Cayuga & Seneca Canal

Note: Unless otherwise stated, this history comes from Whitford

This canal had its inception in 1813, when several enterprising and active citizens, residing in Seneca County, became solicitous for the incorporation of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company, the aim of which was to establish a communication by water between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes.   It was thought that such a canal would give great impetus to the commercial and agricultural interests of the Tioga, Steuben, Ontario and Seneca Counties.   The principal articles of the trade would consist of flour, salt, plaster of Paris and all kinds of grain and the promoters considered that such a waterway would be beneficial not only to those interested in the shipment of the commodities from points on the proposed water route, but to the whole internal commerce of the State.   Accordingly, a petition was presented to the Legislature for such incorporation, and that body responded by incorporating the company with a capital stock of $50,000.   The Western Inland Lock Navigation Company had a charter to improve navigation from the Hudson River to Seneca Lake.   Through lack of funds the company never did any work beyond Oneida Lake, and in 1808 surrendered all its grants west of that lake.

The directors of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company were also the directors of the Seneca and Susquehanna Lock Navigation Company that was incorporated in 1815 to build a canal from Seneca Lake to the Chemung River, but this latter company failed to undertake any work of construction, presumably because the energies of the directors were fully engaged with the improvements upon the Seneca River route.

In passing the act of incorporation in 1813, the Legislature provided that the locks and canals constructed should "be not less than twelve feet broad at the bottom or base, nor any lock less than seventy feet long between the gates," and allowed the company five years in which to complete the work.   One clause of the act reads: "Whenever one thousand shares shall have been subscribed to the corporation, it shall be lawful for the comptroller of this state, and he is hereby required to subscribe on behalf of this state, five hundred shares."

In 1814, the capital stock was increased to $60,000 and in 1817 a further call of 25% upon the original stock was authorized because the stock subscribed in behalf of the State and by individuals had been expended and that more money was required to complete the works, the necessity arising from the superior manner in which the locks were being built.   The time fixed for completing all work was extended to December 1, 1819, but in this year the officials, again having been retarded in the progress of construction by a shortage of funds, asked relief of the Legislature, which was granted by an act directing the Comptroller to subscribe an additional amount of stock in order to enable the company to discharge all debts and also to complete the whole of the navigation by 1821.

The company finished its task in 1821, having expended about $70,000, of which the State had contributed $21,000.   The first loaded boat passed the newly constructed locks at Seneca Falls on June 14, 1818.   The improved waterway allowed the passage of boats through natural streams and later through the Erie Canal to the Hudson River and tidewater, but the improvements were somewhat crude, consisting chiefly of locks around the falls, and no towpath had been provided along the river.   Desiring to possess any additional advantages that would attend a well-built canal, the inhabitants of of Ontario, Seneca, Wayne, Yates, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins, Cayuga and Onondaga Counties forwarded a petition to the Legislature in 1824 asking for surveys for the purpose of making further improvements in the navigation from Cayuga and Seneca Lakes to the Erie Canal at Montezuma.   In support of their request, they stated that these lakes were nearly 40 miles in length, stretching southwardly at right angles to the Erie Canal towards the navigable waters of the Susquehanna River, at an average distance of about 15 miles apart, and that the country on their borders was nearly level and possessed great fertility and natural advantages.   The natural outlets of the lakes were the only channels through which the surplus products of that fertile section of the state could find their way to the Erie Canal.

A legislative committee gave the subject full consideration and reported that it was expedient, for the purpose of furthering the improvement of navigation, to authorize a survey of the Seneca outlet, as far as Montezuma, and of the works constructed thereon.

It was not expected at that time that the State would be willing to construct the canal, but it was considered advisable to make a survey and estimate, so that the Legislature might increase the capital stock of the company to such an amount that the work could be accomplished by individual enterprise, under such restrictions as the Legislature deemed conducive to the public good.   Because the State owned a portion of the stock, it was supposed that the Legislature would the more readily approve any action which might enhance the value of that stock.   The Legislators approved the petition and passed an act requiring the canal commissioners to direct a competent engineer in their employ to examine "into the condition of the works erected and constructed upon the Seneca outlet, and to take levels and measure distances along or near the outlet with a view to the improvement of the navigation from the Erie canal, at Montezuma, to the Seneca lake, at or near Geneva."   A clause in the law directed a report to be rendered, "setting forth what would be the most eligible mode, the probable expense, and the consequent advantages of the proposed improvements and the effect such improvements would have on the Erie canal."

In 1825, the canal commissioners submitted a report of the survey and estimate made by David Thomas, the engineer, who surveyed two routes from Seneca Falls to the Erie Canal.   From the former point, it was proposed to assume a new level and to construct an independent canal from the guard gates down the shore of the outlet, 2 miles and 29 chains to Demonts bridge; and from there either northwardly 4 miles to the Erie Canal at Brockway’s Point, or eastwardly 1 mile and 20 chains across the swamp to the Seneca River, passing it on a wooden aqueduct near the lower Cayuga bridge, and from there five miles to the Erie Canal at Montezuma.   The eastern route was considered by the engineer as affording the most convenient navigation, as boats would be enabled to pass without the intervention of a lock from one mile east of Montezuma to Seneca Falls.   The cost of making the canal and buying the works and improvements of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company was estimated at about $150,000.

The Assembly recommended that the Legislature authorize the commissioners to make a survey for a more northerly or westerly route before the construction of any work should begin.   The report was followed by authorizing the construction of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal, the canal commissioners, however, being restrained from proceeding with the work of construction until a further survey had been made to determine whether some other route from Seneca Lake to a point on the Erie canal, north or west of the route surveyed and reported by Mr. Thomas, would be preferable to the one proposed by him.   The commissioners were given authority to borrow $150,000 for the work of construction, provided the sum needed would not exceed that amount, and were ordered to proceed in the matter of appraising the lands, waters and other possessions of the company so that the State could be invested with all the stock, property and privileges belonging to the company.   Accordingly, the canal commissioners had a route surveyed, but concluded that the route by the Seneca Lake outlet, as surveyed by Mr. Thomas, would afford the best and least expensive route.

