The Crosscut Canal is an integral part of SRP s water and power network within the Salt River Valley because of its various functions, which encompasses water distribution and transmission for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and water delivery for a municipal treatment plant and recreational uses. Historians: Dan Killoren, SRP Research Archives James LaBar, SRP Research Archives Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, SRP Research Archives CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No.
AZ-60 (Page 2) Table of Contents Introduction 3 Early Irrigation in the Salt River Valley 3 Federal Reclamation and the Salt River Valley Water Users Association 5 Old Crosscut Canal 8 The Agreement and Hydropower Development 9 Taking Advantage of the Drop: The Crosscut Canal 11 Papago Park 16 Residents and Workers along the Canal 17 -Yaqui Workers and the Northside Camp 18 -Civilian Conservation Corps 19 -WWII POW Escape 20 Changes to the Crosscut 22 Tempe Water Treatment Plant 24 Tempe Town Lake 26 White Amur 27 Recreation along the Canal 28 Conclusion 29 Bibliography 30 Maps 34 CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No.
AZ-60 (Page 3) Introduction The Crosscut Canal 1 named for its primary function has been an integral part of the water and power system within the Salt River Valley since its completion in The canal cuts across a small section of the Valley connecting the Arizona and Grand canals (see Map 1). Its uses have included water transmission and distribution for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and water delivery for municipal treatment and recreational uses. The Crosscut Canal is also one the earliest examples of the dual purpose of the Salt River Project as a water and power provider.
This narrative and supporting documentation (maps, photos, and drawings) detail the history of the Crosscut with an emphasis on the historical significance of the canal within SRP s system and the development of the Phoenix metropolitan area. The design, construction, and operation of the Crosscut Canal contributed to the development of water and power resources in the Valley in many important ways. The original design and construction effectively overcame the challenges of the natural environment, while maintaining an elevation that allowed for the development of hydroelectric power. The natural landscape and setting of the Crosscut continued to serve as an important factor in determining its changing structure and use.
The workers who maintained the SRP canal system and resided along the Crosscut are also an important part of the canal s history. The various uses of the canal by area residents highlights the changing role of the Crosscut within an increasingly urban landscape. The urban transformation of the Valley affected the operation of the Crosscut in several key ways. The main functions of water transmission and power production were adapted to include domestic water deliveries to a water treatment facility and public recreational uses. All these factors are explored in-depth in this report, as part of an effort to understand how the Crosscut contributed to the significant changes in SRP s water and power distribution system.
Early Irrigation in the Salt River Valley The groundwork for a complex and extensive canal network has existed in the Valley since the Hohokam Pioneer Period (circa A.D. The Hohokam, a Pima word that means those who have vanished, were the early inhabitants that utilized the Salt River to cultivate their fields. Due to the minimal rainfall annually in central Arizona, the early agriculturalists realized the need of irrigation for farming. The Hohokam constructed a delivery system consisting of more than 500 miles of canals, some of which were as large 1 The Crosscut Canal has undergone several name changes over the course of its history. On the original design drawings the canal was referred to as the New Crosscut.
In early SRP and United States Reclamation Service (USRS) construction and maintenance reports it was listed as the Arizona Crosscut or the New Arizona Crosscut. The SRP Zanjero Map identified every canal and lateral in the SRP system; the intake for the Crosscut on the Arizona was called the head of the Grand Canal, and has since been referred to as a lateral of the Grand Canal or Canal No. 2. Other names and abbreviations for the canal include: Cross-cut, X-Cut, Power Canal and Power Cross-cut. For the purposes of this report the structure will be referred to as the Crosscut Canal or the Crosscut. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 4) as 30' wide and 15' deep. They built the irrigation structures by hand facilitated by stone and wooden tools.
At the apex of their tenure in the Valley, their extensive canal network supported at least people. After living in the Valley for hundreds of years, the Hohokam inexplicably vacated the area during the Classic Period (circa A.D. They left a complex and enduring framework of irrigation engineering that provided a map for the modern hydraulic system that began anew centuries later. 2 Existing irrigation networks from the Hohokam culture eroded over the next four centuries due to the lack of continuous development in central Arizona. Apache Indians made no attempt to use the Valley for extensive agricultural production. Although the Maricopa (Pee Posh) and Pima (Akimel O odham) Indians grew corn, wheat, cotton, and other produce, their settlements were concentrated along the Gila River.
Spanish explorations and settlements from the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries were focused mainly in southern Arizona and northern Mexico and never made a significant impact on the hydraulic structures of central Arizona. The large-scale development of western agricultural resources, especially in central Arizona, were not realized on a commercial scale until pioneers and military settlements migrated westward and expanded the use of irrigated agriculture. 3 Beginning in the mid-1860s, mining and agricultural development in central Arizona increased incrementally with the influx of Euro-Americans who desired to settle the Southwest. The U.S. Army established Camp McDowell in at the eastern perimeter of the Valley to suppress Apache raids and protect settlers.
Jack Swilling, a former Confederate officer, was the first person to utilize the neglected Hohokam canals. He formed the Swilling Irrigating Canal Company and cleared a mile-and-a-half canal approximately eight miles southeast of present-day Phoenix. The community ditch (later termed Swilling s Ditch, and then Town Ditch) diverted water from the north bank of the Salt River in order to irrigate and produce crops to sell to the military. The cooperative association that Swilling organized began operating the canal and formalizing the water rights or shares proportionately to the amount of land the canal served. By the townsite, which evolved into Phoenix, supported more than 700 settlers and cultivated acres. 4 2 Jay J.
Wagoner, Early Arizona: Prehistory to Civil War (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 21; Marc C. Campbell, Eastern Canal (HAER No. AZ-56, Salt River Project, Jerry Brian Howard, Paleohydraulics: Techniques for Modeling the Operation and Growth of Prehistoric Canal Systems (Masters Thesis, Arizona State University, Jerry B. Howard and Gary Huckleberry, The Operation and Evolution of an Irrigation System: The East Papago Canal Study. (Phoenix: Soil System Publications in Archaeology, No. 18, 3 Campbell, Eastern Canal, 4; Catherine L. May, Shawn L. England and Stephen Sloan, Consolidated Canal (HAER No. AZ-55, Salt River Project, David P. Billington, Donald C. Jackson, and Martin V.
Melosi, The History of Large Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and Construction in the Era of Big Dams (Denver: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 21. 4 Billington et al., Federal Dams, 22; Campbell, Eastern Canal, 5; May et al., Consolidated Canal, Karen Smith, The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, (Tucson: University of Arizona, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 5) The increased settlement in the Valley in the and led to the establishment of more canal companies that issued capital stock. The shareholders of these companies were required to contribute labor and/or financial support in the form of land assessments for maintenance and improvements to the canal.
Since irrigation structures required almost constant upkeep it was vital for the landowners to participate in these formal organizations to ensure a consistent supply of water. Despite these collective efforts, landowners within the Valley experienced trouble maintaining their irrigation structures when intensive winter and summer rains washed out diversions and canals. A steady source of water was a necessary component for the agricultural growth of the Valley. 5 Some of the shareholders in these canal companies were from the eastern United States, and their interests were more in land speculation and less in water distribution and farming.
As the canals developed from agricultural tools to business opportunities, the water rights or shares within the canal companies found their way into the hands of persons who were not owners of the land, but were instead money lenders collecting upon defaulted loans. 6 The impact of the shift from cooperative organizations to stock- issuing canal companies was the reprioritization of making money with land sales over the effective cooperative management of water for irrigation. The rise in real estate speculation in the late nineteenth century led some local leaders to push for federal management of irrigation and water supplies in the form of a national reclamation project.
7 Federal Reclamation and the Salt River Valley Water Users Association Despite capital from the East to finance water delivery structures and more formally organized canal companies, there were still water management problems in the Valley. During the financial depression of the eastern capital dried up in Arizona and massive water storage and delivery plans were stunted. An example of this phenomenon was in when the New York based Hudson Reservoir and Canal Company planned to build a dam at the confluence of the Salt River and Tonto Creek. The Tonto dam site was approximately eighty miles east of Phoenix, and the project was estimated to cost three million dollars.
The scheme never advanced beyond survey work due to the company s inability to privately raise sufficient capital for the venture. Increasingly, it was becoming clear to local leaders that the task of organizing landowners and attracting financial support would require federal government intervention. 8 5 E.F. Young, Early History of the Salt River Project, SRP Research Archives; Earl Zarbin, Two Sides of the River: Salt River Valley Canals, (Phoenix: Salt River Project, For an example of an early canal cooperative see Christine M. Lewis, A History of Irrigation in the Tempe Area (Masters Thesis, Arizona State University, 6 Smith, Magnificent Experiment, 15. 7 Ibid, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No.
AZ-60 (Page 6) By there were several canal companies fruitlessly wrangling for water from the drought stricken Salt River. The severe drought that the Valley suffered from to caused numerous farmers to abandon their homesteads. Landowners turned their attention to organizing committees that could attract the necessary capital and expertise of the developing national reclamation movement. These committees formed a plan to construct a massive dam at the Tonto site that would control the volatile Salt River. Enthused after George Maxwell, the nation s spokesman on federal reclamation, came to the Valley in the farmers organized a Water Storage Conference Committee.
