Roosevelt Power Canal & Diversion Dam, Parallels Salt River, Roosevelt

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER ARIZ,7-ROOS.V,1-. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The Roosevelt Power Canal is located in Gila County, Arizona, and runs parallel to the Salt River for approximately 19 miles. From the Diversion Darn, its intake source, the canal travels westwardly on the south side of the river to Theodore Roosevelt Dam. Date of Construction: The Power Canal and Diversion Dam were constructed between and Both features were rehabilitated in and Engineers: Arthur Powell Davis, Louis C. Hill, Charles R. Olberg, Chester W. Smith, Fred Teichman, U. S. Reclamation Service

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER ARIZ,7-ROOS.V,1-. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

No longer in service The Roosevelt Power Canal was built as an integral part of the Salt River Project and represents the U. S. Reclamation Service's first involvement in the construction of hydroelectric power facilities. The canal played a critical role in providing electric power used during the construction of Roosevelt Dam. Roosevelt Darn was the first major federally-sponsored reclamation project in the Southwest. Operated intermittently for more than 40 years, the power canal was permanently removed from service in With the completion of the new Roosevelt Dam, the canal will be inundated during periods of high water.

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER ARIZ,7-ROOS.V,1-. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

David M. Introcaso, Salt River Project Archives Transmitted by: Jean P. Yearby, HAER, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 2

The Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam

Built as part of Salt River Project in Arizona, the Roosevelt Power Canal was among the first structures constructed under the authority of the National Reclamation Act. However, the Canal had nothing to do with reclaiming land nor did the Reclamation Act provide for any such construction. Regardless, the Power Canal was a vital component in the development of federally sponsored reclamation projects, as the power generated by the Canal was used to build the Reclamation Service's first large scale reclamation work, Theodore Roosevelt Darn. addition, the Power Canal pioneered the beginning of the In Reclamation Service's (later the Bureau of Reclamation) vast hydropower system by generating power which was sold commercially and used for groundwater pumping.

Completed in the Power, Canal was used intermittently for over 40 years. Although still relatively intact, it has been replaced by larger and more efficient power alternatives and consequently has not been operational since The National Reclamation Act was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt in June The Act gave the Secretary of Interior discretionary power to locate, survey, I examine and construct irrigation works in 16 western states and territories. 11 Within one year after the passage of the Act, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 3 Secretary of Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock had approved four projects: the Milk River Project in Montana; the North Platte Project in Nebraska and Wyoming; the Newlands Project in Nevada; and the Salt River Project in Arizona, authorized on 12 March ~I Original plans for the Salt River Project called for the construction of a massive 245 foot high gravity arch masonry dam on the Salt River on the border of Maricopa and Gila Counties. }I Plans for a hydropower generating facility at the Salt River damsite were developed at an early date by the Reclamation Service. Although power production eventually would be realized by impounding a large reservoir of water, Arthur Powell Davis, Chief of the Division of Hydrography of the U.S.

Geological Survey and later head of the Reclamation Service, foresaw the use of hydropower on the Salt River long before the dam's completion. il Davis wrote that since power was an essential element in the construction of a dam, hydropower should be developed before the dam was built. ~I In remote locations, power for construction during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was usually provided by steam engines fueled by wood, oil or coal. However, in the case of Roosevelt Dam, hydroelectric power production was seen as the only cost efficient means of producing power because utilization of other sources was too expensive due to excessive transportation costs. There was a limited amount of wood Roosevelt Power Canal available at or near the damsite. and Diversion Dam HAER No.

Page 4 AZ-4 The cost of oil was 19 cents in Bakersfield, California but by the time it reached the damsite the cost jumped to a barrel. The cost of coal was ten dollars per ton in Globe but it doubled when freighting costs to the damsite were included. ~I Power would be used, Davis reported, "for drilling purposes, for handling rock, for mixing and handling mortar, and for crushing the rock used in concrete." II The amount of power needed for construction was horsepower: 300 horsepower to be used at the cement mill and 900 horsepower at the dam. ~I The method of producing this power was fairly simple Located slightly further upstream than the reservoir would extend, a concrete diversion dam would be built.

The water diverted by this dam would be channeled into a canal which would travel with a grade of slightly more than 30 feet per mile to a point above the damsite. The water would then drop 220 feet in a. 620 foot long Penstock Tunnel within the wall of the canyon. 91 The water turbine and generator would be located temporarily south and below the damsite in a shallow cave in the vertical cliff. 101 The turbine and the generator initially were placed in this cave in order to protect them from blasting. Utimately the Power Canal would supply water for three generating units housed within the power house located directly downstream from the dam. The Arizona Republican reported that this power system Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 5 would reduce the cost of construction by an estimated mill ion. 11/ Although the Diversion Dam and Power Canal served the immediate purpose of providing electrical power for construction, it served other important functions. By diverting the water around the river, the Diversion Dam and Power Canal could keep low water flow out of the reservoir and by doing so reduce the accumulation of silt at the base of the dam. In time of drought, when there was not enough water in the reservoir t9 produce power, the Diversion Dam and Power Canal could carry the river's flow, however slight, and produce electrical power.

For reasons not fully explained, the Power Canal also "kept the river cloudy" which "kept down the growth of moss in the Canals," because moss "will not grow in dirty water." Finally, after construction was completed, the power generated by these two features could be sold to mining interests for drilling and lighting or be transmitted 70 miles to Phoenix to pump groundwater for irrigation purposes. 13/ Preliminary plans for the construction of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam were undertaken in one year before the Reclamation Act became law. A. P. Davis, in cooperation with Maricopa County, conducted this work and the results were published in Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, and in the First Annual Report of the Reclamation Service.

14/ In October of under the direction of Charles Real Olberg, the U.S. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 6 Geological Survey drew "a detailed topographic map of the vicinity of the [Power Cana~ line" because "the Canal was found to traverse a very broken country." 15/ In the following year, the location surveys for the Power Canal were finalized.

The survey work completed, proposals for the construction of the Power Canal were advertised on 31 October and the bids were opened on 7 January 16/ Because of the rough terrain, many different features would need to be constructed, for example, 20 tunnels varying from 70 feet to feet needed to be dug, two double pressure pipes or siphons had to be built and various flumes, bridges, culverts, silt settling basins, cut and covers and weirs needed to be erected to transport water the Canal~s length of miles. 17/ The construction work was therefore divided into three timetables. Schedule one consisted of excavation in open cuts and fills using "structures of concrete, timber and cast iron," and schedule two included tunnels and lining.

The third schedule, never let because the Reclamation Service used steel- reinforced concrete, constituted "alternative bids for wood-stove pipe and concrete pressure pipe." 18/ The bids were awarded to two California contractors. Robert Sherer & Co., of Los Angeles was awarded the open excavation contract. This contract was entered into on 18 March and involved the excavation of approximately cubic yards of material. 19/ John Tuttle of San Francisco was awarded Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 7 schedule two, that of tunneling, on 23 March ~/ Nearly ten percent of the Canal~s run, or feet, would consist of tunnels.

21/ Work began by both parties in the following month, April The Power Canal~s general course began at the three intake gates located at the south end of the yet-to-be built Diversion Dam. Upon passing these gates, water immediately entered the first of 20 tunnels, the foot Intake Tunnel. The Canal then traveled past Lee~s Wash (mile 1), the Wehrli Farm (mile 2), and intersected the road to Globe (mile 4). The Canal was then pressure piped under Pinto Creek (miles 5 and 6), which is south of Livingstone, and traveled through three more tunnels before reaching the Grapevine Springs Tunnel (mile 9).

Continuing southwest, the Canal, with a depressed grade line siphon, passed School House Wash (mile traveled through six more tunnels past Porter Springs (mile and headed toward Cottonwood Canyon. At Cottonwood Canyon the Canal entered the second pair of pressure pipes or siphons (mile The Canal then passed a series of clay pits (mile and continued below and past Government Hill, the site of the Reclamation Service~s camp (mile The Canal finally passed the cement mill (mile 19) before entering the Penstock Tunnel. For the last miles, the Canal was lined with concrete to prevent excess seepage into rock which was "more or less porous." ll/ (See Appendix 1.) Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page B The standard Canal section was planned to have a base width of eight feet, with a total water depth of 4.5 feet. Slopes were one-to-one in excavation and 1.5-to-l inch in embankment. The first feet of the Canal would have an increased depth to "provide for seepage losses." 23/ Tunneling work on the Canal was supervised by Tuttle himself and by his engineers~ Mill and Duncanson. ~/ General government supervision for the work was under the charge of L6uis C. Hill, Supervising Engineer, Reclamation Service, and Chester W. Smith, resident engineer in charge, USRS, with George Y. Wisner and W. H. Sanders serving as consulting engineers for the USRS. 25/ Construction of the upper end of the Power Canal was supervised by Assistant Engineer O. T.

Reedy, USRS, while the lower end of the Power Canal was built under the direction of Assistant Engineer Spriggs, USRS, and Jack Whitney, USRS, who would later supervise construction of the Diversion Dam. 26/ Progress on the Power Canal was made under very trying circumstances. The area was almost completely uninhabited, making it impossible at times to secure workers. The difficulty in supplying grain for stock and the extreme temperatures in the tunnels during the summer compounded problems. 27/ Some of the tunneling was made through sand so dry and fine that it would "run like water." Consequently the work required heavy timbering for support. ~ Massive boulders were also encountered.

"These had to be dealt with separately," the Reclamation Service Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 9 reported, "and worked out an inch at a time, regardless of size or position, it being impossible to break them with powder ... " 29/ With all these problems recognized, Chester W. Smith bet Superintendent Crowley of Sherer & Co. a suit of clothes that tunnel excavation would not be completed by August 1905,the contractual deadline. 30/ Smith, of course, won the wager. In order to meet the of his contract, Tuttle subcontracted much of the work. Patterson subcontracted for the Robinson Tunnel feet). Harris subcontracted the Moffat Tunnel feet). Burnett constructed the Chilton Tunnel feet); Ramona & Co. and Gregorio both excavated Pinto feet), and Baxter & Co. of St.

