SOUTH CANAL HAER NO. AZ-52 South of the Salt River Mesa Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

PHOTOGRAPHS

WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA

HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD lntermountain Support Office - Denver National Park Service P .0. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD

SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52

Location: On the south side of the Salt River in vicinity of the City of Mesa in Maricopa County, Arizona.

USGS Granite Reef Dam, Buckhorn, Mesa Quadrangles Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Head: 1,430,030.85E - 12,166,356.SN Foot: 1,391,765.27E - 12,138,499.58N Zone 12

Dates of Construction: 1907-1909. The current South Canal contains part of the historic Consolidated Canal, constructed in 1891.

Engineer: U.S. Reclamation Service.

Present Owner: U.S. Government, operated by Salt River Project (SRP), Phoenix, Arizona.

Present Use: The South Canal conveys water for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses south of the Salt River.

Significance: The South Canal is the single irrigation feature that delivers surface water from the Salt River at Granite Reef Dam for the farmers and residents on the south side of the Salt River. It improved water distribution to the southside canals and provided water for a series of hydropower plants that supplied electricity to SRP and the cities.

Historian: Shelly C. Dudley, Senior Historical Analyst SRP Research Archives. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 2)

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Origins 3

U.S. Reclamation Service 6

Power Plants 9

Consolidated Canal I South Canal 14

Eastern Canal I South Canal 19

CCC 25

Rehabilitation and Betterment 26

South Canal and the Urban Landscape 29

Bibliography 32

Maps 34 SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 3)

Introduction The U.S. Reclamation Service constructed the South Canal to carry water to the farmers on the south side of the Salt River as part of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. Built between 1907 and 1909, the original canal measured only two miles and diverted water from the newly erected Granite Reef Dam. The South Canal eventually became the only irrigation structure to divert water directly from the Salt River and deliver it to the south side shareholders of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association (the Association).

Controversy surrounded membership in the Association for many of the landowners south of the Salt River. A majority of the farmers held early water rights and did not see any advantages to joining the Salt River Project (SRP) when the project first opened. The canals that supplied water to these people had their own headings or diversion points in the Salt River. Although some farmers built new irrigation ditches and laterals so they could join the Association in the early 191 Os, it was not until the 1920s that almost all of the unsigned lands within the exterior boundaries of the Salt River Reservoir District became members of the Project. The original South Canal was enlarged and extended to accommodate all the water users on the south side of the Salt River, encompassing portions of the Eastern and Consolidated canals.

Because the early founders of the Salt River Project saw the potential ofhydropower, the Association contracted with the federal government in 1910 to build three power plants on the Salt River Project canals. Eventually three hydropower plants would be built on the South Canal. They provided needed power to an expanding Salt River Valley for commercial and domestic use.

This report will detail the history of the South Canal, from its minor beginnings to becoming the primary irrigation structure carrying water to the shareholders on the southern portion of the Salt River Project.

Origins Although the U.S. Reclamation Service did not construct the South Canal until 1907, its original purpose dates back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century when other irrigation canals were built by farmers located south of the Salt River. Austin Carrington first filed a notice to appropriate 50,000 miners' inches of water about one mile southeast of the Arizona Dam, then with J. Frank Meador and T. J. Butler, incorporated the Highland Canal Company on December 13, 1887. The company planned to irrigate land east of the Mesa Canal after the Highland Canal SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 4) was finished in November 1887 and the South Canal later followed the same general path as the upper part of the Highland Canal (see Image AZ-52-1 ). 1

The Mesa Canal Company constructed the city canal in 1879, for the local landowners and the City of Mesa. The canal's heading had a capacity of 175 second-feet and was in the Salt River approximately 21/i miles above the head of the Utah Canal, one of the earlier canals constructed by the southside farmers. U.S. engineer Arthur P. Davis reported that its alignment followed the bed of a prehistoric canal for part of its distance. The corporation experienced difficulty maintaining its heading in the river, requiring the local farmers to repair the headworks during the irrigating season. Dr. A. J. Chandler approached the Mesa Canal Company with a proposition to enlarge the Mesa Canal in 1889 so that he could use it to carry additional water for his proposed canal. After a year of negotiations, Chandler signed an agreement with the shareholders of the Mesa company and assumed control over a portion of the canal in 1891. The contract gave the Consolidated Canal Company the perpetual right to use the headworks and that part of the Mesa Canal extending from its dam to what was known as 11 Ayers Headgate 11 for a yearly rental fee (see Map 1). 2

A. J. Chandler, Dexter Ferry, and Charles C. Bowen, two of Dr. Chandler's former employers, formed the Consolidated Canal Company in March 1892, to bring water to uncultivated farm lands on the south side of the Valley. The company planned to construct new headworks for both the Consolidated and Mesa canals which would be large enough to divert enough water for both canals. The Consolidated would also deliver water for the Mesa lands to a designated point on the Mesa Canal. Chandler's crews built a diversion structure in the Salt River composed of large boulders with massive granite masonry abutments and wing walls. Ten wooden gates permitted the flow of the river into the initial two miles of the canal which was cut in boulders

1U.S. Department of1he Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Irrigation near Phoenix, Arizona, by Arthur P. Davis, in Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers No. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897), 51. Earl Zarbin, Two Sides ofthe River: Salt River Valley Canals, 1867-1902. (SRP, 1997) 112. The United States purchased 1he canal property and rights of the Highland Water Company in 1910. Louis C. Hill, Supervising Engineer, U.S. Reclamation Service, to I. L.B. Alexander, U.S. Attorney, February 19, 1909. Warranty Deed, signed October 31, 1910.

2Sylvia Bender-Lamb, "Chandler, Arizona: Landscape as a Product of Land Speculation," (Masters thesis, Arizona State University, 1983), 23-24. Davis, Irrigation near Phoenix, 51-52. McClatchie wrote 1hat the Mesa Canal claimed its canal had a capacity for 375 second-feet or 15,000 inches. Alfred I. McClatchie, "Utilizing Our Water Supply," Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 43, (Tucson: University of Arizona, 1902) 80. The Mesa and the Consolidated canal companies signed 1he agreement on January 10, 1891. Mesa Canal Company, "Minutes," 1889 - 1891. Supervising Engineer, Reclamation Service to Examiner, September 30, 1913. National Archives, Washington, D.C., Record Group 115, Microfilm, SRP. The United States government later,purchased the Mesa Canal Company's irrigation system under the May 7, 1910 agreement. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 5) and hardpan. A large steam dredger with a dipper capacity of two cubic yards cut into the earth, leaving a 26' deep canal. 3

After the first two miles Chandler enlarged the existing Mesa Canal, now called the Consolidated Canal, following the older canal's alignment until a point three miles northeast of the city of Mesa (see Image AZ-52-2). At this point, water for the Mesa Canal was carried in its original structure and the newly constructed Consolidated Canal, typically 45' wide and 7' deep, carried the flow to its landowners southward when completed in April 1893. The original Consolidated Canal was excavated in all types of soil conditions. Near Section 22, Township 2 North, Range 6 East, the canal was cut deep through solid rock, followed by ground which was very light and sandy. Like the Mesa Canal, the Consolidated Canal was seriously menaced by erosion from flood waters of the Salt River for a span of four miles. A. J. Chandler and the Consolidated Canal Company expended large sums of money to protect and maintain the structure from danger against erosion, but the river channel had gradually encroached on the canal banks.4

To widen the canal, Chandler acquired a medium-size dredger from the Marion Steam Shovel Company of Ohio, which permitted the water to continue flowing. Because of the success of the first machine, Chandler ordered a larger dredge from the same company. This piece of equipment measured approximately 46' wide x 84' in length and contained an 80' long boom. It was reported that this larger dredge could excavate "to a depth of 25' below the surface of the water, and at a distance of 80' from the center of the dredge on either side," drawing 21h' of water. The dredge's sixty horsepower boiler could drive a fifty horsepower engine and it required four men to operate the machine which worked the lower portion of the canal as far south as the division gates. The dredge was housed just north of the gates in its own small pond where it remained for many years. 5

By the turn of the century, the farmers on the southside of the Salt River were irrigating approximately 56,000 acres from a number of canals (see Map 2). Agricultural products grown during these years were barley, alfalfa, and other forage crops; later, speciality vegetables and cotton claimed acreage in the Valley. Farmers, however, could not expand their irrigated lands without government help because of the uncontrolled Salt River. A prolonged drought during the 1890s had shown the farmers that dependence on the natural flow of the river was risky and that the best solution was a storage dam on the upper Salt River. Private enterprise found the perfect location for a dam at the confluence of the Salt River and Tonto Creek. The Hudson

3Bender-Lamb, "Chandler, Arizona," 25-29. Davis, Irrigation near Phoenix, 52. Earl Zarbin, "Dr. A. J. Chandler: Practitioner in Land Fraud," Journal ofArizona History 32:2(Summer1995): 177.

4Davis, Irrigation near Phoenix," 52. SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920, 60.

5W. Earl Merrill, One Hundred Yesterdays, (Mesa, 1972) 171-173. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 6)

Reservoir and Canal Company filed the required notice to build the dam and appropriate the water, but it could never raise the necessary capital to begin the actual construction. 6

U.S. Reclamation Service \.Vhile western congressmen had talked about using federal money for the reclamation of arid lands, it was not until Theodore Roosevelt became President that the possibility became a reality. The U.S. Congress passed the Reclamation Act and President Roosevelt signed the legislation on June 17, 1902. The Reclamation Act introduced a progressive program that would transform unproductive lands into fertile fields with the aid of water storage and diversion works financed by the federal government through the sale of public lands. Under the provisions of this statute, the U.S. Reclamation Service would build and finance selected irrigation projects authorized by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Salt River Valley Water Storage Committee was already in Washington, D.C., lobbying the legislators seeking federal approval for Maricopa County to issue bonds for the construction of the dam in 1902. Benjamin Fowler, who later became the first president of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, and noted reclamation advocate George Maxwell became well acquainted with Frederick Newell, ChiefHydrographer of the U.S. Geological Survey, and Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester. Fowler even offered the U.S. Geological Survey $1,500 in matching funds to continue its investigation of the Salt River as a means of maintaining federal interest in the region. George Maxwell moved to the federal capital, leasing a house near Newell to aid Francis Newlands in his congressional fight for a reclamation act. At his Washington, D.C. residence, Maxwell gathered Newell, Fowler and Pinchot to discuss the national irrigation movement and possibly a Salt River Valley reclamation project. Pinchot and Maxwell were good friends with Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt, a strong supporter of the reclamation and conservation movements. Following the ascendency of Roosevelt to the office of the President, the reclamation measure passed Congress and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to choose the first projects from a list supplied by Newell. 7

Because the U.S. Reclamation Service wanted a successful project among its first endeavors, they looked closely at the Salt River Valley. The influence of Newell, Pinchot, and Maxwell,

6Davis, Irrigation Near Phoenix. Decision and Decree, Hurley v Abbott, No. 4564, in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Table 10. U.S. Reclamation Service, Eighth Annual Report 1908-09, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910) 48. Davis, "Irrigation near Phoenix," 54.

