TC 824. WoGs9 University Library Columbia basin irrigation pi iii state Tideelis Basin Project _. A REPORT BY GEORGE W. GOETHALS AND COMPANY, INC. Department of Conservation and Development State of Washington Olympia 1921 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project State of Washington A REPORT BY GEORGE W. GOETHALS AND COMPANY, INC. TO THE Department of Conservation and Development State of Washington Copyright 1922. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT. OLYMPIA FRANK M. LAMBORN cégB> PUBLIC PRINTER 1922 vind CONTENTS. Page. Columbia Basin Survey, 1921 report..............e005 Palen yee dees 3 George W. Goethals & Co., Inc., report. .... 6... cece eee eee e eee eens 5 Gravity Proj OCtisig a. fniisies4 ae oe tee Vos ayoles oa as ee Ge ae » 5 Soil: ‘classifications «<<< 96020. san 4043 Ne eas Moe be ROMs Oa ae R ee ree 6 Water requirements... i.e. scccce cen ee aun ee bd 2S BEE Boos 6 Table of monthly water use.......... ccc eee eee ee sientuaxtcatav ayes 7 Available water SUDDI]Y s+. 5. ses 8 ce ceee eens ene ee seen cee ees 8 Level control for SUrVeEYS.............e cece eee Hints Sra daca 9 SUruUctures: oc os ciad. ts -cinines te ateniaigwaydulase me aaund eure qiscd a aad Mewes 10 Cost estimate methods......... Shae asavsck in a tines 2.0 Aline a's SOE als ese 11 Secondary storages «5 ae< sega sees ci ves his sew oes nee see core Edy sates 14 Drainage and waSte€wayS..........eeeeeee BuBiae Da elie: 98a wie ay este 14 Pinie f6f GOMPGUON. «ccs ccs eae vas Rea dee Ow dk kaw ee HORE RERS 15 Annual operating COSt aise sii e doe acines os want ea eit eles Seow ¥ Varese 15 Partial development. vices csc cec sea sas deste ees mew eco eee ae eeres 15 BUMPING Projects. « swiacn.c edad ewes sieve asia abowls car aaake wneud aueintas 17 Cost estimate methods.............0 eee eee a3 shew a5 aielass Sa abet, 19 AnnWaL OPEGTALING COBLScs sca cau rece ee bo 4 ONES HAMMER EAS HONE Fe ORR 22 Comparison of projectS.......... cece cece ee ee eens bess eure. dasteeaasl x aisayt 22 Table of comparative COStS........... cece cece cece eee n eens 23 Conclusions and recommendations............. cece cece ee ee ee eeee 23 Power POSSUDILITICS occ ceesecosese boy wieieie. soi apne dco wien ee twee Pere Wass Wee ele . 23 Gravity Project, feasibility... .... 0... cece cece ee ee ene eet ennes 24 Character of Jang: é ascent sew ois sad o's Sos Ca arowe S's a ease ar ore . 25 Climate: wines dese sss dnweeg 2 Hees Vane oes a eae OES did ea eee tears . 25 CKOPS A010, MAKES: sic ce ssavonhs 16's marwlave war oie wrechaanecle debe sina ue . 25 Transportation facilities.................048. eigediinks othe Shes eevee 26 Possibilities of settlement................4.- cies sts aes . 27 Cost of land and its preparation for water..... eegins Pasi 24S 27 Acknowledgment ..........ccee eee eaes 3 psteate braid puausnes dantengitaal scauayane 30 SUMMARY «ses 5%. situa ea ciated y os cq Miers ROH pre esiiaase ta'lp hihiate aiwlle eine Sa ye 30 Revised cost estimates, gravity project..........-..ceeceeeeae 33 to 37 Estimated annual operating cost, gravity project..............-.005 39 Cost estimates, partial development.............. eee eee eee 40 to 43 Cost estimates for pumping plant............ 0c. ee eee eee eee 44 to 49 Cost estimates for pumping project......... Berek arate Rap aieeensa 50 to 53 Estimated annual operating cost, pumping project........... 54 to 56 MAPS AND PLATES. General map of Columbia Basin Project........ ....-Opposite Page 2 Photograph of Pend Oreille Lake................... “ a 8 Photograph of Albany Falls...........-. sees ee eeee ee “ 8 Photograph of Irrigated Yakima Valley....... Renew ee “24 Photograph of Unirrigated Columbia Basin......... “94 OF MILES” COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT STATE OF WASHINGTON 1820 hee , Fc WATERSHED ABOVE ALBANY FALLS , } ZA PROJECT AREA ie QIWALLA ratte i / PENDLETON - yS, \, 7 SCALE OF MILES” Asa i * { % l COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT STATE OF WASHINGTON 1320 WATERSHED ABOVE ALBANY FALLS PROJECT AREA STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION OF RECLAMATION LOUIS F, HART, GOVERNOR DIVISION OF FORESTRY DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BINISION OF IGROEOSY DIVISION OF COLUMBIA BASIN AND’ DEVELOPMENT SURVEY vw. A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR Otympr, Wasuineton, April 7th, 1922. Hon, D. A. Scott, Director, Department of Conservation and Development, Olympia, Washington. Dear Sir: At the close of the first year of work by the Columbia Basin Survey, as authorized by the Admin- istrative Code of 1921, we submit the following statement of a portion of the work accomplished by that division of your department. Early in the year, you appointed a board of engineers and geologists to ‘‘examine a portion of the Columbia River for the purpose of determining the location on the river at which borings should be made to ascertain the feasibility of a dam that would be required in con- nection with the alternate plan of pumpage development of the Columbia Basin Project.’’ Upon the recommendations of that board, the Grand Coulee site was diamond drilled and the depth and character of bed-rock ascertained; a topographic survey was made of the Foster Creek site and an estimate of the cost of electric development at that site, power trans- mission and electric pump installation at the Grand Coulee; and a detailed geological study was made by the Division of Geology of the tightness of the proposed Grand Coulee reservoir. Cooperative studies were made with the Columbia River Board of the Federal Power Commission to de- termine the best use of a portion of the tributary streams, and a presentation was made to that board of the claims and rights of the State of Washington to control an ade- quate water supply for the Columbia Basin Project. 4 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project A large number of routine activities were carried on, among them being continuous discouragement of land speculation in the area proposed to be irrigated, assist- ance to smaller areas within the project in the study and procuring of local water supplies, revision of the plans and estimates for the larger project, and especially the compilation of data to further the progress of the MeNary-Smith Federal Cooperative Reclamation bill now before Congress. The passage of that bill is ex- pected to provide for the numerous smaller but equally meritorious projects and leave the way clear for presen- tation of the Columbia Basin Project for direct appro- priation and construction by the national government. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the numerous civic organizations and interested persons who have con- tributed very largely of time and money to the educa- tional campaign which is being conducted throughout the nation for the benefit of western reclamation. With- out such assistance it would not have been possible to create the present tremendous enthusiasm for the de- velopment of the Columbia Basin and other arid areas. At the close of the year, Major-General George W. Goethals was engaged to review and report upon the feasibility of the construction problems of the project. His report is of such interest and value that we recom- mend its immediate publication. The engineering and geological studies made earlier in the year are being placed in finished form and we suggest that these be included in the report of the current biennium. Respectfully submitted, DIVISION OF COLUMBIA BASIN SURVEY. Frep A. Apams, Supervisor. Ivan E. Goopner, Chief Engineer. GEORGE W. GOETHALS AND COMPANY, INC. 40 WALL STREET NEW YORK March 30th, 1922. The Honorable D. A. Scott, Director, Department of Conservation and Development, Olympia, Washington. Dear Siz: We submit herewith report on the feasi- bility of the construction problems that will be encoun- tered in irrigating the Columbia River Basin, aggregating approximately 2,000,000 acres of land lying between the Columbia and Snake Rivers, Washington, based upon personal inspection and investigation of all available data. The lands under consideration and the methods by which irrigation is to be accomplished are described and set forth fully in a printed report entitled ‘‘The Col- umbia Basin Irrigation Project—A Report by Columbia Basin Survey Commission, State of Washington, 1920.’’ While three sources of water supply were considered by the Commission, only two methods were investigated and estimated for carrying water to the lands to be irrigated: 1. By gravity flow from the Pend Oreille River and its tributaries above Newport—called the Gravity Pro- ject; 2. By damming the Columbia River near the head of the Grand Coulee and pumping water to an artificial lake, whence it would flow by gravity to the areas under con- sideration—known as the Pumping Project. GRAVITY PROJECT. A summary of the data available is contained in the Commission’s Report and in support is a voluminous mass of material collected prior to the issuance of the 6 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project report, as well as subsequent thereto, up to the time that we made the investigation. The supporting data include: Soil Classification; Water Requirements of the Land; Available Water Supply; Level Control; Studies and Designs of Engineering Structures, and Cost Estimates, as applicable to both the gravity and the pumping projects. Soil Classifications. The work done in connection with this phase of the problem is indicative of the methods employed by the Commission on the entire pro- ject. Not content with the soil surveys covering part of the proposed district as contained in U. S. Government publications on soils, a force was organized to cruise the Columbia Basin, some 3,000,000 acres of land, consider- ing the subject from the standpoint of irrigability. Soil experts and others competent through experience were employed and made the records now on file. These are complete and indicate for each section of every township not only the character of the soil but also its ownership. Considering the character of soil and elevations of the various sections, it was determined that the aggre- gate amount of land susceptible to irrigation by the Gravity Project is 1,753,000 acres. An additional 91,000 acres may be irrigated by pumping less than 150 feet in height, and 317,000 acres by a higher lift; areas irrigable by pumping are not included in the estimates under the Gravity Project, neither are parts of the area suitable for grazing, for which water will be available, nor other portions which could be made into good farm lands were the stones and boulders removed. Water Requirements. Investigation of the data by means of which Table No. 8 of the Commission’s Report was arrived at, included search through all available records of important irrigation projects, and consider- ation of evaporation and seepage losses. As a result it was concluded that the requirements given by this table Gravity Project 7 are adequate for any character of crop the area under consideration can undertake. Should state or other con- trol ever be such as to require a rotation of crops throughout the area, the supply here given would be more than sufficient. No better criterion of Columbia Basin water require- ments can be furnished than experience in the Yakima areas affords, particularly that on the Sunnyside Project. From this experience, records for which have become available since the Commission’s Report was compiled, the following table has been set up for comparison with Table No. 8: SUNNY- SIDE COLUMBIA BASIN EQUIVALENTS qd) PROJECT Month (2) (3) (4) (5) Gross Flow in Acre-Feet Per Cent Diversion Second-Feet Acre-Feet 9.0 560,600 9,420 18.5 1,152,200 18,738 * 18.5 1,152,200 18,738 18.5 1,152,200 18,738 17.5 1,089,900 17,725 11.0 685,100 11,514 7.0 436,000 7,090 100.0 6,228,200 |. cccccnvecccecece In the foregoing table, column (2) has been compiled from official records as published for the Sunnyside Project and represents averages for the period 1912-1918, inclusive. Column (3) is set up from column (2) Columns (4) and (5) are computed by taking the same total gross diversion in acre feet for the Columbia Basin area as given in Table No. 8 of the Commission’s Report and re-distributing on the basis of column (3) above. By comparing the last two columns with corresponding ones in Table No. 8, it will be noted: (a) Over the irrigation period the total gross diversion is the same, 8 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project (b) The maximum gross monthly diversion is less than in Table No. 8, occurs earlier in the season, and is more uniformly distributed. (c) The period of maximum requirement is advanced to a time of year when there is a greater natural run-off. (d) The diversion required during September and October, when storage would be most severely taxed, is considerably less than shown in Table No. 8. This comparison shows that the mass curve for water duty, as set up in the original studies of the Commission, may be flattened somewhat to conform to columns (4) and (5) above. This study is being carried on by Mr. Ivan E. Goodner, chief engineer of the project, and