of the canal about four miles west of

Gasa Grande. There can not be an elimination from this tract, therefore;.

without breaidng the compactness of the project area; or, in other words,

to eliminate 20,000 acres in. this area would result in. what is termed. a

"cheokBr board" project, and, this would tend to increase the cost of con-

struction and. operation. Also inder the Florence Canal is the area of

54,000 acres, under the 40-ft. depth contour, on which pumpirig is recom-

mended for two-thirds of the water st,ply. This is on account of the

better ground water supply and. the shallower depth to water in this

area. To eliminate from thi a area would. therefore reduce the growad,

water pping possibilities.

Under the proposed Florouco-Casa Grande Canal extension west of

the Picacho Reservation and, above the Florence Canal there is an. Ostimated.

net area of 19,500 acres, or practically the nouzit required for elimi-

nation. There are no old water rights on this area, and thero are less

improvements and less developments fron ground water pwnping than in

the area below the Florezxo Canal. This area can therefore be eliminated.,

en masse, with the least possible dnage to existing rights; and also to

the least detriment to the project.

In view of the above facts it is concluded. that the area under the

Plorence-Casa Grands Canal, between. the Picacho Reservation and the Casa

Grands Mountains, and, above the Florence Canal, should be excluded from

- 25? -

further consideration; or until such time as it may be determined that

there is a water supply for a greater aereage than bare found..

The tabulation of acreage under the several cana.].S of the Florence-

Casa Gran.d.e unit Is as follows:

Areas under Proiosed. Canals, 1 orence_Casa rande Unit.

District

Under Floren -Cgsa GrandeCanal east to center of B 10 E,and. west to McClellan ash.

Florence townaite and Casa Grn'ieRuins reservation excluded..

Gross Area Percent Net Area

(res) Waste tjres1

Under old. Florence Canal, eastto McClellan Wash, west to centerof B 5 E, north to contour 1410 82,400

Under Plorence-Casa Grand,e Canalextension to Casa Grand.e Mt and. 23, 000

above old. Florence Canal.

Under North Side Canal, east tocenter of B 10 E, and, west toReservat ion 5,700

Total 154,400

- 258 -

15%

15

70, 000

19,500

4,300

128 .400

CAM&L SYSTEM.

In the Army Board report and, also In the:. Olberg report of Novembe

1, 1915, concrete lining is planned for the purpose of reducing seepage

losses, in. the Florenos-Casa Gran.de Canal and also in the Pinia. lateral.

However, in. a recent unpublished. report by Mr. Herbert V. C1otts Stapervis-

lug nginoer, U.S. Indian Service, on "Proposed Plorenco-Casa Grande Canal

and. PJ.ma lateral, Gi1a River Project, Arizona," dated May 5,1920, no lining

is planned. except iii the drop from the canal to the Pioacb.o Reservoir,

43300 20% 34,6O0

and. in the Pima Lateral at points where there is excessive grade. This

latter Dian is in. accord with the conclusions of the writer as hereinbefore

discussed under the subject of duty of water and, canal losses; that is,

on account of the lightness of the soil and. the silty character of the

water, the seepage loss will not be sufficient to justify the expense of

lining the canals.

The following tabulated data regarding the Plorence-Casa Granda

Canal aAd. the Pima lateral are briefed from the recent report of Mr. Clotts

above mentioned; and the same plan is adopted for the larger project, on

the assumption that this plan is to be carried. out in the near future by

the Indian Service. However, in case the canal construction is not

d.Oz until the construction o± the larger project is imdertaen, the

question of reducing the velocity in the main canal as appearing below

should be considered. uoting frcn "Hydraulic Diagrams" by R. G. Enne6.y

late Chief Engineer, Punjab Irrigation Branch, P.W.D., India, which

book deals oepeoia].1,y with silt laden waters, regarding bank erosion it

is stated., "So far as the author has collected any data on this point, a

mean velocity of 3.3 ft. is safe in ordinary soil; a mean velocity of

3.7 ft. is often unsafe, which would show that anything over 3.5 ft. may

give trouble." Also in his d.etc-xination of "critical" or non-silting

velocities; he finds this "critical" velocity, or V0 z 2.64ft. per sec.

for a depth of canal of 6 ft., and. V0 3.18 ft. per sec. for a depth

of canal of 8 ft. It is believed therefore that this relation of

depth to velocity should. be met and. that a velocity of 3.3 ft. should

not be exceeded in order to have a canal that will neither silt nor scour.

It is also believed that in. order to prevent cutting in the light soil

sections of the canal as planned, rlpra.pping will have to be resorted to

- 259 -

or the velocity will have to be reduced. by checks. It is i4 miles

from the head, of the canal to the proposed. diversion point of the Pima

Lateral and probably the first two-thirds of this distance is in rocky

or gravelly material that will stand, this heavy velocity, but in the lower

third. it is believed. it will cut, at least in the curves. Prom the Pirna

Lateral head.ing to the Picacho Reservoir the cana]. is to be the same size

and. grade as above, but it is probable that the head. of ter in this section

will be sufficiently reduced. to prevent shin.g. The reason the canal is

planned. on this steep grade is inord.er to follow the location of the old.

Casa Grande Vter Users' J.ssociation canal, which is partly constructed

above Station 820, with the same cross section as planned by the Indian

Service. This rikit-of-way an4 work can be secured for a nominal sum

(50,00o), which will effect a saving in cost over a new line. l. Clotts,

Supervising Engineer of the Indian Service, recently stated to the writer

that 5O,00O is the estimated. cost of the work done on the cari.1, less the

extra cost of raising the dani 3 ft. above that originally planned. in order

to be able to divert into this canal, and, the extra cost of the additional

length of the Piina lateral between the Plorence-.Casa Gran.de Canal and. the

old. Florence Gana]., which s first planned. to be followed.. Mr. Clotts

also stated that the Casa Gran.d,e Water Users' .Association. had. agreed. by

contract to turn over their works for O,O00.

