4• .17 

, 

, 

. 

„ 

• " ',74A • 

k • ; • 

40de 1 

• • 

" 

• */•.-"'- 

Ar4:" 

:.- 

t- 

.4, 

- 

' 

F 

• 

- ` 

-04 

-"- -; 

A.+••••.-^ ','S 

• -4'1>V2i1• 11 

-4szisk 

0. 

• " 

• • • " 

• :P ei ,' 

ea, 

HISTORY OF 

NAVIGATION IN 

THE OHIO 

RIVER BASIN 

• 

• 1-,-.-..—icv••"" —• 

• 

• Keiji' 

c.;;••• , 

•-''''''g':,11.7047:••:.r • 

64, • 

:."4. ;,.. -"...4°7,:;:‘;;;; " IN

gaZgaiii4m.7 ;Name • --era"— 

• 

National Waterways Study 0 U. S. Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center 0 Institute for Water Resources 
• 

V 

L.11.:37C2 r11:,:) n,!:1 1:i 11,1 . gl.• 
ATLANTIC 

INTRACOASTAL 

WATERWAY 

TENNESSEE 

- — .TENN.TOM 

AMOK WARRIOR 

ST LAWRENCE 

ST MARYS SEAWAY, 

WELLAND CANAL 

LAKE 

ONTARIO 

milrom 

ST CIA 

ALLEGHENY 

...e.L 1 \ .s.......i..... ItotivioN1 

KANAWHA 

KENTUCKY I 

>......7 

‘04, LOD L44-7- 

‘ BER., 

1 

cHATTAHoocHEE 

APALACHICOLA 

for I 

MOBILJ 

• 

Olyio 

Principal Commer,:ial Waterways 

r0 

7 

C:. GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

TA> 

THE NATIONAL WATERWAYS 

OHIO RIVER SYSTEM 
HISTORY OF 

NAVIGATION IN

• THE OHIO • 

RIVER BASIN 

Michael C. Robinson 

January 1983 

Navigation History NWS-83-5 

National Waterways Study 13 U.S. Army Engineer Water Resources SuppOrt Center ci Institute for Water Resources 
AUTHORITY FOR IHE NATIONAL WATERWAYS STUDY 

The Congress authorized.the National Waterways Study (NWS) and provided the 

instructions for its conduct in Section 158 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587): . 

. . . 

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief . 

of'Engineers, is authorized. and directed to make a.• . 

. comprehensive study and report on'the'sysiem of 

•

.•. 

waterway improvements under his jurisdiction. The 

study shall include 4 review of the existing ,system . . . 

and its for meeting national needs . _ . . 

including emergency and defense requirements and in 

appraisal of additional improvements 'necessary to 

optimize the system and its intermodal 

characteristics. the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the Chief of•Engineers,.shall submit a 

report to COngreis.on this study within three years ' 

after funds' are.first Appropriated.and made 

available for the study, together with his 

. recommendations. The Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the Chief of Engineers, shall upon request, 

from time to time., make available to the National 

Transportation Policy Study Commission established 

by Section 154 of Public Law 94-280, the information 

• and data developed as a result of the study. 
e • • 

PREFACE 

• This pamphlet is one of a series on the history of navigation done 

• as part of the National Waterways Study, authorized by Congress in . 

Public Law 94-587. The National Waterways Study is an intensive review 

by the Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources of past, present, 

and future needs and capabilities of the United States water transportation network. The Historical Division of the Office of the Chief of . 

Engineers supervised the•development of. this pamphlet, which is designed 

. to present a succinct . overview of the subject area. 

JOHN T. GREENWOOD 

Chief, Historical Division 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter I. RIVERS TO THE WEST 1 

Chapter II. IMPROVING NAVIGATION IN THE OHIO 

BASIN, 1824-1861 11 

Chapter III. THE QUEST FOR SLACKWATER, 

1861-1929 23 

Chapter• IV. THE WATERWAY RENAISSANCE, 

1930-1981 35 

CHRONOLOGY 53 

FOOTNOTES 59 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 
. Chapter I 

RIVERS TO THE WEST 

PROLOGUE 

• The Ohio .River Basin is a vast area of some 204,000 square miles. 

It reaches northeast to Chautauqua Lake in northern New York,.west to 

the flat land of Illinois, and south to the Tennessee River drainage--

which extends into Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Through the . 

region's heart, the 981-mile-long Ohio River carries the largest volume 

of water of the six major Mississippi tributaries. The Ohio River is 

formed by the joining of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers at 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Between the "Golden Triangle" and Louisville 

the river gathers the cool mountain water of the Little Kanawha, Great 

Kanawha, Big Sandy, Licking, and Kentucky rivers. Below Louisville 

from the south come the warmer waters of the Green, Cumberland, and 

Tennessee rivers. From the north the Beaver, Muskingum, Scioto, Miami, 

and Wabash rivers add their discharge to the Ohio. 1 

In the past two centuries, the pristine wooded river valleys have 

been transformed into sprawling centers of urban population and industry. The river and many of its tributaries have been equally transformed by navigation and multiple-purpose water projects that ease 

the flow Of waterborne commerce and provide other public benefits. The 

following chronicle will attempt to trace the evolution of the basin 

from canoe to towboat, from unruly streams to slackwater lock and dam 

projects, from virgin forests to factories and cities. 

RIVERS OF EXPLORATION 

Rivers provided European explorers and settlers their first access 

to the North American interior. The abundant streams had been used for 

centuries by Indians who glided along in canoes, dugouts, and bull 

boats respectively built from bark, tree trunks, and skins stretched 

over crude wooden frames. The French advanced into the interior via

the St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River as 

well as smaller streams. The British followed with westward expeditions 

across the Appalachians that took full advantage of natural waterways. 

Despite hazards to navigation, the rivers offered a much easier route 

through the often mountainous woodlands than did the horses and wagons 

1 
that struggled along crude trails and roads. Colonial settlers and 

frontiersmen followed eastern rivers to their headwaters, established 

routes through the Appalachian barrier, and again headed west on the , 

waterways. Since the streams of the Ohio Basin flow generally westward, 

they were frequently plied by explorers, traders, and settlers. . . 

crude vessels used by the Indians and first pioneers were leaky, small, 

and carried little cargo. However, they were adequate for the needs 

of the region's first travellers.2 

THE FRENCH PRESENCE 

The first significant waterborne travel and commerce on the inland 

streams largely stemmed from military activities. The Royal Engineers 

of France were involved in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys for over a 

century prior to the American Revolution. They engaged in extensive 

mapping; constructed a chain of fortifications that stretched from 

Lake Erie to the Monongahela River, and made some river improvements.. 

For example, in 1729 a French Engineer named Chaussegros de Lery made 

a compass survey of the Ohio River while on a military expedition. The 

results of his observations were printed in 1744. The French constructed 

Fort Duquesne in 1754 at the forks of the Ohio River to control the . 

Ohio Valley. The construction was partly responsible for launching the 

French and Indian War. 3 

In the same year George Washington was dispatched by the governor 

of Virginia to make a reconnaissance of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and 

Upper Ohio valleys. A subsequent defeat of a large British force sent 

to dislodge the French resulted in a decisive struggle that gave the 

British control of the St. Lawrence and Ohio valleys in 1763. 

• . 'BRITISH AND AMERICAN ENGINEERS 

Although the 1763 Treaty of Paris gave the British possession of 

the Ohio region, some French and Indian resistance continued. Several 

expeditions were sent down the Ohio and overland to take possession of 

French forts in the basin. The British soon realized that supplying 

troops and maintaining communications within its new-possession re- - 

quired the preparation of maps of the Ohio River to guide future voyages. 

In 1766 an expedition was sent downriver . from Fort Pitt (present-day 

Pittsburgh) and Captain Harry Gordon, chief enginedr,:and Ensign Thomas 

Hutchins were assigned to map the river. 

•• 

2 
•44 117441A444. 44fie:04,, 

. • . •• • • 

The Hutchins,GordOn.report Was the first detailed hydrographictopographic 'survey of:the-Ohio River. The authors provided reliable . • 

. information about river navigation, Accurate descriptions of . transOor- • 

tationroutei, and potential sites for camps and fortifications. The ' 

.engineers continued their work on the Mississippi River. - Following. 

their return the mapAUtahins-prepared IA the Ohio River was copied and. ,- 

. distributed to the British forces. Hutchins later joined, the Americans 

in their struggle for freedom and was appointeclby the Continental Congress as "Geographer to the United States" at the close of the revolu- • 

tion.' His maps .of the Ohio Basin were published in London in 1778 and . 

remained for many years the only reliable source of information. about 

• the 'Ohio Valley frontier. Thus, he had i major influence on the open- ' 

ing'Of the valley to settlemen.4 , 

• : • . 

Despite the demobilization' that took place following the revolution, 

• former- military engineers .continued to remain active in the Ohio Valley. 

'Colonel Rufus Putnam. , former chief engineer of the Continental Army,. • 

helpecLorganize the Ohio Company. in.178.6. The company sought.to settle 

veterans on.public lands in the-Ohio Valley.. In 1788 Putnam led a 

group of pioneers &Ain the Ohio River to settle the town of Marietta.' 

'In 1794 Congress - authorized the raising of a•composite Corps of Artil-. - 

 a few engineer officers naViT : lerists. and Engineers, which resulted.in 

gating . and studying the Ohio River at the close of the eighteenth • 

century. 5'But by this time a flood of immigrants' were settling the . 

region and pushing back . the frontier. 

THE ARK OF EMPIRE' 

The Indian dugouts, canoes, and other simple craft were eventually 

replaced by the sturdy, utilitarian flatboat. This "ark of empire" was - 

-usually a large watertight wooden box of .simple construction that varied 

in size -and design according to the needs, and. abilities of the builders.' 

With its flat bottom and sides half covered with a roof to shelter the 

occupants; the vessels resembled a floating house shed. One Ohio River 

traveller described them as "flat bottomed, with upright sides and stern, 

and the'front . turns up like a skate. . They - seldom use any sail, and are. 

steered by means of a long oar from the stern, and two or three oars - 

are occasionally Used to conduct them, for the stream, which runs at the 

rate of about 5 miles an hour, carries the boat with great rapidity."0.: 

The flatboat appeared on the Ohio River before the end of the 

American Revolution, and it was the principal means of transportation 

for the mash of immigrants that sought homesteads in the Ohio Basin in 

the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Pioneers crossed 

•• 
the mountains to the Upper Ohio and its tributaries to buy or build 

boats to carry family, possessions, and livestock. Constructing these 

vessels became a major enterprise in the 'UpperOhio Valley. The boats, 

in addition to offering economical transportation, were a long-term 

asset to river travellers. At the end of the voyage, they were disassembled and the lumber was Used to Construct new homes. • 

During this period, the flatboat contributed to the tepid settlement of the Ohio River . Basin., In 1775.the:area's .population consisted, 

of settlements near Fort Pitt' and a few,scattered frontier 'posts. By 

1790, the great migration was in full tide and the 'population, had risen 

to 125000. In 1788 no leis than 308 Ilatboats-carrying some 6,000 

settlers, 3,000 head of livestock, and 150 wagons--swept past Fort 

Harmar . (present-day Marietta) during the spring;rise of the Ohio,River. 7 

TRADE WITH NEW ORLEANS 

Ohio Basin pioneers were soon seeking outlets for their agricultural 

• produce, but eastern markets could only be :reached by packhorses and 

wagons that had to cross mountainous'terrain. They naturally looked 

downriver for more accessible Spanish- buyers at New Orleans. Barthelemi 

Tardiveau, a French immigrant from Nantes, is generally credited with 

attempting the first flatboat trip down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers 

to Sell'goOds.at-New Orleans in 1782. In 1787 he Oubliahed ad :influential documeni:that . outlined the Advantages of establishing a regular 

traWwith NeW.Orleans. This commerce-developed Slowly'at'firSt due to 

the.unreliability,of the New Orleans market. "Spanish authorities cloSed 

the tort to Americans in the mid-1780s. However, "it waareopened . b3i' 

General James Wilkinson; who Sent a cargo from Kentuck . in.1787. He . 

negotiated a'deal that enabled him to dispatch a fleet of twenty-five 

flour-and-tobacco-laden' boats 4 year later. 8: . ' 

As diplomatic relations improved between the 'United States and . 

Spain, trade 'wag Opened to others and it reached Major proportions by 

the mid-1790s. The 1803 Louisiana 'Purchase gave,the . tnited States possession of the port and advanced the trade' even further.: In 1807, for ex-'- 

ample,.some 2,000 boats arrived at New Orleans carrying 'commodities 

valued in excess of $5 million, In 18101811 about 1,200 flatboats . 

departed from the' Upper Ohio fOr the:"Crescent,Ci4i,"Carrying'130,060 

barrels of flour; over 600,000 pounds of baCon; 10,000 barrels of' ' 

whiskey; huge quantities of,butter,, hemp, cheese, livestock; and other 

agricultural' produce .: Flatboat commerce continued on this vast river 

system despite the later introduction 'of the steamboat,and,did.nOt peak 

until 1847, when.railroads'began.to offer alternative transportation 

route0 

4 
OHIO.SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY 

By the late 1700s, Some businessmen were, avoiding the payment of 

duties at New Orleans by building seagoing ships.in the Ohio Basin,. • 

loading them . with commodities, luldenteiing-the foreign trade directly 

from river ports. The ships usually were floated down.the Ohio and 

MissiSsippi rivers by experiencedsea captains who commanded them as 

they sailed to the West Indies or Atlantic ports.. Because the inland , 

•- rivers were too narrow for navigating,undersail, the brigs, schooners; 

and ships--as, the flatboats-nevertravelled.upriver. Sailing ships _ 

were constructed at.Pittsburgh, Marietta,. Cincinnati, Louisville, and • 

other ports in extremely large numbers. . 'Merchants found it economical ' 

to. contract for Ships built near Cheap and plentiful sources of lumber.' 

Even the United States Navy negotiated for the construction Of gunboats 

used for harbor and coastal patrol. The shipbuilding industry continued 

on the Ohio River and its tributaries until 1865,10 

KEELBOAT COMMERCE' 

Despite the utility of the ships and flatboats, they were limited 

to downstream travel. Thus, merchants•and navigators Sought some meatns . 

of establishing a dependable two-way Commerce. Bringing goods across 

the Appalachians 'io.the•Ohio.Basin'by land cost as Much as $200 a ton,. 

and the small canoes, dugouts,.and bateaux used initially for upstream. 

navigation had limited cargo capacities. By the early 1790s; the keel-:: 

boat was providing an economical means of Upriver navigation. :The long ., 

sleek craft were ribbed and planked like a ship,: and their heavy timber 

'keel and pointed prow allowed for easier navigation against river currents as well as through shallows and' ripids: 11. ' 

Keelboats varied in dimensions from 30 to 75 'fedi long and from 

5 to 10 feet - wide. They could .carry' cargoes of 15 to 40 tons.. One 

navigator deacribed the craft's superstructure as "a covered way,, a 

kind of . cabin-occupying . the entire hold of the boat, excepting spaces 

for small decks at. each end, 'and, a ship on each side the whole length 

of the boat, about 15 inches wide, called the 'run,' on which the men 

walked when 'poling' the boat npatream. 1112 

• ' 

. Although some keelboats had masts and sails,.they were commonly , 

driven .upstream by crewmen with iron-tipped poles. 'They stabbed 'the 

pole into the stream bottom, braced it against their shoulders, and • 

"walked" the . boat upriver until they reached the stern. The agonizing 

process was repeated over and Over as:the boat fought against the river. ' 

5 
Keelboats usually remained near banks to avoid rapid currents, which 

often enabled the crew to bushwack (to pull the branches of trees to 

drag the boat along). When the opposing current became too swift, they 

resorted to "cordelling" and "warping." The former consisted of putting 

the crew ashore to drag the boat along with an attached rope. The 

latter involved tying the rope to an upstream tree and reeling it in 

from the bow. 

Navigating the inland rivers was a dangerous business undertaken 

by rugged and profane ten who faced Indian attacks, pirates, navigational hazards, and unrelenting daily :toil. But.the commercial yen- . 

 tures were often quite profitable. A keelboat owner reported in 1817 

that the cost of operating a 36-ton .boat from New Orleans to Louisville 

was $1,750 and provided a profit of $1,490 for each trip on a total 

capital investment of less than $2,000.13 Thus, despite the herculean 

efforts required to move the keelboats upstream', they significantly 

lowered transportation costs. The vessels eventually lost passenger . 

traffic and long-distance freighting to steamboats, but for short routes ,- 

particularly on the headwaters of tributaries-,they were extensively 

. used unitl railroads and improved roads reduced their numbers at the . 

close Of the nineteenth century.- 

THE STEAMBOAT REVOLUTION 

The hard labor involved in upstream keelboat navigation and the 

need,for more economical transportation boasted development of the 

steamboat: This important technological innovation touched off 

a trandportation revolution that transformed the Ohio Valley. Development of the powered craft was an evolutionary process involving the 

contributions of many individuals, but Robert Fulton is most often 

credited with building the first successful steamboat in the United 

States (1807). The inventor put a steamboat into operation on the 

Hudson River and organized a firm to expand operations to other rivers. 

. In 1809, Nicholas J. Roosevelt, one of Fulton's agents, travelled. 

by flatboat from Pittsburgh to New Orleans to .observe the rivers, determine the prospects for steamboat trade, and identify coal deposits 

for fuel'. He returned to the upper Ohio and built the steamer New 

Orleans,which.completed a successful downriver voyage to. New Orleans 

in 1811. Fulton and his associates planned to build a comprehensive 

steamboat transportation system from Pittsburgh to New Orleans, and 

sought . a monopoly by obtaining exclusive charters from state governments. 

But independent rivermen opposed the scheme by building their own steamboats, engaged in lobbying, and fought Fulton in the courts. 14 

6 
Captain Henry M. Shreve made the greatest contribution to smashing 

the Fulton monopoly.. He challenged the company by piloting the steamboat Enterprize and its cargo of munitions to New Orleans in time to , 

help beat off a British attack in 1815. The Enterprize returned to . 

Louisville in 1815, making the first upstream trip from New Orleans, : 

 Despite suits by the Fulton interests, Shreve built the larger, more, 

powerful Washington, which made many highly profitable trips after its 

launching in 1816. Shreve and other independents claimed that the navigable rivers and interstate commerce were under federal jurisdiction. 

