County agent project progress report, Irrigation district, November 1, 1929

COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 1, 1929 PROJECT NUMBER State Office #172 Clark County #12 IRRIGATION DISTRICT The first units for improvement, according to the Engineers' Report and recommendation was the construction of a Diversion Dam for the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company's Irrigation System. The cost was estimated $10,000. A survey of the bonding market, Banks and Loan Companies showed that the company, under its present form of organization, could not secure loans in the amount of $10,000 or even less. This situation brought home to the organization a real need for readjustment. What that readjustment should be, became - not the only question but among others a leading one. January - After conferring with leading Nevada State officials concerning the foregoing financial situation, the following letter was received: January 26th, 1929 Mr. J. H. Wittwer District Extension Agent DLaesar V eMgra.s W,i Ntetvwaerd:a. Pursuant to your verbal request for my opinion as to the best method of financing the construction of the proposed diversion dam at Wells Siding on the Muddy River, I will state as follows: The estimated cost of this structure is $10,000.00. The most logical procedure from all viewpoints, in my opinion, is to borrow the money on a series of notes maturing in units of approximately $2,000.00 each, the first maturing in two years and one $2,000.00 note each year thereafter until the entire amount has been repaid. It would undoubtedly be necessary for the Muddy Valley Irrigation Co., or the stockholders thereof, to furnish required security to the parties making the loan. This method, as above outlined, requires little or no legal expense, a very short period of time; and it is the simplest as well as the most economical method which I can suggest for financing the project. The second method would be for the Muddy Valley Irrigation Co., to issue bonds in the required amount. This method is an extremely expen-sive one where such a very small amount of money is involved. The printing of the bonds alone will cost several hundred dollars. There is practically no chance of disposing of such bonds, except at a heavy discount. Unless bonds are purchased by local people who do not investigate the legality of Muddy Valley Irrigation Co., together with abstract of title on all security for the bonds be thoroughly investigated and approved by attorneys satis-factory to the bond purchasers. I will state at this time that bonding companies are extremely critical in these matters and will accept only the opinions of the very best bond attorneys in these matters and that the opinions of such attorneys come very high. It is safe to say that legal opinions satisfactory to a bona fide bonding company on such an issue as proposed, would cost in the neighborhood of a $1,000.00 due to the COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 2, 1929 PROJECT NUMBER State Office #172 Clark County #12 many conditions which must be met and on which the Irrigation Company has no previous legal opinion. From the beginning of activities to issue bonds, to receipt of money for sale of such bonds, under the conditions existing would, in my opinion, require a minimum of six months. This element of time may or may not be a pertinent factor in your problem. From the foregoing you can readily see that in order to secure $10,000.00 net for construction use it would be necessary to issue bonds in approximately the amount of $13,000.00. Interest would have to be paid on the gross amount and the gross amount redeemed at par when the bonds became due. There is another method for securing funds, such an assessment whereby the stockholder of the company would be required to secure money to meet his assessment by borrowing as an individual, in event he did not have the required funds personally. This method I do not believe would be satisfactory for your proposed project. Trusting that the foregoing has supplied the information you desire, I am Very truly yours, KING & MALONE (Signed) Thos. R. King" February - March - April Conferences were held with prominent engineers, local leaders - the problem of financing, crystallizing about the prospect of interesting the U. S. Reclamation Service thru whom there might be a possibility of securing funds thru their organization - loans without interest on long term payments. - thus lowering final total costs one half - making a seeming impossibility a probably realty! The extension Agent was therefore advised to confer with Dr. Richard Lyman, member Utah Water Storage Commission thru whom contact w"a s being made with the U. S. Reclamation Service. April 29, 1929 Mr. John H. Wittwer Las Vegas Nevada Dear Mr. Wittwer: As you know I wrote April 8th, to Dr. Elwood Mead, Commissioner of Reclamation, Washington, D. C. and asked what, if anything, the U. S. Reclamation Service would do to help the people of Moapa Valley in their program of development. COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 