7Karen Smith, "The Campaign for Water in Central Arizona 1890 - 1903," Arizona and the West 23 (Summer 1981): 127-147. The article discusses the competition for the first reclamation project in Arizona between the Salt River Valley and the San Carlos Project. The San Carlos Project included land both on the Gila River Reservation and the public and private land in the Florence - Casa Grande area. Possibly the use of the "Indian Card" could not be played too heavily because the Reclamation Act did not provide for the reclamation of Indian lands. Benjamin A. Fowler to E. A. Hitchcock, November 20, 1900. National Archives, Washington, D.C. RG 48, LANDS & R.R. DIV, RECL., SRP. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 7) with Fowler's organization, made the Tonto project an attractive enterprise to the federal government. This was especially true since Maricopa County was home to the territorial capital at Phoenix, was more populous, and had more acres under irrigation than Pinal County where the Florence - Casa Grande farmers were trying to get approval for the San Carlos Project. On July 2, 1902, the Secretary of the Interior authorized the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. 8

To facilitate the repayment of the construction costs, the Water Storage Committee proposed a plan for the formation of an association of all landowners based on land ownership. It suggested Judge Joseph Kibbey, a prominent local attorney and author of the landmark decision inM Wormser vs Salt River Valley Canal Company, and George Maxwell write the articles of incorporation for the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association. These articles would represent the interests of all the farmers, guarantee repayment to the federal government, and provide an organization for the operation and maintenance of the completed irrigation system. After a review by the local landowners, the articles were accepted and filed in the county recorder's office on February 9, 1903. Soon the Association was accepting subscriptions for stock, although several canal companies on the south side did not join.9

The U.S. Reclamation Service engineers came to Arizona in 1902 to survey the Salt River Valley and the Tonto dam site. As work progressed on the construction of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam, problems with the irrigation systems in the valley came to the attention of the federal officials. Because the flood of 1905 destroyed the Arizona Dam and the farmers on the north side of the river could not get water, the United States purchased the property of the Arizona Water Company and the individual canals in 1906. Other landowners approached the U.S. Reclamation Service engineers for assistance in either purchasing their system or constructing new canals. To distribute the water to the canals on both the north and south sides of the Salt River, the U.S. Reclamation Service designed and constructed a new diversion dam downstream from the damaged Arizona Dam. 10

In 1908, the government completed the Granite Reef Diversion Dam which would distribute the flow of water to both sides of the Salt River. To deliver water to the south side farmers, a new canal would be necessary with its head at the diversion dam (see Images AZ-52-3, AZ-52-26). Preliminary survey work on the South Canal by the U.S. Reclamation Service began during the construction of the Granite Reef Diversion Dam in the fall of 1906. By the middle of 1907, a

8Smith, "The Campaign for Water in Central Arizona," 140, 145.

9Karen L. Smith, The Magnificent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, 1890-1917, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986) 38-39. Judge Kibbey divided water among the canals and declared that water was appurtenant to the land. M Wormser vs Salt River Valley Canal Company, No. 708, Third Judicial District for Maricopa County.

10See Shelly Dudley, "Arizona Canal," HAER No. AZ-19, SRP, 1990, and Fred Andersen and Carol Noland, "Grand Canal," HAER No. AZ-17, SRP, 1990 for a history of two of the canals in the Salt River Valley. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 8) portion of the canal and regulating gates were completed, but full-scale construction of the South Canal would wait until the diversion darn was finished in 1908 (see Image AZ-52-4). 11

Work on the two mile South Canal began in earnest in the late fall of 1908 and was completed in June 1909. Water was initially released into the canal on March 20, 1909, to test the cement gates. The original canal was approximately 11,000' in length, with a bottom width of 47' and side slopes of 1: 1 grade. The depth of the water was 7' with a free board of 2'. The engineers designed the irrigation structure with a hydraulic gradient of .0002 and a capacity of 1,600 cubic feet per second. Expenditures for excavating and moving approximately 187,000 cubic yards of earth, gravel, and boulders totaled $112,223. 51. Construction costs for building the South Canal, amounting to over $157,000, were high, considering the delivery structure was only two miles long. 12

Among the significant features on this initial stretch of the canal was a sluice gate, located 1, 600' below the headgates of the Granite Reef Dam, which served as a combination waste gate, check gate and bridge (see Images AZ-52-27, AZ-52-28, Drawing AZ-52-48). The edifice was made from reinforced concrete with the three 5' x 7' cast-iron waste gates operated by a gasoline engine. The six, massive timbered check gates were each 9'-6" x 9' and swung on hinges at the upper edges. When dropped, they were held in place in an inclined position by gravity and the pressure of the water on the upstream side. Zanj eros, ditch riders who tended the canals, raised the gates by means of copper cables and a windlass operated by hand. The bridge was composed of three semi-elliptical arch spans, measuring 17'-6" at one and the other two at 17' (see Images AZ-52-5, AZ-52-29). During the construction of the sluice gates, the U.S. Reclamation Service excavated 4,780 cubic yards and used over 680 cubic yards of concrete. The federal agency spent $18,317.66 for the sluice gates, including materials and labor. 13

The other important components on the South Canal were the culverts, a headgate to the Eastern Canal, and the structure at the end. Three culverts or siphons, needed to convey the surface drainage under the South Canal, were composed of double barreled structures with the dimensions of the separate conduits being 4' x 5' and 4' x 6' (see Images AZ-52-6, AZ-52-30). Crews used a total of 73 5 cubic yards of concrete to build the structures (see Image AZ-52-7). The original turnout to the Eastern Canal consisted of four screw stemmed lift gates of cast iron faced with bronze, each having a 3'-6" wide x 5' high opening, which was operated by hand. The work force used over 113 cubic feet of reinforced concrete and constructed a wooden bridge over the top. At the end of the canal, the engineers designed a combination spillway and drop, to carry the waste water above the normal depth of 7'. A wooden bridge was built over this

11Bernice Burgess, "History of Irrigation Canals to 1916," Salt River Project, June 1923, 216. U.S. Reclamation Service, Sixth Annual Report 1906-1907, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907, 66.

12 U.S. Reclamation Service, Ninth Annual Report 1909-1910, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, 65-66. Burgess, "History of Irrigation Canals to 1916," 216-217. Arizona Republican, March 23, 1909.

13Burgess, "History of Irrigation Canals to 1916," 221-222 SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 9) structure. Permanent taintor gates were not installed until 1913, with wooden flash boards used initially. This site, utilizing the drop of about 25' for 1,000 second-feet of water, would later be used for the construction of a hydropower plant. 14

Construction techniques for building irrigation ditches had not progressed much since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Men and horses still did most of the actual excavation (see Image AZ-52-8). Teamsters cajoled teams of horses or mules dragging plows to dig into the hard desert soil. Steel scrapers, drawn by animals finished the work with men filling the wheel­ barrows with the loosened dirt and urging the teams leaden with earth up the banks of the canal. By October 1908, 125 head of stock and almost 250 men were employed to do this work. They experienced considerable difficulty because of the terrain which required the removal of large boulders. 15

Shortly after the U.S. Reclamation Service finished the South Canal, the federal government completed the construction of the Eastern Canal. The United States also purchased the Main Consolidated and the East Branch Consolidated canals for $187,000 from A. J. Chandler, president of the Consolidated Canal Company. In anticipation of their purchase for the Salt River Project, the Reclamation engineers started operating the Mesa Canal system and the Eureka Canal, a part of the Utah Canal system. The South Canal diverted water from the Salt River to the lands under the Tempe Canal after its landowners decided not to join the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association (see Map 3). A similar contract agreement was made with the farmers who received their water from the Utah Irrigating Ditch Company.16

Power Plants In the spring of 1910, the Council and the Board of Governors of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association adopted resolutions presenting their proposal to complete the Salt River Project by constructing a new Crosscut Canal, enlarging the Grand Canal, and installing three power plants on the canals in the Salt River Valley. The Association proposed to accomplish these plans at its own cost with designs and specifications prepared by the U.S. Reclamation Service. The power plants were to be located on the new Crosscut Canal, at the Arizona Falls,

14 U.S. Reclamation Service, Eighth Annual Report 1908-1909, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, 45. U.S. Reclamation Service, Report, May 6, 1909. Burgess, "History ofirrigation Canals to 1916," 223-228. SRP, "Amrnal History," 1913, 45; SRP, "Annual History," Supplemental, 1914.

15 Will H. Robinson, Thirsty Earth, (New York: Julian Messner, 1937) 102-103. Arizona Gazette, October 9, 1908.

16U.S. Reclamation Service, Fifteenth Annual Report 1915-1916, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916, 57, 62. The contract with the Tempe Irrigating Canal Company was approved on May 15, 1915. U.S. Reclamation Service, "Information Relative to Salt River Project - Arizona, Furnished Secretary Ballinger," September 15, 1909. The Utah Canal, with a capacity of 175 acre feet, was constructed in 1877 by the local landowners. Its heading was approximately five miles above the headworks of the Tempe Canal. Davis, "Irrigation near Phoenix," 52-53. Agreement signed between Consolidated Canal Company and U.S., November 19, 1908, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, James Garfield, January 11, 1909. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 10)

and on the South Canal. On August 30, 1910, the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association signed a contract with the Untied States for the construction of the hydropower plants on the canals.17

The agreement included a hydro-electric power plant designed to generate 3,000 horsepower on the South Canal. The plant was located at the junction of the Consolidated Canal and the South Canal, some 50' from the old intake of the Consolidated Canal in Section 22, Township 2 North, Range 6 East (see Image AZ-52-9). The head from the water surface in the South Canal to the

water surface in the Consolidated Canal varied from 26' to 29 1, and the entire irrigation flow of the canals, amounting to a maximum of 1,200 second feet was available for power production (see Image AZ-52-31). 18

Within a year after approval of the contract, the U.S. Reclamation Service completed its field surveys and was preparing the plans and specifications for the work, while no actual construction had started. The S. Morgan Smith Company received the contract for two 1500 horsepower hydraulic turbines at the cost of $16,590 and the General Electric Company was awarded the contract for the two alternating current generators for $30,600. The contract for the physical plant itself was given to Olsen and Graf on October 17, 1911. 19

The designs for the power plant facility called for a rather simple single-room structure, 102' x 44', which housed the generators, transformers, governors, and switching equipment. Olsen and Graf starting excavating the site in November 1911, and by February 1912, they were fabricating forms for the cement and erecting the reinforcing steel for the building. The building's 21 thick walls constructed of reinforced concrete reached an extreme height of 68 1, had a rhyolite plaster interior finish and a brushed-cement wash exterior finish (see Image AZ-52-10). A double layer of No. 28 gage galvanized iron supported by wooden purlines and steel trusses formed the gabled roof over the generator room. Circular galvanized iron ventilators were positioned on the apex of the roof and fifteen windows aerated the generator room. Large tungsten lamps, mounted between the roof trusses, and small incandescent lights located throughout the plant, illuminated the building, augmented by light admitted through the windows. Because it extended over the

17John P. Orme, President, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association (SRVWUA), to Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior, May 2, 1910. Agreement for the building by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association of canals and power plants by special assessment," August 30, 1910. Project Engineer to Director, U.S. Reclamation Service, August 31, 1911.