should further investigation prove such a change war- ranted, it will affect the size of the main supply canal and the mains below Hillcrest, with a consequent saving in the cost of the project, as presented herein. Available Water Supply. A study and check were made of the computations necessary to verify Table No. 9 of the Commission’s Report. Original sources of in- formation regarding stream flow, as compiled in Gov- ernment reports, were looked up, and an examination of the mass curves set up therefrom, together with the studies made therefrom, confirms the conclusions of the Commission concerning the supply from Pend Oreille Lake. The additional supply required is more than amply furnished by Flathead Lake. Pend Oreille Lake is in Idaho, and Flathead Lake is in Montana; in other words, the sources of supply are in states other than that in which the area to be irri- gated is located. We are assured, however, that this does not prevent the acquisition of the water from these lakes for the purpose intended. The gauge station at Newport was reported by the Geological Survey for part of the period 1903-1919, and the Weather Bureau reported readings when the for- mer discontinued. Under the latter, no gauge readings of the Pend Oreille River were made during the winter ‘SITOAIOSOY VdvVIOJg AIeWII jo auo ‘AMVT ATTIGUO ANd ALBANY FALLS, IDAHO. Place of Diversion of Main Canal. Gravity Project 9 months, but the readings at Metaline Falls below, under the supervision of the Geological Survey, are completé for the entire year by months. The Commission’s as- sumption that the flow at Newport during winter months may be taken at not less than 95% of the flow at Metaline Falls, is conservative and errs on the side of safety as regards volume of water available at Newport for irri- gation. We also find that this assumption was checked independently by computing the sum of the stream flows above Newport and comparing the result with the gauged flow at Metaline Falls. The difference of less than 5% was found to be closely checked by what information was available regarding the flow of Sullivan Creek, the only stream worth consideration entering the Pend Oreille River between Newport and Metaline Falls, and which has a very small contributory drainage area. There is no question of the adequacy of the water supply with storage provided in Pend Oreille and Flat- head Lakes to the elevations noted in the Commission’s Report. Level Control. The data on hand in regard to the methods of establishing elevations were examined down to field notes. This important work was carried out satisfactorily using wye levels. The lines as run were tied in with Geological Survey bench marks and the dis- crepancies were found to be well within the customary allowable errors for the distances. Wherever larger variations were found care was taken to check them up and make the necessary corrections. In cases where the error was with the bench marks of Geological Survey, the questions were taken up with the officials of the survey and the matters in dispute settled. Level lines were also tied in with Coast and Geodetic Survey bench marks as well as with those of the various transconti- nental railroads. 10 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Structures. The structures proposed for the control and distribution of the water include concrete dams at Pend Oreille and Flathead Lakes with regulating gates designed so that the maximum flood at each locality would be passed freely without injury to property. The supply canals are all computed and designed accordingly with concrete linings which permit of steeper grades and therefore higher velocities, at the same time reducing losses. A large amount of tunneling is made necessary by the topography of the land and in some instances tunnels were selected in lieu of open canals because care- ful study showed the economy of the former. At some of the streams, canyons and coulees, inverted steel siphons proved to be the most feasible and economical method of crossing, but because of high pressures and the limits of present day practice, diameters were limited, necessitating the use of several instead of one or two siphons or pipes. To carry the supply canal across the Spokane River involved the study of various methods and designs before the aqueduct was decided upon as the best and most economical solution. The various studies and designs are of record and indicate that each problem that the project presented was carefully studied and that solution adopted which offered the greatest reliability and safety. The Com- mission and all connected with it are to be commended for supporting its project with such detailed data and design, some of it not usually attempted until detailed design is prepared for the construction stage of work. While the work already done enables close estimates of cost to be made, it is recognized by the Commission and its engineers that further examinations are neces- sary from which may result a reduction in the final cost of the work. Such investigations contemplate bor- ings to determine the character of material that may be encountered during tunnel excavation; further exam- Gravity Project 11 ination to develop foundations of some of the rock-fill dams; more study relative to the location of the main supply canal, together with curves that should be adopted with special reference to their effect in creating waves or jumps, and to siphon designs. As is usual in projects of this character and size, such additional detailed studies are made when the project has been financed. Provision for such studies and examination is made in the esti- mates by an allowance for engineering and proceeded with as the construction progresses. All the structures proposed by the Commission are feasible and practicable and offer no engineering diffi- culties. Cost Estimates. An exhaustive examination was made of all the data available and on which the estimates presented in the Commission’s Report are based. The estimates were compiled prior to the publication of the Commission’s Report, at a time when costs of material and labor were at the peak. Every particular part of the project was separately estimated with consideration given to locality, the proximity of suitable materials, the construction equipment that would be used, cost of trans- portation, labor and all other items entering the cost. Since the compilation, both materials and labor have been reduced and the figures given herein are the result of the lower prices as affecting the estimates. In pre- paring our costs the structures and quantities have been taken as determined and computed by the Commission and the revision is due to the application of different unit costs. The principal comments and changes are as follows: (a) Costs adopted by the Commission for ordinary excavation of the three customary classes have not been changed. This is due to the fact that on a project of this magnitude labor in excavation will play a comparatively small part, inasmuch as the use of the most up-to-date excavating machinery will everywhere be justified. The costs adopted i Columbia Basin Irrigation Project by the Commission are supported by those used on work of a similar character. (b) Unit costs for tunnel excavation have been reduced to a basis of $5.19 per cubic yard. This reduction is based on estimates which we prepared in September of 1921 for similar work on the Skagit River Power Development project, and also by a later estimate for similar work nearer Spokane to which we had access. The proposed reduction is supported by recent inquiry from the consulting engineer originally called in to prepare the tunnel estimates. The unit costs for each particular tunnel have been adjusted on the same proportionate basis as the costs used by the Commission varied from the average cost in its report. This variation is due to special considerations at the different tunnels, such as length of railroad outside, length of haul, cost of construction camps, accessibility to existing railroads and high- ways, and relative difficulty in getting construction plant to the sites. (c) A reduction to $10.00 per cubic yard has been made in the cost of the concrete lining for tunnels, due to the reduced price of concrete aggregate and cement; likewise in the use of pneumatic equip- ment for placing the concrete. No reduction has been made in the thickness of the lining nor the quantities. (d) For similar reasons concrete for canal lining has been re- duced to $9.60 per cubic yard. Following the method adopted by the Commission, reinforcing steel is carried as a separate item. The thick- ness of the lining seems excessive and the concrete richer than neces- sary, but the changes have not been made in these nor in the quantities. (e) Reinforcing steel has been reduced to 4c per pound to con- form to reduction in prices of material. (f) Plain concrete in comparatively small quantities has been reduced to $10.50 per cubic yard. (g) Light reinforced concrete has been reduced to $12.00 per cubic yard and heavy reinforced concrete to $20.00 per cubic yard. (h) Structural steel in gates has been reduced to 9c per pound and structural steel required for road crossings to 7c per pound. (i) The item for riprap in rockfill dams has been reduced to $1.50 per cubic yard. With such a dam properly constructed, with suitable material utilized on the face, hand placing of riprap is not necessary; so the item for preparation for facing, which appears under most of the estimates for rockfill dams, has been eliminated. (j) Steel sheet piling has been reduced to 4c per pound. (k) Siphon steel has been reduced to $0.056 per pound. This re- duction is due principally to drop in material prices. The other figures for the cost of this steel, as shown on page 105 of the Commission’s Report, have been reduced slightly, with the exception of freight, which has been increased to $1.67 per cwt. to conform to present rates. At the time this material is ordered, a still further reduction can unquestionably be made by shipping the steel from Baltimore to Seattle Gravity Project 13 by sea. The rail rate has been taken in order to afford a consistent comparison with the figures set up originally in the Commission’s Report. (1) Like reductions have been made as applying to various com- paratively small quantities of work under the miscellaneous items appearing in the recapitulation tables in Appendix G, Commission’s Report. (m) Overflow rights have not been changed, although late in- formation indicates that in some places the land may be purchased at figures less than were originally allowed. In preparing the estimates for each particular struc- ture an allowance averaging 2% was added for engineer- ing. In view of the data available this is considered ample, but the total item for engineering as it appears in the Commission’s data is adopted without change. The items for contingencies included in the estimates of the Commission and determined for each part of the work seemed sufficient and were adopted in the estimates presented herein at the same amount as given by the Commission. In the original estimates these items vary from 5% to 20%, depending upon the character of the work and surrounding conditions. These were regarded as ample in view of the fact that the following allow- ances were made. In tunnel work an increase of 15% was added for overbreak, while the lining was increased by 7%. In the same way computed canal excavations were increased by 15% throughout, while in some por- tions of the distribution canals through rough country the computed quantities to be excavated were increased by 50%. In the linings for the canals the computed quantities for concrete were increased by 7%. For the purposes of this report no attempt has been made to set up corrected tables of estimates correspond- ing to each of those in Appendix OC of the Commission’s Report. For comparison it has been deemed sufficient to set up the Recapitulation Tables Nos. 41 to 45, inclu- sive (Appendix G, Commission’s Report), corrected to 14 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project the revised unit costs aforementioned. These corrected tables are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The revised estimated cost of the Gravity Project is $254,170,351, or $144.99 per acre. This includes the por- tion of the area in Walla Walla County. Should the latter be developed independently, as now appears pos- sible, a saving would be made, with a small reduction in cost per acre, on account of the elimination of the Snake River siphon, one of the most expensive individual struc- tures in the project. Secondary Storage. Secondary storage was consid- ered by the Commission. Its value in connection with the supply canals lies in the capacity provided for hold- ing in each lake water which would otherwise be wasted from the main canals after a shut-down. Table No. 37 was checked and found to be correct. Further study of secondary storage on the project may result in reducing the cost of the canals and in furnishing power for pump- ing water to areas not reached by gravity and therefore not included in the irrigable area of the project. Drainage