Maxwell s strategy was to create one association of all of the landowners in order to place the project on firm economic grounds and for the men who own the land and till the soil [to] control the irrigation system. 9 The prospect of federal reclamation provided an opportunity to transform the multitude of private canal companies into a consolidated, integrated, centrally-managed organization. As Valley residents dealt with organizing for a more dependable water source on a local level, federal reclamation emerged as a national political issue. At the beginning of the twentieth century, more than 90% of the irrigation companies in the West were near insolvency despite state and federal legislative efforts to promote private irrigation efforts.
Accompanying Maxwell, some of the influential players that pushed for federal reclamation included: Federick Newell, Chief Hydrographer of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Francis Newlands, Representative from Nevada; John Wesley Powell, head of the USGS; and Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester of the Department of Agriculture s Forestry Divisions. The president during this period of growing support for federal reclamation was William McKinley, who supported the concepts of natural- resource conservation, but did not advocate them as federal policy. After McKinley s assassination in September the federal reclamation movement gained tremendous political clout with Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt ascending to the Presidency.
10 With the political backing of President Roosevelt and the leadership of Representative Newlands, Congress passed the National Reclamation Act on June 17, The purpose of the act was to use money from the sale of public lands to provide financial and engineering assistance for the construction and operation of reclamation projects. The government supported these projects with the intention of promoting the settlement of the western U.S. through small-scale farming. The Secretary of the Interior was granted the power to identify and award contracts to those organizations that presented the best chance for successful repayment of government loans. 11 8 Arthur P. Davis, Irrigation Near Phoenix, Arizona, Water Supply and Irrigation Paper of the U.S. Geological Survey, No.
2, House of Representatives Document No. Congress, 2nd session, Zarbin, Two Sides, Smith, Magnificent Experiment, 9 Smith, Magnificent Experiment, 59. 10 Smith, Magnificent Experiment, Campbell, Eastern Canal, May et al., Consolidated Canal, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 7) Simultaneously in the Valley, the Water Storage Conference Committee organized local interests around the requirements of the Reclamation Act. The Committee formed an eleven-person executive group composed of Judge Joseph Kibbey as legal advisor, Benjamin Fowler as chairman, and Maxwell as irrigation consultant. The Committee drafted Articles of Incorporation for a water users association in January and circulated it throughout the Valley in order to attract support.
Although strong opposition existed from landowners with older water rights in Tempe and Mesa, the Committee voted on January 20, to adopt the articles and establish the Salt River Valley Water Users Association (Association). The Articles were filed with Maricopa County in February The thorough planning and organization of local landowners resulted in the federal government recognizing SRP in March as one of five initial reclamation projects. 12 As the local landowners organized themselves into the Association, the newly formed U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS) was responsible for designing and building Theodore Roosevelt Dam at the Tonto dam site.
13 In the fall of the USRS began to work on the project, and the x curved stone masonry structure was eventually dedicated on March 18, During this decade of construction, a large flood on the Salt River delayed work at the dam site and severely damaged the Arizona Dam, which was located three quarters of a mile below the confluence of the Salt and Verde rivers. The Arizona Dam, built between and diverted water from the Salt River into the Arizona Canal. After the April flood damaged the diversion structure that delivered water to the northside of the river, landowners installed pumps at the head of the Arizona Canal to continue to provide irrigation water to their lands.
14 The flood caused the Association to request the federal government to acquire the northside canal system and construct a new diversion dam. The government purchased the northside canals from Porter Steele in for The northside canal system consisted of the Arizona, Salt River Valley, Grand, Maricopa, and old Crosscut canals and their appurtenant works. On May 15, the USRS took control of operating and maintaining the northside canal system. The USRS constructed the Granite Reef 11 Smith, Magnificent Experiment, William D. Rowley, The Bureau of Reclamation: Origins and Growth in (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 12 Newlands Act of Public Law Cong., 1st sess.
(June 17, Smith, Magnificent Experiment, Parker, Report of Executive Committee of Water Storage Conference Committee, October 2, SRP Research Archives. 13 Roosevelt Dam was also referred to as the Salt River Dam or the Tonto Dam site during its construction. In Roosevelt Dam was renamed to Theodore Roosevelt Dam. For the purposes of this report it will be referred to as Roosevelt Dam. 14 Donald C. Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, (HAER No. AZ-6, FRASERdesign, 57; Shelly C. Dudley, Arizona Canal, (HAER No. AZ-19, Salt River Project, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 8) Diversion Dam from to which diverted water to both the northside and southside canals.
15 Old Crosscut Canal The old Crosscut Canal was originally constructed between to as part of the Arizona Improvement Company s effort to consolidate the northside canal system. The canal was designed for improved distribution of water. The canal saved water that would have otherwise been lost through seepage in the long stretch of river bed between the Arizona and Joint Head dams. 16 The old Crosscut Canal was built at the mile of the Arizona Canal. The four mile long canal ran approximately due south until it spilled into the Grand Canal several miles west of the Grand s head. The old Crosscut Canal had a bed width of and a capacity of miner s inches (mi).
The canal also had twenty-three checks or falls of varying heights from to The total fall from the Arizona Canal to the Grand Canal through the length of the old Crosscut was which made it attractive for hydropower development. 17 The prospect of using the old Crosscut for power development was never realized due to a combination of financial and natural set-backs. In the Arizona Improvement Company, owner of the Arizona Canal, filed for bankruptcy and the old Crosscut was acquired by the Arizona Water Company. The extended drought, between and left little water in the Arizona Canal because of a build-up of sand and debris. The flood destroyed the Arizona Dam and essentially ended the use of the old Crosscut as an irrigation canal.
The federal government acquired the old Crosscut in as part of a deal to purchase the entire northside canal system. The federal government owning the northside canal system resulted in a change in management practices with power development becoming an increasing focus. The old Crosscut retained its potential for hydropower development, but it was soon overshadowed by new plans to increase the power production of the Association. 18 15 U.S. Reclamation Service, Sixth Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, (Washington Government Printing Office, 66; Shelly C. Dudley, Arizona Canal (HAER No. AZ-19, Salt River Project, 29. 16 Joint Head Dam was originally constructed in to allow flows from the Salt River to be diverted into the Maricopa and Salt River Valley Canals.
It was one of the earliest attempts to consolidate the canals on the north side of the Salt River. [see James LaBar and Shelly Dudley, Historical Documentation of the Joint Head Dam and Joint Head Canal, (Phoenix: Valley Metro Rail, 17 Fred Andersen, Old Crosscut Canal (HAER No. AZ-21, Salt River Project, 4; Dudley, Arizona Canal, 27. 18 Andersen Old Crosscut, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 9) The Agreement and Hydropower Development The power component of SRP was conceived initially as only a construction necessity for Roosevelt Dam, but the USRS and the Association quickly began developing this water byproduct into an integral aspect of federal reclamation.
Since the Tonto dam site was in a remote area, barren of fuel for the production of steam power, the most efficient means of providing electricity was the development of water power at the dam. Explorations of future power consumption were focused on securing existing underground water supplies and developing additional ones through pumping. These early investigations culminated in two power contracts for the Association. The first was with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGE) of Phoenix, 19 and the second was with the Gila River Indian Reservation.
Since PGE had two hydroelectric power plants on the Arizona Canal and the right to use all the water in them for power generation, the federal government decided it was better to satisfy this obligation with Roosevelt power in order to increase canal efficiency for irrigation. The contract with the Gila River Indian Reservation provided pumping power for the irrigation of acres on the reservation, in exchange for monetary support to cover operation and maintenance costs. 20 Even before the Association could satisfy these power contracts, the USRS realized the benefits hydropower resources could provide federal reclamation.
Besides aiding in the construction of Roosevelt Dam and augmenting surface water supplies in the Valley through pumping, revenues derived from power resources could be used to financially bolster the federal reclamation fund. On April 16, Congress amended the National Reclamation Act to allow federal reclamation projects to develop power for irrigation with surplus power revenues going towards a project s credit.
The act stated, Whenever a development of power is necessary for the irrigation of lands, under any project undertaken under the reclamation act, or an opportunity is afforded for the development of power under any such project, the Secretary of Interior is authorized to lease for a period not exceeding ten years any surplus power or power privilege, and the money derived from such leases shall be covered into the reclamation fund and be placed to the credit of the project from which such power is derived... 21 Power revenues also could be used to reinvest into the water and power facilities of reclamation projects.
The concept for the Crosscut Canal was one of the first examples of additional hydropower being a critical part of In Louis Hill, USRS supervising engineer, made a presentation to the Association s Board of Governors and Council about 19 The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company of Phoenix has no relation to PGE of California. 20 Frank V. Martos and Jerry D. Smith, History of SRP s Electric System, SRP Research Archives, Fred Andersen and Carol Noland, Crosscut Hydro Plant (HAER No. AZ-30), Salt River Project, 4; Dudley, Arizona Canal, 21 Town Sites and Power Development Act, U.S. Statutes at Large sec. 5 34. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 10) the impending Gila River Indian Reservation contract and its benefits.
