J.02_199911_Controlling_Water_on_Border_HSR_Ackerly.pdf

CONTROLLING WATER ON THE BORDER:

THE AMERICAN CANAL SYSTEM,

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION,

EL PASO, TEXAS

By

Neal W. Ackerly, Ph.D.

Prepared for Submitted by United States Section Human Systems Research, Inc.

International Boundary and Water Commission Tularosa, New Mexico United States and Mexico El Paso, Texas November 1999 Contract #IBM 96-23 HSR Report No. 9904

ERRATA

The purpose of this errata page is to correct the text and captions related to bridges that were misidentified in the historical and archaeological investigation conducted by Human Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) in 1999.

The photographs listed below were incorrectly labeled and the correct captions are as follows:

• Plate 30: Photograph depicts 12 March 1938 view of Hart’s Mill Road Bridge; and

• Plate 66: Photograph depicts 1999 view of the remnants of the Hart’s Mill Road Bridge.

The descriptions of the Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges on pages 62, 66, and 67 of the HSR report contain incorrect information. The description and dimensions provided correctly describe only the Hart’s Mill Road Bridge. A revised description of the two bridges can be summarized as follows:

An examination of USIBWC construction drawings, maps, and photographs reveals that while the Globe Street Bridge was constructed as a footbridge across the canal, the structure at Hart’s Mill Road was a timber vehicular bridge. Although remnants of the Globe Street Bridge no longer exist, the original Hart’s Mill Road Bridge has been replaced with a sewer line and only the abutments remain. Photograph #ADC-385 in the USIBWC archives depicts the construction of the Globe Street footbridge in an April 1938 view. Furthermore, a construction drawing dated May 28, 1938, and entitled “Earthwork & Gravel Surfacing at American Dam and Canal – General Plan” (#2693-49) corroborates the location and method of construction of both the Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges. No construction drawings have been found for the Globe Street pedestrian bridge, perhaps indicating the structure’s simplicity of design.

Furthermore, the HSR study claimed that a third bridge, which led to the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) plant, was likewise of wood-frame construction, has been replaced by a new structure, and that no original remnants exist.

However, the Smelter Road Bridge still stands and is addressed in detail in the August 2000 Supplemental Report, Controlling Water on the Border: The American Canal System, United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas. The correct station for the Smelter Road Bridge is 63.00.

i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 3

UNITED STATES-MEXICO TREATY CONTROVERSIES:

A PROLOGUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN CANAL 6

American and Riverside Dams 14

AMERICAN DAM AND CANAL: AS-BUILT CHARACTERISTICS 18

American Dam 20

American Canal 20

A CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY AND PHOTO-

DOCUMENTARY SUMMARY OF THE AMERICAN

DAM AND CANAL SYSTEM 28

INVENTORY OF THE AMERICAN DAM 46

INVENTORY OF THE AMERICAN CANAL 48

Skimming Weir 49

American Canal 52

Open Channels 54

Conduits 57

STRUCTURES IN THE AMERICAN CANAL 59

Gauges 59

Bridges 62

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65

REFERENCES CITED 71

ii

APPENDIX AA ENGLISH VERSION OF A TREATY

BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA AND UNITED STATES OF

MEXICO (1906) 75

APPENDIX BB SELECTED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

OF THE AMERICAN DAM, AMERICAN

CANAL, AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES 79

iii

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparative Measurements of Selected Portions of the American Canal: 1938 and 1999 55

Table 2 American Canal Structures 59

Table 3 Alternatives and Impacts on the American Canal 66

Table 4 Matrix for Evaluating Alternatives for the American Canal 69

List of Figures

Figure 1 Strip Map of American Canal Showing Open Channels and Conduits 5

Figure 2 Plan and Profile Engineering Drawing of the American Dam 16

Figure 3 Engineering Drawing of Radial Gates at the American Dam 17

Figure 4 Structures Along the Left Bank of the Rio Grande Near the

Future Site of the American Dam 19

Figure 5 Representative Cross-sections of Open Channel Portions of the American Canal 23

Figure 6 Representative Cross-sections of Closed Conduit Portions of the American Canal 24

Figure 7 Cross-sectional Drawings of Sluiceway, Culverts, and

Canal Channels 25

Figure 8 Annual Acre-foot Diversions in the American Canal: 1938–1996 26

Figure 9 Seasonal Volume of Water Diversions of American Canal: 1956–1996 27

Figure 10 Seasonal Flow Rate of the American Canal: 1956–1996 27

Figure BB-1 Schematic of Hoist Devices on the American Dam 78 iv

Figure BB-2 Longitudinal Cross-section of the Intake for the American Canal 79

Figure BB-3 Plan View Schematic of American Canal Weir-Intake-Headgate Structure 80

Figure BB-4 Schematic of Hoist Motors Used on the American Dam and American Canal Intake 81

Figure BB-5 Typical Open-channel “A” Canal Cross-section 82

Figure BB-6 Typical Open-channel “B” Canal Cross-section 83

Figure BB-7 Conduit Cross-sections for Conduit “A” and Conduit “B” 84

Figure BB-8 Cross-section of Standard 7-ton IBWC Bridge 85

Figure BB-9 Plan View of Standard 7-ton IBWC Bridge 86

List of Plates

Plate 1 Aerial Photograph of the Project Area 3

Plate 2 Mexican Dam and Head of Juarez’s Acequia Madre 8

Plate 3 Brush-and-Rock Diversion Dam of the San Augustine Acequia 10

Plate 4 San Ignacio Earthen Dam Looking Upstream 11

Plate 5 El Porvenir Brush Dam Looking Downstream 11

Plate 6 Brush-and-Rock Dam of the Cuervo Acequia 12

Plate 7 Dam (left) and Intake (right) of the San Lorenzo Acequia 12

Plate 8 Dwellings Near the Future American Canal Right-of-Way 19

Plate 9 Open Section “A” Showing Configuration of Construction Joints and Weep Holes Common in All Open Sections 21