In 1824 the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision • . 

against the Fulton company--thus freeing waterways from special privilege. 15 

Steamboat technology was further advanced by Major Stephen H. Long, 

who designed and built the Western Engineer in 1819. Constructed for 

a military reconnaissance and scientific expedition, the craft was 

launched from Pittsburgh and successfully navigated down the Ohio.and 

far up the Missouri River. The Western Engineer drew but 19 inches of 

water, as compared with 4 to 6 feet for earlier boats. Long made other . 

improvements such as the cam cutoff, a device which enabled the steam , 

to be used more efficiently. In the expedition's report, Long commented 

on the various navigation problems he encountered. The report marked . 

the beginning of Long's distinguished career as a waterways engineer. 16 

GROWTH OF COMMERCE AND CITIES 

The steamboat made a major contribution to the growth of:cities. r, 

such as Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and.Louisville. Expanding. commerce . 

and manufacturing, were causes of urbanization. But steam navigation, 

by quickening transportation and cutting. distances,. telescoped a .: • 

half-century's development into a single generation. • It was an gn7 • ,. 

chanter's wand .transforming an almost raw countryside of scattered . 

farms and towns into a settled region of cultivated, landscapes and . . 

: burgeoning cities. This technological device during the 1820S became 

a key element in a transportation system that eventually included new . 

canals and improved road . systems that eased travel to inland cities. . 

By 1830 the steamboat had a virtual monopoly on passenger traffic and,. 

except at. low water, handled most upstream freight. .Its operations 

encompassed all the principal rivers, while smaller craft.plied many . • 

of the: larger tributaries. • 

The first successful runs between Louisville and New Orleans were 

• followed by regular trips between Pittsburgh. and Louisville after 1820. 

The increase in steamboat numbers and the tonnage they.. carried vas • . 

7 
remarkable. In 1817 seventeen steamboats with an aggregate tonnage 

of 3,290 were navigating western rivers. Within five years their 

number had grown by sixty, and 187 steamboats capable of carrying 

29,841 tons of cargo were in service in 1830. This total represented 

half of all American steam tonnage and equaled the volume of steam 

shipping in the whole British Empire. 17 

Steamboat arrivals, once a cause of civic celebrations, became 

routine. By the . mid-1820s, a substantial number of steamboats 

docked at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. But Louisville, because of its 

strategic location on the Falls of the Ohio, became the focus of 

Ohio River steamboating. In 1829 over 1,000 steamboats landed at 

Louisville---300 more than at New Orleans and ten times more than at 

Pittsburgh. The next year 278 vessels arrived at St. Louis, many of 

which were based .in the Ohio Valley. 18 

Western cities expanded due to the increased commerce and they 

• added to their growth by becoming major shipbuilding centers. Some 

three-fifths. of the steamboats.and four-fifths of the tonnage constructed in the West were built at Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Louis- . 

ville.1 9 Thus, the steamboat accelerated trade and became one.of the . 

West's major industries. .Nevertheless, keelboats and flatboats remained 

important, bringing raw materials,. bulky farm products', and semifinished 

goods to Pittsburgh and other'cities. Not until 1830 did the steamboat 

equal their volume of freight. 

.WEARFING FACILITIES • 

Steamboats and keelboats initially could make landings at most 

points along the shore without the aid of docks and wharves. A few 

gangplanks were placed between the boat and shore--and the bare ground 

served as a natural dock. As river towns grew and steamboat traffic 

increased, local authorities began to improve landings by grading the 

waterfront to facilitate the loading and unloading of goods at all 

river stages. Boats using the facilities paid fees that defrayed maintenance costs and provided for new improvements such as paving and 

clearing additional areas of shoreline. Regulating traffic became an 

important municipal function as waterfronts grew crowded with craft and 

cargo, particularly during the periods of high water. Louisville faced 

especially difficult circumstances since nearly every boat on the Ohio 

used its installations. The community limited the stay of any boat to 

forty-eight hours, and instructed the harbor master to auction off . 

vessels that exceeded the limit.20 
.,-6.4W-t11;W14.1T. 

• The river cities were constantly hard-pressed to' keep pace' with - 

traffic demands. ': Early nineteenth-century waterway commerce grew so 

rapidly.that-these port communities sought ways to expand their limited , 

 facilities.; Some communities purchased private docks and extended the 

public-landings, while others:entered'into joint ventures: with privatt- - 

 firms to build new docks. All mercantile interests recognized the necessity of accommodating the flow of goods. As the St. Louis mayor observed:in:1824, "Commerce is the vital principle of the town." . - No 

large municipality, however, masable to deal efficiently with the 

mounting flow. .of goods. landings remained crowded and . officialastrug 

gled to keep .craft moving and.docks'open. • Ordinances were strengthened 

to prohibit,vesselafrom1oitering in port,.areas-were set aside for 

special cargoes ;and-shipbuilding and repair activities were prohibited 

near heavily used landingSwH Nevertheless, 'in busy Seasons the waterfronts 

presented a solid rank of steamboats lying:Side-byL-.side,..sometimes two. , 

 or three tiers deep. The equally crowded shorelines were piled high 

with bales,.crates,lbarrels.i 1. - hogsheads, and othergoods. 2. 1 

• 

.'HAZARDS TO NAVIGATION ,,- - - 

• 

• 

Although early navigators with light-draft vessels opened the . 

Ohio -to, ,transportation, later users with deeper draft craft often fell 

victim to rocks, snags, shifting sandbars, and shailow,channels, as 

well as other hazards. As the river and its tributaries became extensively 

used for the movement of people, agricultural commodities, and manufactured goods, commerce was' often disrupted by long delays and even by 

losses of boats and cargoes. Flatboats and keelboats commonly found themselves ripped by rocks, stuck fast on sandbars, and driven furiously down 

rapids and chutes.' Furthermore, the river's channel constantly shifted. 

Annual periods.of high water moved . the location of sand and gravel'bars, 

cut .new channels, and undermined trees; which fell ,into the stream and 

became 'hazards to'navigation. 22 

• . 

The maze of hazards.along the river's 981-mile course arose chiefly 

because of its: snag and boulder-strewn conditions. Furthermore, the : 

Ohio's'. 429 ,-foot slope..from its head to mouth was not uniform. Steep 

gradients at some points caused swift currents, which were in sharp contrast to:long pools. where the fall was negligible. Fluctuations between 

low—and high-water stages. ranged from as little as a foot during 

severe droughts to 'as much as 80 feet during floods. . ' 

„. 

Commercial :craft required aAllert3.feet:to navigate the Ohio, -• 

but this minimum depth was available for only a few months each year. 

Low water severely retarded navigation in the Ohio Basin from July through 

9 
October. Rivermen relied on rises in the late fall and spring to 

move most goods to market. Until-alternative transportation systems 

were developed, the unpredictable Ohio continually disrupted business 

affairs. In 1819, for example, the fall rise did not occur. The 

result was serious economic consequences. 23 

SUMMARY 

Throughout the evolution of commerce from canoe to flatboat and 

from keelboat to steamboat, the Ohio River and its tributaries provided 

the principal means of moving goods and people in the trans-Appalachian 

West. In spite of natural hazards--such as snags, shoals, and rapids-- 

as well as dangers posed by Indian attack and robbers, the Ohio Valley 

region became the route followed by the great western migration of the 

late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The rivers and the 

craft placed on them transformed the economy from frontier subsistence 

to a burgeoning, complex commercial structure. As its population and 

settlements grew, the region began to seek navigation improvements that 

would further enhance waterborne commerce. 

10 . 
-Chapter II . . 

IMPROVING NAVIGATION IN THE OHIO BASIN, 1824-1861. 

ORIGINS OF FEDERAL NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 

, e I• . 

. • 

_Prior to the Civil War, the United States Congress spent a great , 

deal of time debating the constitutionality of federally funded internal 

iiPiovement project's. .geFtlorialism.and factionalism caused some to' 

view federal publicworks \ aa unwarranted extensions, of federal pOwers.,... . 

.Before 1824 federal . ..navigation improvements were largely limited to,.the: 

construction otlighthouses,liarbor improvements, and other aids to navigation. State governments were granted public lands to finance a few • . 

public worksprojects, but the initial federal effort,was largely piece:- ' 

meal and Uncoordinated. .In 1808 Secretary of the Treasury Albert. 

Gallatin made a farsighted and ambitious feport'to Congress that called. 

for the investment of $20 million in an extensive road and.canal system. 

He recommended construction of a north-south canal and a road network . 

across the Atlantic states from Maine to Georgia as well as four routes 

across the Appalachians'to link the Ohio Basin with the seaboard states.' . 

The subsequent War of 1812 disrupted action on the Secretary's plan. • 

The conflict also convinced many political and military leaders that 

• reliable navigation routes and other transportation facilities were . 

essential to national defense. In 1816 a special Board of Fortifications, 

consisting of two Army Engineers and one Navy officer, analyzed the 

nation's defense requirements. They concluded that improved transporta-. 

tion routes to the interior were fundamental to the nation's military 

and economic well-being. As a member of Congress, John C. Calhoun strongly . 

advocated an ambitious federal internal improvement program. But a bill 

•he authored in 1817 to initiate many of the projects Gallatin advocated 

was vetoed by President James Madison on constitutional grounds. 2 

While congressmen exchanged opinions on the Constitutionality of 

federal: public works, the steamboat boom in the Ohio Valley prompted . 

state governments to address the question of navigation improvements. 

In 1817 the state of Ohio invited other basin states to appoint members 

to a joint commission to recommend surveys and plans for navigation improvements on the Ohio from its headwaters to LoUisville.. Several states 

participated in a survey completed in 1819 that mapped the 102. worst 

obstacles. - The commission recommended that the states undertake the 

removal of . snags, - the blasting of Chutes through rocky shoals, and the 

dredging of channels, through bars. However, the only official action 

taken was to ask the federal government to fund the project.3 

11 
In response to state appeals, Congress appropriated $5,000 in 1820 

to expand the survey begun by the states. A board of engineers departed 

from.Louisville-in 1821 and successfully sUrveyed the tower Ohio and the. 

Mississippi.River to New Orleans. They suggested that the safety and 

ease of Waterborne commerce could be improved by constructing a canal - 

around the Falls of the Ohio, removing snags and boulders, and control- - •

ling the river channels by building wing dams and longitudinal spur - 

dikes. Their report considerably influenced subsequent congressional . 

4It gave much polemical ammuni- authorizations for improving the Ohio.

tion to congressmen such as Henry Clay and Robert P. Henry of Kentucky, 

who wished to enhance the flow of commerce on western rivers. Arguing 

that the West's great rivers were the common commercial highways of all 

the people, Clay and Henry warned Congress against state control of the 

streams. Opposition came principally from eastern congressmen,who maintained that federal projects for inland navigation were unconstitutional. 

. . . 

Clay and like-minded proponents prevailed, and the Eighteenth Con-.• 

gress enacted legislation narking the beginning of Corps of Engineers 

involvement in improving the nation's rivers. In April 1824.President 

James Monroe signed the General Survey Act, authorizing the Army 

neers to conduct surveys and planning studies for transportation projects that might' enhance national defense and commerce. .The following. - 

month he signed the 1824 Rivers and Harbors Act, which appropriated, . 

$75,000 for improvement of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. .The act . 

authorized the President to assign Army Engineers to undertake experiments at certain Ohio River bars to determine the best methods of making 

improvements at, those.localities. It also stipulated that "prompt and. 

effectual" steps be taken to remove "planters, sawyers, or snags" that . 

might, endanger traffic on the rivers. 5 

FIRST IMPROVEMENTS ON THE OHIO 

One of the first actions taken by the chief of engineers was-to - 

dispatch Major Stephen H. Long to the Ohio River to launch experiments 

on deepening channels across sand and gravel bars. Long chose a compacted gravel bar. near Henderson, Kentucky, below the mouth of the Green 

River, that was covered by merely . 15 inches of water at low-river 

stages.. After studying riverf low and channel condittons, he outfitted 

several flatboats with hand-powered pile drivers and began to build, -a s , 

 wing .dam. The structure, which extended at a 45-degree angle from 

the bank, decreased the width of the channel, increased the velocity 

of the current, and caused the river , to scour a deeper channel. . 

. - , . 

12 
• "t4:"; cs .**;. 7'41c. , 

: During periods of low water in 1824 and 1825, Long experimented 

with . various designs of contrasting widths, lengths, and heights. The 

402-yard-long completed dam consisted of twin rows of 1,400 piles joined 

with stringers and filled with brush. Gravel and sand settled against 

the dam and anchored it to the riverbed. The total cost of the project 

was exactly $3,778.93. Until the late nineteenth century, Long's wing 

dam, often called a spur dike, was the main method used for deepening 

channels on the Ohio River and many of its tributaries. 6 

SNAG CLEARING ON THE WATERWAYS 

. The 1824 act also called for development of watercraft and 

machinery necessary to clear thousands of snags from the Ohio and 

Mississippi rivers. These deadly obstacles were perhaps the most 

feared hazards of early :river navigators. They were of several types: 

a "planter" was a log fixed in the river bottom which would. impale • • 

passing boats; a "sawyer" was a planter with a free and that moved up and 

down in harmony with the current.. One riverman estimated in 1824 that • 

there were at least 50,000 snags in the Ohio and Mississippi rivers 

and speculated that "if these were removed and kept so, the river would . 

assume a new aspect, highly creditable to those engaged actively or 

passively, in the contemplated .improvements." 7 

. Since no snag-removal equipment had been developed, General 

Alexander Macomb, Chief Engineer of the Army, offered .a $1,000.prize for 

the best "plan, machine, or instrument" that would clear the rivers. 

Numerous plans were submitted for devices that were novel, of varying utility, and sometimes absurd. The award was given to John W. Bruce, 

a Kentucky flatboat and steamboat captain. Bruce devised what became . 

known as a "machine boat," one joined by 8 -to -12 -foot timbers. The 

cross-structure supported a long lever tipped by an iron claw that was • 

attached to the snag. Use of the lever and a. rope and windlass enabled 

the crew to dislodge the snags from the river bottom. 8 

Bruce entered into a contract with the federal government for ' 

$60,000 that stipulated he would remove all snags on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, by January 1, 1827, and. submit' his activities to inspection 

by an Army Engineer officer. He assembled a force of thirty-two men, 

four machine 'boats, and eight skiffs--and began operating on the Upper 

Ohio in June 1825. Rivermen-soon assailed Bruce and the engineer inspector, for Bruce confined snag removal to. the riYer'S low-water channel. 

Critics pointed out that during high water steamboats and other craft ' 

would continue to be endangered. Because of the resulting imbroglio . 

over the Specific intent of the agreement, the Chief Engineer in 1827 

13 
cancelled Bruce's contract. At the recommendation of Stephen H. 

Long and others, Henry M. Shreve was appointed Superintendent of • 

Western River Improvements. He was given responsibility for the snag 

clearing operation. 9 

• 

Bruce's operation suggested that "prompt and effectual" snag removal was unrealistic and that waterways improvement must be an ongoing 

process undertaken by individuals intimately acquainted with the river 

and engineering. These lessons were reflected in the 1827 Rivers and 

Harbors Act, the first in a series of annual appropriations to 1838 

that directed removal of obstructions and required that a "practical 

agent" with long experience on inland rivers be placed in charge of 

the project. 1° 

Shreve significantly advanced the technology of snag removal by 

planning and building the first steam-powered snagboat. After obtaining 

authorization for construction of a prototype, in April 1829 Shreve 

launched the Heliopolisat a shipyard near New Albany, Indiana. The 

vessel was actually two 100-foot-long steamboats spaced 10 feet apart 

and joined with timbers. An iron-sheeted wooden bulkhead was mounted 

near the bows. Thus, the Heliopolis could ram snags and force them 

loose by bringing to bear the combined force of the boat and its 

engines. The water-soaked trees were then raised between the hulls by 

windlasses and sawed into appropriate lengths for fuel or stacked and 

burnt on nearby banks. Other snagboats were soon authorized--such as 

the Archimedes, Eradicator,and Henry M. Shreve, all built during the 

1830s. 11 

The benefits of the snag-removal projects were soon evident. In 

1832 Shreve reported that no watercraft were lost on the Ohio River 

due to snags. Furthermore, insurance rates on steamboat cargoes declined by 50 percent from 1827 to 1835 as the natural risks to navigation 

decreased. Fires, collisions, and boiler explosions replaced snags as 

the chief hazards of river travels. 12 

Snag clearance was but one dimension of Shreve's river improvement 

responsibilities. As Superintendent of Western River Improvements, he 

was directed to reduce the hazards at the Grand Chain of Rocks near. , 

the Ohio River's mouth. During 1829 and 1830, a deeper channel was 

blasted through the boulders of the Grand Chain. Some 3,375 tons of 

rock were removed and placed in a wing dam extending from the Illinois 

shore to divert more water into the navigation channel. Completed in 

1830, the project increased the channel depth from 22 inches to 48 

inches at low-river stages. The buoys installed at the head of the 

Grand Chain to mark the channel were the first used on the Mississippi 

and Ohio rivers. 1 3 

14 
The success of Long's wing dam.near Henderson, Kentucky, and 

the Grand Chain project induced Congress to appropriate $150,000 in 

1831 for additional dikes on the Ohio. Their construction posed different engineering problems at each project site and required detailed 

hydraulic studies and planning before construction could begin. From 

1831 to 1835 Shreve oversaw the building of loose stone and longitudinal 

spur dikes at five shoals on the Lower Ohio. Stone was obtained near • 

the river, transported by scows to the site, and dropped into place. 

When the projects were completed, minimum navigational depth was extended from 2 to 4 feet. 