1, 1929 -3- PROJECT NUMBER State office #172 Clark County #12 In reply Dr. Mead has written April 15th, as follows: 'I have your letter of April 8th. The quickest way for me to determine what we can do or whether we can do anything with the Moapa Valley people is to have sent on a map of such information as Mr. Wittwer has gathered, together with their plans for development. If that is sent here, Mr. Bissell and I will look it over and then I will write you. I would rather not have the matter brought to us through the Congressional Delegation until after I have had the opportunity to know whether it is worth while.' Will you therefore send to Dr. Mead what information you have for this consideration. If I can be of further service I shall be glad to render it. Very truly yours, (Signed) Richard R. Lyman " CC: Dr. Elwood Mead. May - Accordingly, copies of all surveys, soil, Economic, Land, Engineers' reports were forwarded to Director Mead's office thru Engineer Thomas R. King and Director C. W. Creel. In conjunction with these movements, each Director Creel and State Engineer Malone with Senators Tasker L. Oddie and Key Pittman, and Representative Samuel Arentz were entering into negotiations with Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur and Director Mead to the end that a personal inspection of the Moapa Valley project might be made. June 10 - 12 Director C. W. Creel and Assistant Director, Thos. Buckman arranged details for the visit of Secretary Wilbur, Director Mead, R. F. Walter, Chief Engineer U. S. Reclamation, and others (1) to investi-gate important surveyed units concerned, (2) to see the Moapa Valley and (3) to make personal contacts with the people who were to assume the res-ponsibility of meeting such costs as might be concerned with the project if undertaken. June 22 - 24 As an out growth of this one of the most fundamentally important projects, a project having had its inception four years previously, and on which there had been continually, persistent effort expended, the month of June 1929 will stand out as one of new making history epochs for Moapa Valley, and for all that may be known setting a new pace for the U. S. Reclamation Service by way of its giving more attention to small projects, where struggling communities maintain established systems of schools, highways, canal systems and community organizations. The fruits of this persistent hammering away, of the splendid cooperative effort on part of local organizations with the various State COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 1, 1929 -4- PROJECT NUMBER State Office #172 Clark County #12 and Federal agencies was a visit to proposed flood controls and storage sites in the Moapa Valley, one whole day spent to check over a small insignificant $100,000 project along side of the Boulder Dam Project involving 160 million dollars, by such notables as Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior, Dr. Elwood Mead, Director U. S. Reclamation, R. F. Walter, Chief Engineer U. S. Reclamation, with Nevada's present Governor, and Ex-Governor, two United States Senators and Congressmen, members of Utah State Water Storage Commission, State Engineer, State University Extension Director, with other leading state and local citizens. This, with a very sympathetic, wholesome, helpful, attitude of mind on the part of these high officials to assist in overcoming the dangers of menacing floods, to assist in providing a more substantial water supply thru storage, and to increase acreage thru drainage, all in the face of that great Boulder Dam Project requirement, gave new courage and hope for the accomplishment of things really worth while, for the solution of problems that had heretofore been looked upon as impossible ?unthinkable! The day following the field inspection trip in Moapa Valley, another conference, of immediately concerned officials, was called in Las Vegas. It was here that Director Mead expressed himself, in no uncertain terms, highly pleased with the favorable prospects of a success-ful Reclamation Project - with settlements having substantial community organizations, a permanent systems of schools, Irrigation, highways, and railroads established. Assurances were here given that the project had every mark of feasibility and that the Reclamation Service stood ready to cooperate with the Nevada State and local officials in providing any additional funds necessary for completing research surveys and pro-ceeding, accordingly, with improvements as final analyses of the various units of the project would show desirable. One thing, however, seemed necessary - the perfection of an organization of land and water stock owners in the Moapa Valley thru which the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation might release its funds on such basis as would fix responsibility in the disposition and use of funds fur-nished by the Reclamation Service. July - August - September Personal conferences were held with leading influential people in each Moapa Valley Irrigation Company. After a