Louis lined all 20 tunnels with concrete. 31/ Open excavation by Sherer was no less a problem. Flumes, weirs, sluice gates, culverts, bridges and other features needed to be constructed in order for the water to be transported down the Canal. All told there were 152 numbered structures on the Canal. 32/ Consequently, Scherer also subcontracted much of his work. Redmond Toohey of Phoenix employed 30 men and 20 teams of horses for excavation, and subcontractor Clark used ten men and 20 head of horses. 23/ By August of four months into the work, The Arizona Republican reported that approximately 800 men were working on the Power Canal line. These men were largely Mexican and Indian laborers. 34/ Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 10 The numerous and various structures along the Power Canal were necessary because the right of way had to pass through many creeks and washes which became "veritable raging torrents" during the rainy season. 35/ A variety of engineering methods were used to carry the Canal either above or under these w?terways. The most frequent features along the Canal were culverts or conduits which varied in size and shape from simple 24 inch pipe culverts, which enabled runoff to pass under the Canal, to longer 12 foot arch culverts. 36/ Wooden flumes of various lengths were constructed to carry runoff water above the Canal or to transport Canal water above a creek or wash, e.g., Whitney's Flume (mile 37/ Cut and cover structures also transported runoff water over the Power Canal.

Many of these "cuts" were extended concrete pipes constructed by J. F. Davey, USRS Superintendent. 38/ Protection against the rise of water in the Canal due to drainage was provided by seven overflow weirs, any two of which were no more than six miles apart. Sluice gates served a similar function by providing the ability to empty the Canal at any time from five separate points. A sandbox and two settling basins also were constructed. Their purpose was to filter out silt that had entered the Canal. A water gauge for determining water flow in the Canal was located just below the sandbox (mile 0). It was .co read by an electrical indicator at the gatekeeper's house at the Diversion Dam. 39/ Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 11 In addition to a gatekeeper housed , at the Diversion Darn to monitor the intake flow, the Canal maintenance was primarily under the care of two ditchriders. Both ditchriders lived along the Canal. One was housed near the terminus of the Pinto Pressure Pipes and the other near the entrance to the Cottonwood Pressure Pipes. Their duties were to perform general maintenance along the Canal, repair minor leaks, remove large debris, maintain the Canal embankments and service the Canal in any other necessary way. 40/ The most novel feature of the Power Canal was the design by Reclamation Service engineers of the pressure pipes which were used at Pinto Creek and Cottonwood Canyon.

These structures, steel-reinforced concrete pipes without joints, were not only a new engineering design -- "hitherto such pipes were made of iron or steel, or of wood staves bound with iron or steel rods" -- but were also the "first extensive use of reinforced concrete pipe to carry a large head of water under great pressure." 41/ The Republican reported that these would be the largest pipes of their kind in the world. They were designed by Reclamation Service engineers Chester Smith, O. T. Reedy, Paul J. Pagh, A. P. Cox and O. T. Reedy, Sr. 42/ Pinto Creek is located six miles below the Canal intake and is nearly .5 miles wide and 25 feet below the Canal grade . , It has a watershed of 190 square miles, and at the Canal crossing has a grade of one percent.

The Cottonwood crossing is situated Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 12 2.5 miles above Roosevelt Dam, is 250 feet wide and 75 feet below the Canal grade. Its watershed is 45 square miles and has a grade of four percent. Both sets of double pressure pipes were buried underground approximately two to five feet below the surface. Simply explained, the pressure pipes were reinforced, both longitudinally and transversely with 5/8 inch steel rods. The pipes were five feet, three inches in diameter and 12 inches thick at the thinnest part and carried the water under a maximum head of 80 feet. Because of the unique design of the pressure pipes, the government undertook this work on its own.

43/ The first length of pipe, 200 or 300 feet, was completed at Pinto in June 44/ During the summer, the work was frequently interrupted due to several floods and the difficulty in obtaining cement. By November the first line at Pinto was completed. Because power was needed as soon as possible at the dam and because one line would carry "all the water needed to furnish power for building the dam," the forms for the pipe were moved to Cottonwood.

45/ The two Cottonwood lines were completed in December and January The second line of Pinto was begun in March and because of "var ious delays," was not comple ted until August 46/ Perhaps the most remarkable aspect in the construction of the pressure pipes was Fred Teichman's design of a movable form which would permit continuous construction of the piping. it was "desirable to work continuously on the pipe," to avoid Since Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 13 "transverse joints," Teichman designed a "steel semi-cylinder, called 'the alligator. "' This device formed the inside of the lower half of the pipe and was described by Chester Smith as follows: This piece is pulled along by a cable from a horse- power whim in the trench ahead.

It is kept to line and grade by a steering apparatus, extending about 8 ft. in front of its nose, and either rolling or sliding on a light wooden track previously laid. The inner form for the upper half of the pipe consists of steel semi-cylinders in lengths, each in three pieces, that is, hinged at two points, to facilitate moving and erection.

These upper stationary plates are bolted together, end to end, making a continuous form, from the front end, where concrete is going in, to the rear end, where the concrete has set sufficiently to permit their removal; they are supported by rollers on a track which is part of the alligator, the alligator thus rolling out from the upper stationary plates Immediately behind the alligator are introduced lower stationary plates in lengths, one plate being inserted as often as a length of 2 ft. of invert is exposed. On the withdrawal of the alligator, an upper stationary plate is thus supported by the plate ahead on the alligator and a plate behind on a lower plate, until the insertion of its lower plate.

Upper and lower plates are removed at the rear end and sent ahead on a small truck hauled back and forth with a rope, on a track in the bottom of the lower plates and alligator. The outside lagging was of in. lumber in narrow pieces, about ft. long, laid on the same slope as the nose of the alligator (1 in 4) between iron ribs hung from a wooden superstructure. This superstructure also carried the runways for wheeling out the concrete. 47/ Many difficulties were encountered in constructing the pressure pipes. The "alligator" tended to travel off the line or grade, even though the steering apparatus was designed to stop this, and concrete often peeled or fell off when the upper stationary plates were removed.

48/ But the most important and perplexing problem was that of leakage which persisted for some Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 14 time. The problem was finally solved on the evening of 10 March Chester Smith recorded in his diary that evening: After supper [at] Roosevelt Hill, Harris, Teichman and myself discussed cracks and finally arrived at the conclusion that they were caused by concrete shrinking while settling and bringing tension in the concrete and compression in the steel - so that upon applying the water pressure the steel does not take any load till after the concrete cracks. Decided to repair by simply caulking up the cracks and not reinforcing the pipe any more on the outside.

49/ One other unique feature designed for the Power Canal deserves notice and explanation. Although a sandbox (mile 0) was constructed and settling basins were built to filter out silt, sediment and other debris in the Canal, an additional feature was designed to protect the guide buckets and the runner of the turbine from damage. This protection was developed in the form of a rotating screen located at the head of the Penstock Tunnel. Again, Fred Teichman engineered this device. 50/ He described the device this way: The screen has the form of a truncated cone, the water entering the cone at the base. The axis of the cone is at an inclination of The cone is made to rotate slowly around its axis.

To the entrance ring of the cone is fitted (with a small clearance of only 1/4 in.) the stationary entrance ring. The screen of the cone is made of No. 18 galvanized wire, 1/2-in. mesh, and is supported by circular rods and 3/4 in. in diameter) which in their turn are supported by sixteen 3/4 by 4-in. bars, riveted to the steel head of the drum at one end, and to the entrance ring at the other. At a point about two-sevenths of their length from the entrance ring the sixteen bars are connected and supported by the trunnion ring. Between the trunnion ring and the steel head these bars are connected by 7/8-in. stay-bolts. To the steel head is riveted a center casting, bored for a stationary shaft, 3 in. in diameter, held in a cast-iron shaft support.

The structure of the screen, therefore, is supported by this 3-in. shaft and by two trunnions in the plane of the trunnion ring. To the steel head are bolted the segments of a cast- Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 15 iron ratchet ring of 72 teeth; and two pawls, actuated by a hydraulic cylinder, propel the screen, which makes a complete turn in about 1 hour. The extension of the 3-in. shaft in the interior of the drum, and a concrete arch over the Canal about 16 in. from the drum support, in the interior of the drum, two a-in. channels, slightly inclined, on which rests a galvanized-iron trough, ft. wide and ft. long, that terminates in a side trough.

The motor which turns the screen also pumps water into a horizontal trough above the screen and centrally above the interior trough. At intervals this upper trough (the tipping trough) discharges automatically, and the water it contained strikes the screen in a jet in. by 15 ft. 6 in.), carrying with it into the interior trough any material which had lodged on the inner surface of the screen. Material which does not adhere to the screen is lifted by blades attached to the interior of the screen, and dropped into the interior trough. The wash-water carries the screenings through the side trough over the edge of the Canal. The area of the submerged screen is 232 sq. ft. with the Canal discharging 250 cu. ft. per sec.

The screen would safely stand a difference in level of the water, inside and outside, of 4 which may possibly occur during the first heavy rains of the season. 51/ While the pressure pipes were being completed in the spring of flood waters of November and March came precariously close to the Canal near the Wehr~i Farm (mile 2). As a result, three additional tunnels were constructed and feet of the Canal had to be relocated. This came to be known as the Wehrli Cutoff. Although the Wehrli rerouting was not completed until August the Canal began operation in March Water was carried, it can be inferred, through the original Wehrli section from March until the foot section was completed. The temporary power plant was also completed in March. The beginning of hydropower generation by the U.S.

Reclamation Service began Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 16 that month, and the power plant was operating 24 hours a day by June of ~/ A good deal of excitement was generated by the completion of the Power Canal. The Arizona Republican wrote with acclaim: To have 'water in the Canal' has been the watchword of all for many months past. There is possibly no rougher country in all the west through which a Canal of any kind has been driven and this one throughout all the 19 miles of its length has presented seemingly almost insurmountable obstacles to those who have had its construction in charge. There were hills to be tunneled, long heavy fills to be made and great canyons to be crossed . . The completion of the Power Canal means cheap power and plenty of it.