Plate 10 Beginning River Diversions, 27 January 1937 29

Plate 11 Cofferdam for the American Dam, 8 February 1937 30 v

Plate 12 Northwest Corner of East Cofferdam, 13 March 1937 30

Plate 13 Initial Excavation of American Canal, 20 March 1937 31

Plate 14 Early Phase of American Canal Construction, 31 March 1937 31

Plate 15 Piers 7–9 of the American Dam Prior to Pouring Concrete, 12 April 1937 32

Plate 16 Pouring Concrete in Pier 5, American Dam, 19 April 1937 32

Plate 17 Erecting Platform Steel on Piers 6–9, American Dam, 28 April 1937 33

Plate 18 Hand-grading in the American Canal, May 1937 33

Plate 19 Cleaning Upstream Slab of the American Dam, 21 May 1937 34

Plate 20 Water Flowing Through American Dam, 31 May 1937 34

Plate 21 Cleaning Closed Conduit “B,” 31 May 1937 35

Plate 22 Pouring First Concrete, Closed Conduit “B,” 22 June 1937 35

Plate 23 Closed Conduit “B” Walls Completed, 29 July 1937 36

Plate 24 Forms for Roof of Closed Conduit “B” in Place, 29 July 1937 37

Plate 25 Relocation of AT & SF Railway Tracks, 19 October 1937 37

Plate 26 Pouring Concrete for the American Canal Headworks, 10 November 1937 38

Plate 27 Erecting American Canal Headgates, 27 November 1937 38

Plate 28 Pouring First Concrete in Open Section “A”, 17 December 1937 39

Plate 29 Open Section “A” Under Construction, 24 December 1937 39

Plate 30 Lower Open Section “A” with Globe Street Bridge in Foreground, 12 March 1938 40

Plate 31 Final Cleaning of Upper Open Section “A”, 31 March 1938 40 vi

Plate 32 Intake of Closed Conduit “B,” 16 April 1938 41

Plate 33 Open Section “B” Looking Downstream, 1 May 1938 41

Plate 34 Downstream View of American Canal Headworks, 1 May 1938 42

Plate 35 Intake of Closed Conduit “B,” 25 May 1938 42

Plate 36 Upper Open Section “A” From Headgate, 3 June 1938 43

Plate 37 American Dam and Intake of the American Canal After Completion, 18 August 1939 44

Plate 38 Upper Open Section “A” Looking Upstream, 18 October 1938 45

Plate 39 American Dam (right) and American Canal Weir and Intake (left) 46

Plate 40 American Dam (center) and Canal (left), 1 July 1938 47

Plate 41 Repeat Photograph of American Dam and Canal 47

Plate 42 American Canal and Intake with Weir, 26 January 1938 48

Plate 43 Repeat Photograph of American Canal and Intake with Weir 48

Plate 44 American Canal Weir Looking North, 14 may 1938 49

Plate 45 Repeat Photograph of American Canal Weir Looking North 49

Plate 46 American Canal Weir Looking Upstream, 7 February 1938 50

Plate 47 Repeat Photograph of American Canal Looking Upstream 50

Plate 48 Hoist Machinery at the American Dam, 25 May 1938 51

Plate 49 Repeat Photograph of Hoist Machinery at the American Dam 51

Plate 50 Upstream Intake of the American Canal Showing Radial Gates 52

Plate 51 American Dam and Canal Intake, 28 May 1938 53

Plate 52 Repeat Photograph of the American Dam and Canal Intake 53 vii

Plate 53 American Canal Downstream of Headgate, 30 April 1938 54

Plate 54 Repeat Photograph of American Canal Downstream of Headgate 54

Plate 55 Confluence of the American and Franklin Canals, 17 May 1939 56

Plate 56 Headgates of the Franklin (left) and Wastegates (right) of the American Canals 56

Plate 57 Upstream Intake of Closed Conduit “B,” 25 May 1938 57

Plate 58 Repeat Photograph of Upstream Intake of Closed Conduit “B” 58

Plate 59 Interior of As-built Closed Conduit “B,” 29 April 1938 58

Plate 60 Gauging Station 100 m Downstream of American Canal Headgates, 3 June 1938 60

Plate 61 Detail of Gauging Station 100 m Downstream of American Canal Headgates, 1 May 1938 60

Plate 62 Bridge and Gauging Station .33 Miles from Headgate 61

Plate 63 Gauging Station and Utility Crossing Above Closed Conduit “A” Looking North 61

Plate 64 Stilling Well Near the Confluence of the American and Franklin Canals 62

Plate 65 Globe Street Bridge, 15 May 1938 63

Plate 66 Repeat Photograph of the Remnant of Globe Street Bridge 63

Plate 67 Hart’s Road Bridge, 15 May 1938 64 viii

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the historical and archaeological background of the American Canal in El Paso, TX. Construction of the canal began in 1937 and was completed in 1938. The American Canal is operated and maintained by the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) which has proposed to reconstruct the American Canal using one of four (4) alternate courses of action as follows:

Alternative 1 (Box Canal Alternative). This alternative calls for all but 400 ft of open channel portions of the American Canal between the American Dam and the International Dam to be replaced with boxed conduits

Alternative 2 (Partial Box Canal Alternative A). This alternative calls for replacing 2941 ft of open channels with closed conduits, leaving the remainder of the canal in its original configuration

Alternative 3 (Partial Box Canal Alternative B). This alternative calls for replacing 5521 ft of open channels with boxed conduits, leaving the remainder of the canal in its original configuration.