18James M. Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona," January 1, 1914, 72.

19Project Engineer to Director, U.S. Reclamation Service, August 31, 1911. Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 72. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 11)

Consolidated Canal, a combination of piers and foundation walls supported the building (see Image AZ-52-32). 20

The generating equipment consisted of two horizontal generators, direct-connected to twin horizontal, open-flume, hydraulic turbines, mounted in reinforced concrete pits outside of the building proper. These two pits, directly in line with the South Canal, butted against the intake end of the building. A draft chest, mounted over the 9' draft tube opening in each pit, encased each twin turbine runner. The two turbine shafts, each powered by a runner, entered the building through the intake wall and direct-connected to the two generals. Two sets of twin buckle plate gates regulated the volume of water that entered the turbine pits from the South Canal and two electric motors, using a combination of gears and pinions, and worms and wheels, raised and lowered the gates. A trash grill of 3/8" x 2Yz'' steel bars with 111 spacing protected the open pits from trash, while equipment behind the grill, composed of conical valves opening downward removed sand and discharged the water into a sluicing tunneL 21

Force account crews employed by the Association in May 1912, began installing the two generators, with a rated capacity of 1,000 kilovolt-amperes, 3-phase, 25 cycle, 2,300 volts, with a total weight of 62, 100 pounds. The seven oil-insulated, water-cooled, 333 kilovolt-amperes transformers were connected in two banks of three each, with one spare transformer. Clear water for cooling the transformers and lubricating the submerged bearings was obtained by filtering canal water through sand in a specially constructed filter. The filtered water was pumped to an elevated concrete tank where it flowed to the transformers and then to the bearings. Initially, the Association planed to obtain the water from a well under the powerhouse, but no water-bearing stratum was encountered. Eventually a sufficient clear water supply was found in a well drilled about 600' northeast of the plant 22

The station was designed to have only one person on shift with the hand-operated switchboard located in the center. The operating force consisted of a Chief Operator in charge of the plant and three power plant operators to stand regular shifts. No difficulties were encountered with having only one person employed on each shift, however additional men were needed to clear the accumulation of trash on the grill at times. At least two cottages were required for the operators and were built under contract at a cost not to exceed $4,000. One of the houses had two extra bedrooms to accommodate the single men expected to be employed. 23

20 Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 74-75.

21 Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 74-76.

22 Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 77, 79-80. SRP, "Annual History," 1911, 30. SRP, "Annual History," 1912. SRP, "Annual History," 1917/1918, 44.

23 SRVWUA, Board of Governors, "Minutes," November 6, 1911, 66. Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 68, 79, 8L SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 12)

Work on the construction of the power house was completed by July 1912 and the plant placed in operation on October 23. The 40,000 volt power transmission line connected the facility to the Mesa Switching Station in Section 13, Township 1 North, Range 5 East. U.S. Reclamation Service Engineer Harris suggested the same crew that put up the electric line to Granite Reef Dam be employed because no other outfit in the Salt River Valley could install the transmission line as cheaply as the government crew. In the early months of 1912, force account crews constructed the eight mile single circuit transmission line on tripartite steel poles set in concrete. Crews positioned the poles 440' apart, varying in height from 41' to 51 ', and also carrying a telephone line. Over the next year, the Association constructed a 2.42 mile, 2,200 volt transmission line from the power plant north to Granite Reef Diversion Dam and the $2,800 wooden pole structures carried a telephone line to the diversion structure.24

Problems, however, assailed the South Consolidated Power Plant. When operating at full load, the bad eddies above the turbines necessitated putting a raft in the turbine pit to prevent the turbines from sucking air (see Drawing AZ-52-49). Slow velocity in the head of the canal from Granite Reef Dam caused the deposit of a large amount of silt, making it impossible to get sufficient water to the plant for it to carry a full load. The power house was only able to produce a maximum load of 1,400 kilowatt within its first two years of operation. 25

Following the 1916 flooding, the Association considered moving the power plant downstream from its current location, but the cost was prohibitive. Deterioration of the power equipment wheels on the back side of the vanes due to the oxidizing effect of a partial vacuum caused by water discharge would eventually require new runners since the action could not be prevented. Flooding again created problems for the plant after the February 1920 flood required reconstruction of the Consolidated Canal. The necessity to raise the canal grade during construction created a back-up of water in the canal below the plant causing a loss of head and reduction in power output.26

After the 1920 flood, SRP staff prepared plans for the new South Consolidated Power Plant as part of the enlargement of the Eastern and Consolidated canals (see Drawing AZ-52-50). Because additional land was needed to operate and maintain the new hydropower plant, the Association requested Commissioner of Reclamation D. W. Davis withdraw the northwest quarter of lot two, Section 6, Township 1 North, Range 6 East, under the first form for use by the Salt River Project. Davis passed on the request to the Secretary of the Interior with his

24U. S. Reclamation Service, Eleventh Annual Report 1911-1912, (Washington: Government Printing Office, ' 1913) 49. Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 116-117.

25 Gaylord, "Power and Pumping System," 81-82.

26 SRP, "Annual History," 1917/18, 44. SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 13)

recommendation and on July 17, 1923, First Assistant Secretary E. C. Finney approved the withdrawal. 27

Initial work began on March 29, 1923, constructing a camp, installing light and power, building a coffer dam in the Eastern Canal to protect the power house excavation, and setting up machinery. A temporary substation was installed on the 40,000 volt line near the location of the new plant to supply power for the construction. One electrician and helper were kept on the job during the building of the plant to take care of motors and wiring and to install the conduits in the concrete work. On April 2, actual work on the excavation began with the Monighan 2 yard dragline, which was used until June 18, 1923, when it was moved to the Mormon Flat dam site. The Lidgerwood 1112 yard dragline excavator was brought to the site to aid in the removal of the Monighan equipment and continue the digging. The excavator was a dry land machine that ran along the bank of the canal. It also assisted in building the road and removing the coffer dam. The machines handled 7,000 cubic yards of material from March to September 11, 1923, when the work was finished. 28

The Association work parties poured the first concrete at the powerhouse on May 1, 1923. A daily average of 48.5 man days were employed on this work in addition to the eight head of stock hauling gravel from March to September. The machinery from the original plant, including new water wheels, was moved to its new location and the new South Consolidated Power Plant was in service on January 5, 1924 (see Image AZ-52-11). The capacity of the plant was increased more than 50 percent under the improved hydraulic conditions and increased head, developing approximately 1,600 horsepower under a 34' head at 83.4 percent efficiency. The Association estimated that the additional power income from the relocated plant was at least $30,000 yearly, which was more than 12 percent of the total cost of widening the Eastern Canal and relocating the power plant. While it cost the Water Users' Association $125,438 to move the plant, that expense was considered justified to safeguard the water supply for the south side farmers. 29

A 3' additional head was created at the power plant as an incidental benefit when the Association lined the South and Eastern Canal for the Roosevelt Water Conservation District in 1925. Provision for this was made by adding a 3' high wedge at the power plant forebay to the lining required at the normal water level, the additional height of lining, slowing disappearing 10,000' upstream. While the cost amounted to approximately $3,000 for the wedge, anticipated

27F. C. Henshaw, Secretary, SRVWUA, to D. W. Davis, July 13, 1923. Under Reclamation Service regulations, the first fom1 withdrawal prohibited the public entry of lands required for reclamation works; second form withdrawal pemritted entry under Reclamation Homestead laws. Davis to the Secretary of the Interior, July 16, 1923, with Secretarial approval, July 17, 1923. SRP, "Annual History," 1923/1924.

28 SRP, "Almual History," 1921/1922, 58-59. SRP, "A.llllual History," 1922/1923, 269-270, 294.

29SRP, "Alurnal History," 1922/1923, 270-271; SRP, "Alumal History," 1923/1924, 5. SRP, "Almual History," 1924/25. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 14)

additional revenue was expected to be $5,000 following an increase in capacity of 10 percent or 500,000 kilowatt-hours yearly.30

To house its operators, the Association constructed three houses for the employees at the power plant (see Image AZ-52-12). These men were able to keep the hydropower facility operating at over 90 percent of the time during the 1930s. SRP continued to provide housing for the men at the site through the 1950s, but the last remaining structure was abandoned in 1964.31

By 1966, the South Consolidated power plant's maintenance costs were not considered cost­ efficient and SRP dismantled the facility. In the late 1970s, when rising fuel prices prompted utilities to reevaluate alternative forms of power generation, the Department of Energy embarked on a program to study the feasibility of using existing dams and waterways to generate electricity where there was a difference in water level of 65' or less. In 1978, the federal agency determined that a canal generating station concept producing power was once again practical. The new South Consolidated Canal station became one of seven hydroelectric projects in the nation being sponsored jointly by the Department in their Small-Scale Hydroelectric Power Demonstration Program. The United States agreed to pay 15 percent of the projected $2.4 million cost. 32

The 1,400 kilowatt powerhouse, located slightly downstream from the second South Consolidated plant, contains a hydro-turbine generator, water intake structure, and a tailrace which channels water back into the canal (see Drawing AZ-52-51 ). Completed by May 1981, most of the structure is underground to keep the environmental impact at a minimum, but SRP crews were required to modify the canal forebay before the installation of the generating unit and the engineers designed a new check structure, intake and spillway (see Image AZ-52-33). The hydropower is produced when water pressure turns a turbine, which then powers a generator. The greater the height of the water, the greater the pressure on the turbine, and consequently the greater amount of power can be produced. The drop in elevation on the canal near the South Consolidated plant site is 35', which has the same potential for producing power as a 35' tall dam (see Image AZ-52-34). The station was expected to produce about 6,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy annually and save between 4,000 to 11,000 barrels of oil each year. 33

Consolidated Canal I South Canal While the original South Canal only measured two miles in length from the Granite Reef Diversion Dam, the canal travels today all the way down to the division gates (see Image AZ-52-

30 SRVWUA Board of Governors, "Minutes," January 4, 1926, 3589. SRP, "Annual History," 1925/1926.

31 SRP,LandDepartment, SectionFiles. SRP, "Annual History," 1934/35. SRP, "Annual History," 1935.

32Draft Press Release, August 8, 1980, December 27, 1979. Eugene J. Lauerman, "Small-Scale Hydroelectric Generation and the Salt River Project," Paper presented at the Waterpower '79 Conference, October 3, 1979, 1.