The question may be asked as to why the canal as planned. by the

Indlau Service for a snail diversion project will have sufficient capacity

for the larger storage project. This question s answered previously

herein under the discussion of the duty Of ter; that is, the Indian

Service is planning on a Cnl of ample capacity to divert large heads

during flood periods, sufficient to cover the entire project in a short

- 260 -

peziod. while there is ter in the river. Under the sto?age plan such

a capacity per acre is not necessary, and., from the point of view of

economy in construction, it is not ad.visable. The capaâity as planned.

for the d.iversion project is therefore found, to be sufficient for the

storage project.

The data above mentioned, as taken from the recent Clotts report on

the Floren.ce-Casa Grande Canal and, P,Lma Lateral are as follows:

Florence-Casa (ran Main Canal.

Initial grade elevation, 1555.0

Bare width, 40 ft.

Side Slopes, 1 to 1

Depth water 6 ft.

Freeboard., 3 '

Crown Wid.th,10 "

aradient,S.

.00037

Frlction,N .0225

Velocity,V 3.7 ft. per see.

Capacity,- 1000 s.f.

length from diversion dam to Picaaho Reservoir, 21.6 Miles.

Partly constructed stations, 0 to 820.

Wasteway.- Location, 800 ft. below dam; vir type; length 300ft.;. capacity, 1,875 s.f. for depth of 18 inches.

Turnouts.- Pixna Lateral heading and. two other turnouts of 200s.f. capacity.

Sand. Sluice.- Location, 3 miles below darn; length 800 ft.;five 4' x 4' sluice gates.

Chute into Picacho Reservoir.- Stations 1113 to 1213; to. beconcrete lined.

Bridges.- Six, 54' span Howe truss bridges.

- 261 -

Pima Lateral.

Capacity 750 s.f. or miles 1 to 4.

ft 600 "I, it 5 to arid.

Side SlopeS, 1 to 1.

Freeboard, 2 ft.

Crown Width, 8 ft.

Bore, varies with grade.

Length, 11 miles.

Concrete lined. only where grades are excessive.

All excavation in loose earth.

Heaciworks and. Check.- Located. l4-- miles below head. of Florence-

Casa Grands Canal.

Wastoway and. Siphon Spillway.- Waste into McClellan Wash;

capacity 150 s.f.

Notch Drop.- Drop 10 ft. where lateral &te3harges into LittleGila Iivor.

Bridges.- One 45-ft. span Ho tru.s8 bridge; three 18-foot

span wooden girder bridges.

Florence Canal.

There are no plans in the Indian Service reports for the enlarge-

mont or reconstruction of the Florence Canal. In fact, in their recent

plans of a diversion project, only the construction of the Florenee-Casa-

Grande Cpn,1 to the P1ciho Reservoir and the construction of the Piina

Lateral are planned., with possibly the construction of the upper aid of

the North Side Canal; and any further construction of' canals or laterals

is left to the water users.

In the present consideration of the enlarged project it is Dlaed.

to abandon the Florence Canal above the Picacho Reservoir,: as it will only

be in. the way of diversions from the Main canal and. will be too close toit to be of any value. Below the resrvoir, hover, it will be used.

- 262 -

as a distributor for all the area under it est of McClellan Wash, not

including the area planned for pumping, or approximately 46,000 acres.

This portion of the canal will be enlarged to provide a capacity at the

head of not less than, one second, ft. to 100 acres, or to a capacity of

about 460 sec. ft. The canal will be reduced. in capacity toward the lower

end in proportion as diversions are made, with a capacity at the lower end.

of not less than 25 eec. ft. No wasteways are planned. along this canal

except at the 1or end. where it will waste out into the desert and find.

its way into some of the rny channels of the Santa Cruz asb.

For a capacity of 460 a.f., iemed.y's "Hydraulic Diagrams",

previously quoted., gives for a channel with critical non-silting mean

velocities the following properties: Base, 25'; depth 6.2'; side slopes,

1/2 to 1; S - .00022; V3 - 2.7'. In case the grade of the old. canal is

not such as to provide the proper non-silting and non-scouring velocities

for the various capacities, the canal should be relocated., or, in case of

excessive grades, it may be controlled. by cicks if this is found. to be

cheaper than. to construct a new line.

The Main canal wili be considered to end, at the Pioacho Reservoir

and, the reconstruction of the Ploronee Canal below the reservoir will be

included. i the estimated. cost 02' the lateral system. The excavation

will be all earth, or class 1 material, and. the most expensive structures

will be the heading in. the reservoir and, the orossing under the railroad..

Picacho Reservoir,

The Picacho Reservoir will be a valuable asset to the Florence Canal

aM also to the Main Canal, as it will act as an equalizer for the former

for the pur oso of holding a steadj head in. t1 Canal and, a wastoway to

a 2jmit extent for the latter. It will also b of value to a limited.

extent for storage. A Spillway is provided. in the reservoir, dropping into

- 263 -

the McClellan. Wash. The reservoir baniiant should be strengthened. to

some extent, and. the spij.lway, and also the outlet for the Florence Canal,

wil]. require reconstructing.

In a report of LIr. J. D. Schuy].er, dated. December 5, 1911, (see

extract in Army Board report, p.19), it is stated. that this reservoir

as constructed has an area of 1,800 acres, and a capacity of about 15,000

a.f., and that it was built at a cost of 4125,00O. The reservoir is

formed by the building Of a long earth dam or &yka across the McClellan

Wash.

The Florence Canal system, including the Picacho Reservoir, Is to be

turned over to the new project without cost according to the recent. Indian.