After the Seneca Lock Navigation Company had been paid the sum of $33,867.18 out of the $150,000 appropriated by the act of 1825 to extinguish their claims, the work on the canal was put under contract in June, 1826.   Only a few contractors began their work and little progress was made during that season.   Almost the whole of the line was relet in May, 1827, but several persons whose bids had been accepted neglected to execute their contracts, while others who entered into contracts, subsequently abandoned them, so that a second reletting was necessary, and the work was greatly retarded until the favorable part of the season had well advanced.   A portion of the work, and particularly the lock pits near the Seneca outlet, had been more difficult and expensive than was anticipated. All the locks, excepting two at the Seneca river, were well advanced at the beginning of 1828, and when they were completed in September of that year, navigation was opened from the lake to Seneca Falls by the completed waterway and from below the falls to the Erie Canal by the old route of the Seneca River.   Water was admitted into every part of the canal from Seneca Lake at Geneva to the Erie Canal at Montezuma on November 15, and an uninterrupted navigation was maintained for the remainder of the season.   The canal at its completion was 20 miles and 44 chains in length, consisting of 10 miles of independent channel and 10 miles and 44 chains of slackwater navigation in the natural channel of the Seneca outlet, with a towpath on its bank.   It had 11 wooden locks, 90 by 15 feet in size, having seventy-three and a half feet of lockage, while the width of the prism was forty feet at water-surface and 28 feet width at bottom with 4 feet depth of water.   Besides the original appropriation of 1825, additional sums aggregating $64,000 were subsequently appropriated, making a total sum of $214,000 raised for the project.

In his report of 1825, Mr. Thomas had stated that to facilitate communication with Cayuga Lake it was necessary to construct a side cut 1 mile and 68 chains long to East Cayuga, where a lock of 10 feet lift would be needed to enter the lake.   This subject was brought to the attention of the Legislature in 1828 by numerous petitions from the inhabitants of Cayuga, Seneca and Tompkins Counties, asking for such a canal.   The applicants for the desired improvement stated that at the time of the passage of the act authorizing the Cayuga and Seneca Canal to be built, they had supposed that the side cut was embraced "within the limits of a fair construction to be given to said act", but that the canal commissioners had felt themselves justified in refusing to begin work until they should have received further legislative instruction.   However, it was the consensus that the great amount of property passing on Cayuga Lake to and from the Erie Canal and the growing importance of the country bordering on the lake would justify this improvement.   Prior to this time, there had been a slackwater navigation from Cayuga Lake to the Erie Canal, but the petitioners declared that navigation was often greatly impeded by the low water and by sand bars at the northern extremity of the lake, so that it was necessary for those navigating the lake by means of steam towboats to leave the towboats at the upper Cayuga bridge from where navigation to the Erie was rendered difficult and uncertain, not only by the sandbars in the lake, but also by the adverse winds which were a frequent and sometimes long-continued cause of detention.

To demonstrate the wisdom of constructing a side cut, the petitioners called attention to the Comptroller’s report, from which it appeared that the tolls collected on the Erie Canal at Port Byron during 1827 had amounted to $89,066.39, of which $75,000 had been paid upon property brought down Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, and that at least $35,000 of that sum had been collected upon property which went east from Cayuga Lake alone.   Adding the tolls upon merchandise passing southward through the same channel, they argued that if the canal fund had profited so greatly by so imperfect a state of navigation, there was no doubt that the contemplated improvement would produce additional revenues far in excess of the interest upon the necessary $10,000, which was the estimated cost for constructing the side cut.

The Legislature granted the petition by passing an act directing the canal commissioners to construct a canal on the desired route according to the survey of Mr. Thomas, and appropriating $10,000 for the purpose.   The line was resurveyed in April of that year and work contracted for in the following month.   It was completed in July, 1829, an additional appropriation of $8,000 having been made in that year, this amount in excess of the original estimate being necessary because a much greater quantity of rock was found within the line of the canal than was anticipated.

Ever since the building of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal there have been contentions between the residents at the head (south end) of Seneca Lake and those at the foot (north end) concerning the water level of the lake, the people of each locality gaining the ascendancy by turns through legislative enactments.   At the head, there is a marsh extending three miles beyond the lake and occupying the greater part of the valley, which is a mile or more in width.   Not only was this marsh considered the cause of much illness, but such portions of it as have been reclaimed have yielded most profitable crops.   Moreover, the sides of the valley, in which lie the lake and its head waters to the south, are high and precipitous, causing disastrous floods to frequently inundate this territory, including the villages of Watkins Glen and Montour Falls (formerly called Jefferson and Havana, respectively).   Under these conditions the people at the head of the lake have always been striving to accomplish the lowering of the lake.   On the other hand, the people at the foot of the lake and along the outlet, especially at Waterloo and Seneca Falls, where industries depend on the waterpower of the stream, have always contended for any measure that might serve to impound the water and furnish them with more power.

On this dispute, as on all lakes and streams that have been connected with the canals, the State has been held culpable for all extreme fluctuations, whether due to natural causes or not.   For 80 years this war has been waged between the two localities.   The latest action was the placing of suitable controlling works in the outlet, which can be so regulated by lift gates as to allow free passage to the natural flow during floods, and also so as to store the supply after the water has again reached its normal level.   But even this device is considered by those at the head of the lake as detrimental to their interests.

Before the canal was completed, the people at the head of the lake succeeded in having a law passed for lowering the outlet, but it was so conditioned as to render it ineffectual.   The laws of 1828 made it the duty of the canal commissioners to lower the water of Seneca Lake two feet below its natural level by deepening the canal at Waterloo and in the outlet of the lake to provide for five feet of water below such reduced level of the lake, one foot to serve as a reservoir to supply water for the summer season, provided that the owners of property at the head of the lake paid to the canal commissioners all damages that would result to mills, hydraulic privileges and other property on the lake and outlet.   The people were not seeking an opportunity to shift the responsibility from the State to themselves, and of course nothing was done.   Another attempt for relief was made in 1829, but with no better results.   In that year, the law authorized the canal commissioners to deepen the outlet of Seneca Lake as to lower the water of the lake to a level with the water in the outlet at a point half a mile below the foot of the lake without increasing the ordinary discharge beyond the amount then discharged by the natural outlet, but under the same provision for paying damages that the law of the previous year contained.

During a part of the season of 1829, navigation in the outlet between Seneca Falls and Waterloo was seriously interrupted because the water was reduced below its proper level by the large quantity taken by the mills situated at Seneca Falls and Chamberlain’s Dam.   To obviate this difficulty, permanent dams with their tops at true water level were erected at all the flumes leading to these mills.   During these periods of navigation in 1830 and 1831, the water in the outlet continued above its ordinary height and no inconvenience was experienced, but a return of low water during the season of 1832 brought with it all the evils of 1829.   For the purpose of obviating the injury which might result thereafter to the mill owners, the latter were given permission at their own expense to place gates in the dams in front of their flumes, through which water could be drawn in the winter season, but which were not to be under their control during low water when the canal was navigable.   For the next few years navigation was maintained with difficulty and much time was consumed in bottoming out on several of the levels.