33Draft Press Release, August 8, 1980. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operations & Statistics," 1980, 6. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 15)

35), encompassing parts of the historic Consolidated and Eastern canals (see Map 4). To bring water to the Association farmers on the south side, the U.S. Reclamation Service had the choice to either purchase the Consolidated Canal or construct a new structure paralleling that irrigation waterway. To build a new canal, the government would have had to follow the same terrain which included traversing the steep side of a hill, cost more money than purchasing the Consolidated Canal system, and require an additional two years before water could be delivered. While negotiations started in 1907 and the federal government finalized the sale for the Consolidated Canal system in 1909, the U.S. Reclamation Service knew it needed to widen the existing irrigation watercourse. When work was completed at Granite Reef Dam, the government moved its camp to the head of the Consolidated Canal in July 1908, and anticipated finishing the expansion by the middle of August. The U.S. Reclamation Service rebuilt the head at a point a short distance below its initial location and expected water to be turned into the canal after the completion of the work. 34

The U.S. Reclamation Service continued to improve on other portions of the Consolidated Canal. Work on the old worn-out timber wastegates from the canal into the Salt River occurred in 1914 when crews replaced this structure with taintor gates. The purpose of the wasteway was to sluice the silt from the Main Consolidated Canal and to provide a means to turn out water into the river bed in case of a break in the facility below that point or if water was needed for the South Consolidated Power Plant, but not needed for irrigation purposes. To replace the original wastegate structure, a bridge was built a few hundred feet down stream on the line between Sections 28 and 29, Township 2 North, Range 6 East. The new reinforced concrete check gate, diverting the entire capacity of the canal into the river when needed, consisted of six clear openings of 6'-7" each, equipped with timber flash boards with a concrete footbridge along the top to be used in the operation of the structure.35

At the end of the Main Consolidated Canal, located in Section 11, Township l North, Range 5 East, approximately 1. 5 miles northeast of the city of Mesa, the water was diverted in five directions by wooden gates. The flow was turned into the East Branch Consolidated Canal, the Tempe Crosscut Canal on the west, the Mesa Canal on the south and into two small laterals, Moot to the southwest and Woy to the southeast (see Drawing AZ-52-58). Over the years, however, the timber had rotted, putting the structure into an unsafe condition and difficult to operate. In 1914, crews constructed a new reinforced concrete structure, containing 598 cubic yards of concrete to replace the older gates (see Image AZ-52-13). The concrete division gates utilized four steel gates at the Tempe Crosscut intake, six steel gates at the East Branch

34Burgess, "History of Irrigation Canals to 1916," 54-55. Arizona Gazette, July 6, 1908. The Association Board of Governors approved of the purchase of the Consolidated Canal. SR VWU A, Board of Governors, "Minutes," September 14, 1908, 316. Arizona Republican, September 25, 1910.

35 SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 1, 23, 24. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 16)

Consolidated Canal intake, one steel gate for the Mesa Canal heading and two cast iron gates at the heads of the small laterals.36

Two reinforced concrete bridges to carry traffic across the Tempe Crosscut and the East Branch canals were built adjacent to the gate structures. The Mesa turnout dropped a distance of 470' to the grade of the Mesa Canal and water was carried under the road in an inclined culvert, discharging into a pool. The canal below this area was lined with cobblestone for a distance of 50'. The culverts to the small laterals were 51' and 11 O' in length. The diversion structure was supported on a foundation anchored to a solid caliche formation at a depth from 3' to 12'. To protect the structure from upward pressure, crews constructed a cut off curtain wall and weep holes were drilled to relieve the floor from any additional pressure. 37

Since the construction of the Division Gates required the canal to be dry in December 1914, work needed to be done swiftly. As much preliminary work was done as possible in November, including the hauling of lumber for forms and their construction at the site. Teamsters brought sand, gravel, and cement to the division gates. Because of the limited time to build the gates, two shifts were employed which required the installation of a lighting plant. The gasoline generator did not have the power to carry the load and provide sufficient light. Consequently, a transmission line was connected to Chandler's power line which enabled the crews to complete their work, although the men stopped working at night when the winter rains fell. The gates were hung by January 1, 1915, allowing water to be turned into the canal, but complete construction was not finished until January 11 and the camp dismantled. 38

Frank Winter, foreman, supervised a maximum force of two hundred men with an average work crew of seventy-five. The crews placed 598 cubic yards of reinforced concrete, 200 square yards of paving, the erection of seven steel gates 6' x 5'-21/z'', for the East Branch Consolidated and Mesa canals, four steel gates 5'-6Vz" x 6'-6" for the Tempe Crosscut Canal and the two 3' x 3' cast iron gates for the Moot and Woy laterals. The division gates cost $17,043 .78.39

The South Canal sluice gates located at the power plant consisted of a sand and gravel trap which reached across the canal and a concrete turnout equipped with Taintor gates. The sluice gates were to catch all the sand, gravel, and silt that came down the canal and then flush the deposits into the Salt River. The structure was built in the forebay of the powerhouse just above the trash racks. The turnout discharged into a chute of grouted paving which carried the water down the side of the hill and into an opening which ran into the Salt River. The sluice gates also acted as a safety feature on the South Canal in case there was a break in the canal below the powerhouse.

36 SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 40.

37 SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 40-41.

38SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 41-42.

39SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 42-43. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 17)

A wooden truss bridge was built across the wasteway since it spanned the main road to Granite Reef Dam. The sluiceway channel below the gate opening had a bottom width of 121 with 11 x 11 side slopes and a capacity of 1,500 cubic feet per second. The first 1901 of the channel was built with a 2. 7 percent grade and then changed to a 25 percent grade as it continued to a pool and drop structure. The channel widened out to 60 1 below the pool and was lined with cobblestone paving for 50 1 downstream.40

Reclamation engineers also worked on the concrete flume by-pass at the power plant in 1914 at an estimated cost of $4,900 (see Drawing AZ-52-52). Located in Section 22, Township 2 North, Range 6 East, the by-pass was necessary to carry the water around the hydropower plant and deliver it at the head of the Consolidated Canal when it was not needed for power purposes. The concrete flume could carry the full capacity of the Consolidated Canal, approximately 1200 second feet, replacing the smaller original wooden structure which had deteriorated into a dangerous condition. 41

R. A Munger was placed in charge of the construction which began on May 31 and he finished the work by July 29, 1914. The dimensions of the flume were 57' long, having a bottom width of 301 at its upper end and 16 1 at the lower. Above the structure, the 8' high by-pass canal was lined for 25' with 8" cobble stones grouted into place. The original down stream concrete pier support was still able to be utilized by the engineers. The bond between the old pier and the new concrete pier was accomplished by drilling 29" holes in the pier and placing W' dowel pins in them. Sand for the concrete was hauled from the Salt River while other supplies were transported from the government warehouse in Mesa, eleven miles distant. 42

Flooding by the Salt River created problems for the farmers on the south side. Breaks made to the Eastern and Consolidated canals in 1914 required repair. On January 29, 1916, the Consolidated Canal lost 1,5001 of the north bank to flooding about two miles below the first South Consolidated Power Plant in Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 6 East. The Association Board of Governors initially thought it would abandon the Consolidated Canal at the South Consolidated Power Plant for a distance of 4.5 miles, relocate the power house, and enlarge the Eastern Canal to carry the waters to its shareholders. Estimates by the U.S. Reclamation Service of over $200, 000 made the project unfeasible at this time. But in 1916, crews repaired the existing damage by rebuilding the bank almost entirely from borrowed material and protected by rock jetties along the river side of the canal and farmers received their irrigation water by the end of February. Floods in the winter and spring of 1917 continued the

40SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 43.

41 SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 26.

42 SRP, "Annual History," 1914 Supplemental History, 26, 28. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 18)

assault on the Consolidated Canal with additional jetties constructed as further protection against the river. 43

The threat of safety to the canals caused the Water Users' Association to request a detailed report on the southside canals and laterals. Association Engineer W. R. Elliott reported in 1916, that the demand for water service required the canals to be operated at maximum capacity with no safety margin. Many of the lands were not receiving an adequate water amount and new acreage could not be added to the Project until the canals were enlarged.44

Flooding did not cause all the damages to the irrigation and power facilities. The cutoff wall and apron at the end of the plant's sluiceway were undermined by sluicing in the winter and spring of 1917. These two structures were repaired in August 1917, consisting of a new apron 5' lower than the original and extending 171/i' downstream from the old cutoff wall. The new wall rested on bedrock for the first 20 1 and the remaining 60' was carried down 1O' into the riverbed. Crews built the apron using 12" river boulders, grouted and covered with 6" of concrete. 45

Reports and planning could not prevent major damage to the SRP works at Granite Reef Dam and the Consolidated Canal caused by flooding in the winter of 1919-20. The first flood occurred during Thanksgiving 1919, which damaged a portion of the canal bank, but the integrity of the irrigation structure was saved. Repair work was in progress when another flood occurred on February 21, 1920. The main channel of the Salt River changed its course, directing its flow south against the bank of the Consolidated Canal causing a break of over 2,300' which could not be repaired (see Drawing AZ-52-53). The Association expended over $95,000 to build a new 3,000' cut, removing 72,000 cubic yards of earth, boulders, and gravel. The completion of the work by March permitted the delivery of water to over 80,000 acres of land on the south side of the river. For safety and engineering reasons, the Association decided to move the power plant and enlarge the Eastern Canal. 46

Work on the repairs of the Consolidated Canal started on February 25, following the job at Granite Reef Dam so that the crews were experienced. There were not enough horses, mules and teamsters and while initially a number of well-to-do farmers refused to furnish stock, the local ranchers in the valley provided enough teams to ensure completion of the project in half the time estimated. Lights were erected for night work and the number of laborers peaked at over 700

43 SRP, "Annual History," 1914, 54. SRVWUA, Board of Governors, Minutes, April 10, 1916, 121; May 1, 1916, 125; June 3, 1918, 292. SRP, "Annual History," 1916, 31; 1917, 36; 1919/1920, 60, 81.

44 SRVWUA, Board of Governors, "Minutes," July 3, 1916, 139. Phoenix Gazette, "South Side Canals Must Be Enlarged," July 5, 1916.