and Wasteways. In some of the existing irrigation projects trouble has resulted from water- logged lands, due to the failure to provide proper drain- age. In the area under consideration are found numer- ous lines of surface drains, draws and coulees, which would be running streams were the rainfall sufficient. These were caused by the run-off from the melting snows and ice of the Glacial Period. An examination of the map accompanying the Commission’s Report, opposite page 116, shows the relation of these natural drains to the proposed laterals of the project, so the conclusion that drainage will be largely cared for is correct. It would be difficult to lay out a proper system of drainage in a project of this magnitude, but as so much of it will be taken care of naturally the small amount that experience Gravity Project 15 may ultimately show to be necessary can be added with- out much expense. The Commission, with its usual throughness, exam- ined into the question of wasteways and made the neces- sary provisions to care for diverting or discharging the water from the supply and main canals wherever the necessity therefor arises. Time for Completion. In the data worked up by the Commission is a carefully prepared schedule for the tunnel work, which is the determining factor in fixing the time within which the entire Gravity Project can be completed. This taken in connection with the other structures that must be built has led us to the conclusion that the project in its entirety can be completed within six years, if money is made available as the progress of the work warrants. Annual Operating Cost. In order to arrive at the cost of operation and maintenance, a tentative schedule has been set up which is shown in detail in Exhibit 2. The total amount is estimated at $841,450, or $0.48 per acre. Partial Development of Gravity Project. The project as outlined contemplates the expenditure of the larger portion of the estimated amount required for the project before water can be placed on any of the land. With the object of securing a quicker return and to reduce the amount of money required it has been suggested that the project can be partially developed or the work can be cheapened by omitting linings, by means of wood pipe, or temporary construction, which can be made per- manent later on. The partial development of the project was given some consideration by the Commission and this has been reviewed and an independent estimate worked up. It is assumed that the entire area would eventually be 16 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project irrigated so that open portions of mains and laterals would be built to full section at once; hence the ultimate cost to the farmer, who must pay the bill, will be less than if such portions be attempted piecemeal. To leave the main canals unlined will increase friction, maintenance and ultimate cost. It is true that only one tunnel bore, when twin tunnels are provided, need be constructed at first, but these should be lined at once to reduce friction, maintenance and ultimate cost. Inverted siphons at the various crossings could be reduced in number of ducts to correspond to a capacity required to handle the flow of one tunnel bore along the main supply canal. Siphon supports would be reduced wherever possible. The dam at Flathead Lake would not be necessary. Be- low Hillcrest an area has been assumed as the one to be served by this initial partial development. It repre- sents approximately 880,000 acres. In laying out this area consideration was given to accessibility, character of soil, and the relative costs of different sections of the various mains below Hillcrest. Exhibit 3 gives a recapitulation of the estimated cost of this partial development. The form follows that given in Exhibit 1, so that ready comparison may be made. Items are given in numerical sequence, omissions indicating those items in Exhibit 1 not needed in the partial development scheme. From this it will be seen that to bring 880,000 acres under irrigation—about 50% of the entire project—it will cost $149,642,653, or $170.04 per acre. It will be cheaper in the end so to lay out the construction pro- gram as to bring about simultaneous completion of the entire project, including 100 second feet capacity laterals, rather than to develop the Basin area partially first and to complete it subsequently. Substitution of wood pipes or any temporary con- struction for the canals would reduce the initial cost Pumping Project 17 but they would ultimately have to be replaced at in- creased cost, which must in any event be borne by the farmer, and it seems ill-advised in a project of this mag- nitude to resort to anything except the completed pro- ject, as outlined in the report. PUMPING PROJECT. This project contemplates building a dam across the Columbia River near the head of the Grand Coulee and using the energy thus stored to operate pumps for rais- ing the water to an artificial lake created in the Grand Coulee, whence water flows by gravity to the Basin area. Since the Commission’s Report was issued, borings were made to disclose the position of rock and fourteen holes were driven. Rock is found 40 feet below the river at the nearest point and is practically hori- zontal, with the exception of a depression in which the rock falls off to a depth of 110 feet. The character of the rock is not uniform, as disclosed by the cores, but the samples are such as to secure a good foundation for the structures. Mr. W. T. Batcheller, consulting engineer, was re- tained by your Department in connection with the design and estimates of the electrical and mechanical equipment required for the project. His report was available for consideration and covers not only the work for which he was retained, but a design for the dam, the diversion channel, and a review of the entire project. In addition to this, the data prepared by the Commission were also available. The natural flow of the Columbia River renders a sufficient amount of water available for irrigation pur- poses. As the Batcheller report covers a discussion of water power development for commercial uses, and as for the combined purposes the Columbia River supply would not be adequate for the commercial power that he con- —2 18 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project templates, additional storage is provided in Flathead and Pend Oreille Lakes. These have not been considered by us in arriving at the estimates for the Pumping Pro- ject to be used in comparison with the estimates for the Gravity Project. Two methods of pumping operation were considered and several heights of dam have been studied. In one, the pumps themselves are direct connected to the tur- bines and the power principle is entirely mechanical in nature. In the other, the pumps are operated by electri- city furnished from generators direct connected to the turbines and the pumping station is constructed as a separate unit above the dam in order to reduce the working head. For the purposes of the comparisons made by this report, only three of the dams studied have been con- sidered. Dam No. 1 provides an effective head of 123 feet and contemplates the use of hydro-electric units. This dam, without other storage delivered at the dam from above in amounts that can be accurately calculated and depended upon, would give a shortage of power, even for pumping purposes, for ten of the months of the nine-year record of river flow available for our study. In other respects, this dam comes so near filling the requirements of irrigation needs alone, that estimates therefor have been followed through for sake of com- parison. Dam No. 2 provides an effective head of 175 feet, which is the minimum head capable of operating the direct connected two-stage pumping units contemplated over the irrigation season. Dam No. 3 provides an effective head of 211 feet, which comprises a hydro-electric installation. No dam of greater height has been considered, as such would back water above the lower pool at Kettle Falls, aside from causing more extensive overflow damages. Pumping Project 19 The dams discussed lie within feasible limits of con- sideration. Dams of less than 211 feet effective head would scale in cost within the limits set up for the three types under comment. The comparison furnished by these three is therefore regarded as sufficiently compre- hensive for present purposes. Cost Estumates. These are presented under two gen- eral headings: One for the dams, and the other for the gravity portion of the Pumping Project. The former estimate comprises not only the dam but all structures to the beginning of the gravity supply canal, including power house, pumping station, machinery, and pipe lines. The following comments on the estimates for the dam are given: (a) A theoretical profile for the dam was adopted for purposes of preliminary estimate to conform to standard types. Detail design might modify this section somewhat. (b) The capacity of the river diversion has been figured at 100,000 second feet. A diversion carrying 65,000 second feet, as was suggested, was not adopted, for this capacity would not afford a sufficiently long working season. The work under the water conditions existing in the Columbia River is difficult and as long a working season as possible must be secured for the foundation work in the river section. (c) In computing excavation, 10 feet clearance on either side of the base of the dam has been allowed, with side slopes of 2:1. On account of the material indicated by the borings, the working room must be ample to provide against any tendency on the part of the clay stratum to squeeze out under its superimposed load. To take care of difficulties during excavation, 50% of the quantity involved has been figured at $1.50 per cubic yard. (d) The excavation is figured once. How much extra work must be done in removing material brought in during floods is unknown. (e) Concrete has been figured at $10.50 per cubic yard, the same as in the Gravity Project. Rock for concrete will have to be quarried at the site and if Mr. Batcheller’s verbal report is correct, this rock will have to be screened. He also questions whether suitable sand deposits can be secured in the neighborhood on account of the excessive fineness of the existing beds. Whether the granite is suitable to furnish sand is also unknown; so that the figure of $10.50 here adopted may be exceeded. (f) A down-stream apron 300 feet in length has been taken for these estimates because it is so indicated on Mr. Batcheller’s drawings. 20 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project From experience elsewhere we do not endorse this length as sufficient in view of the fact that during extreme floods there may be a depth of 30 feet on the spillway. (g) Excavation for power house has been figured to rock. While clay at the site might afford suitable foundation for almost any other type of building, it is not regarded suitable for the enormous machinery loads involved and the heavy vibrations that operation will cause. No experiments with stability can be made here. (bh) Unit costs for reinforcing and structural steel have been taken to correspond with those adopted in Gravity Project estimates. Same applies to light and heavy reinforced concrete in small quantities in power house and pumping station and elsewhere. (i) Costs of machinery and miscellaneous incidentals have been adopted from the data furnished by Mr. Batcheller. (j) The Treaty of 1846 between the United States and Great Britain requires that the Columbia River between the international boundary and the ocean be kept open to navigation. If the treaty rights are to be preserved—and there is little likelihood that Great Britain will give up what may in years to come prove a valuable transportation route—locks would have to be provided at the Columbia River dam. The estimates must, therefore, be read remembering that the cost of locks has not been included. (k) Estimates for power plant include that required for irriga- tion purposes only. Since the Commission’s Report was written, geologi- eal investigation indicates that the location originally intended for the Coulee City dam is not a good one. A stratum of basalt takes a sudden dip just north of Coulee City and a geologist’s report indicates the pres- ence of faults and crevices at or slightly upstream from the originally proposed site. Under these circumstances, the Commission already contemplated moving the Coulee City dam about two miles northward. This makes a longer dam necessary and accounts for the large differ- ence in estimated cost here given. It also increases the length of the main supply canal between the Columbia River and Bacon Lake, which has also been taken into account. The items for engineering and contingencies are made at approximately 2 per cent and 16 per cent respectively. The former will enable further investigations to be made Pumping Project 21 of the foundations, suitable quarry sites, the railroad line that must be built, details of the construction plants required, and the effect that the overflow will have on the apron and the very structure of the dam itself. The latter is conservative when the