It means that the contractor [John O'Rourke] will have all he needs . 53/ With the Power Canal completed the reclamation engineers turned next to the Canal's intake source. The Diversion Dam was constructed upon completion of the Power Canal for two simple reasons. Water could always be diverted by the construction of a temporary brush and earthen dam, into the Power Canal. The Diversion Dam, however, was useless without the Canal. Second, since maintaining and acquiring a labor force was, at times, as arduous as the work itself, construction of both power features simultaneously was impractical if not impossible. The Diversion Dam was constructed by the Reclamation Service with Jack Whitney supervising a crew of 50 men.

54/ It was a simple structure built of boulders and concrete; and was 400 feet long and seven feet high. The dam was not secured on bedrock but built on silt, sand and gravel. It was referred to Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 17 as an overflow weir dam because water was expected to inundate the dam at times. The spillway of the dam, which comprised the downstream side of the dam, had an ogee shape. 55/ The three intake gates for the Power Canal were located at the south end of the Diversion Dam. The sluiceway was in front of these gates, on the upstream side, and was 7.5 feet below the crest, or top of the dam. Water was diverted by the dam into the sluiceway and then into the three intake gates that measured five feet high and seven feet wide.

To prevent excessive silting in the Intake Tunnel, the bases, or sills of the intake gates were 3.5 feet higher than the level of the sluiceway. "Both sluicing and intake gates were of the sliding hand-operated type." 56/ These feat;ures were designed by Reclamation Service engineer A. L. Harris. 57/ At the north side of the dam, a concrete aU" abutment was constructed to unite the dam to the river bank and to prevent erosion at that point. The dam itself was completed on 19 October but the dam apron was not finished until early November The apron, a cobblestone in concrete plane, extended from the base of the dam downstream a distance of approximately 15 feet. Such aprons were constructed to prevent scouring under the dam when water flowed over the crest.

The cost of constructing the Diversion Dam was ~/ Shortly after the dam was completed,. its durability was tested. On 2 November a flood 8.5 feet in height passed Roosevelt Power Canal over the crest of the dam. ~/ and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 18 The dam remained intact; the flood caused no noticeable damage to the structure. The Power Canal and Diversion Dam were completed after two and one half years of formidable work requiring hundreds of laborers and an expenditure of million. Upon their completion, power generated from these features was in immediate demand. The cornerstone for Roosevelt Dam had already been set on 20 September and work was being pushed as rapidly as possible toward completion before the winter runoff.

Prior to this, excavation for the dam and preliminary work had begun as early as the fall of All of this work, of course, required power. The Power Canal and Diversion Dam generally operated successfully throughout the construction of Roosevelt Dam between and ~O/ In fact, the only substantial problem to develop involving these two features was not an engineering difficulty but a legal one. The Power Canal, in the course of its route, needed to cross the property of John W. Lee. Although Lee apparently made an offer for sale of his property, the Salt River Valley Water Users~ Association (Association) thought the offer was extortionate. As a result, the Association filed a condemnation suit in Globe against Lee~s property in June Like many legal matters, this one was not readily solved.

Both sides, under legal advice, carried on the affair for nearly Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 19 four years, long after the Power Canal had been completed. During this time, the Association proposed a conditional right of way through Lee's property for the Power Canal. Lee rejected this idea. The Association then offered and later for Lee's property. Lee declined both times. Lee proposed to settle the matter for in but this time the Association refused. Apparently frustrated, the Association then contemplated a motion to secure a change of venue in the case and also to have the federal government file a condemnation suit against Lee. ~I Finally, in February the matter was settled.

Though the settlement terms were somewhat complicated, the Association agreed to pay Lee plus the of Lee's mortgage, the $75 in unpaid interest and Lee owed to the Old Dominion Company, for a total payment of &11 Little attention was given to the Power Canal and Diversion Dam after their completion. The engineers for the Reclamation Service were now concerned with a more monumental task, constructing Roosevelt Dam and all its associated features. Besides the work on the dam itself, there was the cement mill, the various stone and clay quarries, and the lumber mill in the Sierra Anchas to be operated. The permanent power house and transformer house needed to be built. Roads, telephone lines, a sluicing tunnel and tramways all needed the engineer's attention.

The engineers also had to deal with tremendous flooding, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Darn HAER No. AZ-4 Page 20 freighting difficulties and the perennial problem of securing labor. As a result of the Reclamation Service's change in focus, there is little documentary material regarding the Power Canal and Diversion Darn dUring the period from through the dam's completion in Most of what information exists can be found in the annual reports of the Reclamation Service. The Sixth Annual Report stated that, "the Power Canal has been in constant use since its completion, with the exception of a few inconsequent delays, due to small breaks, none of these having occurred in the last several months.".

.i/ The Seventh Annual Report stated that other than two minor breaks at the upper end of the Power Canal and one near the Cottonwood Creek pressure pipes, the Power Canal had been in constant use throughout the year. ~/ The Eighth Annual Report recorded that the Power Canal, for three weeks in January was drained, cleaned and generally repaired while extensions to the penstock were made in the power house. ~/ The Ninth Annual Report simply gives an overview of the Power Canal and Diversion Darn features, while the Tenth Annual Report never specifically mentions either of these structures. 67/ Newspaper articles reporting the state of the Power Canal and Diversion Darn during this period were rarely written and were often inaccurate.

The Republican reported on 30 May that the Power Canal would have to be cemented for its entire length, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 21 approximately 16 or 17 miles. One week later on 6 June the Republican made the correction that the Power Canal was "already cemented 16 or 17 miles," and that the "government doesn't intend to cement the rest." ~/ The government neither intended to cement the Canal nor had ever done so. We know that the Power Canal and Diversion Dam were operating dependably and successfully during this five year period because the Reclamation Service quickly took advantage of selling the power they generated.

As soon as the permanent power plant was completed in August 69/ one and one half years before completion of Roosevelt Dam, power generated at the damsite was sold to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company by a contract dated September 70/ Power was also transported to the Gila River Indian Reservation to pump underground water. The Indians began to receive this power in Mayor June of 71/ The commercial sale of power was a profitable business for the government. In a lengthy memorandum toA. P. Davis, by this time Director of the Reclamation Service, Louis C. Hill outlined the financial benefits of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam. If these features had not been built, the cost of building and operating an oil-fired steam plant at the damsite would have amounted to Hill estimated.

Although this cost was less than that of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam, an oil-fired system could not give a return on investment. The Power Canal and Diversion Dam, however, returned a significant dividend after Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 22 Roosevelt Dam was completed and the power sold commercially. In fact, if the Power Canal and Diversion Dam had been kept operational beyond Hill estimated that the sale of power generated by these features would have amounted to per day or per year. 72/ The Reclamation Service in its Annual Reports gave the impression that from to the Power Canal and Diversion Dam provided a steady head of water to the power house at Roosevelt Dam.

21/ The Power Canal was not operational from January through August of During this time, the penstock was coated with bitumastic enamel "to prevent corrosion due to the excessive sweating." 74/ In 40 feet of Canal bank washed out during a summer cloudburst. The repair work took 20 days and required the work of 24 men and ten teams of horses. 75/ On 20 February and 27 July cloudbursts again caused washouts at the upper end of the Canal where it was in a sandy formation. The repair work consisted of "replacing old wooden culverts with concrete pipes and riprapping the bank" of the Canal. In the same year, the Canal was not in operation from 10 April to 22 June.

Because of the high elevation of water in the reservoir, the water in the Canal was released to prevent a washout from excessive wave action. Wave wash would become an intractable problem in maintaining the Canal. Since the height of Roosevelt Dam was increased 35 feet over the original plan the Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 23 Canal came close to being inundated when the reservoir filled. 76/ By the Power Canal and Diversion Dam were ten years old and had proven to be, as Davis claimed in "a valuable asset." But these structures were soon to be changed for three reasons. Plans were underway to connect the sluicing tunnel with the Power Canal Penstock Tunnel, thereby making it possible to operate the Power Canal generators with reservoir water.

In the process of determining the final repayment sum of the Project, the Association was disputing the construction cost of the Power Canal which they thought was exorbitant. A. P. ~ Davis had estimated the Canal would cost but the final cost climbed to Million.

78/ Finally, the Diversion Dam failed when a tremendous flood washed away 230 feet of the dam in January The construction of a gate-controlled bypass connecting the sluicing tunnel with the Canal penstock began sometime in Since it was expected that the reservoir level would remain high enough (above 130 feet) for the dam~s power facilities to operate effectively for many years, and since the Power Canal suffered from wave wash during times when the reservoir impounded a large amount of water, it was deemed desirable to operate the Power Canal turbines with reservoir water. In times when the reservoir capacity was sufficiently Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 24 decreased, it was thought the Power Canal could always be reactivated.

79/ The second matter, that of fixing the total cost of the Project, was a rather complicated affair. In accordance with section four of the Reclamation Act, those landowners using water impounded by a reclamation project were legally required to repay the entire cost for that project to the government in ten years or less. 80/ Naturally this meant that the Association had to repay the construction costs of the Salt River Project. Although well aware of this provision, the Association membership was unaware that the cost at completion would be four times the original estimate. 81/ Because of the great financial cost of the Project, Interior Secretary Franklin L. Lane appointed a three member local cost review board in to determine an appropriate and just amount for repayment.

82/ The cost review board, after examination of the building charges, did not reach a consensus opinion. Fred A. Jones and Thomas U. Taylor, in the majority opinion argued that the Reclamation Service and the Association had essentially entered a commercial contract. They thought, "the relation is that of an owner of land to a contractor undertaking a work for the owner adapted to the accomplishment of a particular purpose. In such case, the work should be limited in extent and scope to that purpose) should not exceed in cost, the cost for which proper and adequate works can be installed." 83/ In respect to the Power Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 25 Canal, therefore, some "imaginary substitute system" or alternative, having the same utility, could have been constructed at a much more reasonable cost. ~/ As a result of this logic and other reasons, Jones and Taylor recommended that the cost of the Project be reduced approximately million from the $13 million sum. Frank Hanna filed the minority opinion stating that the cost for construction should be reduced by only from the $13 million total figure. Hanna agreed with fellow committee member Jones that the Power Canal may have been constructed differently and at less expense. But Hanni argued that in determining the cost of the Project one should weigh the costs against the benefits.