45 SRP, "Annual History," 1917, 36.

46F. C. Henshaw, Synopsis oflmportant Events for Association Year 1919-20 up to July 1, 1920, 7-9; Construction, 81-82, SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 19) men and 850 head of stock, working in three field crews simultaneously. Initially the crews used scrapers and slips, which were among the most useful tools for canal digging (see Image AZ-52- 14). The Fresno scraper was one of the better implements for excavating in hard-packed earth. The scraper was usually drawn by four horses and could handle about 100 cubic yards a day, each load averaging about one third of a cubic yard. Later the Marion 3/4 yard Dragline was moved from the Eastern Canal for this job and the Association purchased a P. & H. 1h yard Dragline in Phoenix. 47

Excavation of the by-pass was almost completed by March 27, 1920, and water was turned through the powerhouse. When water was released into the new canal and running about l' deep, a small stream started flowing near the downstream face of the fill across the old channel of the Consolidated Canal. This soon increased in size and within 15 minutes completely destroyed the fill, putting into danger the P. & H. Dragline of being carried into the channel. Crews were able to rectify the situation and water was again turned into the canal on April 2, without any other mishaps. 48

Eastern Canal I South Canal Today, another segment of the South Canal consists of a portion of the original Eastern Canal. The U.S. Reclamation Service decided to construct a new canal instead of rehabilitating the deteriorated Highland Canal to irrigate the existing farm lands within the eastern section of the Salt River Project. The Eastern Canal, as it came to be called and not the New Highland as originally suggested, would also provide water to new lands lying between the Highland Canal and the Consolidated Canal. The federal agency, anticipating the irrigation of 20,000 acres from this canal, conducted initial surveys in 1906, with the final drawings completed in the summer of 1908, under the direction of U.S. Reclamation Engineer S. K. Baker. Because the U.S. Reclamation Service lacked funds to start construction of the new canal, the government authorized the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association to proceed with the building of the waterway under the cooperative plan. The contractors were paid for their services and materials with certificates which would be redeemed by the U.S. Reclamation Service for the building, operation and maintenance chargers after the construction was completed. The Highland Canal Construction Company, organized by the landowners under the original ditch, received the contract to dig the Eastern Canal. 49

47SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920, 81-83; 153-154. SRVWUABoard of Governors, "Minutes," March 15, 1920, 383. Herbert M. Wilson, J\/lanual ofIrrigation Engineering (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1893) 325-26.

48 SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920, 83-84.

49Arizona Republican, July 7, 1908, July 21, 1908, August 4, 1908, December 9, 1908, January 17, 1909. Arizona Gazette, June 23, 1908. Burgess, "History oflrrigation Canals to 1916," 102. While the contractors worked on the new Eastern Canal, the farmers under the original Highland Canal cleaned and repaired the old waterway so that water could be carried to their grain crops. Arizona Republican, March 7, 1909. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 20)

Crews, under the supervision of federal engineers, started working on the canal on March 13, 1909, after Tom Smith arrived in Mesa with thirty head of stock and set up camp. Smith received the first contract to move 20,000 yards of earth located near the boulder formation at the head of the canal. Work progressed slowly during the initial mile because of the mixture of boulders and cemented granite which required blasting, but the government accepted the first mile on April 23. Smith employed at least seventy-five men who used a combination of Fresno scrapers for removing the top layer of the sand and then slips were put on to excavate the eaith. While the Highland Construction Company anticipated finishing the canal by November 1, the difficulties encountered in the first reach of the canal delayed completion of their work until December 15, 1909. Additional construction was done by force account crews to deepen the canal near its head and level the banks for a suitable roadway. The lands first received water from the Eastern canal in February 1910. 50

The engineers designed the first eight miles of the Eastern Canal to have a bottom width of 16' and a depth of 4' with a capacity of 200 second feet. The gradient of the canal in this section ranged from .0004 to .0003. The initial two miles contained three inverted siphons, 5' x 5' and varying in length from 30' to 66' long, and five culverts which were installed during April and May 1909 (see Image AZ-52-36). Four of the culverts were 2' x 3' and one was 4' x 5'. The cost for these structures amounted to over $6,000, which included excavation, forms, concrete, and office expenses. The original construction also included a waste gate and discharge ditch located in Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 6 East, installed at an expense of almost $1,400 (see Image AZ-52-37). The initial hand-operated gates at what was later called the Hennessey Drain, consisted of two screw-stemmed, cast iron gates, each 4' wide x 3' high. The structure contained over 4 7 cubic yards of reinforced concrete and required the excavation and backfill of 231 cubic yards. 51

After seven years of usage, U. S. Reclamation Service engineers started surveying the irrigation structure and its laterals in late 1916, to determine the cause of the shortage in the flow of the Eastern Canal. Crews ran a complete profile and prepared cross sections every few hundred feet. After this work the Association Board considered enlarging the Eastern Canal and moving the power house, but estimates on the cost for construction were too high. 52

50U .S. Reclamation Service, Ninth Annual Report 1909-1910, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911) 66. Arizona Republican, April 24, 1909, September 26, 1909, October 9, 1909, Febrnary 8, 1910.

51 Burgess, "History ofirrigation Canals to 1916," 103, 108, 112. Although it is a "named" feature on the South Canal, infom1ation on the Hennessey wasteway or drain is limited. SRP records show Hennessey spelled at least three different ways and without any reference to its origin. One of the first citations to "Hennessey" is in a pennit issued by the Association for the hauling of gravel from Hennessy Lake in 1933. Insurance lists for SRP facilities also record a line camp in Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 6 East during the 1930s. During that same period, the hydrologic section of the SRP Annual History records water dive1ied into the Hennessey Wasteway. The drain gates were later converted to radial gates (see Drawing AZ-52-54).

52SRP, "Annual History," 1916, 31, 40-41. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 21)

Following the February 1920 flooding, the Association decided to enlarge the Eastern Canal as originally proposed in 1916. The General Superintendent and Chief Engineer submitted to the Association Board a plan with an estimated cost of $323,570 which would also include moving the South Consolidated powerhouse and making a cross cut to the Consolidated Canal. The expansion plans of the Eastern Canal were designed to insure that lands under the Consolidated Canal would not be short of water if the Salt River again encroached on the irrigation structure and included enlarging the wasteway to achieve that result (see Drawing AZ-52-55). Rights-of­ way and easements along the enlarged Eastern Canal were obtained from the individual homeowners at the expense of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association. The Association shareholders approved the expenditure and levied an assessment of $1.14 per acre to pay for the work. 53

Crews, using the P. & H. 1h yard Dragline and the Marion 3/4 yard Dragline, moved 18,103 cubic yards of dirt during the widening of the Eastern Canal. Horse and mule teams moved an additional 13,248 cubic yards during September 1920, while also having to move part of the dirt left by the dredging machines. The Association utilized the Lidgerwood 1h yard Dragline excavator which had been abandoned on the Consolidated Canal during 1915 when engineers thought it had outlived its usefulness. It was rebuilt at a cost of $6,311.34 and placed in constant operation on widening the Eastern Canal since May 1921. The Association work party on the Monighan 2 yard Dragline consisted of an operator, oiler, and ground man, while the crew of the Lidgerwood machine required four men: operator, fireman, and two trackman (see Image AZ-52- 15). 54

The initial expansion of the Eastern Canal was carried on rapidly until December 1920, when the lack of funds required the cessation of work; money was again available in May 1921 and the men returned to their activities on the canal. The Eastern Canal continued to carry water to the shareholders during this work, by leaving the south bank of the canal undisturbed and having adequate material serve as a core sufficiently substantial to retain the water flowing in the original canal. The remaining material between this core and the south edge of the enlarged section was removed in finished form by the drag-lines. The machines then crossed to the opposite side and removed the core and deepened the old section to the new grade. After this enlargement was completed, the drag-lines were again moved to the south side of the canal and the same process continued throughout the area designated for expansion. This process allowed water to flow, the machines worked within their capacities, and the disposal material was moved

53 SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920, 24-26. SRP, "Annual History," 1920/1921, 43. SRVWUA Board of Governors, "Minutes," December 217, 192, 125 5. Correspondence between the Association officials and individual landowners, SRP Land Department, Right of Way files.

54 SRP, "Annual History," 1919/1920, 152-153; 1920/1921, 88, 92; 1921/1922, 211. AftertheAssociation finished using the Marion 3/4 yard Excavator, it was given to the State of Arizona in exchange for four heavy trucks. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 22) only once. SRP crews also used the Ruth Dredger for berming both the Eastern and the Consolidated canals during this expansion project. 55

During the enlargement of the Eastern Canal, team crews averaged twenty-six men and sixty head of stock per day during October 1920, with reduced manpower of twelve men and twenty­ three head of stock per day in November. The lengthening and widening of the canal in December required seventeen men and six to seven animals daily (see Image AZ-52-16). Their work included the construction of three additional 8" x 8" barrels to a 51 x 51 siphon where the canal passed under a desert wash and the installation of a 41 x 51 concrete culvert under a small desert wash. The building of the forms for the culverts required a portion of the crew while others delivered the necessary sand and gravel from the Salt River, about 2.5 miles distant. Completed in June 1923, the total cost of widening the Eastern Canal amounted to $189,853.09 with part of the high expense attributed to the unexpected drilling and removing the bulk of excavation material. 56

In January 1920, a small group of landowners holding acreage outside the boundaries of the Salt River Project formed an irrigation organization called the Auxiliary Eastern Canal Irrigation Association. They planned to irrigate approximately 35,000 acres ofland to the east of the Project with surplus flood waters of the Salt and Verde Rivers and with pumped groundwater. To perfect their irrigation plans, the Auxiliary Eastern Association, after detailed discussion with the officials of the U.S. Reclamation Service and prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior, negotiated a contract with the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association to enlarge the project's Eastern Canal for the delivery of excess surplus flood waters. This agreement was signed in June 1920, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in August. 57

The1920 contract required the Auxiliary Eastern Canal Irrigation Association form an irrigation district, which was accomplished in September. The new Auxiliary Eastern Canal Irrigation District (later reorganized as the Roosevelt Water Conservation District or RWCD), found it difficult to sell its bonds with the water supply it had available to it. The RWCD, in hopes of acquiring a larger, more stable water supply and a beneficial power contract, began negotiations with the Association for a supplemental contract. As a method of providing the water, yet protecting the landowners of SRP, the Bureau of Reclamation suggested that the canals of the Project be lined as a means of developing an additional water supply and this the RWCD proposed to do. Detailed water supply studies by the chief engineer of the Association, verified

55 SRP, "Annual History," 1920/1921, 14, 92. SRP, "Annual History," 1921/22, 210.

56SRP, "Annual History," 1920/1921, 222. SRP, "Annual History," 1921-1922, 211-212. SRP, "Annual History," 1922/23, 84, 270.