difficulties encountered in the construction of dams in rivers of magnitude less than that of the Columbia are considered. It is much lower than we have used in projects of less magnitude. At the site of the dam the river flows through a narrow gorge, increasing the difficulties of construction, in this respect different from large rivers where dams have been constructed. The variations in river flow during floods are greater than in other streams successfully dammed, and the quantity of water to be handled is also much greater. The pumping plant for the 211-foot dam is unprece- dented, consisting of 17 units, each with a capacity of 1,000 second feet, against a head of 407 feet. Exhibit 4 gives estimates of the three types of dams. They are stated in some detail because there are no corresponding data in the Commission’s Report. The area to which water can be delivered by the Pumping Project is 1,403,000 acres. Mr. Batcheller pro- poses to install another pumping system at Bacon Lake by which 4,000 second feet will be lifted 200 feet, thereby extending the area to be irrigated by an additional amount of 454,000 acres or a total of 1,857,000 acres. Unfortunately, most of this additional acreage is not classed as irrigable lands and the former chief engineer of the Commission advises us that because of differences of level, water will not flow to this acreage through the canal proposed. Exhibit 5 is made to correspond to the recapitulation tables Nos. 55 to 58, inclusive, as given in Appendix H, Commission’s Report. The total estimated cost of the Pumping Project with Dam No. 1 is $223,096,943, or 22 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project $159.01 per acre; with Dam No. 2, $228,990,358, or $163.21 per acre; with Dam No. 3, $241,487,258, or $172.12 per acre. Given the time and the money, the dam can be built, and the Allis-Chalmers Company has furnished a general design of pumps, which they believe will do the work. No such pumps have as yet been built. Annual Operating Costs. Exhibit 6 gives a tentative estimated operating schedule, classified under the three types of dam. Only those power units serving the irriga- tion project are included. The organization for a power plant of this magnitude is necessarily large and economy cannot be sought in assigning too many machines to individual supervision. The wages of the extra men will be more than repaid when measured against machinery damage due to inadequate care. Salaries outlined are high but the work is important and isolated and more than ordinary wages must be offered to secure permanent services of the proper type of men, with inducement to hold them during the winter season when ordinary re- pairs and overhauling would have to be made. The operating organization beyond the beginning of the canal is similar to that given for the Gravity Project, and deserves no special comment. The estimated annual operating cost with Dam No. I, is $2,604, 275, or $1.86 per acre; with Dam No. 2, $2,1294,- 095, or $1.51 per acre; with Dam No. 3, $2,192,605, or $1.56 per acre. COMPARISON OF PROJECTS. The following table has been set up in order to show a ready comparison between the salient elements of cost of the projects discussed : Power Possibilities 93 COMPARATIVE TABLE OF TOTAL AND UNIT COSTS, GRAVITY PROJEOT PUMPING PROJECT ITEMS Full Partial With With With Develop- Develop- Dam Dam Dam ment ment No.1 No. 2 No. 8 Total Estimated Oost. . a oe 351| $149,642, 359 $223,096,943) $228,990,358] $241, 487,258 Acres Irrigated.......... ‘53,000 880, 000) 1, 403, 000) 1,408,000 1,403,000 Construction cost PEF ACTC.........0. eens $144.99 $170.04 $159.01 $163.21 $172.12 Estimated annual oper- ating cost............ $841,450 $520, 50 $2,610,275) $2,124,095] $2,192,605 Annual operating cost PCT ACTE........600 sees $0.48 $0.59) $1.86 $1.51 $1.56 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. From the study made, the adoption of the Gravity Project is recommended for the following reasons: (a) It develops the largest acreage. (b) The construction cost per acre will be lower. (c) The annual operating cost will be much lower. (d) The reliability and simplicity of a direct gravity flow of water are immeasurably superior to the complex- ity of operating a power and pumping plant with a large number of turbines and pumps which would be stressed higher than any existing equipment of equal capacity. (e) No treaty stipulations have to be solved, en- abling construction work to start immediately funds become available. POWER POSSIBILITIES. Mr. Batcheller stresses the commercial value of the power that will result from the Pumping Project, which he proposes to sell to existing commercial companies, thereby reducing the acre cost for irrigation. This is a question for the future and cannot be considered in an irrigation project for today, as there is no prospective market at present and inquiries of existing companies give no hope of disposing of such power. The Gravity Project also offers power possibilities which are set forth in the Commission’s Report but are 24 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project not considered nor reflected in any way as affecting the acre cost for irrigation. There is no question that all power possibilities should be reserved for use of the irrigated lands, either for extending the area or for commercial purposes, the money received in the latter case to apply to the benefit of the whole area. As between developing power in large quantity at a time when there seems little likelihood of its being ab- sorbed, and the gradual development of power to meet demands as they arise, the latter is the more rational policy to adopt. The Gravity Project, so far as power possibilities are concerned, is, therefore, the better. FEASIBILITY ON THE BASIS OF COST. The Gravity Project is feasible from a construction standpoint, since the various structures which go to make up the completed whole offer no engineering difficulties and all have been successfully accomplished elsewhere. Objection has been raised to the project because of its size, but this is not sound, for in any project the details are the vexing questions, not the magnitude; with the former satisfactorily solved, the completed whole follows as a sequence, irrespective of size. Larger proj- ects have been undertaken in Egypt and India, and the Colorado River development we believe will be larger. Feasibility of construction does not in itself offer justification for undertaking this or any other project, for in addition there must be considered the question: Will it pay if completed? In arriving at a conclusion on this phase of the problem, the character of the land, climate, crops and markets, transportation facilities, the possibilities of settlement, the cost of land and its preparation for water must be considered. ‘NISVG@ VIAWOION GHLVDIYYINA * ‘AGTIVA VWIMVA CHLVDINUI Feasibility on Basis of Cost 25 Character of the Land. Yakima stands out promi- nently as one of the most successful irrigation projects undertaken by the Government and the land has returned handsome profits to the farmer and added materially to the national wealth. The same remarks are applicable to Wenatchee, an irrigation project undertaken by pri- vate interests. The Columbia River Basin is adjacent to these and geologically it is part of the same formation as Yakima and Wenatchee. According to geologists, the lands embraced within the Columbia River Basin were part of a great lake bottom over which were deposited the detritus from the basaltic formations of its sides and bottom. This deposit was later augmented when the water broke through the Cascade Range to the Pacific and the lake receded. The soil is deep, rich, and abund- ant, and will be as productive when brought under water as are Yakima and Wenatchee districts. Climate. The Columbia Basin has a short mild winter and a long growing season with much sunshine. The area is deficient in rainfall, because of which it has many desert characteristics and not because of soil or surface conditions. When small areas have had this deficiency supplied through irrigation, the crops have been abun- dant. The soil and climate of the Columbia Basin are so similar to those of the Yakima Valley that, given the necessary water, the productivity of the former will be as great. While there is a similarity of temperature in Yakima and Columbia Basin regions, the latter has the advantage of a two weeks’ longer season. Crops and Markets.* ‘‘The logical agricultural de- velopment of this great area will yield products for which there will always be a profitable market. Wheat, now the predominating crop, can be augmented many times with- out producing noticeable effect on the world’s market. * From Commissicn’s Report, page 16, (4). 26 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project ‘‘ Alfalfa, clovers, grasses, potatoes, corn, sugar beets, wheat, oats, barley, seeds and fruits are all well adapted to the climate and soil of this region and would produce heavy yields of high quality. Livestock products, pri- marily dairy and pork, would logically accompany this kind of crops and would make a well balanced intensive type of farming with staple products, a very important consideration in developing a permanent system of agri- culture. ‘“‘Fruits, berries, honey, and vegetables produced on the project can be marketed through growers’ associa- tions similar to those of Yakima, Wenatchee, Spokane and other irrigated districts of the Northwest. Sales may therefore be made in accordance with established methods and the entire output handled as a unit, thus eliminating the uncertainties of marketing. The large cooperative organizations in the fruit districts of the South and West have proved that successful marketing may be accomplished on any desired scale. They have gone further and shown how to create a new demand where the old was not sufficient to absorb an excessive output. ‘‘Dairying should be an important industry on the Columbia Basin Project. It is likely that a large per- centage of this area will be seeded to grasses. An abun- dance of forage and grains and the mild climate are con- ducive to the promotion of a great dairy industry.’’ Transportation Facilities. The transportation facili- ties—rail, highway and water—are excellent. The Col- umbia Basin is traversed by four transcontinental rail- roads with branches leading in all directions. State and county highways provide adequate service from the farms to railroad connections. Water transportation is provided by the Columbia and Snake Rivers. These various facilities afford direct means for transporting Feasibility on Basis of Cost 27 the products from the fields not only to nearby cities but to all the markets of the world. Possibilities of Settlement. The Secretary of Agri- culture, predicting a population of 150,000,000 by 1950, stated that the acreage of improved farm land per capita has steadily decreased since 1890. To maintain the present per capita acreage in 1950 will require additions of approximately 8,000,000 acres of improved lands an- nually. With the productivity of Yakima so well known, similar lands will not lack settlers as soon as it is under water, provided the cost is not prohibitive. Increase in crops means more business for the railroads, which will assist in securing settlement. Various authoritative sources have stated that there will be no difficulty in placing suitable settlers upon the area as rapidly as water can be made available for each tract. No appre- hension need be felt concerning the settlement of the lands. Cost of Land and Its Preparation for Water. The Commission gave the question of land cost careful study and consideration and has arrived at certain values which we are not in a position to criticize. The probabilities of speculative values were discussed and the opinion exists that the state will undoubtedly be able to take measures to prevent exploitation of the farmer. In arriving at the cost of placing water on the land, the Commission had the advice of agriculturists and en- gineers of many years’ experience in the Yakima Valley, and fixed the price at $15.00 per acre. The two items, together with the revised estimates for the project recommended, would make the cost of land ready to start planting from $165.00 to $195.00 per acre, depending upon the value of unirrigated land fixed by the Commission. Whether the undertaking is warranted at these fig- ures has been carefully considered. A comparison with 28 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project existing projects cannot alone determine the question, for most of these were constructed at low prices for labor and material. In addition, the present project carries the water down to include laterals with flow of less than 100 second feet; in short, to the fence of the farm; fur- thermore, the construction is permanent, which is not always the case in other projects. Inquiries of those hav- ing experience, whose opinions bear weight, and who are wholly disinterested in the Columbia River Basin pro- ject—combined with the transportation facilities and the productivity of the land, exemplified by Yakima and Wenatchee—have led to the conclusion that the project is justified if irrigated land values range from $200.00 to $275.00, and that the farmer will receive a profitable return on his investment, from even the higher valuation. In our judgment the project is feasible, not alone from the standpoint of construction, but from that of economics as well. The existing policy of the U. 8S. Government, so far as concerns reclamation projects already undertaken, is for the farmer or land owner to reimburse the Govern- ment for the cost of the works, no interest being charged for the use of the money. Also, the farmer is allowed ample time to make good on his land before payments towards capital are exacted. While the policy is a liberal one, the irrigated areas have increased national wealth and returns are made to the National Treasury in other ways than through the payment of interest charges, so that indirectly these are more than fully met. The project under consideration cannot be financed in the ordinary way through bankers, who loan on ex- isting securities and not upon those to be created. The state is not financially in a position to undertake it, so there remains only the Federal Government. The U. 9. Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, has a revolving fund—outside of appropriations for specific Feasibility on Basis of Cost 29 projects—for use in reclaiming arid lands in the West, but this is not large enough to undertake a project of this size. Excellent results have been accomplished by this fund and it should be left for the use for which it was intended. The Columbia Basin Project is as much a national one as were the Panama Canal and the Alaskan Railways and will, if completed, add much more to the national wealth than either of the others mentioned. The work should be provided for and carried out as were these other two national projects—by direct appropriations. Though located in the State of Washington, the bene- fits from the project will not be confined thereto but will extend to all parts of the United States. Through it pace will be kept with the ever increasing demand for foodstuffs of all kinds which will furnish increased busi- ness for all transportation facilities. It was stated, con- cerning Wenatchee Valley, that for every carload of fruit shipped out of the irrigated district a carload of manufactured goods is shipped in. The same will be true of the Columbia River Basin. Towns will spring up throughout the area. The demand for manufactured products—necessities and luxuries—will necessitate an increase of production in the various industrial sections of the country. It required vision to conceive the pro- ject; far less imagination is needed to picture the benefits that will accrue to the entire country through its realiza- tion. The Federal Government is the only agency that can financially carry the project to completion, the only one that can absorb the interest charges and give to the farmer the time necessary to repay the capital—the cost of construction. That the United States will be fully repaid indirectly for the interest charges, cannot be ques- tioned by anyone who gives the matter any thought or who will consider the returns already accrued from the 30 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Yakima Valley Project. The Columbia River Basin is merely an enlarged Yakima Valley. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The Department of Conservation and Development took over the work of the Columbia Basin Survey Com- mission. To the Director, Honorable D. A. Scott, who arranged for the field inspection and the investigation of available data; to Mr. Ivan E. Goodner, Chief Engi- neer of the Department, who presented and later ex- plained the data; to the members of the former Commis- sions and its Chief Engineer, Mr. Arthur J. Turner; to Mr. Marvin Chase, State Hydraulic Engineer; to Mr. Lars Langloe, Field Engineer; to Mr. J. C. Sharp, De- signing Engineer; and to all others who responded so generously to requests for information, and who con- tributed to make the examination expeditions, grateful acknowledgment is hereby accorded. Special recognition is given to the valuable collection of data and studies compiled by the Commission, its engineers, and later by the Department of Conservation and Development, involving research to an extent truly remarkable considering the funds available for the pur- pose. SUMMARY. 1. Of over 3,000,000 acres of land embraced within the Columbia Basin, lying between the Columbia and Snake rivers, 1,753,000 are irrigable by the Gravity Project and 1,403,000 by the Pumping Project. 2. The Gravity Project provides water by gravity flow from the Pend Oreille River and its tributaries above Newport, Washington. 3. The Pumping Project provides water from the Columbia River. A pool is formed by a dam, varying from 200 to 285 feet in height, with respective effective heads of 123 to 211 feet, across the gorge of the Colum- bia at the head of the Grand Coulee, from which water Summary 31 is pumped by hydro-electric units, each lifting 1,000 sec- ond feet approximately 482 feet, or by direct connected units of equal capacity lifting approximately 450 feet, to an artificial lake, whence the water is carried to the land by gravity. 4. The estimated cost for the Gravity Project is $254,170,351, or $144.99 per acre. The data on which this estimate is based are much more complete than we have ever found in our experience. The construction is feasible and offers no unusual difficulties. 5. The cost of operation and maintenance for the Gravity Project is estimated at $841,450, or $0.48 per acre per annum. 6. The lowest estimated cost for the Pumping Project is $223,096,943, or $159.01 per acre. In preparing this cost we have assumed designs of dam, electrical and mechanical equipment, as presented. The difficulties at- tending the construction are unusual and the pumps pro- posed have never been built. 7. The cost of operation and maintenance for the Pumping Project is estimated from $2,610,275 to $2,- 192,605 per annum, or from $1.86 to $1.51 per acre, de- pending upon the height of dam adopted. 8. The Gravity Project is recommended for adoption. 9. It is recommended that the entire project be un- dertaken with a view to completing it in its entirety rather than attempting it piecemeal or adopting tempo- rary construction. 10. The estimated time for completion is six years. 11. The soils of the irrigable lands are fertile and abundant, being in all respects similar to Yakima and Wenatchee valleys; large production will result from water on the lands. 12. A great variety of crops can be produced, and, due to the excellent transportation facilities, can be car- ried to the markets of the world. 32 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project 13. No apprehension need be felt about settlement of the lands after water has been placed thereon. 14. All things considered, the project is justified from an economic standpoint if the land can be made ready for planting at a cost ranging from $200.00 to $275.00 per acre; at the latter price a profitable return will be secured on the investment. 15. The project, because of the benefits that will accrue to the United States as a whole, is a national one and as such should be carried out by the Federal Govern- ment through direct appropriations. 16. Following the existing policy of the Government in its irrigation projects, the farmer or land holder should be taxed to amortize the cost of construction. The Government should bear or absorb the interest charges, which will be more than repaid through the increase that will result to the national wealth, affecting industries and products of all kinds over the entire country. Very truly yours, Grorce W. GorrHats ann Company, Ine. By (Signed) Gzo. W. Gorrnats, President. EXHIBIT No. 1. REVISED ESTIMATES FOR GRAVITY PROJECT. 34 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Exhibit No. 1. RECAPITULATION OF ITEMS OF MAIN SUPPLY CANAL TO REVISE TABLE NO. 41, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- gencies 1. Dam at Flathead Lake............. $475,631 $30,000 Flathead Lake overflow rights. . 2. Dam at Pend Oreille Lake...... : Pend Oreille Lake overflow rights...............sseee0e . Head Gated occ cvsveserenrswvnaees 3. Newport Tunnel ...........s0seseee eens 4. Canal, Newport Tunnel to Chain Lakes. 6. Great Northern Ry change............:sceseeeeees 6 Camden Dam ...............0008 7. Oanal, Camden Dam to Hillcrest.. 8. Dry Creek Dam..........seeeeeeeee 9. Milan Tunnel ... 10. Deep Creek Tunnel.. 11. Deep Oreek Dam...........ceccecceseescoeeceeseres a Road changes at Deadman Creek and Deep Creek 14. 15, 16. 17. Deadman Creek Tunnel............eseseceevereneeee Deadman Creek Dam... Pleasant Prairie Tunnel . Spokane River Crossing . §. & I. Ry Crossing... 18. S. & E. Ry Crossing. 19. N. P. Ry Crossing............. O., M. & St. Paul Ry Thepelne: Appleway Crossing ............ 8. T. Co., Vera Line Crossing. Street Crossings mien Rapeeee Manito Tunnel ... . Latah Creek Dam..... Bonnie Lake Tunnel...... . Bonnie Lake Highway Bridge Rock Lake Dam............ Wassun Creek Siphon Emergency Wasteway (Wassun OTE Dragoon Lake Dam............. P. & S. Ry Crossing.. McOall Dam and Dike.. Patterson Tunnel .... 0.-W. R. & N. Ry Crossin Cow Creek Siphon...... Hillcrest Siphon and Ga Drainage oe Albany Falls Fences ....scsevccaceracer Telephone Ups r Lateral “MI” ......ceceeecereceee ajoiaaieinia sia @iectis aig PSSRAISRESSASIRSSRRBSRS Totals......... veslatie oii cinsameiets aes aoa wea eas Grand Total. .......cccceesuceccecctceewsasece Lake $127,111,907 $12,075,751 cibinceleidietbve diaries +++| $139,187,658 Estimates for Gravity Project 35 Exhibit No. 1—Continued. RECAPITULATION OF ITEMS OF NORTH DIVISION TO REVISE TABLE NO. 42, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost. Contin- gencies 1, Canal, Hillerest to Ephrata. ........cccccsccccesvecsnece $14,573,241 $1,046,160 2. McElroy Tunnel ............ ae eae 1,521,638 183,864 3. Paha Tunnel ........... 371,262 44,845 4. Paha Siphon ............. 466,641 9,000 5. Klemmer Tunnel ............... 8,765,430 455,175 6. Branch of Third Coulee Siphon............eececeeeeeers 323,437 7,000 7. Second Ooulee Siphon.......... 1,027,706 20,000 8 Flaig Siphon ......... Sissel 5 536 12,000 9. First Coulee Siphon ..... wa ‘767,071 10,000 10. Sand Coulee Siphon....... ‘ a 773,691 23,000 11. Black Rock Coulee Siphon... : 654, 782 14,000 12. Broken Rock Coulee Siphon. 1,387,980 24,000 13. Round Lake Siphon.. ohn 504,845 8,000 14, Round Lake Flume. 2 i 15. Adrian Siphon ... 2,304,236 42,000 16. Soap Lake Siphon Pe 8,128,589 ‘ 17. Canals, main from and all laterals ........- scolbtaleigteseiiata 3,755,310 18. G.N. Ry Crossing, F 86,186 19. Potholes Siphon ... 1,158,819 2. Frenchman Siphon 693,313 21. Low Gap Tunnel........... 698 ,840 22. Babcock Siphon, lateral ‘“‘N' 309,498 23. Laterals, Hillcrest to Ephrata 1,773,539 24. Siphon No. 1, lateral “NI”.. 10,500 25. Siphon No. 2, lateral ‘“NI’”’.. 11,610 26. Siphon No. 3, lateral “NI”... 12,646 27, Ohute, lateral “N22’’....... 20,367 98. Flume, lateral “N24”... a 23,990 29. Siphon, lateral “N5’’........... 128,166 30. Ephrata Siphon, lateral “N6’”... 228,339 31. Chute, lateral “N7’”’.. 16,771 32. Road Crossings ..........- 83. Fences .........- ‘ : 34, Telephones .........- edrateiets rece hiszaransie ala; siaigis aratereis oie aie. x" < MTPObAIS i Mwalacdvnve vamdouas sMeuu@orta ese tatnnedsiontd es $41 824,197 $2,881,004 Grand Total.......ccsccccccscececuccnceteeneees seceleccceccesereccess| $44,705,201 36 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Exhibit No, 1—Continued. RECAPITULATION OF ITEMS OF CENTRAL DIVISION TO REVISE TABLE NO. 43, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- gencies 1. Dam at diversion of Central and South Divisions, costing $150,905, with a contingency of $8,200, charged in proportion to relative capacities of canals, 58:6 Per CONt: « s.sceceiescsesseescsseceewsewewes $83, $5,000 2. Oanal, main line and laterals. . 10,806,116 655,750 3. Tunnel, Providence Main “‘CC”....... “ 485, 58,764 4. Tunnel No. 1, Providence Main ‘“OD’’.. 534,410 64,641 5. Dam, Providence Main “‘OD”’.. 41,867 2,000 6. Tunnel No. 2, Providence Ma 221,387 26 ,800 7. Siphon, Providence Coulee... 378,714 7,000 8. Ohute, Providence-Shano Mai 54,950 3,500 9. Chute, Shano Main “OF”.......... Stiiodiona 87,835. 2,000 10, Crossing of Connell Northern Ry 3 Tl, Drop, Shano Main “OG ........ cc cce eee cece eee ee eens 12. Siphon, Shano Main “OG”. . 18. Siphon; Skootenay Springs-Shano Main «CG, 14. Chute, Saddle Mountains Main “OL”...... 15. Chute, lateral ‘“O54’.... 16. Chute, lateral ‘‘O56’........ 17. Drop No. 1, lateral ‘C7’... 18. Drop No. 2, lateral “O7"...... 19. Chute, lateral “O72”............ 20. Siphon, lateral ‘C72”............. 21. Drop, lateral ‘‘C72’’............ Bide 22. Chute, lateral ‘“‘O77".......... oeie'a Siphon, lateral “‘O781”............ Siphon, lateral “O8”.............008 Siphon, lateral “Cg2’’... Chute, lateral ‘09’... Chute, lateral ‘‘C92” Chute, lateral “OJ1” Road Orossings Fences .......