Alternative 4 (No-action Alternative). This alternative would leave the American Canal in its original configuration.

This report presents detailed archival research, combined with repeat photography and on-site inspections of the existing canal system. This research shows that the American Canal system has retained a high degree of integrity relative to its original 1938 configuration. More precisely, the American Canal exhibits a number of historically-significant engineering and construction characteristics typical of Depression-era Federal irrigation projects.

Second, the American Canal represents the earliest attempt by the United States to enforce the terms and conditions of the 1906 Treaty with Mexico regarding water allocations between the two countries. As such, it symbolizes efforts to resolve water allocations from the Rio Grande between the United States and Mexico in the Rio Grande basin in a way that ultimately allowed the expansion of irrigated agriculture in the El Paso Valley.

Based on the findings presented here, the American Canal is potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically, its construction style is typical of Depression-era construction methods and the canal is pivotal in international relations between the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the American Canal is significant under Criterion “A” and Criterion “C” of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966).

It is recommended that Alternative 3 be implemented by the USIBWC.

INTRODUCTION

Irrigation in the El Paso Valley of west Texas may have antedated the 1540 arrival of Coronado and been an independent invention of Native Americans (Hutson 1898:18, 66; Taylor 1902:15). Irrigation almost certainly appeared shortly thereafter, since Espejo commented in 1582 that “Some of the [Piro] fields are under irrigation, possessing very good diverting ditches, while others are dependent on the weather [rainfall]” (Bolton 1930:178).

Later authors, notably White (1950:4–7), believed that irrigation was a Spanish innovation first introduced to the region sometime between 1659 and 1661. Similarly, Hackett found that “Farther Garcia was there [Juarez] attending to the establishment of a farm, and obliging even the heathen to construct a ditch for it, with great labor, from the Rio del Norte” (1932:193–213).

Regardless of the precise timing, the arrival of irrigation technology began to radically transform the El Paso Valley, particularly after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 (Ackerly 1994, White 1950). The sudden influx of refugees from the north, both Spanish and Indian, demanded a substantial increase in the scale of agricultural production to support this new population. By 1726, even after the Reconquest in 1692, the El Paso Valley contained several irrigation canals (White 1950:18). Irrigation systems continued to expand throughout the 1700s and 1800s so that, by 1908, upwards of 9,000 acres were actively cultivated.

Further expansion of irrigation systems in the region continued throughout the twentieth century, largely under the aegis of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The goals of the BOR were to (1) stabilize water supplies, (2) institute flood control measures, and (3) increase agricultural production in the valley. However, the project cons idered here, the American Canal, was built not so much to address any of these three goals, but rather to resolve potential treaty disputes between the United States and Mexico. The general purpose of the American Dam- American Canal project is best summarized in a BOR Project History (1938:66–67; see also Timm 1941:189):

The American Canal built by the International Boundary Commission serving the Franklin Canal was completed and placed in operation on June 2, 1938. This canal was built for the purpose of insuring a division of water in accordance with the Treaty of 1906, which gave Juarez Valley, Mexico, 60,000 acre-feet per year in recognition of prior use and rights to Rio Grande water. The canal is concrete lined, 9,800 feet long and required a new diversion dam, which is a multiple radial gate type placed in concrete pier structure. This afforded a means of closer regulation of irrigation water, insured the delivery of required water to the American side and water was delivered to Mexico in accordance with the treaty provisions. As a result there was a considerable reduction in the amount of water received by the Juarez Valley, and requests were made to readjust the flow.

As this quote makes abundantly clear, the purpose of the American Dam and Canal project was to resolve disputes over water allocations between the United States and Mexico. Only then could sufficient water supplies be assured for American farmers to expand the scale and scope of agriculture in the valley.

This study was prompted by a proposal from the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) to reconstruct the American Canal. For purposes of this report, the title International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is used in a manner to mean either the IBWC or the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC). The United States and Mexico when referencing the international organization use the acronym IBWC. When referring to one section or the other of this international commission, the Acronyms USIBWC for the United States and MxIBWC for Mexico, are used (Source: IBWC).

Specifically, the IBWC has proposed replacing one or more of the concrete- lined, open-channel segments of the American Canal with concrete box conduits extending from the beginning of the American Canal at the American Dam downstream approximately 1.98 mi to the intake of the Franklin Canal at the International Dam. Mr. Steve Fox, Environmental Protection Specialist with the IBWC, is the liaison between Human Systems Research and ENCON International, the IBWC contractor preparing the Environmental Assessment. Mr. John Knopp is the ENCON project manager.

This report provides (1) an overview of the project area, (2) a review of United States- Mexico treaty controversies that prompted construction of the American Dam-American Canal complex, (3) a narrative chronology augmented with vintage photographs that summarizes major milestones in the construction of the American Canal, and (4) inventories of the American Dam, American Canal, and associated water-control and measurement structures associated with the American Canal system.

This report relies on a variety of records including BOR project histories, internal IBWC reports and as-built engineering drawings, and on-site inspection of existing irrigation facilities.