series of meetings with these directors in cooperation with Levi Syphus, a local resident advisor, and Geo. Hardman of the department of Irrigation and Agronomy, Nevada Experiment Station, the following letter was authorized sent to the State Engineer's office, (note the multiplicity of related problems involved). " L a s Vegas, Nevada September 24, 1929 Mr. Ceo. W. Malone State Engineer Carson City, Nevada Dear Mr. Malone: 1. Since the visit of Sec. Wilbur, Dr. Mead, and party to the Moapa Valley, and with the recommendations of Dr. Mead before them, the people of the Moapa Valley have been considering seriously the COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 1, 1929 -5- PROJECT NUMBER State office #172 Clark County #12 several problems involved in the carrying out of the proposed flood control, water storage and irrigation works for the valley. In the study of the matter several questions arise upon which the opinions of yourself and Mr. King would be appreciated, and which might go far toward the solution of the difficulties encountered. At a conference between the Board of Directors of the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company, Mr. Wittwer, and several other interested parties I was requested to formulate some of these questions. 2. The first question concerns the White Narrows filings of a reservoir at this site would be the possible storage of the water of the Muddy River during times of floods from the Meadow Valley Wash when much of the regular flow of the Muddy must of necessity be wasted, and the releasing of the stored water when needed. It is possible that the main stream or the larger part of it can be held to be surplus water and stored at the White Narrows during the time an equivalent run off comes into the stream below the White Narrows, such as from the Meadow Valley Wash? 3. The next proposition concerns the Meadow Valley Wash. Under the terms of the contract with the Clark County Farm Bureau and the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company, Mr. King surveyed the Muddy Valley Wash with the finding of suitable flood control sites as the major proposition, and was not asked to locate storage sites. However, there remains in the minds of many people in the valley the conviction that there are storage sites on the Meadow Valley Wash, that might be usable in case the White Narrows project proves infeasible. One proposition would consider the storage of Meadow Valley Wash flood waters only. Another would be a sort winter flow of the Muddy River into a reservoir situated in the Meadow Valley Wash. Would it be possible for Mr. King with the data available to give an opinion on these matters, and would he be willing to do so? 4. It is felt that the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company in causing the various surveys to be made, and in making the filings on the flood waters, storage sites, and flood control sites has secured valuable rights for itself and the people of the Moapa Valley which might be advanced as the basis of an argument for actual and punitive damages in favor of the Irrigation Company in the case of condemnation proceedings against lands condemnation might render infeasible the whole project. Now the question is, are those filings in good sound position, and if not what should be done to strengthen their position? 5. In the case of condemnation proceedings by the Reclamation Service of lands in the lower end of the Moapa Valley the Reclamation Service is likely to come into possession of more or less stock in the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company. This stock represents shares of water and entitles the owner to use of that water. Presumably under the Order of Determination for the Muddy River this use was intended to be restricted to the land in the Moapa Valley situated below the Narrows, or that the water of the Muddy River below the Narrows is appurtenant position can be maintained then the Reclamation Service would have no option to dispose of the condemned stock in the Irrigation Company except for use on the lands of the lower Muddy Valley, and the retention of this -3- COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER PROGRESS REPORT State office #172 November 1, 1929 Clark County #12 water in the Valley presents no problem. On the other hand the Reclamation Service may contend that it is buying both the land and the water and is entitled to dispose of the water to the highest bidder regardless of the location of the purchaser, in which case the City of Los Angeles might bid in the water. It is our opinion that the State Engineer and the Board of Directors of the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company should consider this matter and map out a general policy to be pursued. 