++ 2 Telephones .........s.esee0e Salle pis Oeuinediasdrs a sistatabaiaa gene sid Dota es cris esivccoinapeiens ee Sicieiisi cies $15,529,729 $874,255 GTO, VOtSlracedcundintoncnciarnvnisinesd cues Ss.sidiere ays Ya leatelasierel secee] $16,408,984 BSSRSSRESB Estimates for Gravity Project 37 Exhibit No. 1—Continued. RECAPITULATION OF ITEMS OF SOUTH DIVISION TO REVISE TABLE NO. 44, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- gencies 1. Dam at diversion of Central and South Divisions, costing $150,905. with a contingency of $8,200; charged in proportion to relative capacities of canals, 41.4 per cent...... $62,475 $3,200 2. Canal, South Main and laterals, “Hillerest ‘to end of line ...... 6s $a Wis ssibie stesso diele Aiea ar weaemeTs: 7,829,450 1,098,360 3%. South Main, ‘Tunnel. Gla seater aiste Aes 911,136 607 4. Drop, Snake River, Main gor 12,695 1,200 5. Kahlotus Siphon, Snake River Main “SE” 3,153,946 30,000 6. Tunnel, Snake River Main “SF’’........ 359,505 48,270 7. Tunnel, Snake River Main a 676,430 81,371 8. Siphon, Snake River Main “SH”. 201,651 5,000 9. Tunnel, Snake River Main “SH”... 5 121,987 14,702 10. Snake River Siphon, Eureka Main “gy, 4,026,312 86,500 11. Tunnel No. 1, Eureka Main “SJ”.......... 100, 13,269 12. Dam, Bureka Main ‘‘8J’’...........05 46,100 5,000 18. Tunnel No. 2, Eureka Main “‘SJ’’.... 577,908 69,792 14. Siphon, lateral “S41..........0.000e 201,688 1,300 15. Qhute, lateral “S42”....... 11,158 700 16. Chute, lateral “S74”....... 899 3,000 17. Chute, lateral “S81"....... 4,465 1,750 18. Chute, lateral “S82”, No. 1. 8,751 150 19, Chute No. 2, lateral ‘882”.. 20,121 1,450 20. Chute, lateral ‘‘889”....... 61,813 4,550 21. Chute, lateral “S84”... 3995 5,350 22. Siphon, lateral ‘‘S86...... 58,820 400 23, Siphon at foot of drop lateral “S4:! 205,930 5,000 24. Road Crossings . 98, 25. Fences ......... 176,064 2%. Telephones . 160,200 Totals....... A aialasiys $18,725,238 $1,585,921 Grand Total wcscosises seeseseseavorrieecwcervecnselaccaacecesasecsee| $20,811,150 RECAPITULATION OF ALL DIVISIONS TO REVISE TABLE NO, 45, COMMISSION’S REPORT. AOCOUNT Cost Contin- Totals gencies Supply Oanal .........cccccecccescseercscecceeecee| $127,111,907 | $12,075,751 | $139,197,658 North Division ..... is waste 41,824,197 2,881,004 44,705,201 Central Division .... . 15,529,729 874,255 16,408,984 South Division ............0.008- mid Sialdialsnwaraiejaie-els 18,725 , 238 1,585,921 20,311,159 UNDISTRIBUTED ITEMS— Distribution system below 100 second-feet capacity ........e.ee- oiiesie a's ais 26,295,000 |......eec ences 26,205,000 , Spillways ‘and ‘wasteways “below “Hillerest. 1,674,193 88,143 1,762,386 Minor wasteways on distribution system. ei 500,000 |. .ccecceeceeees 500,000 Lateral headgates .... wie 384,013 19,200 403,313 General incidentals and “miscellaneous. items, including patrol houses. ........ssssseesseeves 750,000 |. .cceseeecsees 750,000 General engineering, administration and legal expense, preceding construction........ 1,051,800 |...ccsssccceee 1,051,800 Administration, legal and general expense, uring construction .........ccceeeevcecorcees 2,800,000 |... .ceeccseone 2,800,000 Totals.......ccscccccercsccseccceceeseseese| $236,646,077 | $17,524,274 | $254,170,351* * $144.99 per acre. EXHIBIT No. 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR GRAVITY PROJECT. | Estimates for Gravity Project 39 Exhibit No. 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST, GRAVITY SYSTEM. Flathead Lake Dam— 1 operator at $1,500. ...... ccc cccencceeeeeeeeees 2 operators at $1,200........... sriveiviaierciars s Sisto Exit Newport Tunnel, to include Albany Falls Dam— 1 operator at $1,500. ...... ccc ccceccseeseeeenees 2 operators at $1,200........cccec eee e ves eeer ee Camden Dam— 2 operators at $1,200...............0005 aie x vet: Dry Oreek Dam— 2 operators at $1,200........... eiolale bie ausaialentetdle Deep Creek Dam— 2 operators at $1,200........ccceceeceeceeeneves Deadman Creek Dam— 2 operators at $1,200........cceeccenenceeseenes Spokane River ae ath ae 1 operator at $1,500. .....csceceeeeeeeesen ren eee 2 operators at $i, BOO: ti cecantunaciotnencbae Latah Creek Dam— 1 operator at $1,500. ...... ccc ee cece ce eeeceneees 2 operators at $1,200.........ccsceeseerevens oie Rock Lake Dam— 1 operator at $1,500..... eibrate aerate elersleRerloeatciey 2 operators at $1,200.............005 sa Wassun Siphon— 2 operators at $1,200...........ccseecceceseeene McCall Dam— 2 operators at $1,200..... stern gudeeeding aeeesieg Cow Oreek Siphon— 2 operators at $1,200................ Srasaveieieicesieie Mains below Hillerest— 415 miles, one operator per 20 miles, 21 OPerators At $1,200. .......eceeeecerrecccveree lisp Laterals— 1,753,000 acres, one operator per 5,000 acres, 350 men at $1,000........600- Extra gangs— 1 foreman at $1,800........eeceseees 5 laborers at $1,500......-seseeeereesecees Per SADE ..ccceeccccccaceccecsccevencesenecs $1,500 2 $1,500 2,400 3,900 3,900 4 gangs at $9,300..........cceeeeee Keicaienaa easier eevadcaetay 1 general superintendent... ojeieteis ate alee 4 division superintendents at $4, 000... 4 hydrographers at $3,000.......scceseeeees 4 hydrographer helpers at $2,400. Daiismiaietsier Sua Total all persOndel.....ccscececescncereeee Transportation seas $3,900 3,900 9,600 11,700 7,200 25 ,200 350,000 37,200 47,600 B80 CATS At SO00.......ccsccceccereceesecesantees lees 4 trucks at $1,200. .......ccccceeseeesenee Annual amount for material “and miscellaneous | } supplies ........eeeee- ajaswiatefouaG erste ate Total cost all operating mechanism ‘installed, $617,560, depreciation and upkeep at 2%....... is Total estimated annual operating ex- pense ........- isiaraie Bein st eis 7 Annual crecatioe cost per ‘acre, “90. 43. $496, 300 332,800 12,850 $841,450 EXHIBIT No. 3. ESTIMATES FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF GRAVITY PROJECT. (Revised wherever corresponding items in Exhibit No. 1 were revised.) Estimates for Gravity Project 41 Exhibit No. 3. RECAPITULATION ITEMS FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVISED AND CORRESPONDING TO TABLE NO. 41, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- gencies Dam at Pend Oreille Lake... Pend Oreille Lake overflow ri Head gates ...... Newport Tunnel Road changes at Deadman Creek and Deep Creek. Deadman COreek Tunnel...... . Deadman Oreek Dam.............. Pleasant Prairie ane! ieiareaetnee Spokane River Orossing.. S. & I. Ry Crossing.............. S. & L. E. Ry Crossing.......... N. P. Ry Crossing............ ©. M. & St. Paul Ry Crossing. ..... Appleway Crossing .........sscceeceseeveee sciase S. T. Co.—Vera Line ‘Grossing. Street Crossings ......csecsececesnceee Manito Tunnel ........ Latah Oreek Dam............ Bonnie Lake Tunnel..............+ Bonnie Lake Highway Bridge.. Rock Lake Dam.........,.0.+++0- Wassun Creek Siphon............++6+ Emergency Wasteway (Wassun Creek) Dragoon Lake Dam...... eateiarwiass S. P. & S. Ry Orossing........ McCall Dam and Dike........ a Patterson Tunnel ..... SiS rhe O. W. R. & N. Ry Crossing.. Cow Oreek Siphon.......... Hillcrest Siphon and Gates.............. Drainage culverts, Albany Falls- Hitlerest. Fences .........- ue pipictoeraie erste Telephone Lines Lateral “MI’’..... Totals: sisedteors veawewess aie Grand Total....... siotilse’ atearadente® $7,235,178 $93,779,309 42 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Exhibit No. 3—Continued. RECAPITULATION ITEMS FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVISED AND CORRESPONDING TO TABLE NO, 42, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- genciles 1. Canal, Hillerest to Black Rock Coulee, ashanti laterals (Item 23) ..eccsseeeeeseeeee ais n.d Viens $v 8m a Sa $11,118,219 $523,080 2. McElroy Tunnel ........ 7 1,521, 188, By Paha. LUNE: oj sccisssroisss csecarssorgesa b:aese aroseroialese rasa aroves e's ela alesis etvis 262 44,845 4. Paha Siphon .............. SuaieeR ee Ree seRNT 289,150 4,500 5. Klemmer Tunnel ..........ccccccssenccecnceetenvenseceee 3,765,430 455,175 6 Branch of Third Coulee Siphon...........-seeceeseesees 187,619 3,500 7. Seeond Coulee Siphon......... ine 549,563 10,000 8. Flaig Siphon .......... 264,448 6,000 9. First Coulee Siphon.. 413,846 5,000 10. Sand Coulee Siphon....... 431,428 11,500 23. Laterals, Hillcrest to Bla Sa DGB TG INO a By seesvces ave siie ue a a aiave-acosary are atetwrainiate vacate eisraganaceead | ecto sid etptotiaterere acpintelntale aia 24. Siphon No. 1, Lateral “NI”. 10,500 150 25. Siphon No. 2, Lateral “NT’’. 11,610 100 26. Siphon No. 8, Lateral ‘‘NI’’. ‘i en 12,646 100 27; Chute; Lateral !N22) oasis vc cise ectesicmaiawainsecvea veces 367 1,500 28: ‘Flume, Lateral “N24... sisie% sisi sete sisinsie siowieed seca s neresces 23,900 |e serrsaninniwies eve 82. Road Crossings ....... wiser 89,085. |e cicccsewewees 33. Fences ...... i sina ar wc in banned aed cain wrsiov a wt Sia Wish aparece 6 TPT G80 |e ejassiesciesesetesiessic BA, "“Telephones) i:cicieacsssicrs sinieisicie sie:daisninieeisisininie nitteiee viaveleer Sacyaaw 117,000 |. ..eceeeneeee ‘ Totals ......... Sa Os Davee, alee Risis Gisinees Resjerelaeraesies: $19,825,460 $1,249,314 Grand Total............ seaseaeteceis ogre Siesta suteasasianeial| pas via eepteleeeaaca eel oie's $20,574,774 RECAPITULATION ITEMS FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVISED AND CORRESPONDING TO TABLE NO. 43, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost. Contin- gencles 1. Dam at diversion of Central and South Divisions, costing $150,905, with a contingency of $8,200, eee nee peoree to relative capacities ot canals, per cent........ 5,000 2. Canal, main line and laterals. ioe aro 3. Tunnel, Providence Main “Oi 485,472 58,764 4. Tunnel, No. 1, Providence Main ye) : 534,410 64,641 5. Dam, Providence Main “OD".. atelsieveteacs 41,867 2,000 6. Tunnel, No. 2, Providence Main “GD. ‘ 221,387 26 ,800 7. Siphon, Providence Coulee........0.-0.-0ssscceeeee. ances 228, 482 3,500 8. Chute, Providence Shano Main “CE” Favawaaes 54,950 3,500 9. Chute, Shano Main “OF” Jb LSP NERE ITER mk VN bi 37,335 2,000 10. Crossing of Connell Northern ‘Ry. aiesgane ras 808 15. Chute, Lateral ‘C54’. Saineancaaren 16. Chute, Lateral “O56”... Wisleele caioolenweess 17, Drop No. 1, Lateral 07? 3 icecsasissisaioe sinsineisgn a eioierouy 18. Drop No. 2, Lateral “C7”... se sisle/gaisteGisty eae 19. Chute, Lateral ‘“O072”.. sees eR rere eneais 12,871 50 20. Siphon, Lateral “O72"..........-.seseeeeeeees chien een 53,922 1,000 21. Drop, Lateral ‘C72’. 11,751 : 29. Road Crossings . 87,431 : 30. Fences ......+.- 98,112 fi 31. Telephones .... A Totals ...... $7,353,385 $498,255 Grand Total...........006 $7,851,640 Estiamtes for Gravity Project 43 Exhibit No. 3—Continued. RECAPITULATION ITEMS FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVISED AND CORRESPONDING TO TABLE NO, 44, COMMISSION’S REPORT. ITEMS Cost Contin- gencies 1. Dam at diversion of Central and South Divisions, costing $150,905, with a contingency of $8,200 charged in proportion to relative capers of canals, 41.4 per cent.............. aigfesoratsinreia oivie steels eiowiate $62,475 $3,200 2. Canal, South Main and Laterals i 4,375,137 5A9,180 3. South’ Main Tunnel............-.... se 2 911,136 110,607 4, Drop, Snake River, Main “gor Seren 12,695 1,200 5. Kahlotus Siphon, Snake River, oe “gE”. 1,625,498 15,000 6. Tunnel, Snake River, Main “SF”............++ 359,605 43,270 7. Tunnel, Snake River, Main’ “g@Qn NTI! 14, Siphon, Lateral ‘S41”...........4. aiecdin ieratets. a's, 15. Chute, Lateral “S42’’.............. q 5 23. Siphon at foot of drop, Lateral “gag a 24. Road Orossings ...... sisal Diavelatst jaar Sale ae a Zoe, PONCOR) siessiosasss «ici isrorerdic:eis Saisianciaielatere as eaiastdcste . 26. Telephones .............0005 AGREE NIAIESE ANTE TRIPE RENE: : Totals $8,674,818 $810,882 rere $9,485,700 RECAPITULATION ITEMS FOR PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVISED AND CORRESPONDING TO TABLE NO. 45, COMMISSION’S REPORT. AOOOUNT Cost. Contin- Totals gencies Supply Canal ...... Rahavbra din seamen sveccccecccees| $86,544,181 $7,285,178 | $08,779,309 North Division .......... wigs worm ard eraee 19,325,460 1,249,314 20,574,774 Central Division .........ceeseeees 7 4 7,858,385 498,255 7,851,640 South Division ...........seeseeeee 8,674,818 810,882 9,485,700 UNDISTRIBUTED ITEMS— Distribution system below 100 sec. ft. capacity.. 13,200,000 |......ee.e0e 13,200,000 Spillways and wasteways below Hillerest...... 1,302,881 69,942" 1,372,823 Minor wasteways on Distribution Byatem. a 250,000 |..seeeeeeee wae 250,000 Lateral Headgates .........-esseeceves arb io'ecse's 192,007 9,600 201,607 General Incidentals and “Miscellaneous “items including patrol houses .........ssseseseseees 375,000 |... eeccecceene 375,000 General engineering, administration and legal expenses, preceding construction............+++ 1,051,800 |....sscceeseee 1,051,800 Administration, legal and general expense, uring construction .........cccecccecesrecccees 1,500,000 ]......cccceeee 1,500,000 Totals ...ccccccscccsccccsecececscecncesess| $139, 769,482 $9,873,171 | $149,642,653 Acres involved, 880,000; Cost per acre $170.04. EXHIBIT No. 4. ESTIMATES FOR COLUMBIA RIVER DAM, POWER PLANT, AND MACHINERY. Columbia River Dam Estimates 45 Exhibit No. 4. COST ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 1. DIVERSION OF RIVER— ator. 20 GU FOS. Ob P00 ceswinias venewadancawavsereeiees suc Conerete, light reinforced— W072. 