In addition, a concerted effort was made to obtain repeat photographs comparing the configuration of the irrigation system in 1938 with its current (1999) configuration. Using this approach, it is possible to better evaluate the extent (or lack thereof) of changes in the system since its completion in 1938. Considered together, the information presented in this report provides (1) a detailed historic context for the American Canal and (2) an evaluation of potential effects arising from the four IBWC reconstruction alternatives.

The proposed alternate IBWC undertakings discussed later in this report would be limited to the existing right-of-way; no new right-of-way will be required for any alternative. This right-of-way traverses an area that was extensively disturbed during the original 1937–1938 construction of the American Canal. On this basis, there would be minimal integrity of any remnant prehistoric or historic remains that might once have existed in this right-of-way. For this reason, this report focuses on the American Canal as the primary cultural resource of importance.

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA

The project area is situated on the United States side of the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico. It extends from the upstream American Dam approximately two mi downstream to the International Dam and encompasses all of the American Canal (Plate 1).

Plate 1. Aerial Photograph of the Project Area (From Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, Smeltertown, 1:25,000, 1982).

The project area consists of a northwest-southeast trending polygon situated in UTMG Zone 13 with corner points at approximately:

NW Corner— E 355350, N 3517400 NE Corner—E 355600, N 3517400 SW Corner—E 356920, N 3514800 SE Corner—E 357200, N 3514800

This polygon measures 225 m in width and is approximately 3,200 m in length (720,000 m2).

Although portions of this polygon extend into Mexico, all work was restricted to the United States side of the border.

Some 1961 strip maps depicting location of the American Dam, the American Canal, and the International Dam are shown in Figure 1. The American Canal is situated entirely within USIBWC right-of-way. The canal extends southeastward from the American Dam (Station 00), south of the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) plant, along the left bank of the Rio Grande. At the canal’s downstream gauging station, approximately 2,700 ft from the dam (Station 2,700), it enters a culvert running underneath U.S. 80 and continues below the surface for about 870 ft (Station 3570). The canal resumes an above-ground, open-channel for another 3,000 ft, then enters a second conduit at about Station 6,570. This second conduit extends below the surface for 1,600 ft (Station 8,720). It then remerges as an open channel that continues another 2,700 ft to the beginning of the Franklin Canal (Station 10,970). Within the project area, the right-of-way for the American Canal proper encompasses an area of 3,200 m in length by approximately 31 m in width (99,200 m2).

In addition to the canal itself, the American Canal contains a number of other features.

The features listed below are ordered from upstream to downstream:

1. Station 00—a weir-sluiceway complex at the intake of the American Canal

2. Station 30—a concrete bridge with canal headgates over the canal into the American Dam complex

3. Station 9,300—a 16-ft-wide concrete bridge over the canal into ASARCO

Additional details regarding these structures are presented in the archaeological inventory below.

(From U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Irrigable Area and Property Maps, Sheet 1, 1961).

U pp er O pe n

C ha nn e l A

C on du it

A

M id dl e

O pe n

C ha nn el A

C on du it

"B

O pe n C ha nn el

"B

Lo w er O pe n

C ha nn el "A

Figure 1. Strip Map of American Canal Showing Open Channels and Conduits (From U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Irrigable Area and Property Maps, Sheet 1, 1961).

UNITED STATES-MEXICO TREATY CONTROVERSIES:

A PROLOGUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN CANAL

Given that water for irrigation purposes was critical to both the United States and Mexico, early treaties and conventions, astonishingly, did not explicitly consider the allocation of water between the two countries. In the United States, the progressive expansion of irrigation systems upstream of Paso del Norte, especially those in the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado, led to water shortages in many downstream portions of the Rio Grande Basin, including the Paso del Norte region (Mills 1896 in Follett 1898:12). Documentary sources suggest persistent seasonal water shortages as early as 1879 and lack of water continued to play a crucial role in inhibiting agricultural production throughout the Rio Grande Basin.

Under the terms of Article V of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and Article Vll of the 1852 treaty between the United States and Mexico, the boundary between the two countries was established as the middle of the deepest channel of the Rio Grande. This agreement implied, but did not specify, that Mexico was free to divert irrigation water into canals in Ciudad Juarez opposite El Paso, Texas, from its half of the river. However, faced with ever-changing river channel locations, the United States and Mexico agreed, in 1884, that the dividing line would conform to the original 1852 channel of the Rio Grande and reaffirmed that no works affecting the river flow would be constructed. Yet, even at this later time, no agreement existed concerning how much water could be diverted by either country.

Between 1855 and 1885, progressive channel migration, estimated at more than 0.6 mi, resulted in the southward migration of the main stem of the Rio Grande into Mexican territory.

This channel shift resulted in loss of lands and destruction of ditches, as well as threats to the Mexican diversion dam and remaining Acequia Madre. By 1885, it was found that:

...not only had Mexico lost a very considerable part of cultivated and irrigable lands and some dwelling houses, but also one of the irrigating canals, known as the Chamizal Ditch, loss of which constituted a greater damage because it ruined and converted into arid lands a considerable amount of ground formerly used for viticulture and the cultivation of choice fruits; that these damages were caused in the beginning by the natural effect of the water, which in this part of the channel attacks the right bank as it makes a big curve, to the detriment of the concave part, which is on the right-hand [Mexican] side, and partly caused by small wing-dams constructed for defense on the left [American] side, which helped powerfully to increase the destruction that already without them had been considerable (Ernst 1889:57–58).

