The Bureau of Reclamation:

History Essays from the

Centennial Symposium

Volumes I and II

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior

Denver, Colorado

2008
iii

Table of Contents 

Commissioner’s Introduction ............................................................................xxvii

Senior Historian’s Introduction .......................................................................... xxix

Bibliography of Papers Published in other Locations ......................................xxxiii

VOLUME 1

Section I: Technological and Engineering History of Reclamation

Concrete Dam Evolution: The Bureau of Reclamation’s Contributions 

 to 2002. Gregg N. Scott, Larry K. Nuss, and John LaBoon ................. 1

 I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

 II. Masonry Dams and the Early Years ...................................................... 4

 III. The Amazing Arch and Developments of the 1920s .......................... 10

 IV. Prelude to Hoover Dam ...................................................................... 14

 V. Hoover Dam—Quantum Leaps Forward ............................................ 19

 V.A. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports:

 Part V—Technical Investigations: Bulletin 2—

 Slab Analogy Experiments, Denver 1938 ........................................ 22

 V.B. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports:

 Part V—Technical Investigations: 

 Bulletin 3—Model Tests of Boulder Dam, 

 Denver 1939 .................................................................................... 23

 V.C. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports:

 Part V—Technical Investigations: 

 Bulletin 4—Stress Studies for Boulder Dam, 

 Denver 1939 .................................................................................... 23

 V.D. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports:

 Part V—Technical Investigations: 

 Bulletin 6—Model Test of Arch and Cantilever 

 Elements, Denver 1939 .................................................................... 24

 V.E. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports:

 Part VII—Cement and Concrete Investigations: 

 Bulletin 1—Thermal Properties of Concrete, 

 Denver 1940 .................................................................................... 24

 V.F. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: 

 Part VII—Cement and Concrete Investigations: 

 Bulletin 4—Mass Concrete Investigations, 

 Denver, 1940. ................................................................................... 25 

 V.G. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: 

 Part VII—Cement and Concrete Investigations: 

 Bulletin 2—Investigations of Portland Cement, 

 Denver, 1940 .................................................................................... 26

 VI. Hydraulics for High Concrete Dams ................................................ 26
iv

 VII. World War II Era - Large Gravity Dam ............................................ 30

 VIII. The Post-War Boom—Developments Continue ............................... 34

 IX. The Failure of Malpasset Dam—Rock Mechanics and 

 Foundation Design Develops ........................................................... 37

 X. The Double-Curvature Arch—A New Standard for 

 Effi ciency ......................................................................................... 40

 XI. Structural Analysis Developments .................................................... 44

 A. Development and Computerization of the Trial 

 Load Method .................................................................................... 44

 B. Linear Structural Analysis .......................................................... 49

 C. Nonlinear Structural Analysis .................................................... 51

 C.1. Nonlinear structural analysis of 

 Monticello Dam ................................................................ 51

 C.2. Nonlinear Structural Analysis of 

 Pueblo Dam ...................................................................... 54

 XII. Roller-Compacted Concrete—Rapid Construction 

 for Gravity Dams ............................................................................. 55

 XIII. Transition to Dam Safety—Applying Technology to 

 Reduce Risk ..................................................................................... 59

 XIV. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 63

 

 Bibliography of Sources Consulted (in the order used in the paper.) ....... 63

 100 Years of Embankment Dam Design and Construction in the 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Richard Lyman Wiltshire .................... 67

 Introduction ............................................................................................... 67

 Reclamation’s Design and Construction Organizations............................ 68 

 Period I (1902-1918)—Reclamation’s Design and

 Construction Organizations .............................................................. 68

 Period II (1919-1933)—Reclamation’s Design and 

 Construction Organizations .............................................................. 70

 Period III (1934-1944)—Reclamation’s Design and 

 Construction Organizations .............................................................. 70

 Period IV (1945-1975)—Reclamation’s Design and 

 Construction Organizations .............................................................. 71

 Period V (1976-2002)—Reclamation’s Design and 

 Construction Organizations .............................................................. 71

 Modern Embankment Dam Design and Construction .............................. 72

 Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam Design and 

 Construction .............................................................................................. 78

 Period I (1902-1918)—Reclamation’s History of 

 Embankment Dam Design and Construction ...................................... 79

 Upstream Impervious Zone Supported by Downstream 

 Rockfi ll Zone ................................................................................... 84

 Upstream Impervious Zone Supported by Downstream 

 Gravel Zone ..................................................................................... 84
v

 Modifi ed Homogeneous Section ...................................................... 85

 Belle Fourche Dam ........................................................................... 85

 Period II (1919-1933)—Reclamation’s History of 

 Embankment Dam Design and Construction ................................... 93

 Period III (1934-1944)—Reclamation’s History of 

 Embankment Dam Design and Construction ................................... 99

 Period IV (1945-1975)—Reclamation’s History of 

 Embankment Dam Design and Construction ................................. 103

 Period V (1976-2002)—Reclamation’s History of 

 Embankment Dam Design and Construction ................................. 116

 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 131

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 131

Historical Development of Durable Concrete for the Bureau of 

 Reclamation. Timothy P. Dolen ................................................................ 135

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 135 

 What is Concrete? ................................................................................... 135

 Early Obstacles to Durable Concrete ...................................................... 136

 Mechanisms of Deterioration in the Western United States ................... 137 

 Sulfate Attack .................................................................................... 137

 Alkali-aggregate Reactions ............................................................... 138

 Freezing and Thawing Deterioration ................................................ 139

 Developing the State-of-the-Art of Concrete Technology ...................... 139

 The Early Years–The Concrete Pioneers (1902-1918) ..................... 140

 The Abrams Generation (1918-1928) ............................................... 142

 Boulder Dam / The “Hoover Generation” (1928-1945) ................... 143

 The Post-War Generation: “The Constructors” (1945-1990) ........... 146 

 The Present Generation and Beyond (1990- ) ................................ 147

 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 147

 The Author’s Closure: The Challenge for the Twenty-fi rst 

 Century—Identify, Protect, Preserve ................................................ 149

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 150 

History of Drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation: A History of 

 Subsurface Drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation. 

 Rodney G. TeKrony, Glenn D. Sanders, and Billy Cummins ........... 153

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 153

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 154

 Legislation .................................................................................................. 157

 Fact Finder’s Act (December 5, 1924), (ch. 4, 43 Stat. 672 ................. 157 

 Omnibus Adjustment Act (May 25, 1926) ........................................... 157

 Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (August 4, 1939) (ch. 418, 

 53 Stat. 1187) .................................................................................... 157
vi

 Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1953 (July 9, 1952) 

 (ch. 597, 66 Stat. 445) ........................................................................ 158

 Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1954 (July 31, 1953) 

 (ch. 298, 67 Stat.261) ......................................................................... 158

 Drainage and Minor Construction Act (D&MC) (June 13, 1956) 

 (ch.382, 70 Stat. 274) ......................................................................... 158

 Food Security Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1354; 

 16 U.S.C. 3801-3862) ........................................................................ 158

 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 

 (May 12, 1986) (100 Stat. 418) .......................................................... 159

 Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998 (November 10, 1998) 

 (112 Stat. 3280) .................................................................................. 159

 Development of Transient State Drain Spacing Procedures ....................... 159

 Development of Design Standards ............................................................. 161

 Evolution of Construction Practices ........................................................... 162

 Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................... 166

 Early Experience ..................................................................................... 167

 Belle Fourche Project ........................................................................ 167

 Huntley Project ................................................................................. 168

 Newlands Project .............................................................................. 168

 Challenges Met ....................................................................................... 170

 Riverton.............................................................................................. 170 .....

 Kansas River Projects ....................................................................... 173

 Columbia Basin Project .................................................................... 174

 Central Valley Project ....................................................................... 175

 Central Utah Project .......................................................................... 179

 Oahe .................................................................................................. 180

 Eastern South Dakota Basins Study .................................................. 181

 Oakes 5,000 Acre Test Area .............................................................. 182

 Wellton-Mohawk .............................................................................. 182

 National Irrigation Water Quality Program....................................... 183

 Research...................................................................................................... 185

 International Infl uence ................................................................................ 188

 Publications ............................................................................................. 189

 Drainage Manual .............................................................................. 189

 Ground Water Manual ...................................................................... 189

 Comprehensive Construction Training Program .................................... 190

 Plastic Pipe Specifi cation .................................................................. 190

 Spin-off Applications .............................................................................. 190

 Safety of Dams .................................................................................. 190

 Canal and Structure Stabilization ...................................................... 191

 Wetlands Applications....................................................................... 191

 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 192

 References ............................................................................................... 193
vii

Evolution of the Hoover Dam In ow Design Flood: A Study in 

 Changing Methodologies. Robert E. Swain...................................... 195

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 195 

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 195

 Basin Description ....................................................................................... 196

 Basis for Original Spillway Design ............................................................ 196

 Original Flood Study .................................................................................. 197

 1990 Probable Maximum Flood Study ................................................... 200

 Meteorological Analysis ................................................................... 200

 Hydrologic Analysis .......................................................................... 201

 Antecedent Flood .............................................................................. 203

 Reservoir Operations ........................................................................ 203

 Probable Maximum Floods ............................................................... 204

 Discussion ............................................................................................... 205

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 206

A Struggle of Needs: A History of Bureau of Reclamation Fish 

 Passage Projects on the Truckee River, Nevada. 

 Rick Christensen and Brent Mefford .................................................. 209

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 209 

 Background ............................................................................................. 209

 Early History ........................................................................................... 210

 The River’s End ...................................................................................... 211

 Reclamation’s Fish Lock ......................................................................... 218

 A Look to the Future—Rebuilding the Pyramid Lake Fishway ............. 219 

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 220

Explaining Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Shasta Dams: Institutional 

 Stability and Professional Identity in the USBR. Karin Ellison ...... 221

 Abstract ....................................................................................................... 221 

 Engineering Leaders ................................................................................... 224

 Engineering Rivers ..................................................................................... 233

 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 240

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 244

From Path nder to Glen Canyon:The Structural Analysis of Arched, 

 Gravity Dams. David P. Billington, Chelsea Honigmann, and 

 Moira A. Treacy ..................................................................................... 249

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 249 

 The Beginning of Rational Design ......................................................... 249

 Form and Mass in Structure .................................................................... 250

 The Profi le of Equal Resistance .............................................................. 251

 The Middle Third .................................................................................... 252

 The Danger of Uplift and Sliding ........................................................... 253

 Arch and Cantilever Behavior in Dams .................................................. 254

 The Wisner and Wheeler Report on Pathfi nder Dam .............................. 256
viii

 Noetzli and the Curved Dams ................................................................. 258

 The Trial-Load Method ........................................................................... 261

 The Stevenson Creek Test Dam .............................................................. 262

 Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams ............................................................. 264

 Concrete Forms and Complex Analysis .................................................. 267

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 270

Origins of Boulder/Hoover Dam: Siting, Design, and Hydroelectric 

 Power. Donald C. Jackson ................................................................... 273

 Imperial Valley ........................................................................................ 274

 The Fall/Davis Report ............................................................................. 275

 Selection of the Black Canyon Site ........................................................ 277

 The Design of Boulder Dam ................................................................... 280

 Los Angeles ............................................................................................. 283

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 285

Section 2: Project Specifi c Essays

The First Five: A Brief Overview of the First Reclamation Projects

 Authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903. 

 Shelly C. Dudley .................................................................................... 289

 The First Five .......................................................................................... 291

 Newlands Project (Truckee) .............................................................. 291

 Uncompahgre Project (Gunnison) .................................................... 293

 Milk River ......................................................................................... 296

 North Platte ....................................................................................... 297

 Salt River Project .............................................................................. 299

 2002......................................................................................................... 302

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 312

Creating an Irrigator’s Reclamation Service: I. D. “Bud” O’Donnell, 

 Civic Capitalism, and the U.S. Reclamation Service in the 

 Yellowstone Valley, 1900-1930. Carroll Van West ............................. 315

 Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 329

“Did The Secretary Sell Us ‘Blue Sky?’”: Inclusion of Warren Act 

 Contractors in the North Platte River Project. Alan S. Newell ....... 333

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 333

 The Origins of the Warren Act ................................................................ 335

 Creating and Administering Warren Act Contracts on the North 

 Platte Project ..................................................................................... 341 

 Completion Of the North Platte River Project ........................................ 348

 The Bureau of Reclamation’s Delivery of Water During Water 

 Short Years ........................................................................................ 350

 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 355

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 356
ix

The Path Not Taken: The Development Company of America’s 

 Hudson Reservoir Project, Arizona Territory, 1898-1902. 

 Robert L. Spude .................................................................................... 363

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 371

Irrigation and Early Hydropower Development in the Salt River 

 Valley. Stephen Sloan ........................................................................... 375

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 375 

 Selected Bibliography................................................................................. 384

 Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 383

Water, Culture, and Boosterism: Albin and Elizabeth DeMary and 

 the Minidoka Reclamation Project, 1905-1920. 

 Laura Woodworth-Ney ......................................................................... 385

 Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 402

“LAW OR NO LAW!”—Elwood Mead and The Struggle Over 

 Power Plant Revenues, Shoshone Project, 1926-1953. 

 Robert E. Bonner .................................................................................. 407

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 424

From Self Sufficiency to Colony: The Bureau of Reclamation and 

 Wasatch County, Utah. Jessie L. Embry............................................ 429

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 429 

 Settlement of Wasatch County ................................................................ 429

 Strawberry River and Reservoir .............................................................. 430

 Deer Creek Reservoir .............................................................................. 435

 Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir ................................................................ 440

 Summary ................................................................................................. 444

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 444

VOLUME 2

Section 2: Project Specific Essays

Private Power at Boulder Dam: Utilities, Government Power, and 

 Political Realism. Sarah S. Elkind ...................................................... 447

 A River in Great Demand ....................................................................... 448 

 The Limits of Federal Authority: The Hydropower Debate ................... 453
x

 Anti-Federalism and Political Realism at Black Canyon ....................... 459

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 460

Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of Reclamation, the 

 National Park Service, and the Origins of the National Recreation 

 Area Concept at Lake Mead, 1929-1936. Douglas W. Dodd ............ 467

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 489

Hydroelectric Power From Eklutna: Reclamation Efforts to Develop 

 Southcentral Alaska During the Cold War Era. John W. Heaton 

 and Claus-M. Naske .............................................................................. 495

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 501

The Central Valley Project: Controversies Surrounding Reclamation’s 

 Largest Project. Eric A. Stene ............................................................. 503

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 503 

 History and Construction ........................................................................ 504

 The Acreage Limitation Battle ................................................................ 508

 Environmental Crises .............................................................................. 511

 Overview ................................................................................................. 516

 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 518 

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 519 

Bumpy Road For Glen Canyon Dam. W. L. Rusho ................................ 523

 Basic Concept and Purpose ..................................................................... 523

 Early History of the Glen Canyon Dam Concept ................................... 523

 The Colorado River Storage Project Plan ............................................... 525

 Congressional Authorization ................................................................... 525

 Construction of the Dam ......................................................................... 527

 Archaeology and History Investigations ................................................. 528

 The Rainbow Bridge Problem ................................................................ 531

 The Spillway Crisis, 1983-1984 ............................................................. 534

 Glen Canyon Power and the Grand Canyon Ecosystem ......................... 538

 Changing Perceptions about Pre-dam Glen Canyon ............................... 540

 The Drain Lake Powell Movement ......................................................... 542

 Sedimentation ......................................................................................... 546

 Drought ................................................................................................... 547

 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 547

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 548

The Indian Camp Dam Controversy: The Real Bean eld War.

 Marilyn J. Koch .................................................................................... 551

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 551

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 572 
xi

Hydropolitics in the Far Southwest: Carl Hayden, Arizona, and the 

 Fight for the Central Arizona Project. 

 Jack L. August Jr. ................................................................................. 579

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 604

Section 3: General Reclamation Essays

Federal Reclamation in the Twentieth Century: A Centennial 

 Retrospective. Donald J. Pisani .......................................................... 611

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 611

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 632

A Tale of Two Commissioners: Frederick Newell and Floyd Dominy.

 Donald J. Pisani ..................................................................................... 637

 Frederick H. Newell ................................................................................ 637

 Floyd Dominy ......................................................................................... 643

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 650

One Hundred Years of the Bureau of Reclamation: Looking from 

 the Outside In. Patricia Nelson Limerick .......................................... 651

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 661

From the Colorado River to the Nile and Beyond: A Century of 

 Reclamation’s International Activities. Richard H. Ives and 

 Robert M. Bochar ................................................................................. 663

 International Water Resources—Why and How Reclamation 

 is Involved ......................................................................................... 664 

 The Early Years ....................................................................................... 664

 World War II—A Catalyst for Change .................................................... 667

 Post-War Emergence of International Activities ..................................... 667

 The Flood Gates Opened—Dramatic Post-War Expansion .................... 668

 Winds of Change—Foreign Policy Shifts and New Paradigm ............... 670

 Imparting Knowledge—International Training Activities ...................... 671

 Technical Cooperation and Exchange ..................................................... 673

 A New Game Plan—Water as a Means to Promote 

 Cooperation ............................................................................................. 673

 The Future—New Challenges ................................................................. 674

 Acknowledgments ................................................................................... 675

 Sources Consulted ................................................................................... 675

Farms for Veterans: Reclamation Settlement Policies and Results 

 Following the World Wars. Brian Q. Cannon ................................... 677

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 677

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 693
xii

From Water to Water and Power: The Changing Charge of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. Jay Brigham ................................................ 697

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 712

Just Add Water: Reclamation Projects and Development Fantasies 

 in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. Stephen C. Sturgeon ........ 715

 Abstract ....................................................................................................... 715

 Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 732

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Civilian Conservation Corps:

 A Legacy Revealed. Christine Pfaff .................................................... 737

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 737 

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 737 

 Creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps .......................................... 738

 Reclamation’s CCC Program .................................................................. 739

 Job Training in Reclamation CCC Camps .............................................. 745

 Termination of Reclamation CCC Camps .............................................. 748

 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 750 

 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 751

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 751

Lee’s Ferry, the Colorado River, and the Development of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. Douglas E. Kupel ........................................ 753

 Abstract ................................................................................................... 753 

 Introduction ............................................................................................. 753

 Geology ................................................................................................... 754 

 European Discovery ................................................................................ 755

 Mormon Crossing Era ............................................................................. 756

 John D. and Emma Lee, 1871-1879 ........................................................ 756

 Lee’s Ferry and Charles H. Spencer, 1909-1912 .................................... 761

 USGS/Reclamation Controversy over Dam Construction 

 (1921-1933) ....................................................................................... 762

 USGS Outpost at Lee’s Ferry, 1933-1945 .............................................. 765

 Change of Tide: World War Two ............................................................ 767

 Reclamation Service Arrives at Lee’s Ferry, 1946-1962 ........................ 768

 The Consortium at Lonely Dell, 1964-1974 ........................................... 770

 National Park Service at the Ferry Site, 1962-1974 ............................... 771

 National Park Service at Lee’s Ferry and Lonely Dell Ranch, 

 1974-present ...................................................................................... 773

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 775

Memoirs of a Bureau Curmudgeon: Unabridged Version—

 Politically Incorrect. Thomas J. Aiken ............................................... 779
xiii

The World Commission on Dams: A Case Study on Grand Coulee 

 Dam and the Columbia River Basin Project: Process and Lessons 

 Learned. Paul C. Pitzer ....................................................................... 801

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 820

The State of Nature and the Nature of the State: Imperialism 

 Challenged at Glen Canyon. Kevin Wehr ............................................. 825

 Abstract ....................................................................................................... 825

 Introduction ................................................................................................ 825

 The Social and Historical Context: Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams ...... 826

 Harnessing the Colorado: The Bureau’s Grand Plan .................................. 830

 Chanting down Echo Park .......................................................................... 834

 The Glen Canyon Compromise: The Place No One Knew ........................ 844

 Conclusion: Challenging Imperialism and Avoiding the 

 Challenge of Environmentalism ........................................................... 847

 Endnotes .................................................................................................849

 References ............................................................................................ 850

 Writing Water in the West: Reclaiming the Language of Reclamation. 

 Nancy Cook............................................................................................ 851

 Endnotes .................................................................................................. 861

 Works Cited............................................................................................. 862

 Index .......................................................................................Follows page 862

List of Illustrations

Concrete Dam Evolution: The Bureau of Reclamation’s Contributions to 

 2002. Gregg N. Scott, Larry K. Nuss, and John LaBoon

1.1. Pathfi nder Dam, Wyoming. ......................................................................... 4

1.2. Original Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona............................................... 5

1.3. Masonry Construction at Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona. ................... 5

1.4. Buffalo Bill Dam (includes 1990 raised dam and replacement 

 spillway),Wyoming ..................................................................................... 7

1.5. Construction at Buffalo Bill Dam, Wyoming. Note wooden forms 

 at downstream face and plum stones protruding from previous lift. .......... 7

1.6. East Park Dam, California. ......................................................................... 8

1.7. Construction at East Park Dam, California. Note the vertical 

 formed contraction joint and concrete forms. ............................................. 8

1.8. Arrowrock Dam, Idaho. .............................................................................. 9

1.9. Elephant Butte Dam, New Mexico. ............................................................ 9

1.10. Comparison of Maximum Sections of Early Reclamation 

 Arch Dams. ............................................................................................... 11

1.11. Gerber Dam, Oregon. ................................................................................ 12

1.12. Stony Gorge Dam, California. .................................................................. 12

1.13. Construction of Gerber Dam. Note closure slot near left 

 side of photo. ............................................................................................. 12
xiv

1.14. Photo taken during construction of Stony Gorge Dam, California 

 from downstream side. Note struts between buttresses and sloping 

 slabs on left side of photo. ........................................................................ 13

1.15. Gerber Dam Plan and Sections ................................................................. 13

1.16. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. ............................................................................. 14

1.17. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Tile formed drains, strain meter for 

 Hoover test, and gallery reinforcement. .................................................... 15

1.18. Owyhee Dam Plan and Sections. .............................................................. 16

1.19. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Grout pipes and shear keys on vertical 

 contraction joint. ....................................................................................... 16

1.20. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Spillway “Burp” (unstable fl ow condition, 

 sometimes referred to as “blow-back”). .................................................... 17

1.21. American Flag displayed during the 1996 Summer Olympics, 

 Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. ................................................................. 20

1.22. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. 50- by 50-foot concrete 

 block placements ....................................................................................... 20

1.23. Upstream face of Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. .................................... 21

1.24. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada: Horizontal lift line and vertical 

 contraction joint. ....................................................................................... 21

1.25. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. Relative size of penstocks ..................... 21

1.26. Scale model of Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. ........................................ 22

1.27. Concrete cylinder test for Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada ........................ 24

1.28. Modern Ogee Spillway crest confi guration. ............................................. 27

1.29. Basin X (tunnel fl ip bucket), spillway discharging approximately 

 27,000 ft3

/s - Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. ............................................... 27

1.30. 1983 cavitation damage in the Left Spillway Tunnel. The “big hole” 

 extends approximately 27 feet below the tunnel invert, 

 Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. ..................................................................... 29

1.31. Grand Coulee Dam, Forebay Dam, and Third Powerplant, 

 Washington................................................................................................ 30

1.32. Construction of Grand Cou lee Forebay Dam, Washington.

 (Note unkeyed contraction joint.) ............................................................. 31

1.33. Construction of Grand Coulee Dam, Washington.

 (Note Keyed contraction joint.) ................................................................ 32

1.34. Shasta Dam, California. ............................................................................ 32

1.35. Cracking at Friant Dam due to Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, 

 Friant Dam, California. ............................................................................. 33

1.36. Freeze-thaw damage on downstream face of Deadwood Dam, Idaho.

 (Note that damage is near contraction joint due to leakage.) .................... 33

1.37. Hungry Horse Dam, Montana. .................................................................. 34

1.38. Plans and Sections of Hungry Horse Dam and spillway, Montana. ......... 36

1.39. Malpasset Dam, Cannes District, France. ................................................. 38

1.40. Malpasset Dam failure, Cannes District, France. ..................................... 38

1.41. Photo of Uniaxial Jacking Test performed at the Auburn Damsite, 

 California, to measure deformation properties of foundation 

 rock mass. ................................................................................................. 39
xv

1.42. Schematic of Uniaxial Jacking Test performed at the Auburn 

 Damsite, California, to measure deformation properties of 

 foundation rock mass. ............................................................................... 40

1.43. Morrow Point Dam, Gunnison River, Colorado. ...................................... 41

1.44. Section thru outlet works and stilling basin, Morrow Point Dam, 

 Colorado. ................................................................................................... 42

1.45. Nambé Falls Dam, New Mexico. .............................................................. 43

1.46. Seating arrangement in the Analysis Section. ........................................... 45

1.47. Monticello Dam, California. ..................................................................... 52

1.48. Finite element model of Monticello Dam, California. 

 (Foundation mesh not shown.) .................................................................. 52

1.49. Pueblo Dam, Colorado. ............................................................................. 54

1.50. Finite element model of an overfl ow buttress at Pueblo Dam, 

 Colorado. ................................................................................................... 54

1.51. Upper Stillwater Dam, Utah. .................................................................... 56

1.52. Compacting RCC at Stillwater Dam, Utah. .............................................. 56

1.53. Section through Buttress 8 or 9 at Pueblo Dam, Colorado. 

 Showing RCC stabilization measures. ...................................................... 57

1.54. RCC placement, spreading, and compaction operations in the 

 spillway pool, Pueblo Dam, Colorado. ..................................................... 58

1.55. Installing joint inducing plates in RCC at Pueblo Dam, Colorado. .......... 58

1.56. Opening of transverse contraction joint in RCC at Pueblo Dam, 

 Colorado. Grouting of joints occurred in February 2000. ....................... 58

1.57. Schematic of raising Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona. ........................ 60

1.58. Results of seismic tomography testing at Theodore Roosevelt Dam, 

 Arizona. .....................................................................................................61

1.59. Concrete placement during modifi cations to Theodore Roosevelt 

 Dam, Arizona. ........................................................................................... 62

1.60. Placement and vibration of concrete in layers during modifi cations

 to Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona. ...................................................... 62

1.61. Showing the new thrust block and spillway at Theodore Roosevelt 

 Dam, Arizona. ........................................................................................... 62

1.62. Modifi ed Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona, completed and 

 rededicated in 1996. .................................................................................. 62

100 Years of Embankment Dam Design and Construction in the 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Richard Lyman Wiltshire

2.1. Location map of Reclamation’s embankment dams. ................................ 78

2.2. Location index of Reclamation earth-fi ll dams. ........................................ 79

2.3. Minidoka Dam plan and section. .............................................................. 82

2.4. Minidoka Dam construction. .................................................................... 82

2.5. Belle Fourche Dam section. ...................................................................... 86

2.6. Belle Fourche Dam: Cutoff trench construction. ...................................... 87

2.7. Belle Fourche Dam: Steam Shovel, Dinkey Locomotive, and 

 Side-Dump Cars in Borrow Pit. ................................................................ 88

2.8. Belle Fourche Dam: Embankment fi ll construction. ................................ 88
xvi

2.9. Belle Fourche Dam: Traction engine hauling Dinkey Locomotive 

 to damsite. ................................................................................................. 89

2.10. Belle Fourche Dam: Embankment from right abutment. ......................... 90

2.11. Fontenelle Dam section. .......................................................................... 108

2.12. Fontenelle Dam: Large sinkhole on downstream slope. ........................ 109

2.13. Fontenelle Dam: Crest sinkhole. ............................................................ 110

2.14. Teton Dam sections. ................................................................................ 113

2.15. Teton Dam: Downstream sinkhole at about 11:20 A.M........................... 117

2.16. Teton Dam: Crest collapsed at 11:55 A.M. .............................................. 118

2.17. Teton Dam. Dam completely breached. ................................................. 118

2.18. Fontenelle Dam: Section of embankment with diaphragm wall. ........... 125

2.19. Fontenelle Dam: Diaphragm wall construction. .................................... 125

2.20. Fontenelle Dam: Hydromill rock excavator for diaphragm wall. .......... 126

2.21. McDonald Dam: Original dam in 1920. ................................................ 127

2.22. McDonald Dam: New dam in 2000. ...................................................... 128

2.23. New Waddell Dam construction. ............................................................ 130

2.24. New Waddell Dam: Construction equipment. ....................................... 130

Historical Development of Durable Concrete for the Bureau of Reclamation. 

 Timothy P. Dolen

3.1. Concrete canal lining on the Central Valley Project. .............................. 138

3.2. Alkali-silica reaction within concrete. .................................................... 138

3.3. A spillway showing results of cyclic freezing and thawing. ................... 139

3.4. “Chuting” of concrete resulted in poor quality concrete. ....................... 141

3.5. Delivery of concrete by truck from a centrally located 

 concrete plant. ......................................................................................... 142

3.6. Block construction techniques reduced the potential for thermal 

 cracking. .................................................................................................. 144

3.7. The use of vibrators allowed a lowered unit water content of the 

 concrete mixture. ..................................................................................... 144

3.8. Tieton Dam spillway rehabilitated in 1999. ............................................ 147

3.9. Timeline for major improvements in concrete quality and the 

 development of Reclamation durable concrete. ...................................... 148

History of Drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation: A History of Subsurface 

 Drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation. Rodney G. TeKrony, 

 Glenn D. Sanders, and Billy Cummins

4.1. In October 1913 a Pioneer traction engine pulled an Austin elevating 

 grader digging drainage ditches on the Milk River Project near 

 Malta, Montana. ...................................................................................... 156

4.2. An Austin trencher digging a drain on the North Platte Project 

 in 1917. ................................................................................................... 168

4.3. A CCC enrollee painting a pipe siphon across an open drain on the 

 Gem Irrigation District, Owyhee Project, during February 1939. .......... 172

4.4. About 1959 Reclamation experimented with using dynamite to 

 clean drains on the Lower Yellowstone Project. ..................................... 183
xvii

A Struggle of Needs: A History of Bureau of Reclamation Fish Passage 

 Projects on the Truckee River, Nevada. Rick Christensen and 

 Brent Mefford

6.1. Map of the Newlands Project. ................................................................. 212

6.2. View of Derby Diversion and Truckee River. ......................................... 213

6.3. Pool and weir fi shway constructed at Derby Diversion Dam in 1913. ... 213

6.4. View of proposed rock channel fi shway overlaid on a photograph 

 of Derby Diversion Dam. ........................................................................ 214

6.5. View of Marble Bluff Dam and the exit of Pyramid Lake Fishway. ...... 214

6.6. Location map showing Marble Bluff Dam and 

 Pyramid Lake Fishway. ........................................................................... 215

6.7. Schematic of the Marble Bluff Dam fi sh trap used to lift fi sh over 

 the dam from 1987 to 1997 ..................................................................... 216

6.8. Plan view of Marble Bluff fi sh lock and Pyramid Lake Fishway 

 exit ladder. ............................................................................................... 218

6.9. Marble Bluff Dam fi sh lock operating phases. ....................................... 219

6.10. Marble Bluff Dam Fishway exit Ladder. ................................................ 220

Explaining Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Shasta Dams:Institutional Stability 

 and Professional Identity in the USBR. Karin Ellison

7.1. Frank E. Weymouth. ................................................................................... 225

7.2. Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work and Commissioner 

 Elwood Mead at the site of the Stony Gorge Dam on the 

 Orland Project, California, in 1927. ........................................................... 228

7.3. Raymond F. Walter while he served as Chief Engineer of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. .............................................................................. 230

7.4. June 23, 1929, the Board of Engineers for Hoover Dam posed on 

 a viewpoint above the Black Canyon Damsite. Probably left to 

 right: A. J. Wiley and Louis C. Hill, consulting engineers; 

 Chief Designing Engineer J. L. Savage, Bureau of Reclamation; 

 Chief Electrical Engineer L. H. McClellan, Bureau of Reclamation; 

 Designing Engineer B. W. Steele, Bureau of Reclamation; and 

 Project Construction Engineer Walker R. Young, 

 Bureau of Reclamation. .......................................................................... 231

From Pathfinder to Glen Canyon:The Structural Analysis of Arched, Gravity 

 Dams. David P. Billington, Chelsea Honigmann, and Moira A. Treacy

8.1. Profi le of equal resistance. ...................................................................... 253

8.2. Dam Design: The middle third............................................................... 255

8.3. Uplift and Sliding. ................................................................................... 256

8.4. The cylinder formula. .............................................................................. 256

8.5. Upstream face of Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte River near 

 Casper, Wyoming, is a masonry arch and cantilever section. ................. 257

8.6. Pathfi nder Dam section and elevation diagrams. Wheeler took a 

 vertical slice of the dam as a cantilever and analyzed the defl ections. 

 He then analyzed the defl ections in a horizontal arch section. 
xviii

 He repeated these analyses, distributing load to both the arches 

 and cantilever, until the two sets of defl ections were nearly equal. ........ 258

8.7. Defl ection of Pathfi nder Dam, based on Noetzli’s analysis. 

 Defl ection of arches and crown cantilever under combined 

 20o

 temperature change and a) full water load, b) under partial 

 water load, and c) under partial water load and reaction from 

 cantilever. ................................................................................................ 260

8.8. Factor of safety against overturning. ...................................................... 262

8.9. Stevenson Creek Dam: Plan, section, and profi le along 

 upstream face. ......................................................................................... 264

8.10. Defl ection of arches and crown cantilever in Stevenson Creek 

 Dam, based on Noetzli’s analysis method. ............................................. 264

8.11. Hoover Dam, preliminary design of gravity section. .............................. 266

8.12. Hoover Dam: Downstream face showing powerhouses. ....................... 266

8.13. Glen Canyon Dam. View towards downstream face showing 

 powerhouse. ............................................................................................ 268

Origins of Boulder/Hoover Dam: Siting, Design, and Hydroelectric Power. 