A more ambitious project was undertaken at Cumberland Island, 

which divided the Ohio River into two chutes near the mouth of the 

Cumberland River. The dam was built across the Ohio's principal 

channel to achieve two purposes: to divert the main channel to the 

left bank of the river to facilitate steamboat traffic at Smithland, 

Kentucky (the main point of trade between the Ohio and Cumberland rivers) 

and to remove the bar that impeded navigation at the mouth of the Cumberland. Despite objections and various delays, the dam was completed in 

1834. Concurrently, Congress authorized similar improvements on the 

Cumberland River, and wing dams were completed at several points below 

Nashville by 1835. That same year, Congress appropriated $50,000 for 

the Upper Ohio, enabling Lieutenant George Dutton to remove snags and 

begin construction of a dike. The location was Brown's Island, between 

Wheeling and Pittsburgh, the first permanent structure built by the 

Army. Engineers to ease navigation on the upper section of the river. 14 

Because of constricting navigation requirements on the Upper and 

Lower Ohio, in 1835 responsibility for improving the two reaches of 

the river was divided, and Captain John Sanders was given supervision 

of projects above the Falls in 1836. 

Sanders was a brilliant, inventive engineer who developed a steam 

powered pile driver, mechanical cement mixer, and other technological 

innovations. His skills and dedication were reflected in an ambitious 

survey of the Upper Ohio that he described as "a survey of the river, 

comprising a complete hydrographical and topograhical survey, giving 

the bars, channel, and shores; ascertaining the soundings and velocity' 

of the current, and exhibiting everything necessary for the most judicious location of the dams, the formation of the best adopted proiect of 

improvements." He personally interviewed long-time rivermen to. learn 

about the stream's navigational history, and spent many weeks with his 

survey parties. The subsequent report was a major contribution to the 

• science of fluvial hydraulics, and Sanders' maps were not surpassed 

until the twentieth century. 

15 
Sanders directed snag clearance operations and the removal of 

dangerous rocks at the Falls of the Ohio. Furthermore, he planned to 

increase the minimum navigable depth to 30 inches. Dams at Brown's 

Island were followed by Structures at twelve of the worst obstructions. 

These projects increased low-water depth by building stone riprap dams 

to close secondary channels and wing dams to erode bars and constrict 

the flow to channels. Construction of the riprap dams was supplemented 

by blasting rocks and rock ledges out of the channe1. 15 

DELAYS AND FRUSTRATIONS 

Contrasting views on the constitutionality of federal waterway 

Improvements remained a source of national sectionalism and factionalism 

in the two decades prior to the Civil War. The East clashed with the 

West in seeking appropriations for public works. In addition, political 

groups such as Republicans, Free Soilers, and northern Whigs advocated . 

federal navigation improvements while Democrats and southern Whigs remained opposed. The tumultuous political climate of this era precluded. 

systematic project planning and often thwarted attempts by Army Engineers to make the rivers reliable commercial arteries. From 1841 to 

1861, continuity was impossible as different administrations adopted 

policies that made improvement of inland waterways a sporadic affair. 

The major depression following the Panic of 1837 caused the Van 

Buren administration to cease federal investments in navigational improvements. Congress made no appropriations for this purpose from July 

1838 to August 1842 and projects under development were suspended. The 

snagboat fleet was either sold at auction or withdrawn from service. 

The consequences were disastrous. From 1839 to 1842, 138 steamboats 

sank on western rivers with an estimated annual financial loss of $1 

million. 

President John Tyler approved a few waterway projects. In August .. 

1842, Congress provided funds for building and repairing snigboats and 

renewing.navigation projects - -the first of three successive annual rivers 

and harbors investments. Studies demonstrated the need for more ambitious 

Improvements along the Ohio, but due to limited funding projects were 

confined to traditional dike construction and river clearance. Work 

again stopped in 1845 when President James K. Polk, believing that • 

federal waterway projects were unconstitutional, vetoed navigation bills. 

Following his veto of a $1.5 million appropriation in 1846, one western • 

newspaper charged that every lost life, cargo, and vessel would be . 

a memorial to the President. Rivermen began referring to snags as 

"Polk stalks." 

16 
By 1850 the West was haranguing Congress to restore the river 

provement program, but no major appropriations were voted until the - 

close of Millard Fillmore's administration. The 1852 Rivers and • 

Harbors Act provided$150,000 for. dike repair and construction on :- the 

Ohio-Rivet, the construction of A newenagboat fleet, and'other Under-' • 

takings.. But the expectations of westerners weredashed by President . 

 Franklin Pierce,-' who vetoed: all bills that would have continUed the 

waterways projects. Congress Overrode five of the vetos in 1856, bit' 

none of these provided funds for the Ohio River. 16 

• 

By. 1857 navigation.improvement had Come to a,virtual halt in the 

Ohio Valley despite the continued need for safe waterwaytravel. In 

1854, the last year of snagboat operations,, some 56,000 obstructions 

were removed from western rivers. And after each river -rise new hazards . 

studded-the streams. In 1855 twenty steamboats sank in.theOhio . River; 

Steamboat trade grew during the 1850s despite the rise Of railroad. 

competition, long periods of low water that disrupted navigation, and ' 

snagLfilled rivers. In 1855, for example, 76 steamboats were based • 

in Louisville and-2,427 made landings at the Falls city. As commerce 

increased .on the inlancFrivers,.the number of accidents also rose. 

In the-decade prior to the Civil War,. about 3,000 people were:killed, ' 

or injured in accidents on'the Ohio and other western streamsJ 7. 

TRIBUTARY STREAM PROJECTS 

The-federal government made appropriations intermittently from ' 

1824 to 1852 for the improvement of Ohio River na1igation. However',:: • 

politics stood- in the way of the regular funding needed to sustain , 

 maintenance. activities and implement comprehensive improvement programs. ' 

The same factors impeded federal work on Ohio River tributaries.' Only , . 

projects on the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers received federal funding - 

before 1861, and the endeavors were primarily minor clearance and dike 

projects; • 

' 

Throughout the pre-Civil War era, internal improvement advocates 

turned to the states and private interests for support. Commerce . 

flourished-on many tributaries of the Ohio River,. but the tributaries' 

usefulness was reduced by the same hazards as existed. on the principal 

river. In. many streams, water depth e were too limited to permit the 

operation of steamboats during most of the year. Thus, minor improvements such as snag and rock retoval as well as open channel Work. were-inadequate. Ironically, the more severe conditions-on the tributaries sometimes prompted development of pioneer slackmater projects, a method that 

was eventually used to achieve year-round navigation on the Ohio. Prior' 

to 1850, various attempts were made to achieve slackwater navigation by 

17 
building systems of locks and dams. These undertakings met with a wide 

range of success. 

During the enthusiasm for internal improvements in the 1830s and 

1840s, the first slackwater systems were begun on lower portions of the 

rivers such as the Kentucky, Green, Licking, Muskingum, and Monongahela. 

By building dams across the rivers at proper intervals, an adequate depth 

for small steamboats was made available. A lock was provided at each 

dam to permit the vessels to pass up and down the stream. Touted by • 

promoters, the systems rarely provided optimum service. Insufficient 

capital, poor engineering and construction, natural disasters such as 

floods and ice, and inadequate maintenance and repair delayed their 

completion and stifled their usefulness. In addition, revenues were 

frequently inadequate to justify operations. A project on the Kentucky 

River begun in 1836 was suspended in 1842 after the completion of five 

dams that provided for navigation to Frankfort, which is 65 miles above 

the river's mouth. The slackwater system on the Muskingum completed in 

1842 from Marietta to Dresden, Ohio, showed profit for about a decade, 

but it later became a financial liability for the state. Projects on 

the Green and Barren system during the 1840s likewise experienced 

limited success. State-supported open channel projects fared little 

better.• Navigation improvements on the Kanawha River benefited flat- . 

boat, keelboat, and light steamboat traffic, but.the improvements were 

inadequate for large coal barge tows. 18 

The most successful of the early slackwater projects was on the 

lower Monongahela. Engineers and navigation companies proposed locks 

and dams as early as 1814. But river interests such as coal boatmen 

and farmers argued that dams would obstruct the river, require needless tolls, cause excessive lockage delays, and ruin the river for 

flatboat and steamboat trade. Chartered in 1837, the private 

Monongahela Navigation Company completed two dams and locks by 1841. 

Financial disaster was narrowly averted by General James Moorhead, 

who invested money in the venture when the company was near bankruptcy. . 

By 1844 the system was completed to Brownsville, 55 miles above . 

Pittsburgh, and in the next decade the project was extended by adding 

ewo additional dams. Certain economic conditions, especially the 

great expansion of coal shipments to Pittsburgh from the Lower 

Monongahela, underpinned the project's success. However, the lack of 

heavy traffic and toll revenues for the similar West Fork and 

Youghiogheny slackwater projects resulted in financial disaster for 

the dams' backers.19 

18 
LOUISVILLE AND PORTLAND CANAL 

The main barrier to navigation on the Ohio River was the Falls of 

the,Ohio, a series of rock ledges extending across the riyer at Louis:. 

ville. The first great achievement in western river improvement was 

consiruction of a canal to permit the passage of watercraft around . the. 

rapids. With a total fall of some 22 feet in 2 miles, the Falls Impeded the flow of commerce for abolit ten months of_the year. For 

many years the Falls Were the head of navigation on the Ohio River,. , 

and the growth -of Louisville was in part due to its"location near the 

natural barrier. As early as 1804 attempts were made to build a canal, 

but the companies incorporated by the state of Kentucky failed. 

In 1825, however, the Louisville and Kentucky Canal Company.was 

chartered by,the state of Kentucky with an authorized capital of $600,000. 

Citizens of several states purchased stock in the new company, but capital came piincipally from Philadelphia entrepreneurs, who hoped to 

develop a trade route to the West by building a canal over the Appalachians to Pittsburgh. When it was apparent that subscriptions would be 

inadequate, Congress was induced to subscribe for 1,000 shares. In • 

1828 when the contractor failed, Congress again bailed out the project 

by purchasing the rest of the forfeited stock. •The project ultimately 

cost $750,000 and opened to commerce in December 1830. In 1831 over 

400 steamboats and a like number of other vessels passed through the 

canal. Some 1,000 vessels used the facility in 1835 and an average 

of 1,300 used the facility every year thereafter until the Civil War. 

The tolls collected from this traffic made the canal a profitable 

venture for its investors. • 

The Louisville and Portland Canal provided the shipment of goods 

from the Upper Ohio without transferring cargoes, but it had several 

drawbacks. It was difficult to operate and maintain, and its dimensions 

were inadequate. The canal was 2 miles long and 64 feet wide and contained three locks that could accommodate vessels 183 feet long and 49 1/2 

feet wide. After a decade, the lock chambers were too small for the 

steamboats best suited far trade between the Upper Ohio and Mississippi 

rivers. . 

The facility also became a political football. The canal's owners,., 

the Kentucky legislature, and navigation interests supported federal 

ownership of the project to facilitate improvements and remove tolls. 

The people of Indiana, however, hoped for construction of a federal canal 

on their side of the river and strict constitutionalists opposed anyfederal ownership on Constitutional grounds. By 1855 the United States 

had acquired nearly all of the canal stock, but five shares remained in 

the hands of individuals on the board of directors. 20 

19 
• THE TENNESSEE RIVER 

The principal rapids on the Tennessee River, called Muscle Shoals, 

were much more formidable than the Falls of the Ohio. Located in 

northern Alabama some 150 miles above Paducah at the mouth of the Tennessee and about 400 miles below the river's head at Knoxville, the 35-milelong series of rapids had an aggregate fall of some 134 feet. 'At.low 

stages, the flow over the rapids fell to as little as .6 inches, and the 

narrow channel was strewn with rock ledges and boulders. Vpriver navigation was impossible, though flatboats and similar craft could_run the 

course during brief periods of high water. 

As long as this natural barrier seriously restricted coinierce between the upper and lower valleys, commercial development in the region 

was retarded. Army Engineers reported in an 1828 survey of the.shoals 

that goods had to be brought into the upper Tennessee overland from' 

Nashville at a cost of fifty dollars a ton. As previously mentioned; 

downstream travel was available only at brief flood stages and supplies' 

brought upriver from New Orleans were expensive due to the need for - 

trans -shipment. 

Some simple state and private improvements were - made on the Tennessee River prior to the Civil War, but only one major eifort focused on 

the rapids. In 1824 Congress authorized Alabama to improve navigation 

on the Tennessee and Coosa rivers. Subsequently, the state received 

400,000 acres of federal land to sell in order to obtain the capital 

necessary to make improvements at Muscle Shoals. A survey by Army 

'Engineers in 1828 recommended bypassing the hazard with a canal. By 

the mid-1830s the project was under construction. Some:$700,000 was 

spent on the canal, but the funds were wasted. Less than . half of ale' . . 

canal was built and even this portion was rendered useless by an 

1841 flood that cut several breaches in the banks. Even ificompleted, 

the canal's value would have been limited because the locks, which de- - 

parted from Army Engineer recommendations, would accommodate only the 

smallest steamboats. The project lay virtually dormant until the federal 

government assumed control of the undertaking in the 1870s. 21 

NEW WATERWAY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 

, By 1860 western commerce had grown in volume and complexity to the 

point where seasonal interruptions to navigation were a major concern. 

The onset of a series of low-water years in the 1850s caused severe 

losses to merchants and steamboat owners and, consequently, gave rise to 

20 
serious consideration of more ambitious river improvements. The failure of the fall rises to occur in 1854 and 1856 set in motion various 

schemes to obtain year-round navigation. But the" Democratic hold on Congress ruled out programs of extensive river improvements and such efforts 

exceeded the capabilities of states. The Civil War further diverted •

attention, but in the more favorable climate of the postwar years 

"radical" improvements of the Ohio River once again became a major 

topic of discussion and controversy in the commercial centers of the 

Ohio Valley. 

Despite the political imbroglios that undermined systematic river 

improvements, many engineers were advancing theories and proposals for 

ambitious riverine programs. These inquiries and speculations set the 

stage for engineering controversies that continued into the twentieth 

century. Three plans received the most attention. 

The first was put forth by Charles Ellet, Jr., a brilliant young 

engineer who based his calculations on stream measurements taken at 

Wheeling in 1848 while he was engaged in construction of a suspension 

bridge.. Ellet concluded that there was an ample water supply to maintain year-round navigation on the Ohio River. The solution was to 

build six large dams on Ohio River tributaries to store floodwaters 

that could be released to balance fluctuations'. The cost of building 

reservoirs adequate to maintain a minimum channel depth of 6 feet was 

estimated at $12 million, with $15,000 for annual operating expenses. 

Ellet published his reservoir,idea tn engineering journals during 

- 1849, and he launched a campaign to obtain funding from Congress for 

studies and an experimental reservoir project. 

William Milnor Roberts, principal engineer of the slackwater Monongahela 

River project, was the chief critic of the reservoir plan. He stressed 

the engineering problems of building large storage dams, challenged 

Ellet's calculations, and pointed out that the reservoirs would inundate 

towns, highways, and canals. Roberts stated that canalizing the Ohio 

with locks and dams would be more effective and easier fo accomplish 

than the Ellet reservoir plan, noting that slackwater systems were already in operation on several Ohio River tributaries. But Roberts' 

critics argued that his system would injure flatboat commerce, create 

ice formations, increase the severity of floods, and delay trips by 

requiring time-consuming lockages. Interests on the Lower Ohio contended that destruction of natural navigation during ten months of the 

year was not worth providing uninterrupted travel during the remaining 

two months. 

21 
Increasing discontent with federal inaction led in 1855 to a 

third proposal for improvement of Ohio River navigation. Herman 

Haupt's plan called for some one hundred low dams and other works to 

create a 200-foot-wide canal down one side of the Ohio River. This 

elaborate and expensive undertaking found little support among engineers and rivermen and was rejected by a Senate committee. 22 

SUMMARY 

Prior to the Civil War, navigation improvement efforts were 

directed toward the elimination of obstructions such as rapids, rocks, 

snags, and bars. The ultimate goal was creating an open channel by 

removing or cutting through these obstructions or bypassing them with 

canals. With the increasing scale and complexity of western commerce, 

dissatisfaction with limited relief measures mounted and river improvement came to take on a broader meaning. Engineers and rivermen began 

to think in terms of not merely a channel cleared of obstructions but 

one filled with a year-round navigable depth of water. The seasonal 

limits on river transportation increasingly irked commercial interests. 

Piecemeal improvement strategies gave way to ambitious schemes for 

maintaining navigation by building elaborate slackwater systems of 

locks and dams and even storing floods in huge reservoirs on the 

headwaters. 

22 
Chapter III 

THE QUEST FOR SLACKWATER, 1861-1929 

POST-CIVIL WAR RIVER COMMERCE 

When river improvements resumed after the Civil War, it was evident 

that the conditions and needs of Ohio River transportation had changed 

radically. As railroads began to extend their networks beyond the Appalachians, the dependence on rivers steadily declined. Furthermore, the 

character of the river traffic was beginning to change, creating new 

navigational requirements. This new era in Ohio Valley commerce was 

largely spawned by the coal trade. By the 1870s, coal was no longer 

being shipped in coal boats, but by large aggregates of barges, sometimes 150 feet wide and hundreds of feet long pushed by steam towboats. 

Prior to the Civil War, steamboat operators experimented with 

attaching auxiliary craft ahead of and at the sides of the vessels. 

Reportedly, 2.5 million bushels of coal was moved down river in coalboats in 1844--and by 1866 ninety steamboats were carrying 40 million 

bushels of coal down the Ohio annually. During one week in 1866, 

seven steamboats arrived at New Orleans from the Ohio Valley with 

fifty-eight barges that contained 45,000 tons of coal. Since the 

tows drew from 6 to 8 feet of water, the periods available for using 

this method were of short duration. The prospect of frequent longterm disruptions of industrial and urban fuel supplies increased the 

conviction of riverine business interests that the "seasonal curse 

must be removed from river transportation." 

RESUMPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 

In 1866 William Minor Roberts was appointed to oversee improvements 

and surveys on the Ohio River authorized by the 1866 Rivers and Harbors 

Act. The farsighted engineer was sensitive to the requirements of the 

burgeoning coal trade and continued to advocate his "radical" plan for 

a slackwater, lock and dam canalization project for the Ohio River. In 

1867 two survey parties began a comprehensive survey of the river starting at a point 271 miles below Pittsburgh (where the Sanders survey of 

1844 ended). Completed despite great hardship in 1869, the surveys 

offered indispensable engineering and hydrological data later used to 

plan navigation improvements. 2 

23 
While the survey progressed, Roberts began removing snags and 

other obstructions from the channel and constructing dikes at various 

points to enhance low-stage navigation. In 1870 he resigned to become 

chief construction engineer for the famous Eads Bridge at St. Louis. 