6. The question of the acreage of land likely to be condemned is of importance in the consideration of the proposed flood control for the survey of Mr. A. A. Young it appears entirely possible that sufficient land may be inundated to render extremely doubtful the ability of the remaining lands to carry the burden of any farther reclamation work; or that there would remain a need for further water storage. Flood protection would still remain a necessity for the remaining lands. With Bixby's map of the valley and a statement of the contour line to which the Reclamation Service intends to carry the condemnation proceedings it would be a comparatively easy matter to calculate rather closely the area of land to be condemned, provided we can correlate Bixby's survey with that of the Reclamation Service. This is necessary since the same bench mark was not used in the two surveys. 7. The Irrigation Company is not favorably inclined toward spending any more money for further surveys or borings at the White Narrows Site until the proposition of the area of land to be condemned in the lower valley has been settled as definitely as possible at the present time. They realize that some suggestions have been made regarding raising the height of the dam in the Black Canyon and that any change in the height of the dam would necessarily change the acreage of lands subject to flooding, also that the Reclamation Service may have proposals under consideration upon which decisions have not been reached. However, this matter appears rather vital to the contin-ued progress of our project and any information that can be obtained may prove of considerable assistance. We feel further that contact with the Reclamation Service can best be made thru your office. 8. These matters all have an important bearing on the question of the necessity or the advisability of the formation of an irrigation district in the valley. It is felt that a discussion by correspondence may serve to clarify the situation somewhat. Later a conference between yourself and representatives of the Irrigation Company, either here or in Carson City, may be advisable. With best wishes for your continued success. Sincerely yours, George Hardman" With the closing of this report there has been no reply from the State Engineer's Office - and as the content of the foregoing letter -7- COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER PROGRESS REPORT State Office #172 November 1, 1929 Clark County #12 indicates, further action would not be advisable until questions involved are fully answered. Parties concerned feel a necessity for guidance thru the Director of Reclamation, Dr. Elwood Mead. Miscellaneous items related to this project and secured thru cooperation of Mr. Hardman are: " J u n e 10, 1929 Mr. J. H. Wittwer, District Extension Agent, LDaeasr V Merg.as W,i Ntetvwaedra:. I visited the sites of the proposed flood control and storage dams above the Moapa Indian Reservation and at the Narrows of the Muddy River, and looked over the flood control ditch near Pueblo last week in company with yourself and Mr. Hardman. I have the following comments to make. Indian Reservation Dam Site. The abutments of the proposed dam have at the base about twenty feet of calcareous shale overlain with fifty to seventy-five feet of fresh water limestone. This limestone was deposited mainly through the activities of minute plants (blue-green algae) that are still depositing lime on the sticks and rocks submerged in the water of the river. The limestone occurs in large lenses in the shales and the river has happened to cut through the center of the lens at the dam site. At the south abutment the limestone dips 24 degrees up stream which will aid in checking seepage along the thin beds of marl that occur in the limestone. A large vertical crack near the point of the abutment will probably have to be sealed with clay or concrete but with the low height of water behind the dam (thirty feet) this abutment will probably be satisfactory. At the north abutment the beds are nearly horizontal and the lower thirty feet are calcareous shale. This shale will soften in water to a considerable extent and the walls slump until the overlying limestone covers and protects the shale beneath. It will be necessary to carry the cut off wall well into the shale at this point in order to prevent seepage around the dam. The walls of the reservoir will slump as they are wet and cause large blocks of limestone to fall over the face but this will tend to check any seepage and from a protecting face. The limestone is porous and separated into beds two to four feet thick by thin layers of marl and clay. If the reservoir is filled too rapidly and the seeps not taken care of as they develop these clay layers are apt to be washed out. If time is given for the clay to swell as it is first wet it will check the seepage and with time the dam should be water tight. The valley floor of the damsite should be drilled to a depth of at least fifty feet to be sure there are no sand or gravel beds beneath the dam site that might act as subdrainage channels and in any event the cut of wall (sheet piling) should be carried as deeply as possible to prevent any seepage beneath the dam through the silt covering the floor of the valley. COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT November 1, 1929 PROJECT NUMBER