 Donald C. Jackson

9.1. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes. .................................................... 273

9.2. Arthur Powell Davis while Commissioner of Reclamation. ................... 277

9.3. John (Jack) L. Savage, Chief Design Engineer, 

 Bureau of Reclamation. .......................................................................... 280

The First Five: A Brief Overview of the First Reclamation Projects

 Authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903. 

 Shelly C. Dudley

10.1. Reclamation’s fi rst fi ve projects map. ..................................................... 289

10.2. Levelling land on the Newlands Project. ................................................ 292

10.3. About 1914, “Slim” Pickins, an Uncompahgre Valley farmer, 

 displayed produce from his farm at the county fair in 

 Montrose, Colorado. ............................................................................... 295

10.4. Freighting a portable engine to a sawmill on lower St. Mary Lake 

 in June of 1906. The lumber was to be used in construction 

 work on the Milk River Project. ............................................................. 297

10.5. Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte (Sweetwater) Project. .................... 298

10.6. The Granite Reef Diversion Dam diverting water into the 

 Arizona Canal in 1908. ........................................................................... 300

10.7. The government-operated cement plant at Roosevelt Dam on the 

 Salt River Project in 1910. ...................................................................... 301

10.8. The Salt River Project’s modern control room for its water system. 

 Courtesy of the Salt River Project...........................................................304

10.9. The SCADA system on the Salt River Project controls this canal 

 control structure. Courtesy of the Salt River Project..............................304

10.10. Newlands Project map. ........................................................................... 307

10.11. Uncompahgre Project map. ..................................................................... 308

10.12. Milk River Project map. .......................................................................... 309
xix

10.13. North Platte Project map. ........................................................................ 310

10.14. Salt River Project map. ........................................................................... 311

Creating an Irrigator’s Reclamation Service: I.D. “Bud” O’Donnell, 

 Civic Capitalism, and the U.S. Reclamation Service in the Yellowstone 

 Valley, 1900-1930. Carroll Van West

11.1. The Reclamation Commission, left to right, W. A. Ryan, 

 Comptroller; I. D. O’Donnell, Supervisor of Irrigation; A. P. Davis, 

 Chief Engineer; Will R. King, Chief Counsel; F. H. Newell, 

 Director; Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior. ............................. 326

11.2. Pursuing his belief in education of Reclamation settlers, 

 I. D. O’Donnell wrote this article “Common Birds Around the Farm,” 

 for the June 1915 issue of Reclamation Record. ........................................ 328

“Did The Secretary Sell Us ‘Blue Sky?’”: Inclusion of Warren Act 

 Contractors in the North Platte River Project. Alan S. Newell

12.1. North Platte Project map. ........................................................................ 334

12.2. Senator Francis E. Warren of Wyoming. ................................................ 336

12.3. Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte Project. ........................................... 342

12.4. Walter L. Fisher while Secretary of the Interior. ..................................... 342

12.5. Morris Bien of the U.S. Reclamation Service. ........................................ 347

12.6. The Frank Vanchura homestead on the Fort Laramie Division 

 of the North Platte Project. ...................................................................... 350

The Path Not Taken: The Development Company of America’s Hudson 

 Reservoir Project, Arizona Territory, 1898-1902. Robert L. Spude

13.1. This 1909 Phoenix orange grove is typical of the agriculture 

 local farmers expected to be able to support with water from 

 the Salt River Project. ............................................................................. 370

Irrigation and Early Hydropower Development in the Salt River Valley. 

 Stephen Sloan

14.1. Roosevelt Dam and Powerhouse in August of 1909. ................................. 377

14.2. Granite Reef Diversion Dam in 1910. ........................................................ 378

Water, Culture, and Boosterism: Albin and Elizabeth DeMary and the 

 Minidoka Reclamation Project, 1905-1920. Laura Woodworth-Ney

15.1. The buildings on the east side of the square in Rupert, Idaho, 

 on the Minidoka Project in July of 1906. ................................................ 385

15.2. Harvesting potatoes in 1909 on the Henschied Ranch near 

 Rupert, Idaho. ............................................................................................. 386

15.3. The offi ce of the Minidoka Irrigation District in Rupert in 1927. .............. 387

15.4. Minidoka Dam in 1911. .............................................................................. 388

15.5. Irrigating sugar beets on the Minidoka Project. ......................................... 394

15.6. 1920 portrait of Morris Bien who was sent to deal with settlers over 

 charges on the Minidoka Project. ............................................................... 398
xx

15.7. Frederick H. Newell visited the Minidoka Project in 1911 with 

 Secretary of the Interior Walter L. Fisher. .................................................. 399

15.8. American Falls Dam in 1927, soon after completion. ................................ 400

“LAW OR NO LAW!”—Elwood Mead and The Struggle Over Power 

 Plant Revenues, Shoshone Project, 1926-1953. Robert E. Bonner

16.1. The “Claim shanty of Roderick Seaton, Garland Flat,” 

 Shoshone Project, Wyoming, April 13, 1906. ......................................... 408

16.2. School children on the Willwood Division of the Shoshone 

 Project in September of 1930. ................................................................. 408

16.3. Buffalo Bill (Shoshone) Dam and the Shoshone Powerplant, 

 Shoshone Project, Wyoming. .................................................................. 412

From Self Sufficiency to Colony: The Bureau of Reclamation and 

 Wasatch County, Utah. Jessie L. Embry

17.1. This August 1910 photograph of a peach orchard on the 

 Strawberry Valley Project south and east of Utah Lake. 

 The picture is looking toward the Wasatch Mountains. .......................... 431

17.2. Rainbow trout caught in Strawberry Reservoir in 1918. ........................ 434

17.3. This 1940 photograph by Ellis Armstrong, later a Commissioner 

 of Reclamation, shows CCC forces dismantling the Atwood house 

 in the Deer Creek Reservoir area near Charleston on the 

 Provo River Project. ................................................................................ 437

17.4. Construction at Deer Creek Dam. ........................................................... 438

17.5. Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir ................................................................ 443

Private Power at Boulder Dam: Utilities, Government Power, and 

 Political Realism. Sarah S. Elkind

18.1. Black Canyon during early preparations for construction of 

 Boulder Dam. .......................................................................................... 452

18.2. The interior of Nevada Powerplant at Hoover Dam. .............................. 458

Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of Reclamation, the 

 National Park Service, and the Origins of the National Recreation 

 Area Concept at Lake Mead, 1929-1936. Douglas W. Dodd

19.1. During a tour of Hoover Dam construction on November 12, 1932, 

 Ray Lyman Wilbur (third from right) accompanied President 

 Herbert Hoover (between Mrs. Hoover and Mrs. Wilbur). ..................... 470

19.2. In 1927 or 1928 Stephen Mather and his ranking staff sat for this 

 portrait in Washington, D.C. From left to right: Arno B. Cammerer, 

 Arthur E. Demaray, Stephen T. Mather, George A. Moskey and 

 Horace M. Albright. Photo courtesy of the National Park Service. ................... 471

19.3. Commissioner Elwood Mead at his desk in the Interior 

 offi ce building. ........................................................................................ 477

19.4. Arno B. Cammerer, Director of the National Park Service. ................... 479

19.5. An excursion boat on Lake Mead before the lake rose above the 

 upstream diversion dam. ......................................................................... 481
xxi

Hydroelectric Power From Eklutna: Reclamation Efforts to Develop 

 Southcentral Alaska During the Cold War Era. John W. Heaton and

 Claus-M. Naske

20.1. Map of Eklutna Project from the 1961 Reclamation

 Project Data book. .................................................................................. 497

20.2. Eklutna Powerplant from the 1961 Reclamation

 Project Data book. .................................................................................. 499

The Central Valley Project: Controversies Surrounding 

 Reclamation’s Largest Project. Eric A. Stene

21.1. B. S. Alexander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Courtesy of the

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ...............................................................505

21.2. Shasta Dam, Powerplant, and Lake at the location originally 

 proposed for Kennett Dam. ..................................................................... 507

Bumpy Road For Glen Canyon Dam. W. L. Rusho

22.1. Glen Canyon Dam. Photograph by the the author in 1969. ................... 527

The Indian Camp Dam Controversy: The Real Bean eld War. 

 Marylin J. Koch

23.1. Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner of Reclamation from 

 1995-2001, previously worked in the State Engineer’s 

 offi ce in New Mexico, where he served as State Engineer 

 at the end of his career. ........................................................................... 552

Hydropolitics in the Far Southwest: Carl Hayden, Arizona, and the 

 Fight for the Central Arizona Project. Jack L. August Jr.

24.1. August 1963 Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan Report cover. ..................... 593

24.2. President Lyndon Baines Johnson hands to Senator Carl Hayden 

 the pen with which he signed the Colorado River Basin Projects 

 Act on September 30, 1968 ..................................................................... 602

Federal Reclamation in the Twentieth Century: A Centennial 

 Retrospective. Donald J. Pisani

25.1. Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane. ............................................. 614

25.2. President Theodore Roosevelt. ............................................................... 615

25.3. Francis G. Newlands while senator representing Nevada. ..................... 615

25.4. Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman. .......................................... 620

A Tale of Two Commissioners: Frederick Newell and Floyd Dominy. 

 Donald J. Pisani

26.1. Frederick H. Newell while Director of Reclamation. ............................. 638

26.2. Floyd E. Dominy at Hoover Dam in 1963 during his term as 

 Commissioner of Reclamation. ............................................................... 644

26.3. Loading cantaloupes in a fi eld on the Yuma Project in 1958. ................. 648
xxii

One Hundred Years of The Bureau of Reclamation: Looking from the 

 Outside In. Patricia Nelson Limerick

27.1. Offi cial Portrait of Secretrary of the Interior 

 Ethan Allen Hitchcock. ........................................................................... 655

From the Colorado River to the Nile and Beyond: A Century of 

 Reclamation’s International Activities. Richard H. Ives and 

 Robert M. Bochar

28.1. John L. Savage on the Yangtze River. ..................................................... 668

28.2. Report covers from Resident Team Programs. ....................................... 670

28.3. Ethiopia land classifi cation work in Blue Nile. 

 (Old Ways Meet the New) ...................................................................... 670

28.4. Reclamation advisors assist Pakistani counterparts in 

 drainage work. ......................................................................................... 671

28.5. Aswan High Dam in Egypt. .................................................................... 671

28.6. Suleyman Demirel (middle row–center) with Reclamation 

 Resident Team (kneeling in front). ............................................................... 672

Farms for Veterans: Reclamation Settlement Policies and Results 

 Following the World Wars. Brian Q. Cannon

29.1. Alfred Fincher and his family arrived on their veteran’s 

 homestead on the Vale Project nine days before this picture 

 was taken in September 1936. ................................................................ 684

29.2. In December 1946 Frederick Lehman congratulated 

 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Metz on winning a drawing for a 

 homestead on the Klamath Project. ........................................................ 689

From Water to Water and Power: The Changing Charge of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. Jay Brigham

30.1. Grand Coulee, Hoover, and Glen Canyon Dams and their 

 powerhouses. ........................................................................................... 697

30.2. Theodore Roosevelt Dam and Powerhouse. ........................................... 700

30.3. A 1911 view of the Minidoka Powerplant. ............................................. 700

30.4. Bell type 116” turbine runner (Unit 1) at the Siphon Drop 

 Powerplant on the Yuma Project in 1926. ............................................... 702

30.5. In 1906 Reclamation had the exciters in place and ready for 

 operation in the powerhouse on the Strawberry Valley Project. ............. 703

Just Add Water: Reclamation Projects and Development Fantasies 

 in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. Stephen C. Sturgeon

31.1. Federal and state representatives at a meeting of the Colorado River 

 Compact Commission, north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, at Bishop’s 

 Lodge. Left to right: W. S. Norviel, Commissioner for Arizona; 

 Arthur P. Davis, Director, Reclamation Service; Ottamar Hamele, 

 Chief Counsel, Reclamation Service; Herbert Hoover, Secretary of 

 Commerce and Chairman of Commission; Clarence C. Stetson, 

 Executive Secretary of Commission; L. Ward Bannister, Attorney, of 
xxiii

 Colorado; Richard E. Sloan, Attorney, of Arizona; Edward Clarke, 

 Commissioner for Nevada; C. P. Squires, Commissioner for Nevada; 

 James R. Scrugham, Commissioner for Nevada; William F. Mills, 

 former Mayor of Denver; R. E. Caldwell, Commissioner for Utah; 

 W. F. McClure, Commissioner for California; R. F. McKisick, Deputy 

 Attorney General of California; Delph E. Carpenter, Commissioner for 

 Colorado; R. J. Meeker, Assistant State Engineer of Colorado; 

 Stephen B. Davis, Jr., Commissioner for New Mexico; J. S. Nickerson, 

 President, Imperial Irrigation District of California; Frank C. Emerson, 

 Commissioner for Wyoming; Charles May, State Engineer of New 

 Mexico; Merritt C. Mechem, Governor of New Mexico; T. C. Yeager, 

 Attorney for Coachella Valley Irrigation District of California. 

 November 24, 1922. ................................................................................ 717

31.2. The east portal of the Gunnison Tunnel during construction. .................... 719

31.3. Signed into law in 1956, the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)

 authorized a broad range of projects in the Upper Colorado 

 River Basin. ................................................................................................ 721

31.4. Glen Canyon Dam and Powerhouse. .......................................................... 722

31.5. The scroll case in unit 5 of the Glen Canyon Powerhouse during 

 installation in 1963. .................................................................................... 722

31.6. Flaming Gorge Dam and Powerplant in 1984. ........................................... 724

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Civilian Conservation Corps:

 A Legacy Revealed. Christine Pfaff

32.1. ECW winter camp at Belle Fourche Dam in 1934.................................. 739

32.2. CCC crew placing and fi nishing concrete at a new Kingman 

 check on the Owyhee Project in 1940. .................................................... 742

32.3. CCC forces lined small community ditches in Las Cruces, 

 New Mexico, on the Rio Grande Project in 1937. .................................. 742

32.4. CCC forces placing steel reinforcement on the Stinkingwater 

 Siphon, Belle Fourche Project, in 1938. ................................................. 744

32.5. CCC men working on McMillan Spillway No. 2, Carlsbad Project, 

 New Mexico, in 1938. ............................................................................. 745

32.6. Yuma Project. CCC enrollee off-the-job-training class in 

 blacksmithing on the Yuma Project in 1939. .......................................... 746

Lee’s Ferry, The Colorado River, and the Development of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. Douglas E. Kupel

33.1. This 1871 image of John Wesley Powell’s second expedition 

 down the Colorado River was captured at the jumping off 

 point in Green River, Wyoming. ............................................................. 759

33.2. Eugene C. LaRue’s dream of a Glen Canyon dam was fi nally 

 realized in the 1960s. .............................................................................. 770
xxiv

The World Commission on Dams: A Case Study on Grand Coulee Dam and 

 the Columbia River Basin Project: Process and Lessons Learned. 

 Paul C. Pitzer

35.1. Grand Coulee Dam construction in 1936. ............................................... 813

35.2. Grand Coulee Dam in 1948 after construction. ...................................... 813

The State of Nature and the Nature of the State: Imperialism Challenged at 

 Glen Canyon. Kevin Wehr

36.1. These U.S. Postage stamps of Boulder Dam (1935) and 

 Grand Coulee Dam (1952) demonstrate the strong interest of 

 the government in presenting these iconic structures to the 

 American Public, among whom interest was high at the time. .................. 828

36.2. Rufus Woods was a tireless promoter of Grand Coulee Dam and 

 the Columbia Basin Project. ....................................................................... 829

36.3. Douglas McKay, Secretary of the Interior during the term of 

 Dwight D. Esenhower. ................................................................................ 843

Writing Water in the West: Reclaiming the Language of Reclamation. 

 Nancy Cook

37.1. Floyd E. Dominy while Commissioner of Reclamation. ........................ 856

List of Tables

Concrete Dam Evolution: The Bureau of Reclamation’s Contributions to 

 2002. Gregg N. Scott, Larry K. Nuss, and John LaBoon

Table 1.1. Large Masonry and Concrete Storage Dams Designed 

 and Built by the Bureau of Reclamation or Currently in 

 the Bureau of Reclamation Inventory. ................................................ 2 

Evolution of the Hoover Dam Inflow Design Flood: A Study in 

 Changing Methodologies. Robert E. Swain

Table 5.1. 1930 Flood Frequency Analysis for Hoover Dam .......................... 199

Table 5.2. 1930 Infl ow Design Flood Volumes for Hoover Dam .................... 199

Explaining Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Shasta Dams: Institutional Stability 

 and Professional Identity in the USBR. Karin Ellison

Table 7.1. Sources on engineers ...................................................................... 240

Table 7.2. Abbreviations used in footnotes ..................................................... 244

From Pathfinder to Glen Canyon: The Structural Analysis of Arched, Gravity 

 Dams. David P. Billington, Chelsea Honigmann, and Moira A. Treacy

Table 8.1. Comparison of pathfi nder Dam defl ections from several 

 analysis methods. ............................................................................ 261

Table 8.2. Comparison of Stevenson Creek Dam defl ections from 

 several analysis methods ................................................................ 265 
xxv

From Water to Water and Power: The Changing Charge of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. Jay Brigham

Table 30.1. Bureau of Reclamation Power Plants Operated during 

 Fiscal year 1916-1917. ................................................................... 705

Table 30.2. Undeveloped power on Bureau Projects during fi scal year 

 1916-1917. ...................................................................................... 706
xxvii

COMMISSIONER’S INTRODUCTION

 While I was regional director of the Lower Colorado Region in Boulder 

City, it was a great pleasure to be the executive sponsor of Reclamation’s Centennial 

activities. This is one of the last of these activities to reach fruition. Commissioner 

John W. Keys III and I opened the history symposium the day after the Water for the 

West Foundation sponsored a spectacular birthday party for Reclamation at Hoover 

Dam.

 The Bureau of Reclamation has a grand tradition of which I have been part 

since 1975 when I started work in the regional offi ce in Sacramento. Reclamation’s 

history closely parallels that of the development of the twentieth century American 

West. Reclamation was established in 1902 by President Theodore Roosevelt to 

“make the desert bloom.” Reclamation projects have been the seed for many of 

the modern American West’s large agricultural and metropolitan centers. I have 

watched completion of the Central Arizona Project and seen its effect on growth in 

Valley of the Sun communities.

Today, Reclamation provides one out of fi ve Western farmers with water for 10 million irrigated acres. These farmlands produce sixty percent of the nation’s vegetables and twenty-fi ve percent of its fruits and nuts. We are the largest electric utility 

in the seventeen western states (operating 58 hydropower plants) and the nation’s 

largest wholesale water supplier, administering 348 reservoirs with a total storage 

capacity of 245 million acre-feet. Nearly 30 million people all over the West depend 

on Reclamation projects for their municipal, industrial, and domestic water supplies. 

Throughout its history, Reclamation has been an innovator in the engineering and 

science of dam design and construction, hydroelectric power production and delivery, water delivery, conservation, and multipurpose uses of water. Reclamation’s 

masonry dams represent a distinguished lineage and include many landmarks of the 

West: East Park, Pathfi nder, Buffalo Bill, Arrowrock, Owyhee, Hoover, Grand Coulee, Shasta, Friant, and Morrow Point are only the highlights of the list. Reclamation’s embankment dams follow an equally distinguished lineage and include Belle 

Fourche, Anderson Ranch, and San Luis.

Reclamation’s history is a rich tapestry fi lled 

with the politics, colorful personalities, and the 

unique character of the West. It is marked by engineering accomplishments and economic growth 

woven into the tapestry of western water development and delivery. These essays prepared for 

Reclamation’s history symposium in 2002 add 

new dimensions to the story of Reclamation.

 Robert W. Johnson

 Commissioner

 Bureau of Reclamation
xxix

SENIOR HISTORIAN’S INTRODUCTION

On June18-19, 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of 

History at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, hosted a symposium on the 

history of Reclamation. The symposium was held in conjunction with the 

Bureau’s centennial anniversary birthday party at Hoover Dam the afternoon and 

evening of June 17, and Dr. Andrew Kirk and Ms. Mary Wammack made the local 

arrangements at UNLV.

Reclamation’s commissioner and executive staff from about 1992 

forward supported centennial activities planned by the committee I chaired 

for Reclamation, including publication of these papers. Various issues have 

prevented preparation of this publication until several years after the symposium 

was held. In particular, commissioners Dennis Underwood, Daniel Beard, 

Eluid Martinez, John W. Keys III, and Bob Johnson and other executive staff 

such as Margaret Sibley, Elizabeth Harrison, and Roseann Gonzales have been 

very supportive of the history program and this publication. The support of 

my supervisors, Richard Rizzi and Ronald (Rusty) W. Schuster, was also very 

important to the success of these activities.

The proposed papers for the history symposium were vetted through a peer 

review group consisting of James Corbridge of the University of Colorado School 

of Law, Patricia N. Limerick of the University of Colorado, Toni Rae Linenberger 

of Reclamation, Donald J. Pisani of the University of Oklahoma, William D. 

Rowley of the University of Nevada-Reno, Wm. Joe Simonds of Reclamation, 

and me. In addition, Larry Walkoviak reviewed proposals for papers from an 

internal Reclamation perspective and provided comments on the proposals.

It was always the intent of the planning to embrace a broad range of 

ideologies, attitudes, and interpretations of Reclamation’s history, and neither I 

nor the Bureau of Reclamation nor the members of the peer review committee 

necessarily agree with, or in any way endorse, the authors’ selection of data or 

their interpretation of that data.

I consulted two noted, veteran, western history editors, Dr. Maxine 

Benson and Dr. Judith Austin, about how to approach this collection of papers. 

As a result, it has been my choice as editor to avoid trying to homogenize each 

symposium paper to uniform format, writing, and endnote styles. Instead, each 

author’s work is permitted to show differences of professional training, endnote 

style, and writing style. Generally we have tried to use dictionary guidance for 

spelling and for a few stylistic issues have gratefully used the guidance of The

Chicago Manual of Style’s fi fteenth edition. Among a few other items of which 

the reader might wish to be aware are the following standards we have tried to 

follow:
xxx

$ quotations, notwithstanding our few efforts at 

standardization, were not altered, except that quotations of 

three or more lines were separated from text and doubleindented with quotation marks removed;

$ quotations were not checked for accuracy by the editor;

$ no U.S. Postal Service or other abbreviations for states were 

used outside quotations; no abbreviations for months were 

used outside quotations; 

$ we used abbreviations for footnote and bibliography entries 

only when they are standard to the publication cited;

$ we used the convention of “U.S.” with no space between 

the letters while placing a space between letters for the 

initials of names, e.g., R. F. Walter;

$ and, except in the more technically-oriented papers, where 

we have adhered to the conventions of the authors, we 

normally spelled out numbers under 100 and used numerals 

for 100 and over.

Because of the lapse of time between the symposium and this publication, 

some of the authors have placed their papers in other locations. When those 

other publications vary signifi cantly from the original manuscript, we have 

also published the symposium original. All author-reported publications 

incorporating signifi cant portions of the original symposium paper are listed 

in the “Bibliography of Papers Published in Other Locations.” The remaining 

papers are presented in this publication, and we appreciate the authors’ continuing 

assistance to us. These papers represent a tremendous amount of labor in terms 

of research and writing, and we are pleased that the history program is now 

able, through the support of Commissioner Robert W. Johnson, to provide this 

information to those interested in Reclamation’s history.

To bring some order to the presentation of these essays, I felt it necessary 

to group them according to topic, but that proved more diffi cult than I had 

originally thought. In the end, the groupings became an engineering/technical 

section, a general Reclamation history section, and a section devoted to essays 

limited largely to a single Reclamation project.

Two technical notes are in order. In neither of these instances have we 

tried to correct authors’ text to conform to these technical notes. 

 First, there is a widespread belief among historians and the water 

 community that the Colorado River Basin is divided at “Lee’s 

 Ferry” into the Upper Colorado River Basin and the Lower 

 Colorado River Basin. This is an assumption that has gained 

 currency over the years both because the Lee’s Ferry site, at the 

 mouth of the Paria River, is of historical signifi cance as an early 

 settlement on the Colorado River at the upriver edge of the Grand 
xxxi

 Canyon and because there is a confusing similarity of terminology. 

 The Colorado River Compact states that the division between the 

 basins is at “Lee Ferry” and specifi es in its defi nitions section that 

 “The term ‘Lee Ferry’ means a point in the main stream of the 

 Colorado River one mile below the mouth of the Paria River.” 

 Therefore, “Lee Ferry” and “Lee’s Ferry” are slightly different 

 locations—the Compact defi nition assures that the Paria River is a 

 tributary wholly within the Upper Colorado River Basin.

 Second, some authors have referred to Reclamation as an 

 “agency.” This is a common misconception held both within 

 and outside the federal government. The term “agency” refers 

 to cabinet level agencies, e.g., the Department of the Interior or the 

 Department of Agriculture, and some independent agencies. The 

 term “bureau” refers to subdivisions within agencies—such as 

 the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 

 National Park Service, all bureaus within an agency—the 

 Department of the Interior.

Finally, layout and design of our publication was carried out in 

Reclamation’s Technical Services Center, by Charles Brown with assistance 

from Bonnie Gehringer. The assistance provided from that offi ce is particularly 

important to the successful and timely completion of this publication.

Brit Allan Storey, Ph.D.

Senior Historian

Bureau of Reclamation
xxxiii

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN OTHER 

LOCATIONS

Alexander, Thomas. “Interdependence and Change: Mutual Irrigation Companies 

in Utah’s Wasatch Oasis in an Age of Modernization, 1870-1930,” Utah

Historical Quarterly 71 (Fall 2003), pp. 292-314.

__________. “Interdependence in the Mormon Heartland: Mutual Irrigation 

Companies and Modernization in Utah’s Wasatch Oasis, 1870-1930,” The Mining 

History Journal: The Tenth Annual Journal of the Mining History Association

(2003 [2004]), pp. 87-102. The paper prepared for the symposium carried this 

title.

Burgi, Philip H. “Impact of Reclamation’s Hydraulic Laboratory on Water 

Development,” Environmental and Water Resources History: Proceedings and 

Invited Papers for the ASCE 150th Anniversary (1852-2002). Sponsored by 

Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers and EWRI National History and Heritage Committee. Edited by Jerry 

R. Rogers and Augustine J. Fredrich (ASCE: Reston, Virginia, 2003), pp. 73-86.

Campbell, Robert B. “Newlands, Old Lands: Native American Labor, Agrarian 

Ideology, and the Progressive-Era State in the Making of the Newlands 

Reclamation Project, 1902-1926,” Pacifi c Historical Review 71:2 (May 2002), 

pp. 203-238. The symposium paper had this same title.

Dodd, Douglas W. “Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of Reclamation, 

the National Park Service, and the Origins of the National Recreation Area 

Concept at Lake Mead, 1929-1936.” Southern California Quarterly 88: 4 (Winter 

2006-2007), pp. 431-73. An abridged version of this paper is included in this 

collection of papers with the permission of the Southern California Quarterly.

Orsi, Richard J. Sunset Limited: The Southern Pacifi c Railroad and the 

Development of the American West, 1850-1930. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 

London: University of California Press, 2005). Professor Orsi’s Chapter 10, 

“The Government is Hard to Deal With,” (pp. 238-75) closely parallels his paper 

prepared for the symposium—“Reclamation’s Forgotten Partner: The Southern 

Pacifi c Railroad and the Truckee-Carson Project, 1902-1930.”

Seney, Donald B. “The Changing Political Fortunes of the Truckee-Carson 

Irrigation District,” Agricultural History 76: 2, (2002), pp. 220-31. This article 

carries the original title of the symposium paper.

Scott, Gregg, and Larry K. Nuss and John H. LaBoon. “High Dams and Large 

Reservoirs: The Evolution of Concrete Dams at the Bureau of Reclamation,” 

Environmental and Water Resources History: Proceedings and Invited Papers 

for the ASCE 150th Anniversary (1852-2002). Sponsored by Environmental 
xxxiv

and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers and 

EWRI National History and Heritage Committee. Edited by Jerry R. Rogers and 

Augustine J. Fredrich (ASCE: Reston, Virginia, 2003), pp. 87-98. This ASCE 

book contains an abridged version, but the entire original paper is included 

in this publication under the title “Concrete Dam Evolution: The Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Contributions.” Reclamation publishes this version of the paper 

after conversations with the editorial staff of ASCE regarding copyright issues.

Simonson, Elaine, and Toni Rae Linenberger. “The Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Legacy: A Century of Water for the West,” Environmental and Water Resources 

History: Proceedings and Invited Papers for the ASCE 150th Anniversary 

(1852-2002). Sponsored by Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers and EWRI National History and Heritage 

Committee. Jerry R. Rogers and Augustine J. Fredrich, editors. (Reston, 

Virginia: ASCE, 2003), pp. 68-72.

Woodworth-Ney, Laura. “Elizabeth Layton DeMary and the Rupert Culture 

Club: New Womanhood in a Reclamation Settlement Community,” Dee 

Garceau-Hagen, editor, Portraits of Women in the American West. (New York 

City: Routledge, 2005), pp. 232-59, is a much-altered version of the paper Dr. 

Woodworth-Ney prepared for the history symposium, which is included in this 

collection of essays under the title “Water, Culture and Progressive Politics: 

Albin and Elizabeth DeMary and the Struggle for Local Control of the Minidoka 

Reclamation Project, 1905-1920.” This version of Dr. Woodworth-Ney’s paper is 

printed with the permission of Routledge.
1

Concrete Dam Evolution: The Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Contributions to 2002

By:

Gregg A. Scott

Larry K. Nuss

and John LaBoon

I. Introduction

Over the last 100 years the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has 

made signifi cant engineering contributions to the advancement and evolution of 

concrete dam analysis, design, and construction. The beginning of Reclamation’s 

long history of world renowned concrete dam construction began shortly after 

the turn of the century with landmark masonry dams. Arch, gravity, and buttress 

 dam design evolved through the 1920s. In the 1930s with the design and 

construction of Hoover Dam, signifi cant strides were made in design, analysis, 

and construction. Advances were also made in concrete materials, temperature 

control, and construction techniques. Concrete technology improved to solve 

the problems of alkali-aggregate reaction and freeze-thaw damage following 

 Hoover Dam. In addition to Hoover Dam, some of the largest concrete dams 

in the world were constructed by Reclamation during the 1930s, 1940s, and 

1950s. Following the failure of Malpasset Dam (France) in the late 1950s, it 

became fully recognized that foundation conditions were critical to the stability 

of concrete dams. Reclamation made signifi cant contributions in the areas of 

rock mechanics and dam foundation design in the 1960s and later. In the 1970s 

attention was paid to the earthquake response of concrete dams, and Reclamation 

was among the fi rst to apply the fi nite element method to these types of analyses. 

A new method of concrete dam construction, termed roller-compacted concrete 

(RCC), was developed in the 1980s using earthmoving and paving technology 

to transport and place concrete materials, resulting in shorter construction times 

and decreased cost. Reclamation advanced RCC materials design and placement 

methods. Continued evaluations for dam safety, operations, and maintenance 

have been in the forefront of recent Reclamation activities. As the behavior and 

risks posed by these dams are better understood, modifi cations have been made 

for several concrete dams to improve their safety and service life. Part of the 

evolution of concrete dam analysis, design and construction, has been associated 

with waterways; specifi cally spillways and outlet works. These features are key 

components to safely pass water through concrete dams. Although these features 

are also critical for embankment dams, advances often came during concrete dam 

design due to the high heads associated with many of these structures.
2

Table 1.1. Large Masonry and Concrete Storage Dams Designed and Built by the 

Bureau of Reclamation or Currently in the Bureau of Reclamation Inventory.

