168 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



ST. MARY'S RIVER PROPOSED DIVERSION CANAL. 



A Review of the Manner in which the U. S. Reclamation Service, 

 from Its Own Reports, has handled the Project. 



BY E. W. H. 



Senator T. H. Carter, of Montana, in addressing 

 the Montana legislature on the occasion of his re-elec- 

 tion to the United States senate, said, among other 

 things : 



"I am not satisfied with what has been done or 

 is being done in the State of Montana in reclaiming 

 the arid lands. I am not criticising, but in the begin- 

 ning this great work has been turned over to a class 

 of men whose business it is to sort rocks." 



A review of what has been done by the United 

 States Reclamation Service in connection with the pro- 

 posed diversion canal from the St. Mary River to the 

 Milk River, will not be without interest to those who, 

 with Senator Carter, are not satisfied with the work 

 being done in Montana and elsewhere in national irri- 

 gation work. 



In 1901 Mr. Newell stated before the committee on 

 public lands, house of representatives, that "in north- 

 ern Montana the principal project is not a water stor- 

 age plant/' 



Early in 1902, report No. 254 of the Senate com- 

 mittee on the reclamation of arid lands was published, 

 in which detailed reference was made to ''the proposed 

 St. Mary diversion canal (which) is for taking water 

 from St. Mary River in northern Montana, etc." No 

 mention is made in this report of any storage reser- 

 voirs, and it is estimated that the probable cost of tak- 

 ing 1,200 cubic feet per second across the divide to the 

 north fork of Milk River will be $686,000." 



Later in 1902 a document was put in circulation 

 entitled "A Condensed Statement Taken from the Re- 

 port on the St. Mary Canal Project," the first sentence 

 of which reads, "The St. Mary project is designed to 

 store llood waters in the St. Mary lakes in northern 

 Montana and conduct these easterly by a canal cut 

 through the ridges at the head of Milk River." 



This was the first mention of storage works. In 

 the same report the character of the storage structures 

 is briefly described : 



"It is proposed to build a low storage dam at a 

 point about three-fourths of a mile below the present 

 outlet of Lower St. Mary Lake. This will have a max- 

 imum elevation of fifty feet above the bottom of the 

 river and will form a reservoir of a capacity of 250,- 

 000 acre feet." 



In the estimate of cost the following items are 

 given : 



Dam $22,000 



Tunnel at head 12,000 



Headgates 10,000 



It would be almost incredible that a dam half a 

 mile long with a maximum height of fifty feet in the 

 bed of a stream of the character of St. Mary River 

 could be constructed for $22,000. 



In the first annual report of the United States 

 Reclamation Service from June 17 to December 1, 

 1902, from which it may be presumed "the condensed 

 statement" was taken, especially as the reference to the 

 dam at St. Mary lakes is in identically the same words, 

 the first item in the "Estimated Cost of St. Mary Dam 

 and Canal to North Fork of Milk River" is : 



Dam and headgates $250.000 



in place of the three items above quoted, aggregating 

 $44,000, while every other item is identical with that 

 in the "condensed statement," save that of engineering 

 expenses, which is increased by 15 per cent of the dif- 

 ference in these two items $206,000. 



A dam that, in February, was estimated to cost 

 $22,000 is placed in December at $228,000 over ten 

 times as much. 



In Senate report No. 254 1902 this statement 

 is made : 



"It is proposed to continue the canal to the south 

 fork as it is not considered practicable for the Cana- 

 dians to divert water at any point in Canada from the 

 south fork or from Milk River." 



In the "condensed statement," the following oc- 

 curs: 



"Milk River in Canada, from the junction of the 

 north and south fork downstream, has a very slight 

 fall not more than two< feet to the mile, and a canal 

 of 100 miles or more in length would be necessary be- 

 fore the water could be brought to the upper branches. 

 It is not, therefore, considered feasible to divert the 

 waters from Milk River in Canada." 



Note the precise statements, "Not more than two 

 feet to the mile" "A canal of 100 miles or more in 

 length." 



In the first report of the United States Reclama- 

 tion Service, this subject is briefly referred to in the 

 following words : 



"If the waters are permitted to enter the north 

 fork or the south fork, they will find their way into 

 Canada before they can be used in the lower valley 

 of Milk River but it is believed that they can not be 

 diverted in Canada before they return to the United 

 States." 



In the second annual report of the United States 

 Reclamation Service for the year 1903, the diversion of 

 water from Milk River in Canada is referred to as 

 follows : 



"The second difficulty is that after St. Mary River 

 has been turned into Milk River, water may be taken 

 from the latter stream in Canada. Such a diversion is 

 possible, and plans are now maturing for the construc- 

 tion of a canal diverting from the North side of Milk 

 River in Canada, about twelve miles below the junc- 

 tion of north and south forks." 



And that statement is followed by precise details 

 of the dimensions of the canal, actual construction of 

 which, it should be mentioned, was commenced early 

 in November, 1903. 



It has taken the Reclamation Service fully three 

 years, through four separate reports, to progress from 

 a position in which "it is not considered practicable 

 for the Canadians to divert water from Milk River" 

 by way of precise statements why it should be imprac- 

 ticable the "very slight fall" of the river and a 

 ''canal of 100 miles or more in length" and the modify- 

 ing belief of which, perhaps, hope was the father 

 that "they (the waters of Milk River) can not be di- 

 verted in Canada before they return to the United 

 States" to the unqualified assertion that "such diver- 

 sion is possible" accompanied with detailed dimensions 

 of the canal that is to make it possible but without 

 allusion to the fall of the stream or the length of the 

 canal. 



The statement is made, however, that "the water 

 is to supplement the irrigation system from St. Mary 

 River above described, and will irrigate lands in the 



