elevated. Other interesting details of this plant may be obtained from the original paper. Hydraulic elevators are now employed in practically all of the gold producing states, although their principal application is in California, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Alaska, Wyoming, etc. The operating conditions of hydraulic elevators, may be illustrated by the following cases: the Yreka Creek Gold Mining Company operating in Siskiyou County, California, in 1880 with a Cranston elevator elevated the gravel 40 feet, with 800 miner's inches of water under a head of 266 feet. This elevator took care of the gravel piped by two giants with nozzles of two and one-half and three inches in diameter. In 1889 the North Bloomfield mine installed an elevator with a lift of 96 feet, depositing and impounding the tailing in an old pit. Fifteen hundred miner's inches of water were used under a head of 540 feet. The nozzle employed was six inches in diameter, which elevated the gravel in an upcast 20 inches in diameter and 113 feet long. The giant supplying this elevator used 800 miner's inches of water.1 Hydraulic elevators are successfully operated in many localities with lifts ranging from 50 to 70 feet, although probably the larger number lies between 50 and 60 feet. It is claimed that gravel does not materially influence the height of lift, but it is rather the water itself which controls it.2 The Débris Controversy. The development of placer-mining from hand work with cradles and long toms to the use of hydraulic giants that could do the work of a thousand men each, was accomplished in but a few years in a manner little short of the marvelous. So profitable was the work that capital was readily induced to invest with the result that at one time no less than $100,000,000 were invested in property consisting of lands and equipment - canals, ditches, reservoirs, etc., and as it has been aptly remarked "the extent of their operations proved their undoing." It was but natural that two things should result, namely: through the very nature of their operations they must infringe on the rights. of others, and that in turn they should be preyed upon by other interests. The development and maintenance of such gigantic enterprises created other industries upon which they ultimately became largely dependent for supplies, the most important of which were the agricultural and grazing interests, and strange as it may 1 Min. and Sci. Press, Vol. 72, p. 261. 2 Min. and Sci. Press, Vol. 72, p. 265. seem these two industries were largely instrumental in almost completely driving out the former industry from the state. The detritus, commonly known as "tailing," "débris" and "slickens," resulting directly from hydraulicing. operations was at first disposed of as best it could be, and without regard to anything except the convenience of the mining operations. It was not long, however, before the gulches and cañons of the mountains and foot hills, the direct recipients of the débris, became filled and choked, and, with the periodic seasons of high water, discharged immense quantities of sand and slimes into the tributaries of the larger rivers which emptied into the ocean. Serious blockades to the rivers were obviated to a large extent by the removal by floods generally occurring during the winter months, and culminating at least once in 10 years. The final disposition of the débris was then the bay of San Francisco, which was extensively shoaled in its upper portions. With regard to the amount of débris deposited in the beds of the rivers, it is estimated that there were 120,000,000 cubic yards in the Bear, and 70,000,000 in the Yuba by 1880.1 While in the bed of the lower Yuba, where the gradient was less than 15 feet to the mile there had accumulated débris to the amount of 300,000,000 cubic yards. Further, when hydraulic operations were most actively carried on, on the Yuba, between 1880 and 1890, the annual discharge of débris into the streams was 22,000,000 cubic yards, while the material moved each year was approximately 46,000,000 cubic yards. The quantity of débris discharged into the Yuba alone each year has been graphically described as being sufficient to fill a street 11 miles long and 120 feet wide to a depth of 75 feet, or to fill the Erie canal in 18 months.3 In 1894 it was estimated by the Débris Commission that the amount of detritus then in the Yuba River from De Guerre Point to Marysville, was 308,000,000 cubic yards, while a rough estimate of that between Smartsville and De Guerre Point was 100,000,000 cubic yards, making a total of 408,000,000 cubic yards then in that river. It was claimed, however, that it could be proven that only one-fourth of the débris in the rivers came from the mines, which was roughly shown from the figures given above - 408,000,000 1 Eng. and Min. Jour., Vol. 81, p. 940. Proc. Soc. Civil Engrs., Vol. 32, p. 104, and Eng. and Min. Jour., Vol. 81, p. 941. Eng. and Min. Jour., Vol. 78, p. 588. cubic yards in the Yuba River in 1894 as a result of washing approximately 100,000,000 cubic yards of gravel.1 2 The coarse gravel and cobbles remained in the upper portions of the tributary streams such as the Yuba, Bear, Feather and American rivers, while the sand and clay ("slickens ") were carried on and deposited in the valley of the Sacramento, also to a certain extent in the lower portions of the larger tributaries. It was estimated that at the rate of washing during 1880 the channel of the Sacramento would be raised 1 foot in every 38 years. By this change in the level of the river beds 40,000 acres of rich bottom land along the Yuba, Bear, Feather, American and Sacramento rivers were inundated and ruined for cultivation, besides which there were 300,000 acres of valuable land more or less damaged. It was claimed that 43,546 acres of land suffered a depreciation of $2,597,000 in 36 years. Where such damage was not permitted, owing to the building of levees, the expense incident thereto was equivalent to a depreciation of the property. 