Construction costs were worth "the expense if the Water Users [the Association] derived substantial benefit from it." Therefore, in determining whether the cost of the Power Canal was a legitimate expenditure, Hanna argued the Power Canal should be measured against alternative power sources, i.e., highly priced coal and oil fired systems. Since the benefits of the Power Canal "outweighed" all other power alternatives, it was thus a legitimate expenditure. 85/ Hanna~s minority opinion was forwarded to A. P. Davis as it was the recommendation of Elwood Mead, Chairman of the Central Cost Review Board. 86/ Davis objected to reducing the cost of the Project by a single dollar because such a reduction would imply the Reclamation Service erred in building the Power Canal.

Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 26 The matter was finally settled by Secretary Lane. He accepted the Central Cost Review Board report. The final price tag for the Salt River Project was only slightly reduced and set at or $60 per acre irrigated with no money deducted for the Power Canal. 87/ The repayment cost set by Secretary Lane must have been particularly frustrating to the Association; it was still three times the original estimate. In addition to paying for the Power Canal, the Association must have been irritated when the Power Canal was rendered useless by the destruction of the Diversion Dam. On 19 and 28 January floods completely washed away 230 feet of the Diversion Dam's length and moved 45 feet of the Dam 4.5 feet downstream, tipping it backward.

The flooding also caused and crack down the north abutment wall. 88/ As a result of this, although undamaged, the Power Canal was no longer functional. 89/ The Reclamation Service almost immediately recommended that the Diversion Dam be rebuilt. 90/ After the damaging flood of however, the Association gained operation and maintenance of the Project's works in September and the Diversion Dam was not repaired nor was the integrity of the Power Canal maintained by the Association. 91/ This decision may seem questionable in light of the significant profit the Reclamation Service made on the sale of power generated by the Diversion Dam and Power Canal from to Under the contract Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 27 between the U.S.

and the Association, power receipts went to the Association. The Association's decision to forego repairs of the Diversion Dam is understandable for many reasons. The penstock- sluicing tunnel bypass left the Power Canal with little purpose provided there was sufficient water in the reservoir. The Association was now faced with a bill of approximately $10 million for the Project's construction, and any additional charge to this amount probably was not welcomed. It was not dissatisfied with the Project's construction, but the cost of $60 per acre irrigated was more than it had imagined Repair of the Diversion Dam in was unnecessary since there was an oversupply of water for the year.

As a result, the power house at Roosevelt Dam operated at maximum capacity, producing enough electricity for a total gross income of 92/ Although the excessive water maximized" power production, flooding cost the Project in repairs in 93/ America's entry into World War I also affected the Association's decision. Richard Sloan, attorney for the Association, stated that, "In and all effort was, as a matter of course, automatically diverted from project development by the World War." Despite the inflated wartime agricultural prices which made the cotton produced in the Valley very profitable, the Association again paid for flood damage Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No .

AZ-4 Page 28 in The Association also expended a significant sum to keep farmlands from becoming worthless due to waterlogging during these years . After the war, plans to redevelop the Diversion Dam could not be undertaken because flooding once again caused severe financial strain. The protective work below the south spillway of Roosevelt Dam was damaged to the extent of Flooding in Cave Creek also caused extensive damage, and waterloggirig was still a problem. 22/ The postwar farming depression, the expensive repair costs due to flooding, and the waterlogging problem all contributed to the failure by the Association to meet its repayment installments to the government in 96/ In all events, rehabilitating the Diversion Dam after was either unnecessary or impossible.

Financial constraints, the war and the weather all dictated the fate of this structure. A reconstructed Diversion Dam would have to wait until favorable circumstances accorded its use. Although the Diversion Dam and Power Canal were rendered unusable in January the generators at the Roosevelt power plant which handled the Power Canal head were working until June 15 of that year. 22/ For this five month period they handled water from the forebay gates. After completion of the sluicing tunnel bypass in October the generators were supplied with water from the reservoir. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 29 It is fair to assume that the Power Canal was not ~perating from to No mention is made of this structure in the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Annual Reports of the Reclamation Service. ~I Nor was it mentioned in the Annual Histories of the Salt River Project for the years through Nothing can be found in the Minutes of the Association~s Board of Governors regarding the structure during this period. Until the power requirements for the Association were met with the water in the Roosevelt reservoir and other Association power sources. ~I But because rainfall and snowmelt significantly decreased during the mid in the spring of the Power Canal was put back into operation.

The low head available to the Roosevelt powerhouse from the reservoir was not sufficient to provide an adequate head for the powerhouse generators. IDOl Apparently the expectation that the level of the reservoir would remain sufficient over time to provide a high head was not met. In order to make the Power Canal once again operational, the river water needed to be diverted. The Diversion Dam was not reconstructed, but a temporary dam of sand, gravel and brush was built at the Diversion Dam site to divert water into the Canal. A temporary dam would not last through the winter runoff, however slight, so it was reconstructed after the winter months had passed. In fact, the Association rebuilt the temporary dam Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 30 several times between the years and in order to keep diverting water into the Power Canal. The Power Canal generated power at the powerhouse from until In the Salt River Project Annual History for it was reported that, because the water level in the reservoir was sufficiently high, the Power Canal was not operated during that year. But this situation did not last long. In September another brush dam was built and the Power Canal was once again in operation. The level of the reservoir for that month was a meager 65 feet. The Canal operated until 26 March of the following year when the dam again washed out. It was not rebuilt this time, however, because the level of water in the reservoir was sufficient to operate the power house 95 percent of the time for the year.

In the level of the reservoir remained high enough so the Power Canal was not used for the year. As is evident, the Association was using the Power Canal only as a backup measure when the reservoir level was not sufficient to power the dam's generators or the sluicing tunnel bypass. Repair work on the Canal during this time consequently was kept to a minimum. The only way the Power Canal would ever again become a permanent asset instead of a standby facility would be to reconstruct the Diversion Dam and thoroughly rehabilitate the Power Canal which had deteriorated Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 31 significantly, despite intermittent use, over the past twenty years.

Rehabilitation of the Diversion Dam and Power Canal became a possibility with the contract of 26 November between the Association and the Reclamation Service. This contract provided for the construction of Bartlett Dam on the Verde River and also the improvement of the spillway gates at Roosevelt, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat and Stewart Mountain Dams on the Salt River. The contract also made provision for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam if funds were available after monies for Bartlett and the spillways were allocated. Money was made available for the work a year later and, under the contract of 14 October between the Reclamation Service and the Association, the work was authorized.

The Association desired to rebuild the Diversion Dam and rehabilitate the Power Canal for two principal reasons. In repairing the spillways of the four Salt River dams, power production would have to be curtailed. This was because water levels. and water releases in all four reservoirs had to be sufficiently lowered and then restricted while spillway construction was underway. In addition, there would be no power production whatsoever at Mormon Flat Dam since the power plant there was being relocated. Curtailment of power would naturally affect the Association's power sales. The value of Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 32 copper had risen "suddenly" during this period, and "nearly all the mines in the state" were operating and requiring power.

For these reasons the Diversion Dam and Power Canal once again became very attractive features. Unlike the original construction which was done by the Reclamation Service, the reconstructed Diversion Dam was built by a commercial contractor. Invitations for reconstruction were let on 12 August Of the eight bids submitted, the low bid of was presented by Daley Corporation of San Diego, California. The contractual period for construction ran for 90 days from 21 October to 21 January The Diversion Dam reconstruction was essentially a duplication of the original Dam.

"The cross section of the new ogee spillway was identical with that of the original Dam except that the apron on the downstream side was lengthened 12 feet and terminated at the downstream edge in dentated sills" to dissapate the force of the spilling water. The two remaining original spillway walls which were still in place were incorporated into the new structure. The Dam's length was increased by removing the old "u" abutment at the north end and extending the spillway 85 feet. Another sloping abutment was constructed at the end of the extension with reinforced concrete. Rock riprap was placed on both upstream and downstream sides of the Dam. The new Diversion Dam was capable of safely discharging a maximum of (See Appendix II.) Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 33 Work on the reconstructed Diversion Dam was supervised by F. E. Stearman who represented the Daley Corporation in its Arizona work, and O. Greer. Laborers were retained from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief rolls and from union lists in both Globe and Phoenix. The Dam was completed on 6 February On the very next day the river began to rise and a flood discharging between cfs to cfs was recorded that evening. When the flood had abated it was revealed that "a large hole had been scoured out immediately downstream from the Dam near the left end of the ogee spillway section." A large amount of the downstream riprap had also been either washed away completely or lowered significantly.

Due to the threat of another winter flood, immediate but temporary repair of the Dam's apron was made. Repair was in the form of rock and cobble-filled wire mesh baskets. The baskets were placed in the scoured hole and along the downstream edge of the Dam from the sluiceway structure at the south end to the center of the Dam. This work was completed by 12 March. Permanent repair work on the apron began in September. Gates & Huntley of Los Angeles, California, received the contract to repair the Diversion Dam apron. Under the supervision of Charles T. Gates, partner in the firm, and Philip Hutzell, general foreman, the work began on 9 September Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 34 Laborers were again obtained from union lists in Globe and Phoenix.