Prior to departing he conducted an analysis of the river's commerce 

and hydrology and proposed a canalization project that would provide 

for year-round navigation. 

The commercial and military waterborne traffic generated by the. 

Civil War helped to kindle increased concern and interest in waterway 

improvements. In addition, navigation proponents found a more receptive 

hearing in Congress. The conflict had put to rest states' rights interests, and the dominant Republican Party was strongly committed to 

federal public works programs. Thus, the constitutionality of waterway 

projects was neither opposed by the Congress nor the presidency. The 

1866 Rivers and Harbors Act charged the Chief of Engineers to examine 

all riverine projects and to plan for additional undertakings. The 

act also appropriated $550,000 to build a new fleet of snagboats, to 

renew channel clearance operations on the Ohio and other major rivers, 

as well as to reestablish the moribund Office of Western River Improvements. Richard Delafield, Chief of Engineers, after a quick review of 

prewar projects reported that the abandonment of these projects in the 

1850s eroded their benefits. 3 

After Roberts' resignation, Colonel William E. Merrill assumed 

responsibility for most Ohio River projects. Merrill, who directed improvements on the Ohio River for over twenty years, moved the Army Engineer's office from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati to locate the improvement 

activities more centrally. He stepped up operations on the lower river 

and contracted for dam repairs and the removal of boulders and other 

obstructions. The engineer was able to convince Congress that contract 

snag and dredging operations were unsatisfactory, and he gained approval 

for a new government fleet. Under Merrill's leadership, contracts were 

let for iron-hulled river watercraft, which were much more durable 

than their wooden predecessors. The snagboat E.A. Woodruff was in service by 1875.. and operated on the Ohio until 1925. Merrill put two 

steam dredges into operation in the early 1870s that significantly 

reduced the cost of dredging work. 4 

Merrill also launched a campaign for the installation of beacons 

and buoys to mark river channels. Until 1874 river navigators relied 

on the positions of trees, bluffs, and other landmarks to guide them 

in channel. Due to recommendations by Merrill and the efforts of rivermen, Congress in 1874 extended the jurisdiction of the Lighthouse Board 

to inland rivers. Some 150 beacons and buoys were placed in the Ohio 

in 1875, and 503 signal lights and daymarkers were in service by 1920. 

'24 
The U.S. Coast Guard assumed control of these aids to navigation in 

World War 11. 5 

ORIGINS OF SLACKWATER MOVEMENT 

After the Civil War, Army Engineers continued the open channel 

improvements of the prewar era. This work no doubt benefited river 

traffic, but its effects were seldom permanent and in few instances 

significantly aided deeper draft barge tows. New snags filled the 

rivers after each high stage, and increased depths created by dikes 

at specific shoals were often offset by reduced water levels at downstream bars where the scoured sand and gravel settled. 

In 1870 Roberts concluded that the existing navigation facilities on the Ohio River, while "productive of public benefit more 

than commensurate with the outlay required," were no better than an 

"amelioration of the present difficulty." He proposed instead to 

canalize the river by means of sixty-six locks and dams that would 

offer 6-foot slackwater navigation from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Illinois. 

Estimated at a cost of $23.8 million, the project would include 370-

by-8O-foot locks and a 300-foot-wide chute through the dams. Appeals 

from Ohio Valley states and commercial, interests led to the appointment of Merrill and General Godfrey Weitzel to a special Board of Inquiry to report on canalization of the Ohio. 

Merrill decided that locks and dams were the best solution. Slackwater strategies had worked on the Monongahela and many other streams, 

and in 1872 the engineer recommended building a slackwater system that 

would extend downstream from Pittsburgh. 6 

Ironically, the plan received a hostile response from the very 

groups it was designed to benefit. Coal shippers and towboatmen feared 

that dams would obstruct channels and require time-consuming tow breakages at locks. Critics also charged that the scheme would increase 

flood heights, create stagnant slackwater pools, and ultimately cause 

the siltation of river channels. In Pittsburgh rivermen organized a 

torchlight parade to protest Merrill's plan. 7 

DAVIS ISLAND DAM 

To placate opponents, Merrill began investigating movable dams 

that could be raised to increase depths during shallow periods and 

25 
lowered at 'high water to pass tows through without locking. He sent 

his deputy, Lieutenant Frederick A. Mahan, to Europe to study such 

structures on French rivers and began experiments and model studies 

of movable dams and chutes proposed. by Americans. 

Eventually, Merrill and other officers recommended the adoption of 

the Chanoine wicket, invented by the Frenchman Jacques Chanoine in 1852. 

The ingenious device consisted of a large number of wickets (resembling 

large folding boards) hinged to a concrete foundation on the bottom of 

the river. Each wicket was about'3 1/2 feet wide and 13 feet long. In 

its raised position, the wicket was supported by a heavy iron pole extending downstream. When the river rose high enough to provide for 

natural navigation, the prop was removed and the wickets would lie, flat 

on the river bottom. When the river fell again a crew of men on a 

special maneuver boat attached a grapple to the wickets to raise them. 8 

In 1874 Merrill recommended that a series of movable dams, using 

the Chanoine wickets, be adopted for canalization of the Ohio. He 

viewed this option as meeting the needs of the coal interests for 

open-channel navigation while at the same time providing a series of 

navigation pools during low stages. To accommodate the large tows, 

he developed plans for 110-by-600-foot locks that included an innovative 

rolling lock gate. 

Merrill proposed to build the first experimental movable dam and 

lock at Davis Island to provide a better harbor for 5 miles below 

Pittsburgh, located 5 miles farther upstream. Critics continued to' 

howl, but the project obtained support from the Ohio River Commission 

as well as the Grange, an organization of farmers that sought cheaper 

transportation by enhancing the position of waterways in competing 

with railroads. 9 

In 1873 and 1874, the Senate Committee on Transportation Routes 

(the Windom Committee) held hearings on Ohio canalization. It concluded that waterways remained "the cheapest line of transport" and recommended the "improvement of the Ohio River in such a manner as to secure 

from Pittsburgh to Cairo a depth of 6 feet of water at all seasons...." 

In 1875 Congress appropriated $100,000 for land acquisition and 

initial construction of the project at Davis Island. However, construction was delayed because the Pennsylvania legislature had to grant 

the federal government jurisdiction over riparian land. Coal interests 

lobbied against the transfer, but the appropriate special legislation 

was finally enacted in 1877. The work began in 1878 but Wras not completed until 1885 because of intermittent funding and the project's 

26 . 
experimental character. Careful records were kept to create a fund of 

information for later projects. 

When completed, the 1,223-foot dam--containing 305 wickets--was 

the longest in the world. The project's 110-by-600-foot lock was also 

unexceeded. Merrill fortunately suggested deferring the building of 

additional locks and dams until experience was gained in operating the 

prototype. Problems were, in fact, identified and corrected in 

future projects. However, the general success of the Davis Island project put the critics to rest. The increased depth of the Pittsburgh 

harbor proved a great asset. The large pool facilitated the assembling 

of large tows and in 1888 protected the fleet in the harbor from a 

serious flood. 10 

THE 6-FOOT PROJECT 

Largely due to the success of the Davis Island project, in 1888 

Congress authorized a study of an extension of the 6-foot minimum 

depth down the Upper Ohio. The board recommended building a series of 

dams and locks to create a 6-foot depth from Davis Island to just below the mouth of the Beaver River. Lock and Dam No. 6, named Merrill 

Dam in honor of the great engineer, was built next. The first appropriations were made in 1890, but meager annual funding delayed the dam's 

completion until 1906. The first appropriations for Nos. 2 through 5 

were not made until 1896. 

The high cost of these facilities--about $1 million for each combined locks and dam--delayed extension of the slackwater system down the 

Ohio. To prompt Congress to more favorable action, rivermen and shippers created the Ohio Valley Improvement Association (OVIA) in 1895. 

The organization sponsored river trips by members of Congress, giving 

them a firsthand look at navigation conditions as well as commerce and 

industry in the Ohio Valley. Army Engineers completed a survey of the 

river from the mouth of the Beaver River to Marietta in 1898 and recommended construction of twelve more locks and dams (Nos. 7 to 18) that 

were authorized in 1899. The strategy was altered and the decision made 

initially to build the structures below major river ports and at the 

mouths of large streams, rather than to continue seriatim. The survey 

was extended to Cincinnati in 1900, and in 1901 the building of twenty 

additional locks and dams (Nos. 19 to 38) below the mouth of the Muskingum was recommended. Thus, by the turn of the century, the Davis Island 

project was completed, Nos. 2 to 6 were in progress, and thirty-two 

more were authorized to create 6-foot navigational depth downriver to 

27 
Cincinnati. In 1902 Congress approved canalization to the Indiana 

state line. 11 

THE LOCKWOOD BOARD 

By the early 1900s, members of the .OVIA and other groups were 

pointing out that large barge tows often drew more than 6 feet of water. 

They asked Congress to consider creating 9-foot minimum depths. In 1905 

Congress authorized an analysis of the feasibility of extending the 

slackwater system to the mouth of the Ohio. A special board of engineers called the Lodkwood Board after its senior member--Colonel Daniel 

W. Lockwood--conducted the study. The board confirmed that the steamboat packet trade was dying out, but some 9 million tons of bulk commodities, mainly coal from the Monongahela and Kanawha valleys, were 

annually sent downriver. After an economic evaluation, the board estimated completion of a 6-foot project from Pittsburgh to Cairo would 

cost about $51 million, while the more ambitious 9-foot alternative 

would require construction of fifty-four dams at a cost of $63 million. 

The board argued, however, that the latter alternative would greatly 

extend economic benefits by encouraging the development of large bulk 

traffic volumes. 

In reviewing the proposal, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and 

Harbors (created in 1902 to independently review projects and eliminate 

"pork") observed that, although the scale of the undertaking was unprecedented, the project was worthwhile. In the progressive climate created by the studies of the Inland Waterways Commission, created in 

1907, support for the huge effort grew. Skeptics suggested it was 

foolhardy to canalize . a river on which commerce was declining and to 

spend money based on projected future economic activity. But with the 

support of individuals such as President William H. Taft and Ohio Congressman Theodore E. Burton, in 1910 Congress approved construction of 

all fifty-four locks and dams required to provide 9-foot navigation the 

length of the Ohio. the bill called for completion of the $66 million 

project by 1922, butt mere $1 million was appropriated for the first 

year. 12 

OHIO RIVER COMMERCE 

As the Ohio River Canalization Project was being built, the waterborne commerce it intended to serve continued to decline. In 1917 cargoes carried on the river reached an all time low of some 4.6 million 

v. 

28 
tons. This nadir of commercial activity was caused largely by the 

abrupt halt of coal shipments from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. The 

Monongahela River Consolidated Coal and Coke Company, a combine of 

vitually every coal shipper in the Pittsburgh area, ceased downstream 

operations due to the steel industry's demand for coal in the Upper 

Ohio Valley. In addition, losses of towboats and barges on the unimproved Lower Ohio and Mississippi rivers, as well as competition from 

Alabama coal and Oklahoma oil in the New Orleans market, reinforced 

this decision. This major decline in coal traffic reduced the total 

waterborne commerce on the Ohio by some 50 percent. 13 

Critics began to question the economic justifications for the 

canalization project, but World War I added impetus for its completion. Wartime shipping demands overburdened the transportation 

system and the federal government assumed control of both the rail -

roads and waterway traffic. This experience increased support for 

waterway improvements and after 1922 Congress made substantial appropriations for the Ohio River Canalization Project. River transportation 

grew in volume as the pace of construction increased. By 1930 the 

annual volume had increased to 22.3 million tons--more than double 

the 1920 total. Much of this rise in volume was largely due to the 

growing trade in steel and petroleum products. 14 

From 1920 to 1930 the navigation industry began to make changes 

in equipment in anticipation of the project's completion. Tows were 

becoming larger--and increasing numbers of boats and barges with 

loaded drafts of from 7 to 9 feet were put in operation. More powerful vessels with screw propellers were beginning to replace the stern 

paddle steamboats that had for so long characterized the inland river 

packet and freight trade. For example, in 1925 no trips were made by 

towboats with drafts of from 7 to 9 feet, but 884 were made by these 

larger craft in 1929. 15 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CANALIZATION PROJECT 

By 1926 the 9-foot slackwater system had been completed as far 

as Cincinnati. Construction was pushed forward rapidly downstream to 

meet the goal of finishing the project by 1929. Completed at a cost 

of $125 million, the Ohio River Canalization Project was designed much 

as Colonel Merrill had proposed in 1875. The number of structures was 

reduced from fifty-four to fifty as the undertaking proceeded. Lock 

and Dam No. 53 was opened on August 27, 1929, and the OVIA staged a 

dedication cruise from Pittsburgh to Cairo in October to celebrate the 

birth of a new era in Ohio River commerce. President Herbert Hoover 

29 
joined the cruise at Cincinnati and in a subsequent speech at Louisville 

prophetically stated: "While I am proud to be the President who witnesses the apparent completion of its improvement, I have the belief that 

some day new inventions and new pressures of population will require its 

further development." 16 

The location of each dam was based primarily on the suitability of 

the site from a navigation standpoint as well as considerations such as 

the character of the foundations and banks and the width and depth of 

the river. After 1910 an attempt was made to build the structures in 

the following order: first, in the upper reach where the slope was 

greatest and where they would serve as an extension of the canalized 

Monongahela River, and second, below large cities to create harbors so 

as to encourage terminal construction by private interests. The third 

priority was construction of alternate dams to aid low-water traffic as 

much as possible while the. remaining .dams were being built. 1 7 

All locks and dams built above Louisville had rock or compacted 

gravel foundations, but downriver from No. 31 the locks and dams usually rested on 30- to 40-foot-long wooden piles with interlocking wooden 

and steel piles on the upstream face. Only one dam failed due to foundation problems. The navigable pass at No. 26 had to be rebuilt when 

the foundation shale slipped downstream. 

Each structure of the Ohio River Canalization Project was unique 

in some respects, but the typical facility had a 110-by'.00-foot lock 

chamber with concrete land- and riverwalls. Adjacent to the lock was a 

navigable pass section from 600 to 1,200 feet long that featured the 

movable Chanoine wickets. Originally the lift of the dams did not exceed 8 feet, requiring Chanoine wickets about 16 feet long. Later, 

wickets as much as 20 feet long were used to provide lift of 12 feet. 

Next to the wickets were three piers that supported two 91-foot beartrap weirs, and next to the beartraps was a long Chanoine weir section 

to close the river from the beartraps to the dam abutment on the bank 

opposite the lock. 

The first two locks were constructed of expensive cutstone masoniy 

but later structures were built of portland cement concrete. The locks' 

inner walls were initially faced with timber to reduce damage from the 

movement Of barges through the facility. But with the gradual adoption 

of steel barges after 1910, lock wall faces were protected against 

abrasion by horizontal lines of steel fenders embedded in the concrete. 

• Locks constructed prior to 1916 had rolling gates. Although they worked 

well on the Upper Ohio, downstream deposits of mud and sand caused serious operation and maintenance problems. Mitering gates were first 

adopted in 1914. The gates:opened and closed with a'single stroke by pistons 

30 
in hydraulic oil cylinders. The locks, with few exceptions, were filled 

and emptied through openings in the riverwall. 

At first, power for operating the gates and valves was obtained from 

coal-burning steam plants or natural gas engines. Lock and dam structures built after 1914 included water turbines that provided the primary 

source of power for operations. At Louisville the original navigation 

dam was replaced by a power-navigation dam that rendered the construction 

of one of the original dams unnecessary. This was the only point on the 

river where the commercial development of power was deemed feasible. 

Construction of the new dam and powerhouse on the Falls began in 1925 

and was completed in 1927. 

The movable dams on the upper part of the river were only partially 

successful. The steep slope and variable flow of the river required 

frequent manipulation of the dams, making it extremely difficult to 

maintain a constant depth of 9-feet. In 1917 Congress approved construction of Emsworth Locks and Dam, which replaced Nos. 1 and 2. It was the 

first fixed dam with double locks built on the Ohio. The structure included two locks, one with the standard 110-by-600-foot Ohio River dimensions and the other, 56 by 360 feet. Double locks allowed repairs 

without stopping navigation, permitted two simultaneous lockages, and, when 

necessary, conserved water during low stages through use of the smaller lock. 

Completed at a cost of $3 million, the Emworth Locks and Dam were placed 

in service in September 1921, thirty-six years after completion of the 

Davis Island Dam, which it replaced. 18 

IMPROVEMENTS ON THE TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND 

In 1868 the federal government turned its attention to the Tennessee River after a sixteen-year lapse. For the first time, plans were 

developed to improve the entire length of the river. The Army Engineers 

divided the stream into three sections that had contrasting navigation 

characteristics: Knoxville to Chattanooga, Chattanooga to Riverton, 

Alabama, and Riverton to the mouth. 

Little attention was given to the upper portion of the river. 

Open-channel improvements were made sporadically but depths even during 

the high-water season averaged no more than 3 feet. In 1912 a low dam 

was authorized upstream from Chattanooga, but Congress failed to provide 

funds for this and other low-lift lock and dam schemes. Until the 1930s, 

the Upper Tennessee was an undeveloped waterway that offered no inducements for modern barge traffic.19 

31 
The middle section of the Tennessee, a distance of 237 miles, received the greatest federal investment prior to the creation of the 

Tennessee Valley Authority. This reach of the river contained the 

treacherous Muscle Shoals and similar hazards at Colbert and Bee Tree 

that effectively blocked navigation. In 1875, some forty-five years 

after the state-built Muscle Shoals Canal was abandoned, the Army Engineers began construction of a new bypass canal. Work proceeded slowly 

and the canal took fifteen years to build. Vexing delays were caused by 

insufficient congressional appropriations, flooding, disease, and problems with contractors. In 1890 . a lateral canal was also authorized 

around the Colbert and Bee Tree shoals, but this project experienced 

similar delays and was not completed until 1911. The canals contributed 

to the revival of trade and industry, but were clearly not the answer 

to reliable navigation on the Tennessee. They were abandoned as modern 

engineering made possible the construction of multiple-purpose high 

dams that raised the water level well above natural obstructions. 