820 cu. yds. at $15.00........ eae ecelg cia div aCoenesiealeenccny 304,800 Piling— 96,000 lin. ft. at $0.60..... SAW tatwiciare! itis Vale Dew eiwinaisceeaieg 15,600 Miscellaneous— (Lumber, etc.) ............ aimee ean ee sB ae VUES esl eaisindy 2,000 Total for diversion........ siiaporn tia nisialewuae ss are icieis A seisanen gases wale siaieen $994,400 CONSTRUCTION OF DAM— Excavation for dam— 3,000,325 cu. yds. at $0.60...........04- Saaaeeetanonseccintat 1,800,195 3,000,325 cu. YS. at $1.50..........cseccecseseucnreeenesee 47500, 488 Steel Cofferdams— Upstream, 187,000 sq. ft. at $1.33 (in place).. p 248,'710 Downstream, 112,000 sq. ft. at $1.33 (in place a3 148,960 Concrete in Dam, 2,199,230 cu. yds. at $10.50. . 3G 23,091,915 Concrete in Downstream Apron, 106,500 cu. yds. “at $10 aig 1,118,250 Concrete in Diverting Walls, 13,660 cu. yds. at $10.50 aor 143,430 ENGIMCCTING, -ejaiaiesis.sc.cieis siaies eevee onze bes iets ae dou sieia aie Seid Sieste Semiains veeMEraresades 10, 000 Total .....scecccesees Bcicininie in obi ams ave nso «| $82,696,348 OTLB SEL CHES! arias siscchinardh nsiciese ase d Hina haeyenidie. a bagaied Waeratas sees $5,360,000 POWER HOUSE— Excavation above draft tube floor.......... 523,880 cu. yds. at 60c. in $314,328 Excavation below draft tube floor........... 210,000 cu. yds. at $2. 420,000 Concrete in power station foundation..... +» 240,000 cu. yds. at $10.5 2,520,000 Light reinforced concrete, SU PEEPEE EHEUES +» 79,110 cu. yds. at $15.00 1,186,650 Reinforcing steel ............cececeeeerseceees 12,434,000 ey at 4c 497, Structural steel .......-...ceee eee ie svar 828 109,680 Doors and windows. Sears tehessiei’s 29,200 Painting ....... 58,400 Station wiring 44,170 Traveling cranes 238,800 Backfill for foundation . 73,350 Sump pumps .............- 20,000 Oil pumps and piping for circui 4,630 Cofferdam ... 349,125 Excavation for fore 337,902 Concrete forebay dam.... 3,872,820 Concrete forebay end wall a 155, Concrete forebay lining. 457,200 Excavation penstocks 76,470 Steel Penstocks ,100 Concrete penstock anchors. 18,360 Engineering .........cseceseseeees 235 ,000 Total ........-00- senaaiesies seeMaseinee reas $11, 867,740 Contingencies .........sceeecsccceeeseee ver eee 1,785, MACHINERY FOR POWER HOUSE— Generating station ..........seeeees $17, pee Feeders to ‘pumping station........ Miscellaneous accessory machinery ae 70 Oba lw azauin Vicon cathe Casha sees omelet AGaadipcdeecs beech ..| $18,688,530 — INTAKES— Trash racks ..........+++000+- aieiaigictgersiatas Head gates and mechanism...........+ $1,047,900 46 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Exhibit No. 4—Continued. COST ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 1. PUMPING STATION— Retaining walls . sq. ft. steel piling at $1.33.... $22,610 Excavation .... 26,400 cu. yds. at 60c......... ; Concrete, light reinforce 13,205 cu. yds. at $15. OO.II: 198,075 Reinforcing steel ........++- 1, 747, 000 Ibs. at 4¢..........-- 69,880 Excavation, pumping statio 162,000 eu. yds. at 60¢........ »200 Cutoff wall steel piling.. 19,500 sq. ft. at $1.33. 25,935 Concrete in foundations 35,258 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 370,209 Concrete superstructure .. 46,317 cu. yds. at $18.00... 833,706 Reinforcing steel .........- 5,985,500 Ibs. at 4c..... ists 239,420 Structural Bteel ..........-+ 183,500 Ibs. at 6C.......eseeee 11,010 Miscellaneous iteMS .......ececsenecceeenceenn ce teeeencetenaceaseeeenes ciateais cafe 250,480 Engineering .......-- acsearle. een er dN segiagia aeons 5 43,000 Total ...ccccccesccrecccsescoece $2,177,365 Contingencles ......eeeeeeeee cee 400,000 PUMPING STATION MACHINERY— Pumps and motors (17 units of 2 eee) cicada $12,316,500 Miscellaneous accessory machinery.......... 884,520 Total fOr MACHINELY........sccccccc eens cette cnet eet e eee ee et eteeaeees $13,201,020 HOUSES— \ Figuring average force of 180 men, 120 single family houses at $3,000............+. $360,000 Three 20 men bunkhouses at $10,000.. . 30,000 Total for HOUSING.......cc rece cece eee cece eer e nen e cnet et enerenene : $390 ,000 MACHINE SHOP .ucccccsccccvecccececceee ceenseaseessssceeseres eiseipesar sess $75,000 PIPE LINES FROM PUMP STATION TO BEGINNING OF CANAL— Hand excavation, earth............ seseseees 89,200 cu. yds. at BOc......... $44,600 Hand excavation, rock... -. 26,000 cu. yds. at $2.50....... < 65,000 Concrete Piers .........++-- 11,700 cu. yds. at $10.50....... 122,850 Steel Pipe »..-.-.seeeereeeee -. 26,049,000 Ibs. at 6¢........66 1,562,940 Steel standpipes . +. 189, 006 Tbs. at 6c........ maleisiera 11,340 Air valves ......-.. sulgnstas ech aleavaravocd sistas ais te ere eresmvanncens 9,000 Headgates .........ceececee is Taejsivtate Masha pedearsreioeaeeatiais arbiniba years 140,400 Forebay excavation, rock..... . 26,830 cu. yas. “at $1. iaaien aise 46,953 Forebay concrete .......eeeeeeeee . 9; 871 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 108,646 Engineering .......cccceeeccecececcseeeterenee sees ‘seiatareeycte sisi: sic Bichate Siete imo sis, Sieve 42,000 Ble scctsscrsicfarcie dl iia coielave aid oxeias eeseecees i eta wage akeranara mieete wien atts wsaaalnle nee eve 1 2! Teuton aie tie taseraiareiasklase ain eGoes G68 eee aia a Aisibhasasecele rate bigsaiatase . Be RECAPITULATION ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 1. Cost Contin- Total gencies Dam ....... Se agaieeeeanaaesea eee pawieesata $32,696,348 | $5,360,000 | $38,056 Power House ......-..0eeeeeees 21] “113 867}'740 1,785,000 ee ee Power house machinery. . vee[ 183688;580 |.....0... ‘ee.] 18,688,530 Pumping station ...... eonacenaee =e 2,177,365 400,000 2 B77 bab Pumping station machinery....... ve] 18,201,020 |.........s0006] 13,201,020 Pipe lines from station to canal..... 2,148,729 330,000 2,478,799 Intakes (trash racks and headgates). 1,047,900 |.......eeeeeee 11047 *900 Machine ShOp .......s-seessereee Sispaiaieie 235 75 ,000 ‘i * 000 Employees houses ..... brass a/attlatainveeinreiaiaiater stoi iriatalave ‘ siaieiaratelais estas 390,000 Total wise cssseess afb dreeateréve,aeiein ed cidwiese see ccewigie |: “$82; 202,602 $7,875,000 | $90,167,682 Columbia River Dam Estimates 47 Exhibit No. 4—Continued. COST ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO, 2. Diversion of river (as in Dam No. 1 estimate) ................ aiatgieabrarcin’ seas $994,400 River cofferdams (as in Dam No. 1 estimate) upstream oa 248,710 River cofferdams (as in Dam No. 1 daa downstream ...... 148,960 Excavation ............. cd id isienbistereiece seseevees 3,318,346 cu. yds. at 60c.. 1,991,008 Excavation ....... +e. 3,318,346 cu. yds. at $1. 50.. 4,977 ,519 Concrete in dam...... -+ 3,342,925 cu. yds. at $10.50. 35,100,713 Concrete in apron........ .. 106,500 cu. yds. at $10.50. 1,118,250 Concrete in diverting wall.. +» 15,140 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 158,970 ED QINGCTING) §s-sig cis cscs) aiaisias aisles seyeiwates a rieweets $8 8 id stbisiejaravaieis acc creuucee ean iad 900,000 DOGO cscs ateterisuivia veadsaurnes aia aye $45,688,580 Contingencies ...........ccccevec eee eaters ‘ 7,300,000 POWER HOUSE— Excavation above floor......... ‘ $235,572 Excavation below floor.. -. 205,000 cu. yds. at $2.00. 410,000 Conerete substructure ... -. 288,010 cu. yds. at $10.50. 3,024,105 Concrete superstructure .. eddy 452 eu. yds. at $15.00 171,780 Reinforcing steel ....... os 7, 098, 000 Ibs. at 4c. 283,920 Structural steel ...... 1, *845, 000 Ibs. at 6c. 11,070 Miscellaneous items .. 370,070 Backfill under floor..... 92,000 cu. fs ‘ 3800 Excavation for forebay 149,810 cu. yds. at 60c.. > 89,886 Concrete, forebay dam. 451,320 cu. yds. at $10.50...... 4,738,860 Concrete, forebay endwa 28,150 cu. yds. at $10.50.. : 295, Concrete, forebay lining. 24,100 cu. yds. at $15.00. . 361,500 Excavation for penstocks 223,860 cu. yds. at 60c. 134,316 Steel for penstocks............. 14,389,000 lbs. at 6c.... 863,340 Conerete anchors for penstocks 9,468 cu. yds. at $15.00.... 142,020 Cofferdam .......... 1,085 lin. ft. at $133.00... 144,305 Trash racks for intak 3,570,000 Ibs. at 7c... 249,900 Headgates for PenstoOckS..........c.cccceceee ceceteecsncnecevcetseecs evant 741,200 Headgates for siSrHarEe pipe outlets isa wid isla awit 140,400 ENBINGOTING® 6 ieio'5.cdisiadis sie via ca'sesrejece os sisswicrecionn mbes stants wislata cela eeiataets a ete eibtoiustarsgess 250,000 Total: vsciscasccacs apciousiewalaiete sietaiate Sale Ba Sa oui dresstaaiossr 4 gets whet oe avaretitayatens $12,740,619 Contingencies. Wile MRS Ri alwraawiars Galore Ned saTANLANihe Rin PTO MEATIDs DEAS Bie Bisiecnicih 2,000,000 PIPE LINES FROM POWER STATION TO BEGINNING OF CANAL— Pipe line excavation, earth.............-..... 182,000 cu. yds. at 50c......... $66,000 Pipe line excavation, rock.... - 26,000 cu. yds. at $2.50........ 65, Steel pipe ............5 wees -« 47,196,000 Ibs. at 6c........... 2,831,760 Steel standpipes nduyelagierabis atewaieaiete sty «» 189,000 Ibs. at 6c............6. 11,340 Concrete anchors for pipe s.. avpetovoscais 19,100 cu. yds. at $10.50....... 200,550 Concrete lining for pipe tunnel ‘ander “forebay 5,850 cu. yds. at $15.00........ 87,750 AIR “Val VOCS jx. « ciisiwisscicreaieces sini a\sieiaia sreraiara.sie' clea [chats Be nciavsisreuinges sana gemsers <6 SRS 9,000 Rock excavation ‘for’ discharge forebay..... 26,830 cu. yds at $1. "5... 46,952 Concrete for discharge forebay........ Prec Oy 871 cu. yds. at $10.50... 103,646 PID PINSCTIN Gio. ssnieise Soi arcssesieverssaigiasd eialyeie tiacsreiangie. ‘vain ere a Wena imu la Namaeadaee 70,000 POCA]. ssiesiids ssisweaiesie ao aisigtafaveCaaalacelagelarets ear Bante ats. weO geerelaistetaiera’ scuyp alaniissaliins aes $3,491,998 Contingencies asssicnsscnisr ssiewernaiesie ues Re ialemeaas waa Satie aise hi 525,000 POWER PLANT MACHINERY— Turbines and pumMpS.............eee0+ a ging Waials We toare Re eae aictnainaGs e Mamiemreerelwats «+1 $23,899,900 RECAPITULATION ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 2. Cost Oontin- Total gencies Dam ......... as Sree ances ee «- | $45,638,530 $7,300,000 | $52,938,530 Power house’ seeel 12,740,619 2,000,000 14,740,619 Machinery and accessories.......... salereine:e eeesces| 28,899,900 |.........2.-.., 28,899,900 Pipe lines from station to canal sidinaveiunse 3,491,998 525,000 4,016,998 MaCRING SHOP tecussevenvonens cvvee eer Y5000 |csvsiaasesawne 75,000 Employees houses ......ssccscscccceccccscvee seve 890,000 |....seeeseveee 390,000 TOURS! acscaraca,svaierc dcoica ciate wiceiarsinis b's aula sive sienis $86,236,047 $9,825,000 | $96,061,047 48 Columbia Basm Irrigation Project Exhibit No. 4—Continued. COST ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 3. Diversion of river (as in Dam No. 1 estimate) ........ si leisb ieee Gielens Excavation for dam.......scssceseeceeeereves , 644 ,334 cu. yds. “at 60e. : 3,500,000 cu. yds. at $1.50. Steel cofferdam, upstream......... - 187,000 lin. ft. in place at $1.33. downstream 112,000 lin. ft. in place at $1.33... Concrete in CaM ........cce eee e vec eeennn ees - 4,303,190 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 106,500 cu. yds. at $10.50. Concrete in downstream apron 16, 130 eu. wok at $10.50. Concrete in diverting walls Engineering ..............- eee daissbaaielaeta Total .......... Siaceia(eii's Va lewiai eye Se siahevdioreincesaa's a apsauniainuacrcivesn ica wroiauave sia Contingencies soi .csessicicvess cece seins samswe sess acainsaya Guns ibiaie aie wets sepeeitny POWER HOUSE— Excavation above draft tube floor.......... 334,430 cu. yds. at 60c....... Excavation below draft tube floor..... ++ 143,500 cu. yds. at $2.00...... Concrete in power station foundation... 154,390 cu. yds. at $10.50....... Light reinforced concrete superstructure..... 54,135 cu. yds. at $15.00....... Reinforcing steel ..........-cccesecesccesesess 8,176,000 IDS. at 4C.........086 Structural steel .............ccee eee esis 1,251,000 Ibs. at 6c........... . Steel sash and doors............+ ee ' PRINCI sie ajedidcsawiaa et sie siowiwmreaniaian Station wiring .... Traveling cranes ...... Backfill for foundation. . Sump pumps and piping. Poa Oil pumps and piping f secede insle Miv Siaieilewderaieiseae tne Cofferdams .......... é Excavation for forebay. Ooncrete in forebay dam.. Concrete in forebay endwa Concrete in forebay lining.. 147, 290 cu. yds. at 60c..... 450, 900 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 29,500 cu. yds. at $10.50.. 21,710 cu. yds. at 15.00.. Excavation for penstocks. 192, 480 cu. yds. at 60c.. id Steel penstocks ............+0..0- 18,620,800 Tbs. at 6c....... pica Concrete anchors for penstocks. «e+e» 6,840 cu. yds. at $15.00........ Engineering ........csceeesceseeeeeee de sie da iste oiasain otgrei ace le@mtaiaha toretaracaien eremenes Oba sisisicce sesie disices icatsiasate vide biors eta Si siciein peeya ehieiete shies genes ates fetes set ccadydaoue Contingencies Rarahaedidamaieess HF Ha ye esiony GSTS GREE Hina Sisiciete siekareata seainaiels MACHINERY FOR POWER eases Generating station .............066 wad Sale Mel-giersreraniewg Hee : Miscellaneous accessory machinery. . sia Winkie ofl osavstavatnw te WA-¥ Gr essjbreicia cchoesseaour merece Total ..... 