After diverting the flow of the river, the work consisted of excavating the apron~s length and removing several portions of the original Diversion Dam which now obstructed progress. The new apron which extended an additional 25 feet was constructed in 12 panels of 18 inch reinforced concrete. This apron, like the existing one, terminated in dentated sills. Work was completed on 1 December Gates & Huntley also performed a variety of other repairs to both the Dive'rsion Dam and Power Canal. In add i tion to the apron extension, they constructed "a removable structural steel trash rack in twelve sections . .

in front of the gates of the intake structure." Gates & Huntley were also responsible for repairing the badly cracked Intake Tunnel, the nearly collapsed Gray Tunnel, replacing a cut and cover south of Porter Springs with a siphon, replacement of a redwood flume with a siphon miles upsteam from Roosevelt Dam, and the restoration of several Power Canal sections with gunite lining. Gates & Huntley fulfilled their contractual agreement on 17 March The Power Canal rehabilitation was also performed by government and Association work forces. The government, with a work force of approximately 18 men, constructed 22 redwood flumes, 20 as replacements and two as new structures.

They built three wasteways to regulate accumulated storm water in the Canal, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 35 repaired the sand trap located .75 miles below the Diversion Dam, repaired various culverts, constructed 31 inspill chutes, and lined various sections with plaster and concrete. The government completed its work on 18 February The Association~s work consisted primarily of excavation and road building. Under the direction of Calvin Kirk, a work force varying from 15 to 30 men removed fallen rocks from the mile lined Canal section near Roosevelt Dam and removed cubic yards of accumulated silt from the Canal. The Association also constructed six timber road bridges and four adobe houses for maintenance men.

A new gate hoist was placed at the sandbox and a gasoline powered direct current motor generator set, and electric hoisting motors for the intake gates and sluiceway at the Diversion Dam were installed. The Association completed the rehabilitation work, and on 18 May the Power Canal and Diversion Dam were once again in operation supplying 200 cfs to the power house at Roosevelt Dam. The cost of the. rehabilitation work was put at (See Appendix III.) The renovation of the Diversion Dam and Power Canal occurred at a very propitious time for the Association. The last years of the yielded very little rainfall. By December of the level of the reservoir at Roosevelt was 50 feet. Power output at Roosevelt Dam for was considerably less than despite the use of the Power Canal.

In rainfall again was slight and power production for the year dropped below the Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 36 level. By June of the reservoir at Roosevelt was nearly empty, and for the year the reservoir only used acre feet more than that carried by the Power Canal to generate power. Fortunately for the Association the drought did not persist beyond In the average precipitation for the state of Arizona was a record inches. By 13 April the reservoir at Roosevelt was filled and the spillway gates opened.

With the reservoir full the Power Canal was shut down on 20 March Though no reason is given for this action in the Annual History of it would appear obvious that the supply of power generated with reservoir water at Roosevelt Dam and the other Project dams sufficiently met the demand. The Power Canal remained unused for the remaining nine months of In the year's weather once again developed "a droughty condition," but the Power Canal was not put back into operation. This decision can be attributed to the great amount of water stored in and the production of power at the Crosscut steam plant and the purchase of power from Boulder Dam.

Although unused, the Power Canal was serviced in A battery charging generator was added to the gas engine for the intake gates at the Diversion Dam, and the sluice valves at the Pinto Creek pressure pipes were inspected and repaired. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 37 Despite the tremendous demand for power from through primarily a result of the war effort, records show that the Power Canal remained unused. It did not carry any water for these three years. As a consequence of remaining idle, the Canal began to fall into a state of disrepair. By however, run off into the reservoir dropped again and therefore the Power Canal was brought back into service.

On 2 August of that year, with the reservoir impounding less than a third of its capacity, the Power Canal became operational. Because the Canal had not been used in over five years, was expended in on repair work along the Canal line. The work consisted primarily of rehabilitation work to the Canal tunnels. For the next six years the Canal provided power to the Association. Water stored at Roosevelt for this period was so low that little power could be generated from reservoir water. In the reservoir was dry for 33 days in July, August and September of that year. In the peak storage amount was only 10 percent of the reservoir-s capacity. In storage nearly reached acre feet but by the end of the reservoir stored only acre feet of water.

In maximum capacity of acre feet was held for only two days in September. The drought condition in central Arizona abated quickly in From 31 December to 6 January the Roosevelt Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 38 reservoir jumped acre feet in water stored. reservoir impounded over a million acre feet of water. By May the With the reservoir rapidly filling the Power Canal was put out of service on 28 March Only a year later the Power Canal began again to deteriorate. The Intake Tunnel had settled considerably and cracked. The Canal gates and sluice gates needed lubrication; the Pinto Creek area needed repair along with Teichman's revolving screen at the forebay of the Penstock Tunnel.

At the Diversion Dam the dentated sill blocks at the end of the apron were either damaged or broken. The disrepair of the Power Canal was reported again three years later in in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report. This report stated that, "much of the Canal had been lost due to lack of maintenance." However, by the fate of the Canal had been determined. In the same report it was observed, "the water users [Association] estimated that it would cost some to rehabilitate the canal for serviceable use for power development at the Roosevelt power plant and stated that the benefits to power would not justify the cost." In the the Association was generating power at four Salt River dams and was purchasing power from dams on the Colorado River.

The Association also generated power at their Crosscut facility and at their new steam generating plants at Kyrene and Agua Fria. The power generated by the Power Canal was Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 39 therefore minimal by comparison. To expend half a million dollars to repair the Diversion Dam and Power Canal would be useless since they were now only a minor accompaniment to the entire power system. By the the Association simply outgrew the usefulness of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam. From the to the present, the Power Canal and Diversion Dam have remained unused and unserviced. Consequently, these structures are continually deteriorating. While the Diversion Dam remains basically intact, the Power Canal is greatly damaged in places.

Some tunnels are either completely silted in or have collapsed. Flash flooding has broken or eroded the line in many places, and silting, vegetation and pooling water have obscured certain parts of the system. Many of the flumes and bridges are broken or gone, and in two locations reinforced steel bars extend openly and outwardly from broken concrete structures. The Penstock Tunnel was also altered, not by weather conditions, but by the Association. In the upstream entrance to the Penstock Tunnel just downstream from Teichman's trash rack screen was backfilled with concrete. By concreting the Penstock Tunnel entrance the Association terminated any hope of revitalizing the Power Canal and Diversion Dam.

Instead, the Association is presently considering destroying the Diversion Dam and various parts of the Power Canal. Due to the increase of recreational activities in this still remote area, the Association desires to limit the Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 40 potential risk of injury along the Canal line by removing or modifying a number of features. It has been estimated by Association officials that the removal or demolition cost of the Diversion Dam would amount to The Roosevelt Power Canal has become long overshadowed by the tremendous growth of both the Bureau of Reclamation and the Salt River Project. It has therefore become an outdated and inessential component to both these agencies.

Today the Bureau of Reclamation operates over 300 reservoirs and 50 power plants, while the Project operates seven dams, several steam power plants and a share in a developing nuclear powered generating station. Nevertheless, historically the Power Canal was a significant engineering accomplishment primarily due to innovative design and engineering skill. The Reclamation Service planned the Canal not as a secondary or ancillary feature of Roosevelt Dam but as an integral part of the Salt River Project system. Its purpose was to provide electrical power in the construction of Roosevelt Dam, to initiate the commercial sale of power by Reclamation, and to pump groundwater.

with the addition of other power facilities to the Project, the role of the Power Canal has diminished to its present state of disrepair. Despite its lack of utility to the project today, the Power Canal was vital to the beginning of federally sponsored reclamation in the West. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 41 APPENDIX I Map in 13 sheets drawn by the Reclamation Service in showing the original Power Canal line from the Diversion Dam to Roosevelt Dam. / LIST 5r.eUCTU,/eE"..5' M> ..s7-l'f"'vcruA:..:' At> STKGlcrGl..er #0. .s1R".e.~~r,e.~".,~ :. Alo J"rkut: r.::/...yo~. PI;",_ /OF- ", o-..ora-/;'(; ,.. . Cu/II'~"~ OA ~ r'/u,"_ .. E.,ol G&lI.l.J~ P.-"nID P/p ... CU/v4'n~ PC . OR RoOld' Tunn.,/ /}trO'r A-nra Cr. -fI ~'" 'J.5b.-I- h rr OC OQ)( n..-I/J *6" J/ul.:.

U6'h (i C 60" ,o...t>';rlC>'!!l~ Dra-IrJ.4',94 }:"'/urn... I.5E .. 00 -OYfllrr/QW N 10 D- .-'Ire/; ,. . .; IA - I?o . 6ric/g~ 1It:- 8 ~ Cu/v..r r . I$G .. 78' /6 .; CJ;J/v<n-;i NO' Cu/ ; t:D,...~h.~}fI"'1"1J6.,.y-.50 x C."Y4Ir I B" Ho_q/ / c - SO" ,Ztr-nu',,7'4 1.0 - 60' N ., 7C' 7D' So" .. .. IIE-,30".ZJru;,""nCll'.j'II IIF-20~' rvnne/(""O/q/..vo.G) t; F'r ,/IF - .a; COr"er 7 E' $0" D C~/J.'er/ /It:;- 4F/ . :. - .. I r - IZZ' Ia,'/ p..;.o4 CUlvdU'/ II H' 4 r } ' ' ' - ' . ~ ..Zi',;:ve;&.,. .. Z4' Pp. G",,,,,,,,"una-n;l II rr 7Uhn6/{O/</ I('C- sri r 28- 2~" 76' It; ' p~ ;zJra-Inat.SNI /GO- OVd,y/O~ 2C -Ir""h /I,..:;n 9 FI ril""tah Ti'VD QUrdS 20- 7'I-IOZ4.!J I ("C.-?//7'on) F/. ('o/q1..vo 8) . /Il~-ffn/. 4::rAu Co... on...vo.x/ 2.r - Flu,,", a..,' It;" PIp'" t:u/Y~rl /~ .. C~.