Service "Agreement" between the "white" and Indian lands, previously

discussed. The only concession Is that the old water right lands be

given the priority in tie case of water shortage.

North Side Canal.

The North Side Canal, as previously stated, will cover a net area

of approximately 4,300 acres as laid out by the Indian Service. The total

length of the canal to the Reservation line will be approximately 18 miles.

There will be some rock work in. the upper portion of the line, but

through its greater length it will be earth work. The grade will

be variable, and will be rather heavy in. some places where the

material will permit in order to l.ep clown onto better ground. The

required capacity will be about 43 s.f., at the head. or about one s.f.

to 100 acres. The capacity provided In the recent "Agreement" between

the "white" and. Indian. Lands is "not less than 60 sec. ft.) According

to Rnnedy's "Iydraulic Diagrams", the channel required for a 45s.f.

canal for the "critical" nonsilting velocity would be about as ±ollows:

- 264 -

Base, 7 ft.; d.epth 3.1 ft.; grada,S .0003; velocity, 1.73 ft. per

second.; side slopes - to 1.

A heading with sufficient capacity is provided for this canal in

the plans of the dam; the diversion to be on the south side of the river

and to be condnited. to the north side through a 3'-6" pipe inside Of the

dam.

This canal is only of the magnitude of a lateral and. its estimated.

cost will be included in the estimated cost of the lateral system.

Plorenco-Casa rend.e Canal tension.

This canal as previously stated, has been tentatively laid out

and platted on the Florance-Casa Grand.e Unit map; but, for the reason of

oessive acreage, it is recommended, for elimination from the project

arid, its estimated cost is not here included.. The su.rvey, however, will

be of value in. iong the boundaries of a possible future extension of

the project in case it should bo found through szerience that there is

a sufficient water supply to pemnit of its inclusion.

This canal as laid out is an extension from the head. of the d.rop

into Picacho Reservoir, on. a grade of about 1* ft per mile, to Casa

Grande Mt. Here it turns north arid skirts the east side of the mountain

to its north end where it drops back into the Florence Canal. The line is

in easy construction throughout, the excavation being all earthwork,

though in th& last half mile, where it drops into the Florence Canal, it

is on a steep grade, and coacreta lining' or d.rops would be required. In

case it should be constructed, it wDuld. water only the area above the

Florence Canal, and. it would therefore be a comparatively iiall canal0

The net area under it as previously d.etsxnined. is 19,500 acres.

- 265 -.

LATEBAL SYSTEM.

Florence-Casa rand.e Unit.

The Army Board planned. on concrete lining the principal laterals,

and, estimated the cost of the distribution system on this plan, including

the cost of the Main Canal from the head. of the Pinm Lateral to th

Picaoho Reservoir, at 17 per acre. This is shown from the following

quotation from p. 55 of the Board's report:

"The cost of the Picacho branch of the main canal end of thedistribution system for the 55,000 acres of private lands to be

tain into the project, including the lining of the main distribu-tion and larr laterals will be assumed at 417 per acre."

The former plans and estimates of the U. 5. Indian Service for a

lateral system are outlined on. pp. 281 to 283 of the Olberg report of

Novber 1, 1915. s previously stated, in the late plans of that

Service the construction of the distribution system is left to be done

by the water users. The following extracts are quoted from the Olberg

report:

t'La this estimate the main canal, the Pins, and the Picachobranches, are considered to be concrete lined.. The remaining canalsand. sublaterals are unlined. Structures are considered. to be con-structed of reinforced concrete

t*Tho distribution system as proposed and as assumed in thisestimate is designed so that water will be delivered to each 160.cre tract at its highest point

"In the calculations for the cost of excavation, the followingunit costs were used. These unit costs include clearing and grubbingthe right of way. flock excavation, first class 1.00 per yard.,loose rock and, gravel, second. class 50 per yard; earth excavation20 per yard.

"The unit cost of concrete lining was assumed at l2.50 perC.y. in. place, including necessary excavation and, back fill. Rein-forced, concrete for structures,: was assumed to cost 24 per c.y. in.place.

"The cost data for the distribution system was obtained byfirst laying out on the maps made in the course of this investigationas already related, a tentative distribution system, and the necessarylengths of canals; number of structures, etc. were determined. in.this manner.

- 266 -

An. itemized estimate is then worked up as shown on p. 283 of the report,

for a 45,000-acre project in the Florence-Casa Grands unit. This estimate

for t1 distribution system totals 29O,532, or about 6.5O per acre.

It seems quite probable from the experience of the U. S.R.S. that

this cost per acre was too low for the time in. which it was made, though

it must be admitted that in comparis1 with. many of the Reclamation

Service projects, it will be very simple; this is because of the

noothziess and. the favorable slope of the ground, and. because practically

all of the excavation wilJ. be loose earth. This under estimate in an

itemized estimate of a lateral syst2i is not apt to be from under estimating

unit costs so much as in wider estimating quantities and in not providing

sufficiently for contingencies. These contingencies, between the time

of beginnin. of the construction of the project and. the time o± turning

it over to the operating force as a going concern, may be many and. varied

and may be entirely beyond the vision of the man who endeavors to detail

the first estimate. This matter is braight up in connection with the

estimate of the distribution system as this is a favorite dumping ground

for miscellaneous items of cost. TMae contingencies may include such

items as, betterments; replacements of works destroyed. by floods or

other causes; priming the system; puddling; riprapping; concrete lining

leaicy or dangerous stretches of canal; damage claims; and. even the cost

of operating the system during the construction period..

It is believed, therefore, that though a distribution system

estimate may be worked out in very much detail, owing to these many

unforeseen items, it may not be as near the final cost as one figured on

an acreage basis, based. upon the experience of the actual cost of other

- 26? -

similar projects.

