Surely the utility of canals was an integral part of the eastern experience, and whenever settlers from the eastern seaboard or from the old northwest territory — generally referred to as “down easters” — came to an area as richly endowed with navigable waters as Humboldt, the notion of artificial waterways was not far behind.

The immediate vicinity of Humboldt Bay proved especially stimulating with respect to canal building prospects. A glance at a map of the area shows a spacious and protected bay with numerous flanked on the northern and southern extremities by the two principal streams of the area, the Eel and Mad rivers, respectively, both emptying into the ocean just a few miles from the bay and navigable to a limited extent.

Among the numerous obstacles to effective overland transportation in the immediate bay area was the rank vegetation which often proved impenetrable and extended virtually to the edge of the bay and to the ocean. In addition, the combination of seasonal heavy precipitation and the ubiquitous moisture-retaining clay soil, which often reduced the first attempts at wagon roads to impassable quagmires during a good portion of the year, was a deterrent during the initial decades of settlement. Thus the quest for alternate, less expensive and more reliable means of transportation commenced with the arrival of the first settlers, and canals to connect the Eel and Mad rivers with the bay were advocated repeatedly during the first quarter century of Humboldt County history, with intermittent echoes audible into the Twentieth Century.

Many canals were proposed, but few were actually realized. Of those that were dug and placed in operation, none proved even marginally successful in terms of bringing a profit, but the story merits telling nonetheless, if for no other reason than the fact that it reveals the tenacity of the canal idea in this particular locale.

The purpose of this journey into the past is therefore to suggest that Humboldt County experienced a canal era of modest proportions and duration, and to relate some of the more interesting highlights and curiosities of the same.

###

The first recorded evidence of a suggestion for a canal in Humboldt County comes down to us from the Brannan expedition, a group of San Francisco residents who sought to ascertain the prospects for establishing settlements in the newly discovered bay region. On the way up the coast in the spring of 1850 the exploring party halted at the mouth of the Eel River in order to reconnoiter this stream, while the parent ship, the General Morgan, remained at anchor outside of the bar.

Several members of the expedition, in two small boats, succeeded in crossing the bar and made their way upstream, testing the river’s navigability. The heavy surf prevented their return to the waiting Morgan. During the ensuing exploration of the lower reaches of the Eel for some alternate route to rejoin the main party, they followed a slough to the north which brought them close enough to Humboldt Bay to enable the men to drag their boats overland and enter the bay at its southern extremity, probably in the bottomlands somewhere between the two promontories that were later to become known as Hookton and Table Bluff.

These early explorers were favorably impressed by the timber resources along the Eel River and the navigable nature of the stream. In addition they quickly became cognizant of its potential as an artery of supply for the mines which were located in the headwaters of the various tributaries of the Eel, and as a means for transporting agricultural products from the rich prairies which lined the river banks. The actual exploration was done during the early days of April 1850, and already by the end of the same month a report of their findings was published in San Francisco. In order to encourage settlement of the region, certain improvements were advocated for the most advantageous exploitation of the Eel River area, among these some form of “…water carriage from the bay into the river by a canal, which might be easily cut through the low flat neck of land which separates them and over which the Indians haul their canoes.”

A little over a year later a correspondent returning from a visit to the Eel related that the produce of the valley was marketed either at or via the “neighboring harbor of Humboldt.” Although not an outright canal enthusiast, the writer at the very least was aware of the feasibility and potential advantages of a canal when he estimated the distance separating the river from the bay at their nearest point as merely amounting to a “scant” mile. The area in question was apparently the same “low flat neck of land” originally suggested by the Brannan party, particularly since he described the site as being situated where a branch of the Eel and a sluice from the bay approach one another.

Travel and the volume of commerce between the still sparsely populated Eel River valley and the Humboldt Bay did not warrant the digging of a canal at this early date — not even one a “scant” mile in length — especially in view of the fact that an adequate wagon road already existed between these points at the time.

###

After subsiding for the next several years, interest in an Eel River canal was briefly reawakened during the fall of 1854, by a suggestion that the two largest rivers of the county, the Eel and the Mad, be connected with the bay by means of canals. The rather sanguine proponents of this newest scheme felt that both canals could be realized with “very little labor.” As far as the Eel was concerned, no canal materialized and the residents of the valley continued to haul their goods either via the road or the long way around by water, down and out of the river and up the coast to the bay.

Possibly the greatest 19th Century impetus for a canal from the Eel to the bay came in 1859, when the following petition was circulated and presented to the California Legislature:

Inasmuch as the country of Eel river, Bear river and Mattole valleys are compelled either to haul all their produce and groceries around some twelve miles, or else take them in small boats twelve miles, then pay an exorbitant price for hauling across Table Bluff, three quarters of a Mile, to Humboldt Bay, and then re-ship to Eureka, all of which can be avoided by the proper kind of enterprise in building a canal intersecting Eel river and Humboldt Bay, which canal the citizens very much desire:

— we propose to open and keep in repair for fifty years from date of said charter, and three years from the opening of the same … if we obtain from you the right of way.