In an effort to stabilize the channel, Mexican authorities constructed, in 1886, a series of wing-dams downstream of their dam to halt further movement of the river into Mexican territory.

The reaction of United States authorities was almost immediate: the actions of the Mexican government were construed as a violation of Article Vll of the 1852 treaty and Article lIl of the 1884 convention because the structures altered the channel of the Rio Grande and potentially impeded the navigability of the river (Ernst 1889:50). Although the Mexican government suspended further construction of wing structures, this incident clarified the linkage between channel stability—a factor very explicitly considered in all prior treaties and conventions—and the operation of acequia systems in the El Paso Valley. Despite this incident, the United States and Mexico did not undertake any agreements regarding water diversions into canals.

A second event underscored the problem of water allocations between the United States and Mexico. In 1890, local El Paso developers argued that canal systems and community ditch associations were not efficiently delivering water to farms in the valley. Their proposed remedy involved the construction of a single canal that was large enough to provide water to all farmers throughout the valley.

This proposal culminated in the formation of the El Paso Irrigation Company and its ill-fated offspring, the Franklin Canal. In its original prospectus for the Franklin Canal, the company proposed to construct a large canal through the middle of the floodplain for some 30 mi downstream of the American Dam. The company would then contract for water deliveries to individual farmers or community ditch associations. Within two years, the El Paso Irrigation Company fell on difficulties and was reorganized as the Franklin Irrigation Company. Between 1892 and 1912, the Franklin Canal was leased to the El Paso Valley Water Users Association.

Designed to divert approximately 300 cubic feet per second (cfs), the Franklin Canal was intended to convey water for some 30 mi down the El Paso Valley. A 1909 report indicates that infilling by sediments had reduced the capacity to only about 175 cfs (BOR, RG 115, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), General Correspondence File, 1902–1942,115- 54-A-81, Box 1111, Folder 249, np). At the time the BOR acquired the canal in 1912, the Franklin Canal extended for only 5 mi through the valley and its capacity was only about 85 cfs (BOR, RG 115, NARA, Project Reports, Box 722, pp 1–4).

The reason the Frank lin Canal was of little concern to Mexican water users can be traced to the location of the dam that supplied water to the canal. The Mexican Dam appears to have been rebuilt in 1848 and then again between 1886 and 1889 using stronger materials (Plate 2).

At the same time, the American Dam was constructed 1800 ft below the Mexican Dam.

Although efforts were made to place the American Dam upstream of the Mexican Dam, opposition from American landowners prevented its construction at that location. Consequently, farmers on the Acequia Madre in Juarez were able to divert water before it reached the American Dam and the Franklin Canal did not pose any substantial threat to Mexican farmers (BOR, NARA, RG 115, Project Reports, Fiock letter, 22 July 1935). Sometime between 1904 and 1909, the intake or throat of the Franklin Canal was relocated to a point some 150 to 200 ft above the Mexican Dam (BOR, NARA, RG 115, Project Reports, pg. 14; Fiock, BOR, FRC, 22 July 1935).

The apparent lack of response of the Mexican government to this relocation suggests this intake was constructed after the 1906 agreement in which the United States agreed to supply Mexico with water (see Appendix AA for a copy of this treaty).

The explicit consideration of water allocations between the United States and Mexico was an inadvertent outgrowth of the first effort to construct a dam on the Rio Grande. A local New Mexican businessman, Nathan Boyd, formed the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company in 1895 with the express intent of appropriating all of the water of the Rio Grande and building a water storage facility near Engle, N.M. Shortly thereafter, Boyd arranged for a group of English financial backers to take over control of the company while preserving much of its original intent. According to the original prospectus, the Rio Grande Irrigation and Land Company, Ltd.

was

. . . formed to acquire, by lease and assignment, the franchise rights, water rights, right of appropriating the waters of the Rio Grande (United States of America), contracts, properties, and undertaking of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company, and for the purposes of irrigating, colonizing, and improving the lands in the famous Rio Grande Valley, between Engle, N. Mex. and Fort Quitman, Tex[as] (Mills in Follett 1898:12).

Dam sites were proposed at Elephant Butte, Rincon, and Fort Selden, New Mexico (Mills 1896 in Follett 1898:12).

Plate 2. Mexican Dam and Head of Juarez's Acequia Madre (August 1934 - NARA, BOR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch report).

The Mexican government responded that this project violated the 1852 and 1884 agreements, since a dam would adversely affect the navigability of the Rio Grande. Although this scheme foreshadowed the eventual construction of the Elephant Butte Dam, subsequent litigation (United States of America vs. Rio Grande Irrigation and Land Company, Ltd.)

prevented the company from cont inuing its plans. Nevertheless, the proposed dam crystallized the problems associated with water allocations between the United States and Mexico.

In 1896, W. W. Follett was assigned the task of determining water usage throughout the Rio Grande Basin. His report (Follett 1898) showed the surface water of the Rio Grande to be oversubscribed and that remedial measures would have to be taken to avoid the collapse of irrigation agriculture throughout the downstream portions of the basin. Follett (1898:41) further recommended that the United States:

...restrain any such reservoirs hereafter constructed from the use of any waters to which the citizens of the El Paso Valley, either in Mexico or in the United States, have right by prior appropriation, and provide some legal and practicable remedy and redress, in case such waters should be used, to the citizens of both countries.

And that thereafter the two Governments provide by joint representatives or mixed commission who are to reside at their respective ends of the dam, for a permanent distribution of the flow, as follows: one half or so much as one-half as may be required to the Mexican side of the river for such use as the Mexican Government may see proper to apply it.