State Office #172 Clark County #12 The same conditions hold at the site of the supplementary dam and storage basin adjoining. In my judgement the dams will prove safe and satisfactory provided they are not built to any greater height than proposed and that they be carefully watched as they fill and seepages checked before any considerable flow develops. After the first two or three years they should be watertight. Narrows Dam Site. This is an ideal site for an arch dam. The abutments are solid limestone, with few joints or cracks and the bed rock is within twenty feet of the present stream surface. The only objection is the high cost of the dam and the relocation of the railroad and highway. Flood Control Channel. The present Flood Control channel near pueblo has two points of weakness in the bends. When a stream flows around a bend it undercuts the outside bank and frequently will break through a levee. The channel should have been kept straight as in the original plan. If it is to be used for pro-tection in the future the channel should be straightened and made of sufficient capacity to carry the flood waters. The increased flow and velocity of the river in time of flood accelerates the erosion of the stream and when this is brought against a bank at a turn it not only cuts the bank but raises the level of the water somewhat higher than the general level of the stream. Under these circumstances it is to be expected that any considerable flood will almost certainly break through the levee on the outside of the bend. The best method to make the channel an effective protection will be to straighten the channel at the first bend and relocate it in a direct course to the old channel below. As the silt is easily eroded it is difficult if not impossible to fix up the present channel so that it can be considered as safe protection. Sincerely yours, (Signed) J. C. Jones " Records of Stream Flow 2. Muddy River, 1928-29 By Geo. Hardman, Chief of the Division of Irrigation and Agronomy. The Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company began the keeping of records of stream flow of the Muddy River at the Home Ranch Weir the first of June, 1928. The records are obtained by gage height recordings on a Lietz water stage recorder in the pool above a 10 foot Cipoletti Weir. The discharges are read directly from a weir table. In the tables below are shown the discharges in second feet, and the runoff in acre feet, for the period of June 1st, 1928 to May 31, 1929 inclusive; and some comparative discharges of previous seasons from the records of the United States Geological Survey. -9- COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER PROGRESS REPORT State Office #172 November 1, 1929 Clark County #12 (See blue prints 1929 Annual Report) 3. The Record of the Development of the Bloedel Springs. By Geo. Hardman - (Also see 1929 Annual Report) "From these records of performance the increases obtained from the development work on these springs was very temporary, the discharges dropping within the first year from the high mark just after the work was completed to a little less than that found before the work was started." 4. Water Analyses of Muddy River By Geo. Hardman. Some doubt having been expressed as to the quality of the Muddy River water for Irrigation purposes when used for long periods of time the idea of having a series of analyses made of the stream flow was suggested by Mr. F. B. Headley, farm economist of Moapa Valley. This idea has been followed up and numerous samples of the water having been taken from the stream at several definite locations on the stream and the analyses made. The descriptions of the places at which the samples were collected and the results of the analyses are shown in the accompanying table. This work will continue for sometime, hence no comment on these analyses will be attempted at this time. ANALYSES OF MUDDY RIVER A. River at Big Weir E. Drainage Channel at Exp. Farm B. River at Wells Siding F. Drainage Channel at St. Thomas C. West Side Canal at Kaolin G. East Side Canal at St. Thomas D. West Side Canal at H. Meadow Valley Wash at Road Crossing St. Thomas 1. 11/20/27 2. 12/7/27 3. 9/18/28 4. 7/11/29 Ca Mg Na_ CI CO3 HCO3 SO4. Total Solids 'K' (Incompleted) Narrows - 1910 91.0 3.3 183.0 86.0 nil 248.0 304.0 835.0 16.0* Note* Analysis by Dinsmore. W.S.P. 365. Other analyses by Mr. M. R. Miller Sodium and potassium not reported separately. 5. Flood Control Channel February -10- COUNTY AGENT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER PROGRESS REPORT State Office #172 November 1, 1929 Clark County #12 One day was spent on Flood Control and water storage. Property owners in Logandale Community turned out en masse for a week to provide more adequate temporary flood protection wherein one half mile embankment and channel was enlarged to carry 8,000 to 10,000 second feet of water at Peak Flood Stage, thus affording protection from overflow approximately 500 acres of which approximately 25% is being planted to highly specialized vegetable crops. District Extension Agent