From the Almira Herald, 1933 (exact date missing).
START THE HIGH DAM NOW, OR IT MAY NEVER BE BUILT!
The report of the Columbia Basin Commission, submitted to the legislature at its recent session, indicates the multiple arch type of dam, first planned by the bureau of reclamation, is no longer favored. According to the report, three types are now being considered by the Denver office of the reclamation service, before final plans for the Grand Coulee dam are perfected. The first is is a low dam of the gravity type; the second, a low dam of the gravity type superimposed upon the foundations for the high dam, which it is proposed to carry up to low water level; the third, construction of the proposed high dam as high as the $63,000,000 now available will carry it.
The construction of the multiple arch dam, first proposed, would have meant the scrapping of approximately $34,000,000 worth of the property when the time came for building the high dam--which would be the equivalent to saying the high dam would never have been built, because Congress would never have stood for the waste. *
The question now arises which of the tree types now proposed is the most feasible. The first type can be discarded at once. The second is better, but not good enough. The only sensible plan would be to build right while we are building--and scrap nothing. The third plan will undoubtedly be favored by Congress and a majority of the people of the State of Washington. For after all is said and done, the reclamation feature of the development is the greatest. Cheap power would be fine, of course, but we should look into the future in the interests of our posterity.
It is the opinion of The Herald that if this Grand Coulee project is handled in a business-like way there will be no trouble getting money to complete it when the $63,000,000 is used up.
The people of the state should stand solidly for the high dam. The low dam spells failure of the entire project.
* He definitely did not have in mind a Congress like what we have now.--CousinSam
__________________________________________________________________________
From the Almira Herald, January 19, 1934:
DAMSITE LANDOWNERS ARE ENTITLED TO MORE MONEY
The federal government has offered the damsite landowners a fraction of the worth of their property,a s reckoned for other purposes, and they are supposed to meekly submit to this injustice. It is said that low values were set on the land at the damsite so that no expensive precedent would be set. When it comes time to buy the land further back, that will be flooded by the reservoir waters, the government agents can then point to the low prices the damsite land owners were willing to take, and thereby effect a staggering saving.
It may sound like a very good argument, but it is rather inconsistent, it appears to The Herald. *
The late William Raths, Sr., devoted many long years to his homestead; he looked forward to better days ahead for himself and his heirs--but now the children are offered a couple of thousand dollars to give up their home in order that property on all sides may be made more valuable by the big development.
Sam J. Seaton, damsite ferryman, is asked to get out, give up the family home and sacrifice a ferry business that might prove worth thousands of dollars a year--sacrifice everything, his life's hopes and ambitions, for a pitiful seven thousand dollars.
Julius C. Johnson, the man who undoubtedly ranks first among the local boosters for the Grand Coulee dam project--who has spent thousands of dollars of his own money to help finance the pioneering work of the project--is told that the government is taking his damsite 160 acres and offering him in payment the ridiculous sum of six hundred-odd dollars. The highway and railroad right-of-ways run across the property, ordinarily bringing the landowner thousands of dollars;--not to mention the fact that a part of the main construction activity will also take place on this Johnson land.
In the face of all this skimping by the government to save a few thousand dollars additional that rightfully should be paid each of the damsite landowners, the neat sum of $400,000 is to be spent or invested in a steel bridge, primarily for the use of the contractors who will build the dam; other hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent on building up a government camp, that the comparatively few government employees that will supervise the building of the dam may live in comfort. These things are proper; we offer no criticism of them, but merely use them as examples of the inconsistency.
The government has brought court action to force acceptance of the low prices offered. However, the damsite landowners will attempt to produce evidence to prove the land worth more, and the public will applaud their spirit and wish them success.
* So when in the history of government has government not been inconsistent?--CousinSam
__________________________________________________________________________
One week later:
GOVERNMENT WHOULD RESPECT RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS
The editorial printed by The Herald last week on the low and seemingly unfair prices offered the damsite land owners for their property by the government received wide publicity in daily and weekly newspapers, and has caused much comment. The pendulum of public opinion may be expected to swing toward these Columbia river pioneers. It was reported early this week that the big steam shovels used in excavation work were already nearing the Sam Seaton home on the east side of the river, apparently threatening to dig its foundations from the ground. This illustrates one of the hardships suffered by the damsite settlers--to be turned out of house and home, in the middle of winter. Surely the federal government is not "too big" * to recognize the rights of its humble citizens!
* Big government was "too big" then, and that was 78 years ago!--CousinSam
No comments:
Post a Comment