This report is the first reference to the dilemma of allocating water between the two countries.

More important, Follett recommended that Mexico receive 50 percent of the Rio Grande's flow.

Given the decision to construct the Elephant Butte Dam, the United States and Mexican governments negotiated an agreement in 1906 to allocate water between the two countries (see Appendix AA). According to Article I, the United States agreed to provide 60,000 acre-feet of water annually at the headgate of the Acequia Madre in Juarez (Lawson 1926:2). What is surprising is that the amount allocated to Mexico represented slightly less than 10 percent of the long-term average annual discharge of the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas. Even more surprising are other terms of this agreement. Under the terms of Article IV, the United States stipulated these water deliveries would not to be ". . . construed as a recognition by the United States of any claim on the part of Mexico to the said waters." In other words, the United States did not recognize that Mexico had any legal claim to any water from the Rio Grande. Even today, water deliveries to Mexico continue on the basis of this 1906 agreement.

Despite the agreement between the United States and Mexico regarding water allocation between the countries, illegal diversions of water by Mexican farmers began as early as 1919 and continued at various points below the American-Mexican Diversion Dam for a number of years (BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–1942, Box 1109, 115-54-A-81, Folder 249, pg. 3–4; Lawson 1926:3). In 1923, for example, Debler estimated illegal diversions to amount to almost 30,000 a.f. above the 60,000 a.f. agreed upon in 1906 (BOR RG 115, NARA, Project Reports, 1910–1955, Box 717, Folder: Water Supply Requirements, pg. 6;

Lawson 1926:5). Three years later, Lawson (1926:3) found no less than seven illegal dams diverting water downstream of the International Dam. In a 1935 report, Fiock noted:

...in 1932 a large increase in the diversions by the Mexican canals was made and has continued; also since the Mexican canal diversion records have not been made accessible (although it is certain that such records are kept) there is nothing else to believe other than the Mexican records show a much greater volume being diverted than is allowed in the treaty of 1906, and for that reason the Mexican officials do not wish to release them.

The apparent locations of these illegal diversion dams began with the San Augustine Acequia (Plate 3) some 17 mi below the International Dam (BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–194, Fiock 1935:np; BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–1942, Box 1109, 115-54-A-81, Folder 249, pg. 4). Still other illegal diversion dams were found further downstream (Lawson 1926:4). These included, ordered by downstream distance, the Guadalupe Acequia (32 mi), San Ignacio Acequia (32 mi—Plate 4), Porvenir Acequias (44 and 45 mi—Plate 5 below), Miramar Acequia (48 mi), Cuervo Acequia (Plate 6), and San Lorenzo Acequia (Plate 7).

Plate 3. Brush-and-Rock Diversion Dam of the San Augustine Acequia (August 1934 - NARA, BOR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch Report).

Plate 5. El Porvenoir Brush Dam Looking Downstream (July 1934 - NARA, COR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch Report).

Plate 4. San Ignacio Earthen Dam Looking Upstream - Note Reduced Flow of the Rio Grande(August 1934- NARA, BOR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch Report

Plate 6. Brush-and Rock Dam of the Cuervo Acequia (July 1934 - NARA, BOR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch Report).

Plate 7. Dam (left) and Intake (right) of the San Lorenzo Acequia

(July 1934 - NARA, BOR, RG 115-87-0028, Resch Report).

The presence of so many illegal diversions caused Resch (1934:7–9, 26–27) to comment at length about the nature of difficulties between the United States and Mexico:

The conservation and economic distribution of water in the El Paso Valley has become increasingly difficult, in fact impossible, during the past two years due to the lack of information regarding the volume of water that was being diverted by the [Mexican] Acequia Madre, and to the absence of some means of measuring out the 60,000 acre-feet as provided in the distribution schedule contained in Article II of the [1906] treaty . . . An attempt was made to secure from the Mexican Irrigation Service an estimate of their diversion prior to the time it was to be made, but the effort was far from being successful and it was abandoned after several telephone calls failed to secure the necessary information . . .

However it was soon evident [fall of 1933] that the Acequia Madre was not being operated according to treaty; in fact, due to the excess diversion by the Acequia Madre above treaty stipulations more water was being diverted into the head of the Mexican Canal than could be diverted by the Franklin Canal. While all of the water being taken into the head was not used, due to the system under which the canal is operated, at the same time it was not available for diversion by the Franklin Canal in which it was badly needed. The Mexican system of operation has been uncontrolled intake at the head of the canal, no gates of any type being used and net control being secured by one waste return to the river about 400 feet below the International Dam and a second waste return to river about one mile below the International Dam. With 250 second feet and less available in the river during the fall months it can readily be seen how the Acequia Madre uncontrolled intake seriously interfered with the operation of the Franklin Canal by “running” most of the water around the International Dam through the Acequia Madre head, then to the river through one of the wasteways . . . [This] indicates conclusively that the Acequia Madre at Juarez and a number of additional canals diverting from the river between Jua rez and Fort Quitman were diverting and using during the period covered by the records of 1910–1928 more than 60,000 acre-feet a year.

Resch presented a number of recommendations in his report. His two most relevant conclusions were (Resch 1934:26–27; see also Lawson 1926:7, 10):

Conclusion #3. Economic and efficient control and conservation of water below El Paso is impossible due to the uncontrolled diversions of the Acequia Madre at Juarez, Mexico, opposite El Paso, Texas, and the several other unauthorized diversions to the Mexican side of the river below that point.