Dam Year 

Completed* Type

Structural

Height

(feet)**

State

Pathfi nder 1909 Thick Arch 214 Wyoming

Buffalo Bill 1910, 1990 Thick Arch 325 Wyoming

East Park 1910 Gravity Arch 139 California

Jackson Lake 1911 Composite Gravity/

Embankment 66 Wyoming

Theodore Roosevelt 1911,

1996 Thick Arch 280raised to 356 Arizona

Arrowrock 1916 Gravity Arch 350 Idaho

Elephant Butte 1916 Gravity 301 New Mexico

Clear Creek 1918, 1993 Thick Arch 84 Washington

Warm Springs 1919 Thin Arch 106 Oregon

Black Canyon Diversion 1924 Gravity 183 Idaho

Gerber 1925 Thin Arch 88 Oregon

Mormon Flat 1926 Thin Arch 224 Arizona

Horse Mesa 1927 Thin Arch 305 Arizona

Stony Gorge 1928 Slab and Buttress 139 California

Gibson 1929 Medium-thick Arch 199 Montana

Stewart Mountain 1930 Thin Arch 207 Arizona

Deadwood 1931 Medium-thick Arch 165 Idaho

Owyhee 1932 Thick Arch 417 Oregon

Thief Valley 1932 Slab and Buttress 73 Oregon

Hoover 1936 Thick Arch 726 Nevada/Arizona

Parker 1938 Medium-thick Arch 320 Arizona
3

Dam Year 

Completed* Type

Structural

Height

(feet)**

State

Bartlett 1939 Multiple Arch 309 Arizona

Seminoe 1939 Medium-thick Arch 295 Wyoming

Friant 1942 Gravity 319 California

Grand Coulee 1942, 1974 Gravity 550 Washington

Marshall Ford 1942 Gravity 278 Texas

Altus 1945 Curved Gravity 110 Oklahoma

Shasta 1945 Curved Gravity 602 California

Angostura 1949 Composite: Gravity/

Embankment 193 South Dakota

Olympus 1949 Composite: Gravity/

Embankment 70 Colorado

Keswick 1950 Gravity 157 California

Kortes 1951 Gravity 244 Wyoming

Hungry Horse 1953 Thick Arch 564 Montana

Canyon Ferry 1954 Gravity 225 Montana

Folsom 1956 Composite: Gravity/

Embankment 340 California

Monticello 1957 Medium-thick Arch 304 California

Anchor 1960 Thin Arch 208 Wyoming

Flaming Gorge 1964 Medium-thick Arch 502 Utah

Glen Canyon 1964 Thick Arch 710 Arizona

East Canyon 1966 Double-curvature Arch 260 Utah

Yellowtail 1966 Medium-thick Arch 525 Montana

Swift 1967 Double-curvature Arch 205 Montana

Morrow Point 1968 Double-curvature Arch 468 Colorado

Wild Horse 1969 Double-curvature Arch 110 Nevada
4

Dam Year 

Completed* Type

Structural

Height

(feet)**

State

Mountain Park 1975 Double- curvature Arch 133 Oklahoma

Pueblo 1975 Composite: Massive-head 

Buttress/ Embankment 250 Colorado

Crystal 1976 Double-curvature Arch 323 Colorado

Nambé Falls 1976

Composite: Doublecurvature Arch/ 

Embankment

150 New Mexico

American Falls 1978 Composite: Gravity/

Embankment 104 Idaho

Upper Stillwater 1987 RCC Gravity 292 Utah

Brantley 1989 Composite: Gravity/

Embankment 144 New Mexico

* For cases where the height or shape was signifi cantly altered, the modifi cation date is also given

** Structural height is generally the difference between the dam crest and lowest point of the 

excavation

II. Masonry Dams and the Early Years

 Shortly after the beginning of the twentieth century, just after the 

establishment of the U.S. Reclamation Service, explorations were underway for 

large storage dams. In September 1903 George Y. Wisner, consulting engineer 

for the Reclamation Service, addressed a conference of Reclamation Service 

Engineers in Ogden, Utah. He indicated 

Reclamation would be required to build 

masonry dams of great height in order to 

store the water required to reclaim arid 

lands. This could be accomplished in 

narrow canyons where the arch action 

of the dam could be taken into account, 

provided the plans were based upon 

accurate data and correct determination 

of the stresses to which the dams 

would be subjected. In 1904, Wisner 

began what was to be a leading role in 

the design of Pathfi nder Dam on the 

North Platte River in central Wyoming, 

collaborating with Edgar T. Wheeler, 

consulting engineer, on the analysis. It 

was recognized that masonry dams are 

far from rigid, and that temperature 

was an important load. The modulus 1.1. Pathfi nder Dam, Wyoming.
5

and coeffi cient of thermal expansion were estimated for a composite of rock 

and concrete. The dam was designed as a combination of an arch and a vertical 

cantilever fi xed at the base. The load, both temperature and reservoir, was 

distributed between the arch and cantilever so as to produce equal defl ections. 

The stresses resulting from the defl ections were then calculated. This was the 

early beginnings of what was to later become the Trial Load Method of analysis. 

The designed cross-section, constructed on a radius of 150 feet, was determined 

to give suffi cient thickness to safely resist the forces that would act upon it. 

Above elevation 5830, reinforcement was considered necessary to reduce thermal 

cracking.

 The dam was constructed in a narrow granite canyon. A large tunnel was 

constructed to divert the fl ow of the river, and later was used for the outlet works. 

Foundation excavation and dam construction were facilitated by an overhead 

cableway and guy derricks with steam driven hoist engines. The overhead 

cableway was key to constructing in the deep narrow canyon. Cableways are 

still an important component of modern construction for such conditions. Steam 

engines powered the concrete and mortar batch plant as well as the aggregate 

crushing and sorting plant. The side walls of the canyon were excavated to 

produce surfaces normal to the face of the dam. The fi rst masonry was laid in 

August 1906, and the dam was completed in 1909. It was recognized that an 

impervious dam could be built at 

the same cost as a leaky dam, the 

main difference being more rigid 

inspection and an understanding at 

the start that fi rst-class work only 

would be allowed. Any rock to be 

built against and any material to be 

placed in the dam was thoroughly 

washed and cleaned. A course of 

masonry was built on the upstream 

and downstream faces, and granite 

stone from the spillway excavation, 

varying in size from one to fi ve 

cubic yards, was set in a heavy 

bed of mortar between the faces.

The stones were lifted, reset, and 

vibrated with bars as necessary 

to get them completely in contact 

with the mortar. The vertical 

joints were fi lled with concrete 

consisting of cement, sand, and 

coarse aggregate. The concrete 

was fairly wet and would fl ow 

into most of the joints, where 

it would be worked by shovels 

1.2. Original Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona.

1.3. Masonry Construction at Theodore 

Roosevelt Dam, Arizona
6

and leveled. Spalls or small stones were placed in the wider joints. The stone 

was placed from abutment to abutment. Stone of differing heights resulted in 

beds of mortar at varying elevations throughout the structure. Due to the high 

cost of cement, which was furnished by the Government, attempts were made to 

optimize the use of concrete and mortar. This required skilled masonry workers. 

Flat deformed steel bars were placed in the mortar joints near the face of the dam 

above elevation 5830. The fi nished dam has a structural height of 214 feet, and 

impounds about 1 million acre feet of water. The dam has performed extremely 

well for nearly a century, and for all practical purposes should have an indefi nite 

life.

 Similar masonry construction was in progress about the same time for 

 Theodore Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River, in south-central Arizona. The design 

of the dam was somewhat more conservative than Pathfi nder Dam, having a 

more conventional gravity dam section. This probably refl ects the fact that it was 

designed under the direction of different engineers, F. Teighman and Louis C. 

Hill, and that the design for Theodore Roosevelt Dam probably predates that for 

Pathfi nder Dam, even though Pathfi nder Dam was completed fi rst. Construction 

at Theodore Roosevelt Dam began in 1903. It appears that a simpler design 

methodology was employed. The dam was designed two-dimensionally such that 

the resultant force from maximum anticipated static loading fell within the middle 

third of the structure, and then the dam was arched to provide an extra margin of 

stability. It was recognized that temperature could affect the upper portions of 

the dam, and records indicate that some reinforcing steel was used in this area.

Despite this, the thinner upper portion of the dam cracked vertically at regular 

intervals, in effect forming contraction joints. Leakage through these cracks 

was minimal. The dam was built in a narrow canyon formed by Precambrian 

siltstone, sandstone, and dolomite. Dolomite blocks formed the masonry for 

the dam. The construction practices were nearly identical to those at Pathfi nder 

Dam, and a sound and water-tight dam, with a structural height of 280 feet 

and a storage volume of about 1.4 million acre feet, resulted. One of the main 

differences from Pathfi nder Dam involved the early use of hydroelectric power 

at Theodore Roosevelt Dam. A 19-mile long power canal was constructed from 

a diversion dam upstream of the site. The canal fed a 7-foot diameter penstock 

tunnel leading to a temporary hydroelectric unit installed in a cave behind the 

permanent powerhouse. This provided construction power. Six 25-cycle units 

were installed in the original powerhouse with a combined capacity of 11,000 

horsepower. President Theodore Roosevelt, in whose honor the dam was named, 

attended the dedication ceremonies held on March 18, 1911. Completed in 1996, 

modifi cations to the dam included raising the crest 76 feet to mitigate dam safety 

concerns, provide additional conservation storage (i.e., raise the top of active 

conservation from 2136 to 2151 feet), and enlarge fl ood storage. The original 

masonry dam was found to be in excellent condition, and was incorporated nearly 

entirely into the modifi ed structure (discussed later in this paper).
7

 At approximately 

the same time, in northwest 

Wyoming, plans were underway 

to construct the then highest dam 

in the world across the Shoshone 

River. Initially called Shoshone 

Dam, it was originally designed 

as a straight gravity masonry 

dam in 1904, but in 1905, 

because of the narrow granite 

canyon across which it was to 

be constructed, the arch design 

proposed by George Y. Wisner 

was also adopted for what was to 

later be called Buffalo Bill Dam. 

The cross-section of the dam is 

nearly identical to Pathfi nder 

Dam. It is of interest to note 

that independent arch theory 

design, where the thickness of 

the dam at any given elevation 

is a function of water depth and 

radius of curvature, was also 

being developed during this time 

period. In fact, a discussion by 

John S. Eastwood, describing 

how the thickness of Shoshone 

Dam could be substantially reduced by using this theory, appears in an early 

edition of Engineering News. The construction of the dam differed from that 

used at Pathfi nder and Roosevelt Dams, beginning the transition from masonry 

construction to concrete construction. Wooden forms were built at the upstream 

and downstream faces for concrete placement. Concrete was mixed and deposited 

in 8-inch layers. Granite plum rocks, forming approximately 25 percent of the 

concrete volume, were placed in the concrete, and were shaken or rammed into 

fi nal position. This solidifi ed the mass to a remarkable degree, and additional 

tamping was scarcely required. However, spading and tamping was performed to 

work the concrete into all the cavities of the rock and ensure consolidation against 

the forms. The plum stones usually projected about half of their thickness above 

the surface of the new concrete. This presented a rough surface for bonding 

with the next layer. When a layer of concrete had set for more than 24 hours, 

the surface was thoroughly cleaned and a thin coat of mortar was placed prior to 

the next layer of concrete. The concrete was placed from abutment to abutment 

without contraction joints. Due to the contractor’s desire to complete the work, 

winter placements occurred under a steam-heated tent. Upon completion in 1910, 

the dam was 325 feet high, and capable of storing over 400,000 acre feet of water. 

The dam was raised 25 feet in 1989.

1.4. Buffalo Bill Dam (includes 1990 raised dam 

and replacement spillway), Wyoming

1.5. Construction at Buffalo Bill Dam, Wyoming. 

Note wooden forms at downstream face and plum 

stones protruding from previous lift.
8

 The fi rst use of vertical 

radial contraction joints for 

a Reclamation concrete dam 

occurred at East Park Dam in 

north-central California. The 

radial joints were spaced at 

20 feet, and a key, six inches 

deep by three feet long, was 

constructed in the contraction 

joints about six feet from the 

upstream face. Although there 

is no indication that waterstops 

were installed in the joints, a 

system of four-inch diameter 

tile drains was constructed downstream of 

the keys to convey water from the joints 

to the outlet tunnel. This dam also was 

constructed entirely of concrete. The 

original design called for sandstone blocks 

to be imbedded in the concrete to make up 

20 to 30 percent of the mass. However, 

the sandstone was of poorer quality than 

fi rst believed, and the sandstone blocks 

were omitted from the construction. The 

aggregate was processed and screened 

into three sizes (1/4, 1, and 3 inch). A 

little over one barrel (4 sacks) of cement 

was used for each cubic yard of cement.

The concrete was placed quite wet, and 

water cured for 10 days. The dam was 

designed as a curved gravity structure, 

similar to Theodore Roosevelt Dam. It 

was constructed in a narrow gorge of 

massive conglomerate. Although the 

dam was completed in 1910, construction began in 1908, after construction of 

Theodore Roosevelt, Pathfi nder, and Buffalo Bill Dams had begun. Despite the 

work of Wisner, a more conservative approach was taken. The 140-foot high dam 

impounds a reservoir of about 50,000 acre feet.

 The reign of Shoshone Dam as the world’s highest dam was short 

lived. In 1916, Arrowrock Dam was completed to a height of 350 feet. Once 

again, the cross section of this dam was similar to a gravity dam, but the dam 

was constructed as an arch. The construction of Arrowrock Dam also made 

use of vertical radial contraction joints. Radial joints were formed in the upper 

portion of the dam by building alternate sections at different times. The joints 

were spaced at various intervals dependent on the elevation and thickness of the 

1.6. East Park Dam, California.

1.7. Construction at East Park Dam, 

California. Note the vertical formed contraction joint and concrete forms.
9

dam. Three vertical wells 

were formed in each joint 

which were later fi lled with 

concrete during cold weather, 

after the dam had undergone 

contraction. A Z-strip 

annealed-copper water stop 

was installed in each joint 5 

feet from the upstream face 

of the dam, and immediately 

downstream from this strip a 

triangular drain was formed 

in the joint. These drains 

collect water which gets past 

the waterstop and transports 

it to inspection or operating 

galleries. A unique material called 

“ sand cement” was used for the 

construction of this dam, and for 

Elephant Butte Dam, a 300-foothigh straight gravity dam near Truth 

or Consequences, New Mexico, 

completed the same year. This 

consisted of standard Portland cement 

to which was added a little less than 

an equal amount of pulverized sand, 

reground to such fi neness that 90 

percent would pass a No. 200 sieve.

Although this saved on the quantity 

of cement used, the concrete did not 

attain as much strength, and as a 

result, the durability suffered. This 

was not signifi cant for the relatively 

mild climate at Elephant Butte Dam, 

but at Arrowrock Dam, spray from downstream releases resulted in severe freezethaw damage to the concrete. This necessitated construction of a new overlay 

on the face of the dam in 1936. The use of sand-cement in the construction of 

concrete dams was discontinued after these projects. The concepts of foundation 

grouting and drainage appear at Arrowrock and Elephant Butte Dams, and 

galleries were constructed in both of these dams. Shallow grout and drainage 

curtains (25 to 30 feet deep) were constructed by drill holes in the granitic near 

the upstream face of Arrowrock dam. The foundation drainage holes, spaced at 

about 10-foot centers, exit in an inspection gallery 27.5 feet from the upstream 

face. Vertical formed drains were also constructed within the concrete, spaced at 

15 feet and located 12 feet from the upstream face of the dam. These drains also 

exit in the inspection gallery. Similar construction occurred at Elephant Butte 

1.9. Elephant Butte Dam, New Mexico.

1.8. Arrowrock Dam, Idaho.
10

Dam.

 In 1918 Duff A. Abrams fi rst published results of research that investigated 

the effect of water-cement ratio and grading of aggregates on concrete quality. 

This was a major breakthrough in developing the science of concrete technology. 

Obviously, Reclamation concrete dams constructed up to that point did not have 

the benefi t of his research, and the concrete quality and durability was largely a 

function of fortuitous circumstances and the experience of the on-site staff. With 

the exception of Arrowrock Dam, which required fairly minor modifi cations for 

freeze-thaw damage due to nondurable concrete, the early concrete dams of the 

Bureau of Reclamation have held up remarkably well.

III. The Amazing Arch and Developments of the 1920s

 During the 1920s, materials were relatively expensive, and there was a 

desire to optimize dam design to reduce the required concrete. Independent arch 

theory became the order of the day, as thinner dams resulted from this method 

of design. Hence, many thin concrete arch dams were designed and constructed 

during this era. In addition, buttress dams became popular for wider canyons, 

since they minimize the required materials in favor of a more labor-intensive 

construction. The Bureau of Reclamation inventory contains only one gravity 

dam ( Black Canyon Diversion) from this era. Most of the arch dams from this 

era in the Reclamation inventory were designed and constructed by water user 

groups. Titles were later transferred to Reclamation for various reasons. One 

of the exceptions is Gerber Dam. Gerber Dam was completed in 1925 on Miller 

Creek, a tributary of the Lost River in southern Oregon. The dam is a variable 

radius arch with a structural height of 85 feet and a reservoir volume of 94,000 

acre feet. The Design Engineer was J. L. Savage and the General Construction 

Superintendent was F. T. Crowe, two individuals who would play prominently 

into later Reclamation projects. The foundation for the dam is basalt with weak 

clayey interfl ow zones. As was the practice up until this time, the main concern 

for foundation conditions related to the strength and hardness of the rock, and the 

water-tightness of the foundation. To assess the water-tightness of the foundation, 

tests were conducted in drill holes. Pipes were grouted and sealed into eight drill 

holes. Water was applied to all eight holes simultaneously under pressure from 

an elevated water tank. The leakage was determined to be small. Still, after 

excavating a keyway trench for the foundation to a depth greater than anticipated, 

a grout curtain was installed to a depth of 15 feet in holes spaced about 5 feet 

apart throughout the length of the foundation. The holes were grouted after the 

concrete above the grout hole reached a thickness of 6 feet by applying a steam 

pressure of 100 lb/in2

. No foundation drainage was included in the design or 

construction.

 Concrete was placed in the dam by use of a trestle with rail buggies, a stiff 

leg derrick, and a high line. Most of the concrete was placed by cars with a 

3⁄4 yd3 capacity, run on the trestle from the mixer and dumped into chutes and 

pipes leading to the forms. Five to six sacks of cement were used for each 
11

cubic yard of concrete. Plum rocks, not exceeding 20 percent of the volume, 

were placed in the concrete at locations away from the forms, to reduce the 

needed concrete volume and provide small keys between lifts. Cold weather 

placements required heating the sand and mixing water, as well as heating the 

concrete placements under canvas enclosures. The rock foundation and concrete 

surfaces were thoroughly cleaned with wire brushes and water jets prior to 

concrete placement. All surfaces were sprinkled with water and dry cement 

just prior to placements. The concrete was placed in 4-foot lifts between keyed 

contraction joints at 50-foot centers, with no plum rocks in the bottom of the 

1.10. Comparison of Maximum Sections of Early Reclamation Arch Dams.
12

lift. The concrete was spaded against 

the forms to reduce “bug holes.” Two 

closure slots, four feet wide were left 

near the ends of the center overfl ow 

section. Concrete was placed in these 

slots at low temperature conditions, once 

the dam had cooled. Extensive fi eld 

testing was performed on samples taken 

during construction. This included sieve 

tests of the sand and aggregate used for 

the concrete, tensile tests on briquettes 

composed of the sand and cement used 

in the concrete, compression tests on 6- 

by 12-inch cylinders of concrete taken 

from the forms confi rming the 1600 lb/

in2

 required 28-day strength, colorimetric 

tests to determine the cleanness of the 

sand, and slump tests for concrete 

wetness. The slump was limited 

to 3 inches for most of the work 

to allow the concrete to fl ow 

through the chutes, but a slump 

of 6 to 8 inches was allowed in 

thinner reinforced walls. This 

represents early use of extensive 

standardized testing to control the 

work quality. Gerber Dam also 

represents the fi rst installation of 

instrumentation in a Reclamation 

concrete dam. Seventeen electric 

resistance thermometers were 

placed in horizontal layers at 

three elevations in the crown 

cantilever (vertical plane of 

the line of arc centers). Berry 

Strain Gages, consisting of 

eight posts set in a circle 

about a center post, were 

installed in nine locations on 

the downstream face of the 

dam. Two post stations were 

installed on the crest of the 

dam across contraction joints 

on each side of the dam. A dial 

gage instrument was used to 

take the readings, which were adjusted by also reading a reference invar bar. Four 

1.13. Construction of Gerber Dam. Note 

closure slot near left side of photo.

1.11. Gerber Dam, Oregon.

1.12. Stony Gorge Dam, California.
13

survey targets were set in the downstream face of the dam at the line of centers 

for measurements relative to reference targets on the abutments. Later tests for 

concrete modulus, coeffi cient of thermal expansion, and other properties were 

planned. The intent of the instrumentation was to verify the arch dam design 

and analysis techniques. Documentation describing this evaluation could not be 

located.

 The fi rst buttress dam 

constructed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation was completed in 

1928. Stony Gorge Dam is an 

Ambursen type slab and buttress 

dam built downstream of East 

Park Dam. It has a structural 

height of about 140 feet, and 

a reservoir capacity of 50,000 

acre feet. The dam is made of 

individual simply supported 

elements; buttresses, upstream 

face slabs, and struts bracing 

between buttresses in the 

downstream areas. The sloping 

upstream slabs span 

between and transfer 

the reservoir loading 

to the buttresses; the 

buttresses carry the 

upstream-downstream

loading and transfer 

it to the foundation; 

and the struts provide 

lateral stiffness to the 

buttresses and keep 

them from deforming 

excessively in the crosscanyon direction. The 

reinforced concrete 

members were designed 

using codes available 

at the time. Additional 

horizontal reinforcing 

was added to the 

buttresses following 

the early appearance 

of vertical cracks in 

some of the taller 

1.14. Photo taken during construction of Stony 

Gorge Dam, California from downstream side.

Note struts between buttresses and sloping slabs 

on left side of photo.

1.15. Gerber Dam Plan and Sections
14

buttresses. A recent check indicates the design is generally acceptable for normal 

static loading conditions, even considering modern American Concrete Institute 

(ACI) code. The concrete mixing plant discharged into bottom-dump buckets of 

11⁄2 cubic yard capacity which were successively transported by hoist, highline 

cableway, and small cars on light tracks supported by the buttress forms to chutes 

conveying the concrete from the buckets to its fi nal position.

 The method of using chutes to convey the concrete was common practice 

during this era. This required a wet concrete mix for enough workability to 

allow the concrete to fl ow along the chutes. Unfortunately, this also resulted in 

somewhat weaker and less durable concrete than could be attained with a drier 

mix. In addition, it often resulted in latence rising to the lift surfaces. If this 

was not removed and thoroughly cleaned, bonding between successive lifts was 

compromised. However, many dams from this time period have performed well 

and are still in service. Although concrete technology had advanced, the effects of 

alkali-aggregate reaction and freeze-thaw deterioration were not well understood. 

Most of the arch dams constructed during this era in cold climates suffer from 

freeze-thaw deterioration, such as Gerber Dam. If built with reactive aggregate, 

the resulting cracking typically accentuates the freeze-thaw damage. Dams 

subject to alkali-aggregate reaction in mild climates, such as Stewart Mountain 

Dam, tend to exhibit cracking but continue to perform well.

IV. Prelude to Hoover Dam

 Owyhee and Gibson Dams 

were built before Hoover Dam and 

included experimental sections 

for collecting temperature data 

and grouting in preparation for 

the construction at Hoover. These 

were also the fi rst Bureau of 

Reclamation concrete dams to use 

tunnel spillways. Some of the fi nal 

developments for the Trial Load 

Method were also performed during 

the design of these structures.

 Owyhee Dam is located on the Owyhee River in eastern Oregon. It is a 

concrete, thick arch structure with structural and hydraulic heights of 417 and 325 

feet, respectively. The crest is 833 feet long and 30 feet wide at elevation 2675. 

The maximum base width is 265 feet. The dam was completed in 1932. The dam 

forms a reservoir (Lake Owyhee) with storage of 1,183,300 acre feet at elevation 

2675. Owyhee Dam was the world’s highest dam at the time of completion. John 

L. Savage, Chief Designing Engineer, wrote:

1.16. Owyhee Dam, Oregon.
15

From an engineering standpoint the Owyhee Dam, to be constructed 

on the Owyhee Project in eastern Oregon, is the most outstanding dam 

undertaken to date by the Bureau of Reclamation.... this dam is likely 

to stand as the highest dam in the world until the great Boulder Canyon 

Dam [ Hoover Dam] is constructed.

 The Owyhee River valley was visited early in the nineteenth century by 

Hawaiian trappers who are credited with having named the river “Hawaii.” Later, 

this name was handed down phonetically by scouts, Indians, and early settlers as 

“Ow-Y-Hee”, and ultimately the name was given this spelling. The dam site is 

also referred to as the “Hole-in-the-Ground” site. Intermittent site explorations 

began in 1903, a feasibility report was issued in 1925, and the project was 

recommended by the Secretary of the Interior on October 9, 1926. The General 

Construction Company of Seattle, Washington, was the low bidder at $3,198,779 

and was awarded the contract on July 7, 1928. The government fi eld organization 

reached its peak in 1931 with 107 employees under the charge of F. A. Banks 

(later to become Construction Engineer for Grand Coulee Dam). In June 1931 the 

contractor was placing from 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of concrete per month.

The contractor’s workforce reached 274 people. Construction was completed fi ve 

months ahead of schedule in 1932. The fi rst water was delivered to the irrigation 

lands in 1935.

 The materials and construction were similar to structures that had come 

before. The complete details will not be 

repeated here, but a few items of note are 

provided. Cobble rock was added to the mix.

The cobble rock was sound, clean gravel or 

broken rock of such size as passed through a 

screen having 8-inch square or 9-inch round 

openings and was retained on a screen having 

23⁄4-inch square or 3-inch round openings.

 Porous concrete tile drains were placed 

in the dam near its upstream face. The joints 

in the tile were not cemented. The concrete 

tile had an internal diameter of not less than 

5 inches, and wall thickness of not less than 

1 3/16 inches. The tile was made of 1 part 

Portland cement and 4 parts total aggregate, 

the aggregates being so proportioned as to 

give a degree of porosity such that an 18-inch 

length of tile when set on end on a water-tight 

base shall discharge water poured into it at 

the rate of not less than 3 gallons per minute. 

Construction today would form these drains 

using a removable fi ve- to six-inch- diameter 

tapered steel pipe.

1.17. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Tile 

formed drains, strain meter for 

Hoover test, and gallery reinforcement.
16

 The main advancements 

made during the design and 

construction of Owyhee 

Dam involved temperature 

control. Owyhee Dam was 

the largest dam at the time in 

which radial contraction joints 

were to be pressure grouted.

Radial vertical contraction 

joints were placed at 50-foot 

intervals with 9-inch deep 

by 3-feet wide shear keys at 

3-foot centers along each joint. 

The vertical contraction joints 

were grouted from March 30 

to May 8, 1934, which is two 

years after construction of the 

dam. Internal temperature 

measurements, concrete 

cracking, grout operations, 

grout takes, grout pressures, 

and contraction joint opening 

measurements were reported 

in 1934. The grouting system installed in Owyhee was similar to that previously 

used in Gibson and Deadwood 

Dams except for a few minor 

improvements. A system of 

pipes were installed along the 

vertical contraction joints to 

cool the mass concrete to 50°F 

and grout the joints. Grout 

zones were 100-feet high and 

isolated with 20-gage soft 

copper sheets. The radial 

contraction joints in the dam 

were pressure grouted with 

cement grout forced through 

the pipe grouting systems. The 

grout was forced in to ensure 

a pressure of at least 100 

pounds per square inch at the 

highest point in the system being grouted. Vertical keys were built in the joints. 

The entire face of each vertical joint in the dam, except the grouting units and 

copper expansion strips, were painted with one thin coat of water-gas tar paint and 

allowed to dry before the adjacent concrete was placed against it. The tar paint 

served as a bond breaker between the blocks of concrete. Copper grout stops were 

1.19. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Grout pipes and 

shear keys on vertical contraction joint.

1.18. Owyhee Dam Plan and Sections.
17

laid horizontally at vertical intervals of about 100 feet. The top of the grout zone 

was at elevation 2400, 2500, 2600, and top of dam. Construction today would 

limit the grout zone to approximate 60 vertical feet. The headers on the upstream 

face below elevation 2500 were not available for grouting because the reservoir 

elevation at the time of grouting varied between 2520 to 2527. Owing to the fact 

that there were quite a few cracks in the concrete in the dam, all cement used was 

screened through a 200 mesh sieve with the intention that this fi ne cement would 

seal most of the cracks. However, considerable cracking in the concrete on the 

downstream face of the dam occurred, primarily due to alkali-aggregate reaction.

 Placing the mass concrete of the dam was begun in the fall of 1930 and 

completed in the summer of 1932. In the cooler months of the year, concrete was 

placed at around 52° to 70°F and heated up to around 98° to 116°F. In the warmer 

months of the year, concrete was placed at around 65° to 82°F and heated up to 

around 112° to 119°F. At the time of grouting, the internal concrete temperatures 

varied from 42° to 62°F. Grouting pressures inside the joint were around 100 

lb/in2

. The allowable placing temperatures were much higher than allowed 

by modern standards and probably contributed to surface cracking. Electric 

resistance thermometers were placed in the concrete immediately on pouring.

Dissipation of setting heat was accelerated by circulating water through the grout 

system except in the middle of winter. An experimental cooling system was 

located in panel 8 at elevation 2486. Tests in Panel 8 measured the effectiveness 

of cooling coils to dissipate heat in a thick concrete section. Additionally, the 

upper 82 feet of panels 3 and 4 (blocks 3 and 4, between contraction joints at 

stations 2+00 and 3+00) at Owyhee Dam were used as a test section to test 

cooling coils placed on the top of lift lines and their ability to open contraction 

joints for grouting. In this location of the dam, a system of cooling coils 1-inch 

diameter were placed 4-feet 7.5-inches apart near the bottom of each 4-foot 

lift. The section was highly instrumented to obtain temperature and strain 

measurements. The test section was placed from March 3, 1932, to May 28, 

1932, at a fairly uniform rate with about three and one-half days between pours.

Reservoir water was circulated 

in the test section cooling coils 

for only one month between May 

13, 1932, and June 20, 1932.

This period of time permitted 

cooling until the rising river 

water temperatures and lowering 

concrete temperatures permitted 

no further heat extraction from 

the concrete. Measurement of 

concrete temperature before 

cooling shows interior concrete 

around 117°F and the surface 

temperatures around 75°F, 

producing a thermal gradient 

1.20. Owyhee Dam, Oregon. Spillway “Burp” 

(unstable fl ow condition, sometimes referred to as 

“blow-back”).
18

of 42°F. This amount of gradient is very high and probably contributed to the 

surface cracking. The contours after the cooling coils were turned off show 

interior concrete and surface concrete about the same temperature at 70°F. The 

thermal gradient is very small which would minimize if not eliminate any surface 

cracking.

 A series of model tests of the Owyhee morning-glory spillway were made 

from 1930 to 1931. No formal reports were prepared at the time of these studies.

In 1944, the hydraulic studies for the spillway tunnels at Owyhee Dam and 

Gibson Dam were documented. In 1928, when designs for Owyhee Dam were 

underway, there were few installations of vertical shaft or glory-hole spillways 

and there was little information available that would assist in the design. The 

 ring gate had no precedent whatsoever. A 1:48 scale model, which included the 

topography surrounding the spillway, the spillway and ring-gate control, and the 

discharge tunnel below the spillway was built to aid in the design. The design 

included forty-eight 1/16-inch holes equally spaced around the circumference of 

the lower crest which served as air vents to aerate the crest when the gate was 

raised. Prototype behavior indicates for heads of from 1 foot to 2 feet over the 

gate, the water falls in a solid sheet toward the center of the shaft, apparently 

entraining air faster than it can be released at the outlet end of the tunnel. This 

entrainment causes the pressure to increase until it is suffi cient to regurgitate 

or “break back” through the sheet of overfl owing water; then air emerges with 

suffi cient force to carry spray 50 feet or 60 feet above the level of the gate. 

This phenomenon occurs sometimes as often as once every fi fteen seconds and 

sometimes only once in fi ve minutes, depending on the tailwater elevation. For 

heads less than 1 foot over the crest, entrained air can apparently move back up 

the spillway shaft unhampered. For heads greater that 2 feet, the air pressure 

is not suffi cient to break back and the air is forced through the outlet end of the 

tunnel, causing spray to be thrown high into the canyon. This action is directly 

related to the tailwater as a rather large tailwater depth causes a jump to form 

in the tunnel for most discharges. With a 1000 second-foot discharge, the fl ow 

into the stilling basin was undisturbed, but as the fl ow increased an unexpected 

disturbance occurred that was not detected in the model. The stream of water 

from the spillway tunnel created waves on the surface of the stilling pool. These 

waves traveled across the canyon, refl ected, and returned. As they struck the 

oncoming high-velocity stream from the tunnel an incident occurred which 

for lack of a better term, is called an explosion. With this particular fl ow 

(3000 second-feet) the spray from the explosion was thrown two-thirds the 

distance up the adjacent cliff. Larger discharges threw spray to the top of the 

cliff. Evidently the air drawn into the spillway entrance was ejected as a strong 

wind. When the refl ected waves reach the tunnel portal, they are great enough to 

seal the exit for a short time and the air is quickly compressed to the extent that an 

explosion results from the release of the air.

 During construction, a circular concrete-lined 22.6-foot diameter tunnel 

1005 feet long was used for diversion. The tunnel was plugged with concrete 
19

upstream from the vertical morning glory shaft. Downstream of the vertical shaft 

it is used as the permanent spillway outlet. The diversion tunnel was constructed 

in rhyolite tuff requiring no timbering. First a 9- by 9-foot pioneer tunnel was 

driven followed by the full size tunnel. The rock in the tunnel was hard, selfsupporting, full of incipient cracks, with an occasional mud seam. Immediately 

before placing concrete, the foundation surface was cleaned of mud and debris 

using a combination of air and water under pressure. The invert was placed by 

hand and screeded to shape. The crown and side walls were placed in 20-foot 

sections using wooden forms built in place. A 1-yard Ransome concrete gun shot 

the concrete through a 6-inch pipe and rubber hose into a V notched in the crown 

of the previous placement. The concrete then fl owed along training 

boards into place. The concrete was worked into place by hammering on the 

forms with air hammers and by workers equipped with hip boots working and 

spading the concrete behind the forms. Grout pipes were placed into crevices 

and holes drilled into the foundation rock at frequent intervals. A 5-sack-peryard mix was used in the tunnel lining between the inlet and the spillway shaft.

A 6-sack-per-yard mix was used from the shaft to the outlet portal. The tunnel 

was equipped with a grouting system, and the lining-rock interface was grouted 

in 1934 using a 1.0 water to cement ratio in the invert and side walls. Sand was 

added to the mix in the roof grouting.