At the head of Cayuga Lake there is a stream known as the Cayuga Inlet, which at the time of building the Cayuga and Seneca Canal was navigable for the largest size of boats upon the Erie Canal for a distance of two miles from Cayuga Lake, at which point it formed a convenient depot for a large amount of property belonging to the citizens of Ithaca and the surrounding country.   For a long time, there had existed a sandbar at the junction of the inlet and the lake that had more or less obstructed the passage of loaded boats over it, and especially during 1832 the detentions and interruptions to business from this cause had been felt to a great extent.   To expedite the constantly increasing traffic to and from the port of Ithaca, the inhabitants of Tompkins County asked the Legislature for an appropriation of $5,000 to remove the bar.   However, no action was taken in 1832, but in 1834, after receiving similar petitions, the Legislature adopted a concurrent resolution directing the canal commissioners to make a survey and examination of the inlet, and report to the Legislature of 1835 as to the expediency of removing the obstruction and otherwise improving navigation.   As the resolution did not convey the necessary authority to the commissioners to draw money from the treasury to pay the expense, the survey and examination were not made, but the commissioners, being desirous of carrying into effect the intention of the law, proposed to the friends of the project that they should pay the expense of an engineer to make the survey.   They accepted the suggestion, but owing to the death of the engineer, the contemplated arrangement was not executed.   However, the projectors presented to the commissioners two estimates for excavating a channel through the bar and securing it by driving piles and sheeting along the sides.   One estimate called for a channel 1300 feet long, 80 feet wide, and of sufficient depth to give 6 feet of water at a cost of $6,877.40, while the other estimate with a channel of the same dimensions except the width, which was 100 feet, amounted to $7,514.   This information was sent to the Legislature of 1835 with the result that an act was passed, appropriating $10,000 for the improvement and providing for tolls to be charged on one mile of canal on all freight passing the inlet.   Notices were published for proposals for its construction, but no bids were received at prices that would bring the cost within the appropriation.   After it was understood that the work could not be let for the prices in the proposals received, two citizens of Ithaca, who were desirous that the improvement should be made because of their large property interests at that place entered into a contract with the canal commissioners for doing work at the estimated cost of $9,700.   The contract for the work was let in December, 1835, but owing to high water in the lake no work was done till the fall of 1836, and then but a small portion of it.   During the following summer and autumn the principal part of the work was accomplished, and it was completed in 1839, much to the gratification of people who had occasion to use the waterway for the shipment of merchandise and farm products.

There were improvements year by year in order to keep the inlet in a navigable condition.   In 1847, an appropriation of $1,500 was allowed for keeping open the channel to admit vessels drawing 5 feet of water and a subsequent law in 1866 provided a sum for dredging and removing bars in order to make a depth of 7 feet of water, which would conform to the depth of the enlarged Cayuga and Seneca Canal.   Three years later, an act appropriated $15,000 from the general fund for a towpath on the western side of the inlet, and for continuing the dredging for 7 feet depth.   As more money was needed to complete the work, additional appropriations were granted in 1871 and 1872, and from that year to the end in 1987 the necessary repairs and occasional dredging have been attended to.   In 1852, by a law such portion of the inlet as was subject to canal tolls was placed in charge of the canal commissioners.

Turning to the main canal, in 1835-6 the locks were in need of extensive repairs, the canal commissioners stating that several of them would have to be entirely rebuilt and asking direction from the Legislature as to whether, in rebuilding the locks, they should make the structures of wood or stone.   The Legislature in 1836 authorized the officials, whenever it became necessary to rebuild any locks to build them in a substantial manner of stone and of the same width as the enlarged locks on the Erie Canal.   As there were no directions in the act as to the length of the locks, nor the depth of water in the canal to which they were to be adapted, work upon the improvement was delayed and the commissioners continued to repair the old locks as well as they could so as to keep them passable.

The work of enlarging the Erie Canal naturally stimulated among the people of various parts of the state a desire to participate in like benefits by having the waterways in their vicinities also increased in size.   In 1839, three years after the Erie enlargement began, the subject of similarly improving the Cayuga and Seneca Canal came formally before the Legislature through a petition received from certain inhabitants of Seneca Falls appealing for a law that would authorize the enlargement of this canal to the size of the enlarged Erie.   The Canal Board, after deliberately considering the whole subject, concluded that the petition should be granted, saying: "The peculiar connection of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal with the Cayuga and Seneca Lakes; the extent of the country thereby penetrated and reached; a judicious regard to the union of lake and canal navigation which this case [presented], together with the kind of vessels best fitted for this twofold use, and a just and fair consideration of the extensive and growing interests of the large and increasing population, whose trade [would] naturally take this route," rendered it highly expedient to give to the canal the full dimensions which were to be given to the Erie Canal.   However, the Legislature took no action upon the enlargement of the prism until 1854.

Another subject then receiving serious consideration was the injury and embarrassment to which the canal and its navigation were exposed from the very considerable fluctuations of water discharged from Seneca Lake at different seasons of the year.   At that time, the flow was left to regulate itself, and in times of very high water the inundations were sometimes so great as to lay the banks of the canal, as well as the adjacent lands, under water and materially to injure the whole structure of the canal, while at other times the water was so diminished in volume as to yield an insufficient supply for convenient and constant navigation.   These injuries and embarrassments could, it was believed, be entirely remedied by the construction of works at the foot of the lake, properly constructed so as to control and regulate the discharge at all seasons of the year, and especially during the season of canal navigation.   In this way it was deemed certain that the safety of the canal and its uninterrupted navigation could be permanently secured, and the interests of land owners along its borders, and those still more extensive interests dependent on the hydraulic power of the surplus waters of the Seneca River, could be materially benefited.   In 1837, the commissioners called the attention of the Legislature to the necessity of improving this condition, but it was not until 1840 that a law was passed concerning the matter.   By an act passed in that year, the canal commissioners were authorized "to improve the Cayuga and Seneca canal, by cutting a channel through the bar at the northeast bend of the Seneca lake to the said canal, and to regulate the height of the water of the lake and the outlet thereof, in such manner as in their opinion [should] be most conducive to the public interests; provided that the rights and interests of persons owning or holding hydraulic privileges upon said outlet, [should] not be injured by such improvement," for which work the act appropriated $12,000.   Therefore, the outlet and bar were examined and from this investigation it became apparent that an artificial cut through the bar, in addition to the existing outlet of the lake, which was also an artificial channel through the same bar, would tend to injure and probably to entirely interrupt navigation by cutting off the navigable communication between the lake and the outlet unless the new channel should be made navigable by the construction of a lock.   It also appeared that the canal could be improved by regulating the discharge of water from the lake and reducing the bottom plane of the upper level.

A plan was therefore projected by one of the chief engineers for the construction of a regulating spillway about 100 feet in length extending across the mouth of the outlet.   By this means the surplus water could be more rapidly discharged in times of its accumulation, and by gates placed in the spillway a portion of the surplus could be retained for the use of navigation till the close of the season, when by drawing the gates the lake could be reduced to its ordinary low water, before the recurrence of spring floods.   This plan was presented by the acting commissioner in January, 1841, but a majority of the board deemed it inexpedient to interfere with the flow of water, as such action would result in claims for damage from the owners of low grounds above the lake and also from those interested in the use of water below.   They, therefore, decided to improve the canal by deepening the upper level.