In view of the above, the estimate of cost of the lateral system for

this report will be made on an. acrea basis and. on the experience of other

projects with an allowance for present increased costs of labor and. materials.

The plan of the lateral system will be in accord. with the standards

of the Reclamation Service; that is, a lateral to the high point at each

faxn unit of, say 80 acres, including the pumping area, and generally

concrete structuio,. except bridges and form turnouts. The laterals

will not be concrete lined. The system generally will be simple and.

comparatively inexpensive, as the excavation will be practically all

earth work, and., on account of the favorable lay of the land., the

laterals can. generally follow the property lines. No long flumes or

siphons will be required.. The present lateral aystn so far as it goes,

can generally be used, by enlarging to take in. the new lan.ds. Following

those old laterals, hoever, may not reduce the cost of construction

on. account of the added. rowth of brush along their banks.

Pollowng is a tabulation showing the cost of the lateral systems

on a number of the Reclamation Service projects. Certain projects have been

Quitted from this list on account of co.nip1ications due to bringing in

old canal systems into the project. From this record it is concluded

that 20 per acre is a fMr estimate of the cost of the lateral system

for the San Caries project, including the cost of the North Canal and.

the enlargement of the Florence Canal below the Picacho Reservoir, and.

also inoln.ciing improvements to the ?icacio Reservoir.

- 268 -

Note: Soae projects omitted on scou.nt of old. ter right landsbeing included..

- 269 -

Cost of Lateral Systems on fleclaration Service Projects.

As Jecordpd. inth Annual Poort.

LateralProjeCt System Area Cost per

Cost Acre.

Ya 1,512,000 65,000 23.00

Orland 261,000 20,500 12.15

Crand Valley 322,000 35,000 9.25

Uncampahre 2,098,000 100,000 21.00

Huntley 410,000 31,400 13.00

Milk River 653,000 59,000 11.00

Lower Yellowstone 290,000 42,000 6.90

Newland.s 1,457,000 66,000 22.00

amath 330,000 50,000 6.60

Belle Ponreho 629,000 82,500 7.60

StrawberryValley 351,000 50,000 1.00

0]nogan 402,000 10,100 40.00

Shoshane 863,000 56,100 15.40

Mean t15.00

0ANA1 UD IPJ.L

Reservation Unit.

The Ai1y Board (see p. 54 of Board. report) estimated the cost of the

distribution system for a 35,000 acre project on the Reservation at l2.00

per acre. This was to cover the "cost of some means of carrying flood

water to the land.s und.er the new Sacaton ditch, and, the cost of con.struct-

ing a certain part of the distribution system on the reservation lands

on the south side of the river, and of lining certain of the distributors

and, main laterals on the south and possibly also on the north side."

There was no canal system planned. by the Army Board other than

the above mentioned distribution system on the Reservation proper; or

other than the interest the Reservation unit has in the main. Canal and,

the Pima Lateral.

The Indian Service, or Olberg report o± November 1, 1915,

states (p. 282) that,

"The lar main distribution canals on the reservation.have for the most part already been constructed, and, onlythe actual cost of construction chargeable to the San Carlosproject has been included, in the estimate."

The quotation,s just previously made from this report, regarding

unit costs, plans of lateral system, etc., on the Plorenco-Casa Crande

unit, apply also to the Reservation unit. Jn itemized estimate is

then given in the report (p.284 of the cost of "Distributors and.

laterals of the reservation." In this estimate the cost of works built

prior to the date of t!ie report is included. The estimate totals

376,l58, and, it is p1annd for a project of 35,000 acres, which results

in a cost per acre of about l0.75. It includes the estimated cost of

- 270 -

the connection canal fran the Little Gus to the Gila flyer to carry the

Pima Lateral water to the Bacaton darn; and. it also includes the connection

canal from the Sacaton dam back into the Little Gus for diversion to the

south side.

It is not made clear in tha Oiborg report why works constructed.

prior to the date of the estimate on the Reservation unit should. be in-

cluded. in. the estiiate. If it were on the "white" lands, and in case there

were private works taken over by the project, but not donated. to the

project, then in such case an appraisal of the works should be made and.

charged to the project, and patiient made or credit allowed on water rights

to the owners of the wor1 for a like sum. In tho case of the Indian

lands, however, there are no private works to be purchased. and, charged to

the project; so it is not necessary, except as a matter of general interest,

to pro rate against the acreage the past cost with the future. For example,

it was not d.eed. necessary in the Olberg report to appraise the value

or estimate the cost of ti-is old Florence Canal works and, to charge the Same

to the Ban Canoe project. This is because no new money will be required.

or credits be allowed. in the taking over of these works; but also neither

will there be in. the taking over of the old, canals on the reservation

unit.

According to previous reports, and especially to Indian Serv'ice

reports, there are no plans for any lar'e canals for the Reservation unit,

eept as to its interest in. the Main Canal and. the Pm Lateral. In. the

present estimate, therefore, the canals and lateras on the Reservation

will be lumped together aM an. estimate made thereon on an acreage

basis, at the same price r acre, namely 2O, as is estimated. 'or the

lateral system of the Florence-Casa Gran.d.e unit. It is believed this willbe fair, as it is not expected. that there will be any larger canals

- 271 -

if as lar, on the Reservation as the reconstructed. Plorence Canal

below Picaaho Reservoir, ich is included in the lateral syst of the

upper unit. In this estimate only new works and. new land.s coming

thereunder will be includ.ed.; that is, it is assumed, that a sufficient

distribution system is now constructed. for the approximate 5,000 acres

now under irrigation near Sacaton, and. 4,000 acres below Gila Crossing.

The area on the Reservation unit, then, which, it is estimated., will

require the construction Of a distribution syst, and, which includes

the area proposed. for pumping, is 31,000. acres. On p. 286 of the

Olberg report it is stated.: "Practically all of the main canals for

the distribution system on the reservation have already been constructed,,

while he distribution system itself' for 12,000 acres of land, of the

35,000 to conie under the project also has been constructed. and, in

operation."