 The spillway was featured in the 1956 Transactions of the American 

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Excerpts from this article are as follows:

The Owyhee Dam spillway in Oregon, completed in 1932 by the USBR, 

was a daring design at the time. The capacity is 30,000 cu ft per sec, 

the maximum head on the crest for this discharge is 12 ft, and the water 

is dropped 320 ft through a vertical shaft. A fl ood occurred in 1936 in 

which 300,000 acre-ft of water were passed in 3 months. The maximum 

discharge recorded was 15,000 cu ft per sec, or one-half capacity. 

Subsequent to this fl ow, smaller discharges have passed through the 

spillway frequently. A fl ow of 6,600 cu ft per sec was recorded in 1951. 

The greatest fl ood occurred in 1952, when the spillway operated for more 

than a month. The maximum discharge through the spillway was 20,000 

cu ft per sec, or 67 % of capacity. Inspections of the spillway have been 

conducted frequently since the spillway fi rst operated in 1936; the latest 

inspection was made after the 1952 fl ood. The spillway shaft appeared to 

be in excellent condition.

The form board marks still appeared on the concrete surface. The visible part 

of the invert of the vertical bend showed only slight surface wear, the maximum 

probably not exceeding 1/4 inch in depth.

V. Hoover Dam—Quantum Leaps Forward

 Hoover Dam is a 726-foot-high, concrete, thick-arch dam located on 

the border between Arizona and Nevada about thirty-six miles from Las Vegas, 
20

Nevada. The dam was completed 

in 1935, has a crest length of 1244 

feet, a crest thickness of 45 feet, 

and a maximum base width of 660 

feet. It is the highest concrete dam 

in the United States, the eighteenth 

highest dam in the world, and forms 

the largest manmade reservoir in 

the United States. The designs for 

Hoover Dam evolved over several 

years of careful study, representing the 

combined efforts of many engineers 

of Reclamation and various consulting 

boards. Preliminary designs were 

prepared from time to time over a 

period of ten years, so the successive 

designs refl ected some of the developments in design techniques during the 1920 

to 1930 decade. In 1920, the fi rst design for a high dam in Boulder Canyon was 

prepared. At that time the highest dam in existence was Arrowrock Dam in Idaho. 

Hoover Dam was to be more than double the height of Arrowrock Dam. As such, 

it was evident from the start that many new problems in design and construction 

would require solution before the dam could be built.

 As a result of intensive research, improvements were made in practically 

every feature in the dam, spillway, and appurtenances. To bring the materials to 

the site, railroad lines of forty-eight miles 

length and thirty-fi ve miles length were 

constructed, and paved roads from Las 

Vegas were built. A 150-ton cableway 

across the canyon was built. Electrical 

power had to be supplied to the dam site, 

Government operations, and the newly 

founded Boulder City. The town of 

Boulder City had to be planned and built 

for all the workers at the site. Aggregate, 

sand, cement, and mixing plants had to be 

built for the massive amounts of concrete. 

The concrete was artifi cially cooled by 

circulating water through cooling pipes 

placed at the top of each 5-foot high 

concrete lift. This required a massive 

cooling tower 143 feet long, 16 feet wide, 

and 43 feet high. A steel fabrication 

manufacturing plant was built to construct 

the massive penstocks and steel works.

Drill crews on elaborate truck-mounted 

1.22. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. 

50- by 50-foot concrete block placements

1.21. American Flag displayed during the 

1996 Summer Olympics, Hoover Dam, 

Arizona-Nevada.
21

carriages excavated the 56-footdiameter diversion and spillway 

tunnels. These tunnels were lined 

with 3 feet of concrete. The site had 

to be excavated to sound rock for the 

foundation of the dam. In the river 

channel, silt, gravel, and boulders 

had to be removed to a depth of 

120 feet. The foundation was then 

grouted for the purpose of providing 

an impervious zone under the dam.

The initial grouting involved drilling 

6,700 feet of holes and injecting 

7,500 sacks of cement. The main 

cut-off grouting was not started 

until the dam was at 100 feet high.

This operation took 54,000 feet of 

holes and more than 60,000 sacks of 

cement (1 sack = 1 cubic foot). The 

dam was built in a series of 50-foot 

by 50-foot by 5-foot high blocks. An 

8-foot slot was left open down the 

middle of the dam for the extensive 

system of cooling pipes. The vertical 

and horizontal surfaces have formed 

shear keys. A combination of water 

stops and grout stops were embedded 

in the concrete. After each 50-foot 

vertical section of dam had been 

cooled, grout was injected into the 

radial and circumferential joints. The 

3.25 million cubic yards of concrete 

were placed from June 1933 to May 

1935 in approximately 23.5 months.

Systems of drains were installed in 

the dam and in the foundation. The 

foundation drains were 3.5 inches 

in diameter and extended 100 feet 

into the foundation at the base 

and graduated to 30 feet depth at 

elevation 1200. The internal drains 

in the concrete were 8-inch porous 

concrete pipes placed vertically at 

10-foot intervals in a line parallel to 

the dam axis.

1.23. Upstream face of Hoover Dam, ArizonaNevada.

1.24. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada: 

Horizontal lift line and vertical contraction 

joint.

1.25. Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada. Relative size of penstocks
22

 Hydraulic and structural models played 

an important part in the design of Hoover Dam 

to verify existing theories as well as advance the 

current state-of-the-art for applications of greater 

magnitude than those previously developed. The 

hydraulic models provided direct empirical data 

while the structural models furnished checks 

on analytical methods using the Trial Load 

Method. There were two complete models of 

Hoover. The fi rst model, 1:240 scale, was made 

of a mixture of plaster and diatomaceous earth.

The second model, 1:180 scale, was made of a 

rubber-litharge compound. In addition, detailed 

models were made of the crown cantilever and a 

thick arch at elevation 900 using model tests and 

slab analogy tests. Therefore, three independent 

solutions of the same problems were obtained.

 Determining stress distributions in an arch dam requires a 3-dimensional 

analysis which was very diffi cult in the 1930s. The Trial Load Method of 

analysis was developed to represent the 3-dimensional arch structure with a grid 

of 2-dimensional arch and cantilever elements. The analysis would adjust the 

load into the elements and bring the elements into geometric agreement. As such, 

accurate solutions of the arch and cantilever elements had to be known.

V.A. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part V—Technical 

 Investigations: Bulletin 2—Slab Analogy Experiments, Denver 1938.

 Professor Harald M. Westergaard, at the University of Illinois in 1931, 

proposed the use of slab analogy in experimental investigations of stresses 

in Hoover Dam by means of measurements on rubber slabs. Slab analogy 

experiments were made to defl ect slab models of the crown cantilever and an 

arch at elevation 900 to obtain stress functions usable in the Trial Load analyses. 

Stresses in the slab are proportional to twists and curvature in the slab. In other 

words, any system of curvatures and twists possible in a slab due to deformation 

of the boundaries is analogous to a distribution of stress in a plane solid of 

the same shape distorted by loads applied at the edges. Therefore, to solve a 

plane stress problem by slab analogy methods, it is suffi cient to apply along the 

boundary of a slab, similar in shape to the original, curvatures proportional at 

every point of the boundary to the loading on the original. The two structures, 

being analogous at the boundaries, are thereby analogous throughout; and 

the direct stress or shear at any point in the solid may be determined from 

curvatures and twists at the corresponding point in the slab. So proper curvature 

measurements were made at the desired location and translated into stresses.

1.26. Scale model of Hoover 

Dam, Arizona-Nevada.
23

V.B. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part V—Technical 

Investigations: Bulletin 3—Model Tests of Boulder Dam, Denver 1939.

 Before the Hoover model tests, there were model tests on Gibson Dam in 

cooperation with the University of Colorado, the Engineering Foundation Arch 

Dam Committee, and Reclamation. Concrete was mixed with the same aggregate 

as in the dam, and mercury was used for the water load. Results showed the 

Trial Load Method gives accurate results for an arch dam, and measurements 

on the model checked closely with measurements on the downstream face of 

the dam. It was evident however that a different material would need to be used 

in the Hoover model to permit measurable defl ections. As a result, a mixture 

of plaster and diatomaceous earth (Celite) was developed and used for the fi rst 

model. During testing of the plaster/diatomaceous earth model, the Aluminum 

Corporation of America developed a rubber-litharge compound which was used 

in the second model of Hoover Dam. It had a lower modulus and same unit 

weight as concrete. Water could be used for reservoir load instead of mercury 

permitting measurements on the upstream face. The model tests showed stress 

concentrations at the top of Hoover Dam where there was a rapid change in 

lengths of the arches. As a result, fi llets were added to increase the thickness of 

the dam near the abutments.

V.C. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part V—Technical 

Investigations: Bulletin 4—Stress Studies for Boulder Dam, Denver 

1939.

 Stress studies for Hoover Dam included several special analyses that 

had not been previously made including: analysis of tangential shear, twist, 

Poisson’s ratio effects, radial shear in the arch elements, horizontal shear in the 

cantilever elements, foundation deformation, thermal induced stresses from 

artifi cial cooling and exposed surfaces, nonlinear stress distributions in arch 

and cantilever elements, spreading of canyon walls and settling of the reservoir 

bottom from reservoir load, grouting and stage construction sequencing, and 

earthquake loading. Maximum stresses and nonlinear stress variations in typical 

arch and cantilever elements were checked by slab analogy experiments and by 

tests on slab models. The method of analyzing nonlinear stress effects was based 

on the analogy between partial differential equations for an Airy’s surface and 

for a homogeneous slab loaded at the edges. Solutions were obtained both by 

mathematical analyses and by experiments on rubber slabs defl ected by twists and 

moments applied at the edges. Adjustments were made for cantilever elements 

varying radially in thickness from downstream to upstream. Supervisors during 

the stress studies were R. S. Lieurance for the Trial Load studies, F. D. Kirn for 

the nonlinear cantilever studies, and R. E. Glover for the nonlinear arch studies 

and special studies.
24

V.D. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part V—Technical 

Investigations: Bulletin 6—Model Test of Arch and Cantilever 

Elements, Denver 1940.

 It was desirable to obtain comparisons between cross-sectional models and 

the three-dimensional model of the entire dam. The cross-sectional models were 

performed at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

 Cantilever model—the cantilever model was 3-inches thick and at 1:240 

scale was the same scale as the three dimensional model of the dam. The depth, 

upstream, and downstream dimensions of the foundation were equal to the height 

of the cantilever.

 Arch model—the purpose of the arch model was to obtain experimental 

measurements of strains and defl ections in a thick arch element. Thin arches 

had been investigated in detail, but thick arches had not been thoroughly studied.

A horizontal section at elevation 900 was selected for the study. Prior to these 

experiments, this thick arch had been investigated analytically and experimentally 

by slab analogy. The arch model was built at 1:120 scale.

V.E. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part VII—Cement and 

Concrete Investigations: Bulletin 1—Thermal Properties of Concrete, 

Denver, 1940.

 One of the major problems at Hoover was the prevention and removal 

of heat in the concrete due to the heat of hydration. The problem was 

compounded by the rapid construction and 

extraordinary size of the dam—locking 

in temperatures that would take more 

than 100 years to dissipate. A series of 

radial and circumferential contraction 

joints were installed to control shrinkage 

of the concrete. For the dam to act as a 

monolithic structure, the joints must not 

open. However, the joints would open as 

the dam contracted from cooling of the 

concrete. Under this scenario, grouting 

the joints would have to be done over 

generations. Various methods were 

considered to remove the excess heat. This 

included low-heat cement and artifi cial 

cooling. Low-heat Portland cement was 

developed to reduce the heat of hydration 

by one-third and the temperature rise 

by about one-fourth. Investigations 

were performed to determine the effects 

1.27. Concrete cylinder test for Hoover 

Dam, Arizona-Nevada
25

of physical and chemical composition of the Portland cement on strength, 

temperature rise, and other properties. The design of the artifi cial cooling 

plan was based on the measured properties and mathematical theory of heat 

conduction. Knowledge base at the time did not provide accurate and applicable 

values for these properties, so investigations had to be performed. Considerable 

preliminary testing was necessary to develop apparatus and procedures for 

accurate thermal tests. Thermal property tests on concrete were also made for 

Gibson and Owyhee Dams. A method was developed for predicting thermal 

properties of concrete from these tests. Computed internal temperatures showed 

close agreement with measured test sections at Hoover and Owyhee Dams, 

where concrete was cooled by circulating water through metal pipes in the dam.

Laboratory tests showed the effect on concrete temperatures of various rock types, 

water content, cement types, mix proportions, and age. The investigations were 

made at the Welton Street laboratory of Reclamation under the direction of H. S. 

Meissner, Arthur Ruetgers, and Robert F. Blanks.

V.F. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part VII—Cement and 

Concrete Investigations: Bulletin 4—Mass Concrete Investigations, 

Denver, 1940.

 The selection of the most suitable mass-concrete mix for Hoover Dam 

and the exact determination of its properties and qualities was one of the most 

important design problems affecting the economies of the design. The effects of 

aggregate size, test cylinder size, curing, and relative humidity on the strength, 

elasticity, permeability of the concrete; and on the bond strength of the horizontal 

lift surfaces were studied. Rocks as large as two people could lift, plums, were 

used in the past in some dams. Reclamation felt more satisfactory results could 

be obtained with a maximum size aggregate able to fi t in a mixer. A 9-inch 

maximum size was arbitrarily chosen to match available sources in the area.

Little information existed on material properties using aggregate of this size; 

therefore, a comprehensive investigation program was initiated. Procedures 

for this type of concrete mix at the time would screen off any aggregate larger 

than 1.5-inch and test 6-inch diameter by 12-inch high concrete cylinders. No 

complete investigation had been performed to study the effect of the screening 

process.

 Information existed concerning the effect of various curing conditions on 

concrete properties, but no direct comparison could be made between strengths 

of concrete cured in the interior of a large dam and the conditions in a laboratory. 

Only permeability tests on concrete under low water pressures had been 

performed. Because of the height of Hoover Dam, concrete permeability tests 

for high water pressures were performed. Most of these tests were performed in 

the old Custom House laboratory under the supervision of E. N. Vidal. Concrete 

dams are built in lifts. Subsequent concrete placements must be suffi ciently 

bonded. Bond tests were conducted at the University of California Material 

Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
26

V.G. Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports: Part VII—Cement and 

Concrete Investigations: Bulletin 2—Investigations of Portland 

Cement, Denver, 1940.

 Although Portland cement had been used as a building material for more 

than a century, the unsuitability of the standard product for a structure as massive 

as Hoover Dam had become generally recognized at the time design work was 

begun. The main concerns were the heat generated during the hydration process 

and the shrinkage. The ideal cement for all purposes would be one which would 

permit the concrete to have no volume change subsequent to setting. Other 

desirable properties of mass concrete, which are dependent on the cement, 

are slower and better sustained hardening and adjustment to early stresses. In 

constructing the dam, contraction joints were provided at regular intervals in both 

the radial and circumferential directions. The structure was built in columnar 

blocks, approximately 50 feet square. The joints in between the blocks would 

allow for contraction of the concrete when it cooled.

 At the time Hoover was designed, little work had been done on the 

investigation of cements for mass concrete. C. P. Williams during construction 

of the Rodriguez Dam in Mexico fi rst recognized the value of low-heat cement 

in reducing temperatures and reducing cracking. Late in 1930 Burton Lowther, 

a Denver consulting engineer, recognized the desirability of a low-heat cement 

and performed investigations for Reclamation at the Pierce Testing Laboratories 

in Denver. At the laboratories of the Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C., 

preliminary tests were made of forty-nine commercial cements, selected from 

various parts of the United States. The work begun in Washington was continued 

and greatly expanded in the Engineering Materials Laboratory of the University 

of California at Berkeley. Some specimens cast and tested were concrete, but the 

majority were mortar or neat cement. Concurrent with and supplementing the 

investigations at Berkeley were the investigations made in the laboratories of the 

Bureau of Reclamation in Denver. Unlike the Berkeley test, most of the tests in 

Denver were made on concrete specimens rather than mortar specimens.

 In summary, it is safe to say that the sheer size of the Hoover Dam 

project, and the associated need to overcome many shortcomings in the design, 

analysis, and construction of concrete dams up until that time, led to signifi cant 

advancements in the state-of-the-art, ultimately to become the state-of-practice. 

This project, perhaps more than any other, came to represent the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s world renowned expertise.

VI. Hydraulics for High Concrete Dams

 Without question, a major breakthrough in the understanding of highhead, high-velocity spillway designs resulted from the Boulder Canyon Project 

and construction of Hoover Dam. Between 1928 (authorization of the Project) 

and 1948 (completion of Project documentation), extensive research formed the 
27

“benchmark” for presentday spillway designs and 

analyses. The unprecedented 

size of the spillways (each 

with design capacity of 

200,000 ft3

/s and a maximum 

average velocity approaching 

175 ft/s) for Hoover Dam 

was the motivation to initiate 

a comprehensive research 

program. Of particular 

note, was the research and 

development of methods to 

design the “ogee” spillway 

crest, which is still used for spillway designs around the world. Prior to this 

research, methods of estimating the “under-nappe” of a jet of water moving over 

a sharp crested-weir were based on approximate observations made by M. Bazin 

in the late 1800s and typically used a vertical upstream face on the spillway 

crest. The shape of the under-nappe defi nes a minimum shape or profi le for 

the spillway fl ow surface. Unless the fl ow surface matches or is fl atter than the 

under-nappe, sub-atmospheric pressure can occur, possibly leading to reduced 

stabilizing tailwater backpressure, increased cavitation potential, or vibrations.

The Boulder Canyon Project hydraulic research expanded on Bazin’s methods and 

developed design tools, which can still be found in Reclamation’s Engineering

Monograph (EM) No. 9 by J. N. Bradley and in Design of Small Dams. The 

design tools provide considerable fl exibility and methods to: (a) determine the 

spillway ogee shape required to best fi t the under-nappe of the overfalling stream 

for any practical condition of design; (b) derive the nappe shape due to varying 

approach velocities; (c) determine the coeffi cient of discharge for overfall dams 

(or spillways) with vertical, 

sloping, overhanging and 

offset upstream faces; (d) 

determine effects on coeffi cient 

of discharge due to different 

crest shapes with and without 

control gates, including the 

effects of adjacent terrain, 

piers, and position of gates; 

and (e) determine the effects on 

the coeffi cient of discharge due 

to downstream submergence.

 A second major 

breakthrough in hydraulic 

design for high dams occurred 

in 1958 with the fi rst printing of Reclamation’s Engineering Monograph (EM) 

1.29. Basin X (tunnel fl ip bucket), spillway discharging approximately 27,000 ft3

/s - Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona.

1.28. Modern Ogee Spillway crest confi guration.
28

No. 25, Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators by Alvin J. 

Peterka. This publication summarized twenty-three years of research and design 

experience, and provided a practical design tool for sizing stilling basins. Since 

that initial printing this EM has been updated and was last reprinted in 1984.

Until the development of this EM, attempts to generalize data from hydraulic 

model studies and resulting designs led to inconsistent results. To resolve this, 

a research program was undertaken, starting with observing all phases of the 

“hydraulic jump.” With an understanding of this phenomenon, it was possible 

to develop practical and common aspects of energy dissipation designs. This 

EM documents that effort, and provides general design rules and procedures for 

ten stilling basin or energy dissipator types, which in some cases eliminates the 

need for hydraulic model studies. It should be noted that hydraulic model studies 

still play an important role in the design process. They are used to optimize the 

structure’s size, account for non-symmetrical approach and exit conditions, and 

to evaluate unusual fl ow conditions in or through the structure. Three types of 

stilling basins and energy dissipators have been primarily used for spillways 

associated with high concrete dams. These include:

1. Basin V (sloping aprons)—This basin relies on a hydraulic jump to 

dissipate energy. The downstream basin slopes gently downstream. 

Designs that used Basin V stilling basins included Shasta, Canyon Ferry, 

Olympus, Friant, and Keswick Dams.

2. Basin VII (slotted and solid buckets)—As with Basin V, this basin also 

relies on a hydraulic jump to dissipate energy. However, the downstream 

basin is curved up with a lip at the downstream end. Designs relying on 

Basin VII stilling basins included Grand Coulee Dam, (solid bucket); and 

Angostura Dam (slotted bucket).

3. Basin X (tunnel fl ip buckets)—Unlike the basin V and VII, a hydraulic 

jump is not initiated. This is an energy dissipater that projects the exiting 

jet into the air, spreading and aerating the jet before it impinges into the 

tailwater. Basin X energy dissipators were used for Glen Canyon, Hungry 

Horse, Yellowtail, and Flaming Gorge Dams.

 A third major advancement in evaluating hydraulics for high concrete 

dams involved the understanding of cavitation. Although Reclamation had 

investigated cavitation damage and implemented repairs since 1941, the 

understanding and methodology to adequately mitigate cavitation damage was 

not developed until after signifi cant cavitation damage occurred at Glen Canyon 

and Hoover Dam tunnel spillways as a result of fl ooding in 1983. Prior to 

this, standard practice was to specify very stringent concrete fi nishes for fl ow 

surfaces associated with discharge velocities greater than 75ft/s. The concrete 

fi nishes for these fl ow surfaces were very diffi cult to achieve in the fi eld. A 

more effective method had actually been employed in 1961 and 1969 with the 

installation of aerators to address the cavitation damage which occurred at Grand 
29

Coulee Dam outlet works tubes, and the Yellowtail Dam spillway, respectively. 

The installation of the aerator for Yellowtail Dam spillway is thought to be the 

fi rst of its kind, and after which, it was noted that aerators were being installed 

worldwide. It is interesting to note that research had already illustrated the 

effectiveness of extremely small quantities of air entrained in fl owing water in 

signifi cantly reducing the tendency for cavitation damage. However, it was not 

until the mid- to late-1980s that suffi cient research, design, and experience had 

been gained to change Reclamation’s approach to mitigating cavitation potential. 

Cavitation was found to be the result of formation and collapse of vapor cavities 

at abrupt changes in geometry of the fl ow surface. Resulting from an eight year 

effort, Henry T. Falvey’s Engineering Monograph (EM) No. 42, Cavitation in 

Chutes and Spillways was published in 1990, providing common-sense guidance 

on how to identify and mitigate cavitation potential. Two important developments 

include: (1) generalized guidelines and tools were developed to assess the 

potential degree of cavitation, and to develop preliminary aeration designs, and 

(2) concrete fi nishes (surface textures) were decoupled from concrete tolerances 

(surface offsets and irregularities), recommended surface tolerances were revised 

to be more achievable in the fi eld, and these tolerances were linked to cavitation 

indices. These indices are a function of the fl uid velocity and pressure, and 

empirically give an indication of the potential for cavitation.

 Today, as standard practice 

in the technical evaluations of 

existing and new spillways, the 

cavitation potential is evaluated by 

fi rst evaluating the cavitation index 

(ı) profi les at different discharges. 

Based on cavitation index profi les, 

the required surface tolerances are 

determined as a function of the 

minimum value of cavitation index.

If the cavitation index is less than 

0.2, cavitation would be expected, 

and the effects of changing the 

spillway geometry on the cavitation 

index should be evaluated. If low 

values of the cavitation indices 

cannot be raised by changing the 

geometry, a concept change or an 

aeration device should be considered. 

Using these procedures, aerators 

have been installed in the spillway 

tunnels for Glen Canyon, Flaming 

Gorge, Hoover, and Yellowtail Dams.

1.30. 1983 cavitation damage in the Left Spillway Tunnel. The “big hole” extends 

approximately 27 feet below the tunnel invert, 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona.
30

VII. World War II Era—Large Gravity Dams

 In the 1930s the United States was hungry for electric power, and this 

became even more important to power war production factories following entry 

into World War II in 1941. The technology developed during the design and 

construction of Hoover Dam was available to construct large concrete dams and 

associated hydroelectric power plants. In order to tap the energy reserves of 

large and wide rivers, it became necessary to construct gravity dams. Two of the 

largest of these, Grand Coulee and Shasta Dams, were constructed by the Bureau 

of Reclamation in the late 1930s and 1940s. These dams became engineering 

landmarks, and have been studied and emulated by other countries around the 

world. During this time, John “Jack” L. Savage served as Chief Design Engineer. 

His offi ce in Denver then was 

the foremost engineering offi ce 

in the world for water resource 

heavy construction projects.

Savage gained world-wide 

renown for his work with 

the Bureau of Reclamation, 

and received may honors and 

awards. He was reputed to be 

modest to an extreme, and was 

of such character as to readily 

receive the loyalty of his 

capable organization.

 The original design of Grand Coulee Dam called for a low dam to be built 

to elevation 1116 with the left power plant included. It would accommodate a 

future dam raise and expansion of the power plants, but originally would not 

provide irrigation water. The specifi cations were issued, the contract awarded, 

and the Notice to Proceed issued on September 25, 1934, for the low dam 

concept. Shortly after the construction activities began, renewed pressure came 

from the local agricultural constituents for the high dam. They caught the ear of 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his August 4, 1934, visit to the site. A 

reevaluation of the economics and technical issues associated with raising the dam 

indicated substantial benefi ts in going directly to a high dam. By June 5, 1935, a 

major change order was issued, increasing the excavation and changing the shape 

and details of the dam to allow immediate construction of a high dam to elevation 

1311 through a second contract. The dam would be a gravity structure nearly 

a mile long and 550 feet high, with a downstream slope of 0.8:1, and a central 

spillway section controlled by drum gates capable of releasing 1,000,000 ft3

/s.

Water would be pumped from the Columbia River to a reservoir in the Grand 

Coulee, a basin eroded by the river during the Ice Age when ice blocked the main 

course of the river. In January 1942, about a month after the Japanese attacked 

Pearl Harbor, a contingent of the U.S. Army took up quarters in Mason City and 

performed guard duty at the dam due to concerns about a possible enemy thrust 

1.31. Grand Coulee Dam, Forebay Dam, and Third 

Powerplant, Washington.
31

into the area. All efforts were concentrated 

on getting the power online to supply energy 

to aluminum plants and shipyards.

 Diversion of such a large river posed 

many problems, but a series of cofferdams, 

and diverting fl ows over the low blocks in 

the dam allowed the construction to proceed. 

Landslides in the fi ne-grained deposits from 

the Ice Age mantling the river banks were 

also problematic. Stabilization included 

fl attening slopes, installing drainage, and 

temporarily freezing the soil. The dam was 

founded on hard granite scoured by the 

pre-ice age river. As had become standard 

practice, foundation grouting and drainage 

were constructed. Three-dimensional Trial 

Load twist analyses, fully developed during 

the design of Hoover Dam, were performed 

for the high gravity dam design. Due to 

stress concentrations in the portion of the 

dam adjacent to the sharply rising abutments 

and concerns for potential cracking, vertical “twist slots” were designed for the 

abutment sections to give the structure some fl exibility to adjust to loads. Five 

twist slots were constructed, two on the left side and three on the right side. The 

slots were initially fi lled with sand. After the reservoir had fi lled to elevation 

1150, the sand was removed and the slots fi lled with concrete.

 Low heat cement was used for the project. It had a slower set time 

delaying stripping of the forms, but lower heat of hydration than conventional 

cement was a great bonus in cooling the concrete and keeping cracking to 

a minimum. The concrete was made of aggregate, cement, and water. No 

admixtures, other than limited quantities of calcium chloride to accelerate the set, 

had become acceptable at that time. Two mixing plants were constructed, one 

on each side of the canyon, and at the peak of production 20,684 yd3

 of concrete 

were placed in 24 hours on May 29, 1939. The rock and concrete surfaces were 

thoroughly cleaned for placement of concrete using wire brushes, sand blasting, 

and water jets. The concrete was placed in 5-foot lifts and about 50-foot square 

maximum size blocks. At least 72 hours were required between successive 

lift placements. Cooling coils were placed on the lift surface, and drain forms 

installed. Then a 1⁄2-inch-thick layer of mortar was placed on the surface to 

provide a good bond. Concrete with a 2-inch slump or less was delivered in fouryard buckets using small trains running on a trestle and cranes. The concrete was 

placed in one foot layers and thoroughly consolidated with electric and pneumatic 

vibrators. The exposed surfaces were kept wet for fourteen days. River water 

was pumped through the cooling coils to cool the concrete. An evaporative 

1.32. Construction of Grand Cou lee 

Forebay Dam, Washington. 

(Note unkeyed contraction joint.)
32

cooling tower was eventually installed to enhance the concrete cooling. The 

concrete was cooled to about 45 degrees Fahrenheit, and then the transverse keyed 

contraction joints, spaced at 50 feet, were grouted. Reclamation’s 4,000,000 lb. 

testing machine was installed in the Denver laboratory at the U.S. Customs House 

during the period of dam construction to permit testing the strength of large 

aggregate concrete, using cylinders up to 36 inches in diameter.

 The Forebay Dam and Third 

Power Plant were completed in 1974, 

and they greatly increased the power 

generating capacity of the project. Two 

concrete mixes were used for construction 

of the Forebay Dam; a richer mix for 

exterior surfaces and a somewhat leaner 

mix for the interior mass concrete. Fly 

ash and air entrainment were used in all 

concrete. The fully automatic batching 

plant had provisions for handling 

fi ve aggregate sizes ranging to 6-inch 

maximum, and a refrigeration plant for 

chilling water and making ice to cool the 

mix to the required 40 to 50°F placement 

temperature. All concrete was membrane 

cured. Vertical contraction joints normal 

to the axis were spaced at alternating 

distances of 50 and 70 feet, the large 

spacing required to accommodate the 40-

foot-diameter penstocks. Artifi cial cooling was performed in the lower portions 

of the blocks. The contraction joints contain water stops, but only the lower 

portions were grouted, presumably to stabilize the sections of the dam that contain 

the penstocks. However, the more important consideration is that the contraction 

joints keyed. This allows each block to adjust to movements individually, but also 

reduces load transfer between adjacent monoliths in the case of local instability.

 Construction of Shasta 

Dam in northern California 

overlapped with construction 

of the original Grand Coulee 

Dam. At the time, Shasta Dam 

was second only to Grand 

Coulee in volume, and second 

only to Hoover in height. The 

dam is on the Sacramento 

River in northern California, 

and is the cornerstone of 

the Central Valley Project. 

1.33. Construction of Grand Coulee 

Dam, Washington. (Note Keyed contraction joint.)

1.34. Shasta Dam, California.
33

Although curved in plan to match the site conditions, the dam was designed as a 

gravity dam, with a downstream slope of 0.8:1. By this time effi cient placement 

and cooling of large volumes of concrete could be readily achieved, due largely 

to the development that occurred during the 

design and construction of Hoover Dam. 

Construction methods were nearly identical to 

those at Grand Coulee Dam. As an interesting 

note, two generators lay idle at Shasta Dam 

in the early days of World War II, with no 

prospect for immediate use. They were 

shipped and installed at Grand Coulee Dam, 

providing power during the critical war years, 

and then returned to Shasta following the war.

 It should be noted that during this 

period of time the effects of alkali-aggregate 

reaction (AAR) came to the forefront. A 

chemical reaction between the alkali in 

the cement and certain types of aggregates 

causes expansion of the concrete usually 

leading to cracking, and in cold climates 

the damage can be exacerbated by freezethaw mechanisms as water enters the cracks.

Extensive cracking and deterioration at Parker 

Dam in Arizona, and American Falls Dam 

in Idaho led the Bureau of Reclamation to 

conduct studies into the phenomena beginning 

about 1941. Petrographic examination of 

aggregates became the primary means of 

identifying potentially reactive aggregates in 

about 1941. The limitation of alkalis in the 

cement to less than 0.6 percent as a means 

to control AAR was fi rst published in the 

Fourth Edition of the Concrete Manual by 

the Bureau of Reclamation in October 1942.

Investigations into the effects of pozzolans to 

reduce alkali- aggregate reaction were begun 

in the early 1940s. Using 20 percent Class F 

or N pozzolans as a replacement for cement 

became standard practice for the Bureau of 

Reclamation in about 1970. This not only 

reduces the cost of the cementitious material, 

but also provides additional protection.

 By this time, deterioration of some 

concretes in cold climates had been noted, 

1.35. Cracking at Friant Dam due 

to Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, Friant 

Dam, California.

1.36. Freeze-thaw damage on 

downstream face of Deadwood 

Dam, Idaho. (Note that damage is 

near contraction joint due to leakage.)
34

and was described in general terms as durability. The problem was freeze-thaw 

damage, whereby water present in the saturated cement expands upon freezing, 

exerting pressures that far exceed the tensile capacity of the paste, causing 

cracking and ultimately failure of the concrete after repeated cycles. It was found 

that high strength concrete made with good quality aggregates and low water to 

cement ratios generally had better durability. However, experience accumulated 

during the 1920s and 1930s suggested that other factors also contributed to 

whether a concrete was susceptible to freeze-thaw damage. The Bureau of 

Reclamation began testing concrete for freeze-thaw durability in about 1937 with 

the development of accelerated freezing-thawing test apparatus. The fi rst studies 

of standard concrete mixes of the time indicated that failure usually occurred 

after about 150 to 200 cycles. Formal studies of the effects of an air-entraining 

admixture performed in 1942 reported an increase in the number of cycles to 400 

to 450. However, the Fourth Edition of Reclamation’s Concrete Manual provided 

no reference to air entrained concrete. Due to World War II, this information 

was not published until 1949 in the Fifth Edition of the Concrete Manual. Airentrained concrete as a means to increase concrete durability has been standard 

practice since.