In the early 1900s, private interests seeking to develop hydroelectric power in the Chattanooga area joined with the Army Engineers 

to build the first multiple-purpose dam on the river. From 1905 to 

1913, a power dam and navigation lock were constructed at Hales Bar, 33 

miles downstream from Chattanooga. The construction created 6-foot 

slackwater navigation from the dam to the Tennessee city. In exchange 

for building the dam (the federal government paid for the lock apparatus) 

the company received the right to produce and market power at the site 

for ninety-nine years. The dam eliminated the "Suck," a treacherous 

series of rapids that had seriously impeded navigation near Chattanooga. 

The 1916 Rivers and Harbors Act authorized two additional dams and 

locks to improve navigation in the middle reach of the Tennessee River. 

The first, Widow's Bar, some 23 miles downstream from Hales Bar Dam, was 

built from 1920 to 1925. A second, planned for 17 miles below Widow's 

Bar, was not built. because Congress refused to appropriate funds. Between 1916 and 1927 the Muscle Shoals and nearby obstructions were,e1Wnated by the massive Wilson Dam and a lower dam constructed a.few miles 

downstream. The main dam was the world's largest concrete structure 

and annually produced power equivalent to burning a half million tons of • 

coal. 

Federal improvements on the lower portion of the river were less 

costly and complex. The 225-mile reach of the Tennessee from Riverton, 

Alabama, to Paducah, Kentucky, was the scene of open-channel work. and 

annual maintenance. Five Rivers and Harbors Acts from 1868 to 1912 contained provisions for dredging and removing obstructions in the lower 

river. By 1930 a dependable 4 1/2 foot depth had been achieved from 

Riverton to the Tennessee's confluence with the Ohio. 

32 
- 

r. 

In the final analysis, fedetal efforts to develop the Tennessee 

for navigation prior to 1930 were only partially successful. Progress 

was slow and sometimes wasteful and year-round navigation was impossible 

except at peak stages. Even under ideal conditions, navigable depths 

varied from 3 feet between Knoxville and Chattanooga to •6 feet for the 

remainder of the river: In 1930 the Corps of Engineers admitted that 

"the money which is being expended does not accomplish any material good 

toward furthering water transportation."20 

Engineers on the Cumberland River were eager to facilitate yearround navigation by construction of locks and dams. Various surveys 

and plans were made during the'1880s, but the projects were delayed 

when the state of Kentucky chartered a stillborn company to build locks 

and dams on the Upper Cumberland. Canalization of the Upper Cumberland 

above Nashville began in 1888. Work was extended to the lower river 

by Congress in 1892. With one exception the six dams built below Nashville and the eight above were timber-crib, stone filled structures. 

The initial locks were built of masonry stone but concrete was used for 

the later structures. The last of the series of'locks and dams was completed in 1924. With the opening of Lock and Darn No. 52 on the Ohio 

River project a 6-foot depth was assured. 

TRIBUTARY AND PORK BARREL PROJECTS 

The late nineteenth century was the era of "pork barrel" projects 

as Congress spent federal funds on many tributary projects of doubtful 

value. In 1882, for example, Congress funded eighteen projects on which 

the Corps of Engineers made unfavorable reports and sixteen projects on 

wat erways never surveyed by the Corps. States petitioned Congress 

to assume their deteriorating projects and construction occurred on streams 

where waterborne commerce had seriously declined. Moderate successes 

were obtained on the Green, Kentucky, Kanawha, Tradewater, and a few 

other rivers, but these were the exception rather than the rule. The 

following are but two examples of these dubious ventures .. 21 

In the late 1870s, Congress was asked to assume responsibility for 

the rapidly decaying locks and dams on the Muskingum River completed 

by the state of Ohio before 1842 and managed by a private corporation 

after 1861. In 1880 the Corps of Engineers began building a new lock 

in Marietta, but inadequate appropriations delayed its completion 

until 1891. Even then the facility was little used. In 1887 the federal 

government took control of the entire decadent Muskingum system, and 

the Army Engineers subsequently took measures to repair the crumbling 

dams and locks. In 1892 the Muskingum for the first time was kept open 

33 
to navigation, but the'limited traffic probably did not justify the 

effort. By the'turn of the century, Congress was being asked to rebuild 

Lock and Dam No. '11 between the Ohio ports of Zanesville and Dresden to 

assist the shipment of coal from the Upper Muskingum to Cleveland via 

the Ohio and the Erie Canal. The project was approved in 1905 with the 

condition that Ohio would repair the canal. Construction finished in 

1910 but little traffic developed. In addition the funds spent by 

Ohio were wasted when a record flood ruined the canal in 1913. 22 

In 1890 Congress authorized a project to reestablish waterborne 

commerce on the Rough River. Trees were removed from banks, snags 

cleared from the Ohannel, and a new lock and dam were built. The 

structure, completed in 1896 at a cost of $85,000, included a number 

of engineering innovations—it was the first built of concrete. But 

except for its precedent -setting construction, it was 'a signal failure 

as no extensive traffic developed on the Roughiliver. 23After the 

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors 'was created in 1902, it disapproved 70 percent of the proposed waterway projects it studied. 

Thereafter funds spent on streams like the Guyandotte and Gauley rivers, 

and other smaller streams, were funneled into the accelerated'program 

on rivers such as the Ohio. But political and commercial pressures 

combined to win support for projects on the Little Kanawha, Big Sandy, 

and other tributaries long after their roles as commercial arteries had 

ended. 

SUMMARY 

After the Civil War, Army Engineers made advances 'in open-channel 

river 'improvements. However, these methods did not offer the optimum, 

goal--year-round navigation. Under the leadership of Colonel Merrill, 

the . Corps'initiated slackwater, lock and movable dam projects that were 

eventually adopted as the best means of canalizing the Ohio River - from 

Pittsburgh to Cairo. As the steamboat packet business died out and was 

replaced by deep-draft barge' tows, Congress sought to encourage the 

expansion of waterborne commerce by authorizing the 9-foot Ohio River 

Canalization Project.. Its completion in 1929 signaled the beginning of 

a new era,of riverine transportation on the Ohio as Well as on its 

major tributaries. 

•. 

34 
Chapter IV 

THE WATERWAY RENAISSANCE, 1930-1981 . 

EXPANSION OF COMMERCE ON THE OHIO RIVER 

The completion .of the Ohio River Canalization project helped to 

stimulate a renaissance in waterborne commerce even though the system's 

influence was set back somewhat by the depression. The 22.5 million 

tons shipped in 1930 fell slightly in 1931 and 1932 but grew every, . 

year thereafter and reached 36.5 million tons in 1941.. The average 

distance of tows on the Ohio increased from 55.6 miles in 1926 to 142, 

miles in 1944 indicating that the local character of Ohio.River trade 

was changing. Coal traffic remained the principal source of commerce.. 

However, by 1941 petroleum as well as iron and steel were becoming a 

signifiCant part of the river's volume. By the outbreak of World War II 

the Ohio River 9-foot project was clearly, a,success, stimulating new 

traffic and greater total tonnage, contributing to the economic and 

industrial growth of the region, and far exceeding the expectations of 

the Lockwood Board.' 

The waterway was of great value to the nation during World War II. 

The Ohio and other inland rivers reduced the load on the railway system; 

transported bulky commodities such as steel, petroleum, and chemicals; 

and provided for the safe flow of strategic materials as coastal shipping became vulnerable to submarine attacks. Inland streams also allowed 

wider distribution of wartime industries. Because coastal shipyards were 

working at capacity, 4,031 small vessels and landing craft were built 

on inland rivers and floated to the Gulf of Mexico. Some 1,000 of these 

vessels were constructed in the Ohio Valley. Approximately 38 million 

tons of commodities, mostly destined for the war effort, travelled the 

Ohio in 1942, the peak year of wartime commerce. Volume fell to 33 million tons in 1945 but increased to 62 million in 1953--twice the amount 

handled by the Panama Canal. 

From 1946 to 1953, approximately 2,500 new industries located in 

the Ohio Valley, and $5.5 billion was spent to create or expand industries set on or near the navigable streams of the Ohio River 

system. The market for coal grew as steam electric plants were rapidly 

built. By the mid-1950s, 30 million tons of the fuel were helping to 

produce some 12 million kilowatts .ofelectric power annually. The advent of 9-foot slackWater on the Tennessee and Ohio rivers promoted coal 

production in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. Furthermore, 

35 
I ev elan 

T 

LOCkP°" 

~,n Rd i 

rdarSei' P111f0 on sP115101 .1 

i Peor

Dresden Wald 

seamed Rock 

la eV 1 

P:1 * • dojo 64 .1 . 

\V". 

Markland 

Fr .111 

‘4";:intiton 

°wens/20,1k E N Ul 

• ■••••• 

.—• 

—• 

Inston'Sa 

--•-----.‘• 

• ..—•-- 

vg let". 

/ 

sown" /.:• 

Fori / 

Laudeka. 

Chicago ALLEGH NY RIVER 

C nica00 calumet t4ertor T. J. Ogrie" 

■ ana HST 00, 01101 

str.090 

cm,doll; 

O H 

K A 

r

Fo„.

S

„Ikoniski..; 3\ 1

......4 • 'Q WillOW I R"— 

ES w -r 

w.fiod., .w HA R. 

1 V A Pi ,fl .. 

VA 

Yol 

Fenithland - riligocnester 

Dark* 

lc 

rttn Can° 

/". 

r PA 

icc 

z cc

• e Lv • -0 oarpoof.,, z 

4001'17: 

Y;witi 

Had, ri 

\ 

Oi 

64Cfc; 

1S7J 

fl madpine 

Evang:buigh 

—Th..""eru cA, Dreeznotr:Nef loni maAi rmeggifr.isooestonme, . 

. 

 'k 

\. V 1 

Lono", I N 

e 

1 A i 

N.. $ 

1 '? ..... 

,,,,.... 

/ --,..."`-'- 

.1 

.—.1 

Erngusedl 

D OCINiester 

E. 

4,Znon . Cumb

1 0 Pike IskIld 

.4 . __. -1;07, • ---d a i 1 i i 

6.06 R;:Cheal o ivER 

N co msttori "I" dell Hull ....„ 

Gunton 

1 11411311ville Old HierYs EE 

)T E N N E WattsD r La 

l 

IL 

F011 • 

aYne 

R 3

• IUtdUafl aPOh U 

NOW 

Amens 

piskaskia Mt. women. 

Uniontown, 

0 100 

0 100 200 

OHIO RIVER SYSTEM 

ZOO NULLS 

300 NILO EEEEE S 
- Nt:one,Attp-t-41,:it ; 

1 .7 

• 

4.; 

the dependable water supplies and savings derived from transporting ' 

petroleum, coal, sulfur, and crude ores on the rivers caused an expansion of the chemical industry. The Kanawha Valley exhibited a 

steady growth of industrial development due to unprecedented demands 

for industrial chemicals. The region profited from the improved waterways and its proximity to oil and natural gas supplies as well as from raw 

materials such as brines, clay, and limestone. 3 

By the early 1950s, Ohio Basin traffic was being handled by the 

construction of combined river-rail-truck terminals that afforded 

trans-shipment of coal and coke, oil and gasoline, iron and steel, sand 

and gravel, chemicals and automobiles. In 1953 a multimillion dollar 

terminal went into operation at Louisville. One of the nation's 

largest terminals was Completed near Pittsburgh with a river 'frontage 

of 1/2 mile. Hundreds' of facilities have been built throughout the 

Ohio Basin. Most are privately owned, but the growth of barge transportation spurred interest in public terminals. States,, couniIes, 

municipalities, and port districts have recognized the economic benefits 

that result from publicly owned facilities. Newer facilities are highly 

mechanized installations that permit fast unloading and reduce turnaround 

time. They include various sizes of cranes; fork trucks, conveyors, power 

mules, and clam shells; and hoppers for bulk commodities. Most 

ports along inland waterways also have access to railroads and highways. 

This access permits direct freight interchanges between barges, trucks 

and railcars. 4 

THE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 

After 1929 the tonnage on the Ohio actually doubled at about elevenyear intervals. By the 1950s the low-lift navigable dams and 600-footlong lock chambers had become obsolete. In some respects,'they were 

an impediment tO the navigation they were designed to facilitate because tows had to be-broken, locked through, and reassembled. Serious 

deterioration had taken place and costs for maintenance and rehabilitation were rising rapidly. In summary, a system designed to handle 

13 million tons of commerce annually was straining under a volume five 

times greater. 5 

After 1929 and prior to modernization, three additiOnal navigation 

structures were built on the Ohio River. They were the auxiliary - 

56-by-360-foot lock at No. 41 at Louisville, plus Montgomery Locks and 

Dam and Gallipolis Locks and Dam. By. World War II the Ohio slackwater, 

navigation system included forty-six projects--forty-one with movable 

wickets and locks and five nonnavigable dams with locks. Two of the latter-- 

37 
UNIONTOWN 

MONTGOMERY ISLAND 

PA OH IN 

LAWRENCEBURG 

MARK LAND 

NEWBURGH MeALRINE 

OHIO RIVER 

NEW cumBERLAND 

STEUBENVILLE 

PIKE ISLAND 

-- 

MARIETTA HANNIBAL 

• / 

DASHIELOS 

EMSWORTH 

P PITTSBURGH 

MONONGAHELA RIVER 

if'WILLOW ISLAND. 

CAPT. ANTHONY 

ELDAHL 

rs BELLEvILLE 

/L. RACINE 

7"-- MAYSVILLE GREENU;\...-/ 

GALLIPOLIS w v 

• 

HUNTINGTON 

CANNELTON 

SMITHLAND 

ts 

LOCK 52, 

PADUCAH 

MISSISSIPPI RIva 

KY 

• 

10 

IL 

PROFILE OF OHIO RIVER NAVIGATION POOLS 

• o . 

o 1 • • 0e o 

ii z V= 

1 11..ro 

01 in ;:a s 

• - 

4b. VII.. 

2 0 Cr 

Cg IAJ...10 

ta 21,4" 

• X1 CD 0 =vs 

. 0 Z 20 vi z 

' 2 SI 7 I■ cc w 

..., ... aC! Li .1. 2 0 POOL ELEVATION: _, . • 

' 4 

VI ' • — . .. , z FEET ABOVE.SEA LEVEL .: su :s ..- n. 4■J •• .. 

0 t o3. 2. . W Z• 

•

..I MIA 974.6 

Z

e 

vs 5:1; - 4z 

W tn J 2 

1.1.I 

.71 0 ..10 ...i NILE 949.3 

oo zo _iz' me z a. ,, NILE 926.6 

o: a.. _ 

-0La 1..7. ~ 

• X • 7 g! _, . 4 • ••••;.- M I 1..E 696.Z 

■•••• W 2 .2 ..I cc; 

z Lao sz . LL..,110--NILE 654.6 

o 4 w • S.D . irr"...11: MILE 819.3 

l■ z . cz Z 

e ..; ..D „,.:.a. 111.6 777.1• 

•

. e 

z a.. 

NILE 143.5 

• NILE MAI 

ze • ix • 

= _J_ 4... Zi b■.....E: I ■••••''.. la ILE 640.0 ueNJ. 

cm • z . . 

e 

co. a . - 

3 1-) 

z 

MILE 449.5 

MILE 374.2 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

OF OHIO RIVER 

• 0! 

e • 6 0 

:2.4 

".• 

■7', "le e • - ' cu p_ Z .. 

Ifl 

MILE 80.3 

v's x 

be 1..b 

1.." 

7;75PV' MILE 204.9 

- MILE 135.0 • MILE 62.0 . 

• MILE 42.1 

111.6 ISA 

MILE 544.6 

Note: Sites of locks and dams are shown by a name or number. 
• •••••• • 

Emsworth (1921) •and Dashields (1929) were part of the Original 9-foot waterway, having replaced the original lock and dam structures Nos. 1, 2, and 3: 

. . 

The Corps of Engineers began planning the modernization of the Ohio 

River slackwater system in the early 1950s.- Nineteen new dual 

locks and high-lift dams, with an average lift of 23 feet, were proposed to replace the.former Ohio River Canalization Project locks and 

dams that had an average lift of only 9 1/2 feet. Higher lifts would 

reduce the number of structures on the river by about half, cut "the 

travel time of river tows by 50 percent, and create much longer slackwater 

pools.. The latter factor became increasingly important as upriver 

traffic began to equal the downstream trade for which the ,earlier wicket 

dams had been built. Moreover, riverside terminals and industries became .increasingly dependent on uniform water supplies and pleasure boats 

required stable pools,. Thus, the Corps decided to . abandon the movable 

wicket dams in favor of high-lift, nonnavigable gated dams. The highlift dams created longer, deeper pools, and the gates could be opened 

at high-river stages to pass river, discharge without affecting flood 

levels. • 

Most river navigators concluded that a 110-by-1,200-foot lock 

could handle the.largest tows operated on the Ohio. The Corps agreed 

and designed the new . locks accordingly. An...auxiliary 110-by-600-foot. 

lock was also incorporated into each structure to add.flexibility'and 

additional capacity. Ihe.smaller.lock could handle tows when the. . 

larger lock was under repair, and could also lift small recreational 

craft and boats without tows. .. . . • 

The designs also called for the use of tainter gates. 

These massive radial steel structures (named for Jeremiah B. 'reinter) 

are used to - regulate the flow of water over 'a spillway or dam. The 

upstream face of the gate is in the form of an arc centered on the gate 

hinge. The gates can be raised high enough to clear the highest floods 

and do not impede waterflow during high water. The locks were-equipped 

with an improved conduit and valve system that permitted filling and 

emptying of the locks in eight minutes; ten minutes less than the time. 

required at the old dams. 6 

When construction of the Ohio River Modernization Program began in 

1954, traffic on the stream had reached 71 million •tons and ;trip' s. • 

averaged 208 miles. In undertaking the program, priority was assigned 

to projects on river reaches where the traffic was heaviest. Thus, 

structures were first built at New Cumberland, Greenup, Meldahl, and 

Markland; all were in operation by 1963. The Greenup project was sited 

so that its pool could serve the port of Huntington, West Virginia, 

which exceeded Pittsburgh as the busiest port on the waterway in 1953. 

39 
Millions of tons of coal arrived annually by rail from the fields of •

West Virginia and Kentucky to be loaded on barges at Huntington for 

delivery , to Ohio Valley industries and steam powerplants. 