It is believed. this refers to lands in the vicinity of

Sacaton as the report does not appear to include lands below Gila

Crossing; but, as elsewhere in the report, it is stated, that thei

are about 5,000 acres under irrigation near Sacaton, in order to be on

the side of safety, it will be assumed that there is now a distribution

system constructed for 9,000 acres of the 40,000 acres planned as above

stated.

- 272 -.

SAN C.tBL( DAN.

Plans and. estimates for the San Carlos dam have been prepared. for

this report by the dsignin.g department of the n.ver of'ico of the

U. S. Reclamation Service, aM a report including drawings made thereon.

by the Lesiiing Engineer. This report is attached hereto as an

apendJ.z, and, a further di soussicia of the subject herein will therefore

not be made.

P0B PLT AiD PULPING 5STEM.

Plans and. estimates I Or a hydro-electric plant at the San Carlos

dam and for a pumping system for pumping grou.nd. water for irrigation

on the San aarlos project, have also been prepared by the Designing

and the electrical d.epartmen.ts of the ]nver office. The report,

inclucl.Lng drawings, prepared. by these departments, is inclu.d.ed, here-

with in. the Appendix.

DIVISION OP COST OP PROJECT AS BET\EFLONCE-OA$A GThWDE AND RSRVAT ION UNITS.

The Azny Board. (See pp. 54 and. 55 of Board. report) planned. on

a project of 90,000 acres oss, of which 35,000 acres vere Indian

land.s and 55,000 acres white lands. The cost of the features of

the project that related to both units s apportioned to the units

in proportion to this acreage. The features that vera apportioned.

are: the San Carls reservoir, the Florence diversion dam, the Main.

Canal to the head, of the Pima Lateral, and. the Pima Lateral. The

Sacaton darn and the lateral system on. the Indian lands were charged

- 273 -

to the Indian lands; and, the lateral system on the white lands was

charged. to the white lands. The reason given br tba Board. for pro-

rating the Pima Lateral to the two unite is that it would "serve

private lands on either side, as well as to convey water to the

reservation."

In the OJ.berg report of Novber 1, 1915, the estimated, cost

of al]. features of the projoct, including the cost of wor1 constructed.

on the Beservation unit prior to the date of the report, is charged

pro rataainst the entire irrigablo acreage of the two units of the

project.

The recent "Agreement" between the white and. Indian lands

which is preswrab1y now in effect - provides for the construction

of the following works:

(1 The Florence diversion cisi; (2) the Southside Canal, with

a capacity of not lees than 1,000 second feet, and, to extend. from

ths diversion dan to the Picacho Reservoir; (3) the Pizna Lateral,

to extend to a point so that its cost shall not exceed the cost of

constructing that part of the Main Canal from the diversion point

of the P1mB Lateral to the Picacho Reservoir; (4) the Icorthaide

Canal, with a capacity of not less than 60 second feet.

It provides also for a 62,000 acre project, of which 27,000

acres are "white land.s,and. 35,000 acres Indian lands. It then.

provides that,

"The construction charges * * * * ** * * shall be

aortionad upon a per acre basis between the Indian and."white" lands in said, project, 35/62 to said. Indian landsand, 27/62 to the lands in private ownership."

This plan of charging for the cost o± the Pima Lateral s more

- 274 -

nearly in accord. with. the views of the writer than that in either of'

the previous reports above mentioned. That is, the Pfla Lateral is

primarily for the use of the Indian lands - though. It may also carry

water for a small acreage of "white lands", - and it therefore should.

be mainly charged to the Reservation unit. The above plan as provided

in the ".A.geement", however, has the effoct of not only charging all

of the Pima Lateral to the Indian lands but of charging a portion of

the lower section of the Main Canal as well. The rational method

in this case would be to charge all of the lower section of the Main

Canal to the viite lands, as the Indian lands have no interest In it,

and to charge all or nearly all of the Pima Lateral to the Indian lands.

In the case of the Sacaton dam, it is evident that should It

be constructed, it should al]. be charged to the Indian lands, as vsfigured by the Aiuy Board, as the "white" lands could.. not iDossibly

have any interest in It, except for the use of the highway over it,

and this portion of the cost of the structure would be more properly

chargeable to a highway district.

As to the project proposed. In this report, inasmuch as some

features are related to both units of the project, hile other features

are related only to one unit, it Is believed more equitable to appor-

tion the cost of the various features to the units of the projectin proportion to the Interest of these units in the respective fea-tures. In accordance with this view, the followIn, divisions of costare recommended:

(1) The San Canoe Reservoir, the Florence diversion dam, and.

the Main Canal above the diversion point of the Pima lateral shall

- 275 -

b5 divided, on the two units in. proportion to the acreage to receive

gravity water.

The Main Canal below the diversion point of t1 Pixna Lateral:

the Nortlisjds Canal, the Florence Canal and, the lateral system on the

"whit&' lands, shall all be charged. to the Plorence-Casa Grands unit.

The Sacaton dam and. the distribution system on the Indian.

lands shall all be charged to the Reservation unit.

'ot more than 10% of the capacity of the Pirna Lateral will

be needed. or "white" lands, so shall be charged to the Reserva-

tion unit and. 10% to the Ploronce-Casa Gran.da unit.

The power plant and. trannission line shall be charged to

the two units in. proportion to the amount of power used. for pumping

thereon. This proportion isestimated from the following figures:

Plorence-Casa Grands unit, - pumping area 36,000 acres, mean lift

40 ft. Reservation unit, pumping area, 11,000 acres, with lift of

30 ft. and. 12,000 acres with lift of 20 ft.