VIII. The Post-War Boom—Developments Continue

 Following World War II, 

the country entered into a boom 

period. The demand for power was 

high, and the developments that 

occurred with the building of large 

concrete dams and associated power 

plants such as Hoover and Grand 

Coulee were put to use in quickly 

building several more monumental 

concrete dams and power plants, 

such as Glen Canyon (a 710-foot 

high thick arch dam on the Colorado 

River), Yellowtail (a 525-foot high 

arch dam on the Bighorn River in 

Montana), and Flaming Gorge Dam (a 502-foot high arch dam on the Green River 

in Utah). The fi rst of these large post-war concrete dams was Hungry Horse.

Hungry Horse Dam, constructed in 1948-1953, is a concrete arch structure 

that has a structural height of 564 feet and a crest length of 2,115 feet at crest 

elevation 3565.0. The dam is located on the South Fork of the Flathead River 

in northwestern Montana, south of the southern border of Glacier National 

Park. The dam impounds a reservoir containing 3,467,000 acre feet of storage at 

elevation 3560.0. The reservoir provides the benefi ts of power generation, fl ood 

control, irrigation, river regulation for fi sheries, and recreation.

1.37. Hungry Horse Dam, Montana.
35

 Hungry Horse Dam was designed and analyzed by Trial Load Methods. 

(Though not used for Hungry Horse, physical model studies were still in use, and 

were performed later for Glen Canyon and Morrow Point Dams.) The analyses 

include the stage construction of varying reservoir elevations and grout zones.

Concrete was cooled by embedded cooling pipes to 38°F. Original designs 

called for the vertical radial contraction joints to be 50 feet apart, but based on 

temperature studies, an 80-foot spacing was used. One cross canyon contraction 

joint was used across blocks 10 to 23 at alternating distances of 134 feet and 

186 feet from the axis. The vertical contraction joints have shear keys. Formed 

drains were constructed at each contraction joint and at 10 feet on centers across 

the dam. Collected drainage fl ows by gravity into a sump consisting of two 

pumps each discharging 500 gallons per minute.

 The dam consists of 27 blocks numbered from 2 on the left abutment to 

28 on the right abutment. Lifts were 5 feet in height. There were different 

concrete mixes for the interior and exterior (5 foot minimum to 9 foot average 

exterior concrete thickness on the faces and crest roadway) of the dam consisting 

of cement, fl y ash, and 6-inch maximum sized aggregate. Flyash used as 

pozzolan helped reduce the heat of hydration while providing long term strength 

gain.

 Another major development of the post-war era was the use of airentraining admixtures to increase the durability of concrete to freeze-thaw 

damage. Problems with air entrainment persisted throughout construction of 

Hungry Horse Dam, but were perfected at later structures. Early stripping of 

forms was a major cause of surface damage.

 Extensive instrumentation systems had become standard by this time. The 

dam has seven lines of uplift measurements at the dam to foundation contact, 

three plumb lines, and fl ow measurements from drain holes in the right abutment. 

Defl ections are measured with three plumb lines located in blocks 8, 17 (crown), 

and 24. The dam has permanently shifted upstream about 0.3 inches since 1962. 

The dam moves a total less than 0.4 inches season to season.

 The dam was constructed close to current day standards with vertical 

contraction joints, formed drains at 10-foot centers in the concrete, foundation 

drains at 10-foot centers in the foundation, foundation grouting, artifi cial cooling 

of the mass to 38°F and contraction joint grouting, cleaning of the lift lines 

and dam to foundation contact for bond, and concrete strengths (tested during 

construction) averaging over 4000 lb/in2

. There is radial cracking on the crest 

in blocks 4 and 24 progressing 30 feet down on the downstream face and into 

the roadway gallery. Radial cracking on the crest is probably thermal induced 

cracking because the contraction joints are 80 feet apart and not the typical 

50 feet.
36

 The spillway at Hungry Horse Dam is a concrete-lined tunnel with a 

morning-glory intake on the right abutment designed for a maximum discharge 

capacity of 53,000 ft3

/s for a reservoir elevation at the crest of the dam (elevation 

3565.0). The normal high water surface is 5 feet lower than this maximum 

with the ring gate in the raised position. The spillway was designed using two 

laboratory models and approximately 200 tests. Subatmospheric pressures were 

reduced to very low levels by shaping the crest profi le, developing an effi cient 

venting system, increasing the lower bend radius from 55 to 120 feet, and 

providing a guide vane for the upper bend together with a pier on the spillway 

crest. The only difference in the actual spillway was the elimination of the vane 

and pier because of diffi culty in construction. The venting system vents the 

1.38. Plans and Sections of Hungry Horse Dam and spillway, Montana.
37

undernappe from the crest structure with nine 8-inch pipes at 30 degree centers 

around the crest and vents the crown of the spillway tunnel in the upper bend 

at elevation 3514.0 with an additional inlet. Air is supplied by a 6-foot square 

air inlet tunnel in the right abutment. With 53,000 ft3

/sec discharge, velocities 

of the water at the outlet portal are computed to be between 132 and 146 ft/sec.

The spillway crest is controlled by a 64-foot diameter buoyant ring gate having a 

maximum lift of 12 feet from elevation 3548.0 to 3560.0. A deicing system using 

compressed air bubblers prevents ice forming on the gate. Spillway discharge 

varies from free-fl ow discharge at low heads to orifi ce-fl ow discharge at higher 

heads.

 Several precautions were taken during construction of the spillway to 

assure accurate alignment and smooth concrete surfaces. Even construction joints 

were eliminated in the vertical curve and defl ector sections to avoid offsets at the 

joints. A 50 degree inclined shaft was chosen over a vertical shaft for economic 

reasons and ease of excavation, to cross bedding planes at right angles and confi ne 

overbreaks to the upper right-hand quadrant of the shaft because of one of the 

joint systems. After placement of the tunnel lining, the surrounding rock was 

thoroughly grouted using pressures varying between 125 lb/in2

 and 150 lb/in2.

Irregularities in the lining were eliminated by grinding, sandblasting, hand-stoning 

with a fi ne-grit CarborundumTM stone, and then fi nal grinding after 7 days of cure. 

The vertical bend and defl ector sections were placed without construction joints 

and cooled with river water pumped through cooling coils. Rather extensive 

repairs of the concrete surfaces in the spillway tunnel were required because of 

retractions and bulges in the wood forms. Concrete was placed in above-freezing 

temperatures and curing was by hand sprinkling.

 The foundation at Hungry Horse Dam is the Siyeh limestone formation 

with beds ranging in thickness from a few inches to several feet. The average 

strike of these beds is N38W and an average dip of 30NE which is upstream 

and into the right abutment. Several faults were present in the foundation which 

required excavation and backfi ll concrete treatment. Foundation grouting and 

drainage were typical for the time. However, an unusual foundation treatment 

was used for the fi rst time. A clay seam along bedding was discovered in blocks 

11, 12, and 13. It was decided to wash out the clay with water and air at less 

than 30 lb/in2 pressure and backfi ll with grout rather than to remove the 7,100 cy 

of rock above the seam. At some point, pressures of 250 lb/in2 were used. The 

seam was excavated above fault 3. The treatment was verifi ed to be effective by 

extracting core and inspections down calyx sized holes.

IX. The Failure of Malpasset Dam—Rock Mechanics and Foundation 

Design Develops

 Although several concrete dams failed due to foundation defi ciencies 

during the early years of concrete dam construction in the United States, it wasn’t 

until the failure of Malpasset Dam in 1954 that the profession recognized a need 
38

for more rigorous foundation 

investigations and analytical 

design methods. Malpasset 

dam was a 216-foot high thin 

arch dam completed on the 

Reyran River upstream of 

Frejus in the Cannes District 

of France. The reservoir had 

a capacity of 41,700 acre 

feet. Although the foundation 

contact was blanket grouted 

with 16-foot deep holes, a 

grout curtain was considered 

unnecessary due to the low permeability of the rock. No drainage had been 

provided in the dam or foundation, and no instrumentation, other than surface 

measurement points, was installed. The foundation consisted of metamorphic 

schists. Heavy rainfall occurred during the fall of 1954 shortly after completion 

of the dam, and by mid-November the reservoir was within 17 feet of the normal 

maximum level. At that time operators discovered a trickle of clear water about 

60 feet downstream of the dam on the right abutment. Cracks had been seen 

in the concrete apron at the toe of the dam, but no one knew when they fi rst 

appeared. Another intense rainstorm began on November 28, and by December 

2, the reservoir was full and the outlet was opened. At 8:45 p.m., the caretaker 

left the dam without observing anything unusual. At 9:10 p.m. the dam failed 

suddenly, causing total destruction along a 7-mile course to the Mediterranean 

Sea.

 Analysis of the 

displacements of the dam 

remains showed that the left 

side of the dam and underlying 

foundation lifted and rotated 

as a monolithic unit about a 

vertical axis located where the 

crest met the right abutment.

Conventional structural 

analyses using a wide range 

of material properties showed 

concrete stresses were well 

within strength parameters, 

and did not explain the failure. 

Arch buckling analyses also indicated an ample margin of safety. The failure 

left an upstream dipping fault zone and downstream dipping foliation plane 

exposed on the left abutment, intersecting below where the dam once stood. The 

measured movements and post-failure evidence pointed to abutment sliding on 

the fault as the cause of failure. Dr. Pierre Londe developed three-dimensional 

1.40. Malpasset Dam failure, Cannes District, 

France.

1.39. Malpasset Dam, Cannes District, France.
39

limit equilibrium analysis techniques to evaluate the stability of a dihedral wedge 

formed by the fault, the shear, and a third joint release plane. The stability of the 

wedge was evaluated under loads consisting of dead weight, water uplift forces on 

each plane, and the thrust from the dam. Instability was explained by this analysis 

when large uplift forces were assumed to develop on the foliation shear.

 Thus, the science of rock mechanics was applied to concrete dam 

foundations. Shortly after this, in the late 1950s and early 1960s during the design 

of Yellowtail, Glen Canyon, and Morrow Point Dams, the Bureau of Reclamation 

began further developing rock mechanics methods in application to concrete 

dam foundation design and analysis. Large scale in-situ tests were developed 

for determining rock mass deformability properties. Exploratory drilling and 

geophysical testing were performed to evaluate foundation conditions, and careful 

attention was paid to major discontinuities within the rock. However, it was 

not until the designs for Auburn Dam were underway in the late 1960s that the 

foundation exploration, analysis, and design were coherently integrated. Under 

the direction of Louis R. Frei, James S. Legas, and J. Lawrence Von Thun, world 

class foundation investigations, testing, evaluation, design, and treatment occured 

at the Auburn Damsite. Although Auburn Dam was never completed, this work 

was an enormous contribution to the profession, and formed the basis for future 

evaluations within the Bureau of Reclamation.

 The Auburn Damsite 

consists of complex 

metamorphic geology. The 

basic rock type is a dense 

amphibolite, but numerous 

faults and talc zones cut the 

rock, and metasediments 

occurred within the 

foundation. Careful 

diamond core drilling 

using split inner tube core 

barrels, trenching, and 

excavation of exploratory 

tunnels and drifts was 

performed to defi ne the 

geologic conditions. The 

results of this exploration were portrayed on geologic plan, section, and structural 

contour maps to provide a complete three-dimensional picture of the foundation.

Weathering profi les and fracture density characterization were used to defi ne 

the foundation excavation to suitable rock. It was recognized that the rock 

deformation properties were key in determining how load was distributed to the 

foundation from the dam, and that jointing and discontinuities within the rock had 

a pronounced effect on these deformation properties. In-situ deformation testing 

was performed in the exploratory tunnels and drifts. Despite the large size of the 

1.41. Photo of Uniaxial Jacking Test performed at the 

Auburn Damsite, California, to measure deformation 

properties of foundation rock mass.
40

tests, it was recognized that 

they still represented a small 

point in the foundation rock. 

Methods were therefore 

developed to extrapolate 

these results to the rest of the 

foundation. From this, the 

deformation properties of 

the foundation were defi ned 

for input to fi nite element 

and Trial Load structural 

analyses of the concrete arch 

dam.

 Seepage analyses were performed to evaluate potential foundation uplift 

pressures. Exit gradients at fault and talc zones near the toe of the dam were 

analyzed, and testing was developed to determine critical exit gradients where 

piping of these zones would initiate. Potential modes of instability were identifi ed 

by evaluating discontinuities (faults, shears, joints, foliation planes, talc zones) 

within the foundation. “Failure mode assessment” as it is sometimes called, was 

developed fully in the rock mechanics arena, and has been a valuable contribution 

to other areas of engineering. Foundation blocks formed by discontinuities that 

intersected beneath the dam, with the intersection or one of the planes daylighting 

downstream, were analyzed using limit equilibrium techniques. The shear 

strength of the critical potential sliding planes was evaluated by laboratory and 

in situ testing of samples from the appropriate faults, talc zones, and joints. Arch 

thrust from gravity, reservoir, and temperature loads; dead load of the foundation 

blocks; uplift on the planes that formed the blocks; and earthquake loading were 

all considered in the evaluations. Finally, foundation treatment, in the form of 

excavation of the weak zones and replacement with mass concrete, was designed 

based on the results of all the studies. In some cases the treatment was controlled 

by the need to develop a smooth deformation pattern or transfer of load across 

discontinuities. In others, the treatment was controlled by the extra shear strength 

needed for stability, or by the need to reduce exit gradients.

 Although improvements to the analysis methods have been made over 

the years including better methods for evaluating seismic stability, the basic 

evaluation process remains essentially the same as that developed at the Auburn 

Damsite. Many concrete dam foundations have been evaluated using these 

procedures. Detailed foundation rock mechanics analyses are now an important 

aspect of the standard practice for evaluating concrete dams.

X. The Double-Curvature Arch—A New Standard for Effi ciency

 Beginning in about the early 1960s a new concept for shaping arch 

dams found its way to the Bureau of Reclamation. This shape, termed “double1.42. Schematic of Uniaxial Jacking Test performed at 

the Auburn Damsite, California, to measure deformation 

properties of foundation rock mass.
41

curvature” provided for more effi cient distribution of loads within the structure 

and to the abutments. A double-curvature arch is curved in plan view and section 

view. This results in more of a “bowl” shape to the structure. The undercutting at 

the heel of the dam that results from this shape, and the inward curvature on the 

downstream face, eliminate areas where tensions typically develop in arch dams.

 The fi rst double-curvature dam 

constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation 

is Morrow Point Dam. The dam has a 

structural height of 468 feet and a crest 

length of 724 feet. The dam is a variablecenter arch structure with an axis radius of 

375 feet. The crest of the dam at elevation 

7165 carries a 12-foot-wide roadway. 

Storage in the Morrow Point Reservoir 

is 117,190 acre feet at the top of active 

conservation.

 In addition to being Reclamation’s 

fi rst double-curvature arch dam, the 

project also boasts Reclamation’s fi rst 

(and only) underground power plant. The 

power plant chamber is tunneled into the canyon wall in the left abutment about 

400 feet below the ground surface. Two 13.5-foot-diameter steel penstocks carry 

fl ow to the power plant, which contains two 86,667-kilowatt generators driven by 

two 83,000-horsepower turbines.

 Because Morrow Point Dam was the fi rst double-curvature thin arch dam 

built by Reclamation, the geologic exploration program was one of the most 

extensive programs ever carried out. The geologic data was developed through a 

comprehensive investigation which included detailed geologic mapping, diamond 

core drilling, excavation of fi ve exploratory tunnels, examination of drill holes 

by television, and seismic surveys. Geologic studies were also coordinated with 

horizontal and vertical in-situ jacking tests and with Whittemore and borehole 

strain gage measurements. However, failure mode assessment and foundation 

stability analyses were not part of the original foundation studies.

 Morrow Point Dam is located in a narrow section of the Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison River with very steep canyon walls and many overhangs. The rock 

encountered at the damsite consists of alternating lenticular and irregular beds of 

biotite schist, mica schist, micaceous quartzite, and quartzite, all of which were 

intruded by granite pegmatite ranging from small veinlets to massive intrusions.

The quality of rock type varies considerably, the hardest being the granite 

pegmatite and the quartzite with variations of hardness down to the weaker biotite 

schist.

1.43. Morrow Point Dam, Gunnison 

River, Colorado.
42

 The damsite is located on 

the axis of a synclinal fold which 

plunges gently to the south (or into 

the left canyon wall) at about 5 

degrees. The fold is expressed by 

the attitude of foliation or bedding 

which dips toward the axis from 

both upstream and downstream.

The rock contains stress relief 

jointing which generally parallels 

the canyon walls and dips steeply 

toward the river, probably resulting 

from unloading through the 

removal of overlying rock by 

river erosion. Another indication 

of stress relief is an apparent halo of fractured rock which extends to a depth of 

about 80 feet beneath the valley fl oor.

 The analyses were very thorough since the design and layout requirements 

went beyond the state-of-the-art of that time. The dam was mathematically 

modeled and analyzed using the Trial Load Method of Analysis when subjected 

to static load and was further analyzed using the computerized adaptation of the 

Trial Load Method (ADSAS—Arch Dam Stress Analysis System) to refi ne the 

design and layout for nine different loading conditions, including seismic loads, 

construction loads, various temperature and grouting conditions, and the asexcavated foundation layout. In addition, the dam was analyzed by the use of 

physical models as a check to the mathematical modeling process. One model 

of the dam and foundation was prepared by Reclamation and the other was made 

by the Laboratorio Nacional de Enenharia Civil of Portugal. All the analyses 

indicated the dam could safely withstand any of the loading conditions applied.

 The contract for construction of Morrow Point Dam and Powerplant 

was awarded to a joint venture of the Al Johnson Construction Company and 

Morrison-Knudsen Company on May 14, 1963, with construction completed 

on May 24, 1968. In general, the dam and power plant were constructed in 

accordance with the designs and specifi cations with only a few complications 

arising requiring changes in the planned construction.

 Open stress relief jointing, especially in the left abutment, caused several 

small rockslides in the excavation for the access road and the upper left keyway. 

To keep the excavated surfaces stable and at grade, the contractor had to use 

controlled blasting techniques and the installation of many rockbolts. Asphaltic 

grouting was later performed to control seepage along relief joints. This adverse 

jointing and the presence of shears within the excavation for the underground 

power plant caused movement of large blocks of rock within the power plant 

walls. This prompted the contractor to install additional access/drainage tunnels 

1.44. Section thru outlet works and stilling basin, 

Morrow Point Dam, Colorado.
43

and extensive systems of rockbolts, post-tensioned cables, and fl at-jacks to 

support the rock mass and prevent further movement.

 At the beginning of concrete placements in 1966, two longitudinal cracks 

were found in the top of blocks 9 and 11 at elevation 6777.5. Both cracks were 

in the center of the block, extended completely across the block, and had a 

maximum width of 0.03 inches. A mat of No. 11 reinforcement bars was placed 

over these cracks and concrete placements continued with no additional problems 

identifi ed in this area.

 In May of 1966 the center formed drain in block 10 was found to be 

plugged at elevation 6815 and had fi lled with sand and debris to about elevation 

6897. The contractor requested permission to use high pressure water to loosen 

and remove the plug. Reclamation granted permission as long as the pressure 

in the formed drain did not exceed 100 lb/in2

. On May 5, 1967, the contractor 

applied the water pressure to the hole, but used pressures of almost 300 lb/in2 and

cracked the concrete in block 10 shortly after placements in this block reached 

elevation 7100. The crack formed in block 10 extended completely across the 

block and extended a short distance into block 9. The repair work included the 

following: all concrete was removed upstream of the crack, 24 rockbolts were 

installed within the dam below the crack to prevent downward propagation, 

56 No. 11 dowel bars were installed to anchor the replacement concrete to the 

undamaged concrete, concrete was replaced using an epoxy bonding agent, 

and a mat of No. 11 bars was placed over the repair area to prevent any upward 

propagation of the crack. No problems have been identifi ed at this area since the 

repairs were completed.

 Several other doublecurvature arch dams were 

successfully designed and 

constructed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation in the late 1960’s 

and 1970’s. One that bears 

mention is Nambé Falls Dam, 

a 150 foot high dam on Rio 

Nambé in New Mexico. The 

arch is part of a composite 

structure with a massive 

concrete thrust block on the 

left abutment that ties into an 

embankment dam. The dam 

is quite thin, and temperature 

loadings were diffi cult to design for. Therefore, a series of fl at jacks were 

installed in the crown cantilever, and the fl at jacks were pressurized to prestress 

the dam into a state of compression that could handle all loading conditions 

adequately. Another item of interest is the development of elliptical arches by 

1.45. Nambé Falls Dam, New Mexico.
44

the use of “three-centered” geometry. The elliptical arches are approximated by 

a central section with a smaller radius, fl anked by abutment sections with larger 

radii. This allows double-curvature arch dams to be designed for wider canyons. 

Although none of these were built by Reclamation, the method was developed 

and several designs were completed.

XI. Structural Analysis Developments

A. Development and Computerization of the Trial Load Method

 The Trial Load Method of stress analysis assumes that the load applied to 

an arch dam would be divided between horizontal (arch) and vertical (cantilever) 

elements in such a way as to produce equal movements in all directions at points 

of intersection of these horizontal and vertical elements. Each arch and cantilever 

element is assumed to move independently of all others, but at the conclusion 

of the analysis, geometrical continuity exists at the intersections. Only a few 

representative arch and cantilever elements (5 to 10 each) need be analyzed. The 

basic concept is that the internal loads equal the external loads at any intersection 

point. The internal loads are divided between the arch and cantilever elements 

until the defl ections match. Thus the name, Trial Load Method of analysis. Then 

tangential and twist loads are applied in equal and opposite directions, one on 

the arch and one on the cantilever. This way the arch and cantilever defl ections 

are brought into tangential and rotational agreement without changing the 

external load on the structure. These internal loads set up the three-dimensional 

interaction between two-dimensional arch and cantilever elements. To facilitate 

the process of dividing the internal loads between arches and cantilevers, certain 

patterns of loads called unit loads were developed. In applying the unit loads, 

it was advantageous to compute the movements of arches and cantilevers from 

unit loads before attempting to divide the external load between the arches and 

cantilevers. The total load resisted by the arches and cantilevers are determined 

by the Trial Load adjustments. With these loads, stresses are then computed.

 There are basically three levels of Trial Load analysis depending 

on the desired accuracy and time duration for computations. 1) The crown 

cantilever analysis consisted of adjusting defl ections of arch elements and the 

crown cantilever (the maximum vertical section in the center of the dam). The 

results were crude and neglected the effects of tangential shear and twist, but 

the computation time was relatively short and with judgement was an effective 

tool for preliminary designs. 2) The radial defl ection analysis added two more 

cantilevers so radial defl ection agreement was obtained at the crown and quarter 

points of the dam. The distribution of load along the arch was more accurate 

but the tangential shear and twist were still neglected, so the accuracy was only 

slightly better. The time for a radial defl ection analysis was only slightly longer 

than the crown adjustment. 3) The complete Trial Load analysis produced 

agreement of all three linear and all three angular displacements by properly 

dividing the radial, tangential, and twist loads between the arches and cantilevers. 
45

The accuracy was only limited by the number of arches and cantilevers used, 

the exactness of the basic assumptions (stress distribution), and the magnitude 

of error permitted in the slope (angular) and defl ection adjustments. The results 

from a complete analysis were confi rmed by the Hoover Dam model studies. The 

major limitation was the time required to perform an analysis.

 In the 1960’s 

before the application of 

computers to structural 

analysis, computations for 

the Trial Load analysis were 

done by a group of six to 

eight engineers operating 

mechanical “adding” 

machines and fi lling in values 

on large tables. One analysis 

would take a pair of engineers 

from six to eight weeks 

depending on the skill of the 

designer. As such, not many load combinations were analyzed. New rotation 

engineers performed these tedious computations. They would work in pairs so 

one could check the other’s computations as they were performed. The seating 

arrangement in the Section was like a Viking ship with the row master behind 

the rowers. They worked with an experienced design engineer. It would take 

about 5 years to transition from a human calculator to a beginning designer. Arch 

dam designers would layout a preliminary shape for an arch dam. The loading 

conditions to analyze were decided upon and younger engineers would start the 

Trial Load computations. When the computations were complete, the results 

were returned to the designer and displacements were plotted. Adjustments to 

the loads between the cantilever and arches were determined, and the process 

repeated. Some designers, such as Howard Boggs, Milt Kramer, and Carl Jones, 

had a tremendous feel for how an arch dam reacted to loads and were very skillful 

in making adjustments. This took many years to develop. Howard Boggs wrote 

Engineering Monograph No. 36 explaining the beginning steps to lay out an arch 

dam. However, this produced only a beginning shape. The real skill then came 

in trying to adjust the shape and produce the most optimum design. Layouts were 

done on a topography map with a large beam compass, french curve, and graph 

paper. Mechanical calculators ran eight hours a day, fi ve days a week, for weeks. 

There were replacement calculators on hand and Eddie Carlson was a full-time 

repair person from the Marchant company. The mechanical machines had 100 

keys (10 rows of 10 keys) and the decimal point was set with a key.

 With the application of computers to civil engineering problems in the 

1960s, some engineers saw the potential of having the computer do the tedious 

manual calculations while other engineers viewed the computer as a threat to their 

jobs. Merlin Copen wrote:

1.46. Seating arrangement in the Analysis Section.
46

The major limitation to the use of the complete trial-load analysis is the 

time required to perform such studies, and the high degree of technical 

training necessary to effi ciently conduct such an analysis. The time 

element has been effectively reduced by use of the electronic computer, 

and will be further diminished as the analysis is completely programmed.

The number of highly-trained engineers required will also be greatly 

reduced.

 In 1957, Loyd Scrivner was the fi rst engineer to write a computer program 

to compute geometric values. Reclamation initially rented time on an IBM 

650 located in downtown Denver and eventually obtained one for themselves.

Scrivner’s initial programs were not written to be reused for other dams but 

had hard coded values inserted so a new program had to be written for each 

dam. Bob Main started with Reclamation in the summer of 1958 in the newly 

created Data Processing Section. Darrell Webber, who later became the Assistant 

Commissioner of the Engineering and Research Center, was a rotation engineer in 

that unit at the time. Because Bob could program on the IBM 650, he was hired 

into the analysis section. Bob wrote the general purpose geometry program for 

the lines of centers, introduced the idea of inputting values so the same program 

could be used for other dams, and introduced the concept of subroutines. 

 Loyd Scrivner wrote:

In 1957, the Analysis Unit of the Concrete Dams Section (USBR) began 

the development of a series of electronic computer programs to reduce 

the time and cost required to complete a trial-load study. Programs have 

been developed utilizing the IBM 650 digital electronic data processing 

machine (system)...

Most of the programming was done using a modifi ed form of an 

interpretive routine (Bell Interpretive Language) which was developed 

to handle fl oating decimal arithmetic including the computation of the 

elementary transcendental functions. The electronic computer, to date, 

has been used primarily for the computation of forces and defl ections in 

arch elements due to unit arch loads. This approach has been followed 

because of the following:

 1. About 70 percent of the man-hours, and therefore the

 cost of performing a trial-load study, is expended making 

 these computations.

 2. These computations are repetitive in nature, which is a 

 factor favoring advantageous use of electronic computers.

Although we are not committed to any particular solution for the 

defl ection adjustments, serious consideration will be given to an iteration 

process as opposed to a procedure based on the solution of a large group 

of simultaneous equations.
47

 Merlin Copen wrote:

The initial layout for an arch dam is based largely on the experience 

and judgement of the designer.... As soon as a layout for a particular 

site has been completed, it is checked by means of a crown cantilever 

analysis to obtain an estimate of the stresses in the proposed dam.

Currently the defl ections of the arches and cantilevers produced by unit 

loads are computed by electronic digital computer. The time required, 

in a normal situation, to determine stresses with a crown adjustment, is 

approximately three days for two men. Several layouts may be necessary 

before a satisfactory stress condition is obtained. Then a radial defl ection 

adjustment is made. This provides a more complete stress picture and 

might indicate the possibility of necessary or desirable changes. The 

radial defl ection analysis requires approximately two days more than the 

crown cantilever analysis, or a total of approximately fi ve days for two 

men.

In practice, after a design has been analyzed and found to be acceptable 

with a radial defl ection analysis, the effects of tangential shear and twist 

are estimated, based on the experience of the designer.... Now the fi nal 

test of the effi ciency of the dam is made. While the detailed design 

work proceeds, a complete trial-load analysis is made of the structure.

This will require approximately 100 to 150 man-days, depending on 

the size and complexity of the dam and the accuracy required from the 

analysis. It is anticipated that in the near future, further application of 

electronic computer processes will result in considerable reduction in the 

layout, such changes are made and incorporated in the detailed design 

procedures.

 There was plenty of arch dam work in the 1960s. Merlin Copen, George 

Wallace, and George Rouse went on a 10-week tour to Europe to see how they 

designed arch dams. As stated in their report:

In recent years European engineers have made many important 

contributions to the design and construction of concrete dams. Through 

experimentation and studies European engineers have devised new 

techniques and have extended or improved existing practices.... The 

team traveled in six countries and visited 15 organizations.... Fortythree dams in various stages of completion were inspected together 

with 25 power stations. Thirteen laboratories were visited as well as six 

manufacturing plants and more than 100 engineers were interviewed.

 It was this trip that led to the development of double-curvature design 

methods at Reclamation. Yellowtail and Flaming Gorge were being designed and 

Morrow Point was on the horizon. Additional design staff probably would have 

been hired for this work. Additional design groups would probably have been 

created and promotion to heads of these groups would have been made. However, 

as Merlin Copen predicted, the large staffs were not required for this workload 

because of the advent of the effi cient computer methods. Interviews for this paper 
48

revealed there may have been bitter feelings about lost advancements and lost 

promotion potential because of the computer. However, the computer did reduce 

the tedious part of structural analysis for arch dams. Some engineers that left the 

analysis section because of the tedious, boring, and repetitive computation work 

actually came back to the unit because of the joy and prestige of designing and 

working with arch dams.

 There were disagreements on the best way to determine the response and 

design of arch dams. In 1960, Merlin Copen wrote:

Since the end of World War II, interest in the design and construction 

of dams has received considerable impetus. This interest has resulted 

in novel approaches to problems of design. Currently the methods 

used appear to fall in one or more categories: (1) analysis of small 

scale models; (2) thin cylinder theory; (3) relaxation methods; (4) shell 

theory; and (5) trial-load analysis. Each of these has advantages and 

disadvantages. The choice of methods generally resolves into accuracy 

and reliability desired as opposed to time, fi nances, and experience 

available for design procedures.

After exhaustive study of the various possibilities, the United States 

Bureau of Reclamation, Dept. of Interior (USBR) adopted the Trial Load 

Method of analysis for designing and analyzing arch dams. Whereas 

there have been notable advances in the use of other methods, the USBR 

has still found the use of trial-load to be completely satisfactory and 

unexcelled in this fi eld. Recent developments in the use of electronic 

digital computers, and the effective application of simplifi ed analyses 

have made this method even more effective.

 The steps to develop a computerized Trial Load Method were to fi rst 

program the geometry, then the arch computations, next the cantilevers, and then 

combine this into a crown adjustment (several arches and one cantilever). The 

computer being used could only handle forty-two equations. The fi nal step was 

a complete analysis. This was a very challenging task with limited computer 

capabilities. After the IBM 650, Reclamation obtained time on a Honeywell 

machine in Minneapolis. Cards would be sent in on Friday and results would 

be back on Wednesday. Reclamation obtained their own Honeywell 800. The 

programming language was Automath, Honeywell’s version of Fortran. Harry 

Beck, Assistant Division Chief of the Data Processing Group, taught the new 

rotation engineers this version of Fortran. The dams section hired Dale Morsette 

as a GS-12 because he had a Masters Degree. This caused some bad feelings 

in the Section because most individuals were GS-11’s and the requirement to 

be a GS-12 was the ability to do a complete analysis unassisted. Dale worked 

on the initial phases of computerizing a complete analysis from 1963 to 1967.

This was a very frustrating task for Dale. In 1967 H. Walter Anderson realized 

the Honeywell did not have the capability needed for arch dam analyses, so he 

arranged time on a Control Data Corporation (CDC) 1601 at the Environmental 

Science Services Administration (ESSA), currently the National Bureau of 
49

Standards, in Boulder, Colorado. Reclamation had a daily shuttle that would 

take cards up to Boulder at 3:00 and return the next day at 10:00. Reclamation 

started moving into Building 67 on April 13. Dale left in early 1967, so Glenn 

Tarbox was assigned the programming task since he knew how to do a complete 

analysis. Bob Main, a computer programmer, started assisting in June of 1967, 

and a working version was accomplished in September 1967. The programming 

was divided into 4 phases: 1) data reorganization, 2) equations, 3) solution, and 4) 

stresses.

 These computer programming efforts and advancements for the Trial Load 

Method evolved into what is called today the Arch Dam Stress Analysis System 

(ADSAS). ADSAS was a computerized version of a fl exibility method of analysis 

referred to as “trial load.” However, equations were developed and written 

to compute defl ections at any location along the cantilevers and arches. The 

equations for defl ections could be solved directly without using trial-loads. This 

essentially is a precursor to the fi nite element method. The computers still did not 

have enough storage space to hold all the matrices at one time. So ADSAS used 

an iteration method to solve the simultaneous equations. The solution technique 

used in ADSAS is unique and innovative and based on approaches developed for 

the hand calculations.

 ADSAS really advanced the state-of-the-art in arch dam analysis, sped 

up the design process, and helped justify the engineering mainframe computers.

ADSAS changed the way the concrete dam group operated because more load 

combination and geometrical shapes could be investigated in minutes rather 

than weeks. Output from ADSAS was still in paper form and was about one 

inch thick. Designers would quickly thumb through the large volume of paper 

output, propose changes to the dam geometry, and have the younger engineers run 

ADSAS and bring back the paper output.