57 The Auxiliary Eastern landowners first approached the Association in May 1920 to widen the South and Eastern canals from the Granite Reef Dam to their suggested diversion point. Frank Parker, Executive Secretary to SRVWUABoard of Governors, May 6, 1920. Contract, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association and Auxiliary Eastern Canal Landowners' Association, June 24, 1920. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 23) by the Bureau of Reclamation, indicated that this provided a good source of additional water for the RWCD. A contract providing for the RWCD to pay the costs of lining portions of three of the Project's southside canals in return for the water saved to the Association's stored supply was drawn in October 1924, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in December. 58

While legal problems arose from the interpretation of the contract, SRP proceeded with the canal lining project and the RWCD constructed a pump house on the Eastern Canal in Section 33, Township 2 North, Range 6 East, to carry water into its canal (see Image AZ-52-38). After studying criteria for several months which included visiting other canal lining projects, the Association developed its own specifications. The lining needed to be 1Yz" to 2" thick of reinforced concrete gunite, with the mixture to be 1 part cement to 4Yz parts of sand. The sand had to pass through Yz" screen and the allowable silt content of the same had to be 10 percent or less. The reinforcing wire was #14 gauge galvanized electric welded mesh reinforcing steel with wires 4" center to center, both ways. The crews needed to keep the lining wet fifteen days after shooting. 59

During the fall and winter of 1925-26, the SRP crews proceeded with lining a portion of the canals. In October 1925, a 250 man camp was established near the dam by the old Consolidated Canal. A screening plant was erected in the vicinity of the camp and a narrow gauge industrial railroad graded and built to the gravel beds in the river 2,000' distant (see Image AZ-52-17). SRP obtained a 22-ton locomotive and eight dump cars from Magma Copper Company at Superior, Arizona, and later an additional engine (see Image AZ-52-18). All equipment, with the exception of the P. & H. Gasoline Dragline and the two steam locomotives were electrically operated, with power furnished from the Association's own system. Power crews installed the transmission lines for the lights and were located so they could become part of the permanent system for electrification of the Valley. 60

Prior to the actual guniting of the canals, crews dressed the canal, banks, and bottom. Draglines operated from the banks if excess material needed to be removed from the bottom and the Ruth Dredger cleaned the banks while water was still in the canal. Two Best Caterpillars pulled plows and graders to level the bottom to grade after the water was turned out with a steam roller

58The Department of the Interior reorganized the U. S. Reclamation Service and that federal agency was renamed the Bureau of Reclamation. Charles P. Williams, "Water Supply Available for the Auxiliary Eastern Canal Irrigation District," Bureau of Reclamation, May 3, 1924. Contract, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association and Roosevelt Water Conservation District, October 24, 1924. SRP, "Annual History," 1923/24, 25. SRVWUA Board of Governors, "Minutes," December 28, 1923, 2350-2353.

59SRP, "AnnualHistory," 1925/1926.

60SRP, "AnnualHistory," 1925/1926. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 24) compacting it. Fresnos were also employed as well as over 300 laborers to finish the banks with shovels. 61

Construction necessitated turning water out of the canals for four to six weeks so two nine-hour shifts were used along with lighting for night operations, to insure completion because the farmers needed water for irrigation. Eight cement guns, working in pairs, were operated continuously which required four complete setups. Each of the four units consisted of two cement guns, one compressor, transformers, water pump and portable cement mixer. Several gunite machine setups were also required for each compressor unit so that progress over lining 1,800' to 2,800' of canal occurred at the same time. Trucks delivered the cement and sand along the canal banks and were mixed dry in two cubic foot batches by the portable mixers and carried to the gunite machines in wheelbarrows. The machines were set up on the bottom of the canal close to the mixers which shot the gunite directly through a hose with a stream of water under approximately 60 pounds of pressure. In addition to the nozzle man, a second employee was required to hold the wire mesh in place until firmly embedded with the sand and cement mixture. A total of 4,500,000 square feet of gunite lining 1W' thick was placed at a cost of over $600,000, which included camp and plant construction (see Image AZ-52-19). 62

SRP continued to line the Eastern Canal from Lateral 10 to Lateral 141/z and on the Main Consolidated Canal from the new power plant to the division gates during the 1926-27 irrigation year. The 11/z" lining placed on the canal sides during the previous year proved more than adequate and the thickness was reduced to l ". The cost of lining the canals through the winter of 1927-28 came to over $884,800 or 11.4 cents per square foot, paid by the RWCD except for that portion near the South Consolidated Power Plant. 63

With delivering water to its own shareholders and also providing water to the RWCD, the Association needed to increase the capacity of the diversion structure at Granite Reef Dam for the South Canal. To get the required head to divert enough water to meet the irrigation demand, it was necessary to maintain plank flashboards on the crest of the dam, unfortunately these were destroyed with every freshet on the river. The service of water on demand instead of on an eight­ day rotation plan also caused higher peaks in the amount of water ordered, along with the obligation by the Association for the carriage of 500 cubic feet per second for the RWCD. The total water to be diverted and carried amounted to 1,900 cubic feet per second which required either additional head gates or collapsible steel gates. SRP management decided to install the 3' high steel gates. 64

61 SRP, "Annual History," 1925/1926.

62 SRP, "Annual History," 1925/1926.

63 SRP, "AnnualHistory," 1926/1927; 1927/1928.

64 SRP, "Annual History," 1925/1926. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 25)

CCC During the Great Depression of the 1930s, scarcity of funds limited the amount of maintenance work done on the SRP irrigation system. Following the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his programs of finding work for the unemployed, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) came to the Salt River Valley in the fall of 193 5. Utilizing the services of this federal agency, the Association had the men construct headgates, line canals, and help repair damages to the irrigation structures throughout the Project, including work on the southside. On April 3, 1937, a 100' section of the right bank of the South Canal below the wasteway suddenly washed away when unusually high water reached a gopher or muskrat hole above the paving (see Image AZ- 52-20). This incident cut-off the water supply to a major portion of the lands on the south side of the project. Commissioner of Reclamation John C. Page telegraphed authorization for the men of the CCC already working in the Valley to repair the break as an emergency job. The CCC crews restored the canal bank and service was complete by April 6, while the contracting firm of Vinson & Pringle replaced the gunite lining (see Image AZ-52-19).65

Operation and maintenance of the SRP irrigation system was reaching a critical point in 1938. A large number of ditch structures had been constructed of redwood lumber during the early years of the Project and these features were reaching their end of useful life when CCC crews replaced practically all these structures with concrete (see Image AZ-52-39). The CCC also worked on modifying the ditch and lateral capacities due to the increase in speciality crops, such as lettuce, concentrated in particular areas. The original lateral system was designed for diversified cropping, which permitted delivery of water through a normal rotation. The special crops often required simultaneous demands for water service within the same contiguous areas. 66

The CCC work on the Project was discontinued because of the trade union complaints charging the corps members were doing the skilled work of the union laborers. Before its departure, the CCC completed over 700 projects at SRP.

By 1947, SRP called the irrigation canal which ran from Granite Reef to the Division Gates, the South Consolidated or "South Con" canal. The cement lined structure had a carrying capacity of 60,000 miners inches of water. The division gates continued to divert water into the three canals and two laterals. The Tempe Canal, running west, carried usually 12,000", although it could transport 18,000", and brought water to west Mesa and the Tempe landowners. The East Branch of the Consolidated was also cement lined with a normal flow of 12,000" and it delivered water to Chandler and Gilbert. The Mesa Canal ran south and with the Moot and Woy laterals, served

65 SRP, "Annual History," Construction, 1937, 2-3.

66SRP, "AmmalHistory," Irrigation Division, 1938, 2. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 26) the Mesa area as well as the city itself for irrigation purposes. The South Canal continued to deliver water to the Eastern and RWCD canals. 67

During the late 1940s, gages located on the canals were read three times daily, in the morning, at noon, and at 3 :00 p.m., to insure the proper supply of water. After the zanjeros reported water orders to the water master, changes were made at the Gates for the following day. Storms between Granite ReefDam and the Division Gates could create problems for the gate operator in case water rose too rapidly in the South Canal. Because there was no way to estimate the amount of run-off, the forebay had to be watched closely to prevent an overflow which could damage crops and property. A telemeter attached to the forebay and connected to a bell in the gate tender's house, located on the east bank of the South Canal, would warn the operator when the water rose too high in the canaL 68

Rehabilitation and Betterment Due to the economic depression experienced during the 1920s and 1930s and United States participation in World War II, many reclamation projects in the West suffered from neglect The lack of finances and manpower meant that regular maintenance on the irrigation structures was not possible. The deteriorated condition of many projects led to a substantial decrease in the efficiency of water distribution. By the end of the 1940s, the federal government recognized the poor state of the early reclamation projects and undertook to repair them. In 1949, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to fund rehabilitation and betterment (R&B) work at some of the projects, including the Salt River Project The Association Board of Governors approved the federal contract with the United States which loaned SRP approximately $1,250,000 interest-free and repayable over a twenty year period. Crews working under this program replaced lateral gates made of aged redwood with concrete and metal structures, repaired and replaced siphons, bridges and other facilities used for the delivery of water and lined canals and laterals which experienced weed growth and seepage problems.69

SRP experimented with innovative techniques in operation and maintenance during the rehabilitation and betterment program that proved successful. The laterals were lined using a slipform process which employed a Fullerform plow to make a trapezoid-shaped trench to predetermined specifications and then applied concrete along the sides and bottom of the lateral (see Image AZ-52-21 ). Also utilized on the laterals was cast-in-place pipe which was made by a machine moving along a newly excavated lateral and pouring cement around a rubber balloon. These techniques are no longer utilized by the Project and the laterals off the South Canal are now piped with RGRCP, (rubber gasket reinforced concrete pipe). The Association replaced

67 Current News, Holiday Issue 1947-1948, 6.

68Current News, Holiday Issue 1947-1948, 7.

69 SRP, Annual Report, 1950, 18. Jay Ziemann, "TI1e Modernization of the Salt River Project: the Impact of the Rehabilitation and betterment Program," (M.A thesis: Arizona State University, 1987), 45-46. SRVWUABoard of Governors, "Minutes," April 7, 1952, 8590. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 27) many of the gates on the laterals with the "Sabin gate," designed by the Project engineers. The friction lift gate allowed field crews to raise or lower the gate easily to within a fraction of an inch. Other wooden lateral gates were replaced with standard steel screw stem gates. These were fabricated on a mass-production basis, sand blasted and sprayed with a protective zinc coating by SRP's machine shop. The most significant feature of these gates was the water-tight rubber seal which became a very popular design both in the United States and abroad. In 1962, SRP installed an automatic control system at the three division gates and the forebay on the South Canal. The supervisor controlled the gates and remote telemeter of the forebay at the Power District O~fice Building some distance away and this type of operation was one of the first in use. 70

During the initial years of the R&B program, work on the South Canal consisted mainly of lining areas where erosion and scouring had occurred, particularly below canal structures (see Drawing AZ-52-56). Workers generally lined canals with concrete or sprayed gunite, a mixture of sand, cement and water (called pneumatically applied mortar). Before gunite could be applied, workers reshaped and formed the canal by excavating accumulated sand and debris from the bottom of the canal and placing compacted gravel along the sides for reinforcement. To provide structural reinforcement, crews placed steel mesh along the sides and bottom and an emulsion seal was placed prior to guniting (see Images AZ-52-22, AZ-52-23). Later, SRP crews placed a chemical sealant along a 4,000' reach of the canal to retard seepage. Measured losses in that portion of the South Canal tested indicated a reduction of water loss by 60 percent after treatment. To help prevent seepage losses, SRP continues to repair and place new lining on the South Canal. Studies showed that lined canals reduce water losses by as much as 10 percent.71

Crews also had to raise the lining of the existing canal to accommodate the diminished capacity because of the silt that was carried down the Salt River and delivered with the water through Granite ReefDam (see Image AZ-52-24). The accumulation of silt and sand further reduced the flow into the Arizona and South canals because it was almost impossible to get full heads of irrigation water. To rectify this situation, the Association purchased a dredger in 1954 to suck up the sand, rocks, silt and weeds behind the dam and pipe it through an 8 11 steel tube and deposit it in the river bed on the other side of the structure. Christened the "Katy Pickrell" named after the

70Ziemann, "The Modernization of the Salt River Project," 56, 71, 75-76. Interview, Harold Biever, SRP Water Engineering Department, December 1, 1997. "Data for Narration of Construction Movie," Acting Area Engineer to Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, September 1, 1959. SRVWUA Board of Governors, "Minutes," March 5, 1962, 9598.