Construction of a new dam at the Falls of the Ohio became imperative as traffic volumes increased. Because Lock No. 41 had an annual 

capacity of only 19 million tons, tows stacked up-waiting to get through. 

Widening the old Louisville canal from 200 to 500 feet got underway in 

1959 and was completed in 1962. The William H. McAlpine Lock and Dam 

was completed in 1964. The lock, the third there, was 1,200 feet long. 

The dam included two tainter gate sections and 4,500 feet of fixed 

concrete•weir. 7 

CHANGES IN WATERWAY EQUIPMENT 

The rapid advance of towing technology may have been the leading . 

cause of the modernization program. The twin-screw diesel-powered - 

towboat Herbert Hoover,built in 1931 for the Inland Waterways Corpora 

tion, was the forerunner of the modern powerful inland river towboats.' 

Multiple-screw towboats with 5,000 horsepower poigerplants were available 

by the mid-1950s. Vessels with ratings of as much as 7,000 horsepower 

were built thereafter. Economies gained by the larger powerplants were 

augmented by other innovations. The use of auxiliary equipment such as 

powered winches, radios, and radar expedited tow assemblages and enabled 

tows to operate in periods of low visibility. 8 

Revolutionary changes have also been made in the design of barges. 

The old "Pittsburgh standard" barges had capacities of about 1,000 tons. 

But the newer "super jumbo" 3,000-ton barges now ply the principal rivers 

of the Ohio Basin. Improved hull designs offer less resistance in towing without sacrificing cargo capacity, and the trend toward integrated 

tows increased standardization of barge size and design. A wide variety 

of barges have been developed. The versatile open-hopper barge carries 

coal and other bulk commodities. Dry cover barges are equipped with 

watertight covers and carry grain, cement, and other perishable goods. 

Tank barges were developed for petroleum products and other liquid cargoes. They have been modified to safely transport acids, liquified 

sulfur, liquid hydrogen, and other dangerous substances. 8 

- 

In short, complex changes in marine design-and technology*, coupled 

with longer slackwater pools and modern terminals, have made barge towing 

the most cost-effective means of moving bulk freight. - 

40 
NEW DIRECTIONS IN WATER RESOURCE PLANNING 

By the 1920s, engineers were beginning to develop comprehensive 

plans for river navigation in conjunction with consideration of benefits 

derived from flood control, hydroelectric power generation, and irrigation. In 1925 Congress asked the Corps of Engineers and the Federal 

Power Commission to submit cost estimates for making basinwide, multiplepurpose surveys of every major river in the nation. Published as House 

Document No. 308 in 1926, the massive agenda of surveys (known as "308 

Reports") was authorized in 1927. The Corps was asked to conduct detailed 

surveys of each basin to help analyze the ultimate potential of major 

drainage areas for navigation, power flood control, and allied uses. 

The 308 Report for the Ohio was completed in 1933 and called for the 

construction of flood control reservoirs on the main river's tributaries. 

Many of these projects were part of the historic 1936 Flood Control Act 

that initially authorized some 270 flood control projects. By the 

1930s, therefore, the Corps of Engineers was fully committed to multiplepurpose planning. Due to hydraulic conditions, navigation remained the 

principal focus on the main stem of the Ohio, but on two major tributaries the broad multiple-purpose approach was implemented. 1° 

TRANSFORMATION OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER 

The transformation of the Tennessee River was unique in two respects: (1) the river was the first major stream to be developed on 

the basis of multiple-purpose principles, and (2) it was the only river 

with development directed by a regional agency charged with reviving 

the economy of an entire drainage basin. The Tennessee .Valley 

Authority (TVA) was created by Congress in May 1933 as an independent 

government corporation to provide for unified development of all the 

region's resources. The act identified navigation improvement as one 

of the agency's missions. 

The Tennessee and its tributaries are one of the nation's 

most important river systems. Formed by the confluence of the Holston 

and French Broad rivers near Knoxville, the river flows 652 miles through 

three states into the Ohio River at Paducah. Its tributaries extend 

into four additional states, and its total drainage area is almost 

41,000 square miles. Annual rainfall in the region is about 52 inches. 

By 1930 there were two locks and dams on the river: Wilson Dam near 

Florence, Alabama, which provided a 15-mile channel; and Hales Bar 

Dam near Chattanooga, which furnished a 6-foot depth for 33 miles. 

41 
OHIO RIVER 

PADUCAH 

KENTucxY 

4 CUMBERLAND RIVER 

NISSISSIPPI 

RIVER 

M I LE 207.0 

VILE 220 

• 

KNOXVILLE . t•-•••' 

TENN 

FORT LOuDOuN 

MEMPHIS 

• PICKWICK NICKAJACK 

WATTS BAR 

rcmic.AmauGa 

K - NC TENNESSEE RIVER 

2 

0 

0 

0 . 

7 - 

4 . 

• 0 4 W 

4 m w 2 Y 2 : 4/1 .• 

0 4.2 4 I__ • w 4 : 2t a 

4 S 

ae .: E 

,..,..... ,..) 

NILE 530.0 

NILE 471.0 

MILI•424.7 

. 61ILE 349.0 

GA • 

fn 

I- a 

2 

GUNTERSVILLE 

MILE 602.0 

; 

Er. 

• 

\ CHATTANOOGA WHEELER 

TENNESSEETOMBIGBEE / PWICS-ON 

ma. 

tn 

Ial 

.= kJ 

WI a um 

14 ILE 2 7 5.0 

• .,../VA 

MISS • 

POOL ELEVATION: 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

a U 

7 . 

ALA 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

OF TENNESSEE RIVER 

NILE 259.0 

KY 

TENNESSEE RIVER 

Note: Sites of locks and dams are Shown by a name or number. 
But navigation continued to be retarded by variable and uncertain depths. 

Furthermore, the river's unregulated flow subjected the region to 

increased flooding problems on the Lower thio and Mississippi 

rivers. 11 

TVA's early operations were greatly aided by previous studies of 

the Corps of Engineers that Culminated in 1930 with an exhaustive analy14 

sis that recommended the enhancement of flood control, navigation, and 

power production by "securing regulation of stream flow in order to re- 

. duce flood flows and increase low-flows." The report outlined a system 

of high dams on the mainstream- as well as additional tributary projects. 

It also briefly presented an alternative plan for 32 low Ohio River type 

dams and 'locks for navigation. • 

The high-dam plan was authorized in the 1930 Rivers and Harbors 

Act, with the provision that theIederal-government would. contribute an 

- amount equal to the cost of the low dams if power companies or state 

governments would build the large water storage structures. The Corps 

attempted to enlist the cooperation of public and private interests, 

but the onset of the 1930s depression precluded this river development 

alternative. • 

When TVA was created in .1933, no dams had been built under the 

1930 authorization; Army Engineers had begun construction, however, 

on.a 60- by 360-foot lock and dam .at the present site of Wheeler Dam. 

The structure was eventually completed by the Corps. - 

Canalization of the Tennessee from Paducah to Knoxville •by a 

slackwater channel was completed by TVA in a twelve-year construction 

program. The high-dam system generally resembled the plan proposed by 

the Corps in its 1930 report. As in that plan, seven locks and dams 

were built on the Tennessee River and the pre-TVA Wilson and Hales Bar 

projects were incorporated into the system. By 1945 TVA had also built 

nine storage dams on the tributaries that were operated in conjunction 

with the mainstream structures to achieve regular navigation depths and 

other benefits. The 9-foot channel was virtually assured by the end of 

World War II. A larger main lock, 110 by 600 feet, was added at Wilson ' 

Dam in 1959. In subsequent years locks at other dams have been enlarged. A new dam and lock were completed in 1963 on the Clinch River, 

a Tennessee tributary, that increased the 9-foot channel on the waterway 

system to 750 miles. 

The nine mainstream dams and locks raise vessels a total of 600 feet 

on upstream trips, an average of nearly .a foot per mile. The Corps of 

Engineers operates the locks and performs regular dredging, and the 

43 
Coast Guard maintains the navigation aids as they do on other inland 

waterways. 12 

Completion of the 9-foot system caused an immediate upsurge in commerce. Cities such as Decatur and Huntsville in Alabama and Knoxville 

and Chattanooga, Tennessee, became important inland port and industrial 

centers. Oil companies were the first industry to recognize the utility 

and economy of the new waterway. They built terminals on the river in 

the 1940s and began sending cargoes from Houston and Port Arthur, Texas; 

up the Mississippi River to customers in the Tennessee Valley. Grain 

companies, recognizing the expanding livestock industry along the'Tennessee system, built mills and shipped large quantities of corn, soybeans, 

alfalfa pellets, and other agricultural commodities. A brisk commerce 

ih coal, forest products, chemicals, and steel also developed. Industries were early attracted to the area because the multipurpose .river 

development.prOject provided low-cost hydroelectric power and abundant 

supplies of water. • 

Moreover, TVA's resource development activities are "total" in concept and extend beyond the river. Its forestry activities provide an 

expanding source of raw materials for the paper, timber, housing, and 

furniture industries. Fertilizer production has made adjacent farmlands 

much more prosperous. The growth of industry and river commerce has 

been paralleled by the expansion of other forms of transportation. 

By fostering industrial growth, TVA's activities have led to the growth 

of an interdependent truck, rail, and barge transportation system in the 

region. 

• Shortly after its creation, TVA identified the need to build a 

system of public river, terminals to increase ,use of the waterway and 

bring the advantages of water transportation to the region. Citizens 

of the valley, including representatives from the nine principal port 

cities on the Tennessee, formed the Tennessee Valley Waterways Conference 

to obtain optimum use of the waterway by developing adequate river terminals and water transportation services. The net long-term result of 

these cooperative efforts is that public terminals are available along 

the entire waterway. 

The TVA assists state and local agencies by evaluating proposed 

terminal sites and by examining economic and engineering features of 

planned facilities. The federal agency also furnishes information on 

functions and operations of terminal facilities, identifies potential 

terminal users, and estimates shipping costs. In additiOn to its many 

other functions, TVA also participates in proceedings before the Interstate . Commerce Commission in an effort to coordinate transportation rates 

and services between land and water carriers and to remove barriers to 

optimum use of the Tennessee River system. 13 

44 
''441.ge 

THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY 

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway is designed to fulfill the longheld dream of a "Southern Route" for inland river commerce. A partially 

navigable inland water route exists from Mobile Bay up the Alabama and 

Tombigbee rivers to Columbus, Mississippi, but halts a few miles from 

the Tennessee River. The trip from Muscle Shoals to New Orleans.via 

the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers is more than'1,121 miles. The new 

waterway would cut the distance by almost 500 miles. 

A canal connecting the Tennessee and Tombigbee rivers was conceived 

by the French as early as the eighteenth century and in 1819 the state 

of Alabama enacted legislation that called for a feasibility study of the • 

canal. The Corps of Engineers studied the route during the nineteenth 

century and drew up plans for the project in 1878. Despite continued 

interest the undertaking was not authorized until the 1946 Rivers and 

Harbors Act. The project was deferred for study in 1951. It was 

revived in 1967 and work on the 232-mile waterway began in December 1972. 

When complete, the waterway will join the Tennessee River with the 

Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway at Demopolis, Alabama. The project extends upstream from Demopolis via the Tombigbee River and Mackeys Creek, 

through a deep cut across the divide into Yellow Creek and from there to . 

Pickwick Pool on the Tennessee River. The'entire waterway is to include 

four locks and dams on the Tombigbee, five locks on the canal, and an 

additional lock and dam at the head of the canal to Impound water through 

the cut. The anticipated cost of the project is $1.9 billion and through 

fiscal" year 1979 some $622 million'had been allocated. As the first 

large waterway project constructed under the 1969 National Environmental 

Policy Act, the public work has encountered strong environmental opposition and has been the subject of litigation. 14 

. NAVIGATION - IMPROVEMENTS ON THE:CUMBERLAND 

The Cumberland River, just as its twin waterway, the Tennessee, has 

been transformed by multiple-purpose projects since the 1930s. Increased 

traffic in petroleum products in the 1930s prompted the installation of 

innovative A-frame wickets on the crests of several navigation dams below Nashville. However, a series of flood storage and multiple-Turpose 

dams initially authorized in the .1938. Flood Control Act soon surpassed 

these simple devices in scale and purpose. The Wolf Creek Dam, when completed in 1952 on the river's main stem, created a 101-mile-long reservoir 

In south central Kentucky for flood control and hydroelectric power 

.45 
TN 

TENNESSEE RIVER 

. 'CORINTH • 

eme 265,. 

10418/GBEE RIVER 

MILE 2154 

+ CANAL SECTION+31vi0E SECTION...! 

45.6 MILE 39.3 MILE -I 

• TISHOMiNGO 

BAY SPRINGS 

LOCK "E" I 

LOCK "0" 

I ' 

LOCK "C" •1' • 

LOCK "Er 

LOCK "A" Jr' 

AsERKEN •1- ABERDEEN 

WEST POINT • POINT • 

:Arf AVvfl, rom8168EE RIVER AL ICEvILLE 

COLUMBUS 

• 

SLACK wiRRIOR RIVER 

MS 

GAINES VILLE 

.1 

ERES 

AL 

oEmoyous 

° CAM DEN 

COP' 00 viLLE 

4ii8.4m4 RIVER 

BacRSON 

15 51 

la ,• 

-J 

Z 

-J -o. 

• 10w 

11, 404 7 

• z CO • 

2 - 

la 11.0 396.4 

u.1 0 a . ••-• 

0 -1 

MILE 409.9 

' NMI 391.0 

CIA 374.3 

u 0 

9ILE 369,1 

• 11.0 3323 VILE 355.5 3111.1 305.0 

In 

0 0 

0. 

c; 

MOBILE • 

- 0 

IS oe 

IS 

Y. Cs 

t.) 

MILE 11 6 6 

TOMBIGBEE RIVER 

POOL ELEVATION: 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

MOBILE RIVER . .11 

0. 

o 

.......___ 

KILE 313.2 lavi 

dui 

e. v) 1/1 04 

0 go 

cs • ci -.ER .4-..- 

O 0 2 s ..; =7! 1:1' 

0 0 2 iy • ' a• .0 . • 

..° Z . .., .7,, . 151 . 0 2 

.1, . / .4,1 r. Z. W 7, cl 

z. .1 .., we 

14- MOBILE RI VER -4+ 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH OF MOBILE RIVER 

PROFILE OF TOMBIGBEE RIVER AND WATERWAY NAVIGATION POOLS 

Note: Sites of Icas and dams are shown by a name or number. 
•-■1 kw", 

• • • • 

.„ 

generation. The-,242-foot-highi 5,730-foot-long, structure is oneof 

the largest dams in the eastern United States. 15 - 

Wolf Creek anciseveral other projects ended commercial traffic on 

the upper reaches of the river, but the post-World War II expansion of 

waterborne commerce gave an impetus to projects that included navigation 

features. In 1946 Congress authorized a 9-foot channel on the Lower 

Cumberland, which was to be obtained by three dams of moderate heights. 

In addition, the same Rivers and Harbors Act authorized three dams on 

the Upper Cumberland between Nashville and the Wolf Creek project. 

By 1954 moderate-height navigation power dams were in operation at 

Old Hickory and Cheatam, respectively above and below Nashville, with 

two additional structures planned for each section of the river. Attention, however, focused on a proposal for a high dam on the Lower Cumberland that had drawn fire from private power interests and citizens who 

opposed the inundation of farms and villages by the reservoir. Congress 

nevertheless approved the huge Barkley project in 1954,which is the 

•keystone of navigation on the river. 

Located about 25 miles east of Paducah, Kentucky, the multiplepurpose earthf ill structure (completed in 1966) is the most important 

unit in a comprehensive basin system that provides a 9-foot channel from 

the river's mouth to Celina, Tennessee, 385 miles upriver. The dam includes a 110-by-800-foot lock chamber that has a normal lift of 57 feet. 

Lake Barkley, the 118-mile-long reservoir formed by the dam, is linked by 

a 1.7-mile-long canal to Kentucky Lake on the Tennessee River. The 

canal was cut through the "Land Between the Rivers" to provide alternative and shortevroutes between the Cumberland, Tennessee, and Ohio 

rivers. The canal also offers integrated operation of the two reservoirs 

thus affording better use of the Barkley powerplant. 

THE MONONGAHELA AND OTHER TRIBUTARIES 

Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the 

Monongahela carried more tonnage than any other inland waterway. The 

relatively short 129-mile-long stream was called the "Little Giant" 

because of the large quantities of coal transported downstream to Pittsburgh and beyond. In 1916 when coal tows ceased to most ports below 

Pittsburgh, commerce on the Monongahela in fact increased as coal was 

moved to fuel new steel mills on the Upper Ohio. At this point, iron 

ore was brought via rail from Lake Erie ports, limestone via rail and, 

river from western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, and coal via river 

47 
from the Monongahela and Allegheliy-valleys. to produCe ffiilliOhsOf. :tons • . 

of iron and. stee1.16 

After protracted litigation from 1883 to 1897, the federal government acquired the system built by the Monongahela Navigation Company, 

eliminating tolls and opening the river to free commerce. The Corps 

• of Engineers built six small steamboat locks and dams on the upper 

. reach of the,river from 1895 to 1904, bringing the total on the river 

to fifteen. - However, these projects provided only a 7-foot navigable 

• depth, inadequate for the 9-foot draft of fully loaded barge tows. Improvements. prinarily consisted of rebuilding or strengthening . dams and 

•enlarging locks. The . costs of these repair and maintenance activities 

were very high. In addition to structural' renovations, changes in the 

system prior to World War II included relocating locks' and dams Nos. 7 

and 8 to eliminate No. 9 in 1926, rebuilding No. 4 in 1932, and the 

' elimination of No. 1 near Pittsburgh (caused by increasing the height ' 

of Emsworth Dam on the Ohio). Thus, for the first half of the twentieth 

• century the Monongahela slackwater system was largely a patched-up 

•relic trying to meet modern navigation needs. 