Admittedly the language of the petition stated the dilemma of the settlers in the area in question in no uncertain terms and would probably have had no difficulty passing the Legislature, but the petitioners had neglected to do their homework. They had not sold the populous and enterprising bay towns on the idea of the canal.

In a lengthy and, for that paper, overly cautious editorial concerning the above petition, the Times thoroughly examined all aspects of the canal question and strongly opposed the project for the time being. Although not denying that such a canal could bring many benefits to all parties concerned, the editor felt that the anticipated engineering problems and concomitant expense needed further study and were not to be underestimated:

The distance from a point on a tributary of Wait’s Slough from where it must start to high water mark on Humboldt Bay is not less than one and one half miles. At least a quarter mile of this distance would have to be flumed, and one quarter mile of dredging would have to be done after reaching the Bay, before access to deep water could be had.

In addition, and here a trace of xenophobia becomes apparent, the public was reminded that the petitioners, Messrs. Gier and Newland, were strangers to the area and possibly suspect of coveting the value of the charter more than the eventual canal revenues. In closing its case against the canal, the paper called attention to the need for reliable and trustworthy entrepreneurs to engage in a project of such magnitude and importance to the economic well-being of the bay community and hinted that such desirable types were more likely to be found close to home, pointing out as an example a prominent but unnamed local citizen who had been entertaining the notion of building precisely such a canal for quite some time. but who was prudent enough to wait until the matter had been properly studied.

None of these Eel River canals ever materialized. They never got beyond the pipe dream stage. But in that state of dormancy the canal idea persisted for nearly half a century. The immediate solution to the transportation problem of southern Humboldt County arrived piecemeal in the form of more and better roads at first, and subsequently with the coming of the railroads.

###

The turn of the century brought with it a quickening of the economic pulse of Humboldt County. Rumors of railway connections with the outside world were rife, and prospects of Humboldt Bay navigation improvement made outlying areas such as Ferndale anxious to share the benefits of the impending transportation improvements. As early as 1906, a committee of the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce assessed the possibilities of a canal route around Table Bluff to connect the Eel River and Humboldt Bay. It was estimated that 800,000 cubic yards of earth would have to be excavated in order to construct a 60 foot wide canal at an estimated cost of $100,000. The members of this committee were “… thoroughly convinced as to its feasibility, and were also well aware of the fact that the construction of the canal would redound greatly to the advantage of this valley and to other sections of Humboldt.”

By early 1907 the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce had become so enamored of the canal idea that it had appointed a committee to contact Humboldt’s representatives to the State legislature concerning the compilation of data in support of a Federal survey for said canal route.

Events moved quickly thereafter, with First District Congressman Engelbright introducing H.A. 7552 on December 12, 1907, which, in effect, directed the Secretary of War to proceed with a feasibility study and cost estimate of a ship canal from Humboldt Bay to Eel River. March 1909 brought tidings of a fortuitous change of name for the proposed Eel River Canal to that of an Intra-Coastal Waterway in order to qualify for congressional appropriations, and by late April of the same year a Colonel Biddle and Captain Demerritt of the U.S. Engineers were conducting a preliminary survey to determine the feasibility of such a canal. The initial reaction of these officials was favorable, and by the end of June 1909 considerable progress on the official survey was reported and an alternate route proposed which was deemed shorter and more affordable than that originally selected by the promoters. The newly advocated canal would run “… up the McMulty Slough from Eel River, thence through the fields of P.H. Quinn and W.L. Heney with a bay outlet at the Heney landing. It is believed by the engineers that this is the most feasible route, although it would necessitate an 80-foot cut in one place.”

As a result of these positive signs the summer and early fall of 1909 saw the canal, by whatever name assigned, assume a reality of its own and the only question remaining was when it would be completed. The bubble was not long in bursting, however, and by October 1909 we find the aforementioned Colonel Biddle providing the rationale for turning down the canal to George Kellogg, Secretary of the Greater Humboldt County Chambers of Commerce, in these words:

I will state that it was not on account of its impracticality but on account of its cost. Considerable quicksand was found on any line of the Canal around Table Bluff, which would make it very costly, and furthermore on account of the high water in the Eel River in time of freshets a lock would be necessary in order to prevent debris from Eel River being carried into Humboldt Bay, and also on account of the current without a lock being too swift for navigation.

And that was the last hurrah for an Eel River canal into Humboldt Bay. The ‘ original proponents of this ultimate Eel River canal scheme, the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce, sought to rally the remaining boards of trade and commerce of the County to a final revival of that canal via a strongly worded resolution, but to no avail. Its text reads like a most suitable epitaph to an idea whose time had passed.

###

Next week: And what about the Mad River canals?

###