71 Ziemann, "The Modernization of the Salt River Project," 45-46. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operational and Statistical Report," 1965, 4; 1970, 5; 1996, 6. Acting Area Engineer to Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, September 1, 1959. Water Engineering, Index File Card, 60-PPVNo. 367, ca. 1960. Information Log, South Canal Lining Repair, October 18, 1983. RaMarOrgeron, "Annual Canal Maintenance, Repair," Pulse, October 8, 1987. Lining the South Canal also supports the contractual arrangement with the Roosevelt Water Conservation District. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 28)

wife of Bill Pickrell who retired as the SRP president in May 1954, the dredge was designed by Association engineer Joe Hales for the special conditions at Granite Reef Diversion Dam. 72

Completed in 1967, but not placed into operation until 1968, SRP constructed the South Consolidated Canal control facility when the Project abandoned the second South Consolidated Power Plant. This new structure contained the largest moss screening unit in the Project as well as two radial gates. The complex also included two precast concrete bridges, a sand removal structure, and a super-critical velocity channel at the head of the Eastern Canal, discharging into an energy-dissipating basin (see Drawing AZ-52-57). During the initial construction phase in 1967, SRP crews relocated a quarter-mile of the South Canal. Modifications were later made to the silt removal conveyor in 1969, providing six different speeds and more power. The system could remove up to 35 cubic yards of sand per day without difficulty. Additional changes were made in 1994 when the trashrake was completely revamped and a modern Atlas-Polar screen installed (see Image AZ-52-40). At the same time a new cabinet for the radial gates Motor Control Center was designed and constructed as part of the trashrake renovation project. The new cabinet, the first design update to the equipment in twenty-five years, was larger than the original one and made of anodized aluminum to prevent rusting. Safety features were increased so that operators did not have to reach through wires to operate the circuit breakers and selector switches. The switches are mounted on a dead front protective panel with all energized components behind the panel. 73

In another phase of the rehabilitation and betterment program, the Project started the construction and implementation of the Supervisory Control system in the late 1960s. The advances in electronic equipment allowed for the design of a water distribution system covering 138 miles to be handled by a single operator. By the mid-l 970s, computer equipment monitored telemetered data which displayed water levels and gate positions. The dispatcher could regulate 331 radial gates and almost one quarter of the deep well pumps belonging to SRP. With this system, the water levels of the canals and laterals could be maintained at a constant level. Gone were the days when bells rang at the home of the gate operators to warn about pending trouble. 74

Keeping pace with new technology allowed SRP to utilize the new water Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCAD A) system developed between 1989 and 1991. SCAD A is a complex computer-based system which allows remote control and monitoring of the entire water canal system, a major portion of the deep-well system, and numerous sites of interest to water accounting concerns. The system remotely scans and operates over 120 sites on the canals and

72 "Katy Christens Namesake," Current, August 1954, 3-4. Ron Merkley, SRVWUAManager, interview, January 6, 1998.

73 Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operational and Statistical Report," 1965, 5; 1967, 6-7; 1969, 4; 1994, 6-7.

74Ziemann, "The Modernization of the Salt River Project," 106-109. SRVWU A, ".Supervisory Control and Telemetry System for Irrigation Canals, 1968, 176. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 29) will control 22 off-project flow and special-delivery sites, and an ever-expanding number of water quality monitoring stations throughout the system (see Image AZ-52-41 ). To reduce water losses through increased accuracy of water flow measurements, the Project engineers also designed a broad crested weir below the head of the South Canal. 75

South Canal and the Urban Landscape With the urbanization of the Salt River Valley, agricultural acreage farmed within the Salt River Project has decreased by over 13,000 acres in the past ten years (see Map 5 for the current alignment and major features along the canal). As part of that change the South Canal began providing water for domestic and industrial use when the cities of Mesa and Phoenix constructed a water treatment plant near Val Vista Road in 1975. Water is diverted to the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant and delivered to the cities of Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale. With the shift from agricultural to urban deliveries, the Val Vista plant first received about 12,500 acre feet of water in 1976 and in 1996 it processed over 125,200 acre feet from the South Canal (see Image AZ-52-42).

To assist the cities and farmers in the Salt River Valley in bringing municipal and irrigation water, SRP entered into a joint venture to construct the Central Arizona Project (CAP) - Salt River Project Interconnect Facility on the south side of Granite Reef Dam where the CAP canal crosses under the Salt River. To accommodate the new structure, crews lowered the north bank of the South Canal in case the CAP siphon broke and water washed into the canal, thus preventing the possibility of flooding the cities in the Valley. The interconnection permits deliveries from the CAP aqueduct into the South and Arizona canals as well as into the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) facility in the Salt River bed (see Image AZ-52-43). Water to GRUSP, the largest underground water storage facility in Arizona, is delivered from the South Canal by way of the Hennessey gates, where it artificially recharges the aquifer and augments the groundwater resources. The facility consists of the headworks, a delivery channel, four recharge basins and five monitor wells (see Image AZ-52-44).76

The South Canal was also the test site for another recharge project when SRP began recharging water from the canal into a Mesa well near the intersection of Gilbert and McDowell roads on April 23, 1989 (see Image AZ-52-45). The Groundwater Management Act of 1980 restricts groundwater pumping in the Salt River Valley; artificial recharge injects water under the ground and permits storage for later pumping. This was the first recharge project of its kind in Arizona. Mario Lluria, SRP recharge project manager reported, "It is unusual because canal water is used

75 Carol Poore, "New Computer will Aid ADC," Current, January 30, 1989. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operational and Statistical Report," 1991, 3. RaMar Orgeron, "Paul Cherrington," Pulse, March 26, 1992. Memo, Steve Tanis to Alex Richards, Sept. 8, 1982.

76Mark Estes, Pulse, May 4, 1989. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operations & Statistics," 1994, 2. Ron Merkley interview, January 6, 1998. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 30) and cleaned at the site before it is injected into the wells." During the sixty-day test period, SRP stored and removed 500 acre feet of water with the technical assistance of the City ofMesa.77

As a means of keeping the canals clean of aquatic moss and weeds without chemical applications, SRP instituted a program of stocking the South Canal with white Amur fish in 1991. The sterile weed-eating fish is a grass carp that originally came from China and is considered an economically and environmentally safe alternative to chemical and mechanical weed control. To accommodate this plan, fish grates were designed and installed to keep the white Amur from traveling outside the main canal. New grates were constructed for the drain below Granite Reef, Hennessy Wasteway, and the intake structures at the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant and the R WCD pumping station. Grates were later installed at minor sites along the South Canal. 78

Safety has been a concern of SRP for both its employees and the residents of the Salt River Valley. In 1978, crews installed catwalks for employees to safely remove debris at the South Canal siphon at 33 .15E and 7.25N and at the Granite Reef spillway skimmer gate. As part of a four-year canal program completed in 1984, SRP crews installed safety steps and ladders providing a quick exit for stray animals and people who accidently enter the canal system (see Image AZ-52-46). To avoid accidents at the number 11 siphon, buoys were placed in the water upstream to warn people of the vortex and possibility of being sucked under the structure. 79

Besides improving the South Canal with safety and technical features, SRP maintains the physical appearance of the canal. Crews trim trees and remove brush and other vegetation along the canal (see Image AZ-52-47). The banks of the canal have become paths for bicyclists, joggers, and horseback riders and fishing is permitted along the banks in many areas. The South Canal is part of the Sun Circle Riding Trail and the gates along the maintenance road have openings to accommodate the horses. SRP is working with the cities to help establish guidelines for canal multiple use. In 1989, the City of Mesa approached the project for land located near the old South Consolidated Power Plant and now Sheepherders Park is situated on ground once occupied by the houses of the plant operators. Another site developed by the City of Mesa adjacent to the South Canal is the Park of the Canals that combines prehistoric, historic, and botanical exhibits. Located along Horne Road and south of McKellips Road in Section 11, Township 1 North, Range 5 East, this park encompasses remnants of the early Utah and Consolidated Canals as well as prehistoric irrigation structures dating from 700 B.C. and used by the Mormon pioneers in the Lehi area of Mesa (see Image AZ-52-25). The pond that housed the mammoth dredge purchased by A. I. Chandler is located within the park area. Vegetation from

77 Jeff Eldot, "Well Injection used in Groundwater Recharge Project," Current, Jm1e 5, 1989.

78Memo, Tim Phillips to Tim Stanton, February 26, 1990; Robert Larchick to Phillips, May 30, 1990. Steve Tanis to Project File, February 11, 1992. Susalllle Tso, Fish Study," Pulse, July 3, 1991. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, "Operational and Statistical Report," 1990, 5.

79Memo, Ron Merkley to Mac McQueen, June 2L 1978. Merkley interview, January 6, 1998. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 31) the four desert regions is on display including trees, shrubs, and twenty-five different varieties of "p ri ckl y pear" cacti. 80

Although not among the first irrigation canals constructed in the Salt River Valley, through the years the South Canal gained in importance as the main and finally the only structure to divert water from the Salt River for the farmers on the south side. It has grown from its initial two mile existence to incorporating portions of the Eastern and Consolidated Canals. While its initial purpose was to bring irrigation water for the cultivation of reclamation lands, its mission now includes the delivery of domestic and industrial water to the municipal treatment plant. Seen as a source of hydroelectric power for the Valley almost since its inception, the South Canal continues to provided falling water to its third power plant. With the growing urban population needing opening space, the South Canal is now utilized for recreational activities such as fishing, jogging, and horseback riding. Through its ninety-year history, the contribution of the South Canal remains significant to the growth and development of the Salt River Valley.

80 Salt River Project, Annual Report 1986-86, l O; 1983-84, 8. Map, Proposed Park, McDowell & South Canal, 1989. Merrill, One Hundred Yesterdays, 158-160. Preston, "The Canal System at U:9:49n SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 32)

Bibliography I Books Merrill, W. Earl. One Hundred Yesterdays. Mesa: 1972. Robinson, Will H. Thirsty Earth. New York: Julian Messner, 1937. Smith Karen. The Magnificent EYperiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, 1890- 1917. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986. Wilson, Herbert M. Manual ofIrrigation Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1893. Zarbin, Earl. Two Sides of the River: Salt River Valley Canals, 1867-1902. Phoenix: SRP, 1997.

