Page images
PDF
EPUB

5. In compliance with law, the board reports that there are no questions of terminal facilities, water power, or other related subjects having any material bearing upon the improvement of navigation at this locality.

For the Board:

PETER C. HAINS.

Major General, United States Army, Retired,
Senior Member of the Board.

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF GALVESTON BAY AT SMITH POINT,

TEX.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
Galveston, Tex., May 22, 1919.

From: The District Engineer.

To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. (Through the Division Engineer.)

Subject: Preliminary examination of Galveston Bay at Smith Point,

Tex.

1. In compliance with instructions contained in letter from the office of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 1, 1917, the following report is submitted on item contained in section 4 of the river and harbor act of August 8, 1917, as follows:

The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examination and surveys to be made at the following-named localities:

Galveston Bay, at Smiths [Smith] Point, Tex.

2. Location and description.-Smith Point is on the east side of Galveston Bay (see United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 204), 16 miles north of the city of Galveston. "Red Fish Reef" extends from Smith Point in a southwesterly direction across the bay. Between the easterly end of the bar or reef and Smith Point there is a shoal channel, carrying about 13 feet of water at mean low tide, about 1.9 feet at mean tide, and about 2.4 feet at mean high tide.

The fluctuation of the water surface under ordinary conditions is about 0.9 foot, with an extreme range of from 3 to 5 feet at times of storms. The proposed channel is on the abandoned mail-boat route, between Galveston and Anahuac and but a short distance from Smith Point.

3. What was desired.-The local interests, consisting of the Galveston-Anahuac mail (boat) service and a small number of fishing and market boats belonging to the settlements along the east side of Galveston (upper) bay, were desirous of having this channel deepened to 5 feet at mean low tide and widened to 50 feet on the bottom over an approximate length of 2 miles. The mail-boat interests represented that the consummation of this improvement would benefit the freight boats originating along the eastern shore of the bay north of Smith Point including those from the vicinity of the mouth of the Trinity River, but would be especially beneficial to the mail boat making deliveries at Smith Point. Since this examination was ordered the mail-boat service has been discontinued.

HD-66-1-vol 32-18

4. Previous reports.-No examinations or surveys have previ ously been made of this locality.

5. Work previously done.-None.

6. Commercial statistics.-No written arguments or statistics have been received from the local interests with the exception of inclosed letter from Mr. J. E. Broussard of Anahuac. As there is no traffic, no statistics could be compiled.

7. Terminal facilities.-There are no terminal facilities nor does there appear to be any chance of any developments along this line in the near future.

8. Water power.-There is no possibility of water-power develop

ment.

9. Land reclamation, etc.-There is no question of land reclamation to be considered.

10. General discussion.-The pass under consideration is unimportant. There is no traffic now and none is expected. The opening of the pass would reduce the distance now traveled via the ship channel by only about 3 miles. There has been no interest shown in the proposed improvement since the abandonment of the mail boat service.

11. Recommendations. In view of there being no present commerce, nor a prospect of any future commercial development that would make the use of the Smith Point Channel necessary, it is recommended that this locality be considered not worthy of improvement at present by the United States.

12. There is inclosed herewith a map' showing the general locality of Galveston Bay at Smith Point, Tex., and its environments, also a letter1 from Mr. J. E. Broussard, dated Anahuac, March 12, 1919. SPENCER COSBY,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers.

[First indorsement.]

OFFICE DIVISION ENGINEER, GULF DIVISION,

New Orleans, La., May 24, 1919.

To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, United States Army:

1. Forwarded, concurring in the recommendation of the district engineer.

J. C. SANFORD,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

CONGRESS

Sessions,

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER, LA., AND RELATED BASINS.

LETTER

FROM

THE SECRETARY OF WAR,

TRANSMITTING,

WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT ON SURVEY AND FLOOD CONTROL OF THE ATCHAFALAYA RIVER, LA., AND RELATED BASINS.

NOVEMBER 3, 1919.-Referred to the Committee on Flood Control and ordered to be printed, with illustration.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 31, 1919.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, of yesterday's date, together with a report by the Mississippi River Commission, dated July 17, 1919, with map, on a survey and flood control of Atchafalaya River and related basins, authorized by the river and harbor act approved July 27, 1916, and the flood-control act approved March 1, 1917; also a report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated August 12, 1919, concurring in the views of the Mississippi River Commission.

Very respectfully,

NEWTON D. BAKER,
Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, October 30, 1919.

From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

To: The Secretary of War.

Subject: Survey and flood control Atchafalaya River and related basins.

1. There is submitted herewith for transmission to Congress report dated July 17, 1919, with map, by the Mississippi River Commission, authorized by the following items of law:

The river and harbor act approved July 27, 1916:

That a survey with a report shall be made by the Mississippi River Commission of the Atchafalaya River in accordance with the general plan of said commission

for the improvement of the Mississippi River, and in making such survey and report, if in their opinion the improvement of the Atchafalaya is desirable, consideration shall be given and recommendation made as to any plans for cooperation on the part of local interests.