The subject was again considered by the Legislature in 1841 and an act (chapter 212) was passed, the first section of which thus provided: "The channel through the bar at the northeast bend of the Seneca lake authorized to be made by chapter 302 of the laws of 1840, shall be made navigable for canal boats, and the canal commissioners may construct a lock therein if they deem the same necessary to make said channel navigable," and the second section declared: "The expenses incurred under this act shall be paid as directed by the act hereby amended, and shall not exceed the amount thereby appropriated."   The sum appropriated was deemed altogether inadequate for the work authorized by the act of 1840, which left to the discretion of the commissioners such plan of improving the canal as in their opinion should be most conducive to the public interests.   Accordingly, as the commissioners considered the work itself one of doubtful policy, they cosidered it imprudent to execute it, and no measures were taken for opening another channel through the bar from the lake to the outlet.

Having decided that the most feasible course to pursue was to deepen the upper level, this work was partially performed in the spring of 1841.   In the following June, however, when the lake had fallen nearly 14 inches, some temporary fixtures were placed in the outlet to check the flow of water.   By this means, the surface of the lake on the first of September was about 10 inches higher than it was at the same period of the preceding year, but the supplies to the lake had become so reduced by a drought that this surplus was exhausted by the first of October, and to the end of the season much difficulty was encountered in maintaining navigation in this level and in the inlet at the head of the lake.   The experience of this season rendered it probable that further excavations in the level and the construction of a regulating spillway upon the plan proposed by the engineer would be the best method for remedying these difficulties.

In 1842, the "Stop law" caused all work on the State canals to cease, except such as was necessary to preserve or secure navigation, until the adoption of the Constitution of 1846, which provided for an annual tax to be imposed so as to raise funds for the canals.   This law did not greatly affect the Cayuga and Seneca Canal, as no work of general improvement was in progress at the time, and the only matters of immediate urgency were the control of the flow from Seneca Lake and the rebuilding of locks.   The preservation of navigation depended on a properly regulated supply of water from the lake, and, accordingly, this question continued to receive legislative attention, while by constant repairs the locks were kept in a passable condition.

In 1842, the inhabitants at the head of Seneca Lake petitioned the Legislature to have all obstructions removed from the outlet of the lake and to keep the channel open so that the waters of the lake could at all seasons of the year pass off freely.   The petitioners maintained that in the construction of the canal the engineer who located it erred in assuming the low water mark of Seneca Lake to be higher than it really was.   This error, they said, had made it necessary to throw a dam across the outlet in order to maintain navigation; and the building of this dam had caused the water to overflow the lands at the head of the lake in the spring and fall, occasioning illness when it receded in the summer.   For the purpose of taking measures to relieve these evils, the commissioners were required by a resolution of the Assembly to examine into the condition of the artificial channel at the foot of Seneca Lake and of the fixtures which had been made for the purpose of keeping up the level of the lake during the previous season of navigation.   Orville W. Childs, the chief engineer of the State, was directed to make such examinations, surveys and estimates as were deemed necessary to enable the commissioners to comply with the requirements of the Assembly resolution.   Two plans were presented by the engineer: one contemplated the removal of the lock near Geneva, lowering the lake level of the canal one foot, removing the obstructions at the head of the outlet, enlarging the channel, extending the lake level to Waterloo and regulating the discharge of water at that place; the other plan provided for the continuance of the lock near Geneva and the placing of a regulating weir at the upper end of the outlet.   The commissioners stated that, while either of these plans would in all probability overcome the difficulties of navigation, the first plan only would to any considerable degree relieve the petitioners from the overflow on their lands, the other plan being considered one that would afford them but little relief.   The engineer’s estimated cost of improvement, according to the first plan was $10,316.90, while that for the regulating weir was $2,099.49.

As the commissioners were of the opinion that further legislation was necessary to fully carry out the work of improving navigation, the question was laid aside, but only temporarily, for in 1844 the Legislature was once more stirred to action. In that year the petitioners again applied for relief, and a law (chapter 313) amending the act of 1840 and repealing the act of 1841 was passed. This act authorized and required the commissioners to proceed with the improvement according to the plans for removing the lock and obstructions near Geneva, deepening, enlarging and extending the lake level to Waterloo, and regulating the flow there, as embodied in Mr. Child’s report of 1842. The work was put under contract in 1844, and completed on April 1, 1845, a regulating weir also having been constructed in the State dam at Waterloo. But there was no alleviation of the troubles previously experienced and another complaint was forwarded to the Legislature of 1845, which, however, elicited no action.

In the following year, petitions from the inhabitants of Waterloo and Seneca Falls, and remonstrances from citizens of Chemung County were received, repeating the same complaints and arguments.   The people on the outlet represented that their hydraulic privileges had been greatly injured, and navigation of the upper level of the canal impaired by the artificial channel constructed at the lake, and they requested the erection of such regulating spillways as would secure a more uniform flow and keep up the waters of the lake so that navigation would not be obstructed in dry seasons.   Those residing near the head of the lake contended that the waters were still obstructed and that although the upper level of the canal had been lowered and an artificial outlet completed, pursuant to the law of 1844, the flow was kept back and the water did not sink to its natural level by reason of dams and obstructions, with the result that much illness had been produced and low grounds had been flooded.   Under such conflicting statements the legislative committee on canals had much difficulty in arriving at any satisfactory conclusion. The report of the committee said:   " . . . the State has no moral right to raise the waters of the lake above their natural level by obstructions, if such raising of the waters produces as represented, great sickness, nor to injure property at the head of the lake without just compensation.   On the other hand, the owners of the hydraulic works on the Seneca River are entitled to ask that their privileges in the use of the water flowing from the lake should not be unnecessarily injured or made irregular by State works."   The committee introduced a bill to regulate the flow of water by the construction of spillways at the outlet of the lake, but it failed of favorable action.

In 1847, the condition of the locks required rebuilding.   Some of them had been in use 17 years, being from time to time repaired by substituting new for old and decayed parts, and for several years they had been maintained at considerable expense.   An act passed March 25, 1836, had provided that whenever it should become necessary to rebuild the locks on the Cayuga and Seneca Canal, the canal commissioners were required to rebuild the locks in a substantial manner with stone and of the same width as the enlarged locks on the Erie Canal.   It will also be remembered that the commissioners had delayed action awaiting legislative instructions in regard to the lengths of locks and the depth of water, and that the "Stop law" had removed the possibility of enlargement by depriving the commissioners of the necessary money.   In their annual report for 1846, the commissioners said that The width of the chamber of the present locks is 15 feet, and that of the enlarged locks on the Erie canal is 18 feet.   The original width of the inland portions of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal at bottom was 28 feet, 40 feet at the water surface, and with sides sloping 1½ horizontal to one foot in perpendicular height.   The slope on the face of the banks having been somewhat changed by use, the present bottom width is probably less, and at the surface it is greater than that above stated.   Heavily loaded boats frequently rest on the bottom or sides of the canal while passing each other.   As the present width of the canal is insufficient for the passage of boats of greater width than can pass the present locks, the Commissioners are unable to discover that very great advantages would be derived from an increase in the width of the chamber of the locks without increasing the width of the prism of the canal sufficient to admit the passage of two boats having a width corresponding to that of the enlarged chamber.