Conclusion #5. The only permanent solution is the construction of a diversion dam above the point where the Rio Grande becomes the International Boundary and an All American Canal built from the diversion dam along the American side of the river to the present Franklin Canal which would ultimately be enlarged to carry the entire irrigation requirement for the El Paso Valley.

Both recommendations were adopted by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) as a justification for constructing the American Dam and the American Canal. What is ironic, of course, is that despite completion of these two structures, illegal diversions of water into Mexican acequias continued well into the 1940s (Timm 1941:189–190).

Indeed, one commentator observed that illegal diversions in 1945 probably equaled or exceeded the 60,000 acre-feet to which Mexico was legally entitled under the 1906 treaty (IBWC 1945:15). Consequently, full implementation of the American Dam and Canal did not, in and of itself, solve the problem of illegal water diversions.

American and Riverside Dams

Two measures immediately were proposed to reduce illegal Mexican diversions. First, the IBWC proposed, in 1926, to build a dam above the Mexican diversion dam at a point along the Rio Grande before the river became the International Boundary between Mexico and the United States (BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–1942, Box 1109,115- 54-A-81, Folder 249, pg. 7). This dam would capture the entire flow of the Rio Grande into the Franklin Canal and then divert the Mexican allotment of 60,000 a.f. into the Acequia Madre on the Juarez side of the river (Fiock 1935:np).

What was more important, as BOR officials noted (1935:19), was that this dam would allow the United States to completely control water distributions in the El Paso region:

It is proposed to construct a diversion dam across the river [Rio Grande] near El Paso, above the point where the International Boundary Line between the United States and Mexico leaves the Rio Grande and runs west to California. The location is to be such that it will lie entirely in United States territory. The proposed dam will consist essentially of thirteen steel gates located between concrete piers and so arranged that the ordinary controlled flow of the river can be diverted into a new canal (to connect with the present Franklin Canal) while high flows can be passed through the structure with a minimum of interference and consequent backing-up of the water. The new canal is designed to carry a flow of water sufficient for all of the Rio Grande Federal Irrigation Project lands below El Paso (estimated at 1200 second feet), so that eventually all of such lands can be supplied from the new diversion dam through the new canal and an enlarged Franklin Canal.

The BOR also commented at length on the general design and constraints faced in constructing the American Dam (BOR 1935:25–27):

[The dam] is a structure of the floating type, resting on the fine sands and silts of the river bed, which extend to considerable depths . . . The proposed structure consists of twelve steel radial gates, each 30 feet wide by 7'6" high, set between reinforced concrete piers 24" thick and 18" above the floor. In addition, a special gate is provided through which diversions to Mexico can be measured. The floor or apron is a reinforced concrete slab extending upstream for a distance of forty feet above the gates, and downstream for a distance of 30 feet below them. This floor varies in thickness as shown on the plans, being 9 inches above the piers, 24 inches under the piers, and 18 inches below the piers. A line of 20-foot sheet steel piling extends across the river under both the upper and lower ends of the concrete apron, and a line of weep holes for structure drainage is located immediately above the downstream row of sheet pile . . . A small “sill” at the lower end of the downstream apron will tend to prevent erosion below by deflecting water currents upward and creating a “backroll” with upstream velocities immediately below the sill. Below the structure proper it is planned to pave the river bottom with a bed of bonded riprap three feet in depth and twenty-five feet in length, across the entire width of the dam. Should erosion occur, this riprap will prevent any excessive scouring below the dam structure.

As later accounts by Hill (1964:9–10) indicate, the American Dam was, indeed, built largely to the original 1935 specifications (Figures 2 and 3):

AMERICAN DIVERSION DAM on the Rio Grande 2 miles northwest of El Paso and immediately above the point where the river becomes the International Boundary line, is for the diversion of irrigation water to the El Paso Valley for use on the American side. This dam consists of a 286-foot long concrete weir with 13 radial gates with a structural height of 18 feet and a hydraulic height of 5 feet. It was constructed in 1938 and is operated by the American Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission to regulate delivery of water to Mexico in accordance with Treaty [of 1906] provisions.

The construction of the American Dam was completed in July of 1938 (BOR, RG 115, NARA, Project Histories, Box 1087, 115-66A693, pg. 20–23).

The second component of this plan, while not directly relevant to this specific inquiry, was construction of the Riverside Dam and Canal complex to capture water not diverted into the Franklin Canal and the Acequia Madre (BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–1942, Box 1109, 115-54-A81, Folder 249, pg. 8). This

Figure 2. Plan and Profile Engineering Drawing of the American Dam (1935).

Figure 3. Engineering Drawing of Radial Gates at the American Dam (1935).

iif II t:

!l' ' j

• I

' ll

1, ' I • '

;r j

• I

~p II'!' 4': + r lc, ~f-::.)

' I I' "'~ ·~ .:._. ! i i;t. _J;:_f_'

' ! ! I I ~I , I ' ' -------- I -" "'

II

I • , I . ~ l ;I J.J'"{\\\.1!\JEW _:{A' ~AHr~-rmi:J!r! lj

: I' i I' . ' ..

' j I Ooill • "

T j - ··,;:::~. ~~~-~-· -j

+1 l facility would not only capture excess water, but would provide a more stable diversion point for irrigable lands in the San Elizario, Tornillo, and Island Districts (BOR, RG 115, NARA, General Correspondence files, 1902–1942, Box 1109,115-54-A-81, Folder 249, pg. 9). Construction of this complex was begun in 1927 and completed by 1940. The Riverside Dam is 20 mi downstream from the former location of the headgates of the Franklin Canal.