He stated, that without more money it would be impossible to construct the Power Cross-cut Canal on the north side of the river for a great many years. In regards to how much power could be developed at various sites within Hill projected that, Roosevelt would deliver approximately horsepower; the water from the reservoir, when above the 90-foot level, about horsepower; the powerhouse on the Crosscut Canal near Scottsdale [which would be built in the future], from to horsepower, and the Crosscut south of the river about horsepower. 22 The Association affirmed the recommendation of Hill and agreed that power revenues would be an important part of paying back the government.
On January 10, the Board passed a resolution that stated, It is the sense of this board that all power developed and generated by works connected with the over and above the demands therefore for the purposes of the Association, be leased by the government upon the best possible terms, having due regard always for the best advantage that may accrue to this Association and people of this Valley. 23 The Association realized that additional hydropower facilities could be used to reduce USRS construction costs. The only question was how to fund the additional hydropower facilities. During an October meeting, Judge Joseph Kibbey, John P. Orme, and Joseph Cope proposed a plan based on Hill s suggestions.
24 The plan consisted of building additional power plants in order to sell electricity with the profits being used to reduce the costs of constructing Roosevelt and Granite Reef Diversion dams and in acquiring and improving the canal systems. At the same time the Board of Governors wanted to request additional federal funds for more power plants, they also were petitioning the Secretary of the Interior to extend the period of repayment after SRP was deemed complete. To further complicate matters, a number of shareholders did not want to pay any amount above the original estimate of million.
The USRS construction costs were approximately $8 million in In order to diffuse the issue, Kibbey proposed, that we have the Secretary declare officially that the proposed electric power plants are a part of the project, and that the project will not be declared completed until their installment. That in the meantime the water users assess themselves for sufficient money to install these works within two or three years. 25 22 Salt River Valley Water Users Association (Association) Board of Governors, Minutes, May 6, SRP Research Archives. 23 Association, Board of Governors, Minutes, January 10, SRP Research Archives. 24 Joseph Kibbey was an Arizona Territorial judge, former Territorial governor, and legal counsel to the Association. John P.
Orme was an early Board member of the Association and later became president. Joseph Cope was an early Board member of the Association. 25 Arizona Republican, October 28, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 11) These political and financial realizations led the Association to develop a self-funded plan for the construction of additional hydropower plants. On December 6, the Association s Board of Governors, with the USRS present, had a broad conversation about the power opportunities of The Association s discussion was about assessing themselves per acre per year for two years, which would raise approximately for the construction of the Crosscut Canal and powerhouse and one or two other proposed plants. A few months later, Secretary of the Interior Richard A.
Ballinger approved the deferment of SRP s completion and the Association assessing themselves for the additional power facilities. Orme, the new Association president, also issued a statement supporting the power plants recommended by Hill. By August this plan was formed into a contract between the Association and the federal government. Within the contract, the Association agreed to: 1) Construct a Crosscut Canal and pipeline from a point one mile east of Arizona Falls on the Arizona Canal to the Grand Canal. 2) Enlarge and extend the Grand Canal approximately two miles east to meet the Crosscut Canal. 3) Erect a horsepower hydroelectric power plant at the junction of the Crosscut and Grand canals.
4) Construct a hp hydroelectric power plant at the junction of the South and Consolidated canals, with a transmission line to the Mesa switching station. 5) Replace the existing Arizona Falls hydroelectric plant with a new facility in order to generate 700 hp at the facility. 26 The contract also stated that the Association would furnish all the labor and equipment, while the USRS provided the plans, rights-of-way, and engineers to oversee the work.
The cost for all of the labor and materials within the contract was estimated at Upon completion of the listed projects, the facilities would be turned over to the federal government to become part of The Association shareholders approved the contract in a special election on July 21, and the Board levied a per acre assessment on member lands for two years. The final contract was approved on August 30, and called for all the construction to be completed within two years of the contract approval date. 27 Taking Advantage of the Drop: The Crosscut Canal The motivation for replacing the old Crosscut Canal with a new canal that could deliver water from the Arizona to Grand Canal had to do entirely with power development rather than irrigation.
The Association proposed the construction of a new canal two miles east of the old Crosscut that could produce more power by carrying water on a higher line and 26 Agreement, Association and the Secretary of the Interior, August 30, SRP Corporate Secretary s Office; Fred Andersen and Carol Noland, Crosscut Hydro Plant, 6. 27 Agreement, Association Board of Governors, Minutes, July 21, SRP Research Archives. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 12) take advantage of a drop near the Papago Buttes. This canal would transfer water through a new hydro plant before connecting with an extension to the Grand Canal.
The plan fulfilled the purposes for building the old Crosscut and was designed not to vary the water to suit the demands of power, but to vary the water to suit the delivery of the water, and to get every pound of power out of that water. 28 The same terrain that made the path of the new Crosscut well-suited for hydropower generation also presented major engineering challenges for the design and construction teams. A location survey for the canal, completed in April revealed substantial elevation changes that required engineering solutions. The first approximately of the Crosscut Canal traversed an extensive surface depression that measured below the required water surface level in the canal.
An even deeper depression existed near the Papago Buttes that required the construction of an elevated flume (see Image AZ-60-45). To complicate matters further, the ground in the area contained only a few inches of dirt with the rest consisting of hard pan and caliche that made excavation difficult. A design was needed that maintained the elevation of the canal for hydropower purposes while crossing the uneven landscape. 29 The USRS engineers and the Association s Board of Governors were undecided about the best form of design so they formulated two structures that could cross the depression in the first mile of the canal. In January plans were completed for a pressure pipe and an open, concrete lined ditch (see Image AZ-60-45).
Both designs were equal in hydraulic efficiency with a capacity of 720 cubic feet per second and a total loss of head of about four The USRS design for the pressure pipe called for the excavation of cubic yards of earth and required cubic yards of concrete. In contrast, the lined ditch required no additional excavation and instead specified cubic yards of fill to create an elevated embankment and cubic yards of concrete to line the ditch. Bids were opened for the construction of both designs on March 28, The Association settled on the concrete lined ditch for three reasons. First, in order to lessen excavation efforts a shallow type of conduit was preferred.
Second, since the proposed location of the open ditch was further east than the pressure pipe, there was no necessity to conform the right-of-way requirements to accommodate a roadway. Third, and probably most influential, the concrete lined, open ditch was approximately less expensive than the underground pressure pipe. The Grant Brothers Construction Company was awarded the winning bid on March 29, 30 28 Andersen and Noland, Crosscut, Chief Electrical Engineer, letter to Water Users Association, February 2, SRP Research Archives. 29 Fitch, letter to Newell, May 16, SRP Research Archives; Zoe Hiatt, History of the Acquisition of the Rights-of-way of Main Canals, SRP Research Archives. 30 Hill, U.S.
Reclamation Service, Comparison of Pressure Pipe and Concrete Lined Ditch on Fill for New Cross Cut Power Canal, January 22, Engineering drawing, SRP Research Archives; Hiatt, Acquisition, Andersen and Noland, Crosscut Hydro Plant, 7; Annual History, ; Fitch, letter to Newell, May 8, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 13) The next step was for the United States to acquire the necessary right-of-way for constructing the canal. The Agreement between the Association and the U.S. stated that the federal government would be responsible for providing all the rights-of-way necessary for construction of the Crosscut. In all the lands in Township One North, Range Four East, and Township Two North, Range Four East were reserved from settlement under a reclamation withdrawal.
In December lands in Section 3, Township One North, Range Four East (Sec. 3, R4E) were designated by the Secretary of the Interior as first-form reclamation lands. 31 In April the U.S.A. received a quit-claim deed for a wide right-of-way for the Crosscut through all of Sec. 34, R4E. The Association was not able to immediately attain the right-of-way for the section of the canal in Sec. 27, R4E because the owner wanted the Association to purchase eighty acres of land. The president of the Association, John Orme, appointed a committee to negotiate with the landowner, while the planning for the canal continued. 32 A survey team was employed in June to begin staking out the path of the canal in advance of the excavation teams.
The Grant Brothers began work in May on a contract that called for the excavation of yards of earth with the rate per yard being set at 13 cents for soil, 45 cents for loose rock, and 95 cents for solid rock. Excavation was completed in all of Sec. 34, R4E by May By July almost the entire stretch of canal was excavated aside from the first half mile in Sec. 27, R4E. A letter from the Project Engineer to the Director of USRS on July 3, reported that the excavation work would be completed by August of that year. This did not come to pass due to a right-of-way issue that caused the line of the canal to be relocated in August The new canal path was not as desirable for construction, but followed a shorter line.