As large expenditures would be necessary if the old locks were repaired and continued as in previous years, and as the law of 1836 had authorized simply widened structures, the commissioners considered that the plan upon which the locks should be rebuilt was so important as to demand further legislative direction.   At their solicitation, the Legislature enacted the following law:

"§ 1. Whenever, in the opinion of the Canal Commissioners, it becomes necessary to substitute new locks for the old locks in the Cayuga and Seneca canal, the commissioners shall cause minute estimates to be made of the cost of rebuilding the lock or locks on the plan prescribed by the act . . . passed May 25, 1836, and also minute estimates of the cost of constructing said locks of composite of the same dimensions of the enlarged locks on the Erie canal, which estimates shall be submitted to the canal board, and when approved by that board, and if the expense of the composite locks of the enlarged size shall not exceed the expense of the stone locks as prescribed by the act of May 25, 1836, aforesaid, the canal commissioners shall proceed to construct the lock or locks on the enlarged plan, and the cost thereof shall be charged to the fund appropriated to ordinary repairs.

"§ 2. The said commissioners may diminish the number of the said locks, or alter their location, if in their judgment the interests of the state will be promoted thereby; and the aggregate expense of re-constructing the necessary locks and putting the said canal in navigable condition will not be increased thereby."

Believing that the time had arrived when it was necessary to substitute new locks for the old ones, the commissioners in July, 1848, directed Charles W. Wentz, resident engineer, to make a survey and to estimate the cost of constructing locks upon the plan prescribed by the act of 1836, and also to prepare an estimate for composite locks upon the plan contemplated by the act of 1847.   By the report and estimate of the engineer, the aggregate cost of the cut-stone locks prescribed by the act of 1836 was $188,769.64 and of those upon the composite plan as directed by the act of 1847 the aggregate cost was estimated at $139,416.07, showing a difference of $49,353.57 in favor of the composite plan.

In accordance with the provisions in the act of 1847, the estimates of the engineer were submitted to the canal board and on July 25, 1848, the board approved and recommended the construction of the composite lock of the same dimensions as the enlarged locks on the Erie Canal.   The commissioners proceeded to have the two locks at Waterloo rebuilt in 1849 under the new plans, three others also being rebuilt shortly afterward.   By the plan adopted, the lock near the foot of Seneca Lake was dispensed with and the discharge of water was regulated at the Waterloo dam, a plan originally contemplated by the canal commissioners in the construction of the canal.   The need of a lock at Chamberlain’s dam was also obviated by increasing the lift of the one at Seneca Falls, thus bringing the two levels between Waterloo and Seneca Falls into one.   To remove the difficulties attending navigation in the slackwater level below lock No. 9 and across the foot of Cayuga Lake, the engineer was directed to make examinations and suggest a remedy.   He proposed a plan for an independent canal from the head of lock No. 9, crossing Seneca River by an aqueduct and running from there to intersect the Montezuma level, a distance of four miles.   With the adoption of this plan and its subsequent execution, three more locks could be dispensed with, thus reducing the number from 12 to 7.   Of this project, the commissioners said: "If the Legislature should direct the improvement, the expense would be $26,816.06 more than the estimated cost of rebuilding the stone locks contemplated by the act of 1836, a sum which, in the judgment of the commissioners, bears a small proportion to the yearly cost of superintendence and repairs to the locks, which will be dispensed with."

The subject was presented to the Legislature of 1849 and an act was passed authorizing the canal commissioners, "if they [should] deem the interests of the state to require it," to construct the independent channel, the expenses to be paid as directed by the act of 1847.   By the authority thus conveyed, the commissioners directed the necessary surveys and estimates to be made.   The length of the improvement was about 3½ miles and the estimated cost of the work, including the aqueduct over the Seneca River, was $128,877.37.   The estimates were for a channel of the same size as the existing canal, but the aqueduct was planned to conform to the dimensions of the enlarged Erie Canal.   Additional surveys and examinations were made in 1851 with a view of making an entire separation from the river below lock No. 9 and continuing the proposed independent line of canal upon the south side of the river rather than upon the north side as previously planned.   This would reduce the length of the aqueduct required at the crossing of the Cayuga outlet by passing the water of Seneca River through the old canal and making the junction of the two streams below the proposed aqueduct.   It was believed that this plan would reduce the difficulties arising from high water in the Cayuga Lake, of which there had been much complaint by those residing on the borders of the lake.   This plan also obviated the need of the dam and towpath bridge below lock No. 9, and the survey demonstrated the entire feasibility of the new plan at a cost within the estimates for the line upon the north side of the river.   However, nothing was done toward executing either of these plans.

In the original construction of the canal, or by permission given subsequently by the canal commissioners, a connection was formed and maintained at Seneca Falls between the canal and the river below the upper lock, by which boats could pass through the race and pond to the mills located on the opposite side of the river.   In the construction of the enlarged locks at this place it became necessary to close this connection, because an increased height of water in the canal resulted from equalizing the lifts of the locks so as to dispense with one at Chamberlain’s Dam.   In order to continue the connection with the river at this point, the canal board, on application of the proprietors of the mills, directed the construction of a side lock, which was completed in 1851.

In this year, there yet remained five locks to be rebuilt, which had required extensive repairing and the utmost watchfulness and care to maintain them in a navigable condition.   It was apparent that they were liable to give way at almost any time and, if this should occur at the height of the season of navigation, it would cause a suspension that would be disastrous.   The commissioners urged some action and they were of the opinion that, if it was thought advisable to delay still further the construction of these locks on the enlarged plan, some adequate provisions should be made for repairing them in such a manner as to leave them in a reliable condition for use.

At this time, the old contention reappeared and extra measures were taken to meet the request of those who had petitioned the Legislature for relief from water overflowing their lands at the head of Seneca Lake.   The lake level from Geneva to the lock was bottomed out brush and stone were removed from the dam, which had been built across the outlet to raise the waters of the lake in order to maintain navigation on the lake levels, not only of this canal but also of the Crooked Lake and Chemung Canals, which terminated in this same lake.   It was hoped that this action would settle the vexing question of high water in the lake for many years.