C'".7'bn;vo,,~ P Z '" - Tun"""/. " IZE'94~/Cu/ JIO C-oYW,.. . " . /o(j.'.EX".I/~r4~ Z a- .ec- 30" .. IZT .3o~.orQ'nO'.!i''' .' Z hi - "T' e:....A-.;yI 80- TZ" O,ri:.>~nQ'~''''''''-/~' Z r .. OE-ISI.7 (/fu.t);'~.sO'l) '" F/ ,.,ret? . .3 -1 - lSI.,*,' hirnM" p/O''':. .2JrQ';,nu~ .r/U..?7 ... p//O# / /f"oarol ..9.,..."oy....' .!J ., - .!JO ' ?O.. ,. .. /.!is- An:h Cu/II'#"'/' 1"7E JC II~o"OQcJ.&/' ~ H- PIt"-!" 14It"Rr..:h ,,1 IYT-.2.t",p..):>4- Cu/v4rr ~ D o'f'o ,Br/4!I. .s I- 4S" .1'roinO' /.!lD"JJ2o.J r>' n...nn~/(e:valA..6'1/. ... ; Ii .3 T~ SIc;)cc 6,aA... ~ O_,.//a_ 8 J- 7.GI r/ 5r-,I. 1 FI' I.!JF Cur " .e. t:ov",~ T /2 F"'~,"l""tah .' " . J ~. Jo" P'O""_,.?4 .-t"A:.. 13G 4d flu..?7.,. O",..,r//D#-V . . , - /'i"Q.,..d' "Ie . 3 a . . . . A9uea(~~,l .-IVa"J".?) AuP/., .:."'u/v#rl.

4t: - .!Jo" P - . I"".P~. FI. (Nol;'",I) Ar..:h CU/..N~"'/ /-3I-tJ,Z.,.,ry ronn,,/CO/q/,v,,/I) .. /o8'C-~1Q t:u/""4r/ ' C~/ Cov.,. .z . IS }-.I,; FI' ~~A"'T".J . -# ~ .. P-nOYI F/C/.I7?... cr;r-/JF'I N ., Arch I.8E-A,vcr9"'e..-c:/ (".JVA/,rnd'/ 148 "O...P<tl cu-/..-c::,..1 18'-Ro~Q/ 4 e - .!Io" Cu/v",,.; ..6 f l CuN#r) 96- $0" ;'J'''UY'p'' 'I II' B72.ZFI n.m/7'I'Grt:I~. JO~ ZJoc;,,/)I.. CIJ/J/d'rl I"'C, 6 Fr Jir<:h /I-D JO .7o~ ,O/~ He. /2) O)'er//ow . .. """O::CQ.l;:O Q.I <.C rr1 0.. 0 0 .or~jna-9'" /.. E-/Z~/ CJ;J/II'e~ /9c //o CO/o/ Ai::> ro ;:0 (J) 6C -ZJO(/p/c: .3o tl/7;o, IOC~ Ov.=r//o....-v I4F-.G Pr It? p- OY~.-:""//D-""'" . '" ro < .5 D- /OD-~... S/vke 9- " /9E- r_b a4~"'.$ NO<ro .s. .. "",I flit" 'Ar.s;,Q JO -.gO".Dra'n?&I.:I41 . .rr/U It. 1i'P"4 P~n....roc.k 4.f:OI'4J ro ~ En!.

tiqles, .Pinlo <+ @- MIL6:.:r. I /.~.II:",c.-9r.4"P /NrAK4'" )0> V> n ~~ H_ .. tIC_ N 100 -0 ..f'rA:4/<&:.,...-,v.... .r ~.u_ l?......ilf:.r~ ... _ (au"i' .....)(u..J:'''.sJ ~T"..-...::lI' Ij'0/J ./unt: ,. 7.'t""~.IV F~o~ ro Q> 3n ~ Sf!.f""IJ~ .A ~.t.I"ru,,., m""'~.IQ H .. " '" .P If' ,.. ", fI. -" '" ~ ROOSEVELT POWE.e' CANAl.. e ;t -80 r Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 43 0" J r I I I' J I / I I / I , I I il!{ I~ I , I , I _ / I . / J \ \\- :' I ' \ , '" -- ' ... - ~', '~ '\ ", , '\ . ,' \ ,\- \ ' \ Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 44 ~ ~ .. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 45 u '" .", ,, ... I : 'q' , V Qbo'Od-'" ... '\ -- ... -. " , ,. .. II .". .. , \ .. " I 01( I .~ ~ ., ,. I \ , I \ \ ..

, Rooseve It Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 46 , \ , , . III ,, I I \ I I , I .,: O.tNld .' .. ~'~A' . Q <:> Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 47 .. ' , \ . \ ~' / I \ " . . .J -~ .~ ___ . . - -:7 -_ ~ . , ", - .. -- - .. ' . ~ Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 48 ~ oa..... ~ ., a WI L .," -: - ~ . ~ .. - . , ,,, , _ _ _ _I , I /.7 5i7~go.9" \) " /.7 . ,.' '" co .' , I , I Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 49 -' , ., .. -f, ,, f, --- . - !! , . y /' ,,- "~ ,, : Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 50 . -.. \ ; ' -~ " - - .. - .. '" ,-, -- .. ~ " . .. ,;~u-/Z"-7..Y , . -' : I -' _- , .- ,. .-- --- , ", ___ .J . .. ~ . #~' I Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 51 ,, , \ ,, , "." , ." .' ;,. . < ! ,, .. \~ ,, ,, , ,, ... - ,) , _- .' ..' ..- RooseveH Power Cana1 and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 52 , \, . I I ,, , ,/ /" I I .' 1-- -- ,, j! - . ,,. .., ~ / ,:' ,, , ,I ,,, , '., -~ 'v' ___ a. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No, AZ-4 Page 53 / -' 'I. ~. II: 1."i .~, ~ c '~" ~~ ~ ~" ~ l ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ,t Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 54 .. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 55 APPENDIX II Drawing by the Reclamation Service showing the reconstructed Diversion Dam. I'\UU~t::Vt::1 ... and DOlversi' vallal HAER No AZ on Dam Page 56' -4 i .~ 1 ~ -- Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 57 APPENDIX I I I The first drawing shows rehabilitation work done under contract on the Power Canal. The remaining five drawings show all the rehabilitation work done on the Power Canal. All six sheets prepared by the Reclamation Service. Rooseve It Pow l and Diver' er Cana HAER N S 1 on Dam o. AZ-4 Page 58 I I I I, I !1 ">: < i 1 1 , '\ k j , I c: Roosevelt and D . ower Cana l P HAER ~ vers 1 on Dam o. AZ-4 Page 59 Roosevelt 1 and Divers'Power Cana HAER N lon Dam o. AZ-4 Page 60 / --' . Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 61 '/; . Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 62 .,, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 63 -- "_ _ - " I , " . ! ., I ! Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 64 NOTES 1.

32 Stat. In addition to the 16 original states and territories, the state of Texas was added in and 2. Leahmae Brown, "The Development of National Water Policy with Respect to Water Resources" dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, pp. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Third Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, , (Washington: Government Printing Office, 3. Arthur P. Davis, Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, Water Supply and Irrigation Paper of the U.S. Geological Survey, No. 73, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 35, U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, First Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p.

91 The dam was eventually built to a height of 284 feet from lowest foundation to the top of the parapet. The increase in height enabled the reservoir to store substantially more water. 4. In the original construction plans for Roosevelt Dam there were no provisions for generating power from reservoir water. See Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, drawing between pp. pp. On page 47 of this report Davis wrote, "there are other power possibilities in this reservoir site by arranging to draw all irrigation water from the reservoir under a considerable head through turbines which can be used to develop power for pumping purposes.

Such development, however, will be of a very different character from the works already planned." It is interesting to note the nearly accidental way the Reclamation Service began to produce hydropower. In Reclamation in the United States, (Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Alfred Golze wrote, "the entrance of the federal government into power production in the Western States was purely incidental." No provision for the generation or sale of hydropower was made for in the Reclamation Act. In fact, the General Land Office made such a recommendation in February four months before the signing of the bill, but the Secretary of Interior, E. A. Hitchcock, did nothing. See pages See also William E. Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation, (New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. Warne credits Louis C.

Hill with realizing the potential benefits of developing a Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page iS hydropower plant at Roosevelt although he does not site any documentary evidence to support this claim. Nevertheless Warne~s assertion seems to be true. In a letter to Frederick Haynes Newell, Commissioner of Reclamation, Arthur P. Davis wrote that Hill . . has gone a little mad on the power subject." See Arthur P. Davis to F. H. Newell, 21 February Record Group Box File 26, National Archives, Washington, Letter can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona. By there were 18 power plants built by the Reclamation Service producing kilowatts of power on 12 projects. See Michael C.

Robinson, Water for the West, The .Bureau of Reclamation (Chicago: Public Works Historical Society, p. 29. 5. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 45. The Reclamation Service also constructed a Power Canal on t.he Strawberry Valley Project in Utah although it was only approximately three miles long. 6. Harlan H. Barrows, "Roosevelt Dam and the Salt River Valley," The Journal of Geography XI, (May p. 7. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 45. 8. First Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 97. 9. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 45. James M. Gaylord, Power & Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, unpublished manuscript (1 January Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, pp.

The penstock tunnel was lined halfway down with concrete, the rest of the way the concrete was lined with steel plating .. 10. The Power Canal provided a water head of 220 feet and a flow rate of 225 cubic feet per second. The amount of power generated was gross horsepower. U.S. Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Fourth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, pp. Chester Wason Smith, "The Construction of Roosevelt Dam: An Account of the Difficulties Encountered in Constructing a High Masonry Dam in Arizona," Engineering Record 62, (31 December p. 11. The Power Canal and Diversion Dam generator was later moved to the permanent power house in and See Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, p.

231 The Arizona Republican, 4 February Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 66 12. Louis C. Hill Memorandum to Arthur P. Davis, 23 February Central Classified Files, Record Group 48, National Archives, Washington, Memorandum can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Box File No. p. 4. 13. Salt River Valley Water Users Association, "Minutes of Board of Governors," meeting of 11 April Davis further stated that after an extended and careful investigation, the government felt assured that there was available an underground supply for water for to acres of land and there would be power developed by the works at Tonto [Salt River damsiteJ sufficient to raise it to the surface for use.

