UNDERGROUND WATER. 
251 
canyon of Cripple Creek. The relative advantages of the three sites are compared 
by him in the following table: 
Comparison of three sites for portal of new tunnel. 
Location of portal. 
Eleva¬ 
tion of 
portal. 
Depth 
below 
El Paso 
tunnel. 
Distance 
to El 
Paso 
shaft. 
Distance 
to main 
water 
channel. 
Distance 
from 
portal to 
tunnel 
shaft. 
Depth of 
tunnel 
shaft. 
Time 
required. 
Cost. 
Depth 
gained. 
Cost per 
vertical 
foot of 
depth 
drained. 
Feet. 
Feet. 
Feet. 
Feet. 
Feet. 
Feet. 
Years. 
Feet. 
Cape Horn. 
8,160 
630 
12,840 
13,840 
8,840 
650 
1.97 
$380,000 
605 
$628 
Gatch Park. 
8,020 
770 
14,550 
15,550 
10,570 
880 
2.1 
430,000 
740 
581 
Window Rock. 
7,660 
1,130 
17,200 
18,200 
12,690 
1,140 
2.5 
510,000 
1,090 
468 
Mr. Brunton recommends a tunnel having its portal at Window llock, though 
he states that either of the other sites would give the district adequate drainage for 
many years. Whichever site be chosen, the new tunnel will probably pass under 
Beacon Hill, tapping the open fissures that have proved so useful in the Standard 
and El Paso drainage projects. From Beacon Hill a branch of the tunnel will in all 
probability be driven east until the east side group of mines are effectively drained. 
According to the latest advices (March, 1906), received during the final revision 
of this report, differences of opinion on the part of the mine owners with regard to 
the most desirable course for the tunnel and the equitable assessment of the cost are 
delaying the initiation of the project. 
