My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04826
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04826
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:15:47 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:40:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.140.20
Description
Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
State
CA
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1939
Author
Metro Water District
Title
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - History and First Annual Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />.i~i8 <br /> <br />150 <br /> <br />METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT <br /> <br />Original conclusions as to the economy of full-capacity tunnel <br />construction having been thns confirmed, succeeding advertisements <br />called for bids on full-capacity tunnels only. <br />On April 10, 1933 specifications for the East Eagle, West Eagle, <br />Hayfield Nos. 1 and 2, and Mecca Pass Nos. 1, 2, and 3 tunnels were .~~ <br />issued, followed on April 24th by specifications for Colorado River, 'I <br />Copper Basin Nos. 1 and 2, and the Whipple Mountain tunnels. <br />By June 16, 1933 the construction of all tunnels, excepting East <br />Eagle, bids on which had been rejected, and Schedules 7 and 8 of <br />the West Coachellas, had been provided for either by contract or by <br />District forces. On December 27, 1933, specifications were issued <br />for this remaining work. On February 2, 1934 a contract was <br />awarded for the East Eagle tunnel, but the bids on the Coachella <br />schedules were rejected, these two schedules aggregating 7.1 miles <br />of tunnel being later added to the adjoining work being done by <br />District forces. <br /> <br />Tunnd-driving operations <br />In general, contractors, upon receiving notice to proceed with <br />their work, were diligent in organizing forces, assembling equip- <br />ment and materials, erecting camps, and proceeding with all pre- <br />paratory work even before power and water were available from <br />the District systems. <br />The mess accommodations and dormitories in contractors' camps <br />were in some cases operated by the contractor; in others were sub- <br />contracted to commissary and catering companies. In the Coachella <br />tunnel camps such operations were carried on by the District, <br />with a steward in charge of all mess halls. <br />The most common entry to the tunnels was through one or both <br />portals. Five tunnels, however, were driven from horizontal adits, <br />the total length of adits amounting to 10,327 feet. The east por- <br />tion of Iron Mountain tunnel was driven entirely from one vertical <br />shaft and Valverde from three vertical shafts and one inclined <br />adit. At San Jacinto there are two vertical shafts and three in- <br />clined adits, of which the one at the west end has been discon- <br />tinued with the opening up of the west portal of the tunnel. <br />Standard methods of excavation have been employed with im- <br />provements to take full advantage of modern equipment. In be- <br />ginning tunnel driving at any point a top heading followed by ex- <br />cavation of the bench was customary for the first few hundred <br />feet. In bad ground small drifts are driven in the top heading <br /> <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.