20 



both against decay and the work of the teredo, has been made at Oakland Wharf, 

 and also in some of the new work at Second Street and in the Mission Bay. The piles 

 so treated have thus far withstood the attacks of the teredo ..." 



Irrespective of the correctness of his conclusions as to the reasons for the differ- 

 ence of borer attack at San Francisco and Oakland, the statement is of interest and 

 the difference of attack which he observed has continued to the present time. If 

 fresh water currents were affecting the salinity on the Oakland side, the borer action 

 would have been reduced, had the species there active been Bankia or Limnoria, but 

 not if Teredo: the first two require relati\ely high salinity whereas the Teredo thrives 

 in brackish water. His statement on the Robbins process is typical of the great hopes 

 so commonly held out for the success of new preservatives or methods, and which 

 were so commonly destined to disappointment. 



Meanwhile, cessation of work on the San Francisco seawall had proved fortunate, 

 for it was observed that the original saw-toothed waterfront line was producing eddy- 

 ing currents seriously affecting the mud line, sediment being deposited in the slips, 

 causing constant shoaling and requiring excessive dredging. The Harbor Board 

 engineer called attention to this situation, and showed that the only solution would 

 be to abandon the irregular line and create a new line following the tidal currents in a 



Fig. 9. Oakland Long Wharf in 1873. 



smooth curve. Several years later, in 1878, this new line was officially adopted for 

 the waterfront and the location of the seawall. A new pier arrangement was prepared, 

 and that same year work was started on the first section of the new wall. 



Thus after thirty years of fluctuating circumstances, during which millions had 

 been spent on facilities all of which would cease to serve within a few years, the basis 

 of a permanent plan of harbor development was established. The wharves of inde- 

 pendent owners which would be cut off by the new seawall had cost se\'eral million 

 dollars in the fifteen years since 1863, the Harbor Board had spent $1,446,000 for 

 general wharf repair and construction; the abandoned seawall had cost 8691,000; and 

 dredging had cost $510,000. While considering these expenditures, it must be borne 

 in mind that the harbor facilities had always yielded an ample profit. The independent 

 owners had realized huge profits, and the Board a profit of $455,000 in the fifteen years 

 mentioned. The figures are cited to show the proportions reached by the costs of 

 "temporary" facilities during development of the harbor — costs of pile structures, of 

 a seawall to eliminate pile structures, of accompanying dredging — and of profit 

 realized regardless of the exigencies of changing conditions. 



Matters continued in this general condition for the next ten years. New piers 