Plorence-Casa Grands Unit 70%

Reservation unit 30%

The pumping plants and, accessories shall be charged. to the

unit for whIch they are installed.

The above divisions of charges of the various features to the

two units of the projects are summarized, in the following table:

- 276 -

-2'77 -

FeaturePercent charged. to

:GrandeFlorenceCasa:

Unit :

Re servat ion

Unit

San. Carlos Reservoir

Florence diversion dam

Main Canal above Pina lateral

Liain Canal below Pima Lateral

North Sid.e Canal

Florence Canal en].argenient

lateral system on. Florence-Casa (rand.eUnit

Sacaton

Distribution system on Reservation Unit

Pima Lateral

Power plant and transmission

Pumping plants on Plorence-Casa GraudeUnit

PumpIn& plants on. Reservation unit

:

90%

90

90

100

100

100

100

0

0

10

70

100

0

:

10

10

0

0

0

0

100

100

90

30

0

100

ESTIMATE F COST.

Unit Costs.

Cement

P.O.B. El Paso $3.40

Freight to Florexe 2.00

Randling charge .25

Total at nearest railroad point 5.65 per bbl.

Wagon hail, per t. per mile.

Concrete (For rnversion Dams)

einforcin Stee3.

P.O.B. Colorado 4.15 owt.Pro Igb.t .88Cutting, ben.dllng and placIng 2.00

Total for Florence Dam 7.03Add. hauling for Sacaton Dam .30

7.33

lumberP.O.B. Portland, Oregon 3O.O0 1B.M.Freight 15.00Hand1in and, placing 25.00

Total for Florence : 70.00Add hauling for Sacaton D 10.00

Total 80.00

- 278 -

:l 2:5 :1:3:6: :l:3:6x6Iø0limsCement at 5.65 :1.3 bbls 7.35 :1.11 bbls. 6.27 :0.78 bbls $.40

Sand. " 3.0O :0.46 0.7. 1.38 :0.47 c.y. 1.41 :0.33 c.y. 0.99

Gravel " 43.O0 :0.92 c.y. 2.76 :0.94 0.7. 2.82 :0.66 c.y. 1.98

P1W1S. ' 2.00 : :0.30 o.y. .60Forms : 4.00 : 3.00 : 1.00

Mixing and, placing : 3.00 2.00 : 2.00

Plant Dapreciation. 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total (For

Add for Wagon

Florence2.49 : 16.5O : 1l.97

onoement 1 56 1.34 : .94Total (For Sacaton

Dan) 05 : L7.84 : l2.91

Note:

For uiIt costs of other materials see pp. 5 a.d 6 of

6. 5. Carroll's report o. cost of railroad. a.rowid. San. Carlos

reservoir in append.lx of this report.

- 279 -

PICE DrVION DAM.

The following quantities of material are briefed from a detailed

estimate appearing in an unpublished report b Herbert V. Clotta, Super-

vising Engineer, U. S. ln.dian Seivios, dated Feb. 6,1919. The estimate

included, in addition to items zentio.ued. below, operating house, retaining

11s, canal to end of talus, dJJaa, spiliway, etc. Material will be

delivered by railroad, at the dam.

:Un,it : Total :

Item : uantItj : Cost: Cost Summar,

- 280 -

Coffer Dams and. puni,in

:

4O,000

Dam afl4 Arnurtenances

Excavation. : ; :

Sand, dry 9,540 o.y: 30 2,862:

Sand,, wet : 5,670 o.y. 3;4o2:

Rock, dry 33,480 " ;1.50 50,220;

Bock, wet : 370 " :3.00 1,110;

Total Eisv'atjon : : : : 57,590.

Concrete: . ; :

1:25 : 690 o.y:22.00: 15180:

1:3:630% plums : 4,410 " :12.0O::52,920:

Reinforcing Steel : 92,00034 : 6,440:

Total ConcreteS 74,540

Grouted. talus : 4,000 c.yt 6.00: : 24,000

Sheet Piling : 70 M ;70.00: : 4,900

Biprap 1,590 C.y; 3.50; 5,560

Drill Holes : 650 linPt; 1.00: : 650

Total Dam ani appurtenances : : : : 167,240

Florence Diversion 1m Cont'd..

: Unit : Total :item : .uantity : Cost : Cost : Sunrnarr

Total sluice gates

Construction Cni

Cleaning UD.

Total estimated, field cost

Continncio a, 10%

Engineering and Administration, 15%

ran1 Total, Floz'enoe Diversion im

:

8,L194;

281

1,042;

2,232;

a

S

4,570:S

2,254;* S

: 522:

1,119;

18, 900

8,470

5,000

Boulator Gates and. 0teratin ;flch.iflery.

Nine C.I.gates at 5509-3/4eaeh : 49; 58 /4

Nine operating devices at2759-3/4 each 24,830-3/4:

Pre 1ght 74,410-3/4; 1.40

Installing 74,410-3/4; 3

Total regulator gates

Sluice Gates and. eratinMachinery.

Pour 0.1. Gates at 7616_3/4 ea.; 30,470-3/4* 150

Pour oorating devices at1'07-3/4 each

a

6830-3J4; 33a

Freight 37,3003/4g 1.40

Installing 37,300-3/4; 30

2,500

24,2,1OO

24,200

35,300

302 600

SAC0T DIViSION 1tM

The following quantities of material are briefed from a detailed

estimate appearing in. an unpublished, report by Herbert V. Clotts, Super-

vising Engineer, U. B. Indian Service, dated. JuLy 12., 1918. The estimate

includes, in add.ition to ita mentioned below, wing walls, dikes, canal

headllngs, operating house, etc.

gon haul from Webster Station is 15 miles.