It is these facts that have rendered the power of the canal and the development of underground supply of so much greater importance than it was in the consideration of earlier plans for the work." 14. See endnote 3; First Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, pp. 15. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Second Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 71. Olberg would go on later to design Coolidge Dam on the Gila River. 16.Third Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, 17. "Final History to Salt River Project, Arizona," 3 vols., Record Group p.

National Archives, Washington, Report can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona; Power Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, p. 28. 18. Third Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 58. 19. Ibid.; Robert Sherer and Company was located at 101 South Broadway in the Los Angeles City Directory. In the City Directory lists a Sherer & Crowley at 610 South Main, Room In there is only a listing for Crowley at the same address. In the Los Angeles City Business Directory identifies the 610 South Main address as the Pacific Electric Building. It is still known today as the Pacific Electric Building. Information obtained from correspondence with William S.

Byrne, Department Librarian, Business and Economics Department, Los Angeles Public Library, 630 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, California. ,. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 67 20. John Tuttle of San Francisco may possibly have been copartner in the firm Bentley, Tuttle and Pelton Company of San Francisco. 21. Third Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 22. "Final History to p. 23. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 45. 24. The Arizona Republican, 4 April 8 June 25. Arthur P. Davis, Irri~ation Works Constructed by the U.s. Government, (New York: John Wlley & Sons, Inc., p. 32. 26. The Arizona Gazette, 26 June 27. "Final History to p. 28. Ibid., p. This problem was primarily encountered in the Intake Tunnel.

For a detailed account, see pp. 29. Ibid., p. The tunnels measured 8 feet wide and 7 feet 6 inches high at the center. See U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Ninth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 61. 30. Chester Smith Diary No. I, 7 June Work was completed in November 31. The Arizona Republican, 8 June The newspaper accounts do not give the contractors~ first names nor their business addresses. The Arizona Republican, 16 May 15 June 32. "Final History to p. I 33. The Arizona Republican, 17 May 8 June 34. The Ar izona Republican, 9 August "Final History to p. 35. "Final History to p. 36. Over 65 culverts were employed along the Canal line. For a good discussion on canals and their features, see Frederick H.

Newell and D. W. Murphy, Principles of Irrigation Engineering, (New York: McGraw Hill, pp. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 68 37. Whitney~s flume is called an aqueduct on the List of Structures, feature 18E in Appendix I. 38. The Arizona Republican, 6 June 39. "Final History to pp. An additional settling basin was added in April just above the Penstock Tunnel entrance. See "Final History to pp. 40. The only records remaining of the ditchriders are photographs and drawings indicating the location of their houses along the Canal line. There is still one house remaining at the Cottonwood Canyon intake. By the there were as many as eight men assigned to maintain the Power Canal. Interview with Walter Robbins, Mesa, Arizona, 12 April 41. John H.

Quinton, Experiments on Steel-Reinforced Concrete Pipes on a Working Scale, Water Supply and Irrigation Paper of the U.S. Geological Survey, No. (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 91 Sharlot M. Hall, "The Great Tonto Storage Reservoir," Out West 25 (November p. 42. The Arizona Republican, 27 April The Arizona Gazette, 30 June 43. Chester W. Smi th, "Re inforced Concrete Pipe for Car rying Water Under Pressure," Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, LX pp. "Final History to pp. 173 . 44. "Reinforced Concrete Pipe for Carrying Water Under Pressure," p. 45. Electric power at the damsite, before the completion of the Power Canal, was supplied by a wood. generated steam plant which was very costly.

The Arizona Republican reported on 8 April that prior to the completion of the Power Canal and Diversion Dam the cement mill was running at half its capacity and at a fuel expense of per day. With the sale of power to the contractor (John O~Rourke) through the use of the Canal, the daily savings was estimated at per day. "Reinforced Concrete Pipe for Carrying Water Under Pressure," p. 46. "Reinforced Concrete Pipe for Carrying Water Under Pressure," p. 47. Ibid., pp. 48. Ibid., p. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 69' 49. Chester Smith Diary No.2, 10 March The Arizona Republican reported on 30 March that water leakage at the Cottonwood pipes was less than .25 of one percent and at the Pinto pipes .07 of one percent. 50. F.

Teichman, "Rotating Screen of Power Canal, Salt River Project," Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers, LX pp. 51. Ibid., pp. 52. "Final History to p. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Fifth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 87. The Republican reported that the Canal began operation on 22 March See The Arizona Republican, 24 March The temporary plant installation consisted of a horse power turbine, and a 900 Kw, 3 phase, volt, 25 cycle generator with necessary exciter and switchboard. See Power and Pumping System of Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, p. 26. 53.

The Arizona Republican, 30 March The power generated by the Power Canal was sold to the contractor of Roosevelt Dam, John O'Rourke, for .5 cents per kilowatt hour. See Chester W. Smith, "Progress on Roosevelt Dam, Salt River Project, U.S. Reclamation Service," Engineering News 60 (10 September p. 54. The Arizona Republican, 22 July 55. "Final History to pp. See glossary for definition of ogee. 56. Power and Pumping System for the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, p. 27. 57. Fourth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 65. 58. "Final History to p. 59. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Sixth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 65. 60.

The dam was dedicated on 18 March by Theodore Roosevelt. Breaks in the embankment along the Canal did occur on occasion due primarily to heavy rains. The Cottonwood and Pinto Pressure Pipes did "blowout" in See photo No. 27. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 70 61. The Arizona Republican, 7 June 14 June 62. A motion to change the venue of a case simply means to change the jurisdiction in which the case is being adjudicated. 63. "Minutes of Board of Governors," Book 2, pp. 18, 22, 64. Sixth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 65. 65. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Seventh Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 52. 66.

The extension work referred to, lengthening the Penstock, meant extending the Penstock Tunnel from the wall inside the cave where the temporary power plant was built to the permanent powerhouse located outside this cave. See U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Eighth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 45. 67. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Ninth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, pp. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Tenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government printing Office, pp. 68. The Arizona Republican, 30 May 6 June 69.

Ninth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 44. 70. 34 Stat. Louis C. Hill to A. P. Davis, 23 February p. 2; Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, pp. 63, The Salt River Valley Water Users> Association Board of Governors approved the sale of power to Pacific Gas and Electric as early as 1 June See "Minutes of Board of Governors," Book 2, p. Although Hill mentions selling power to the Inspiration Copper Company in the same sentence with Pacific Gas and Electric, records show that the Inspiration contract was not signed until July See Glenn W. Brandow, Historical Documents Pertaining to Power Contracts and Agreements of the Salt River Project, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Inventory Box No.

See also "Minutes of Board of Governors," Book 3, p. 99. The Board approved the sale of power to Inspiration and Miami Copper companies at the rate of .75 cents per kilowatt hour for a ten Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 71 year term on 6 May The Reclamation Service had developed additional hydropower generating facilities in the Phoenix Valley. By the South Consolidated Power Plant was generating Kv and the Arizona Falls Power Plant was generating Kv. Power from these facilities was sold to South Western Sugar and Land Company, Agua Fria Water Company, Consolidated Canal Company, S. D. Lount and Son, Arizona Alfalfa Milling Company, the town of Glendale, Arizona Portland Cement Company, and the Bartlett-Heard Land Company. 71.

Ninth Annual Report of the united States Reclamation Service, pp. 65 and 67, Power Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, pp. 72. L. C. Hill to A. P. Davis, 23 February pp. 73. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation service, Eleventh Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 47, U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 51, U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Thirteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p.

64; U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Fourteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 49. 74. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Salt River Project, Arizona, "History of the Project for the Calendar Year Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, p. 82. 75. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Salt River Project, Arizona, "History of the Project for the Calendar Year Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona, p. 58. 76. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, "Annual Report on the Operation and Maintenance for the Agricultural Year Ending September 30, with Supplements for the Months of October and November Salt River Project," Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona, p.

27, Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona to June 30, pp. 77. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 45. 78. "Final History to p. Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, p. 46. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 72 79. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Sixteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 49; U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Seventeenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 66. The bypass work was completed in October Although the sluice tunnel intake is at the base of the reservoir, the second intake is at the 80 foot level on the upstream face of the dam.

Water elevation in the reservoir must remain over the 130 foot level for this intake to supply water for power otherwise a whirlpool will be created. 80. First Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 69. 81. The Third Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service estimated the cost of the Project to be million. The Board of Cost Review estimated the cost at approximately $13 million. See Karen L. Smith, "The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, pp. 82. "The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, p. Franklin L. Lane became Secretary of Interior in March 83.

Elwood Mead, Central Board of Review Report, 19 November Record Group National Archives, Washington, p. 5. Document can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Box File No. 84. "The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, p. 85. Ibid., pp. 86. See endnote 82. 87. "The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, p. 88. U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Fifteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, p. 61; U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Salt River Project, Arizona, "History of the Project for the Calendar Year p.

U.S., Department of Interior, Reclamation service, "Damage from January Flood to Roosevelt Power Diversion Dam Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 7.3 - Salt River Project," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, pp. The 19 January flood peaked at 1 pm. The river~s flow was measured at This flood damaged the north abutment wall. The 28 January flood peaked at 6 pm on that date with approximately the same flow. This flood damaged the main structure. 89. "History of the Project for the Calendar Year p. 90. "Damage from January Flood to Roosevelt Power Diversion Dam - Salt River Project." 91. See contract between United States of America and Salt River Valley Water Users~ Association dated 6 September Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona. 92.

Sixteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 50. 93. Richard E. Sloan, "Land and Water Rights, Salt River Project," 10 May Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, p. 22. 94. Ibid. 95. Salt River Valley Water users~ Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period October 1, to September 30, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, p. 13. 96."History of the Project for the Period October 1, to September 30, p. 10. The federal government extended the repayment policies through the years and See 42 Stat. 489 and 42 Stat. 97. Fifteenth Annual Report of the United States Reclamation Service, p. 61. 98. These reports cover the years and respectively. 99. Richard T.

Larsen, "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Diversion Dam and Roosevelt Power Canal," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, p. 3. Salt River Valley Water Users~ Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period October 1, to September 30, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 2. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 74 In the "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Diversion Dam and Roosevelt Power Canal," it is reported that the temporary Diversion Dam was reconstructed seven times during these years. See p. 3.