Flood-control act approved March 1, 1917:

a survey of the Atchafalaya Outlet so far as may be necessary to determine the cost of protecting its basin from the flood waters of the Mississippi River either by its divorcement from the Mississippi River or by other

[blocks in formation]

2. The Atchafalaya River Basin, the basin between Bayou des Glaises and Red River, and the basin north of the Red River, amounting in the aggregate to 942,400 acres, and now partially protected from Mississippi River flood waters, can be further protected by an extension of the levee system without disturbing the present connections between the Red and the Mississippi at an estimated cost of $5,131,750. 3. The fullest measure of protection to the Atchafalaya Basin from both the Mississippi and the Red would be secured by closing the Atchafalaya at its head and allowing the Red to flow into the Mississippi. The estimate for this work, including a dam in the Atchafalaya and levee along the Red, is $1,544,500. If this plan were adopted the basin north of the Red River would still require protection, estimated to cost $1,809,000, making the total cost $3,353,500. This plan is not deemed advisable, as it would add to the Mississippi River floods the full discharge of the Red and the present flow from the Mississippi to the Atchafalaya.

4. The plan proposed for the separation of the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers from the Mississippi contemplated the extension of the Tensas levee to a connection with the Atchafalaya levee, a dam across Old River, a canal and lock to provide a navigable connection between the Mississippi and the Red, and the enlargement of the Mississippi River levees to resist additional flood heights, at a total estimated cost of $13,022,500.

5. The commission is of opinion that the interests of navigation are not injuriously affected by the protection of the Atchafalaya Outlet and its basin from the flood waters of the Mississippi and that the separation of the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers is not necessary thereto, and that such protection can be carried out under the provisions of the flood-control act in accordance with the plans and estimates given in its report.

6. This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith, dated August 12, 1919, concurring in the views of the Mississippi River Commission.

7. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur in the views of the Mississippi River Commission and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and therefore report that such work as is necessary for the protection of the Atchafalaya Basin from the flood waters of the Mississippi River can be accomplished under the provisions of the flood-control act in accordance with plans and estimates submitted by the Mississippi River Commission, and that the divorcement of the Atchafalaya from the Mississippi is not necessary thereto.

W. M. BLACK, Major General.

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS.

[Second indorsement.]

BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS,
August 12, 1919.

To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY:

1. The following is in review of report submitted by the Mississippi River Commission under the following authorities: The river and harbor act approved July 27, 1916:

That a survey with a report shall be made by the Mississippi River Commission of the Atchafalaya River, in accordance with the general plan of said commission for the improvement of the Mississippi River, and in making such survey and report, if in their opinion the improvement of the Atchafalaya is desirable, consideration shall be given and recommendation made as to any plans for cooperation on the part of local interests. Flood-control act, approved March 1, 1917:

a survey of the Atchafalaya Outlet so far as may be necessary to determine the cost of protecting its basin from the flood waters of the Mississippi River, either by its divorcement from the Mississippi River, or by other means *

2. Levees now extend down both sides of the Atchafalaya River for a distance of 47.5 miles and protect about 842,240 acres. These levees may be extended and thereby protect an additional area in the Atchafalaya Basin of about 237,400 acres at an estimated cost of $1,830,000. In the basin between Bayou des Glaises and Red River, 138,000 acres can be protected from Mississippi flood waters by extending levees down the right bank of the Red, and down the Atchafalaya River to connect with the existing system at Bayou des Glaises, at an estimated cost of $1,050,000. North of Red River is an area of about 567,000 acres subject to overflow. Of this about 272,000 acres west of the Black River and 295,000 acres east of the Black River can be protected by levees at an estimated cost of $2,251,750, making a total cost of $5,131,750, to protect about 942,400

acres.

3. The fullest measure of protection to the Atchafalaya basin from the flood waters of the Mississippi, and also the Red River, would be secured by closing the Atchafalaya and allowing the Red to flow into the Mississippi. The estimated cost of the work involved, including dam in the Atchafalaya and necessary levee along the Red, is $1,544,500. If this plan were adopted the basin north of the Red River would still require protection, estimated to cost $1,809,000, making the total cost $3,353,500. This plan would add to the flood volume of the Mississippi the full discharge of the Red and the present outflow through the Atchafalaya, and is not recommended.

4. Three principal reasons have been advanced in favor of the separation of the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers from the Mississippi: (a) The flow from the Mississippi through the Atchafalaya is increasing in volume, and enlarging the cross section of the latter to an extent that threatens to change the course of the Mississippi to the much shorter Atchafalaya route.

A study of available data apparently indicates that the average increase in cross sectional area has been only 13.2 per cent, and the commission states that this should allay the apprehension of a diver

« PreviousContinue »