Part of the difficulty in acquiring the right-of-way was due to the fact that the land surrounding the proposed canal was highly valued for its citrus production. The Association finally agreed to purchase the W of the SW of Sec. 27, R4E, ending a construction delay that lasted for several months. The Association used the land purchased for the canal for housing workers and as a maintenance camp in subsequent years. 33 Immediately after the right of way issue was settled in November the Grant Brothers Construction Company, under the supervision of USRS engineers, commenced construction on the first half mile.
This lined section of the canal had a bottom width of and a water line depth of with a of freeboard (see Images AZ-60-4 31 First-from reclamation withdrawals are explained in Section 3 of the National Reclamation Act of June 17, which states, the Secretary of the Interior shall withdraw from public entry the lands required for any irrigation works contemplated under the provisions of this Act. 32 A.P. Davis, letter to the Secretary of the Interior, James Rudolph Garfield, December 4, SRP Research Archives; Barkley, letter to John P. Orme, June 11, SRP Research Archives. 33 Arizona Republican, July 3, Fitch, letter to Newell, May 8, SRP Research Archives; Fitch, letter to Newell, June 6, SRP Research Archives; Fitch, letter to F.H Newell, April 3, SRP Research Archives; W.A.
Farish, letter to Fitch, August 5, SRP Research Archives. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 14) and AZ-60-5). The work entailed the placement of yards of earth for the embankment and square yards of concrete lining thick (see Image AZ-60-6). The intake structure for the Crosscut Canal off of the Arizona Canal contained two double screw stem steel lift gates measuring x (see Image AZ-60-1). A hand crank and electric motor with a shaft and gear trains were installed to operate the gates. This structure required yards of concrete (see Image AZ-60-2). The first half mile of concrete-lined canal from the Arizona Canal was completed in (see Images AZ- and AZ-60-8).
34 The Crosscut Canal crossed another extensive depression approximately north of the location of the Crosscut Hydro Plant s penstocks. The depression was below canal grade at its lowest point. The crossing of this gap was accomplished with a reinforced, rectangular concrete flume measuring x x (see Images AZ- and AZ-60-18). Concrete columns mounted with transverse girders supported the flume. At each alternate column there was a tongue and groove joint extending across the structure. In order to make each expansion joint efficient and watertight, a flexible strip of copper was placed in between the joints. The construction of the flume required yards of concrete.
The Grant Brothers Construction Company began working on the flume in and it was completed in March (see Images AZ-60-19 and AZ-60- 35 The flume constructed on the Crosscut Canal was not the first to be used within SRP s system. In a power canal was built at Roosevelt Dam for the production of power during the construction of the dam. The canal utilized several different types of flumes, including a steel-reinforced concrete flume designed by USRS engineer Jack Whitney. The flume at the dam bears a strong resemblance to the one constructed as part of the Crosscut, in that it also was used to cross a surface depression. The flume and many other features of SRP s water transmission and power facilities were similar as a result of being designed by USRS engineers.
36 After the flume, the canal opened up into a forebay before entering the two penstocks of the Crosscut Hydro Plant. The forebay structure was x and was formed by two walls with sloping faces supported by buttresses (see Images AZ-60-22 and AZ-60- The east wall was built to form a spillway where flashboards could be added. The overflow water traveled into a ravine that served as a natural water way into an extension of the Grand Canal below the Crosscut Hydro Plant (see Image AZ-60-25).
Six steel gates for sediment cleanout were built in the forebay wall at intervals (see Image AZ-60- Four panel trash racks that were each long were added at the lower end of the forebay to keep debris from entering the penstocks (see Images AZ-60-24 and Image-AZ- 34 Hiatt, Acquisition, Annual History, 35 Hiatt, Acquisition, 88; Annual History, 36 David M. Introcaso, Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam (HAER No. AZ-4, Salt River Project, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 15) A sand pit with an outlet tunnel and valves was installed to permit the removal of silt and debris. The structure required cubic yards of concrete because of the lack of natural fill in the immediate area.
The materials and design of the forebay testified to the difficulty in engineering a canal over a challenging natural environment, while maintaining a sufficient head for the production of hydropower at the Crosscut Hydro Plant. 37 In addition to the canal itself the initial construction effort also included facilities to meet the transportation and agricultural needs of the area. A four-panel wood and steel truss bridge spanning was constructed at McDowell Road, which was stipulated as part of the agreement in acquiring the right-of-way. A two-panel wood and steel truss bridge was constructed over the waterway exiting the east side of the forebay.
A temporary wood bridge also was constructed southwest of the forebay at the crossing of the Tempe Road (present day Van Buren Road) and the Grand Canal. The construction of the Grand Canal extension and the Crosscut caused some damage to the Tempe Road, but provided opportunities to expand the regional transportation network. 38 The Arizona Republican reported on July 25, that [a] fine roadway has been built along the bank of the Crosscut as far as it is completed and when the canal is finished this roadway will become a part of the big boulevard system the reclamations service is developing . 39 Construction and right-of-way delays led to the Crosscut remaining unfinished by the August 30, completion date specified in the agreement.
As a result, the contract date was extended several times. The construction of the Crosscut Canal was finally completed in and the Association entered into a contract with Martin & Gillis for the construction of the Crosscut Hydro Plant in July The hydro plant was completed in December 40 The lack of laterals for agricultural uses along the Crosscut Canal is further evidence of its primary function as a power canal. As part of the contract, which transferred operational control of SRP from the federal government to the Association, an inventory of SRP facilities was conducted that identified five laterals off the Crosscut. The farm unit plats completed by the Reclamation Service in showed that most of the cultivated land was further east of the Crosscut in Sec.
27, R4E, with almost no agricultural land in Sec. 34, R4E. This was due in part to the unfavorable desert land further down the canal and the fact that the Association owned the entire west half of the southwest quarter of Sec. 27, R4E. 41 37 Hiatt, Acquisition, 88; Annual History, Annual History, 38 Fred Andersen and Carol Noland, Grand Canal (HAER No. AZ-17, Salt River Project, 17. 39 Arizona Republican, July 25, 40 Andersen and Noland, Crosscut Hydro Plant, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 16) Papago Park The elevation changes and desert landscape that complicated the engineering of the Crosscut Canal also contributed to the preservation of the land as a national monument.
The effort to designate Papago Park as a national monument began shortly after statehood in with the efforts of the City of Phoenix and Maricopa Board of Trade. The abundance of desert plant life and impressive scenery were used as justification for the park s designation, but this reasoning did not convince the General Land Office which wrote to Arizona Senator Carl Hayden that, .topographical conditions seem to offer nothing but scenery, and the National Monument Act of June 8, does not provide for reservation of public land for the purpose of protecting scenery.
After supplying additional evidence of the biodiversity of the land the final determination to establish the Papago Saguaro National Monument was made by the Presidential Proclamation of Woodrow Wilson on January 31, The designation of the park as a national monument did not stop the commercial and settlement pressures that challenged the preservation of the land. 42 The acres that comprised the national monument included land where the Crosscut Canal passed through in Sec. 34, R4E and Secs. 3 and 10, R4E. The designation of the land did not change significantly the operation of the canal or the completion of the hydropower plant, which was located just outside the monument boundaries. In the local citizens and municipalities continued to propose uses for the land within the monument.
In the Arizona Fish and Game Commission started lobbying the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior to allow the construction of a bass fish hatchery within the monument boundaries in Secs. 4 and 9, R4E. The fishery planned to take water from the Crosscut Canal to fill several ponds. In making his recommendation on whether to approve the fishery Arno B. Cammerer, Assistant Director of stated, there is an irrigation canal, and two power transmission lines that traverse the monument. My thought is that the Papago Saguaro is not a monument of great value and could well be turned over to the State. 43 Political pressure from Senator Carl Hayden, along with the support of the local civic groups, culminated in a bill to abolish the park s national monument status.
However, Senator Hayden delayed passage of the bill after SRP General Superintendent Cragin asked him to stop action on the measure until the Crosscut right-of-way issues 41 Andersen and Noland, Crosscut, 7; U.S. Reclamation Service, Farm Unit Plat, Township Two North, Range Four East, SRP Research Archives. 42 Mike Miller, The Short-Lived Papago Saguaro National Monument Arizona Capitol Times, June 21, 43 Jason H.Gart, Papago Park: A History of Hole-in-the-Rock From to Pueblo Grande Museum Occasional Papers No. 1, City of Phoenix, Parks, Recreation and Library Department, 41; Bureau of Land Management, Land Patent Database, website, PatentSearch, (accessed on July 25, U.S.
Reclamation Service, Farm Unit Plat, Township One North, Range Four East SRP Research Archives; Gart, Papago Park, 72. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 17) were resolved. SRP was concerned that the land s changing ownership would inhibit the operation and maintenance of the Crosscut. Hayden removed the bill and reissued it in the next congressional session where it passed on April 7, Federal, state and local authorities soon began discussion on how to best use the newly available land alongside the Crosscut Canal. 44 In the Association purchased eighty-five acres of land along the Crosscut as part of the federal government transferring ownership to the state. The transfer included land for a labor camp located in Sec.