3 The citizens of Marysville were taxed 6 per cent of their property value to construct levees to hold back the waters of the Yuba River during floods. Further, navigation in the bays of Suisun and San Pablo as well as on the Sacramento River was seriously impaired.5 The miners paid for damages obviously done, but this in time led to extensive blackmail. The purchase of lands damaged by débris worked no special hardship upon the miners when they were isolated cases only, but when a whole township had to be purchased and where agricultural and grazing land were acquired more for speculative purposes than for their professed use, then such proceedings became most offensive tyranny." The farmers first sought relief at the hands of the State Legislature, and although the matter was much discussed no definite action was taken. An Association, the Anti-Débris Association, was then formed, the object of which was to take charge of and conduct the proceedings against the miners. Forthwith a protective association was formed by the miners, and as a result the matter soon 1 Min. and Sci. Press, Vol. 69, p. 354, and Ibid., Vol. 74, p. 28. 3 Eng. and Min. Jour., Vol. 81, p. 940. became a political issue. Suit was brought against the Little New York Gold-Washing and Water Company, which was operating along the Bear River.1 Litigation followed litigation and the controversy waxed warm, and as was to be expected much injustice resulted to both parties concerned, until finally in the test suit of Woodruff vs. The North Bloomfield Mining Company, the miners suffered defeat. The decision of the United States Circuit Court resulted in the closing of all the principal hydraulic mines in the central northern portion of the state. "The mining company and its agents and employes were perpetually enjoined and restrained from discharging and dumping into the Yuba River or any of its forks, ravines, or branches, or any stream tributary to the river, any tailings, boulders, cobblestones, gravel, sand, clay, débris, or refuse matter from the track of mineral lands or mines, and also from allowing others to use the water supply of their mines for washing such material into the rivers or streams." The following summaries of contentions as to their rights offered by the two parties in the débris controversy are of interest in this connection: The miners claim that "We are engaged in a legitimate and lawful business, sanctioned by special laws of the United States, and by custom and usage for more than 30 years, whereby we have acquired an easement and prescriptive right. We have purchased our lands from the United States government as mineral lands, and paid for them double the price of agricultural lands, with full knowledge on the part of the government of the method to be pursued in extracting the gold, as is apparent by the inspection of the heading and vignetts of the United States mineral patents, representing hydraulic mining as at present prosecuted. Confiding in the validity of our title and easement or franchise, we have expended many millions of dollars in driving long tunnels to tap our auriferous deposits, and in building reservoirs and digging canals to convey water to our mineral lands. In the prosecution of these works, populous communities have grown up; and thousands are dependent upon our industry. We have added to the metallic wealth of the world nearly 1200 millions of dollars, and if undisturbed, will continue to add thereto at the average rate of $18,000,000 annually for an indefinite period, estimated at not less than 100 years. Gold is the great lubricator of commerce. In the present age of prog 1 Min. and Sci. Press, Vol. 38, p. 168. a T. A. I. M. E., California Mines and Minerals, pp. 256, 257, 1899. ress, it purchases all necessities; and the nation which produces it can want for nothing. The equity of our tenure of lands and public policy alike forbid suppression of our business. The breaking down of dirt by projecting water is an incident of our business, without which it cannot be pursued. The mountain cañons are the natural receptacles for the material washed from the mines. You have endangered your towns in periods of high water by a defective and unscientific system of levees, and you have obstructed the efforts of the government to protect the navigable rivers by measures recommended by the government engineers. The bay of San Francisco has in no manner been affected by our operations." 1 On the other hand the claims of the opposition were: "(1) hydraulic mining is the exercising a right which prevents others enjoying their rights, a use of property which prevents others enjoying theirs; it is therefore a nuisance; (2) it thus interferes with and disturbs large numbers of citizens; it is therefore a nuisance; (3) there can be no prescriptive right granted in the maintenance of a nuisance; (4) the Statute of Limitations will not run as against a nuisance; (5) a public nuisance may be, and should be abated; (6) it is no answer to charge of nuisance to say it also produces benefits; (7) the United States guarantees the free use of the navigable streams to the public; (8) the state cannot, by law, or neglect, or permission, consent to any obstruction to such streams; hydraulic mining does obstruct streams, and prevents their free use and enjoyment; (9) therefore, it is a public nuisance and should be abated; (10) hydraulic mining proper did not begin till 1865, and it has not gone on without protest custom is no defence, if the custom be a nuisance; (11) hydraulic mining, it is proven, it is not profitable, but agriculture is; (12) a court of equity will interfere to prevent the continuance of a nuisance." 2 As a result of the closing of the mines by both State and Federal injunctions, hydraulic operations were suspended, and the costly plants and equipments were allowed to go to decay. Dams and pipe lines were blown up and destroyed. Thus were thousands of men thrown out of work, and many camps and towns depopulated. The decadence of hydraulic-mining culminated about 1880 when the mines were practically wholly closed. 1 Eng. and Min. Jour., Vol. 36, p. 210. Min. and Sci. Press, Vol. 44, p. 137, and Ibid., Vol. 48, p. 28 (full text of Judges Sawyer and Deady's decision). |