Due to' thegrowth of traffic and the limited capabilities of the 

•old locks and dams, the Corps , launched a modernization program in 1948 

that initially called for three new high-lift dams at the Morgantown, 

Hildebrand, and Opekiska Sites, and raising Dam No 8 to-obtain,a 9- 

•foot depth to Morgantown. All of these facilities, completed from 1950 

to 1967, included 84-by-600-foot locks that could pass a - standard - 

six-barge tow. Their design generally followed the principles developed 

for the modern structures on the Ohio River. Progress on the Monongahela 

modernization project ceased in 1967 with half of the proposed.. project. 

•as yet unbuilt. 

Commercial use of the Allegheny has not developed as expected. Its 

5.1 million tons of traffic in 1979 was almost seven times less than that 

on the Monongahela. Its present systen of nine locks and dams, built from 

1920 to 1938, is lariely' used by pleasure craft. The original ten lowlift structures on the Kanawha River were replaced from 1931 to 1937 with 

four'high-lift locks and dams: Winfield, Marmet, and London Locks and 

Dam 'on the Kanawha itself and Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River 

below the Kanawha's mouth. - The modert system provided a 9-fdot - 

navigable depth and was equipped With 56-by-360-foot lock chambers. 

•Freight haulage on the improved Kentucky River has never been significant, 

but the creation of a 9-foot depth for 103 miles of the Green Riyer has 

facilitated large shipments of coal from the valley. Thus, while ,commerce has grown markedly on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, many 

other tributaries have not participated significantly in the post-World 

War II waterway renaissance. 17 

48 
4 

ONO RIVER 

oair• • ALLEGHENY RIVER 

, 0" 3 . _NATRONA Dam S . 

DA/F-6 .*' FORD CITY 

PHILLIPSTON - 

RIMERtON • 

iviu 7.. MOSGROHE. . 

POOL ELEVATION:' 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL • 

fie 

• • 

• . 

• ad! • cr.; 4g . 

us IP • 

. • . " • CS ••• • 

set 

Ou 

7.2 

St .; 

0 tol 

011.6 36.3 

11111 30.4 

SILL 14.0 

NIUE S./ 

us • 

•• 0 .* 

• Mr 

Z 

'mkt ri.z 

• 11.0 01.6 

PAIL1 40,7 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

• OF ALLEGHENY RIVER 

MONONGAHELA 'RIVER. 

_ MONONGAHELA 

D" 3N\ FREDERICATONN 

•POOL ELEVATION: • 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL • 

• 

: 

Pr 

• 

leg 112. 

.7; ." • 0I.1 - 110.4 

rit.S•106.0 

011.6101.0 

-

NII.0 00.0 

eoLl _ 

.011.1 61.1 

OHIO RIVER 

". • at' 

41 

va. 

. Z 

CS 7. 

• • • 

Asa 

.11 

SAC 0 

• o' 

2•If?ei•Pii" 

• •104.. ' ' • 

PROFILE OF ALLEGHENY RIVER NAVIGATION POOLS 

PROFILE OF MONONGAHELA RIVER NAVIGATION POOLS 

..■&••■••- laiLt 4i.S 

NILE I1.1 Si" IS'S DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH OF MONONGAHELA RIVER 

Note: Sites °flocks and dams are shown by a name or number. 
Clank/ Iola Dar 

10101 an 441 IGO 

011111 1 

• POOL ELEVATION: . 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL S. g 414.4 

OM .114 • 

1141 119 I 

.2 

 1 

1! '; 

.414 .441 • ak 

:7: 1 : 5■611 04.4 ' 

a 

a 

One 414 

sie DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

OF KENTUCKY RIVER 

a vvvvvv mit 

SINUS 

114• 4) Dile a 

011 40 Oa. Bs 

o IS 

• o 

OCAP0111 

I gs4-1/ 

4./k4.4p. 

DM • 

10.• 

INS MA 

4• 

netaisaae WV 

AAAAA RIVER 

WIN/I110 

LONDON 

OM. elarge 1105/1.411 

011111 

SI. 

OMNI' I 

1101114011111V 

Sz 

POOL ELEVATION: 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

1.1z. • 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

Sill Aso/ OF KANAWHA RIVER ' 

ILL 

Mill 'MYR 

MOM 

.1(10115511 .eirff KY 

110•114 

1.110044100 

• 

401111400110 

1000111 Noll 1114104 

CIIIIIIfei•NO hire* 

-Aid no DIMS Vr1. — [mamma • 

1404110414 

TENN 

POOL ELEVATION: 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

= 

oa1 . 1141 I 

DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

OF CUMBERLAND RIVER. 

• 

INC VG 1 

sof 4404 

441 

rizu 

SP011 PHU I 

POOL ELEVATION: 

FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

411 

oaf •1 DISTANCE ABOVE MOUTH 

5.1.1 II • OF GREEN RIVER 

PROFILES OF KENTUCKY, KANAWHA, CUMBERLAND AND GREEN RIVERS NAVIGATION POOLS 

Note: Sites of locks and dams are shown by a name or number. 
SUMMARY 

In 1981 the Corps of Engineers maintained a 9-foot navigation 

channel depth on the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to the mouth (981 miles) 

and on some 1,300 miles of tributary streams. The major tributaries 

and their navigable distances are: Allegheny River, 72 miles; Monongahela River, 129 miles; Kanawha River, 91 miles; Green River, 103 miles; 

Tennessee River, 652 miles; and Cumberland River, 385 miles. The 

Kentucky River is navigable for 259 miles, but the depth is limited to 

6 feet and the lock chambers are too small for the use of standard Ohio 

River barges. The lock and dam System on the Ohio River comprises 

twenty-one lock and dam structures as well as the Louisville and Portland Canal. (The canal has been markedly altered since it was first 

opened in 1830 to bypass the Falls of the Ohio.) Four of these facilities 

were built from 1921 to 1937--the Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery 

immediately downstream from Pittsburgh, as well as the Gallipolis Locks 

and Dam at River Mile 279. Two of the present dams, Nos. 52 and 53, were 

part of the Original Ohio River Canalization Project. Fifteen of the 

navigation structures comprise the modernized portion of the Ohio River 

Waterway. The structures were put in operation from 1961 to 1981. They 

all contain 1,200- and 600-foot-long locks and were built to replace two 

or more of the original low-lift structures. 18 

The waterway revolution in the Ohio River Basin since World War II 

was largely grounded on the channel improvements made by the Corps of 

Engineers in response to growing traffic volumes and advances in marine 

technology. The reciprocity of riverine commerce and economic and industrial resurgence is unquestioned. Long tows of coal and other primary 

materials move efficiently and safely on the once capricious and hazardous, 

streams. These resources are drawn upon to manufacture steel, chemicals, 

and other basic products, as well as consumer goods. Once the natural 

pathways of exploration and frontier trade, the major rivers of the Ohio . 

Basin have been transformed to meet the requirements and expectations 

of twentieth-century commerce and industry. 

4., 

51 • 
CHRONOLOGY 

1729 - French engineer Chaussegros de Lery makes a compass survey of 

the Ohio River. 

1742 - John Peter Salley and three other Virginians navigate the 

Kanawha, Ohio, and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans. 

1. 744 - The French construct Fort Duquesne at the forks of the Ohio 

River. 

1754 - George Washington conducts topographical and military reconnaissance into the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Upper Ohio 

Valleys. 

1763, - Treaty of Paris gives England legal possession of the Ohio 

Valley. 

1766 -- Thomas Hutchins prepares map of the Ohio River, the first detailed hydrographic study Of the stream. 

1775 - Continental Congress authorizes the appointment of a . chief 

engineer and two assistants for the Continental Army. 

1782 - Barthelemi Tardiveau begins trade between the Ohio Valley and 

New Orleans. 

- Jacob Yoder makes the first flatboat trip down the Ohio and 

Mississippi to sell produce at New Orleans. 

1788 7 Colonel Rufus Putnam and a group of settlers found the town of 

Marietta, Ohio. • 

1802 - Thomas Jefferson signs 'the bill creating the modern Army Corps 

of Engineers. 

1803 - The Louisiana Purchase gives the United States control of the 

port of New Orleans. 

1807 - Robert Fulton builds the first successful steamboat in the 

United States. 

. 1808 Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin makes his report to 

Congress recommending a system of transportation improvements. 

53 
1811 - The steamboat New Orleans becomes the first such vessel to 

navigate the Ohio River. 

1815 - Captain Henry Miller Shreve pilots the steamboat Enterprize 

on the first upstream trip by a steamboat on the Ohio River. 

1816 - Board of Fortifications concludes that waterway improvements 

are essential for national defense. 

1819 - Major Stephen H. Long conducts military reconnaissance and 

scientific expedition in the steamboat Western Engineer. 

- Joint state commission makes a study of the Ohio River and 

recommends the making of improvements. 

1820 - Regular steamboat commerce begins between Pittsburgh and 

Louisville. 

- Congress appropriates $5,000 for survey of navigation problems 

on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. 

1824 - On May 24 President Janes Monroe signs the Rivers and Harbors 

Act, which includes $75,000 for i4rovements on the Ohio and 

Mississippi rivers. 

- On April 30 the General Survey Act authorizes the Army 

Engineers to undertake surveys for internal improvement 

projects. 

- John Bruce awards the first contract for snag removal on the 

Ohio and Mississippi rivers. 

1825 - Wing dam is completed near Henderson, Kentucky, the first 

navigationsimprovement built by the Corps of Engineers on the 

Ohio River. 

1827 - Captain Henry M. Shreve begins snag clearing on the Ohio 

River after termination of John Bruce's contract. 

- Rivers and Harbors. Act recognizes that experienced engineers' 

should direct inland river development. 

- Improvement of the Grand Chain of Rocks at the rnôith'Of the 

Ohio River is approved by Congress. 

1828 - Army Engineers conduct survey of the Tennessee River. 

5 '4 
1829 - Heliopolis,the first steam-poweredanagboat, is launched at 

New Albany, Indiana. 

1830 - First steamboat passes through the Louisville and Portland 

Canal, bypassing the dangerous Falls of the Ohio. . 

- Grand Chain of Rocks improvement project is completed near the 

mouth of the Ohio River. 

1835 - Congress appropriates $50,000 for the improvement of the 

Upper Ohio. 

1836 - Slackwater project undertaken by the state of Kentucky 

commences on the Kentucky River. 

1837 - The private Monongahela Navigation Company is chartered to 

build locks and dams on the Monongahela River. 

• 

- Captain John Sanders begins surveys and improvements on the 

Upper Ohio. 

- Panic of 1837 touches of-f severe national depression. 

1838 - Improvement projects on the Ohio and. Mississippi rivers are 

suspended. 

1842 - The state of Ohio builds a lock and dam system on the 

Muskingum River. 

1843 - Captain John Sanders puts the McCarthy scraper into . service, 

' the first crude dredge used on the Ohio River. 

1847 - Flatboat traffic has a peak year on the Ohio and Mississippi 

rivers as 2,792 people arrive at New Orleans. 

1849 - Charles Ellet, Jr., publishes his farsighted report advocating 

construction of reservoirs on tributaries to retain water that. 

could be released during periods of low water. 

1852 - Rivers and Harbors Act provides $150,000 for dike repair and 

construction on the Ohio River. 

1857 - William Milnor Roberts advances slackwater and dam plan for 

the Ohio River. 

55 
- All navigation improvements on inland rivers are suspended. 

1866 - Rivers and Harbors Act directs Chief of Engineers to review 

prewar projects and renew channel clearance on the Ohio and 

other rivers. 

1870 - After lengthy hydrographic and topographic investigations, 

William Milnor Roberts recommends construction of a comprehensive lock and dam, slackwater project for the Ohio River. 

1874 - Jurisdiction of the Lighthouse Board is extended to inland 

rivers and beacons, and buoys are put into service on the Ohio 

and other rivers. 

- Windom Committee recommends authorization of the Ohio River 

- Canalization. Project. 

1875 - Iron-hulled snagbOat E.A. Woodruff is placed into service on 

the Ohio River. • 

1885 - Davis Island project is. completed near Pittsburgh, the first lock 

and movable dam on the Ohio River. 

1888 - Congress authorizes study of a 6-foot slackwater project for 

the Upper Ohio. 

1890 - Muscle Shoals Canal is completed on the Tennessee River, the 

first permanent structure on the river. 

1895 - Commercial interests in the Ohio Valley form the Ohio Valley 

Improvement Association. 

1897 - After fifteen years of litigation, the federal government assumes 

ownership of the lock and dam system on the Monongahela River. 

1902 - Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is created to determine 

the feasibility of riverine projects.. • 

1906 - •The Lockwood Board recommends adoption of a 9-foot navigation 

project for the entire length of the Ohio River. 

1907. - President Theodore . Roosevelt creates the Inland Waterways 

Commission to study the nation's water resources. . 

1910 - Rivers and Harbors Act authorizes construction of a 9-foot slackwater project on the Ohio River to its mouth. 

56 
1913 - Hales Bar Dam is completed on the Tennessee River at Chattanooga. 

' 1921 - Emsworth Locks and Dam is completed, the first fixed dam with 

double locks built on the , Ohio:River. 

. 1927 - Corps of Engineers is authorized to undertake a broad evaluation 

of the nation's water resources--the "308 Reports."' . , 

- Wilson Dam, at that time the largest concrete dam, in the world, 

is completed on the Tennessee 'River: 

• . . . . - . • :.• 

Combined power dam and lock structure is completed on the. Falls 

of the Ohio at Louisville. 

1929 - The Ohio River Canalization Project is completed at a cost of 

$125 million. 

1930 - Corps of Engineers completes "308" study for the Tennessee 

River that serves as the basis for the valley's development. 

1931 - The diesel-powered Herbert Hoover, thefl prototype for modern 

towboats, is built. 

1933 - Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is created by Congress. ... 

1936 - Flood Control Act authorizes 270 flood control projects. 

- Gallipolis Locks and Dam are completed on the Ohio River. 

1938 - Flood Control Act authorizes dams for the Cumberland River. 

1945 - Channel depth ofY9 feet it obtained -on the Tennessee River. 

1946 - Congress authorizes a 9-loot navigation project for the Lower 

Cumberland River. 

- Tennessee-Tombigbee project is authorized by Congress. 

1948 - Modernization program that initially called;for three highlift darns is launched for the Monongahela River. . • 

1952 - Wolf Creek Dam, the first storage. dam built on the rivers 

mainstream, is completed on the Cumberland River. 

• 

.1954 - The Corps of Engineers;begins:Ohio River .Modernization Project 

consisting of nineteen high-lift lOcks,anCtdams. 

57 
1959 - New navigation lock is added to Wilson Dam on the Tennessee 

River. 

1964 - William H. McAlpine Locks and Dam are completed on the Ohio River 

at Louisville. 

1966 - The Barkley project, key water storage structure on the Lower 

Cumberland River, is completed. 

1972 - Construction begins on the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway. 

1980 - Smithland Locks and Damsare completed on the Ohio River to 

replace Nos. 50 and 51. 

58 
. FOOTNOTES 

The navigation history of the four Army Corps of Engineers Districts that cover the Ohio River Basin has been studied by Dr. Leland 

R. Johnson. His four definitive and comprehensive volumes were heavily 

relied on to prepare this shorter survey of waterways development in 

the region: Men, Mountains and Rivers: An Illustrated History of the 

Huntington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1754-1974 (Washington, 

D.C., 1977); The Falls Cit En:ineers: A Histor of the Louisville District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army (Louisville, 1975); 

Engineers on the Twin Rivers: A History of the Nashville District, Corps 

Of Engineers, United States Army (Nashville, 1978); and The Headwaters 

District: •A Histor •of the Pittsbur:h District, U.S. Arm Corss of En:ineers (Pittsburgh, 1979). Abbreviated forms of Dr. Johnson s books are 

hereafter cited. 

CHAPTER 1 . 

1. Ellis L. Armstrong, Michael C. Robinson, Suellen M. Hoy, eds., . 

History of Public Works in the United States, 1776-1976 (Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1976), 37; Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 1. 

• 2. Charles H. Ambler, A History of Transportation in the Ohio 

Valley (Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1932), 1-29. 

3. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 8-9. 

4. Ibid., 11-15; Anna Margaret Quattrocchi, "Thomas Hutchins, 

1730-1789" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 

1944), passim. 

5. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 15-16. 

6. Quoted in Johnson, Headwaters District, 21. 

7. Dale Van Every, Ark of Empire: The American Frontier, 1784- 

1803 (New York: William Morrow, 1963), 35-36. 

8. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 24-25; W. Wallace Carson, 

"Transportation and Traffic on the Ohio and Mississippi before the 

Steamboat," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 7 (June 1920), 33-35. 

59 
9. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 25-26; Thomas D. Clark, The 

Kentucky(New York: Harpers, 1942), 55-64; Ambler, Trangortation 

in the Ohio Valley, 71-73. 

10. Leland D. Baldwin, "Shipbuilding on the Western Waters, 1793- 

1817," Mississippi Valley Historical Review,/0 (June 1933), 29-34; 

Johnson, Falls City Engineers,26-27; Johnson, Headwaters District, 31- 

35. 

11. Leland D. Baldwin, The Keelboat Age on Western Waters-(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1941); 1-45. 

12. Quoted in ibid., 44-45. 

13. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 29. • 

14. Louis C. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers:. An Economic and Technological History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,. 

1949), 1.462. 

15. Johnson, Falls City Engineers,31-32. 

16. Richard G. Wood, Stephen Harriman Long, 1784-1864: Army 

Engineer, Explorer, Inventor (Glendale, Calif., 1966), 59-84. 

17. Richard C. Wade, The Urban Frontier: The Rise of Western 

Cities 1790-1930 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), 

190-91. 

18. Ibid., 191. 

19. Ibid. 

20. Ibid., 86-87, 286-87;: Hunter, Steamboats on the Western 

Rivers, 352-53, 619-20. 

21. Ibid. 

• 22. Johnson, Falls City Engineers,21; William L. Sibert, "The 

Improvemini.of the Ohio River," Transactions of the American Society 

of Civil Engineers, 63 (JUne.1909), 391-92. 

23. Johnson, Falls City Engineers,22. 

.60 
CHAPTER 2 

1. J9hnson, Falls City Engineers, 39. 

2. Ibid., 40. 

3.,.Ibid., 41-42. . 

4. Ibid. 

5. Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 25. 

6. Wood, Stephen H. Long, 145- 46. ' 

, . , . • . , • • 

.7.- Quoted in Johnson, Falls city Engineers, 48. 

8. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 198-203. 

9. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 50-55. 

16'.. -.Ibid.,' 74775. . •

Hunter,.Steamboaivon the Western. Rivers,1987203. : •, _ . • • . • • 

, • • • 12.' Ibid., 196. - 99. • . . 

13. Johnson, Falls City Engineers', 75-76. 

14, Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 201-03. 

15. Johnson, Headwaters District, 83-86, 

16. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 88-98. 

17. [bid., 101. 

, 

18,...HUnter,.Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 206-07; Johnson', 

Palls City Engineers, 137-54; Johnson, Headwaters District, 38-54; ' 

Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 51-63. 

19. Johnson, Headwaters District, 91101. 

20. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 57-73. 

' • . 

61 
21. Johnson, Twin Rivers, 46-60. 

22. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 208-09. 

CHAPTER 3 

1. Ambler, Transportation in the Ohio Valley, 295-303; Hunter, 

Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 569-70; Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 

118-20. "Bushels" were commonly used to measure coal. 

2.. Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 72-75, 

3. Ibid. 

4. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 115-16. 

5. Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 77. 

6. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 160-62. 

7. Johnson, Headwaters District, 135. 

8. Ibid., 136-40; Johnson, Falls City'Engineers, 165-68. 

9. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 165. 

10. William L. Sibert, "The Improvement of the Ohio River," 

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 63 (1909), 

405-10. 

11. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 168-70; Edmund L. Daley, 

"The Mastery of the Ohio River," Military Engineer, 29 (May, June 

1927), 189-95. 

• 12. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 170-72. 

13. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers, 585-605; Ambler, 

Transportation in the Ohio Valley, 316; Johnson, Falls City Engineers 

178-80. 

14. Charles W. Kutz, "Ohio River Canalization--Its History and 

Possibilities," Engineering News-Record, 104 (March 13, 1930), 436. 

62 
15. Ibid., 437. 

16. Quoted in Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 187. 

17. Kutz, "Ohio River Canalization," passim. 

18. Johnson, Headwaters District, 166-67. 

19, rWilmon Henry Droze, High Dams and Slick Waters: TVA Rebuilds 

a RiVet'(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965), 3-18; . 

 Johnson, Twin Rivers, 101-42, 163-80. 

20. Quoted in Droze, High Dams and Slack.Waters, 17. For'a discussion of Cumberland River canalization see Johnson, Twin Rivers, 

. 143-61. 

21. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 137-54; Johnson, Headwaters 

District, 118-31; Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 99-120; Johnson, 

Twin.Rivers, 101-22. 

22. Johnson, Men, Mountains and Rivers, 97-102. 

23. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 144-47. 

.CHAPTER 4 

. . 

1. :PauI'MksOn ;"The Ohio River--Path of Eipire,"_Waterways.Journal, • 

11 (June 1950), 54-56. • : 

2. Ibid., 55-56. 

3. "Rededication ,2--Silver Anniversani Marks Quarter CentOy bf:,, 

Economic Growth," Waterways Magazine, 19 (October 1954), 17-19. 

4. Ibid., 19-20; Armstrong et al., History.of Public Works, 48-49. 

; - 5. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 232-33. 

• 

6. James A. Neill, "Modern Facilities for Ohio River Navigation; 

Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division; American Society of Civil 

Engineers, 83 . (May . 1957); paper No. 1239. 

63 
7. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Navigation(Cincinnati: Ohio River Division, 1979), 36-39; Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 

233-35. 

• 8. Charles F. Michiels,,William F. Lail, and Robert E. Mytinger, 

"Current Trends in Ohio River Traffic and Equipment," Journal of the 

Waterways and Harbors Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 

(December 1956), paper No. 1123. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 199-203. . 

11. Maurice Henle, "Navigation on the Tennessee River," . Waterways 

 11 (June 1950), 79. Magazine, 

12. 

181-83; C 

Waterways 

Droze, High Dams and Slack Waters, 42-66;,Johnson,,TWin 'Rivers, 

. T. Barker, "Developments in Tennessee River Navigation.;" 

Journal,17 (August 1953), 31-34. 

13. Armstrong, et al., History of Public Works, 42-43; Droze, - 

High Dams And Slack Waters, 67-132; Tennessee Valley Authority, River 

Traffic .and Industrial Growth (Knoxville: Tennessee Valley. Authority,. 

1962), 1-21. 

14. Johnson, Twin Rivers, 241-44, 253-54. 

15. Johnson, Twin Rivers,184-98, 215-31; Arthur W. Pence. 

"Development of the Cumberland River," Waterways Journal,11 (June 1950), 

71-78; Jesse L. Fishback, "Cumberland River Modernization," Military 

Engineer,34 (July 1942), 331-36. • 

16. Johnson, Headwaters District, 234-42; H. E. Anderson and 

J. H. Dodds, "The Monongahela River: 'Indispensable Artery of National 

Defense," Military Engineer,34 (July 1942), 331-36. 

17. Johnson, Falls City Engineers, 237-46; Johnson, Men, Mountains 

and Rivers,135-40, 201, 203. 

18. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Navigation(Cincinnati: 

Ohio River Division, 1979), 51-53. 

64 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOOKS 

Ambler, Charles H. A History of Transportation in the Ohio Valley. 

Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1932. 

American Waterways Operators, Inc. A Study in Economic Growth: 

Waterside Plant Locations and Expansions since 1952. 2d. ed. 

Washington, D.C.: American Waterways Operators, Inc., 1962. 

Armco Steel Corporation. River Shipping and Industry: A Compilation 

of Historical and River Shipping_ Data on the Ohio River and Its 

Tributaries.Middletown, Ohio: American Rolling Mill Company, 1923. 

Arnow, Harriette Louisa. Flowering of the Cumberland. New York: 

Macmillan, 1963. 

Baldwin, Leland Dewitt. The Keelboat Age on Western Waters.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1941. 

Banta, Richard Elwell. The Ohio.New York: Rinehart, 1949. 

Blood, Dwight M. Inland Waterway Transport Policy in the U.S. Laramie, 

Wyo.: Wyoming University, 1972. 

Bramlett, Gene A. Economic Development in the Ohio River Region. 

Lexington, Ky.: Spindletop Research, 1964. 

Chorpening, C.H. Development of Waterways in the United States. 

1952. 

Clowes, Ernest Seabury. Shipways to the Sea: Our Inland and Coastal 

Waterways.Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1929. 

Collins, Francis Arnold. Our Harbors and Inland Waterways. New York: 

The Century Company, 1924. 

Daggett, Stuart. Principles of Inland Transportation. 4th ed. New 

York: Harper, 1955. 

Davidson, Donald. The Tennessee.Knoxville: University of Tennessee 

Press, 1978. (Reprint of the 1946 ed.) 

n. p., 

6, 5 
Douglas, Byrd. Steamboatin' on the Cumberland. Nashville: Tennessee 

' Book _Company, 1961. . 

• Droze, Wilmpn Henry. High Dams and Slack Waters: TVA Rebuilds a River. 

Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1965. 

Fernow, Berthold. The Ohio Valley in Colonial, Days. New York: B. 

Franklin, 1971. 

Folmsbee, Stanley J. Sectionalism and Internal Improvements in 

Tennessee, 1796-1845. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 

1939. 

Fowke, Gerard. The Evolution of the Ohio River.Indianapolis: 

Hollenbeck Press, 1933. 

Haites, Erik F. Western River Transportation. Baltimore: The Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1975. 

Havinghurst, Walter. River to the West.New York: Putnam, 1970. • 

Havinghurst, Walter. Voices on the River: The Story of the Mississippi 

Waterways.New York: Macmillan, 1964. 

Hulbert, Archer Butler. The Ohio River: A Course of Empire. New 

York and London: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1906. 

Hull, William J. The Origin and Development of the Waterways Policy 

of the United States, Washington, D.C.: National Waterways 

Conference, 1967. 

Hunter, Louis C. Steamboats on the Western Rivers: An Economic and 

Technological History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 

Press, 1949. . 

Hunter, Louis C. Studies in the Economic History of the Ohio Valley. 

New York: Da Capo Press; 1973. 

Johnson, Leland R. Engineers on the Twin Rivers: A History of, 

the Nashville District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army.. 

Nashville: Corps of Engineers, 1978,. 

Johnson, Leland R. The•Falls City Engineers:',A Hii§tory of the'LoUisville 

District, Corps of Engineers, United States'Army. Louisville, Corps 

of Engineers, 1975. 

66. 
Johnson, Leland R. The Headwaters District: A History of the Pittsburgh 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pittsburgh: Corps of 

Engineers, 1979. 

Johnson, Leland R. Men, Mountains and Rivers: An Illustrated History 

of the Huntington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1754- 

1974. Washington, D.C.: Corps of Engineers, 1977. 

Klein, Benjamin Franklin, ed. Ohio River Handbook. Cincinnati: Young 

and Klein, 1949. 

Mayer, Albert J. Follow the River. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 

1969. 

McCague, James. The Cumberland. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 

1973. 

McCague, James. Flatboat Days on Frontier Rivers. Champaign, Ill.: 

Garrard Publishing Company, 1968. 

National Research Council. Transportation Research Board. Inland 

Waterway Transportation. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Council, National Research Council, 1975. 

Nolan, Jeanette Covert. Getting to Know the Ohio River. New York: 

Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1973. 

Ogg, Frederic Austin. The Old Northwest. New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1919. 

Rosskam, Edwin. Towboat River. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 

1948. 

Teuton, Frank L. Steamboating on the Upper Tennessee. Washington, 

D.C.: Teuton, 1975. 

U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers. Ohio River Division. Ohio River 

Navigation. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Ohio River Division, 1979. 

U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Inland Water Transportation 

in the United States. Washington, D.C.; GPO, 1923. (Miscellaneous 

Series No. 119.) 

U.S. National Resources Planning Board. Transporation and National 

Policy. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942. 

67 
U.S. Office of Federal Coordinator of Transportation. Section of Research. Public Aids to Transportation. 3 vols. Washington, 

D.C.: GPO, 1939. 

U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority. A History of Navigation on the . 

Tennessee River System: An Interpretation of the Economic Influence of this River System on the Tennessee Valley. Washington, 

D.C.: GPO, 1937. 

U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority. Major Freight Terminals on.the Tennessee River Waterway. Knoxville, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley .Authority, 

Division of Navigation Development, Navigation Engineering Branch, 

1963. 

Van Every, Dale. Ark of Empire: The American Frontier, 1784-1803. 

New York: William Morrow and Company, 1963. 

Wade, Richard C. The Urban Frontier. Cambridge: Harvard University 

Press, 1959. 

Wattenberg, Ben. Busy Waterways: The Story of America's Inland Water 

Transportation. New York: John Day, 1964. 

ARTICLES 

Albig, W. Espy. "Early Development of Transportation on the Monongahela 

River." Western Pennsylvania Magazine, 2 (April 1919), 115-24. 

Altstaetter, H. E., and J. H. Dodds. "The Monongahela River: Indispensable 

Artery of National Defense." Military Engineer, 34 (July 1942), 

331-36. 

Baldwin, Leland D. "The Rivers in the Early Development of Western 

Pennsylvania." Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, 16 

(May 1933), 79-98. 

Baldwin, Leland D. "Shipbuilding on the Western Waters, 1793-1817." 

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 20 (June 1933), 29-34. 

Bell, J. Franklin. "The Emsworth and Davis Island Dams." Military 

Engineer, 60 (Sept. 1923), 405-08. 

Bond, P. S. "The Permanent Improvement of the Ohio River." Engineering 

Record, 59 (Jan. 23, 1909), 97-99. 

68 
Bowden, Nicholls W. "Improving Tennessee River above Chattanooga, 

Tennessee, by Regulation or Open-Channel Methods." Professional 

Memoirs, 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1914), 663-91. 

Bruce, James W., Dwight W. Keller, and James A. Neill. "Modern Facilities for Ohio River Navigation." Journal of the Waterways and 

Harbors Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 83 (May 

1957), paper No. 1239. 

Brunot, Felix R. "Improvement of the Ohio River." Journal of the 

Franklin Institute, 97 (May 1874), 315-17, 327. 

Carlson, W. Wallace. "Transportation and Traffic on the Ohio and 

Mississippi before the Steamboat." Mississippi Valley Historical 

Review, 7 (June 1920), 26-38. 

Casey, Hugh J. "Deadman Island Lock and Dam, Ohio River." Military 

Engineer, 21 (Sept.-Oct. 1929), 444-51. 

Daley, Edmund L. "The Mastery of the Ohio River." Military Engineer, 

19 (May-June 1927), 188-93. 

Dorland, Gilbert M., and George R. Bethurum. "Growth of Commerce: 

Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers." Journal of the Waterways and 

Harbors Division: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil 

En8ineers, 82 (Sept. 1956), 1-17. 

Downes, Randolph C. "Problems of Trade in Early Western Pennsylvania." 

Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, 12 (Oct. 1930), 261-71. 

Fishback, Jesse L. "Cumberland River Modernization." Military Engineer, 

59 (May-June 1967), 183-85. 

Fishback, Jesse L. "Keystone on the Cumberland." Military Engineer, 

59 (Sept.-Oct. 1967), 338-41. 

Fowler, Ila Earle. "The Tradewater River Country in Western Kentucky." 

Register of Kentucky Historical Society, 82 (Oct. 1934), 277-300. 

Galpin, W.F. "The Grain Trade of New Orleans, 1804-1814." Mississippi 

Valley Historical Review, 14 (March 1928), 496-507. 

Gaum, Carl H. "History and Future of Ohio River Navigation." Journal 

of the Waterways and Harbors Division: Proceedings of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, 96 (May 1970), 483-97. 

69 
Gronert, Theodore G. "Trade in the Blue-Grass Region, 1810-1820." 

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 5 (Dec. 1918), 317-23. 

Hall, C. L. "Economics of the Ohio River Improvement." Transactions 

of American Society of Civil Engineers, 103 (1938), 1527-78. 

Harts, William W. "Cumberland River Canalization." Engineering Record, 

61 (April 16, 1910), 512-14. 

. . 

Hopkins, Arthur E. ."Steamboats at Louisville and, on the Ohio and:' 

Mississippi Rivers." Filson Club History Quarterly, 17 (July . 

1943), 143-62. 

. . • . 

Hulbert, Archer Butler. "The Ohio River." Ohio Archeological and : 

. , Historical Quarterly, 20 -(1911), 220-35. • 

Jansen, Carl B. "Century of Progress Marks Many Improvements in Construction of Locks and Dams." Civil Engineering, 18 (October 

1948), 628-33, 672. 

Johnson', Leland R. "Army Engineers on the Cumberland and Tennessee, 

1824-1854;" Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 31 (Summer 1972), 

149-69. 

Johnson, Leland R. "19th Century Engineering: The Muscle Shoals Canal." 

Military Engineer, 63 (July-Aug. 1971), 260-65. 

Kutz, Charles W. "Ohio River Canalization--Its History and Possibilities." Engineering News-Record, 104 (March 13, 1930), 433-37. 

Lane, John W. "Lifeline to Mid-America." Water Spectrum (Summer 1969), 

15-18. 

Loveland, P.W. and T.P. Bailey. "Navigation on the Ohio River." 

Military Engineer, 41 (May4June 1949), 171-75. 

Nichols, Roger L. "Army Contributions to River Transportation, 1818- 

1824." Military Affairs, 33 (April 1969), 242-49. 

Sprague, Stuart Seely. "The Canal and the Falls of the Ohio and 

Three Cornered Rivalry." Register of the Kentucky Historical 

Society, 72 (Jan. 1974), 38-54. 

Stickle, Horton W. "Monongahela River Navigation." Professional 

Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, 10 (Nov. 1919), 695-713. 

70 
Trescott, Paul B. "The Louisville and Portland Canal Company, 1825- 

1874." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 44 (March 1958), 

686-708. 

Vance, John E. "The Improvement of the Ohio River." Annals of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 31 (Jan. 1908), 

139-45. 

Wiley, Richard T. "Ship and Brig Building on the Ohio and Its Tributaries." Ohio Archeological and Historical Publications, 22 

(1913), 54-64. 

Willoughby, William R. "Early American Interest in Water Connections 

Between the East and the West." Indiana Magazine of History, 52 

(Dec. 1956), 319-42. 

* U • GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPTIC!, 19E3-399-071 

71 
• 

, . 

.r. , 

...„ 

• "--," o •4". tort-- 

' Zit 

, 

4110 - 

r 

P

▪ 

.•.! *7 • 

ler 

" • 

Y 

, 

January 1983 - 

Navigation History NWS-83-5 

a-. 

• lr.j. 

- ."'"°•• 

- . 

..o.,41 4 

_;"74"-Orr.1 

" ^ 

i-, ';!•:= 

• a 

• • . 

• .17

• 

.4104M1-7t4.4,'' ' 

' 

."4 ' • . 

......,a..--.. ..••-• •-•.-----•..: ..•".''77.4.1.;•13".•::.... - "•••-, ---••••••-stoa 4,.... 17 .--..-: _; -1•'1-e' .,., '-- ' ' .14:11.1;1• .. .0."1-.. .• le: 

v

s, •ii .oT:git:'"foromo-`,.,.14....,......- .....e-g.;,..,....;,..2..a....- 

_ .-.... 

91 

. ,..,...•-•••••••'-'-'-' '..- . ..: '... • • ••• ;:-.:!' . 4. - -...... ' .,y ...• 1 ' • • • • .•' •" ' • .: 

.,...... ,• - • .._ . 

. 

. 

. 

- 

...•••••••••••■••-•."•=gorlI 

o -- r 

'F.,ZNi;. .......d•-•---,,,"-- ---- .-••• - • -- •... • 

! 

.. .1 

• • 

' 

. ..14....-.4."^"‘ • - . • . . ..._ ' . . 

. e i . 

 I 

;,. 

0. 

, 1 ;Tit II li ,i-diet'46.! _......-! 

_ 

4.7i--,7 7-11147:3:77 - • 

"1:10.... --ir. -.V.IP-r • - . ... -"Tmeacz-:-- or.„ • 

goDog ( - 

4/1 . ,4'..• 

• 

a.r• stiy, 

we' .:'.•*foha 

""i3621213 . . 

t

eN•111 

• we • 

/ 

•14,•-• ate 

• 

wiosi