STILL MORE ABOUT THE DAM. 



THE OPINION OP ONE OF THE ENGINEERS OF 

 THE ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM COMPANY. 



EL PASO, TEXAS, July 17, 1899. 

 EDITOR IRRIGATION AGE: 



I wish to thank the AGE for its impartial presentation of the Ele- 

 phant Butte dam controversy in your issue of July. In his article, 

 Mr. Barnes has, through ignorance or prejudice, wrongly anticipated 

 the decision of the courts and misrepresented facts about the water 

 supply of the Rio Grande for this year. 



It now develops thaf the decision of the Supreme Court is wholly 

 favorable to the company, as all points of law in the case have been 

 decided in favor of the defendant and one question of fact only left 

 open for investigation, and we know now that that question of the 

 effect of the condition of the river at El Paso on the almost infinites- 

 imal navigation down at the gulf is nil because the latter, such as it 

 is, is still going on, while the river at El Paso has been dry for more 

 than two months. So Mr. Barnes has been quite premature. He is 

 equally unfortunate in his attempt to warp the facts of the past annual 

 snow fall in Colorado and the dry condition of the river at El Paso 

 into proof that we are wrong in our claim that there is water enough 

 for several reservoirs. 



It is quite true that in certain localities the snow fall in Colorado 

 last winter was exceedingly heavy, and it was the general expectation 

 here that an abnormal flood would come down the Rio Grande. But 

 the flood did not come, and investigations in the early spring developed 

 the fact that an exceptional thing had happened in Colorado, viz., 

 none of the heavy snow fall had occurred on the watershed of the 

 Rio Grande but, on the contrary, the fall over the latter area had been 

 exceptionally light. 



The dry condition of the river at El Paso is thus accounted for. 

 It is always sad to see a man rush into print and make himself ridicu- 

 lous through ignorance. I will assume that the latter is the trouble 

 with Mr. Barnes, for the other horn of the dilemma, viz. : that he 

 would knowingly try to warp facts to suit his purpose, is even more 

 uncomfortable. 



Now, Mr. Barnes' argument that there is not enough water is 

 based entirely on the disjointed statements of fact, viz: " There was 

 a heavy snow fall in Colorado," "the Rio Grande rises in that State." 

 "The latter is dry at El Paso." Beautiful logic, that! But to my 