27, R4E, and a right-of-way that extended on both sides of the canal for its entire length. The purchase price was set at per acre, and in the Association acquired fifty-four additional acres, and transferred twenty acres to the state. That same year the Arizona Fish and Game Commission started construction of the Hunt Bass Fisheries located on 200 acres to the west of the canal in Papago Park. In March the Association s Board of Governors approved the delivery of 200 acre feet (af) of water to supply the fisheries at the cost of per acre foot. In August, the Arizona Game Warden Joyner requested the allotment of 250 af for the first year in order to increase the facilities from four to six ponds.
The Board approved Joyner s request in October allowing the hatchery to expand its operations to include six ponds, with the future yearly allotment being set at 200 af (see Image AZ-60-37). 45 The development of Papago Park for a variety of uses continued in the and In SRP was granted eight acres of land previously a part of the monument in Sec. 9, R4E for the an administrative building. A proposed master plan by the City of Phoenix called for a variety of recreational and entertainment facilities including: boating and swimming ponds, archery range, golf course, zoo, botanical gardens and walking paths. The City of Phoenix purchased over acres of park land in from the state, and during the developed the recreational facilities within the park and opened it up for public use.
The operation and maintenance of the canal continued despite the changing uses of the landscape surrounding it. 46 Residents and Workers along the Crosscut Canal The operation and maintenance of SRP s water transmission system required a large amount of manual labor. During the twentieth century, the need for workers to operate and maintain the canal structures was satisfied through a number of different sources. The different groups, who worked on the SRP system, included native migrant workers, members of the Civilian Conservation Corps and prisoners of war (POW) from Italy and Germany. The Crosscut Canal figured prominently in this history, both as a 44 Ibid, 76.
45 Association Board of Governors, Minutes, October 3, SRP Research Archives; Joyner, letter to Cragin, August 23, SRP Research Archives. 46 Gart, Papago Park, City of Phoenix Planning Commission, Papago Park: A Proposed Plan, December CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 18) structure maintained by these different groups, and as the location for camps that housed the workers. The central location of the Crosscut within the SRP system, and the availability of government and SRP-owned land along the canal right-of-way, made it a fitting place to construct labor and prison camps. The history of these camps, and the residents impact on the canal and SRP s system, provides an important context for documenting the evolution of the Crosscut Canal.
Yaqui Workers and the Northside Camp Yaqui Indians have constituted a vital part of the SRP workforce from the up to the present day. Their relationship to the Crosscut Canal was linked directly to the camp they lived in along the canal bank, and the maintenance work they conducted throughout the SRP system. Increasing American hostility towards immigration in the led to greater restrictions on Mexican migrants, and required SRP to look for other sources to satisfy its labor demand. The Yaqui Indians of Sonora, Mexico were persecuted by the Porfirio Diaz government during the Mexican Revolution, and fled the country as part of a larger migration of Mexican nationals to the U.S.
in the and Yaquis provided an ideal labor force because of their previous experience in maintaining the canals of their homeland in the Yaqui River Valley in Mexico. Between and Lee Webb, an Association construction and maintenance supervisor, visited Sonora on numerous occasions to recruit Yaquis to work on the SRP system. The Association would come to rely heavily on Yaqui laborers, and in the process became their primary employer. 47 In December the Association s Board of Governors passed a resolution which authorized the construction of camps for Yaqui maintenance crews and their families. Two camps were established, with the camp along the Crosscut Canal being located in Sec. 27, R4E, on the land purchased as part of the original construction right-of- way.
Tents and temporary shelters were built, and Yaqui residents used water from the Crosscut Canal in lieu of running water. Residents referred to the camp as Eskatel or Camp Viejo, while SRP called it the Northside Camp. Five maintenance crews were based out of Northside, with workers laboring throughout the SRP system. A maintenance yard also was located close to the camp at Street and Thomas Road on the east side of the Crosscut Canal. All the maintenance crews for the northside canal system were based out of this location. 48 The advent of World War II created another labor crunch for the Association and made the labor of Yaqui workers even more vital.
In response to demands by Yaqui workers for 47 Enedina Flores, Inez Martinez Garcia and Jose Garcia et al., The Yaquis of Scottsdale, Arizona: Family, Indomitable Spirit, Generosity, (Scottsdale: Publication of Concerned Citizens for Community Health, 97; Edward Spicer, The Yaquis: A Cultural History (Tucson: University of Arizona, Leah S. Glaser, Working for Community: The Yaqui Indians at the Salt River Project Journal of Arizona History 37, no. 4 48 Flores et al., Yaquis, 18, 28, 52, 93; Glaser, Working for Community, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 19) more adequate living facilities, the Association built a new camp north of the original at Street and Osborn Road in November (see Image AZ-60-46).
Some Yaquis who did not work for the Association lived on 15 acres east of the Crosscut Canal and south of Thomas Road, paying money directly to the landowner. In March the Association finished fifty two-room houses and constructed a Catholic Church. In July, the Association completed a domestic water system. These block units had their own electricity, and a pump and water pipe ran between two houses. Yaquis continued to take advantage of the Crosscut Canal and swam at an area near Osborn Road (see Image AZ- 49 Changes occurred in the that affected the Northside Camp.
Since the camp was not up to Maricopa County of Health Department code, the Association Board of Governors on March 20, authorized the discontinuation of camp housing by August 1, Yaqui families moved to Guadalupe, some to Vista del Camino, a Yaqui community near McDowell Road and the Indian Bend Wash, and others moved to communities throughout the Valley. Yaqui workers had a significant impact on the SRP system, and members of some of the families that lived at the Northside Camp continue to work at SRP today. 50 Civilian Conservation Corps In an effort to supplement its workforce during the Depression, SRP contracted with the Civilian Conservation Corps to conduct maintenance and construction work on the canal system.
Two CCC camps were established in the Salt River Valley in close proximity to the Crosscut Canal. The National Park Service established the first camp, Camp SP-5A (later renamed west of the Crosscut Canal and north of McDowell Road in The camp was located within the west half of Sec. 34, R4E. Company 874 was assigned to the new camp and began their work by constructing their own camp facilities. These young men, between the ages of completed various projects within Papago Park, including the construction of a boathouse for the Hunt Bass Fishery and an open air theater in the southeast quarter of Sec. 4, R2E. Company which consisted of World War I veterans, replaced Company 874 and continued to beautify the park with such amenities as grills, fireplaces, and drinking fountains.
51 49 Glaser, Working for Community, Flores et al., Yaquis, 40, 44, 91; SRP Research Archives, Water Resource Operation, Engineering Department Reports, November and July 50 Association Board of Directors, Minutes, March 20, Glaser, Working for Community, Flores at al., Yaquis, 40, 44, 91. 51 Christine Pfaff, The Bureau of Reclamation and the Civilian Conservation Corps: A Legacy Revealed (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center, 4, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 20) In September the Association s Board of Governors decided to lease ten acres within the western half of Sec. 3, R4E to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 52 for the second CCC camp in the Valley The camp was along the east side of the Crosscut Canal and south of McDowell Road (see Image AZ-60-12).
Although the location of the camps were separated by the Crosscut Canal, their collective work centered on the replacement and betterment of a wide variety of irrigation structures. A pipe manufacturing operation was housed at that included: an office building, adobe warehouse for cement storage, blacksmith shop, concrete pipe casting shed, and a loading pit for concrete pipe. This nearly self-sustaining operation allowed CCC workers to make concrete piping directly on site, take the materials to the construction site, and install the products into SRP s canal system. 53 The location of the CCC camp in a central part of the Valley, along the banks of the Crosscut Canal, allowed workers to adequately attend to the needs of SRP s system.
The CCC crews typically completed projects including: building fences, creating trails for trucks, constructing levees or dykes, clearing sublaterals, lining and piping waterways, or upgrading water control structures with stone masonry or rubble lining. In less than three years, men from and worked with the Association and for the Valley community completing over 700 separate jobs.
The CCC also was positioned to respond to emergency operations, such as the emergency repairs to an section of the Arizona Canal and flood damage to the Eastern Canal in 54 While many saw the overall benefits of the CCC program, others claimed the government created unfair competition by allowing larger companies or organizations the opportunity to profit from less expensive CCC labor as opposed to paying local workers. The purpose of the CCC projects was to make improvements to a system in need of repair due to the constraints of the Depression.
The Bureau of Reclamation discontinued the CCC projects with the Association on March 30, The federal government moved the materials and equipment from both camps to other programs or disposed of it in June 55 WWII POW Escape During World War II the Crosscut Canal was next to the U.S. War Department s Camp Papago Park, a German prisoner of war camp. The Allies held three million POW s during the war, and were kept in the continental United States. Camp Papago Park was one of 155 large POW camps operated in the U.S. The War Department 52 The U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS) was renamed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in 53 Association Board of Governors, Minutes, September 10, SRP Research Archives; U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Construction by Civilian Conservation Corps Camps and Salt River Project, Phoenix, Arizona, SRP Research Archives, 1. 54 Annual History, 5; Annual History, 8. 55 John C. Page, letter to James J. McEntee, February 13, SRP Research Archives; Gart, Papago Park, Annual History, 1. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 21) requisitioned all of Papago Park, except the Desert Botanical Garden, picnic grounds, and Hunt Bass Hatchery, between and for the POW facility. Camp Papago Park s first prisoners were primarily Italians, and the processing of detainees began in October The camp was re-designated in January as a German POW camp. By March there were approximately detainees at the camp, with the largest portion of prisoners from the German Navy.