9,8 (eiSleswlo: 915 inswrieta aieloVouavataleiereje ABN Spe paSecarsiein’'gtag-aaceva eae tiiecmusibre sl ocoi ie Feeders to pump station................ cc cee ce ceceeeecees eeaidsitnatemmtagre o% aie Total ........cceeeee Sintbigidreieialiere, Soe aie te vias escitkapedagstaass eich m spaseare tvaiiy arsatacosessaysia PUMPING Beet Retaining walls..............6. . Steel piling, in place, at $1.38. Excavation 26,400 cu. yds. at 60c.......... Concrete, light reinforced..... seeeeeeeess 13,205 cu. yds. at $15.00. ; Reinforcing steel ............ 1, 147, 000 lbs at 4c..... Excavation pumping station.. 162,000 cu. yds. at 60 Outoff wall steel piling....... .+. 19,500'sq.ft. ab $1, 38. i lace) Concrete in foundations................+0802. 85, 358 cu. yds. at $ Concrete in superstructure...... Lnepewraes wees 48,317 cu. yds. at si8.00.. Reinforcing steel .........eeereeee aia isiaseigiarslacaty 5,985,500 Ibs. at 4c Structural steel ........ccccceecnereecencnces 183,500 Ibs. at 6c Miscellaneous items \,........... : Engineering ............ TOtal: scssssinegsexaes Contingencies ‘ 1,110,000 -| $56,360,305 8,900,000 $10,516,160 261,530 $10,777,690 529,380 $11,307,070 $2,177,365 400,000 Columbia River Dam Estimates 49 Exhibit No. 4—Continued. COST ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 3. PUMPING STATION MACHINERY— Pumps and motors (17 units of each) $12,316,500 Miscellaneous accessory '‘machinery..... 884 ,520 Total for Machinery ssciei oi vsisiccassised vais ese asia wiaaases 4 Karenina as colnet $13,201,020 Houses (as in estimate for Dam No. 1)..... ccc cece cece ce ee tenet eee eeeneeens $390,000 PIPE LINE FROM PUMP STATION TO BEGINNING OF OANAL— Excavation—earth ...... saith svavontec mbes ea osy +». 89,200 cu. yds. at 50¢......... $44,600 Excavation—rock .......... cece eee e ees evens 26,000 cu. yds. at $2.50...... . 65,000 Concrete piers ....... seseescesecececeee 11,700 cu. yds at $10.50....... 122,850 Steel pipe ......... sececsececcccccess 26,049,000 Ibs at 6c........ Saws 1,562,940 Steel stamdpipe ..........ccceceseeeeeeecenre . 189,000 lbs. at 6c.......... Kaas 11,340 Air valves ....... sifa ershatsvaiclgin Rio niva tnd etanssatsi eicaiclare Sin nate lave cleave wasia bin taibidin tlstarSranseaeonaiete 9,000 Headgates ........ AC rr tifa droratniessae usin stew eiee vinte: eGisisatiavee oie HeuaNlemenG 140,400 Forebay excavation—rock..... iadonennsaets 20; 830 eu. yds. at $1.75........ 953 Forebay concrete ..... Sialajalwdelaainieeatnine siemens 9,871 cu. yds. at $10.50....... a 103,646 Engineering ........... fesivotatala cia ciaveimiaveig:a°oie Cite acai alshaeesetWtastonatareincatsies watistounte wlasrais sieetilate F Total ....c.cccsccccene als fupats oialaia ateiscn injats isiaisioronarniave apesowiaistecee Rata we rheaiaicty eaicis $2,148,729 Contin Zeneies! vcs see scieveicinvnne cveswaiss guaceleees & ae aatee dissed aanieae® 4 eters 330,000 , RECAPITULATION ESTIMATES FOR DAM NO. 3. Cost Contin- Total gencies Dam ...ccceeceeeee srageesiva Wades $56,360,305 Power house ..........- 10,991,258 Power house machinery 11,307,070 |. Pumping station ..... 2,177,365 Pumping station mac! 13,201,020 Pipe lines from station to ean: 2,148,729 Intakes (trash racks and headgates) 627,200 |. Machine ShOp .........cceeeneceee 75,000 Employees houses .......... 390,000 |. Totals .....-.....006 eareiaeie sie secesensece sees] $97,277,947 | $11,280,000 | $108,557,947 —4 EXHIBIT No. 5. REVISED ESTIMATES FOR PUMPING PROJ- ECT BELOW MAIN CANAL INTAKE. Pumping Project Estimates 51 Exhibit No. 5. ESTIMATE REVISION OF TABLE NO. 55, COMMISSION’S REPORT. | Main Supply, Exclusive of Columbia River Dam. Contin- Total ITEM Amount gencies Amount Overflow damages above Columbia River Dam...| $1,000,000 |.........0008. $1,000,000 Pumping plant (covered in Exhibit 4).......... ..)eccccseseeesesde aa Aaletsiei nerd acon fasaisotesstalasassiate! Railroad (thirty miles at $25,000 per Qs} ceteie Saythe 750,000 subaeeears 750,000 Canal, Columbia River Dam to Bacon Lake...... 4,385,284 $479,952 4,865 ,236 Grand Coulee Lake, both dams.................+.| 3,742,008 185,000 3,927,098 Grand Coulee, outlet gates.........:-ss.ssssceeee 70,7 5,000 75,760 Bacon Tunnel ..........seecescacs seeee 4,085,552 486,140 4,521,692 Bacon Dam ..... siarahse otaus rate 97,290 10,000 »290 Bacon Dam, outlet ‘gates. Dawber as oaeentes sieteiea eats 54,100 »500 58,600 Totals........ Dee leceieiais tt Seicreisiustreee iekaweses «e+e | $14,285,084 $1,170,502 | $15,405,676 ESTIMATE REVISION OF TABLE NO. 56, COMMISSION’S REPORT. West Main Canal. Contin- Total ITEM Amount gencies Amount Canal, main and all laterals..........ssceeseness| $7,265,823 $856, 450 $8,121,773 Quincy main, tunnel No. 1............ 150,964 18,930 169,894 Quincy main, tunnel No. 2............. 182,852 16,660 149,512 Quincy main, tunnel No. 8......i......666 21,538 290 271,828 Dry Ooulee inverted siphon.. 463,250 7,660 470,910 Grand Ooulee inverted siphon....... 2,164,173 18,460 2,182,633 Great Northern crossing west of Quine 86,186 |..rsecevecece 86, Potholes inverted siphon..........+.es00s 1,763,790 37,200 1,800,990 Frenchman {nverted siphon 842,836 19,310 862,146 Low Gap tunnel............. 698,840 83,250 ,090 Inverted siphon on lateral NO4 809, 498 8,000 317,498 Inverted siphon on lateral N6 889 3,000 281,339 Chute on lateral N7.. 16,771 1,000 17,771 Road crossings .... 827 (a bias d 61,827 Fences ....cceceeeeeees 140,650 Telephone lines ..........+-2++ 127,200 To tale asics scisisianendisaneciaiesaeremeineediaeiane seeeee| $14,689,037 $1,100,210 | $15,789,247 52 Columbia Basin Irrigation Project Exhibit No, 5—Continued. ESTIMATE REVISION OF TABLE NO. 57, COMMISSION’S REPORT. East Main Canal. Contin- Total ITEM Amount gencies Amount Canal, main and all laterals............... $32,707,186 $5,317,090 | $38,024,276 Grossing of Washee on Central Railway 10,572 750 11, Long Lake tunnel No. 576,367 72,290 648,657 Long Lake tunnel No. a aesaie 210,469 26,400 236,869 Long Lake tuatel NO. 8...00000cessrerevesennnes oo 275,231 34,520 309,751 Stratford tunnel ...............e cece aia Si ya oe 1,385,874 178,810 1,559,684 Orab Oreek inverted siphon ha tease tartaubsorere roti day 8s 2,717,638 34,190 2,751,823 Broken Rock inverted siphon............0s..ce0ee5 2,924,934 57,800 2,982,734 Black Rock inverted siphon............. iesialnlaretet «| 1,152,567 24,520 1,177,087 Black Roek: tuiuGheis ia 344i isass diidicancwacecenwes¥4 785 ,947 98,520 884, 467 First Coulee inverted siphon.................000+ 2,783,267 51,030 2,834,297 ‘Weber Coulee inverted siphon No. ............ os] 2,772,653 50,530 2,823,183 Weber Coulee inverted siphon No. 2......... ities puieia 2,131,390 39,110 2,170,500 Lind Coulee inverted siphon........ a steevaicts seseees| 2,107,549 49,290 2,156,839 Providence tunnel .......... -e++| 8,283,758 889,330 3,623,083 Ounningham dnverted siphon. 244,469 6,460 250, 929 Hatton inverted siphon...... 367,846 8,930 376,776 Rattlesnake inverted siphon . 201,100 5,680 206, 780 Reeder tunnel .............. 554,574 660 624, 234 Washtucna inverted siphon. 2,343,181 2,874,131 Delany tunnel No. 1..... 217,240 244,450 Delany tunnel No. 2. 209,637 235 ,867 Delany tunnel No. 3. 209,637 235,867 Delany tunnel No. 4. 131,772 148, 262 Inverted siphon on lateral Ni . 128,166 130,166 Crossing on Connell Northern 18,910 13,910 Inverted siphon on main ‘“‘CQ@’’.. 841,517 856,517 Skootenay Springs inverted siphon. 966,441 441 Inverted siphon on lateral “O72”..... 53,922 54,922 Inverted siphon on lateral “O7s1” nie 166,815, 167,815 Inverted siphon on lateral “C8”............ Arc 139,309 141,309 Inverted siphon on lateral “082”..... : : 39,220 39,420 Inverted siphon on lateral “S41”..........cc.e0035 201,683 202,988 Reinf’d concrete inverted siphon on ulatene vigig” 186,250 191,250 Snake River inverted siphon...... i seseeese| 4,026,312 4,112,812 Tunnel, Eureka main SJ No. 1..............c00L.. 109,940 123,209 Tunnel, Eureka main $J No. 2........ nwstetsserass wed 577,908 647,700 Dam on Eureka main S8J.............. SsBitieisosarsiaiane 51,100 56,100 Inverted siphon on lateral S86.. crease duns 58,820 220 Chutes and drops, entire main.................... 398 ,842 422,592 Road crossings ans 231,417 231,417 Fences ... neawenne 403,200 403,200 Telephone lines 375,000 375,000 Wotals i icdcihel seintiell avenntemenn oh teeceleenwee $69,224,635 | $6,883,231 | $76,107,866 Pumping Project Estimates 53 Exhibit No, 5—Continued. ESTIMATE REVISION OF TABLE NO. 58, COMMISSION’S REPORT. Reeapitulation, Columbia River Pumping Project. Contin- Total ITEM Amount gencies Amount Overflow damages above Columbia river dam.... he 000,000 f...eeeeeee $1,000,000 Pumping plant (covered in exhibit 4).............- yshescjaoate ARES all syoiste epsiernins bles orai|lolnaee piereisiaiaiaet Railroad to Columbia river damsite, 30 miles” at $25,000 per mile, including salvage............ 750,000 ‘ eas 750,000 Canal, Columbia river dam to Grand Coulee" VAR sivas saisnertesioenarw'sisiesisleswatesia'sioe stale aie) 1,007,210 $119,952 1,127,162 Grand Coulee lake, ‘overflow rights and dams at each end...... ode eceeccetecamseeesane 3,983,008* 185,000 4,168,098 Grand Coulee lake, “outlet gates..... an 70,760 000 75,760 Oanal, Grand Coulee to Bacon dake... --| 3,378,074 360,000 3,788,074 Bacon tunnel .... ees «| 4,035,552 486,140 4,521,692 Bacon dam .. se 197,290 10,000 207,290 Bacon dam, out i 54,100 4,500 58,600 Sub-total, main supply, excluding Columbia river dam..........cceeeeeecoee ++| $14,476,084 $1,170,592 | $15,646,676 East main canal to Snake River and laterals.. ..| $63,039,908 $6,467,240 | $69,507,149 Eureka main canal and laterals... sevelessacis 6,184,727 415,991 6,600,718 West main canal through Quincy rict, and Veter als. asscciae Sie xseyecwioa asin versie aivtiatoace nie ace seeseesese| 14,689,037 1,100,210 15,789,247 Distribution system below 100 second feet CADACIEY. vaca cs sicciemesiassieuiewiecveiaess 0 Feels graikis 21,045,000 |.....ceceeeene 21,045,000 Spillways and wasteways ‘on main canals.. 722,743 49,600 T12,343 Spillways and wasteways on laterals.... 2) 400,000 |. .c..seceneeee 400,000 Lateral headgates ........... eSipions sin aiecofeneiava® wi 463,218 23,161 General incidentals, Tmiscellaneous items, in- cluding patrol houses....... 600,000 |....eseceveeee 600,000 General engineering, administration ‘and “egal” expense preceding construction..............e00 ++ 841,800 |... oeaee 841,800 Administration, legal and general ‘expense dur- ing construction ........ aya cares ein eGonielt seceeeces e+] 2,240,000 trikeie death Gh 2,240,000 Totals (excluding Columbia river dam, power plant, and machinery)............ «.|3124,702,517 $9,226,794 |$182,929,311 *Note—Of this amount, $241,000 is for overflow damages. ESTIMATE REVISION OF PUMPING PROJECT. Final Recapitulation of Entire Pumping Project. With With With Dam No.1 | Dam No.2 | Dam No.8 Canal system ........es.e0ee -]$182,929,311 |$132,929,311 {$132,929,311 Dam and pumping.. «| 90,167,632 96,061,047 | 108,557,947 ITO bal By ou dacminise ceases caus daneniesivasasamreiegave $223,096 ,943 |$228,990,358 |$241,487,258 Cost Per ACTC.........ccee cae ceeaees $169.01 $163.21 $172.12 EXHIBIT No. 6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR PUMPING PROJECT. Pumping Project Estumates 59 Exhibit No. 6, ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR DAM NO. 1. GENERATOR HOUSE— 89 water wheel tenders—(3 shifts of 18 men each) at $1,500.. Oilers—4 groups, 3 men per shift, 36 men at $1,800.......... Switchmen—4 groups, 8 men per shift, o men at $2,100. 2 water wheel tender foremen per shift men at 88, 700 1 ofler foreman per shift-—-3 men at 32, he 2 switchmen foremen per shift—6 men at $2, (| rn 1 assistant superintendent per shift—3 men ae 37, 600 1 general superintendent. .......ccccsesccerersereeceereecceseenes 1 timekeepeer per shitt—8 mmen at $2,400. = aici 1 bookkeeper at $2,400......cccceccsecesecen seenseesee aie 2 office men per shift—6 men at aaa Perce a 1 messenger per shift—3 men at $1,500.... ..ssesecseeeees Upset sum for extraordinary conditions during ier season... Headgates, 4 men per shift—12 men at $1,500 .......seseseese Total generator HOWSO siciccseecosaewries seieeda cesiawusseonieasse| ae PUMP HOUSE— Pump tenders, 17 per shift—5l men at $1,500 ......essoeseeees Pump tenders, 2 foremen per shift at $2,700 ......... wa Oil system, 2 men per shift—6 men at $1,800 Caame fore- men to handle this work).........ccceeen sees siete ieee aieivi Switchboard men, 2 men per shift—6 men at $2, 100 pale siseeaie el Total PUMP HOUSE. ...... cee cecsecrecccn setceceeeeeeeeeunes ‘ie Total power house PerSONNel.........ce cercereevceesereeeses PORTION OF PROJECT BELOW BEGINNING OF CANAL— Grand Ooulee op tee 1 man at $1,D00....cccuserssrnecacraves ipecmceni are BL E00 2 men at $1,200. - a dvisicineesiacee 2,400 Bacon dam— 1 man at $1,500.. $1,500 2 men at $1,200.. 2,400 Main canals, 216 miles, 1 man per 20 miles—11 men at $1,200. Laterals, 1,403,000 acres, 5,000 acres per mMan—281 ditch tenders at $1,000... ccc cc cnc sn ences neeenee seeeee aavave