 Despite the advances that came with ADSAS, it was still not appropriate 

for dynamic analysis. In addition, the ADSAS program and users manual 

were developed for internal use, there was machine-dependent computer code 

specifi cally for a Cyber 70-74/28, and the program was in excess of 39,000 cards 

long with over 240 subroutines. This caused problems for others to convert the 

program to their computers and use the program.

B. Linear Structural Analysis

 In 1974 the Structural Analysis Program (SAPIV) was written by Klaus 

Bathe and Ed Wilson at the University of California at Berkeley. Glenn Tarbox 

and Karl Dreher were instrumental in getting SAPIV operational on the CDC 

mainframe computer at Reclamation, debugging the program, and developing 

the fi nite element capability for arch dams. Many sensitivity runs were made 

comparing the Trial Load Method (ADSAS) with the fi nite element method 

(SAPIV) during the design of Auburn Dam. Full dynamic time-history, linear 
50

elastic, three dimensional, modal superposition analyses were performed.

Auburn Dam was the fi rst “test” case. Since that time, almost every arch dam 

in Reclamation’s inventory has been analyzed using SAPIV for earthquake 

loading. SAPIV also has the ability to handle static loading including reservoir, 

temperature, and stage construction, making it a powerful tool for dam analysis.

Many engineers in the analysis group wrote pre- and post-processing programs to 

work with SAPIV, which sped-up and advanced the fi nite element analysis of arch 

dams.

 Evaluating the results of dynamic fi nite element analyses required 

advances in estimating concrete strengths for comparison to the calculated 

stresses. It was postulated that concrete would be stronger in both tension and 

compression under the rapid loading associated with earthquake events. Rapid 

loading laboratory tests were developed which confi rmed this is the case. An 

increase in tensile strength of approximately 50 percent can be expected under 

dynamic loading.

 Reclamation funded the University of California at Berkeley to develop 

a computer fi nite element program specifi cally for arch dams: the Arch Dam 

Analysis Program (ADAP). The development was supposed to occur over three 

years, but funding got tight after the fi rst year. As such, only a partial program 

was developed. Dr. John R. Mays, from the University of Colorado at Denver 

was hired part-time to debug the program and get it operational. Over the years, 

the University of California at Berkeley, continued to develop ADAP. The 

Enhanced Arch Dam Analysis Program (EADAP) contained hydrodynamic 

interaction and ADAP-88 was a nonlinear version that implemented contraction 

joints in the form of contact surfaces. This program has not been used much at 

Reclamation, but has found some use on the outside.

 The University of California at Berkeley also developed a series of 

computer programs specifi cally for arch dams: Earthquake Analysis of Concrete 

Dams (EACD). The current version implements hydrodynamic interaction with 

incompressible or compressible fl uid elements and dam to foundation interaction 

incorporating the damping effects of the foundation. Engineers in Reclamation 

have developed pre- and post-processing programs to aid in the use of this 

program. It has been used for the earthquake analysis of several Reclamation 

concrete dams.

 In 1978 Reclamation obtained the fi rst general purpose nonlinear 

fi nite element program from Klaus Bathe from the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology (MIT): Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis 

(ADINA). The program mainly implemented the material nonlinearity of 

concrete. Dr. John R. Mays developed a nonlinear joint element within ADINA. 

Howard Boggs and Dr. Mays were some of the fi rst engineers to analyze an arch 

dam with nonlinear contraction joints. ADINA was used sparingly for specialty 

problems at Reclamation until 1996 when Reclamation made the transition to 
51

ABAQUS. In 1984, the structural analysis group purchased a Hewlett-Packard 

UNIX workstation for pre- and post-processing fi nite element data using 

PATRAN. The fi nite element analyses were still run on the Cyber mainframe 

computer.

 In August 1993 the mainframe Cyber computer was being 

decommissioned and the structural analysis group made the transition to a larger 

Hewlett-Packard UNIX workstation (HP-755). In 1997 a HP J2240 was obtained 

that had 2 CPUs, 2 Gigabytes of internal memory and 90 Gigabytes of hard disk 

storage. This was more powerful than the early computers at Reclamation just 

35 years previous. Structures modeled with 38,000 nodes, 100,000 degreesof-freedom, contraction joint contact surfaces, and nonlinear concrete material 

properties are now being analyzed for earthquake loads.

C. Nonlinear Structural Analysis

 Linear fi nite element analysis has long been accepted as a way to analyze 

structures. There are limitations, however, when performing a linear analysis. 

Stresses calculated in a linear analysis can exceed the allowable strengths of 

materials. In these cases the actual behavior of the structure after the material 

strengths were exceeded could be signifi cantly different than that predicted by the 

linear analysis. Also, response of geometric nonlinearities (contraction joints or 

compression only members) cannot be modeled using linear analysis. In the past, 

attempts have been made to model these conditions by modifying the modulus 

of elasticity in a particular direction and by using a combination of members to 

simulate the expected behavior of a connection with limited success. Analysis 

tools have now progressed to the point where good nonlinear capabilities are 

available. Nonlinear analysis is the next step in addressing these limitations. 

 Engineers at Reclamation are very familiar with linear fi nite element 

analysis. In the past several years, work has been done using non-linear 

capabilities as well. Two nonlinear analysis methods have been used using 

ABAQUS fi nite element code. The fi rst method employs the standard stiffness 

formulation (F=Kx). The second method solves an explicit formulation with 

Newton’s Second Law, F=Ma. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. 

The following examples illustrate the use of nonlinear analysis for dynamic and 

static loading conditions. 

C.1. Nonlinear Structural Analysis of Monticello Dam

 Monticello Dam is a 304-foot-high constant-center concrete arch dam, 

with fi llets at the abutments, located on the Putah Creek, thirty miles west of 

Sacramento, California. The dam was constructed from 1953 to 1957, has a crest 

length of 1,023 feet, a crest thickness of 12 feet, and a maximum base thickness 

of 100 feet. The earthquake response of the structure, incorporating the vertical 

contraction joints and weak horizontal lift lines, was analyzed non-linearly using 
52

the ABAQUS/Explicit computer 

code.

 In this analysis, eight 

elements through the thickness 

were chosen to better model the 

contact surface interactions. The 

8-noded linear brick element 

and the 6-noded linear wedge 

element were chosen for the 3-D 

model. The 8-noded element is a 

reduced integration element. The 

foundation rock was modeled to a 

distance of two times the dam height to properly model earthquake energy around 

the dam itself. It was modeled with the same type of elements that were used to 

model the dam. For this analysis Rayleigh damping values of Į = 3.0 and ȕ = 0.0 

were used. This is comparable to the 5 percent of critical viscous damping used 

traditionally in dam analysis.

 As expected, the tensile arch stresses are less with the model that 

incorporates the contraction joints in comparison to a linear elastic analysis.

Cantilever compression stresses increase in the center portion of the dam on the 

downstream face, and tensile cantilever stresses decrease slightly in the bottom 

center of the dam on the upstream side. The existence of tensile cantilever 

stresses on the upstream face with the contraction joint model indicates that the 

cantilevers are taking load. This is because when the winter temperature load is 

1.48. Finite element model of Monticello Dam, California. (Foundation mesh not shown.)

1.47. Monticello Dam, California.
53

applied, the cantilevers contract and create openings in the joints. The hydrostatic 

loads tend to close these openings, but can not fully because of resistance offered 

from the cantilevers in bending (initially no cracking of concrete or horizontal 

weak lift lines was incorporated in this model to relieve the stress). Thus, a large 

tensile cantilever stress continues to exist on the upstream side toward the bottom 

center of the dam. Gravity load was applied fi rst. Although gravity was applied 

to the entire structure at once, the contact surfaces used to model the vertical 

contraction joints prevented the structure “hanging” from the abutments as would 

be the case if gravity was applied without contact surfaces. The gravity load 

caused the cantilevers to displace upstream, thereby, allowing the weight of each 

cantilever to act independently. Next the reservoir load was applied. This caused 

the cantilevers to move downstream and the contraction joints to close. The 

temperature load was applied as temperature differentials at all the nodes in the 

dam. Hydrodynamic interaction was incorporated by adding mass to the upstream 

nodes of the fi nite element model based on an incompressible fl uid element 

formulation.

 Three earthquake records were applied to the contraction joint model. 

Crest displacements, crest velocities, contraction joint opening and closing, 

and arch and cantilever stress histories were obtained for each record. Crest 

displacements at the centerline of the dam reach peak values of about 7 inches.

Permanent offsets at joints were less than 1 inch. Maximum crest velocities 

at the centerline of the dam are on the order of 40 in/sec in the cross canyon 

direction, 14 in/sec in the vertical direction and 100 in/sec in the upstream/

downstream direction. Contraction joints at the centerline of the dam open to a 

maximum value of about 0.4 inches. Tensile arch stresses reduced signifi cantly in 

comparison to linear elastic analyses

 Large tensile cantilever stresses continue to exist in the dam during static 

and dynamic loadings with the contraction joint model. These stresses will be 

relieved by horizontal crack formation in the dam. Since the lift lines of the 

cantilevers are weak in comparison to the parent concrete (based on laboratory 

test of drill core), these cracks will occur at the lift line locations. There are two 

ways to model these lift lines. The fi rst method is to set the cracking stress to 

a low value in the nonlinear concrete material property statement. This would 

allow the concrete to crack and relieve any cantilever stress that would exceed 

the cracking stress value specifi ed. However, it isn’t possible to specify that the 

lift lines are weaker than the parent material within the concrete cracking model.

The second method, which was ultimately used, is to insert a series of horizontal 

contact surfaces, spaced so as to model the effect of the weak lift lines. This 

approach further lends itself to a kinematic study; i.e., a series of blocks stacked 

on top of each other held in place by the arch action of the dam. The analyses 

indicated the dam would be stable even with cracked lift lines. Although 6-inchdeep shear keys exist at each contraction joint of the dam, these keys were not 

included in the fi nite element model because of the need to keep the contact 

surfaces simple in order to obtain a stable solution. The effects of neglecting 
54

the keys, and better methods for modeling contraction joints, are the subject of 

ongoing research.

C.2. Nonlinear Structural Analysis of Pueblo Dam

 Pueblo Dam is located 

near Pueblo, Colorado.

Pueblo Dam is a composite 

concrete and earthfi ll structure 

approximately 10,230 feet in 

length. The concrete portion 

consists of a massive head 

buttress dam including a 

550-foot overfl ow spillway 

section located near the central 

part of the concrete dam.

The dam was designed and 

constructed by Reclamation, 

and completed in 1975. 

 The purpose of this nonlinear study was to reevaluate the sliding stability 

at potentially disbonded lift lines and the vertical stress level at the dam heel 

using a three dimensional fi nite element model incorporating horizontal contact 

surfaces. Previous linear-elastic fi nite element analyses completed at Reclamation 

resulted in acceptable factors of safety against sliding (with some cohesion) 

but they also indicated that tensions would develop at the dam heel under some 

static load cases. Since the linear elastic analyses completed previously used 

a continuous mesh, the potential nonlinear characteristics existing along the 

dam-foundation contact surface were not captured; therefore, it was necessary to 

complete a nonlinear fi nite element analysis incorporating a horizontal contact 

surface in order to capture the 

effects of stress redistribution 

upon opening of the contact 

at the dam heel, representing 

crack propagation along the 

contact if weak lift lines are 

actually present.

 A single overfl ow 

buttress of Pueblo Dam was 

modeled using ABAQUS / 

STANDARD. The model used 

three-dimensional 8-noded 

fully integrated brick elements 

throughout the dam and 

foundation. The foundation 

1.49. Pueblo Dam, Colorado.

1.50. Finite element model of an overfl ow 

buttress at Pueblo Dam, Colorado.
55

was modeled as a large rectangular block of solid sandstone, approximately 

350 feet long, 250 feet wide and 150 feet in depth. The upper surface of the 

foundation block, at elevation 4755 feet, was used to defi ne the lower half of 

the non-linear contact surface in these analyses. The dam model was positioned 

in the center of the foundation block with the bottom surface of the dam 

model forming the upper half of the non-linear contact surface. The edges of 

the foundation were fi xed, but there were no translation or rotation boundary 

conditions applied at nodes in the dam model. Although a tension limit could 

be input, once cracked the only force preventing rigid body motion of the dam 

was the frictional force developed on the contact surface; therefore, additional 

iterations were required to obtain convergence of the fi rst increment of the gravity 

loading to establish normal forces on the contact surface.

 The ABAQUS / STANDARD fi nite element program uses time varying 

load application for all of the static loads. The gravity load was applied gradually 

from zero to one second of analysis time, followed by application of the 

reservoir and uplift pressure loads. The uplift pressures were also automatically 

recalculated at each analysis time increment as both a function of the current 

reservoir depth and the crack (open contact surface) length. The non-linear 

analyses indicated that the dam was stable for these static loading conditions. The 

tensile stresses which developed at the dam heel in the previous linear analysis 

were relieved upon opening of the contact surface when zero tensile strength was 

assumed on the contact surface, but a signifi cant portion of the dam remained in 

compression, and was capable of carrying the load.

XII. Roller-Compacted Concrete—Rapid Construction for Gravity 

Dams

 Despite advances in automated mixing, handling, and placement of mass 

concrete, the procedures were still somewhat labor intensive and time consuming 

in comparison to earthfi ll production rates. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s 

some relatively small projects were completed using the concept of rollercompacted concrete (RCC). The concept involved placement of a lean and dry 

concrete mix by spreading it in thin layers with a bulldozer, and compacting 

it with vibratory drum rollers. The lean mix reduced the heat generated, and 

rapid production rates could be achieved, as the placement was mechanized and 

there was no need to wait for curing before placing the next lift. The Bureau 

of Reclamation began testing a high paste (cement plus fl yash) RCC concept 

in 1980. This resulted in a strong and stiff material with similar properties to 

conventional concrete. Thus, the design of gravity dams using this type of 

material could be based on conventional gravity dam design methods.

 In 1985 RCC placements began at Upper Stillwater Dam, the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s fi rst RCC dam and at that time the world’s largest. The straight 

gravity dam is about 280 feet high, and nearly 2700 feet long, and contains 

more than 1,600,000 yd3

 of concrete (most of which is RCC). Although the 
56

downstream slope is 0.6:1, 

the point of intersection of 

the downstream and upstream 

slopes is above the dam 

crest, which results in an 

equivalent downstream slope 

of about 0.7:1 for the height of 

Upper Stillwater Dam when 

compared to other typical 

gravity dams. The upper part 

of the downstream slope was 

steepened to allow suffi cient 

crest width for the construction 

equipment. This increases the 

mass and stiffness of the dam 

when compared to traditional 

gravity sections.

 Typical excavation 

and treatment of the quartzitic 

sandstone and argillite 

foundation rock were 

performed. Crushed aggregate 

and sand were manufactured 

for the RCC. A richer RCC 

mix was used near the upstream face. The RCC contained between 135 and 160 

pounds of cement per cubic yard, and between 290 and 350 pounds of fl yash per 

cubic yard. Temperature control was achieved by placing the RCC below 50°F 

and by replacing cement with fl yash to limit the heat rise. The RCC was tied 

to the abutments and to the foundation by use of conventional concrete. At the 

base of the dam, conventional concrete was fi rst placed to form a level surface 

to start RCC placements. At the abutments, conventional concrete was placed 

between the RCC and the rock. Laser-guided slip-form machines were used to 

place concrete elements forming the upstream and downstream faces of the dam.

This proved to be a fairly rapid means of forming the dam, and eliminated the 

relatively time consuming and labor intensive process of erecting and stripping 

conventional forms. RCC was delivered to the dam from the batch plant using a 

conveyor belt. There it was loaded into trucks, transported to the placement, and 

spread with a small bulldozer using a laser controlled blade. A vibratory drum 

roller then compacted the material into a dense mass. In 1986, over 715,000 yd3

of RCC was placed in less than fi ve months. The peak shift placed over 5400 

yd3

. Joint cleanup was required, depending on the age of the concrete, and joints 

greater than 72 hours old were required to be sandblasted or waterblasted. Very 

good bond was achieved. In fact, it was diffi cult to fi nd the lift lines in the core 

taken from the dam.

1.52. Compacting RCC at Stillwater Dam, Utah.

1.51. Upper Stillwater Dam, Utah.
57

 The major drawback to the design and construction of Upper Stillwater 

Dam was the exclusion of contraction joints or other means to control the 

cracking and subsequent leakage through the dam. Thermal and structural 

analyses had indicated that cracking would be limited to the face of the dam, 

and would not extend through the dam thickness. However, this proved to be 

incorrect, and regularly spaced vertical cracks propagated through the dam normal 

to the axis. Leakage from some of these cracks became signifi cant, and the 

grouting and drainage gallery constructed about 20 feet from the upstream face of 

the dam received large infl ows. The leakage at two of the cracks was exacerbated 

by small sliding movements on an argillite layer within the foundation that 

stopped when the passive rock mass downstream of the dam was mobilized. This 

tended to open the cracks on either end of where the movement occurred. All 

open cracks were grouted twice. The upper portions of the cracks were grouted 

with hydrophillic polyurethane grout, and the lower portions were grouted with 

cement grout. This proved to be effective for several years. However, seasonal 

movements of the cracks due to variations in reservoir level and temperature 

eventually reopened the cracks, resulting in renewed leakage. Plans are being 

developed to seal the cracks with an upstream membrane or a secant wall drilled 

across the cracks upstream of the gallery.

 The contraction joint 

issue in RCC dams is critical.

For gravity dams it is adequate 

to control the cracking by 

forming joints or placing crack 

inducers to control the crack 

locations. Water stop features 

can then be designed to reduce 

fl ow through the cracks. If 

RCC is to be used for arch 

dams, it will be necessary to 

develop a way to grout the 

joints to lock in arch action 

at the desired temperature.

The Bureau of Reclamation 

developed such a system for 

the foundation modifi cations at Pueblo Dam in the late 1990s.

 By way of background on this project, nearly horizontal shale layers 

beneath the massive head buttresses of the dam daylighted in the spillway stilling 

basin excavated at the toe of the dam, downstream of some of the buttresses. Due 

to the large population downstream of this dam, potential sliding of the structure 

on these shale layers posed a high risk, and was a dam safety concern. A RCC 

plug and toeblock, anchored with double-corrosion-protected high strength 

rock bolts, were constructed in the stilling basin to block the daylighting planes 

and buttress the foundation. State-of-the-art distinct element analyses, and 

1.53. Section through Buttress 8 or 9 at 

Pueblo Dam, Colorado. Showing RCC stabilization 

measures.
58

probabilistic stability analyses 

were performed to ensure 

the RCC geometry would be 

effective in stabilizing the 

dam. The RCC material was 

somewhat different than that 

used at Upper Stillwater Dam.

Rounded river aggregates up 

to 11⁄2 inch maximum size 

were used. Approximately 

120 pounds of cement and 180 

pounds of fl yash were used per 

cubic yard of RCC. Surface 

cleanup and bonding mortar 

were used on all lift surfaces of the toe block and on lift surfaces more than twelve 

hours old in the plug (below elevation 4728). Although the design strengths 

were met, a somewhat porous zone developed a few inches below the lift surface, 

particularly for lifts that were a day old when the next layer of RCC was placed.

It was thought that the rounded aggregate made the RCC more susceptible to 

damage from construction traffi c on lifts that were in a fragile condition just after 

setting of the RCC. Windy conditions at the site may have also prematurely dried 

the surface of the RCC lifts during and shortly following placement.

 Contraction joints were 

formed in the RCC by vibrating steel 

plates into the freshly compacted 

lifts. The joints trending in the 

cross-canyon direction needed to 

be grouted to ensure that load could 

be transferred across the joints with 

minimal displacement. The plate 

locations were carefully surveyed 

prior to installation so that the 

joints could be intercepted by 

vertical grout holes. Six-inchdiameter holes were drilled 

at 10-foot spacing in the 

upstream-downstream direction 

and 5-foot spacing in the crosscanyon direction. Steel plates 

were not placed in the drill 

1.55. Installing joint inducing 

plates in RCC at Pueblo Dam, 

Colorado.

1.56. Opening of transverse contraction joint in RCC 

at Pueblo Dam, Colorado. Grouting of joints 

occurred in February 2000.

1.54. RCC placement, spreading, and 

compaction operations in the spillway pool, 

Pueblo Dam, Colorado.
59

hole locations. Some holes were fi lled with polyurethane grout to isolate grout 

zones. Tubing was designed and installed in the holes to provide grout supply 

and return lines, and venting to remove air and water from the system. Grouting 

was performed the second winter following RCC placement when joint meters 

indicated suffi cient joint opening for grouting. The grouting was successful, and 

the joints did not close the following summer, indicating good fi lling of the joints.

XIII. Transition to Dam Safety—Applying Technology to Reduce Risk

 The Bureau of Reclamation has been actively involved with a formal 

safety of dams program since April 1977 when an Executive Order was issued 

initiating the Federal guidelines for dam safety. The aim of Reclamation’s dam 

safety program is to ensure that the agency’s dams do not pose an unacceptable 

risk to the downstream public. To that end, Reclamation has pioneered the use 

of risk analysis in assessing dam safety. Once it is determined that structural 

modifi cations are needed to reduce risk, Reclamation has used the design and 

construction technology developed over the past century to fi x existing dams. For 

concrete dams, this means application of detailed analyses, design procedures, and 

modern concrete technology. Two cases, Theodore Roosevelt and Pueblo Dam 

modifi cations, illustrate this point. The case of Pueblo Dam was discussed in the 

previous section on roller-compacted concrete (RCC). Additional details of the 

Theodore Roosevelt Dam modifi cations are provided here.

 Potential defi ciencies with regard to the potential to pass large fl oods, 

potential instability during large earthquakes, inadequate release capacity, and 

the need for more water storage resulted in major modifi cations to Theodore 

Roosevelt Dam between 1988 and 1995. Part of those modifi cations resulted in 

raising the arch dam 77 feet. It was necessary to determine whether the dam and 

foundation could withstand this increase in head. Combinations of joints and 

bedding planes (dipping upstream at about 20 to 25 degrees) in the Precambrian 

sedimentary foundation rock formed potentially unstable blocks. Initial stability 

analyses indicated that the foundation would not meet the desired factors of safety 

under the increased loading. Therefore, foundation drainage was installed from 

adits excavated in the rock and a gallery excavated through the existing masonry. 

Piezometers were installed to measure foundation water pressures before and 

after construction of the drainage, and pressure contour maps were developed 

for determining uplift forces in the foundation analysis. The drainage was 

very effective, reducing pressure heads by about 43 to 68 feet. In situ uniaxial 

jacking tests were performed in the drainage adits, and correlated with seismic 

tomography testing to estimate the deformation properties of the foundation rock 

mass and concrete masonry of the existing dam. These properties were included 

in fi nite element structural analyses to study the behavior of the dam and more 

closely determine loads acting on the foundation. Final foundation analyses 

indicated that the raised dam with the drainage in place met the desired safety 

factors, and was more stable than the existing dam without drainage.
60

 Constructing an overlay of conventional concrete on the existing dolomite 

masonry dam posed some additional challenges. A concrete test panel was 

constructed on the downstream face of the dam to determine the likely bond 

strength between the new concrete overlay and the masonry. Core samples 

were extracted and the interface was tested in tension and direct shear. This 

information was used in extensive computer modeling to verify the design and 

shape of the overlay. The dam was analyzed for static and dynamic loading using 

fi nite element methods. The existing masonry was modeled in three horizontal 

stages to simulate the layered construction. The mass concrete overlay was 

1.57. Schematic of raising Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona.
61

modeled as it was constructed, in blocks separated by (keyed) contraction joints.

Recommended block dimensions, lift heights, concrete placement temperatures, 

and cooling requirements were based on temperature control studies. These 

studies took into account the thermal properties of the concrete mix design, and 

the expected temperature rise within the mass concrete during construction. The 

concrete was cooled using cooling coils embedded in the 10-foot lifts, and the 

contraction joints in the overlay were grouted to provide arch action and improve 

the stress distribution within the structure. The numerical modeling simulated 

this construction sequence. Final analysis of the composite structure indicated 

improved stress conditions within the existing masonry portion of the dam, and 

results meeting Bureau of Reclamation stability and stress criteria. Seismic 

response analyses indicated the structure should perform well under large seismic 

loadings. Construction 

of the overlay followed 

typical mass concrete 

placement techniques, 

developed and refi ned 

since the construction 

of Hoover Dam. A high 

line was used to transport 

concrete to the placement 

in buckets. The concrete 

was placed in layers 

and vibrated into place.

Something not done before 

included placement of 

geo-composite strip drains 

between the existing masonry and the new concrete to provide drainage at the 

interface.

 Other modifi cations to the dam included construction of a lake tap 

and tunnel system to provide a new outlet works and power penstock. New 

mass concrete thrust blocks were constructed on each abutment to fi ll the gap 

formed by the original spillway cuts. New spillways were constructed through 

each thrust block. Hydraulic model studies were used in the hydraulic design 

of the spillways. Spillway fl ows enter a diverging chute and fl ip structure 

before plunging to an excavated basin in the river channel below. The spillway 

alignments cause the discharge jets to impinge at or above tailwater level, while 

both spillways are operating under higher reservoir heads.

 The following illustrations show concrete placement during modifi cations 

to Theodore Roosevelt Dam. Note placement and vibration of concrete in layers , 

placement in blocks against the masonary, and new thrust block and spillway.

1.58. Results of seismic tomography testing at Theodore 

Roosevelt Dam, Arizona.
62

1.59. Concrete placement during modifi cations to Theodore 

Roosevelt Dam, 

Arizona.

1.60. Placement and vibration 

of concrete in layers during 

modifi cations to Theodore 

Roosevelt Dam, Arizona.

1.61. Showing the new 

thrust block and spillway at 

Theodore Roosevelt Dam, 

Arizona.

1.62. Modifi ed Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Arizona, completed and rededicated in 1996.
63

XIV. Conclusions

 We hope you have enjoyed this tour of the evolution of concrete dam 

design, analysis, and construction within the Bureau of Reclamation over the past 

century. There is no question that the early pioneers in this effort were extremely 

talented and set the stage for some of the great feats of human engineering that 

were to follow. Monumental projects like Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams are 

still “wonders” today. During the heyday of dam construction in the United 

States, the Bureau of Reclamation developed a reputation as a world leader 

in concrete dam technology. The construction of dams in the United States is 

winding down now after a century of extensive development. The last new 

concrete dam constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation was completed over a 

decade ago (1989). The legacy and expertise in concrete technology and dam 

construction at the Bureau of Reclamation remains a valuable national resource, 

and has been recently used to effi ciently fi x dams where safety concerns exist. 

So what do the next 100 years hold? As long as dam safety projects remain to 

be done, the expertise will be maintained and developments will slowly occur. 

However, without large projects, it is likely that the leadership in this area will 

gradually shift to developing countries in the future. The Bureau of Reclamation 

can be proud of the giant springboard they have provided from which these efforts 

can be launched.

Gregg A. Scott, P.E., is a Technical Specialist in the Structural Analysis and 

Geotechnical Groups. Larry K. Nuss, P.E., is a Technical Specialist in the 

Structural Analysis Group. John LaBoon, P.E., is the Manager of the Waterways 

and Concrete Dams Group. All three work in the Technical Service Center of 

the Bureau of Reclamation in Denver.

Bibliography of Sources Consulted (in the order used in the paper.) 

“North Platte Project History,” Volume 1, 1902-1913, U.S. Reclamation Service.

Wisner, G. Y., and E. T. Wheeler, “Investigation of Stresses in High Masonry Dams of Short

 Spans,” Engineering News, Vol. LIV, No. 6, August 10, 1905.

Elliot, B. R., “Roosevelt Dam, Salt River Project, Arizona,” Dams and Control Works, U.S.

 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Government Printing Offi ce, 

 Washington D.C., Third Edition, 1954.

Smith, C. W., “The Construction of the Roosevelt Dam, An Account of the Diffi culties 

 Encountered in Constructing a High Masonry Dam in Arizona,” Engineering Record, Vol. 

 62, No. 27, December 31, 1910.

Feature History of the Shoshone Dam, U.S. Reclamation Service, June 1, 1910.

Eastwood, J. S., “An Arch Dam Design for the Site of the Shoshone Dam,” Engineering News,

 Vol. 63, No. 23, June 9, 1910.

Cole, D. W., “The Shoshone Dam of the United States Reclamation Service, A description of the 

 Method of Constructing the Highest Dam in the World,” Engineering Record, Vol. 62, 

 No. 4, July 23, 1910.

Dollar, D., D. Hinchliff, L. Pimley, and P. Ruchti, “Storage Capacity Increased at Buffalo Bill 

 Dam,” International Water Power and Dam Construction, Volume 43, Number 7, 

 July 1991.
64

Hopson, E. G., “Methods and Cost of Constructing East Park Dam, California, Orland Project, 

 U.S. Reclamation Service,” Engineering and Contracting, Vol. XXXVI, No. 16, 

 October 18, 1911.

Hoffman, C. J., “Arrowrock Dam, Boise Project, Idaho,” Dams and Control Works, U.S. 

 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Government Printing Offi ce, 

 Washington D.C., Third Edition, 1954.

Coghlan, R. R., “Report of Laboratories Operated in Connection with the Manufacture and Use 

 of Sand-Cement at Elephant Butte, N.M.,” U.S. Reclamation Service, Denver, Colorado, 

 May 1, 1916.

Abrams, D. A., “Proportioning Concrete Mixtures,” Proceedings of the 18th Annual Convention of 

 the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 18, Detroit, Michigan, February 1922.

Darr, A. L., Construction of Gerber Dam, Bureau of Reclamation, February 25, 1925.

Simonds, A. W., “Movement of Owyhee Dam Due to Grouting Contraction Joints,” Bureau of 

 Reclamation, June 14, 1934.

“Contraction Joint Opening—Owyhee Dam, Hoover Dam Concrete Research,” Bureau of 

 Reclamation, October 15, 1932.

“Morning-Glory Shaft Spillways—A Symposium,” Paper No. 2802, Transactions of the American 

 Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 121, 1956, page 311.

Lowe, F. C., Assistant Engineer, “Hydraulic Model Studies for the Glory-Hole Spillways at 

 Owyhee Dam—Owyhee Project, Oregon-Idaho and Gibson Dam—Sun River Project, 

 Montana,” Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. 159, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 

 Colorado, November 15, 1944.

“Design of the Owyhee Irrigation Dam,” Engineering News Record, April 26, 1928.

“Another Huge Dam,” Western Construction News, Volume III, May 10, 1928.

“Final Record on Design and Construction of Owyhee Dam, Owyhee Project—Oregon—Idaho,” 

 written in Denver Offi ce, June 24, 1941. (Original available in the National Archives, 

 Denver, Colorado)

Warnock, J. E., “Report on Inspection Trip to Correlate Present Hydraulic Design Practice and the 

 Operations of Structures in the Field,” Denver, Colorado, Bureau of Reclamation, 

 August 8, 1938.

Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports, Bulletin 1, Part VI—Hydraulic Investigation—Model 

 Studies of Spillways, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

 1938.

Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports, Bulletin 3, Part IV—Design and Construction—Diversion, 

 Outlet, and Spillway Structures, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, 1947.

Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports, Bulletin 3, Part VI—Hydraulic Investigation—Studies of 

 Crests for Overfall Dams, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, 1948.

Bazin, M., “Recent Experiments on the Flow of Water Over Weirs,” Annales des Pont et Chaussées, 

 October 1888 (translated by Arthur Marichal and John C. Trautwine, Jr., and published in 

 the Proceedings of the Engineers’ Club of Philadelphia, Vol. VII, No. 5, 1890, p. 259 and 

 Vol. IX, No. 3, 1892, p. 231).

Bradley, J. N., Engineering Monograph No. 9: Discharge Coeffi cients for Irregular Overfall 

 Spillways, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March 1952.

Design of Small Dams, Third Edition, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, 1987.

Peterka, A. J., Engineering Monograph No. 25: Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy 

 Dissipators, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Eighth 

 Printing, May 1984.

Falvey, Henry T., Engineering Monograph No. 42: Cavitation in Chutes and Spillways, United 

 States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Eighth Printing, April 1990.

“Effect of the Admixture, T.D.A., on the Durability of Concrete,” Columbia Basin Project, 

 Laboratory Report No. Ce-33, Denver, Colorado, June 1942.
65

Concrete Manual, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 

 October 1942.

Hungry Horse Dam and Powerplant—Technical Record of Design and Construction, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, May 1958.

“Morning-Glory Shaft Spillways—A Symposium”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper 

 No, 2802, Vol 121, 1956.

“Hydraulic Model Studies of the Morning-Glory Spillway for Hungry Horse Dam—Hungry Horse 

 Dam Project,” Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-355, Bureau of Reclamation, 

 April 23, 1954.

“The Hungry Horse Project,” by Eric A. Stene, Bureau of Reclamation History Program, 1994.

Londe, P., “The Malpasset Dam Failure,” Engineering Geology, Vol. 24, 1987, pp.295-329.

Design and Analysis of Auburn Dam, Volume One: Design Data (August 1977) and Volume Two: 

 Foundation Studies (May 1978), United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Scott, G. A., “Guidelines—Foundation and Geotechnical Studies for Existing Concrete Dams,” 

 Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, September 1999.

“Risk Analysis Screening Study for Morrow Point Dam MDA,” October 1998.

Morrow Point Dam and Powerplant—Technical Record of Design and Construction, Bureau of 

 Reclamation, September, 1983.