In 1853, an act appropriated $20,000 for the expense of rebuilding locks, so that in 1854 two more enlarged locks were brought into use – one in the village of Seneca Falls and the other at East Cayuga.   This last, with the improvement of the Montezuma level of this canal under a law passed in 1854, opened navigation for enlarged boats between Montezuma and Ithaca.   This work of improving the Montezuma level, 7 miles in length, consisted in thoroughly bottoming out and widening, and in straightening at many points, for the purpose of facilitating the passage of boats of enlarged size.   The old lock at the east end of the Geneva level was discontinued and the level extended to Waterloo.   The remaining three locks were enlarged in 1855.

At an election held on February 15, 1854, the people ratified an amendment to section three of the Constitution of 1846, in which it was stated that "the Legislature shall annually during the next four years, appropriate to the enlargement of the . . . Cayuga and Seneca canal."   This was considered a judicious move now that the lock enlargement was completed, and in that year the Legislature enacted a law providing for the enlargement of the canal, appropriating $101,000 for the purpose, and an additional sum of $100,000 available after October 1, 1854.   The law specifically stated that the canal should "be enlarged to the general dimensions of seventy feet in width upon the surface by seven feet in depth, except where, in the opinion of the canal board, greater dimensions [might] be necessary to supply a sufficient quantity of water for the purpose of navigation and for the construction and completion of such basins as [might] be deemed necessary, by the canal board, and also, except in localities where a due regard to economy and the interests of the state [required] that such specified width should, in the opinion of the canal board, be varied."   The law also directed that "said work for the enlargement of the Erie, the Oswego, the Cayuga and Seneca canals, and the completion of the Genesee Valley and Black River canals, [should] be put under contract and progress to completion, so as to bring the said several improvements into use at the same time as nearly as [might] be."

The preliminary work, such as surveys and estimates, was completed along the entire length of the canal in 1854.   The estimated cost was $539,482.96, which included $32,345.20 for contingencies.   A section of 12.11 miles, embracing the most expensive portions of the line, was put under contract during the same year, the cost for this distance being estimated at $323,452.06 (not including contingencies), while the estimate to complete the remaining 10.41 miles was placed at $183,685.70, for which contracts were entered upon later.   In 1855, there was passed an act authorizing the commissioners of the canal fund to negotiate loans to defray the cost of the enlargement directed under the law of the previous year.

By the terms of the contracts for enlargement, the several portions of work were to be completed on the first days of April, 1856, 1857 and 1858, respectively.   The work on most of the contracts progressed slowly in consequence of the limited funds.   By the first of July, 1856, all funds were exhausted, and some of the contractors suspended operations, but that year’s laws had appropriated $100,000 for the fiscal year beginning October 1, so that others of the contractors continued their work, receiving drafts payable on October 20, 1856.   In the following year, an act provided an appropriation of $212,119.42 for the fiscal year beginning October 1, but by November 1 this also was exhausted, except $23,430.15, an amount too small to prosecute the work on all of the contracts.   Notice was therefore given to all of the contractors, except those building the dam and guard gate at Seneca Falls and the pier at Geneva, two pieces of work which were considered necessary in order to maintain navigation.   Until further means were provided, no more estimates would be made on their contracts after paying for work done in October.   The dam and guard gate were completed in September, allowing boats of the largest class to pass through to the head of Seneca Lake and up the Chemung Canal as far as Havana.

As with work on the Erie Canal, the work of improving the several State waterways at this time was almost at a standstill.   The cost of completion was steadily increasing beyond the amount anticipated and the canal debt was rapidly growing.   The tolls of 1857 had fallen nearly half a million dollars short of meeting even the constitutional requirements for paying sums toward interest and sinking fund and the season of 1857 had been most disastrous to boating interests.   These circumstances led to the passage of the following resolution by the Assembly, on March 16, 1858:   "Resolved, That the State Engineer and Surveyor be and he is hereby requested to report, at the earliest practicable period, the amount of money necessary to complete the unfinished canals; also, the amount of work done for which no provision for payment is now made."   In answer to this resolution, estimates were made of the cost of completing all work on the canals.   The total amount needed to finish the enlargement of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal was $324,336.44.   Of this amount, $161,677.24 was for work yet to be done on existing contracts, $60,000 for engineering and land damages, $44,335.44 for contingencies, being 20% of the two previous amounts, and $58,323.76; which was the percentage retained to December 31, 1857.   After considerable delay, operations were again resumed.   The Legislature of 1859 provided $66,615, the law stating that the money should be applied to the payment of work done and materials furnished after March 1 of that year.   In 1860, there was a further appropriation of $138,714.

The canal enlargement was now rapidly nearing completion and it was believed that the remaining work could be finished before the opening of navigation in 1863, if funds were appropriated for the purpose.   The work had now been so nearly completed that a survey was begun for the final maps and continued as fast as it could be done without increasing the expense of the engineering department.   An additional appropriation of $30,000 was provided in 1862.   Another law of that year declared that on the first day of the following September all contracts for the enlargement and completion of the canals of the state should be considered finished, and that no more work should be done under the pretense of enlarging or completing them.   On that date, all work on this canal had been completed with the exception of a few small portions.   The probable cost of finishing one section, No. 7, according to the plan of enlargement, was $5,000.   Here the prism was left at 40 feet wide in places and the towbank was barely of sufficient height to retain 7 feet of water.   Little difficulty was experienced, however, in navigating this portion of the canal, but as a precaution against breaks, it was deemed advisable that the banks should be raised to their proper height.   The bottom between Cayuga and the Free bridge was not lowered to the proper grade when work was stopped, and later this section caused trouble at times of low water, which was remedied in 1871 by further deepening.

In 1863-4, the business of the canal showed a marked increase, despite the condition of the composite locks, which caused much trouble and expense.   It was found that the badly constructed dry walls of the chambers allowed such quantities of water to press against the rear of the lining plank that, in emptying the locks, the lining constantly burst off, or the anchors and posts gave way.   It was thought that true economy would be best served by dispensing with these dry walls altogether, and substituting for them rough and cheap but substantial walls of cement masonry with wooden fenders, after the plan adopted on the Chenango and Crooked Lake Canals.

In the question of lock enlargement, which was debated in the Legislature of 1864, the Cayuga and Seneca Canal was included in the resolution which the Assembly addressed to the canal board, as to the necessity of enlarging locks upon various canals.   However, the board reported that as the locks upon this canal were of the same capacity as those of the Erie and Oswego Canals, no recommendation concerning them would be made at that time.