56 Camp Papago Park was located in the northeast section of Papago Park to the west of the Crosscut Canal. The boundaries of the camp were, approximately, from Thomas to McDowell roads and the Crosscut Canal to Street. With the support of two fences and more than a dozen guard towers, the Crosscut Canal served as a natural perimeter for the camp. The POW camp utilized the existing training barracks that the U.S. Army constructed in By the fighting had turned in the Allies favor and POW camps needed to enlarge their facilities. The War Department contracted with the Kings and McKee Construction Company to build fourteen new structures that formed the nucleus of the enlarged camp.
The camp contained five prisoner compounds, a hospital area, an officers recreation area, and an enlisted men s recreation area. In addition to the POWs, three hundred American civilian and military personnel also resided at the camp to operate and maintain the facility. 57 The Crosscut Canal also served as a swimming facility for Camp Papago. In George Barber, Lieutenant Colonel and Commanding Officer at Camp Papago, requested permission from the Association to install temporary duck boards, diving platforms, steps, ladders, and benches in an area fifty yards along the canal bank about three quarters of a mile south of Thomas Road and east of the camp.
The improvements were for the convenience of the bathers, military personnel and prisoners, so they would not get muddy when they emerged from the water. The Association had no objection to the facilities as long as the installations were temporary, removed after each swimming period, and there was no liability to the Association. A year later, Camp Papago upgraded the Crosscut Canal swimming hole to a swimming pool that used water from the canal. The Association s Board of Governors approved this permit on May 23, The camp built a swimming pool and bath house and installed a water pump and filters adjacent west of the Crosscut Canal in order to easily use the water from the canal.
58 Besides the Crosscut Canal being part of Camp Papago as a natural perimeter and swimming facility, the canal had a role in the largest escape from a U.S. POW camp. On the night of December 23, twenty-five prisoners used a tunnel and temporarily escaped from Camp Papago. The prisoners dug a tunnel that was long and exited on the bank of the Crosscut Canal. A few of the prisoners crammed wood, canvas, and tar 56 Gart, Papago Park, 57 Ibid, 58 Paxton, letter to George Barber, June 6, SRP Research Archives; Lawson, letter to Vence T. Paynich, May 15, SRP Research Archives; SRP Water Engineering Files; Phoenix New Times, Flight From Phoenix, March 8, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 22) through the tunnel to build a raft.
Their plan was to float down the Crosscut Canal to the Salt River, and then along the Gila River to the Colorado River and into the Gulf of California to Mexico. There scheme was foiled quickly when they found the Gila River a series of puddles instead of flowing body of water.
Most of the prisoners turned themselves in, and all of the prisoners were recaptured within Arizona by the end of January 59 Changes to the Crosscut Canal A major enlargement of the Crosscut forebay was undertaken in December During this same time period a number of SRP s power generating facilities were in the processing of switching from twenty-five cycle to sixty cycle generation, which resulted in a power increase of nearly As part of this conversion at the Crosscut Hydro Plant, a larger forebay was needed on the Crosscut Canal to remove silt and debris. Removing the silt reduced the amount of wear on the plant s water wheel and helped prevent damage that could cause the generating station to go off-line.
The gravity dam, approximately x created a 20 af desilting basin east of the existing forebay (see Image AZ-60-27). The dam was designed with wide sections hollowed out with deep solid buttresses in between (see Image AZ-60-28). Contraction joints with copper seals were placed in between the monolithic piers, and horizontal bars of 1'' reinforced steel were placed on centers across the thin sections. The entire structure required approximately cubic yards of concrete (see Image AZ-60-29). The dam was considered a gravity dam due to the heavy horizontal piers with expanded upstream ends acting as corbels and meeting in the center. 60 Several other designs were considered besides the dam that was constructed.
Alternative designs included: a multiple thin arch dam, an Ambursen type dam that employed a slab and buttress structure with a flat upstream face, and an earth and rock fill held together by a concrete face. The concrete face dam was the most inexpensive, over less than the one finally constructed, but the final design was chosen by USBR architect Raymond A. Hill because, it was better adapted to construction by Association forces. In addition to the dam, the Association installed three hand-operated radial gates in the canal and three more in the entrance to the new forebay (see Image AZ-60-30). The iron sluice gates in the east wall of the old forebay were removed and replaced with 3' x 6' concrete filler sections and wooden flap gates.
61 Several modifications were made to the Crosscut in the and as part of an effort to improve the efficiency of the canal and reduce water loss. In radial gates 59 John Hammond Moore, The Faustball Tunnel (New York: Random House, Arizona Republic, POW Camp Paradise Lost for Germans, April 1, 60 Annual History, Annual History, 61 Annual History, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 23) were installed at Lateral 2.0 and 3.0 of the Crosscut (see Images AZ-60-10, AZ-60-11, AZ-60-36 and AZ-60-48). In the Crosscut was lined with linear feet of concrete and pneumatically applied mortar as part of the Rehabilitation and Betterment program. Federal legislation created the R&B program in to provide low interest loans to federal reclamation projects to improve their irrigation structures.
SRP utilized this program through to pipe and line canals, install gates, and improve the distribution system. 62 In SRP petitioned the USBR for funds through the R&B program to have Motorola design remote controlled electrical equipment to operate canal gates. The USBR quickly approved the request, but due to technical problems and the rapid development of electrical components Motorola abandoned the technology and SRP installed the new equipment at only one site. As computers became more powerful and labor prices and traffic increased with Phoenix s rapid growth in the SRP solicited bids for a supervisory control system utilizing a computer to remotely control gates.
The bid called for the installation of the equipment on sites along the Crosscut Canal, including the headgates off the Arizona Canal, the forebay, and several laterals. The contract was awarded to Gulton Industries Inc. in The headgates for the Crosscut were scheduled for replacement as part of the fourth phase of the initial installation. 63 SRP engineers constructed a model along the Crosscut Canal in preparation for the installation of a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. SCADA is a multifaceted computer-based network that allows SRP to remotely control and monitor the entire water transmission and distribution system.
The model was used to understand the canal s flow regime and specifically gauge how the new radial gates, scheduled for installation, would affect the flow of water. The original headgates for the Crosscut Canal utilized vertical gates that slid up and down instead of the radial gates commonly used throughout SRP s system. The water flow for the Crosscut Canal exited the Arizona Canal at a right angle, which created an unusual line of flow that was difficult to calibrate. A project engineer wrote that, through this study, we hope to find ways to alter the gate arrangement so the flow will be more efficient and that calibration will be easier. 64 A model of the headgates for the Crosscut was constructed north of Thomas Road about thirty feet east of the canal.
Water was taken from the Crosscut and flowed through the model, which replicated the exact features of the Arizona and Crosscut canals, and 62 Unequaled Performances, Current, April p. 6; Continuing Water-Saving Program, Current, Jan./Feb. p. C.A. Pugh, Assistant Regional Director, letter to USBR Regional Director, SRP Research Archives; Jay C. Ziemann, The Modernization of the Salt River Project: The Impact of the Rehabilitation and Betterment Program (Master s Thesis, Arizona State University, iii-iv.
63 Supervisory Control and Telemetry System for Irrigation Canals: Specifications, Bid and Contract, SRP Research Archives; Current, Computer Controlled Canals, April 12; Supervisory Control: An Advanced Water Control System (Phoenix: Salt River Project, 64 Current, Model Building on a Grand Scale, July-August 14. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 24) deposited the water back into the Crosscut (see Image AZ-60-3). The radial gates at the head of the Crosscut Canal were intended to operate under free flow conditions, which reached a maximum discharge of Due in part to the information gained from the modeling efforts, a design for radial gates was finalized in and was installed in (see Images AZ-60-32, AZ-60-33 and AZ-60-47).
65 The radial gates on the east end of the forebay were removed in due to erosion and leaking, and because new check structures constructed upstream as part of the Tempe Water Treatment Plant made them unnecessary to control the flow into the forebay (see Images AZ-60-42 and AZ-60-43). The section of the Crosscut Canal from the flume to the forebay was lined in with of rubberized asphalt canal lining. Later that year several structural problems were observed in the forebay, including seepage through the dam and cracks in two end buttresses on the west side of the forebay dam. The cracks in the dam were repaired by installing a combination of steel plates, dowels, epoxy injection, and patching the surface with a polymer modified concrete.