Copen, Merlin D., “Design of Arch Dams by the Trial Load Method of Analysis”, Journal of the 

 Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, August 1960.

ADSAS User’s Manual, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Interview with Bob Main on June 16, 2001.

Interview with Louis Roehm on June 13, 2001.

Electronic mail message from Glenn Tarbox, August 20, 2001.

Hand-written notes from J. Lawrence Von Thun, September 17, 2001.

Scrivner, Loyd R., “Use of Electronic Digital Computers to prepare data for Trial Load Analysis of 

 Arch Dams, “ ASCE Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, Power Division, March 1960.

Main, Robert B. “Users Manual for the Arch Dam Stress Analysis System—PC—Version 2.00,” 

 February 25, 1997.

Mills/Bria, Barbara, and Payne, Terry, “Geometric and Material Non-linearities in Finite Element 

 Structural Analysis of Dams and Dam Appurtenances,” 2000.

Copen, M. D., Rouse, G. C., and Wallace, G. B., “European Practices in Design and Construction 

 of Concrete Dams,” Volumes 1, 2, and 3, February 1962.

Boggs, Howard L., Engineering Monograph No. 36: Guide for Preliminary Design of Arch Dams,

 Bureau of Reclamation, November, 1966.

“Speed and Grit Beat Problems on BuRec Dam, Upper Stillwater is RCC Benchmark,” 

Engineering News Record, October 29, 1987.

Richardson, A. T., “Performance of Upper Stillwater Dam,” Roller Compacted Concrete III, 

Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, San 

 Diego, California, February 2-5, 1992.

Scott, G. A., “Deformation of Rock Foundations Under Dams,” Proceedings, Tenth Annual 

 USCOLD Lecture Series, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1990.

Trojanowski, J., “RCC Used to Stabilize Pueblo Dam,” USCOLD Newsletter, Issue No. 120, 

 March 2000.

Hepler, T. E., and G. A. Scott, “Increasing the Capacity of the Roosevelt Dam,” International

 Water Power and Dam Construction, Volume 44, Number 5, May 1992.
66
67

100 Years of Embankment Dam Design and 

Construction in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

by:

Richard Lyman Wiltshire

Introduction

The design and construction of earthfi ll and rockfi ll embankment dams in 

the western United States and throughout the world have evolved dramatically 

during the past 100 years. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) played 

a signifi cant role in that evolution of embankment dam engineering, construction, 

and dam safety. There are now more than 240 water-storage embankment dams 

in the western United States that were designed and constructed by Reclamation 

during the twentieth century, which was the most intensive period of dam building 

the world has ever seen. The list of embankment dams built by Reclamation 

includes many of the most innovative, largest, and highest dams of their eras. The 

list of civil engineers and other professionals who have helped to design and build 

Reclamation’s embankment dams is lengthy and highly regarded.

 Reclamation is currently organized into fi ve Regions, across the seventeen 

western states, and the Washington and Denver Offi ces. The fi ve Regions, 

which have performed almost all of the dam construction work, are: 1) Pacifi c 

Northwest, 2) Mid-Pacifi c, 3) Lower Colorado, 4) Upper Colorado, and 5) Great 

Plains. The Denver Offi ce includes the Technical Service Center, the current 

name of the engineering organization that has performed most of the embankment 

dam engineering and design work.

 This paper summarizes Reclamation’s embankment dam design and 

construction history. The last 100 years have seen the design and construction of 

embankment dams develop from the relatively simple homogeneous or two-zone 

earthfi ll embankments designed in 1904 or 1905 into the extremely complex, 

highly analyzed, well-instrumented zoned earthfi ll and/or rockfi ll structures 

that are the embankment dams of the new millennium. This embankment dam 

engineering evolution has also involved the growth of several related disciplines, 

including engineering geology, seismology, hydrology, hydraulic engineering, 

 instrumentation engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering. 

A central component of the evolution of the engineering of embankment dams has 

been the birth and maturation of geotechnical engineering as a civil engineering 

specialty. The use of computers and computer programs for the analysis and 

design of embankment dams became standard practice within a fairly short time 

after they were developed by geotechnical engineers. Another component of 

this evolution has been the development of larger, faster, more powerful, and 

more effi cient earthwork construction equipment. The paper also discusses the 

design and construction organizations within Reclamation and how they have 

changed during the last 100 years. Reclamation’s publication of its well-known 
68

engineering books, such as the Earth Manual1

 and the Design of Small Dams,2 is 

noted. Lastly, the successes and failures that occurred during the last 100 years 

of Reclamation’s embankment dam design and construction history are discussed, 

and the lessons learned from those experiences are summarized.

 In telling the story of the evolution of Reclamation’s embankment dam 

engineering, the paper separates the 100-year history into fi ve periods, which are 

partly based on noteworthy events such as World Wars I and II and the failure 

of Teton Dam in 1976. Period I runs from 1902 to 1918; Period II extends from 

1919 to 1933; Period III covers 1934 to 1944; Period IV includes 1945 through 

1975; and Period V runs from 1976 to the Present (2002). This paper examines 

the embankment dam design and construction changes that occurred during each 

period. Representative and remarkable/notable embankment dams from each of 

the fi ve periods are discussed. A few problems, some signifi cant, occurred during 

the construction and/or subsequent operation of Reclamation’s embankment dams 

and they are also discussed. And the effects of certain developments, such as the 

Proctor compaction (moisture density) test procedure and the failure of Teton 

Dam, are discussed in the paper.

Reclamation’s Design and Construction Organizations

 In 1902, the new U.S. Reclamation Service (Service) was organized 

within and was drawn from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Division of 

Hydrography, Hydrographic Branch, that had studied western water resources 

for the previous 20+ years. Frederick H. Newell, Chief of USGS’s Division 

of Hydrography, was selected to head the new Service under USGS Director 

 Charles D. Walcott and was titled Chief Engineer, and Arthur Powell Davis 

was Newell’s chief assistant.3

 Based on the studies previously conducted by 

USGS, which had included studies of streams, watersheds, irrigable lands, and 

potential dam and reservoir sites throughout the West, six projects were approved 

for design and construction by the Secretary of the Interior in 1903. Out of 79 

projects investigated, a total of 25 projects had been examined and authorized for 

construction by the Secretary within the fi rst fi ve years, and 15 of those had been 

started by private companies or by a group of cooperating farmers who requested 

the Service’s help. 

Period I (1902-1918)— Reclamation’s Design and Construction 

Organizations

 At the beginning of Period I, each of the 16 western states (17 states 

after Texas was added in 1906) had at least one district under the direction of a 

“District Engineer,” who was responsible for all Reclamation activities, including 

surveys, investigations, designs, and construction. For each authorized project, 

a qualifi ed (civil) engineer was selected as the “Resident Engineer” and he was 

responsible for conducting site investigations and developing preliminary design 

plans on the embankment dam judged appropriate for the site. On a larger 
69

project, the Resident Engineer might have the help of an Assistant Engineer. 

Supervisory Service engineers, who functioned as liaison representatives of 

the Chief Engineer on certain projects, and consulting engineers with special 

skills, reviewed the preliminary plans and made project recommendations to 

the Secretary of the Interior. Upon the Secretary’s approval, the Service was 

authorized to develop fi nal plans and specifi cations. The early embankment dams 

were constructed either by contract with private contractors or by “force account” 

using Government forces. Both types of construction were managed/supervised 

by Service engineers and inspectors. Most of the dam sites were fairly remote, so 

construction included transportation of all necessary equipment and materials to 

the dam site, as well as construction of the camps and facilities required to house 

the construction workers.

 In 1903, a permanent western headquarters offi ce was established in 

Denver, Colorado, to house the engineers and assistants of the Hydrographic 

Branch who would facilitate the location and construction of dams, in order 

to avoid overcrowding in the Washington, D. C., offi ce. The Reclamation 

Service became independent from the USGS in 1907, with Chief Engineer 

Newell becoming the Service’s fi rst Director and Davis becoming Chief 

Engineer. Newell reorganized the 17 states into six divisions to enhance the 

Service’s administration of its large workload: the Central, Idaho, Northern, 

Pacifi c, Southern, and Washington Divisions. The Division boundary lines were 

determined by the ease of railroad travel and communication, with drainage 

boundaries also being considered. Each of the six Divisions was headed by a 

Division Engineer. Reclamation’s early Project, District, and Division Engineers 

included such notables as: Ira W. McConnell, Raymond F. Walter, Frank E. 

Weymouth, Joseph B. Lippincott, Hiram N. Savage, David C. Henny, Ernest G. 

Hopson, Louis C. Hill, and Charles H. Swigart. Note that engineers Weymouth, 

Lippincott, and Hill were all elevated to Honorary Member status in the American 

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

 In 1913 the Service’s hierarchy was reorganized, creating a fi ve-member 

 Reclamation Commission, which included: the Director of the Service, Chief 

Engineer, Chief Counsel, Comptroller, and Supervisor of Irrigation. In December 

1914 the Chief of Construction was added as a member of the Reclamation 

Commission. Davis became Director of the Service in December1914 after 

Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane removed Newell as Director and named 

him “Consulting Engineer.” Newell fi nally resigned from the Service in May 

1915 and became Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department at the University 

of Illinois. Also in May 1915, the Commission’s membership was reduced to 

three, consolidating the Director and Chief Engineer positions with Davis as 

Director and Chief Engineer and retaining the Comptroller and Chief Counsel 

positions (which also appears to have removed the Supervisor of Irrigation and 

the Chief of Construction as members of the Commission). That same year, the 

direction of fi eld operations was centralized at the Denver Offi ce under the Chief 

of Construction. With the establishment of the Chief Engineer’s Offi ce in Denver, 
70

Reclamation’s engineering design and construction management functions were 

centralized in the Denver Offi ce. In 1918 the Secretary of the Interior followed 

 Arthur P. Davis’ recommendations and the top level structure of the Service was 

again reorganized, making the Comptroller and the Chief Counsel subordinate to 

the Director and Chief Engineer.

Period II (1919-1933)—Reclamation’s Design and Construction 

Organizations

 In May 1920 Director and Chief Engineer Davis changed his title to 

Director and appointed the Chief of Construction in Denver, Frank E. Weymouth, 

to the Chief Engineer position. Arthur Powell Davis served as President of ASCE 

in 1920. On June 18, 1923, the Service became the Bureau of Reclamation 

headed by the Commissioner of Reclamation; Davis resigned from Reclamation 

the following day. David W. Davis was named Reclamation’s Commissioner on 

July 1, 1923, quickly followed by Elwood Mead after Davis left offi ce on April 2, 

1924. Dr. Mead served as Commissioner from 1924 until his death on January 26, 

1936. Reclamation’s design and construction organizations remained much the 

same for the next 20 years. During the 1920s and 1930s, the status of the Chief 

Engineer grew as Reclamation’s authority was consolidated in the offi ce of the 

Chief Engineer headquartered in Denver. Reclamation’s various laboratories fi rst 

got started in 1930 with the hydraulic model testing performed in the laboratory 

of the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station in Fort Collins, Colorado. The 

 Concrete Laboratory and the Earth Materials Laboratory were also begun in the 

early 1930s in the U.S. Customs House in Denver.

Period III (1934-1944)—Reclamation’s Design and Construction 

Organizations

 In 1942 and 1943, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes reorganized 

Reclamation in accordance with a plan designed to: 1) decentralize the authority 

for work execution along regional lines, 2) limit the authority of the Chief 

Engineer and his staff to project design and construction, and 3) establish a 

“functional type” of organization with the Commissioner’s authority going 

straight to the Regional Directors. The reorganization provided for:

Four major branches in the Denver Offi ce: Design and Construction 

under the Chief Engineer, Project Investigations, Operation and 

Maintenance, and Fiscal and Administrative Management. The Chief 

Engineer remained Reclamation’s ultimate authority in the technical 

execution of construction projects, even though responsibility over 

construction in the fi eld was now divided between the Regional Directors 

and the Chief Engineer.

 Six Regional Offi ces, later expanded to seven, concentrated on planning 

and development activities, and supervised the operation and maintenance of 

completed project facilities. The seven Regional Offi ces were located at Boise, 
71

Idaho; Sacramento, California; Boulder City, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; 

Amarillo, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Billings, Montana. The Regional 

Directors reported directly to the Commissioner’s Offi ce.

Period IV (1945-1975)—Reclamation’s Design and Construction 

Organizations

 In 1945 the Commissioner won support for his position that “the 

responsibility for the technical aspects of design and construction work should 

remain in the Chief Engineer, and therefore, authority for this work should also 

be vested in the Chief Engineer.” This created problems for the Construction 

Engineers because they had two bosses: the Regional Director and the Chief 

Engineer. Reclamation’s Denver Offi ce included some 2,000 employees by 

1948 that were scattered around the Denver metropolitan area. Reclamation’s 

new Denver headquarters was established in 1950 as the Engineering and 

Research Center at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, located 10 miles 

west of downtown Denver. In 1953, during the Eisenhower Administration, the 

 Chief Engineer’s authority was upgraded and the title was changed to Assistant 

Commissioner and Chief Engineer. This title continued to be changed, becoming 

Director, Offi ce of Design and Construction in 1963, Director, Offi ce of Design 

and Construction/Chief Engineer in 1970, and Director, Offi ce of Design and 

Construction in 1972.

Period V (1976-2002)—Reclamation’s Design and Construction 

Organizations

 Reclamation’s Teton Dam failed on June 5, 1976, killing 11 people and 

causing about $400 million in property damage. This failure had a profound 

effect on the Bureau of Reclamation. Two offi cial panels of technical experts 

reviewed the probable causes of the dam’s failure and released reports in 

December 1976, April 1977, and January 1980. Signifi cant recommendations 

by these two panels involved several areas of concern. These included: the need 

to establish independent dam design and construction review boards, greater 

documentation of design decisions, closer project supervision and oversight 

by design personnel, and more intensive construction and post-construction 

monitoring of the structures. A team was named by then Commissioner R. 

 Keith Higginson in 1977 to review Reclamation’s dam design and construction 

procedures, which resulted in a November 1977 reorganization that reaffi rmed 

many of the 1943 reorganization’s objectives to more clearly defi ne the respective 

functions of the Denver and Washington Offi ces and to streamline the lines of 

authority and accountability. Reclamation’s staff for technical review and support 

was established and added to the Denver Offi ce. Since the failure of Teton 

Dam, and with the decrease in the authorization of new projects, the majority 

of the embankment dam design and construction work has involved dam safety 

evaluations and modifi cations of existing dams and appurtenant structures.
72

 The title Director, Offi ce of Design and Construction was changed to 

Assistant Commissioner for Engineering and Research in 1978. In 1979, the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s name was briefl y changed to the Water and Power 

Resources Service, which lasted until 1981 when the name was changed back 

to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Lower Missouri Region was absorbed into 

the Upper Missouri/Great Plains Region in 1985. The Southwest Region was 

abolished in 1988, splitting its area between the Upper Colorado Region and 

the Great Plains Region. Reclamation now has fi ve regions: Pacifi c Northwest 

in Boise, Mid-Pacifi c in Sacramento, Lower Colorado in Boulder City, Upper 

Colorado in Salt Lake City, and Great Plains in Billings. In 1994, the Denver 

Offi ce was reorganized, and the title Assistant Commissioner for Engineering 

and Research was changed to Director, Technical Service Center (TSC) under 

the Director of the Reclamation Service Center, with the latter position recently 

abolished. The 1994 reorganization increased the relative authority and power of 

the Regions and their local project and area offi ces, and reduced that of the TSC 

engineering organization.

 The majority of the embankment dam design work, now mostly dam 

safety modifi cations determined necessary on existing dams, is still performed 

by the civil/geotechnical engineers in the TSC. The majority of the embankment 

dam modifi cation construction work is done by civil engineers in the Regions 

and their Project and Area Offi ces. There are still Construction Engineers in the 

TSC who perform the construction management work and/or function as liaisons 

and provide oversight on the construction work managed by the Regions and the 

Project and Area Offi ces.

Modern Embankment Dam Design and Construction

 As different cradles of civilization evolved all over the world, irrigation 

works and dams were basic components of their development. The earliest 

known design and construction of an embankment dam occurred around 

2900 B.C. with the construction of Sadd el-Kafara Dam in Egypt. The early 

history of dams in the world includes many other countries as well, such as 

India, China, and Iraq. In North America, the Hohokam Indians built diversion 

works and canals along the Salt and Gila Rivers in southern Arizona as early 

as about 300 B.C. And in the Four-Corners area (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and 

New Mexico), the Anasazi and Pueblo Indians constructed mud-wattle dams 

across streams that diverted infrequent runoff into ditches and storage reservoirs 

throughout the area in order to support their agricultural civilization, according to 

a recent study by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. of Denver, Colorado. According 

to Dams and Public Safety4 by Robert B. Jansen (Reclamation’s Director, 

Offi ce of Design and Construction and Assistant Commissioner for Engineering 

and Research, 1977-1979), the fi rst dam built in North America by EuropeanAmericans was built in 1623 on the Piscataqua River to operate a sawmill at 

South Windham, Maine. The fi rst embankment dam was called Mill Pond Dam 

and was built in 1677 at Newington, Connecticut. In the far West, in early 
73

California, Old Mission Dam was built on the San Diego River about 1813 by 

the Jesuits to provide water for the mission. It was composed of mortared rubble 

masonry and was about 5 feet high.

 Starting about 1850, gold miners in California built rock-fi lled log-crib 

dams faced with wood planking that ranged up to about 125 feet in height to store 

water for hydraulic mining, but there were numerous failures. It should be noted 

that many of the early dams constructed in California during the latter half of 

the nineteenth century supplied water for mining purposes. One of the earliest 

notable non-mining dams in the West was San Andreas Dam, constructed on San 

Mateo Creek near San Francisco, California, in 1870 to supply water for the city. 

This dam is notable because it was unknowingly built across the San Andreas 

fault zone. This earthfi ll dam was about 105 feet in height and was built using the 

nineteenth century puddled-core technique, where the upstream and downstream 

shells consisted of rolled clay and the narrow core was made by manually tamping 

wet clay. The dam’s upstream slope was 3.5:1 (horizontal:vertical, H:V) and the 

downstream slope was 3:1. The embankment included a cutoff trench excavated 

down through the alluvium and colluvium (30 to 40 feet thick) that was backfi lled 

with a clay puddle core about 20 feet wide that was extended upward to form 

the central portion of the dam. The dam was subsequently raised about 12 feet 

in 1875 and another 6 feet in 1928. The great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 

caused a horizontal strike-slip offset of about 6 to 8 feet in the left abutment, but 

the dam embankment was not damaged.

 Across San Francisco Bay, the highest embankment dam built in the 

United States during the nineteenth century was Chabot (Lower San Leandro) 

Dam, which was constructed in 1875 above San Leandro (near Oakland) on 

San Leandro Creek with a height of 115 feet above the streambed. Its reservoir 

stored residential water for the East Bay communities. It was constructed as a 

central-core earthfi ll dam, with the earthfi ll dumped from wagons, sprinkled, 

and compacted by the wagon wheels and by a herd of horses moved back and 

forth across the fi ll. The dam’s cross-section included a central foundation 

(cutoff) trench excavated down through foundation soils to 30 feet below the 

streambed. In the bottom of the cutoff trench, three parallel concrete cutoff walls 

were constructed 3 feet thick and 5 feet high, with about half the height (21⁄2 

feet) anchored into the foundation and half protruding up into the fi ll. The core 

zone was about 90 feet wide/thick at its bottom in the foundation trench. The 

embankment’s upstream slope was 3:1 and the downstream slope was 2.5:1. A 

buttressing zone of earth and rock material was sluiced onto the downstream 

slope, giving the embankment a total volume of about 543,000 yd3

. In 1890, the 

dam was enlarged by sluicing earthfi ll onto the downstream slope. Subsequent 

raising and buttressing of the dam embankment has increased the height to 

154 feet. A good source of information on the evolution of dam design and 

construction, including embankment dams, is Development of Dam Engineering 

in the United States,5 which includes information on six of Reclamation’s 
74

embankment dams. Such was the state-of-the-art in embankment dam design and 

construction at Reclamation’s birth. 

 The design of modern earthfi ll and rockfi ll embankment dams is far more 

complex today than was the case just 100 years ago. There are now many college 

courses, books, collections of professional papers, professional groups, computer 

programs, etc., related to the design of modern embankment dams. Most of the 

major unknowns and uncertainties involved with the design of embankment dams 

100 years ago have been removed by the evolution of engineering experience, 

research, knowledge, and education. Reclamation has played a central role in 

that engineering evolution through its pioneering embankment designs, analyses, 

and soil behavior work on developing new laboratory tests and procedures 

for soils; development and publication of geotechnical and embankment dam 

engineering manuals and books; and contributions to the articles, transactions, 

and proceedings of engineering periodicals and professional civil engineering 

organizations. Some of Reclamation’s learning and knowledge has come at a high 

price, as was the case with the 1976 failure of Teton Dam in Idaho.

 In addition to the books and professional papers that now exist on modern 

embankment dam design and construction, several professional organizations 

regularly deal with and publish state-of-the-art papers on the design and 

construction of embankment dams and related topics. These organizations 

include: ASCE, the recently renamed United States Society on Dams (USSD, 

formerly the United States Committee on Large Dams, USCOLD), its worldwide 

parent organization, the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), the 

International Society on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, and The 

Institution of Civil Engineers (in Great Britain). 

 To the lay-person, embankment dams may look like huge “piles of 

dirt” thrown across a valley or canyon, and it can be hard to imagine how truly 

complex and amazing they actually are. Most people can perceive how complex 

a large concrete dam, like Hoover Dam, must be with a height of 726 feet. The 

highest embankment dam in the world is currently Rogun Dam on the Vakhsh 

River in Tajikistan at a height of about 1,066 feet, and California’s Oroville 

Dam the highest in the United States at about 770 feet. The largest embankment 

dam volume in the world is Tarbella Dam on the Indus River in Pakistan with a 

volume of about 159,000,000 yd3

, and Montana’s Fort Peck Dam is the largest in 

the United States with a volume of about 126,000,000 yd3. Many of these huge 

embankment dams are almost as amazing in their own way as Hoover Dam.

 There are many more embankment dams (currently about 72 percent) 

than there are concrete dams (currently about 28 percent) in the United States, out 

of the total of about 77,000 dams, meeting minimum dam height and reservoir 

volume criteria. Among several reasons, one key aspect of why embankment 

dams are so popular is that in general, a properly designed embankment dam 

can be constructed at almost any damsite, as opposed to the more stringent 
75

site limitations associated with concrete dams. A limited “picture” of the 

various elements that are included in the design (and construction) of a modern 

embankment dam is presented below. A more complete understanding can be 

obtained by reading publications such as Reclamation’s Design Standards No. 

13—Embankment Dams6

 and the previously mentioned Design of Small Dams.

 Once the need for a new dam and reservoir and a variety of other factors 

such as funding availability and environmental impacts have been resolved, 

several potential damsites are studied and investigated in suffi cient detail that 

a conceptual design report can be developed, which includes recommendations 

as to the preferred damsite and the appropriate type of embankment dam and 

related features. Once the damsite, the type of embankment dam, and related 

features have been selected, more detailed studies, investigations, and analyses 

are conducted in order to have the information necessary to start the fi nal design 

work, which concludes with the preparation of written specifi cations and drawings 

that are used as the basis for constructing the new embankment dam. The various 

studies, investigations, and analyses included in these design phases, which often 

overlap, generally include:

1) a hydrologic study of the upstream drainage basin; 

2) a geologic study of the damsite and the reservoir basin, including

 a seismotectonic study of the area; 

3) a fi eld investigation of the foundation at the damsite and of the locally 

 available earthfi ll and rockfi ll materials and concrete aggregates; 

4) a laboratory program including testing and analysis of the soil, rockfi ll, 

 and bedrock materials obtained from the damsite and the borrow 

 area(s); 

5) a conceptual design study, intended to develop and present various 

 alternatives and their costs, and to recommend the preferred 

 alternatives for the embankment dam, spillway, and outlet works 

 features;

6) a fi nal design based on the selected-alternative features, including the 

 necessary construction specifi cations and drawings;

7) during construction, embankment design details often change to

 accommodate the changed conditions encountered; and

8) during “First Filling” of the reservoir and for the fi rst few years

 thereafter, the performance/behavior of the foundation and/or 

 the dam embankment may indicate the need for changes or 

 modifi cations to the original design.

 It should be noted that even a brief a description of how to design an 

embankment dam is beyond the scope of this paper. The hydrologic study of 

the drainage basin above the damsite develops information on the probable 

fl ood hydrology that is used to design the dam embankment and the appurtenant 

spillway and outlet works features. If the dam and its appurtenant features can’t 

accommodate the fl ood fl ows resulting from the various potential storm events, 
76

the reservoir can overtop the dam embankment and cause it to fail. The geologic 

study develops the necessary information on the geology of the damsite and 

the surrounding area, which often affects the type of dam selected for design 

and construction. Unless the damsite’s geology is properly understood, the 

response of the foundation to the loads imposed by a dam and reservoir may 

cause malfunction, leading to serious maintenance or in some cases failure of the 

dam. This is especially true in the event of an unexpected earthquake shaking 

a dam that is not designed to withstand the severity of the loading imposed on 

the structure. The dam, spillway, and/or outlet works can all fail because of a 

moderate to severe earthquake event. The fi eld investigation and laboratory 

testing of the dam foundation and the embankment borrow materials accumulate 

and develop engineering design data on the foundation soils, bedrock, and borrow 

soil and rockfi ll materials. These fi eld and laboratory design data are critical and 

must be properly collected and evaluated if dam failure is to be avoided. These 

design data form the basic information used in the various analyses conducted 

during the design of an embankment dam, including standard concerns about 

seepage, internal erosion/piping, settlement, static stability, seismic stability, etc. 

Design information on sources of sand and aggregate materials for concrete is 

also developed.

 After the design data have been properly developed, and the various 

design analyses have been completed, the dam embankment’s alignment, crosssection, freeboard, foundation treatment(s), material zoning, fi lters, drainage, 

camber, upstream and downstream slope protection, and instrumentation (for 

monitoring performance) are then determined. Computers have greatly enhanced 

the designer’s ability to perform extremely complex analyses, as well as to 

create 3-dimensional models portraying the dam’s confi guration to ensure that 

all of the dam embankment’s components join together properly. The written 

specifi cations and drawings that describe the details for construction of the dam 

are then developed. The spillway and the outlet works are similarly designed, and 

must be compatible with the embankment dam’s design. Because of the potential 

public danger created by any dam and reservoir, dam design work (including 

that performed by Reclamation) undergoes a very high level of review, including 

review by boards of outside consultant experts, where appropriate, to ensure that 

our designs achieve the high quality required.

 A well-known saying related to embankment dam design is that the 

design work is not complete until the dam’s construction has been fi nished. And, 

this “construction period” should also include the fi rst few years of a dam’s 

performance under full reservoir loading. If the “First Filling” of a large reservoir 

takes 10 to 20 years to complete, then the “construction period” during which 

design changes and modifi cation of the dam may be necessary could last well over 

15 to 25 years. The design uncertainty during the dam’s construction involves 

the fact that the geologic studies, the fi eld investigation data, and the laboratory 

testing data actually involve a relatively limited exposure and assessment of the 

dam’s entire foundation and all of the earthfi ll materials used to construct the 
77

embankment. When the fi nal foundation surface is completely exposed, there can 

easily be overburden soils and bedrock that were not encountered by any of the 

subsurface investigations conducted, depending on the damsite geology. And, 

when the borrow materials are brought to the damsite for construction of the dam 

embankment, some of the material may not be quite what was sampled and tested 

in the laboratory. The dam construction process may also be affected by the 

construction contractor’s plans for constructing the embankment. The contractor 

might propose a different approach than was anticipated by the designer, such 

as the use of different construction equipment and the use of soil amendments 

to improve one of the earthfi ll material’s characteristics (such as decreasing its 

permeability). Design changes during construction are most often subject to the 

same review process as the initial design.

 The dam engineering work required in the development of the design 

data, the performance of analyses, the preparation of the fi nal design, and 

the construction of a modern embankment dam and its appurtenant features 

generally involves a large number of related disciplines, including engineering 

geology, seismology, hydrology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, 

instrumentation engineering, structural engineering, hydraulic engineering, 

mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and construction engineering.

Several of the above disciplines are included as sub-disciplines or specialties 

within the civil engineering profession: geotechnical, structural, hydraulic, 

instrumentation, and construction engineering. As you can see from the “brief” 

description provided above, the planning, design, and construction of a modern 

embankment dam is a complicated process that requires the civil engineers and 

other professionals performing the work to have high levels of expertise and years 

of experience. The entire dam design and construction process can take years 

(sometimes tens of years) to complete.

 Improvements in the size, speed, and effi ciency of construction equipment 

during the last 100 years have played a major role in the evolution of embankment 

dam construction. The construction of a modern embankment dam and its 

appurtenant structures involves a large variety of construction equipment. A 

brief list of the common types of larger construction equipment typically used in 

constructing an embankment dam includes: backhoe, dragline, crane, articulated 

concrete pumper, pneumatic drill, front-end-loader, belly-dump truck, tandem 

end-dump truck, all-terrain haul truck, belt conveyors, water truck, bulldozer, 

motor grader, self-elevating scraper, excavators of all types, tamping-foot 

compactor (static and vibratory), sheepsfoot roller, and smooth-drum roller 

(static and vibratory). Construction on a large dam or at a diffi cult damsite may 

effectively utilize more effi cient or unusual equipment, such as a belt conveyor 

system or a short railroad for hauling the borrow material to the damsite.
78

Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam Design and Construction

 The history of Reclamation’s century of embankment dam design 

and construction is separated into the fi ve periods already used in describing 

Reclamation’s design and construction organizations. More than 240 reservoirstorage embankment dam structures have been designed and constructed by 

Reclamation during the past century. Some of the information presented in 

the following period sections on Reclamation’s embankment dam design and 

construction history through 1958 is taken from Development of Earth Dam 

Design in the Bureau of Reclamation7

 by F. C. Walker, then Head of the Earth 

Dams Section, Dams Branch, Division of Design. The location map and map 

index of Reclamation’s embankment (earth-fi ll) dams are shown in 2.1 and 2.2.

2.1. Location map of Reclamation’s earthfi ll dams.
79

Period I (1902-1918)—Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam 

Design and Construction

 As already mentioned, at Reclamation’s emergence in 1902, the 

USGS’s Division of Hydrography, Hydrographic Branch had been studying 

water resources in the West for about 20 years, developing data on potential 

reservoir and dam sites. The USGS had published reports such as Reservoirs for 

Irrigation,

8

 authored by James D. Schuyler in 1897. When the U.S. Reclamation 

Service was established and given its mission of developing western water 

resources, Frederick H. Newell and his nucleus of engineers were transferred from 

the USGS’s Hydrographic Branch to the Service and they quickly started work on 

the design of the six projects that had been approved for design and construction 

by the Secretary of the Interior in 1903. Work on the additional dams and projects 

2.2. Location index of Reclamation’s earthfi ll dams.
80

approved for design and construction during the next few years commenced as 

quickly as was possible.

 What was the state-of-the-art in embankment dam design and construction 

in 1903? Only a few books had been published in the United States that covered 

the design and construction of dams, including embankment dams. The fi rst such 

book was The Design and Construction of Masonry Dams9

 written by Edward 

Wegmann (Member, ASCE) in 1888, followed in 1899 by his The Design and 

Construction of Dams, Including Masonry, Earth, Rockfi ll, Timber and Steel 

Structures10. The third important book on dams, Reservoirs for Irrigation, 

Water-Power, and Domestic Water Supply,

11 was written by James Dix Schuyler 

(Member, ASCE) in 1901, with a second edition in 1909,12 which included 

information on the Service’s Minidoka, Belle Fourche, and Cold Springs Dams. 

The 1909 book included chapters on: rock-fi ll dams, hydraulic-fi ll dams, masonry 

dams, earthen dams, steel dams, reinforced concrete dams, natural reservoirs, and 

miscellaneous dams, and included a total of 381 photos, fi gures, and illustrations.

 The publications of several engineering, mining, and construction 

organizations were the primary source of information on which embankment dam 

designs worked or failed, and why. These publications included: Engineering

News and Engineering Record (both subsequently merged to form Engineering

News-Record), Mining and Scientifi c Press, Engineering and Mining Journal, 

Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, and ASCE. Service 

engineers such as Hiram N. Savage had already written articles on dams,13

published before the Service was created. Within a relatively short period, 

more books were written about dams, an increasingly important subject in 

the arid West. Articles about the new Service and its dams fi rst appeared in 

Engineering News in 1903 and then in other publications like Engineering

Record, Engineering and Construction, Irrigation Age, and Pacifi c Builder and 

Engineer shortly thereafter. Papers on the Service’s dams began to appear in the 

Proceedings of ASCE in 1907 and of the American Society for Testing Materials 

in 1908 (dealing with cement and concrete work).

 The Service’s Chief Engineer and his initial staff of 15 (civil) engineers 

and related disciplines reportedly had lots of previous practical experience.

Although the Denver Offi ce was established in 1903 for the engineers and 

assistants from USGS, a Resident Engineer at each irrigation project was 

assigned to supervise the development of all phases of the project, which included 

investigations, design, and construction. The project plans were reviewed by a 

“project board” consisting of the Resident, District, and Supervising Engineers. If 

warranted, one of Reclamation’s technical experts or a consultant would assist on 

a complex or diffi cult project. The actual records from this early period are fairly 

limited. Once the reservoir storage site was examined and appeared acceptable, 

it was used only if the observable geological conditions were “unquestionably 

adequate in light of past experience.” Where explorations were made, they were 

directed at locating a competent foundation, with little consideration given to the 
81

material overlying the good foundation. Streamfl ow records were either short or 

nonexistent. Except for critical items such as gates, cement, and reinforcing steel 

for concrete, materials for constructing the dam, including sand and gravel for 

concrete, had to be locally available due to transportation diffi culties.