AMERICAN DAM AND CANAL: AS-BUILT CHARACTERISTICS

The American Dam provided water through the newly-constructed American Canal in the following fashion (BOR 1938:27–28):

The manner of operation of the American Dam and Canal is that the water allocated to Mexico is passed through the dam into the old river channel, while the remaining total flow of the river is carried through the American Canal to the Franklin Canal settling basin. The net diversion for the Franklin is made several miles below the settling basin after sluicing operations have returned to the river all of the water not desired for the Franklin Canal net diversion. This water returned to the river, of course, is for later diversion by the Riverside Canal located a few miles below Ysleta, Texas. Incidentally, the old International Diversion Dam, which formerly served both the Franklin Canal and the Acequia Madre [of Juarez] is now used only by the Acequia Madre, since under the new setup the diversion for the Franklin Canal is now made at the American Dam.

As noted above, the American Dam was useless without completing the American Canal.

Yet, compared to the dam, construction of the canal was far more problematic due, in large part, to difficulties in acquiring easements and the high sediment content of Rio Grande waters (Resch 1934:27–28; Figure 4 and Plate 8):

The American Canal, while only two miles long, will involve a number of difficult and costly features. These are due largely to the limitations of the location, and to the railroads, paved highway, and other works already constructed in the narrow canyon which the canal also must traverse . . . Right of way will be a costly item. The physical limitations of the location are such that the upper end of the canal must be located through a thickly settled district of “shacks” and small houses in what is locally known as “Smelter Town,” and a number of such properties must be purchased and torn down. Its lower end is within the El Paso city limits and through a well developed section known as “Old Fort Bliss Place” and the “Wuerthman Subdivision” . . . The headworks of the American Canal consist of a long skimming weir over which river waters are diverted into a settling basin 1200 feet long. At the lower end of the settling basin water is diverted into the canal proper over a second skimming weir.

Plate 8. Dwellings Near the Future American Canal Right-of-Way (ca. 1918).

Figure 4. Structures Along the Left Bank of the Rio Grande Near the Future Site of the American Dam (1888—From Ernst 1889:63).

The purpose of the skimming weirs is to prevent, insofar as possible, the entrance of heavier sands and silts into the canal by diverting in each case, only the “top layer” of water . . . Adjacent to the second skimming weir are radial sluice gates.

When these gates are closed they act as a check, or dam, in the settling basin, and low velocities with consequent deposition of silt and sand in the settling basin result. When open, however, the grade is such that the flow of water in the settling basin is greatly accelerated, and the resulting high velocities will be sufficient to scour out the sand and silt deposits with the settling basin and carry them on into the river.

American Dam

The American Dam is a diversion dam of the floating type. It is located 3.5 mi from the business center of El Paso and between 140-200 ft above the boundary between the United States and Mexico (IBWC 1955:44, IBWC 1981:1). It is 284 ft wide between abutments and 70 ft long from the edge of the upstream apron to the downstream side of the dentated-type sill (IBWC 1955:44, IBWC 1981:1). The dam is controlled by thirteen 7.56 x 20 ft radial gates with the gate sill on the floor of the structure, which was placed approximately two ft below the existing river bed. The dam and canal were designed with a 1200 cfs capacity and the dam’s gates open automatically when Rio Grande flows exceed this amount (IBWC 1981:1).

American Canal

A general summary statement regarding the American Canal appeared in a BOR Project History (1938:29–30):

Below the intake structure leading from the settling basin to the canal, the canal section consists of a concrete-lined trapezoidal channel to Station 15+18.5, a distance of 1164.0 feet. At Station 15+18.5 a fifty foot transition leads to a closed monolithic concrete section located under the paved highway (U.S. 80) and which continues to Station 38+50. Through this stretch of 2281.50 feet, there is barely sufficient room between the river and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway for the paved highway and the railway is located at the foot of a high slag dump . .

. From Station 38+50 to Station 60+31.25, a distance of 2181.25 feet, the canyon widens out sufficiently to permit of the location [sic] of an open concrete- lined conduit between the highway and the railway. At Station 60+31.25, the canal again enters a closed monolithic section which continues to Station 70+50 or for

1518.75 feet. Near Station 62, the railroad and the highway are so close together that is was necessary to locate the canal between the pavement and the river. As the distance between these features in the particular locality is less than 100 feet, the closed section became necessary. From Station 75+50 to Station 98+50, or for the last 2300 feet of the canal location, the river and the highway diverge sufficiently to make it possible to adopt a concrete-lined trapezoidal [open] cana l section.

More detailed descriptions of the canal derive from other sources. At the head of the American Canal, upstream of the headgates, is a skimming weir. The weir is oriented at a 90-degree angle to the long axis of the American Dam. It extends upstream from the left abutment of the dam along an axis parallel to the general course of the river (IBWC 1955:44). The weir is situated at a 70-degree angle to the American Canal headgate structure and measures 250 ft long by 2 ft high. A 210 x 2.5 ft timber platform is placed on top of it for access by foot for cleaning/maintenance.

The American Canal’s headgate structure is constructed of concrete and steel. Its overall dimensions are 9 x 44 ft. The structure contains two radial sluice gates, each 20 ft wide x 11 ft high. The radial gates are raised and lowered by two 3-h.p., Type D-254 Gearmotors (3 Ph 60 Cy. 220/440 V.