County agent project progress report, Home water supplies - domestic water improvement and water facilities, November 1, 1939

COUNTY AGENT PROJECT Progress Report Date: November 1, 1939 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT NUMBER: State Office No. 282 Clark County No. 22 NAME OF PROJECT: Home water supplies - Domestic water improvement and water f a c i l i t i e s . A c t i v i t i e s of t h i s project covers three items of importance to Clark County: 1. Extension of the domestic water supply from the tank built by l o c a l people with W. P. A. financing in 1938, to each Bunkerville and Mesquite approximately 2 and 5 miles, respectively. After a series of many meetings by representatives of each community with the L . D. S. Church o f f i c i a l s , $10,000 was f i n a l l y set aside by the latter for the completion of water lines as indicated. Of the 40% or $4,000 allotted to Bunkerville, approx-imately $3300 were spent for completion of their line to the upper edge of the community, with sufficient piping to extend same to the C. C. C. Camp. Sixty percent or $6,000 with an additional consideration of $300, supplied the cost of material for Mesquite's l i n e , whereas respective communities furnished a l l labor of installation. Early f a l l saw the water delivered to Bunkerville according to plans; pipe laying began i n late f a l l , for Mesquite, and i t i s anticipated that water w i l l be delivered i n that community during the early months of 1940. 2. Water F a c i l i t i e s program thru: (1) A consolidated inter-community project wherein there would be but one diversion dam for the Bunkerville and Mesquite communities; and (2) A pumping system for Bunkerville should the consolidated plan f a i l . Much painstaking work was done on these proposals by each the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Security Administration and l o c a l residents. Yet, from the nature of conditions prevailing, there could be no hope of respective communities accepting either (1) or (2), and both as proposed were rejected. The Mesquite community, feeling themselves quite secure with their present system, also rejected a proposal for a reconstruction of their system independent of the Bunkerville community. Bunkerville, on the other hand, tenaciously held out for a program of diversion and r i v e r bank protection which would not entail a specific cash overhead cost for power and equipment maintenance indefinitely, and an unknown labor cost of keeping the water of the river-bed to the supply pump as was proposed by the Soil Conservation Service. 3. Approval of three of four projects selected for -2- MISCELLANEOUS COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: Progress Report State Office No. 282 Date: November 1, 1939 Clerk County No. 22 water f a c i l i t i e s projects i n Moapa Valley was secured thru cooper-ation of the Moapa S o i l Conservation D i s t r i c t supervisors with Soil Conservation Service and the Farm Security Administration. Of these four prospects, two have had wells d r i l l e d , but water therefrom shows t o t a l content of approximately 2155.5 and 2700.0 ppm soluble s a l t s from the Lewis well I n Logandale, and the Lewis well i n Overton, respectively; also a third to be d r i l l e d on the ranch of R. A. West about 1 1/2 miles below Glendale Service Station. The r e l a t i v e l y high content of soluble salts i n these w e l l s makes use of t h i s water i n either case for domestic animals and culinary purposes very questionable except for extreme emergency. The d r i l l i n g on the Lewis well at Overton reached a depth of approximately 300 feet below the 85 f t . depth water level into heavy clay. The supposition i s that good water might be secured were d r i l l i n g to extend thru the clay formation indicated. However, t h i s item being of so much conjecture, steps have been taken to secure the service of a competent geologist to determine prospects of securing a supply of water,?flowing or for pumping, of such quality that w i l l meet needs of l o c a l i t y concerned. Should pros-pects for water be favorable, an effort w i l l be made to secure approval of a water f a c i l i t i e s project thru one test well, financed by community interests. County Extension Agent