During 1866, lock No. 6 at Seneca Falls was the cause of much trouble, owing to the pressing of side walls into the chamber of the lock.   This was a composite lock, the chamber walls being of stone, laid dry, and the front faced with timber and plank.   Since 1861 this lock had been bailed out four times at great expense, and in 1862 the timber work was removed and new timber substituted with concrete placed between the wall and the face lining.   In the spring of 1866, a part of the concrete was removed, the timbers hewn down and but one course of lining put on instead of two.   In this condition, it was used during that season, but not without difficulty and delay.   It was urgently recommended that the dry masonry be taken up and relaid in cement on the plan adopted for rebuilding locks upon the Chenango Canal, and in 1867 this recommendation was fully carried out.   An act passed in this year authorized the canal commissioners to raise the State dam at Waterloo to the height of the original dam, but not to raise the lake above its natural height. By this means the people interested in water power at Waterloo attempted to advance their interests, but as will be seen later, the controversy was still to be waged for years to come.

An amazing increase in the tonnage moved upon the canal was noted in the year 1866, when the number of tons transported was 368,233, an increase of 175,921 tons over the previous year.   This growth continued till 1869, when 533,516 tons were carried.   This was undoubtedly due to the fact that this canal furnished a line of transportation from the Pennsylvania coal regions to the Erie Canal.   A boat could navigate the North Branch Canal in Pennsylvania to the Junction Canal, from there through the Chemung Canal and Seneca Lake to Geneva and finally reach the Erie.   This canal was also connected with Ithaca, near the head of Cayuga lake, and with the Crooked Lake Canal running from Dresden on Seneca Lake to Penn Yan, which also furnished an extensive area from which to derive patronage.

In 1869, contracts were let for rebuilding four locks.   At this time, the construction of a new pier at Geneva was in progress.   When completed, it would greatly accommodate the boatmen and others navigating Seneca Lake.   As provided for in acts of 1870 and 1871, the work of protecting the berme banks along the north shore of Seneca Lake was prosecuted in the latter year.   During the floods early in the season of 1870, the lake overflowed the narrow bank separating it from the canal, and a considerable quantity of earth and gravel was washed into the prism.   The berme was raised about three feet and protected on its lake side by a substantial wall of loose stone.   The appropriation of $10,000 for this work was expended and the $2,000 necessary to complete the job was appropriated by an act of 1872. Other work directed by the act of 1871 was the construction of a new dam at Waterloo and a vertical wall at Seneca Falls, for which the law provided $10,000 and $5,000, respectively.

An act of 1869 had provided $5,000 for taking out original material in the bottom of the river near Waterloo.   After expending most of the money in dredging all that could be dredged, the balance being rock which, it was thought, could not be taken out without coffer dams, the officials in charge of the canal recommended appropriations to finish the work because the Seneca River became so low at times that loaded boats were grounded and their draft had to be decreased by resolution of the canal board to 5 feet-9 inches, and still later to 5 feet-6 inches.   Boats came down Seneca Lake, the only feeder for the head of the canal, in tows of from 30 to 50, and when they entered the canal it became necessary for the section superintendent to detail his entire force, except lock tenders, to assist in their passage over the bars and through the locks.   Although this service was always rendered with the greatest promptness, despite the conditions of time or weather, no amount of attention on the part of the superintendent could remedy the disastrous effects of low water on the navigation of this canal.   It was estimated that during the unprecedented drought in the summer of 1872 from 200,000 to 250,000 tons of freight, chiefly coal, was offered for shipment, and would have been transported over this canal and over portions of the Erie and Oswego Canals if the draft of boats had not been thus restricted by low water.

Other commercial interests besides coal that were dependent upon the navigation of this canal were for a time sorely crippled by this deplorable condition of affairs.   With perfect navigation, the canal was the natural and the cheapest route to the people of this state for the great and rapidly growing coal trade of Pennsylvania, and there was an immediate demand for legislation which would prevent a recurrence of this trouble.   The tonnage over this canal was large; it had been increasing with great strides up to 1869, and the advocates of these improvements considered that it would continue to grow in order to meet the demands for coal consumption consequent upon a multiplying population and the rapid development of manufactures.   From a commercial point of view, they deemed that the importance of the waterway to our own people could not well be overestimated.   If the canal was to be preserved and to retain its commerce, it was essential that its material needs upon which the very existence of the canal depended should be fully and abundantly supplied.   As early as 1870, lines of railway were projected for the purpose of diverting traffic into other channels, and once built and in successful operation, a trade equal to their carrying capacity would be permanently lost to the canal.

To remedy the difficulties encountered in navigation, the Legislature under an act in 1873 appropriated $40,000 for the construction of a permanent and tight dam in the Seneca River at or near the existing dam at Waterloo, $25,000 of the amount having been appropriated for the same purpose by previous acts: $10,000 under the laws of 1871, and $15,000 under the laws of 1872.   The law, as originally drawn would undoubtedly have been productive of great good, but before its final passage a clause was inserted requiring the spillways in front of mills to be put three feet below the crest of the main dam.   The engineers reported that this arrangement would give to the mill owners as great, if not greater power and better opportunities than they previously had to reduce the surface of Seneca Lake, with results that would prove detrimental instead of beneficial to the interests of the canal.   Consequently nothing was done under this act.

In 1874, the Legislature transferred $25,000 of the $40,000 appropriated under the act of the preceding year for dredging the river channel.   The law stated that the money was "to be used under the direction of the commissioner in charge, as in his judgment [should] be for the best interests of the state in removing rocks or dredging within the prism of the canal between Seneca Falls and Geneva, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the canal."   As the canal had been completed throughout its entire length according to the plan of enlargement 12 years earlier, the commissioner deemed that work of this nature was unnecessary, and did nothing.

Although the canal was favored with an abundant supply of water, yet the recurrence of a long continued drought like that of 1872 was feared and up to 1876 recommendations were annually made to the Legislature for a law providing for the rebuilding of the dam at Waterloo, but without the restrictions and requirements which were included in the act of 1873.   The dam was considered the most important structure on the canal, as it controlled the waters of the lake, and canal officials were of the opinion that it was for the interests of the State to control the waters at this point, and oblige the owners of hydraulic power to draw from the surface instead of from canal bottom, as they were then doing, by building a dam of the same height as the one then existing, eight feet above canal bottom, with weirs across the raceways one foot lower than the crest, thus securing to both navigation and mill owners a reliable flow of water during dry seasons.   The plan proposed was estimated to cost $20,000, but the Legislature did no act on the proposal.

These were the years when the question of abandoning the lateral canals held sway in canal affairs, but the 1874 amendment to the Constitution of 1846 exempted the Cayuga and Seneca Canal from abandonment.   However, the Crooked Lake and the Chemung Canals, its two contributing feeders, were among those abandoned, and shortly afterward the receipts from the Cayuga and Seneca Canal were decreased enormously, in large measure because it was deprived of the trade which had come by those two routes.   The tolls collected on this canal in 1876 were $10,974.35, and two years later they had fallen to $2,908.39.   Had it not been for the constitutional protection, it is highly probable that the canal would have been placed among the abandoned laterals.