:Unit :Tota].Item : uant1ty ; COSt : Cost : SmnmaaL

Coffer Dena an1 Pumping

Brid.e ansi .In)roaches

Excavation: : : :

nbar1cnent : 10660 c.y: 30 : 3,198

Band, wet : 540 " : 60 324

Rock, solid 40 " : 2.00 : 80

Total exoavation 3 600Concrete: : :

1:25 : 2,580 o.y.: 24.00 : 61,920:

1;3;6: 930 " : 18.00 : 16'?40:

l:3:6:,L3O plums 500 : 13.00 : 6,500:

Reinforcing steel :504,000-3/4 : ?-1/3 : 36960:

Total concrete 122,120

Miscellaneous Steel 21,300-3/4 10 2,130

Bound piling 12,000 11. 1.00 12,000ft. :

Road Surrac ing : 800 sq.yd.s.: 30c 240

Bailing, pipe:

Concrete Posts : 110 o.y. : 50.00 : 5500 :Pipe :7,090 lin.ft: 1.00 : 7090 :

282

Bacaton. Diversion Darn - Cont'd..

QUA1TITY : Unit : Total :Item : : Cost :

Co11a's : 1,330 : ]..00 : 1,330:

Total railing : : : 13,920

Vood BaiJ.tng t 475 lin.ft.: 2.00 : : 950

Total bridge and approaches : : : : 154,960

Dam and. Aiurtenances. : :

Excavatibu: :: :

*

nbmkmen.t : 3,750 c.y.: : 1,125 :

Sand., dry 6,570 ' 3Cc 1,971

Sand,, t 10,100 " 60 6.060

Bock, solid. 40 " 2.00 : 80S S S

Total excavation : : : : 9,240

- 283 -

Concrete:

1:2:5:

: 1,720 c.y. : 24.00 ; 41,'280;

1:3:6: 900 " 18.00 16,200;

1;3:63O% plums 1,920 13.00 2496O;

Reinforcing steel :234,500-3/4 7-1/3ç 17,197;

Total concrete 99,640

routed. talus ; 8,690 o.y. : 5.00 : : 52,140(1:3:6,160 plums) : : :Sheet Piling : 170 M : 80.00 : : 13,600

* : :Bound piling : 3840 lin±'t.: 1.00 : : 3,840

Paving : 400 c.y. : 3.50 : 1,400S

Total da ai appurtenances : : : 179,860

Dacaton Diversion Dri - Cont'.

Gates and. 0peratin. løhinr.

- 284 -

Regulator Gates:

8 C..I. gates a 1764-3/4 each 14,110-3/4; 15 2,116

Freight : 14,110-3/4: l.4 : 198

Haullug : 14,110-3/4: : 42 :

Installing 14,110-3/4: 3Ø : 424

Total, regulator gates: 2,780

Operating Machinery & Miscol.

Vie igh t : 23,930-3/4: 33 : 7897 :

Freight 23,930-3/4; 1.4

Hauling 23,93O-3/4: O.3ç : 72 :

Installing; 23,9303,hL: 718 :

Total Operating 1\Tahtheryant Misce ilane is.

: 9,020

Sluice Gates & Accessories

Ten gates 55,85O-3/4

Freight : 53,850-3/4: 14 : 754

Hauling 53,8503J4; 0.3 162

Installing : 53,850-3/4: 3 : lG15

Total sluice gates 1O61O

Total gates and, operatingmachinery 22,410

Constrtztjon Cnp. : 8,000C1eanin Ut. S : 4,000Total estimated, field. cost S : 399,200

Contin&cjos, 10% S 39,900

Engiaeering and Administration,

Grand Total, Sacaton Diversion

15

xi

S9 8 00

4989O0

:Unit : Total :

Item Quantity : Cost : Cost : 5umnay

Main Canal (Diversion : to picacho Reservoir)

.uazttities taken from unpublished, report by Herbert V. Clotts, Super-

vising Engineer, U. S. Indian Service, dated. May 5, 1920.

Average haul from Florence station, 8 mile8. Gravel haul, 4 miles.

Items are abovo Pima Lateral unless other-wise stated.

285

Total excavation above Pima LateralExcavation; (Below Pinm Lateral

Earth

Wastewar:

:Stas. 762,L84 to 1113,4)0)

214,000 o.y. :

:

: 193,600

64200

Concrete, reinforoed(1:2:5) : 266 c.y. 30.00 : 7,980 :

Paving, grouted. ; 1,200 C..: 6.00 ; 7,200 :a a

Excavation, earth : 1500 o.y.: : 600 :

Total Wasteway : : 15,780Sand Sluice: : : :

Concrete, reinforced (l:2:5) : 1,000 Cay.: 30.00 : 30,000 :. a S

Lumber 2.4 M : 80,00 ; 192 :

Structural Steel 7,060-3J4 iDa 706k : : :

Gates and. lifting maahinery : 17,160-3/4 : 30 : 5,148 :

:

Freight and. hauling g 24,200-3/4 : 1.6 : 387

Installing : 24,200-3/4 : 3 : 726 :

E1ravation, earth : 1,150 c.y. : 400 : 460 :

indurated : 220 " : 1.00 : 220 :

" Solid rock : 14,550 C..: 2.00 : 29100 :

Total sand sluice : : ; : 6694O

Item :Unit

Quantity : Cost:;

TotalCost Summary

z :

Excavation:Above Pirna Lateral Stas.O to 762,4)4.) :

Earth :157,000 c.y.: 30c : 47,100 :

Indurated, material : 72,000 o.y.: 1.00 : 72,000 :

Loose rock 500 c.y.: 1.00 : 500 :

Solid rock 37,000 C.y.; 2.00 74.000

Total brId.s : : ; 13,370

* One below Pirna lateral** Below Pima LateralThree below Pima Lateral

- 286 -

Lain Canal - Cont'ci.

