Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 88, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 January 1917 — MORE ABOUT THE RYAN DITCH [ARTICLE]

MORE ABOUT THE RYAN DITCH

Kokomo, Ind., Jan. 26, 1917. -• To the Landowners of the Pinkamink Valley: I have read with much Interest the article by Mr. Lewis S. Alter, engineer, published in The Jasper County Democrat on January 10, 1917, and also the public statement by a number of interested land owners in the same issue, and I entirely agree with Mr. Alter in his conclusions as to the best and cheapest method of draining the area in question. I am interested in the , project and as I am owner of land by contract in the Gifford marsh this article is not Influenced by any outside interest. I might make reference to the fact which was brought out in the article published by C. S. Head, R. C. Yeoman and Devere Yeoman, that I am one of the engineers who surveyed the Ryan ditch last year and have been over, the entire route of the proposed Rya«i ditch lateral No. 77 and the Gifford ditch from beginning to end. I would like to call the attention of the public and especially the interested land owners to a few of the facts brought out by our survey and not mentioned in our previous article, and also to some calculations made by me at that time in regard to, the cost of this work by draining the marsh area and all the territory north of it. Stump slough and Cypress creek, down the Gifford ditch and also cutting a channel through the rock ledge on the south to care for the territory not affected by the Gifford ditch and comparing this cost with the cost of the proposed Ryan ditch. The figures on the cost for the Pinkamink route, or Ryan ditch will be taken from the old report which was later set aside by the court on motion of the petitioners, although no longer an issue the figures given therein will serve as a comparison of cost for the two routes in question. Beginning at the same point as reported by the drainage commissioner for the Ryan ditch we found that measuring along the Gifford route from station 0 to where the sama enters, the Iroquois river to be the same distance as measuring along the Pinkamink route from station 0 to where same crosses the C. & W. V. railroad, south of Pleasant Grove. The distance being 1,04 6 stations, or 19.8 miles. The total length of the proposed Ryan ditch down the Pinkamink route was 1,362 stations, or 25.8 miles, the Gifford route being the shorter by 7.7 miles, besides’ the digging would be in sand, clay and muck, while the Pinkamink route would have to be blasted through five or six miles of solid rock, which everyone who is familiar with the country knows to be there only a few feet under the surface and in many places the water in the Pinkamink is flowing over outcropings of this rock. The outlet of the Gifford ditch in the Iroquois river is eighteen feet lower than the present bed of the Pinkamink at the C. & W. V. railroad bridge south, of Pleasant Grove. As stated in our previous article a. ditch caff be constructed, on the Gifford route on a grade of two feet to the mile and get into the marsh at the C. • & W. V. railroad bridge north of Newland with a ditch twelve feet deep. Now from the fact that the ■marsh is practically level as was shown by our survey, the muck at Tailholt bridge is Just six inches lower than the muck just south of William Hershman’s on the north side of the marsh, and from the fact that lateral No. 77 enters the Gifford ditch only a few hundred feet above the railroad bridge and it being on the north and west edge

Of the marsh it does not require an engineer to make this startling discovery, but anyone "with common horse-sense and sound judgment can see that it is more practical to take the water from No? 77 out of th^marsh almost as soon as it enters it with a grade of two feet to the mile than to try and carry it acrosS this level ground a distance, of about five miles before there is any fall whatever in the ground. In the same way the water from Stump slough on the north could tje taken across one corner of the <> marsh and dow„n the same ditch with a fall of two feet per mile instead of across this long level stretch of ground with no fall. In this way the water from the marsh area, lateral No, 77 and that coming down Stump, slough from the north can all be taken down the Gifford ditch, the route it has been following for more than twenty years, as stated by Mr. Alter, then a ditch could be constructed on the south side- through the rock of sufficient ’ size to take care of'this territory and all dope at a much lower cost than was reported for the construction of the Ryan ditch, as I will now show. The figures for cost of construction will be based only on the main line ditches as the. cost of laterals would t?e practically the same in either case. From the old report of the commissioners this cost of constructing the main line of~ the Ryan ditch was as follows: 705,920 cubic yards of dirt excavation .at 8 cents per cubic yard equals ss6\473.60; 145,138 cubic yards of rock excavation at $1 per cubic ’yard equals $145,138, making a total cost of $201,611.60. The rock yardage was apput one-fifth of the dirt yardage, but cost more than two And one-half times as much as the dirt. u v , The proposed Ryan ditch had a twelve and fifteen-foot bottom through the marsh and was only

