The Canal That Would Reshape Seattle, Held Up by Mud and Paperwork

The joint committee on right-of-way for the government canal to Lake Washington has been making fair progress in securing the right-of-way and subsidy, and a map will indicate the route of the canal and, in fact, all the property in any way affected by the enterprise. Dennis Jones, of the right-of-way joint committee, has been meeting with fair progress in obtaining an estimate of the cost of right-of-way and a release to the government of all claims to property accruing by reason of the submerged lands. While many of the lot holders along the proposed route are in various parts of the country, North and South, and it has required some time to reach them, Mr. Jones reports that he has had communication with almost every one of them, and the correspondence has usually been of an encouraging nature.

Eugene Ricksecker, the engineer for the government, who will be in local charge of the work of building the canal, says concerning the present status of it:

'The project contemplates a canal twenty-six feet deep, having a bottom width of eighty feet and a surface width of 140 feet from Union Bay, on Lake Washington, to Lake Union, crossing a narrow ridge higher than Lake Union; also a canal of the same dimensions from Lake Union to the head of Salmon Bay, through a valley but a few feet higher at its upper end than Lake Union. The water of Salmon Bay is to be raised to and maintained at a level with Lake Union, and a lock fifty feet wide is to be constructed at the mouth of Salmon Bay, provision being made for the addition of two more when the necessities of commerce demand them. Through the shoals at the mouth of Salmon Bay the channel will be dredged 100 feet wide on the bottom. Through Salmon Bay and the shoals at the foot and head of Lake Union and in Union Bay the channel will have a bottom width of 300 feet.

By the construction of this canal a number of acres of land will become submerged. The largest tract thus submerged is contiguous to the head of Salmon Bay, nearly half of which is marshy at high tide. Another large tract lies on the south side of the canal, near Lake Union. Congress feared that excessive damages would be asked by reason of this submergence, and consequently inserted a clause in the river and harbor bill providing that no part of the sum appropriated should be expended until the entire right-of-way and release from damages had been secured to the government. The board of engineers in its report states that it is proposed to utilize to as great an extent as possible the material excavated from the canal and channels in filling up to the necessary levels the lands overflowed. No other provision is made for these lands, as it is believed that the great additional value given to them by the construction of the canal basins, etc., would more than compensate the owners for the trouble and expense which they might be put to in raising them to the proper grade.

Notwithstanding this report, the government will insist on having a release from every property holder whose land is or might be affected by the overflow due to the construction of the canal.

The accompanying map shows a closely approximate location of the right-of-way required and the lands that will, if left in their present state, be submerged. The route as laid down by the board of engineers and to which this corresponds was simply a paper location, and is therefore susceptible to a movement of a few feet either way.

It is probable that the first work done will be dredging either at the mouth of Salmon Bay or at its head, following up the cut to a point near Lake Union, leaving sufficient material at that point to act as a dam in holding up the water of that lake until the lock and auxiliary works at the mouth of Salmon Bay are completed, thus impounding fresh water in Salmon Bay and allowing it to reach the level of Lake Union before completing the cut to that lake.

When the question of damage through submergence of adjoining property first came up about six weeks ago Mr. Ricksecker said:

'There seems to be some discussion at this time regarding the question of damages to property by reason of the water of Salmon Bay being raised to and maintained on a level with the water of Lake Union. With the exception of a few miles at Ballard there are really no damages. By far the largest part of the land to be submerged is either marshy during half the year or rendered so by a rising tide.

It is probably not generally known that it is the intention of the engineers to distribute the earth obtained from the canal prism only on this submerged land, raising it to such an elevation above the water level of the canal as to provide proper drainage therefor. Sufficient material will be obtained from the prism to fill and reclaim all submerged land on both sides of the canal from Fremont to the state harbor lines. From this point towards the mouth of Salmon Bay the submerged land will be filled in, commencing at the point most remote from the canal, and improving towards the harbor lines until the excavated earth is exhausted. It is estimated that this improved land will almost reach the present high tide line in the vicinity of the head of Salmon Bay. As to the question of damages to lot owners where the canal right-of-way corresponds with the front line of their lots and includes the entire street they have no case, for it is not the purpose of the government to lock up its right-of-way and keep the public off. It is provided that a strip of land between 60 and 70 feet wide on each side of the canal, extending from Lake Union to Salmon Bay, and a narrower strip from Union Bay to Lake Washington, all lying within the 300 feet wide right-of-way asked for, can be utilized by the public for sidewalk, road, street and railway purposes although owned and controlled by the government.

Incidentally it might be said that with the canal this land will be ultimately too valuable for ordinary business purposes, and will likely be cut up into slips and basins where railways and commerce meet, as has been done at intervals along the Manchester canal.'