II Articles and other Papers Andersen, Fred and Carol Noland. "Grand Canal," HAER No. AZ-17. Phoenix: SRP, 1990. Dudley, Shelly. "Arizona Canal," HAER No. AZ-19. Phoenix: SRP, 1990. Eldot, Jeff. "Well Injection used in Groundwater Recharge Project." Current. June 5, 1989. Estes, Mark. Pulse. May 4, 1989. "Katy Christens Namesake," Current, August 1954, 3-4. Lauerman, Eugene J. "Small-Scale Hydroelectric Generation and the Salt River Project." Paper presented to the Waterpower '79 Conference. October 3, 1979. Map, "Proposed Park, McDowell and South Canal." 1989. Orgeron, RaMar. "Annual Canal Maintenance, Repair." Pulse, October 8, 1987. Orgeron, RaMar. "Paul Cherrington." Pulse. March 26, 1992. Poore, Carol. "New Computer will Aid ADC." Current. January 30, 1989. Preston. "The Canal System at U:9:49." Smith, Karen. "The Campaign for Water in Central Arizona 1890 - 1903." Arizona and the West 23 (Summer 1981): 127-147. Tso, Susanne. "Fish Study." Pulse. July 3, 1991 Zarbin, Earl. "Dr. A. J. Chandler: Practitioner in Land Fraud." Journal ofArizona History 32:2 (Summer 1995): 173-188.

III Dissertations and Theses Bender-Lamb, Sylvia. "Chandler, Arizona: Landscape as a Product of Land Speculation." M.A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1983. Ziemann, Jay. "The Modernization of the Salt River Project: the Impact of the Rehabilitation and betterment Program." M.A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1987.

IV Government Documents McClatchie, Alfred J. "Utilizing Our Water Supply." Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 43. Tucson: University of Arizona, 1902. U.S. Department oflnterior. Geological Survey. Irrigation near Phoenix, Arizona, by Arthur P. Davis. Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1897. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 33)

U.S. Reclamation Service. Annual Reports. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1902-1919.

V Manuscript and Archival Collections Phoenix, Arizona. Maricopa County Superior Court. Tempe, Arizona. Salt River Project. Land Department. __. __. Project Secretary's Office . ----. Research Archives. __. __. Water Engineering. Washington D.C. National Archives. Record Group 48. Department of the Interior. __. __.Record Group 115, U.S. Reclamation Service. __. __.Record Group 115, U.S. Reclamation Service. Microfilm, SRP.

VI Newspapers and Periodicals Arizona Gazette. Arizona Republican. Current News.

VII Court Cases Hurley v Abbott No. 4564. In the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa. Decision and Decree. M Wormser vs Salt River Valley Canal Company, No. 708. Third Judicial District for Maricopa County.

VIII Reports and Unpublished Material Burgess, Bernice. "History of Irrigation Canals to 1916," Salt River Project, June 1923. Gaylord, James M. "Power and Pumping System of the Salt River Project, Arizona." SRP, January 1, 1914. Mesa Canal Company, "Minutes," 1889 - 1891. Salt River Project. "Annual Project History." 1911 - 1945. __. Annual Report. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association. Board of Governors. "Minutes." __."Operational and Statistical Report." Williams, Charles P. "Water Supply Available for the Auxiliary Eastern Canal Irrigation District." U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. May 3, 1924.

IX Interviews Biever, Harold. SRP Water Engineering Department. Interview by author. December 1, 1997. Merkley, Ron. SRVWUA Southside Manager. Interview by author. January 6, 1998. SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 34)

MAPS T2N

. . . • . .•. . . . • • . - .1. · · · · · · · · · · ·.·30:.-.·.·.·.·r.-.·.·.·.-.·£9.· ... .-.

N 33

6

8 9 10 12

TlN

15 14 $! 16 [rj ;:>:J (/) ,....._ z c::0 -~+.-+-- 1-d O H Ill. ~ ()q ro ~ o N~ w I Z U1 U1 ~ 21 22 .._,, N t-'

RSE R6E ~>;;:) 1\2 () CANALS ALONG THE HISTORIC ,__..

SCALE IN MILES SALT RIVER ca. 1902 SOUTH CANAL HAER No. AZ-52 (Page 36) MAP 2

I w ,,/ ~ ~------····-7/ ___ _ ··----I:r ... -.... -- ·······-··· ' '

uJ c a."' c. c: 0. c ..z c ~ ':'. :::: /, c (_, '"__, <( z.. -.J ~ (..; v: g ;; > '":r )- c; z ~ c :r "',. w __,..J >" c: '"::: c: )- ..J « v: lo 0 c. ::;"' -::! )-" w c.

,, ,11.· .•\llJ.. :" ------Or][ fo-i..1 ' "-TES CF REVISION

330 18 2 -2G-19

9-?-7.0 A.L.W.

ZS

31 I -'5 I 36

J

.~ ...

-·-·'~ . -- i --R_·3}-, LJ N

'8_ "Al_ffi·_-- 14-----+ i,,.: -VER Rf1N6E - t 1· j s11LI c I . t19 k-1,f 22 .z~ I ,fg 0 1~ 1 I ' ! i ! --· .... ·1 I_ -bd __ :~-· 201' I ·· --~ -: rj-t---l- . · b-~ -----+--- .:5i:RLE OF/'TILF:S- " .ro5 " • 'ee i z7 I zo ; Z4" JO i ~l ~ L ~t I . ! l'-- ~ (/) 0 I I ,....., z c:: -- __ j J• ~, : .1; 1:,~T.:;j?:tri~:,;.-~c~r:l=~~;!~;i:J~~ . J4 i '1j 0 1-l I JS I I ~-I' !, I : I Ill • ::ti ------i----·- -·- - ..__ -- - . (IQ "" R4£. 6 i I ! i ro > CJ LE&CNIJ: .SALT RIVE..R. VALLcY WATU!_ U5tl2S AS:iN. ··' ; 4 i J i w ~ US: RS C,qNALS OPERATING 5ALT 12.IVE,R. PR.0-1£.C..T. g; .'I -+-_J: ______;; -....J V1 > ~/V/ITF .. EN.. WIU(INSON,f'RE.5 - 5-VC (.f.f.t~OQ... To- IN 1..E..LLIOT'f, P~OJ_ MG£.. I ! j i '-./ N t-< TRllN5NISSION LINES USRS .i 1 i P I 9 i 10 · h"/NLW/.lrS l/.JRS YYLLLS 0 S"11.T R/VcR PROJi·cr +- ----4---1------i US R .5- '1'17.5 Tc OlT0-/~·-1 /8 i 17 /6 1 SOUTH SJIJE C/IN/IL SYSTE./'1 . I !. 1.~V)t\i ~ '1j WS.CO/Yf ./l.J H./IL T0/'1 -- -~-- ---i ---+- . .P,--..e;«rn~,., ltr./"1gr w . _ _ 1.9 20 ?/ I />h'Oe/Y4, .A.r1k Nor.~ 1.91~ ~ zm '-" rn· 0,,1 ~-~~ i ;11 ;B -i~z~-1~-~5 -~~ -~-:- --~-; z_ 7 L___ --1 ·- ---- ·------I I i ~ -- . 31> JI I .$;? ..!1.5 - .- .J --·--- RS~ R6£ T ~~-·,.

<'{~ Arizon1 /:,.-<·:·/ OqQ'C /// Q;,Q/

. T2N .-·· ...... ·· . • fl' ... _"" ' ...... ,,,. ,, ... . .· N ......

/ / / .I

/

/ / / I Temi>e Cross Cut Canal \ TlN q, -::,, o~. % ~9" ~;::d (/) ,,...... _ z c::0 ~' >tj 0 t-3 Ill • ::q [JO ro ~ o w ~ g; (X) \.Jl ~ '-' N t°"

R6E RSE ---- Consolidated Canal HISTORIC REACHES OF THE · -· • --· --· -- Easteni Canal ~ l 1\2 0 +::>- l=r....a::B:: _==:j -- · -- South Canal \ SOUTH CANAL

. SCALE IN MILES fl"..'roV

13

GRANITE {SEE PAGE lJ REEF 14 DAM

NEW BRIDGE ABANDONED DRAIN STR.

MEASURING-...... ~·· T BRIDGE \'. INLET 2 9N N UNDER

24

23 g2 (;) trJ (\j ~ (/.J ,...._, z 0c::: ~ 1-tj 0 t-j "{ p.i. ~ Q (IQ ro :i>- n li.J N ::t>­ WI Z Ul :i>­ bl...... '-''° N r SN 34E 35E 36E ~ \Jl R 6 E SOUTH CANAL {N0.3) 1/1/95 WTPGZB.DGN (SEE PAGE 281 SN r-9 ./'t-:«:p '9

28

T 2 1700 CFS 7N LEHI RD. N

0 I<) PUMPING PLANT ~ 34 ~ 33 IO' ~ '- / RWCD CANAL ~ :;i::1 CJ) 0 z C1 0 1-'3 6N RAMBO RD. • :J:l ~ CJ 32E 33E 34E ~ S; iJI ~ VAL VISTA DR. GREENFIELD RD. HIGLEY RD. N t-1 R 6 E SOUTH CANAL {N0.3) 1/1/95 WTPG29.DGN 7N THOMAS RD.

w a...... 0\ 32 a.. C\j co ~ 3-1. 3 • - '<:[ 0.. i..i 31 ~ T ......

2 3-1. 7 N VAL VISTA FILTER PLANT INTAKE

.... - •• ~.0·11. ::::­ .. ·-.~ ·.·_.·,_. 6" ,., ~----+-t~~~+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... J 0'.~~ /~ \ 12"40" 6N RAMBO RD. ~ \\ I ~ SPECIAL MOSS CLEANING FOR ~ ~ i:'.:'. v~0 BOTTOM OF CANAL UPSTEAM OF o ~ ~ DEMOSS ING STR. ~ ~ ~ ~ HYDRO PLANT co :: INTAKE T C) 0 ~ ~ NEW PENSTOCK 1 ~ ~ FOR HYDRO PLANT Vl 5 N ~ "' j>.\.. ::::!! G!>-'" ~ "J'l) it.~ f'~(j~ 6 t,i>-S\S~~ ~ l:rj i:>d Cf.I z c:0 0 1-3 E 5N MC KELL I PS RD. • P::: 32 ri>c-::i 30E 31E Nri> LINDSAY RD. VAL VISTA DR. IZ GILBERT RD. ln > Nt""' R 6 E SOUTH CANAL (N0.3) 1/1/95 WTPG30.DGN 6N RAMBO RD. 0 I'<)

.···.··.·.·····.······· • • • • • . • - . Q i...i ~ (.'.) _ · .. "I: 3 1_,~SE-5.7N.:· ····'""<~ Q.. i...i i...i 500 ~

2

75

3-2. 4 T 300 1 SN MC KELLIPS RD. N 1- l/)

I I

12

BY PASS >:_ 2" PIPE !SEE PAGE 381 ;A:J~ Cfl zc0 TEMPE ·- ·- ·- .. o H -,---f~-~.· ·.--_fo8~SCOLIDATED ...... ANAL _ __.______.. • p:: CANAL o..:.r-3~~·3·.·- 29E E 4N BROWN RD. >n 6 30 N> 28E IZ 900 ST APEL Y OR. GILBERT RD. \.J1 > MESA OR. Nt-' 3-3. 4 2000 R 5 E SOUTH CANAL {N0.3) 1/1/95 WTPG31.DGN