about six feet deep at a point directly east of Newland. Now let us suppose that we make the bottom of the Gifford ditch thirty feet wide and twelve feet deep at the railroad and grade of two feet per mile, all of which are possible. The carrying capacity of the Gifford ditch would then be about five times the capacity of the Ryan ditch as was proposed. In choosing these figures I am not attempting to state What will be the size of the Gifford ditch under the new proposed clean out by the property owners, but these" figures were chosen as a basis for figuring cost and, to show what could be done. > A very liberal estimate of the yardage for the Gifford ditch beginning at station 0 on - the old Ryan ditch to its outlet in the Iroquois and deducting the yardage of the present ditch will be 937, 500 cubic yards at 8 cents per cubic yard equals $75,000. . Now begin at a point on the Ryan ditch at the outlet of the Baker lateral about halfway between Tailholt and Satillo bridges and construct a ditch ten feet wide on the bottom and average eight feet deep. < This would be . sufficient for the territory on the south side and is just one-half as large as the proposed Ryan ditch at the same place. A very liberal estimate for the construction of this ditch would be 187,000 cubic yards of dirt at 8 cents per cubic yard equals $14,900. 70,000 cubic yards of rock at $1 per cubic yard equals $< 0,000, making a total of $84,900 for this ditch. Now add to this the cost of $75,fr00 for the Gifford ditch and we have a total cost for the two ditches of $159,90Q, saving $41,711:60 or 21 per cent of the cost of the Ryan ditch. The feasability Of the whole proposition hinges on the question of which is the cheaper tp dig dirt at 8 cents a cubic yard or blast rock at $1 a‘cubic yard? • I wish to say further that I heartily endorse the action taken by the property owners and I am convinced that if they succeed in

1 cutting the ditch as proposed in i their scheme that it will afford the i relief desired in the marsh. The whole trouble lies in the filling up ■ of the Gifford ditch where it passes through the cut on John Egei’s farm just west- of the marsh’. I lived for two seasons oh what is locally known as Rattle Snake island on the banks of the Rich Grove lateral ditch and have - watched-the. flow of water in this ditch, which was the proposed route for No. 77 across the a marsh. In time of low water or normal flow the water in this lateral flows west and down the Gifford ditch. In rime of flood o» high water it flows east to the Binkamink, but not one, drop ot water from tSump slough or No. 77 ever reaches the Pinkamink until -these two ditches discharge more I water on the west side of the marsh than the Gifford ditch can carry away. The water piles up at this point and then begins,, to seek its level by flowing east in the Rich Grove lateral and spreading out over the big marsh until it finally enters the Pinkamink and then begins its long and torturous journey to the Iroquois river. This conditibn exists-with every large freshet, overflowing hundreds of acres of valuable land and destroying thousands of dollars worth of crops. The quickest, cheapest and best way to ■ relieve these conditions is to begin, as has been suggested by the Gifford Drainage -and Improvement company, near the center, of the marsh and deepen and widen the Gifford ditch. Then all the water from Stump slough and No. 77 instead of overflowing the marsh will pass quietly and peacefully out of it and no one need be made to suffer. I am not oprposed to the Ryan ditch if properly constructed, but I believe both ditches ghould be cut and I have shown that both ditches can be constructed and give five times better drainage to the land affected and save 21 per cent of the money which it wan proposed to spend on the main line of the Ryan ditch. Now, in conclusion, let me

ask this question: If it cost $201,611.60 to construct the Ryan ditch and this amount is 21. per cent more than two ditches would cost which would give five times mpite benefit to the land affected, what in the name of the “Great Jehova” would it cost to construct the Ryan ditch large enough to give the same benefit to the land as the two ditches? C. S. HEAD, - Civil Engineer.