66 The growth of the Phoenix metro area necessitated the expansion of roads that crossed over the Crosscut Canal. In residents in the City of Scottsdale voted to approve a plan to extend Street from Thomas Road to Indian School Road along the east side of the Crosscut Canal. The project included the construction of a new bridge over the Crosscut at Street and Thomas Road, as well as the relocation of the radial gate structure located to the north of the proposed bridge. SRP granted an easement through Sec. 27, R4E for the road, and the City of Scottsdale constructed the project in and 67 Tempe Water Treatment Plant On January 1, the City of Tempe entered into a domestic water agreement with SRP to deliver the water allotments for project lands within their municipal boundaries to the city.
The agreement allowed the City to divert water from SRP canals and laterals at selected sites including one on the Crosscut Canal. On July 14, the city and SRP signed an agreement for the installation and operation of canal diversion facilities on the 65 Memorandum, Sands to McQueen, Head of the Grand Canal, August 29, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives; Zimbelman, Hydraulic Model Study Grand Canal Headworks, June 23, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives; Memorandum, Andrews to McQueen, Supplementary Headgate Study-Grand Canal, August 28, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives.
66 Memorandum, Ester to Larchich Forebay Gates ADC Pond, Memorandum, Powers to Project File, May 17, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives; Field Investigation of Crosscut Power Plant Sluicing Forebay Dam, December 21, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives; Memorandum, Patel to Bottolfson, November 21, Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives. 67 SRP Land Department, Briefing Paper: City of Scottsdale Street Improvement Project, SRP Research Archives. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 25) Crosscut. SRP was responsible for constructing the diversion that sent water to a new treatment plant to be located in Papago Park.
Under the terms of the agreement SRP agreed to install a check and diversion structure in the Crosscut Canal and a concrete flume with a capacity of at least 62 The city covered all the construction costs in addition to a maintenance fee for the continued upkeep of the facilities by 68 Construction of the diversion structure for the water treatment plant began in October The new radial gates in the Crosscut Canal were located approximately upstream from the flume to the treatment plant. The flume extended approximately 0'' from the Crosscut Canal to the intake structure for the water treatment facility (see Images AZ-60-40 and AZ-60-41). The City of Tempe paid for the radial gate structure and the full cost of the flume connecting to the treatment plant.
The work for the treatment plant also included instrumentation for the developing SCADA system (see Image AZ-60-39). Taking into account the potential for future growth and the subsequent rise in demand for water, the agreement between SRP and the City allowed for a flume capacity of 62 while the Tempe Water Treatment Plant was designed with a capacity of only 69 As part of the work for the Tempe Water Treatment Plant, a new demossing structure was installed on the Crosscut Canal. SRP also installed square feet of gunite to line the canal and tie into the new demossing structure. The demossing structure included three bar screens and two radial gates, and was the first of its kind installed on any SRP canal (see Image AZ-60-15).
The trash racks on the demossing structure functioned automatically and included a silt conveyor that lifted debris from the canal and deposited it on the bank. The installation of the demossing equipment also required new mechanisms to control the flow of water through the gate. A differential float control device was designed to manage the silting screens. The device automatically started when an accumulation of debris caused a differential between the upstream and downstream side of the screens. A conveyor then removed the trash, and the device returned to normal operation. The installation of the new demossing structure was completed in and shortly after a similar device was installed on the South Canal.
70 Work on the new facilities continued for the rest of the year, though construction was delayed temporarily due to rain and the fact that excavation of solid rock was required. Construction finished on the Tempe Water Treatment Plant in December with the City of Tempe formally dedicating the facility on February 11, (see Image AZ-60- 68 Domestic Water Agreement, Association and the City of Tempe, January 1, SRP Corporate Secretary s Office; Agreement for Installation and Operation of Canal Diversion Facilities, Association and the City of Tempe, July 14, SRP Corporate Secretary s Office. 69 Annual Report, 16; Mark E. Oasis in the Valley: The Story of Water in Tempe (Tempe: Tempe Water Utilities Department, 40. 70 Robert Earll and Ray Pristo, Differential Float Control U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Operation and Maintenance Bulletin 71 (Jan.-March Current, The Way the Goose Bloweth, January 21; Annual Report, 13. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 26) The plant delivered 3.1 billion gallons of water during its first year of operation. The plant was designed with a twenty million gallon per day capacity. The plant was later expanded to forty mgd in and then fifty mgd in In work began on another project that would raise the capacity to eighty The Crosscut Canal required no additional expansion despite the rise in plant capacity, but SRP modernized the trash racks upstream to the plant s diversion structures (see Image AZ-60-38). The plant was later renamed as the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant in honor of a longtime water department employee.
71 Tempe Town Lake Architecture and design students at Arizona State University in conceived of Tempe Town Lake as a portion of the Rio Salado Project, which consisted of 17 miles of multi- use development along the Salt River channel. The riverbed that had remained dry for several decades, except in times of high water, would be refilled as part of a larger plan to implement flood control measures within the Valley. The Rio Salado Project was associated with Plan 6, a larger water storage plan that included expansion of Roosevelt Dam, and the enlargement or construction of new dams on the Verde River.
The Rio Salado Project required the coordination of several Valley cities, and financial and political considerations caused difficulties in trying to implement the complex design for the Salt River channel. 72 In the Tempe began exploring the possibility of implementing their portion of the Rio Salado plan. After several studies and improvements to the land near the Salt River in Tempe and the Papago Park area, a request for bids to construct the Rio Salado Master Plan in Tempe was sent out on March 19, A critical component of the project was the supply of water and the operation of the constructed lake. In SRP amended the city s joint water delivery and use agreement to allow for the delivery of water through the SRP canal system to the new lake.
The city would purchase water from the Central Arizona Project and exchange that water with SRP in return for deliveries through the SRP system via the Crosscut Canal. In SRP also entered into an agreement to operate and maintain the lake facility, which included the two dams on each end and pumps that reclaimed seepage and returned the water to the lake. The initial delivery of af of water for Town Lake was released from Lateral 4.6 on the Crosscut in June and July (see Image AZ-60-31). The lake officially was declared full on July 14, and opened later that year. A number of SRP and City of Tempe facilities were specifically designed and constructed in order to transmit the water from the Crosscut Canal to the lake.
73 71 Oasis, Tempe Daily News, December 26, 72 Robert Barrett, The Rio Salado Dream Arizona Magazine (10 Feb. 10; Mary A.M. Gindhart, The Debate Over Funding Plan 6 in Arizona Waterline ed. Athia L. Hardt (Phoenix: Salt River Project, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 27) The water for Tempe Town Lake leaves the Crosscut Canal between buttress five and six of the forebay dam at Lateral before traveling down the natural ravine waste way constructed as part of the original canal design (see Image AZ-60-44). The ditch, located east of the penstocks for the Crosscut Hydro facility, meanders southwesterly underneath Van Buren Road until it reaches a turnout structure in the northern portion of the southeast quarter of Sec. 9, R4E.
A weir at the turnout structure measures the amount of water delivered. The water then enters a City of Tempe pipeline and travels along the west side of Mill Avenue to the corner of Mill Avenue and Curry Road. The pipeline connects to an existing city storm drain that delivers the water to the north side of the lake. The use of new and existing facilities for the delivery of water demonstrates the changing function of the Crosscut Canal within an urban environment. 74 White Amur The challenge of controlling aquatic weed growth in the canal has existed within SRP s system since its inception. The introduction of fish that eat canal vegetation is one of the methods that was devised to alleviate the problem.
The white amur is a fish that eats more than its weight in water vegetation every day. In as part of a pilot program for weed control, over white amur were introduced into portions of the Tempe and Crosscut canals. The white amur proved to be an effective form of weed control that minimized the use of chemical treatment in the canals. 75 The pilot program was expanded in the early to include other SRP canals. The Crosscut Canal was used as a stocking pond for raising the white amur in addition to using the fish for weed control. SRP began a pilot project to grow the white amur in August after deciding that money could be saved by not ordering the full-size fish, which were twice the cost of the smaller amur.
In order to raise the fish in the canal, SRP s special permit required that the canal be a closed system. The 1'' grates on the Crosscut Canal provided a closed system and allowed SRP to proceed with the pilot project. SRP purchased white amur that were 8'' to in length and placed them in the Crosscut Canal, where they stayed for approximately a year. Once grown to a minimum head width, the Amur were stocked throughout the SRP canal system. In of the smaller white amur were stocked in the Crosscut Canal.
By the use of the Crosscut Canal for raising amur was discontinued because of the extensive time 73 Carrie Sears Bell, The Rio Salado Story, Phoenix Magazine, November Water Transmission Supplement Agreement, Association and the City of Tempe, May 5, SRP Water Rights & Contracts Archive; Rio Salado Town Lake Operation and Maintenance Agreement, Association and the City of Tempe, November 19, SRP Water Rights & Contracts Archive; City of Tempe, Town Lake History website, (accessed July 25, 74 Raymond Hill, letter to Neiswander, January 12, SRP Research Archives. 75 Brian Moorhead, Feasibility Evaluation of a White Amur Growout Area, November Water Engineering Files, SRP Research Archives. CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 28) required to measure the fish and transfer them to other canals.