For several years, there was nothing of great importance to record.   In 1878, it was necessary to make the towpath at Geneva safe for the boatmen to drive their teams along that portion of it where the railroads so encroached upon the State lands, narrowing the towpath and placing their tracks near the canal in order to transfer coal, that horses unaccustomed to the locomotive could not be controlled.   A change was made in the towpath so as to allow the Syracuse, Geneva and Corning Railroad to construct an elevated track with pockets and chutes for handling the coal.   This involved the necessity of constructing two swing bridges, one at either end of the elevated track, and a towpath on the berme bank between the bridges.   The work of building these structures and of changing the towpath was executed and paid for by the railroad company.

Nothing of much importance happened on the canal beyond small repairs and dredging in sections wherever needed for good navigation until 1882 when the central portion of the upper State dam at Seneca Falls was taken down and relaid.   The dam had been in existence for 25 years, being built by the State so as to supply water to the mills from which, in order to supply the canal, the natural flow of Seneca River had been diverted.   The first discovery of the dangerous condition of the stone work was made when the water was turned to fill the canal at the time of opening navigation in 1882.   An investigation by an engineer showed that the central portion of the dam "had been crowded down stream about sixteen inches at the top, the six upper courses of the face stone having become separated from the backing, while at one point near the centre several stone had been forced entirely out." The engineer further said that "at the time the dam was constructed, an attempt had been made to reenforce the masonry by the addition of a rear buttress, but the bond of the face stone, with this and the backing being imperfect, the settling away of the face caused an open joint, which the action of the frost annually widened until it admitted a volume of water that endangered the whole structure and necessitated the rebuilding of about one-third of the dam."

In 1882, this year an engine belonging to the New York Central and Hudson River R.R. Co. went into an open draw at the crossing of the canal at Cayuga on the morning of June 1, causing a delay of nearly six days to navigation at this point.

In 1884, the state structure at Waterloo, which held back the waters of Seneca Lake, was damaged by a flood, about 40 feet of the upper portion being carried away on April 12.   The water poured through the breach with considerable force, wearing away the material and endangering the remainder of the dam.   The flow was checked as quickly as possible by the construction of a loose stone dam around the break and as near to it as possible, and later in the season, after Seneca Lake had been drawn down, the break was repaired in a most substantial manner.   On account of low water in the Seneca Lake level during August, it became necessary to restrict the draft of boats to five and a half feet.

To improve this portion of the route required considerable expense for dredging.   After 1887, sums of considerable size were provided for the improvement of this waterway.   Throughout the whole canal system, a renewed activity was manifest in which this branch had a small share.   In 1887, the Legislature passed an act appropriating $15,000 to remove the obstructions between Seneca Lake outlet and the upper dam at Waterloo, and for improving locks Nos. 1 and 2, the work for the latter to be done by contract.   It was found on making a survey that the lock work was of a character that could not properly be done by contract and it was not let.   The Legislature was recommended to so amend the law that authority would be given to the Superintendent of Public Works to do this work at his discretion.   A further appropriation of $25,000 for improving the canal, wherever necessary, was provided in 1888.

In the same year, the unexpended balance of the appropriation of the preceding year was authorized to be used towards dredging and excavating the channels of Seneca River and of the Old Bear Race at Waterloo.   A sum for completing the work at these places was appropriated by an act in 1889 that applied the unexpended balance of the appropriation of 1888 towards this object under the provision, however, that the owners of land in the channel should release to the State the right to use the race for canal purposes only.   The channel to be thereafter a public highway for the purposes of navigation only and to be known as the South Waterloo Channel of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal.   The work at Bear Race was let in December, 1888, and about ½ of the excavation had been done up to February 11, 1889, when the work was stopped by injunction and the contract canceled in December.

In 1890, there was further activity towards improving the canal, and an act had an appropriation of $10,000 included within its provisions, the work of improvement being executed at such places as the interests of commerce most required.   In 1891, the appropriation covered by the act of 1889 lapsed, as nothing was ever done under its provisions, and the ditch was cleaned by the Superintendent of Public Works from other funds.   There were no additional appropriations by the Legislatures of the next three years, except one of $2,000 for rebuilding the State pier at the head of Cayuga Lake, the condition of the canal being generally good.

In 1894 an act appropriated $15,000 to be used in repairing and strengthening the berme bank and breakwater at the foot of Seneca lake between the outlet and the junction of the canal with the lake.   This work, which consisted of a heavy sea wall of quarry stone along the north end of the lake, was completed in 1897, a further appropriation of $15,000 having been made in 1895.   At completion, the wall was continuous for about 7,700 feet.

The season of navigation in 1899 was one of the most prosperous the waterway had experienced for a decade.   In that year, the question of regulating the waters of Seneca Lake again came to the fore.   The Superintendent of Public Works had recommended the erection of such structures as might be necessary to provide for an additional storage of water to the height of two feet above the crest of the existing Waterloo dam.   A survey was ordered that year to ascertain the effect of such a structure on the low lands at the margin of the lake.   Plans were prepared and estimates made of controlling works to be placed in the channel just below the junction of the canal and the outlet of the lake, and during the legislative session of 1900 the erection of these works was authorized and an appropriation of $97,000 made.   The plans included a guard lock to be located beside a series of lift gates, so constructed as to permit a wide and free channel for the passage of floods, or to impound the waters when needed.   The work was let on September 12, 1900, to contractors whose price was $66,573, but as they failed to properly proceed with the work, the sureties took possession and through another contracting firm prosecuted part of the work.   After much delay, the structure was finally completed early in 1903.   This marks the latest phase of the contention, which has extended over a period of 80 years between the people at the two ends of Seneca Lake.   Recent dredging in the channel had uncovered some of the marshland at the head of the lake, which was being successfully reclaimed and cultivated so that the disappointment in that section was the more deeply felt.   However, since completion, it has been found necessary to close the gates but once for a short period.

By a 1900 law, the sum of $45,000 was appropriated for the construction and extension of the towpath from its terminus southerly along the west shore of Geneva harbor about 1200 feet to the opening in the long pier.   This improvement was begun soon afterward and was finished in 1902.   The very high water throughout the season of 1902 was accountable for the inundation of the towpath at many places between Geneva and Waterloo.   This necessitated the work of raising the towpath and covering it with gravel for a distance of four miles.

In later plans for remodeling the State’s waterways, the Cayuga and Seneca Canal was not at first included, but, at the request of the inhabitants of that locality, the supply bill of 1905 contained an appropriation of $4,000 for making surveys and plans for extending the improved route to Cayuga Lake.   Estimates have been prepared for channels of 7, 9, and 12 feet depth from the new line of the Barge Canal to Cayuga Lake, with a connection to retain the existing canal between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes in its present condition.