: Unit: Quantity ; Cost

:

;

TotalCost

:

: SummaryS

wo ccerete turonts (Zoo s.f. each) : :Concrete, roin.forced.,1:2:5) : 210 o.y. 30.00 : 6,300 :

Machinery ansi tes : l8,000-3/4: 30ç : 5400 :

Pro iht and J.in,g : 18,000-3/4; 1.6ç

Installing : 18,000-3/4; 30 j? 540

Excavation, earth : OO c.y.: 4 g 240 :

Total tnoutsTwo 2k-' x 4-i' Box Gulverts : :

Concrete, reinforced (1:2:5) ; 152 c.y. 30.00 4,560 ::

Excavation, earth : 750 c.y. 400 ; 300 :

Backi'ill : 300 c.y. 400 120 :

Total culverts 4,980

** Chute into Pjcacho ReservoirConcrete lining, reintorced. ; : ;

(l:2:5) : Z,Z000y.: 20.00 : 44,000 :

Excavation, earth : 30,000 c.y. 3 ; 9.000 :

Total chute : ; : 53,000

***iz Br1deB (54' Truss : : :Lumber, in place ; 78 M : 80.00 : 6,240 :

Miscellaneous Steel : 24,0003/4: : 2,400 :

Concrete {l:2: 5) : 180 c.y. : 24.00 : 4320 ;Thcavat ion, earth 420 c.y. 40

Bac1d ill 600 c.y. 40

, 168

240

uantities taken from unpublishea report bj Herbert V. Clotts,

Su.pervisin Engineer, U. S. Indian Service, dMed May 5, 1920.

- 287 -

Average haal from Florence Station, 12 nilles. ravel b.aul,4 miles.

ItnS

:

: UniIt

Quantitg : Cost::

Total :

Cost :t

Excavation : : :

Earth : 250,000 e.y. : : 75,000

Concrete Lining: . . :Concrete (l:2:5) reinforced. : 5,350 C.y. 20.00 : : 107,000

Headworks: :Concrete, reinforced. (l:2:5) : 530 c.y. 30.00 : 15,900:

Lumber 3.2 M : 80.00 : 256:

Steel gates : 11,125-3/4 : : 1,670:

Lifting Machinery : 4545-3/4 : 33ct : 1,500:

Freight and. auling : 15,670-3/4 : : 250:

Installing : 15,670-3/4 : 3 : 470:

Excavation, earth 1 400 c.y. : 30 : 160:

Total .head.works: 20,210

Main Canal - Cont'd..

Bight of Way, Inc1uling old. Casa Grand.e Canal 5O,000

Total estimated. field. coSt 474,640

Contingencies, 10% 47,460

Engineering and. AdmInistration, 15% 71200

G'rari.d. Total, Main Canal 593500

Total ove Pima Iteral 430460

Total below Pini Itera.l 162,840

PIILt IE&TLAIJ (Stas. 0 to 582)

Engineering and. Administration, 15%

Grand Total Pima Lateral

* 288 -

Pim.a Lateral - Cont'd.

Item : uantity :Unit :

CostTotal :

Cost : Suma.rsr

150 S.F. Turnout & Siphon Spillway:Conore te, reinforced : 100 C.y.:

(l:2:5)Sluice gates 7,5003/4 :

30.00 :

:

3,000

375

:

Frei&it and hau1in 7,500-3/4 : 1.6 120

Installing 7,500-3/4 3 225

Excavation, earth 120 c.y.; 40 480

Total tuznout & I11w S 3770

Ten Foot Notch. Drop.Goncrete,rein.foroed. (l:2;5) : 175 c.y.: 30.00 : 5,250

Excavation and Backfill 200 c.y.; : 80

Tota. drop 5,330

One 45' Iiove Truss Brid.: :

Lrunbor, in place 9.7 M : 80.00 g 776 :

iliscellaneous steel 3,130-3/4 be 310

Gonorete, (1:2-;5) : 30 c.y. : 25.00 750 :

cavation and. Backfill 200 c.y. 40 80

Total bridge 1,920

Three 18' Wooden Girder BritiRes.S

Limber, in place : 9.6 M : 80.00 s 768 :

LLisce1laaaeas Steel 600-3/4 : l0ç : 60

Concrete (1:2:5) 5 7 c.y. : 25.00 : 1,875 :S S

Excavation aaci backfill g 400 c.sr. 40c 160 :

Total girder bridges 5 2)860

Total estimated field cost : 216 100

Cotingencies, 10% 21 600

37400

275 100

Pumping System, inclucLth.g sub-stationsand. secondary transmission lines (seeAppeud.ix for datails)

Telephoiie System, 60 ml. at 250.

Operators buildings

Total distribution unit

Storage Unit (See Appendix for details)Reservoir (capacity 1,600,000 a.f.)

Power Plant and, main transmission line

Total storage unitGrand. Total

Cost per acre (108,000 acres in. upperunit and, 31,000 acres new land. in.lower unit.

- 289 -

Beservat ionUnit.

302,200

498,900

43,000

;4,854,6OO ;

8813,500

743,400 :

;9,556,9OO:14,411,500 :

133.00

247,600

620,000

2,581,100

979,300

318,600

1,297,9003,879,000

125.00

StThA]Y JD DISTRIBUTION OF COST.

Item: Florence- ::OaSa Grands:

: Unit

Distribution Unit:Florence Diversion Dam 272,400

Sac aton diversion flwn :

Main. Canal to Pima Late ral 387,500 :

" " below Pima lateral 162,800 :

Pima lateral : 27,500 :

Lateral System:Floren.ce-Casa Grand.e Unit,

108,000 acres at 2O.O0 216O,OO

Reservation Unit, 31,000 acres newlands, at 0.00 - - :

1,819,400 : 1131,400

10,000 5,000

15,000 5,000

- 290 -