SRP currently orders full- size white amur (at least head size) and continues to use the fish to control weed growth throughout the canal system. 76 Recreation along the Canal In the early SRP employees began a drive to establish a recreational facility for employees and families. This effort culminated in the creation of the Salt River Project Employees Recreational Association (PERA) in December The Association s Board of Governors agreed to match the membership dues of PERA and pledged advance money to help in the construction of a recreational facility. The Board of Governors offered an eighty acre parcel of unirrigated land along the right-of-way of the Crosscut Canal in the western half of Sec. 3, R4E.
The Association acquired the right to purchase the land under the act which abolished the Papago Saguaro National Monument in April One of the first recreational facilities to be constructed at the PERA club was a swimming pool (see Images AZ-60-14). In order to save money and provide a consistent source of water, SRP engineers designed a system that received water from an underground well, which was then circulated through the pool and deposited into the Crosscut Canal. The SRP employee newsletter reported, all this took place in and none of the enthusiastic, visionary workers paused in his weekend labors until a natural ravine had been transformed into a swimming pool 77 As health awareness grew in the the PERA free-flow system was replaced with a closed, chemically maintained facility.
78 As the urban area increased along SRP s canal system the need to provide for recreational and multiuse activities along the canals became more apparent. The Crosscut Canal, because of its proximity to Papago Park and several residential neighborhoods served as an ideal setting for developing recreational activities along the canal right-of-way. Aware of the increasing interests of cities to utilize the canal landscape SRP and USBR entered into an agreement in that allowed for the issuance of permits to counties and municipalities to develop the canal right-of-way for recreational facilities and public use. The agreement allowed SRP to review development plans in advance to ensure that continued operation would not be inhibited.
In reviewing the agreement the USBR observed, The Project is doing more than just accepting its responsibility to the community, it is providing aggressive leadership in matters that are vital and essential to the community interest. 79 76 Ibid. 77 Rec Area Grows and Grows, Current, January 19. 78 Rec Area Record, Anniversary of the Salt River Project Employees Recreation Association, October 79 Dan Killoren, Public Recreation and Urban Water Planning in the post-World War II Salt River Valley. Paper presented at Arizona Historical Convention, April CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 29) By Maricopa County had started planning for twenty-eight canal parks located throughout SRP s system; one facility developed along the Crosscut Canal in Papago Park.
Canal Park was constructed in and received water from Lateral 3.4 of the Crosscut Canal to supply a lake surrounded by trails and ramadas. The first hard surface bike path along an SRP canal was constructed in on the Crosscut Canal right-of- way through an agreement between SRP and the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale (see Images AZ-60-34 and AZ-60-35). The eleven and one half mile bike loop was part of a larger effort to make the Crosscut Canal available for recreational activities, including hiking, fishing, and horseback riding (see Image AZ-60-13). The City of Scottsdale began construction in on a network of trails and recreational facilities along the Crosscut Canal that connect with the facilities offered by the City of Tempe in Papago Park.
The project includes public art and other amenities and is planned to be completed by early 80 Conclusion Throughout its history the Crosscut Canal has continued to serve the primary functions for which is was designed, while being adapted to meet the demands of the surrounding environment. The canal continues to transfer water from the Arizona to the Grand Canal and move water through the Crosscut Hydro Plant for the development of power that meets the needs of the growing Phoenix metro area (see Map 2 for current alignment and major features along the canal). The advent of domestic water deliveries has expanded the use of the canal for the purpose of accommodating the City of Tempe s water treatment and recreation facilities.
Although the camps that housed the various worker groups along the Crosscut are gone, urbanization has caused an increasing demand for recreational opportunities along the canal. As Papago Park continues to serve as an important retreat for the surrounding residential neighborhoods, the Crosscut will continue to play a prominent role in connecting the various recreational facilities in the area. Due to the Valley s dependence on a sustainable water and power supply, the Crosscut will remain an integral part of SRP s network, but the operation and maintenance of the canal will continue to undergo changes in response to the surrounding environment.
80 City of Tempe Parks and Recreation Department, Tempe Trails Brochure, electronic document, (accessed July 25, Joe Kullman, East Valley Tribune, Canal Upgrade Funds Expected, November 13, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 30) Bibliography Books Billington, David P., Donald C. Jackson, and Martin V. Melosi. The History of Large Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and Construction in the Era of Big Dams. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Flores, Enedina et al. The Yaquis of Scottsdale, Arizona: Family, Indomitable Spirit, Generosity. Scottsdale: Publication of Concerned Citizens for Community Health, Moore, John Hammond. The Faustball Tunnel. New York: Random House, Nash, Gerald D. The Federal Landscape: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century West.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, Mark E. Oasis in the Valley: The Story of Water in Tempe. Tempe: Tempe Water Utilities Department, Spicer, Edward. The Yaquis: A Cultural History. Tucson: University of Arizona, Smith, Karen. The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, Tucson: University of Arizona, Wagoner, Jay J. Early Arizona: Prehistory to Civil War. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, Young, E.F. Early History of the Salt River Project. SRP Research Archives. Zarbin, Earl. Salt River Project: Four Steps Forward, Phoenix: Salt River Project, Two Sides of the River: Salt River Valley Canals, Phoenix: Salt River Project, Articles and other Papers Andersen, Fred. Old Crosscut Canal, HAER No. AZ-21.
Phoenix: Salt River Project, Andersen, Fred and Carol Noland. Crosscut Hydro Plant, HAER No. AZ-30. Phoenix: Salt River Project, Grand Canal, HAER No. AZ-17. Phoenix: Salt River Project, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 31) Campbell, Marc. C. Eastern Canal, HAER No. AZ-56. Phoenix: Salt River Project, Dudley, Shelly C. Arizona Canal, HAER No. AZ-19. Phoenix: Salt River Project, Robert Earll and Ray Pristo. Differential Float Control. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Operation and Maintenance Bulletin 71 (Jan.-March Gart, Jason H. Papago Park: A History of Hole-in-the-Rock From to Pueblo Grande Museum Occasional Papers No. 1. City of Phoenix: Parks, Recreation and Library Department, Glaser, Leah S.
Working for Community: The Yaqui Indians at the Salt River Project Journal of Arizona History 37, no. 4 Howard, Jerry B. and Gary Huckleberry. The Operation and Evolution of an Irrigation System: The East Papago Canal Study. Phoenix: Soil System Publications in Archaeology, No. 18, Introcaso, David M. Roosevelt Power Canal and Diversion Dam, HAER No. AZ-4. Phoenix: Salt River Project, May, Catherine L., Shawn L. England and Stephen Sloan, DRAFT: Consolidated Canal, HAER No. AZ-55. Salt River Project. Miller, Mike. The Short-Lived Papago Saguaro National Monument. Arizona Capitol Times, June 21, Theses and Dissertations Howard, Jerry B. Paleohydraulics: Techniques for Modeling the Operation and Growth of Prehistoric Canal Systems.
Masters Thesis: Arizona State University, Lewis, Christine M. A History of Irrigation in the Tempe Area. Masters Thesis: Arizona State University, Ziemann, Jay C. The Modernization of the Salt River Project: The Impact of the Rehabilitation and Betterment Program. Master s Thesis, Arizona State University, CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No. AZ-60 (Page 32) Government Documents Davis, Arthur P. Irrigation Near Phoenix, Arizona. Water Supply and Irrigation Paper of the U.S. Geological Survey, No. 2, House of Representatives Document No. Congress, 2nd session, Newlands Act of Public Law Cong., 1st sess., June 17, Town Sites and Power Development Act, U.S. Statutes at Large sec. 5 34. Manuscript and Archival Collections Phoenix, Arizona, Salt River Project. Corporate Secretary s Office. Land Department.
Research Archives. Water Engineering. Washington, National Archives. Record Group U.S. Reclamation Service. Microfilm and xerox copies located in the SRP Research Archives. Reports and Unpublished Materials Hiatt, Zoe. History of the Acquisition of the Rights-of-way of Main Canals. SRP Research Archives. Papago Park: A Proposed Plan. Phoenix: City of Phoenix Planning Commission, December Pfaff, Christine. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Civilian Conservation Corps: A Legacy Revealed. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center, Newspapers and Periodicals Arizona Republican Arizona Republic Current East Valley Tribune CROSSCUT CANAL HAER No.
AZ-60 (Page 33) Phoenix Magazine Tempe Daily News CROSSCUTCANAL Fi gur e1:SRPCa nal swi thMuni ci palWa terTr eat me a s.Sour ce:SRPRe sea rchAr chi ves . HAERNo.AZ-60 (Pa ge34) CROSSCUTCANAL HAERNo.AZ-60 Fi gur e2:Cr oss cutCa nal ,Nor the rnPor ti on.Sour ce:SRPRe sea rchAr chi ves . (Pa ge35) CROSSCUTCANAL HAERNo.AZ-60 Fi gur e3:Cr oss cutCa nal ,Sout her nPor ton.Sour i ce:SRPRe sea rchAr chi ves . ( ge36) Pa
Block