There is no mention of the Power Canal or Diversion Dam in the Salt River Project Annual Histories under Chapter VI, Power and Pumping for the years and but it can be assumed that because of the lack of rainfall during these years the Power Canal did operate at various times. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period October 1, to September 30, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 1. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period October 1, to September 30, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 1.

Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period October 1, to December 31, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 1. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 3. Contract between the United States of America and the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association Providing For The Construction of Bartlett Dam and Repairs To and Completion of Other Dams and Project Canals, 26 November Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, File Nos. and Ibid., see sections 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e and 7f of contract.

Supplemental contract between the United States of America and Salt River Valley Water users' Association Providing For The Construction of Bartlett Dam and Repairs and Completion of Other Dams and Project Canals. Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, File No. Acting Chief Engineer to Acting Engineer, U.S. Reclamation Service, 28 August Project Correspondence Files, Record Group National Archives, Washington, Memo can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Box No. File No. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 75 Chief Engineer to Acting Commissioner, u.s.

Reclamation Service, 14 March Project Correspondence Files, Record Group National Archives, Washington, Memo can also be found in Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Box No., File No. "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Diversion Dam and Roosevelt Power Canal," p. 7. Ibid. The Daley Corporation of San Diego, California is still in operation. Mr. Daley, the founder, remains as head. Correspondence with Daley Corporation revealed that the company does not have any surviving records regarding this contract. "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Diversion Dam and Roosevelt Power Canal," p. 10. Ibid., pp. Ibid. , p. 4. Ibid. , pp. Ibid. , pp. Ibid. , p. 29. Ibid. , pp. Ibid. , pp. Ibid., pp.

Annual Hydro Tabulation Stream Flow, Book 3, Code 41, Hydrology Department, Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 1. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter VI, p. 1. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," See photos in Chapter II and Balance Sheet of Salt River Reservoirs in Chapter III. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 76 Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," Chapter III, p. 1. The year was the wettest year in recorded history for the state with the exception of Roosevelt Reservoir is capable of impounding approximately 1.3 million acre feet of water. Ibid. See Balance Sheet of Salt River Reservoirs contained in Chapter III; Annual Hydro Tabulation Stream Flow, Book 3, Code 41. Ibid. No mention is made of this decision in the "Minutes of Board of Governors" of the Association. Salt River Valley Water users' Association, "History of the Salt River Project for the Period January 1, to December 31, Inclusive," Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, Chapter III, p. 1; Chapter VI, p. 1.

Ibid., Chapter VI, p. 7. See Balance Sheet of Salt River Reservoirs in Chapter III of the Annual Histories of the Salt River Project for the years Low storage capacity occurred on 17 September. The reservoir impounded acre feet on that date. See "Storage Extremes For Reservoir System on Salt River at and Below Roosevel t Dam to Inclusive," Box 7 4, Power System Information File, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona; Reservoir Data Book No.2, Code Hydrology Department, Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona. U.S., Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Condition of Major Irrigation Structures and Facilities, Salt River Project Region 3, Travel Report by W. L. Harrison and O. L. Rice, 31 December Appendix 5, p. 2, Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona.

Reservoir Data Book No.2, Codes R-5 and Annual Hydro Tabulation Stream Flow, Book 3, Code 34. A. W. Tesmer et al., "Annual Inspection of River Projects Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, pp. See endnote U.S., Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Condition of Major Water System Structures and Facilities, Region 3, April Salt River Project Archives, Tempe, Arizona, p. 5 . ... Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 77 James E. Ayres, "Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Structural Components of the Roosevelt Power Canal," June Prepared for the Salt River Project by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe, Arizona, pp. "Condition of Major Water System Structures and Facilities, Region 3, p. 5. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No.

AZ-4 Page 78 GLOSSARY Culvert - A tranverse drain. Cut and Cover - A structure variously designed used to convey two intersecting waterways. Flume - A channel with sidewalls used for conveying water, usually constructed of wood or concrete. Head - The mass of water in motion; the pressure of a fluid. Ogee - A pointed arch having on each side a reversed curve near the apex. Penstock - A pipe or conduit for carrying water. Pressure Pipe - An inverted siphon. Sandbox - A receptacle containing sand used to filter water. Sluice Gate (or) Sluiceway - A flood gate. weir - A dam in a stream to raise the water level or divert its flow. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Manuscript and Archival Collections Arizona, Tempe.

Arizona Collection, Arizona State University. Salt River Project Archives, Salt River Project. II. United States Government Documents United States Department of Interior. Geological Survey. Irrigation Near Phoenix, Arizona, by Arthur P. Davis. Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No.2. Washington, Government Printing Office, Water Storage on Salt River, Arizona, by Arthut P. D~a~v~1T Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 73. Washington, Government Printing Office, Experiments on Steel-Concrete Pipes on a Working ----'S~c~a~l'e~, by John H. Quinton. Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. Washington, Government Printing Office, United States Department of Interior, Reclamation Service, Annual Histories of the Salt River Project, Annual Reports of the U.S.

Reclamation Service, Salt River Project, Arizona, Final History to 3 vols., April (Typewritten.) Schedule, Specifications and Drawings, Diversion Dam For Power Canal, Salt River Project, Arizona, Condition of Major Irrigation Structures and F~a~c~1T 'lTities, Salt River Project, Region 3, by W. L. Harrison and O. L. Rice, 31 December (Typewritten.) Condition of Major Water System Structures and Facilities, Region 3, by B. M. Moyes and J. E. Allen, April (Typewritten.) Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. 1. ----7.W'"a~s~h"'i~ng ton,D.C.: Government Printing Office, III. Newspapers Phoenix, Arizona. The Arizona Republican. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 The Arizona Gazette. Globe, Arizona. Arizona Silver Belt. Page 80 IV. Articles and Other Papers Ayres, James E.

"Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Structural Components of the Roosevelt Power Canal." Paper prepared for the Salt River Project by Archaeological Research Services, Tempe, Arizona, June (Typewritten.) Barrows, Harlan H. "Roosevelt Dam and the Salt River Valley." The Journal of Geography 11 (May Brandow, Glenn W. "Historical Documents Pertaining to Power Contracts and Agreements of the Salt River Project." Prepared for the Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona, (Typewritten. ) Carter, O.C.S. "The Government Irrigation Project at Roosevelt Dam, Salt River, Arizona." Journal of the Franklin Institute 163 (January Clarke, E. P.

"The Roosevelt Dam and the Salt River Project." The Pacific Monthly (September "The Dedication of the World~s Greatest Dam." California Cultivator 36 (23 March Ensign, O.H. and Gaylord, James M. "Electric Power for Irrigation; U.S. Reclamation Service." Engineering News 66 (July 6, Gaylord, James A. "Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona." Paper prepared for the Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona, 30 June (Typewritten.) Hill, Louis C. "The Power Probabilities of the Roosevelt Proj ect." The Earth 6 (August 4. "Hydroelectric Development of the Salt River Project." Electrical Review & Western Electrician 59 (December 30, 13 29. Kinyon, Edmund G. "The Roosevelt Dam." Scientific American Supplement 69 (21 May Koppen, E.C.

"Intake Dam Above Roosevelt, Salt River Project, Phoenix, Ar izona." Report prepared for the Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona, July (Typewritten.) Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 81 Larsen, Richard T. "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Diversion Dam and Roosevelt Power Canal." Report written by the Bureau of Reclamation, (Typewritten.) Meredith, "Reclamation in the Salt River Valley, Journal of the West 7 (January "The Roosevelt Irrigation Dam in Arizona." Scientific American 93 (16 December Salt River Valley Water Users' Association Minutes of Board of Governors, - (Typewr i tten.) Smith, Chester W. "The Building of the Roosevelt Dam." The Earth 6 (August 2-4 . "Diary." 5 vols. Salt River Project, Tempe, Arizona. ) ---;-("""S-c-r~i-pt.

"The Construction of Roosevelt Dam: An Account of the ----~D'-1~'f~f?Ti~c ulties Encountered in Constructing a High Masonry Dam in Arizona." Engineering Record 62 (31 December "Progress on the Roosevelt Dam, Salt River Project, U.S. Reclamation Service." Engineering News 60 (September 10, "Reinforced Concrete Pipe for Carrying Water Under Pressure." Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers 60 (October Teeples, Reid W., and Richard E. "Salt River project Born In Effort to Fight Drought." Arizona Waterline (Spring Teichman, F.

"Rotating Screen of Power Canal, Salt River Project." Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers 60 (October "A Traveling Mold for Making Reinforced Concrete Pipe." Eng ineering News 59 (February 20, "Two Examples of Electrical Transmission of Power for pumping Irrigation Water with Some Construction and Operating Costs." Engineering and Contracting 36 (July-December "Water For Phoenix, Building The Roosevelt Dam." Journal of Arizona History 18 (Autumn Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam HAER No. AZ-4 Page 82 V. Books Davis, Arthur Powell. Irrigation Works Constructed by the U.S. Government. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., GOlz~, Alfred R. Reclamation in the United States. Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Lee, Lawrence B. Reclaiming The American West.

Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio, Newell, Frederick H. and Murphy, Daniel W. Principles of Irrigation Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, Robinson, Michael C. Water for the West: A History of the U.S. Reclamation Service. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society, Warne, William E. The Bureau of Reclamation. New York: Praeger Publishers, Zarbin, Earl. Roosevelt Dam: A History to Tempe, Arizona: Salt River Project, VI. Dissertations Brown, Leahmae. "The Development of National Policy with Respect to Water Resources." dissertation: university of Illinois, Urbana, Smith, Karen L.

"The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, dissertation: University of California, Santa Barbara, ADDENDUM TO: HAER AZ-4 ROOSEVELT POWER CANAL & DIVERSION DAM HAER ARIZ,7-ROOS.V,1- Parallels Salt River Roosevelt vicinity Gila County Arizona FIELD RECORDS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior C Street NW Washington, DC