 Reclamation’s fi rst approved project was the Truckee-Carson Project, 

later called the Newlands Project that was located in California and Nevada.

Reclamation’s fi rst constructed dam was part of that project. Truckee River 

Diversion Dam located on the Truckee River in Nevada, now called Derby 

Diversion Dam, was constructed as a combination gated concrete structure and 

earthfi ll wing embankment dam. Construction of the diversion dam and canal 

works began under Specifi cations No. 1 in 1903 and was completed in 

June 1905. The dam was 1,331 feet long, had a structural height of 31 feet and a 

hydraulic height of 15 feet, contained about 37,000 yd3

 of earthfi ll, and had a 

3:1 upstream slope and a 1.5:1 downstream slope. The Project Engineer 

responsible for design and construction was Leon H. Taylor. Reclamation’s fi rst 

completed embankment dam, whose primary purpose was to impound a waterstorage reservoir, was Minidoka Dam located on the Snake River in Idaho 

(see 2.3). Its construction began in 1904 and was completed in 1906 (see 2.4). It 

was a zoned earthfi ll and rockfi ll embankment 80 feet high that contained 257,000 

yd3

 of earth and gravel fi ll and rockfi ll materials, had a crest length of 664 feet, 

and impounded 210,000 acre-feet of water. Minidoka Dam was designed by 

John H. Quinton (Member, ASCE) and was constructed under the supervision of 

Construction Engineer F. C. Horn.

 Rolled (compacted) earthfi ll was generally preferred by Reclamation 

for embankment dam construction because of the diffi culty in handling rockfi ll 

material, but hydraulic or semi- hydraulic fi ll construction was used in several 

instances. Foundation treatment varied substantially. Some of the dam 

foundations were excavated to bedrock, some had cutoff trenches excavated to

bedrock, and some had multiple trenches. Some cutoff trenches included a 

concrete cutoff wall constructed into the foundation bedrock that extended up into 

the cutoff trench backfi ll. Some trenches were for drainage and some provided 

additional cutoffs. Two dams had pile cutoffs: one made of wood and one made 

of steel sheet piling; neither of them was considered very effective. Almost all of 

these embankment dams had one to three feet of riprap on the upstream slope.

 Most of the embankment dams constructed by Reclamation during Period 

I were relatively small structures (by today’s standards) that still took quite 

some time to build with the methods available at the time (Belle Fourche Dam 

took over 5 years). The designs for these dams, which depended on the nature 

of the locally available earthfi ll materials (and still do today), were based on a 

relatively limited knowledge of geotechnical engineering and the other disciplines 

mentioned earlier. The design standards of that time were limited: 1) an adequate 

foundation to support the dam, 2) an impervious core or upstream facing, and 3) a 

spillway capable of passing fl ood fl ows without damage to the embankment. Data 
82

on the hydrology of the drainage basins were very limited. The geology of the 

damsites may have been studied and documented, but its effect on the dams to be 

designed and constructed was probably poorly understood. The fi eld investigation 

performed at the damsite and on the earthfi ll borrow areas was generally limited 

to test pits and borings of shallow depth.

2.3. Minidoka Dam plan and section.

2.4. Minidoka Dam construction.
83

 Any laboratory testing of the anticipated earthfi ll materials was extremely 

limited by today’s standards since most of the tests now performed on earthfi ll and 

rockfi ll materials were developed during and after the 1920s. Grain size analysis 

was probably performed on the soils, but only of the sand, gravel, and cobble 

size materials, and information on the amount of clay and silt materials was not 

possible until later. Darcy’s Law about the rate of water-fl ow through a soil (its 

permeability) was promulgated in 1856, and it dictates how and where different 

types of earth materials (clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and rockfi ll) can be 

used in an embankment dam, which is still very relevant today. Early scientists, 

physicists, and engineers like Charles A. Coulomb (1773), Alexandre Collin 

(1846), and W. J. M. Rankine (1857) developed theories about earth pressure on 

retaining walls and tests of the shear strength of soil materials, but there were no 

standardized shear-strength tests performed on soil materials or analysis of slope 

stability as are an integral part of embankment dam design today. The Atterberg 

limits tests, still used today to help characterize clayey materials, were developed 

by A. Atterberg of Germany in 1911. In 1916 K. E. Pettersson and S. Hultin 

developed a slope stability analysis method to analyze the failure of a quay wall in 

Goteborg, Sweden, but it does not appear to have been introduced to engineers in 

the United States until several years later. And settlement/ consolidation behavior 

of soil materials was not tested, although settlement benchmarks were fi rst 

installed along the edges of the embankment crest at Belle Fourche Dam in 1911. 

Thus, the ability to develop the necessary data and to analyze an earthfi ll structure 

like an embankment dam during Period I was very limited by today’s standards.

 The various types of construction equipment that existed during Period 

I played a large role in defi ning the size and height limitations placed on these 

early embankment dams. Excavation of foundation overburden soils (alluvium 

and colluvium) or borrow materials was performed by pick and shovel, horsedrawn (Fresno) scraper, dragline, and/or steam shovel. The borrow soil 

materials were excavated by hydraulic monitor or dredge for use in hydraulicfi ll embankment dams, and by dragline and/or steam shovel for the other types 

of embankment dams. For relatively short distances, transportation of borrow 

materials to the damsite was accomplished by hydraulic pipelines or fl umes in the 

case of hydraulic-fi ll dams and by horse-drawn wagons and/or scrapers for the 

other types of embankment dams. For longer distances, borrow materials were 

transported by railroads using trains of side-dump cars pulled by small “dinkey” 

steam locomotives. After the earthfi ll material was brought to the embankment 

and dumped, it was spread out in relatively thin (i.e., 6-inch-thick) layers using 

horse-drawn drags and/or graders. Water may or may not have been added to 

the layers of uncompacted earthfi ll before compaction. Each layer of earthfi ll 

was then compacted by team and wagon travel, steel-drum rollers, concrete 

(cylinder) rollers, and/or steam-powered engines (“traction engines” were used 

at Belle Fourche Dam). The use of the sheepsfoot roller for earthfi ll compaction 

was reportedly developed around 1905, but they were not used on Reclamation’s 

dams for a while yet. Rockfi ll material was either placed without compaction 

or was sluiced with hydraulic monitors. Period I construction by Reclamation 
84

was accomplished either by government forces or by contract with a construction 

company.

 During this early period of embankment dam design and construction, 

the height of dam and the foundation geology had little effect on the design of 

the embankment dam section. However, the type of earthfi ll materials available 

for embankment construction had a noticeable infl uence. Hence, depending 

on the nature of the earthfi ll materials available in the borrow area(s), the dam 

embankment section was either: 1) an upstream impervious zone supported by 

a downstream rockfi ll zone, 2) an upstream impervious zone supported by a 

downstream gravel zone, or 3) a modifi ed homogeneous section, which included 

design features that modifi ed the homogeneous performance.

Upstream Impervious Zone Supported by Downstream Rockfi ll Zone

 Period I embankment dams utilizing this type of cross-section included: 

Avalon, Clear Lake, Minidoka, and McMillan Dams, and Elephant Butte Dike. 

Avalon and McMillan Dams, both on the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico, were actually the second or third reconstructions of earlier private dams 

that had failed by overtopping that breached both dams during fl oods. Neither 

dam included a transition/fi lter zone between the earthfi ll and rockfi ll zones, 

which was added to later dams of this type. Avalon Dam also had a part sheetpile, part concrete core/cutoff wall the full height of the dam. The upstream slope 

of these dams was typically 3:1 that was often steepened to 2:1 above the full 

reservoir level, and the downstream slope was typically 1.5:1. The relatively high 

cost of using rockfi ll material with the equipment then available was the reason 

that few of this type of embankment dam were constructed by Reclamation. The 

failure of several non-Reclamation dams of this type during this period probably 

contributed to the decision to stop building this type of dam.

Upstream Impervious Zone Supported by Downstream Gravel Zone

 Period I embankment dams utilizing this type of cross-section included: 

Cold Springs, Lahontan, Keechelus, and Minitare Dams, and Pathfi nder Dike. 

The upstream slope of these dams was typically 3:1 and the downstream 

slope was typically 2:1, except for Minitare Dam. Minitare Dam had a 2.5:1 

upstream slope to the full reservoir level, a 2:1 slope above that level, and a 2.5:1 

downstream slope. Pathfi nder Dike also had a concrete cutoff wall that extended 

above the reservoir level. The earthfi ll zone became thicker during the period, 

probably because gravel material was more diffi cult to use with the construction 

equipment then available, and because of the greater relative abundance of 

earthfi ll material. Although the mechanics of internal erosion (piping) of earthfi ll 

materials was not yet understood, dam designers did understand the nature of the 

problems potentially caused by seepage from the reservoir, as indicated by their 

efforts to control that seepage with defensive measures like cutoff trenches and 

walls. The designers also made the embankment’s upstream impervious earthfi ll 
85

zones thicker than twice the hydraulic water-pressure head from the reservoir. 

Cold Springs Dam, constructed between 1907 and 1908, had a total of four zones 

in which the gravel content increased from 50 percent in the upstream zone to 

67 percent, then 80 percent, and fi nally 100 percent in the downstream zone.

Modifi ed Homogeneous Section

 The remaining Period I embankment dams were of the “modifi ed” 

homogeneous cross-section type, and they included: Belle Fourche, Deer Flat, 

Strawberry, and Sherburne Lake Dams. Except for Belle Fourche Dam, the other 

dams had 3:1 upstream slopes and 2:1 downstream slopes. Sherburne Lake Dam 

includes a vertical screened-gravel drain near the center of the embankment 

section, with this type of design detail being many years ahead of its time. Belle 

Fourche Dam had a “bold” (less conservative) embankment cross-section, 

probably due to its large size. The lower upstream slope is 5:1 to a berm, 2:1 

above the berm to the full reservoir pool level, and 1.5:1 above that; and the upper 

downstream slope is 1.655:1 to a berm and drain gutter, and 2:1 below that level. 

At the time it was built, Belle Fourche Dam was reportedly the largest rolled 

earthfi ll dam constructed in the world; it is discussed in greater detail below. 

Strawberry Dam also had a reinforced concrete core wall that extended above the 

reservoir level.

Belle Fourche Dam

 Belle Fourche Dam (locally called Orman Dam) is located on Owl Creek 

about 10 miles northeast of Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and was the most 

notable embankment dam constructed by Reclamation during Period I. The dam 

was constructed 115 feet high above its streambed with a crest length of 

6,262 feet, an earthfi ll volume of 1,783,000 yd3

, impounded a 192,000 acre-foot 

off-stream reservoir and a water-surface area of about 8,000 acres, and was fed by 

a 6-mile-long canal that conveyed a maximum of 1,600 ft3/s of water diverted by 

a diversion dam on the Belle Fourche River. Information on the embankment’s 

as-built slopes is given above. The original upper slopes shown on the 1905 Belle 

Fourche Dam design drawings were 1:1 instead of 1.5:1 upstream and 1.75:1 

instead of 1.655:1 downstream. The decision was made during construction to 

fl atten the upper upstream slope and fl atten the upper downstream slope, moving 

the crest downstream (see 2.5).

 The greater steepness of the upstream slope, compared to the other 

embankments designed and built by the Service during Period I was an important 

difference. Construction under contract No. 73 awarded to Orman & Crook of 

Pueblo, Colorado, began in November 1905, but work was suspended in early 

1908 when Orman & Crook went into bankruptcy. Construction resumed in 

April 1908 under a new contract with the National Surety Company of New York, 

which was the “bondsman” for Orman & Crook. The National Surety Company 

subcontracted with several private companies to perform the construction and 
86

the dam was completed on June 30, 1911. The total cost, including engineering, 

construction, cement, and general expenses, was about $1,299,000. An article 

on Belle Fourche Dam by Project Engineer Raymond F. Walter was published in 

Engineering Record in March 1906.14 A second article on the dam by Resident 

Engineer O. T. (Oliver) Reedy (Associate Member, ASCE) was published in 

Engineering Record in April 1910,15 describing the early plans for the project 

and the construction to date (early 1910) on the dam and appurtenant structures.

Some of the more unique or informative details related to Belle Fourche Dam’s 

design and construction are discussed below.

 In April 1904 a board consisting of Arthur P. Davis, John H. Quinton 

(consulting engineer from Los Angeles), and Charles H. Fitch (Supervising 

Engineer) examined the Belle Fourche Project and ordered detailed surveys of the 

irrigable areas, potential damsites, and canal alignments. Three dam sites were 

located and the fi nal damsite was selected in May 1905. The dam foundation 

had been “thoroughly prospected” by both open test wells and by earth auger 

borings located every 200 feet along the dam’s alignment. The embankment was 

founded on a “heavy compact clay,” locally known as “gumbo,” which overlies a 

soft slatey shale located 20 to 40 feet below the surface. There were occasional 

pockets of gravel encountered in the overburden layer. The dam embankment 

was constructed using the locally available clay obtained from borrow pits located 

upstream and at both ends of the dam. An expert “Engineer of Soils,” Thomas H. 

Means came and tested the proposed earthfi ll material. Small scale experiments 

determined that this material needed an additional 7 percent water, by weight, 

for compaction to achieve the maximum density of the earthfi ll. Belle Fourche 

Dam was designed under the direction of Project Engineer Raymond F. Walter, 

with the resulting plans approved by a board of engineers consisting of John H. 

Quinton, C. E. Wells, Charles H. Fitch, and Raymond F. Walter, resulting in a 

July 5, 1905, letter in which they approved the plans and specifi cations, 

recommending “that the drawings be reduced to standard size and the 

specifi cations printed in Washington and that the work be advertised as soon as 

possible.” The 1905-era Specifi cations No. 56 contained a total of 37 pages and 

12 drawings used to show the dam embankment, appurtenant structures, and 

canals. The specifi cations sections included topics such as: Engineer, Changes, 

Sanitation, Use of liquor, Embankment construction, and Measurements. During 

2.5. Belle Fourche Dam section.
87

construction, several design details related to the dam’s upper slopes and the 

appurtenant structures had to be revised. Resident Engineers Patch and Reedy 

were in daily to weekly contact with Project Engineer Walter during the entire 

period of dam construction. Visitors (mostly engineers) from as far away as South 

Africa and Sweden visited the dam during construction.16

 In August 1910 engineers from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

visited the dam for a few hours and subsequently informed Reclamation that they 

considered the dam’s slopes, particularly the downstream slope to be excessively 

steep. Reclamation’s engineers, including Project Engineer Walter and Chief 

Engineer A. P. Davis, developed the response to the Corps and provided a list of 

some 20 recently constructed embankment dams built with slopes steeper than at 

Belle Fourche Dam. They knew that the location (height) of the phreatic surface 

in the dam embankment would affect the slope stability of the embankment, 

so they decided to install some 2-inch-diameter vertical pipes to function as 

observation wells for monitoring the “plane of saturation.” More details on these 

pipe observation wells are provided below.

 The cutoff trench was excavated by horse-drawn “wheel scrapers” and 

a locomotive crane, using a 1⁄2-yd3 clamshell bucket, after which the trench was 

backfi lled with compacted “select material” (see 2.6). The earthfi ll material in the 

borrow area(s) was excavated by 70-ton and 75-ton steam shovels with a 21⁄2-yd3

bucket/dipper and was dumped into the 4-yd3 Western side-dump cars (see 2.7). 

The trains of 10 to 13 side-dump cars (a total of about 60 side-dump cars were 

used) were pulled by 18-ton Dinkey locomotives that hauled the trains about 

3⁄4-mile to the embankment, up a maximum grade of about 4 percent onto the 

embankment surface. The 36-inch gage train tracks and wooden ties were moved 

every third layer as the embankment rose in height. Three-horse-team 11⁄4-yd3

dump wagons, fi lled by Western graders pulled by traction engines, were also 

used to haul earthfi ll from some of the upstream borrow pits.

2.6. Belle Fourche Dam: Cutoff trench construction.
88

 Four-horse-team Fresno scrapers were used to move the dumped earthfi ll a 

maximum distance of 50 feet away from the tracks, and ordinary four-horse-team 

road graders ran over the material deposited by the scrapers to spread and level 

the layer (see 2.8). The layer of earthfi ll was thoroughly wetted, if necessary, 

using a 2-inch hose to apply water pumped up from wells or small reservoirs.

If the earthfi ll was compacted immediately after being placed on the fi ll, little 

if any water needed to be applied. The specifi cations required that the earthfi ll 

material be placed and rolled in 6-inch layers using steam rollers weighing not 

less than “200 pounds per linear inch of roller rim.” According to O. T. Reedy’s 

article, one of the rollers used was a 12-ton roller with a 4-foot rolling base.

According to the Belle Fourche Project History,17 an “8-ton asphalt dirt roller with 

smooth wheels” was also used, but it often became stuck on the slick surface of 

the embankment. However, most of the compaction was accomplished by four 

32-horsepower 18-ton and 21-ton traction (steam) engines, with the rear wheels 

having been widened to create a 6-foot-wide “rolling base.” The traction engines 

accomplished the compaction more quickly due to their greater power (see 2. 9).

2.7. Belle Fourche Dam: Steam shovel, dinkey locomotive, and side-dump cars in 

borrow pit.

2.8. Belle Fourche Dam: Embankment fi ll construction.
89

 A somewhat unique feature of the construction of Belle Fourche Dam 

was a gap through the embankment in the vicinity of station 42+00 (note that 

the distance between stations 0+00 and 1+00 equals 100 feet) that was left open 

to pass Owl Creek fl ows through the damsite from the start of construction until 

it was quickly closed in 1909. The “Owl Creek Gap” (Gap) had side slopes a 

little steeper than 1.5:1. Flooding on Owl Creek occurred several times during 

construction, with a maximum fl ow of about 5,500 ft3

/s moving through the Gap.

Earthfi ll cofferdams were constructed at the upstream and downstream ends of the 

Gap. Three cutoff trenches were excavated across the Gap that were backfi lled 

with select earthfi ll material. A drainage system consisting of 4-inch tile pipes 

enclosed in screened gravel was constructed in the Gap’s bottom downstream of 

the lower cutoff trench to collect and convey any foundation seepage to discharge 

into Owl Creek downstream of the dam. The Gap was closed using earthfi ll 

hauled to the dam by wagon and by train, which involved dumping the earthfi ll 

off a Howe truss bridge, and spreading and compacting the earthfi ll layers as 

rapidly as possible. The Howe truss bridge consisted of one 100-foot center span 

and two 60-foot side spans built across the Gap. The Gap fi ll was joined to the 

two existing embankments by excavating the slopes of the Gap until fi rm material 

was reached. Due to the confi ned area, the bottom layers of earthfi ll were 

compacted by hand tampers that could exert a pressure of 1 lb/in2

, by a wooden 

tamper weighing about 200 pounds operated by the locomotive crane, by the 

small 12-ton roller, and then by the wheels of a traction engine.

 Another unique feature of the dam’s design was the upstream slope 

protection. The nearest rock quarry was located 32 miles away and the 

sandstone’s quality was considered poor, together causing its use to be rejected. 

The selected upstream slope protection consisted of 8-inch-thick concrete blocks/

2.9. Belle Fourche Dam: Traction engine hauling “dinkey” locomotive to damsite.
90

slabs that measured 5 feet by 61⁄2 feet, and weighed about 3,000 pounds each.

A concrete footing wall was constructed at the bottom of the 2:1 slope and the 

bottom course of blocks rested against this wall. Along the center portion of 

the embankment, the concrete footing wall was buttressed by 10-inch-diameter 

16-foot-long timber piles driven into the earthfi ll on 3-foot centers. The concrete 

blocks were placed on a 24-inch-thick bed of gravel using stiff-leg 3-toncapacity traveling derricks with 25-foot masts and 50-foot booms operated by 

20-horsepower hoisting engines. The blocks were moved into place with the 

derrick and were then levered and hammered into place. 2.10 shows the nearlycompleted dam embankment from the right abutment. 

 The upstream slope protection at Belle Fourche Dam suffered some degree 

of damage by wave action almost every year due to the common, sustained high 

winds in the area and the 8-mile fetch (length) along the Owl Creek arm of the 

reservoir. A 4-foot-thick layer of grouted riprap was suggested in 1943 by Chief 

Design Engineer John L. (Jack) Savage (Honorary Member, ASCE), but World 

War II caused the work to be deferred. A 4-foot-thick layer of dumped rock 

riprap was constructed in 1976-1977, but the wave-erosion/beaching problem still 

persists in some areas on the upstream slope.

 The downstream slope was fi nished by placing a 12-inch-thick layer 

of rich loam-soil dressing, which was then “seeded with a mixture of grasses 

recommended by the Department of Agriculture.” Concrete gutters were also 

placed on berms located 30 feet apart vertically, with down-slope gutters every 

1,000 feet, to collect and remove runoff during heavy rainstorms.

 The dam included two canal outlet works, each one well above the old 

Owl Creek channel, and a waste weir (spillway) at the left (north) end of the 

embankment. Downstream of the weir structure, the spillway channel was earth 

lined below which it was concrete lined. Ensign-type balanced valves were 

installed on the canal outlet works in 1910 and 1911. Two 58-inch valves were 

installed at the upstream end of the North Canal outlet works conduit and one 

58-inch valve was installed at the upstream end of the South Canal outlet works 

conduit.

2.10. Belle Fourche Dam: Embankment from right abutment.
91

 During the summer of 1910, after the reservoir had reached a maximum 

elevation of about 2930 feet, seepage began to surface downstream of the dam 

where the ground is at about elevation 2910. Borings were driven to investigate 

the cause and source of the seepage, which indicated a strata of disintegrated 

shale and gravel about 10 feet below the surface. The engineers had known about 

this layer of gravel, but thought it was 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface.

Supervising Engineer David C. Henny of Portland, Oregon, had been brought in 

as a “consulting engineer” during much of the work on the dam, and he was again 

consulted on the seepage problem. A drainage system was advised, designed, 

and constructed along the downstream toe of the embankment in November and 

December 1910. This drainage system consisted of a trench excavated about 3 

feet wide and up to 17 feet deep between stations 26+00 and 41+00 (1,500 feet), 

with 14-inch-diameter “telephone pole auger” wells drilled in the bottom of the 

trench that were backfi lled with coarse screened gravel, covered by fi ne screened 

gravel and then pit-run gravel. A 12-inch-diameter vitrifi ed clay tile pipe was 

placed with open joints and surrounded by coarse screened gravel (1-inch to 

2-inch) and by fi ne screened gravel (1⁄4-inch to 1-inch) surrounding the coarse 

gravel in the bottom of the trench, which was then covered with unscreened gravel 

and regular backfi ll. Manholes were constructed at several locations along the toe 

drain—using 2-foot-diameter vitrifi ed clay pipe. The outfl ow from the drainage 

system reached a maximum of 45 to 50+ gal/min, which varied with the reservoir 

water surface elevation. The fl ow from this drainage system has been monitored 

ever since, and constitutes the longest continuous monitoring performed on one of 

Reclamation’s embankment dams.

 In late 1911, a series of 2-inch-diameter open-end pipe (observation) 

“wells” were installed in the embankment in the vicinity of stations 37+00 and 

38+00 to determine the “plane of saturation” (phreatic surface) and to obtain data 

on its movements with reservoir fl uctuations. A wash-boring apparatus was used 

to drill the holes into which the pipes were installed; 34 wells were constructed, 

ranging in depth from 10 to 90 feet. These were the fi rst “instruments” installed 

in a Reclamation embankment dam for the purpose of monitoring the porewater 

pressures in the dam and/or foundation. A few of these observation wells are still 

monitored, making them the longest continuously monitored instruments of that 

type. Their rate of response to reservoir fl uctuation is very slow (about a 2-year 

lag time) due to the relatively large diameter of the 2-inch pipes and the very 

low fl ow rate (permeability) of the seepage percolating through the gumbo-clay 

embankment. Also in 1911, a set of iron benchmarks was installed every 

300 feet along the embankment crest to monitor its settlement, also the fi rst of that 

type of instrumentation installed on a Reclamation dam. Belle Fourche Dam was 

quickly turned into the most instrumented embankment dam built by Reclamation 

between 1902 and 1911.

 The 90-year-long performance of Belle Fourche Dam has been quite 

an interesting story. The concrete paving blocks protecting the upstream slope 

have suffered storm damage fairly frequently, which is why that type of slope 
92

protection was not used after the construction of Minitare Dam in 1915. In 1928, 

after 17 years of acceptable embankment performance, parallel cracks several 

hundred feet long occurred on the embankment crest between stations 27+00 and 

31+00, and they occurred close to the upstream slope. This led to an investigation 

and exploration shafts; the cracks were up to 3 inches wide and up to 12 feet deep. 

The resulting judgement was that drying out of the embankment was the cause.

Other cracks had also been reported in the vicinity of station 39+00 to 46+00.

Then on August 2, 1931, after a fairly rapid drought-caused reservoir drawdown 

of 27 feet in 60 days, part of the upstream slope failed, resulting in a slump about 

610 feet long between stations 40+50 and 46+60. The slide mass averaged a 

thickness of 9 to 10 feet and extended from about elevation 2962 down to the base 

of the 2:1 slope at elevation 2920. Several factors contributed to this slide, but 

the steepness of the upstream slope, the (low) shear strength of the as-constructed 

“gumbo” clay embankment material, the low permeability of the “gumbo” clay 

material, and the rapid reservoir drawdown were the primary factors that caused 

the failure.

 The slope failure was quickly examined by Reclamation’s engineers, 

including Chief Design Engineer Savage on August 12th. Plans for reconstruction 

of the upstream slope were agreed upon. On August 24th, a 3⁄4-yd3 dragline began 

building an access ramp into the slide and began to remove the concrete blocks.

A total of 20,320 yd3 of the slumped embankment material and gravel bedding 

was excavated by a larger dragline with a 50-foot boom and a 13⁄4-yd3

 bucket, 

making sure to dig at least 1 to 2 feet below the “lowest slip plane,” and placing 

the material in stockpiles to one side for reuse. The embankment was then rebuilt 

by several pieces of equipment. The larger dragline picked up a half-bucket of 

gravel, then fi lled the bucket with stockpiled embankment material, and dumped 

the material into the excavation where it was hauled and spread in 6-inch layers 

by Caterpillar tractors pulling Fresno scrapers. These layers were then compacted 

by rollers pulled by the Caterpillar tractors. The initial attempts to use concrete 

rollers for compaction encountered diffi culty when the roughness of the roller 

prevented it from being properly cleaned. An “iron mule” loaded with one yard 

of gravel was tried, but it was too slow. They then tried an old printing press 

roller, for which they had to make a pulling device, and fi lled the roller with 

concrete. This smooth roller allowed the use of cleaning scrapers and it worked 

well pulled by a “Fifteen” (horsepower) Caterpillar tractor. A total of eight 

Caterpillar tractors were used, ranging in size from fi fteen to forty horsepower. 

The most effective “dirt mover” was a “Thirty” Caterpillar tractor pulling a 

11⁄2-yd3

 Fresno scraper. Up to three working shifts were used due to the approach 

of winter. Once the embankment was rebuilt, the gravel bedding was rebuilt and 

the concrete paving blocks were placed back on the upstream slope.

 After the completion of this reconstruction, Reclamation proceeded during 

the remainder of the 1930s to drill, sample, install piezometers (for monitoring 

water pressure) in the dam embankment and foundation, and then conduct a 

laboratory investigation of the Belle Fourche Dam embankment material in one 
93

of the most comprehensive laboratory investigations conducted up to that time.

That work was followed by a (then) state-of-the-art analysis of the upstream 

slope stability. Finally, in 1939, a 25-foot-wide earthfi ll berm was constructed 

to improve the stability by buttressing the upstream slope. The berm sloped at 

3:1 and included a 3-foot-thick layer of well-graded 1⁄4-inch to 3-inch gravel that 

was placed against the existing dam embankment to provide drainage. The berm 

included earthfi ll material similar to the original embankment material, but it was 

enclosed in gravel for drainage. The earthfi ll material was placed in 6-inch lifts 

and was compacted by 12 passes of a tamping roller. The tamping rollers were 

to be confi gured such that they had one ball foot or knob for each square foot, a 

knob end area between 5 and 7 in2, produced a knob pressure of not less than 300 

lb/in2

, and were equipped with roller cleaners. The berm was surfaced with 24 

inches of riprap placed on 12-inches of gravel bedding. Weep holes were also 

drilled on 5-foot centers through the concrete paving slabs for drainage purposes.

The embankment section shown in 2.5 includes this upstream berm. The concrete 

paving slabs on the upstream slope continued to be damaged by wave action, and 

in 1976-1977, the upper portion of the upstream slope was rebuilt to provide 4 

feet of riprap slope protection on a 2.33:1 slope from the top of the 1939 berm 

(elevation 2950) to the embankment crest (elevation 2990). Longitudinal cracks 

have continued to appear on the dam crest into the 1990s, and the rate of reservoir 

drawdown continues to be carefully controlled in order to prevent further 

drawdown-induced slope instability.

 Belle Fourche Dam is a truly amazing and unique early embankment 

dam in Reclamation’s history. ASCE designated Belle Fourche Dam a National 

Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1988, and (somewhat surprisingly) it is 

Reclamation’s only embankment dam so honored. Many of the design details and 

construction procedures developed and utilized at Belle Fourche Dam starting 97 

years ago are still used by Reclamation engineers today, especially some of the 

innovative design and construction concepts.

Period II (1919-1933)—Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam 

Design and Construction

 Reclamation engineers had helped advance the state-of-the-art in 

embankment dam design and construction during Period I. Reclamation’s 

reputation grew as the numbers of its successful projects increased throughout the 

West. Reclamation received more and more publicity in the articles and papers 

published in western newspapers, magazines, and professional journals to which 

Reclamation’s engineers contributed their experience, innovations, and new 

design ideas.

 Reclamation’s engineering design groups had been centralized and were 

better organized in the Denver Offi ce, and they produced designs for new projects 

and dams at a high rate. Respected civil engineers like J. L. Savage, who had 

started his career with Reclamation on the Minidoka Project in 1903, had joined 
94

the new Denver Offi ce staff as a Design Engineer in 1916 and was subsequently 

promoted to Chief Design Engineer in February 1928. The Chief Engineers 

during Period II were Arthur P. Davis (also serving as Director of the Service until 

1923), Frank E. Weymouth, and Raymond F. Walter.

 The embankment dams designed and constructed during Period II were 

larger and the designs were more varied. Consultants were used extensively 

during Period II, although the list of dams constructed during this period is fairly 

small. Most of them were built with homogeneous sections, had little foundation 

treatment of note, and generally had 3:1 upstream and 2:1 downstream slopes.

Early in this period, the 40-foot-high Salmon Lake Dam was constructed between 

1919 and 1923 on Salmon Creek as part of the Okanogan Project in Washington 

state. It was Reclamation’s fi rst embankment dam that utilized a central 

impervious (sandy loam) core and a fl attened downstream toe or “tail” with 5:1 

and 10:1 slopes. It was also the fi rst dam to be constructed on a “questionable” 

foundation (sand and clay of unknown depth). The base of the impervious core 

was widened, and in the bottom of the 8-foot-wide cutoff trench located 25 feet 

upstream of the dam crest, Wakefi eld sheet piling 38 feet long was driven into the 

foundation with part of the sheet piles extending up into the core. Note that these 

embankment design changes were included on a relatively small dam.

 Several other notable embankment dams were designed and constructed 

during Period II. These included: Sherburne Lake, Tieton, McKay, Guernsey, 

American Falls, Echo, and Cle Elum Dams. Most of the embankment dams 

constructed during Period II were compacted earthfi ll structures, with some semihydraulic fi ll dams built too, such as Tieton Dam. Most of them were built on 

rock foundations that required the excavation of the overburden soils. Some of 

these dams included reinforced concrete core walls the full height of the reservoir, 

such as at Tieton and American Falls Dams. Sherburne Lake Dam, completed in 

1921, included a vertical zone of screened gravel located beneath the downstream 

edge of the crest intended to prevent saturation of the downstream embankment 

material. This was one of the earliest uses of a “chimney drain” inside an 

embankment dam to control the phreatic surface and porewater pressures.

 Tieton Dam, completed in 1925 with a maximum height of 185 feet above 

the streambed, was the highest embankment dam built by Reclamation during 

Period II. It was the fi rst Reclamation dam designed on the basis of a stability 

analysis, and the soil’s shear strength characteristics were assumed on the basis of 

the material’s angle of repose. A concrete core wall 10 feet thick was excavated 

down a maximum of 134 feet through river-channel deposits and 10 feet into 

bedrock. This foundation wall was constructed by mining out vertical shafts 

driven to bedrock and horizontal side drifts, forming a wall within the foundation. 

The core wall foundation was also pressure grouted using fi ve holes each 22 feet 

deep in one of the fi rst such applications (the maximum grout take was only one 

sack per foot). Grout is generally a mixture of cement and water, and possibly 

sand, bentonite, and other materials. According to Design of Small Dams 
95

(p. 195), “Foundation grouting is a process of injecting under pressure a fl uid 

sealing material into the underlying formations through specially drilled holes 

to seal off or fi ll joints, fractures, fi ssures, bedding planes, cavities, or other 

openings.” The Tieton Dam embankment included a puddled-clay core onethird the thickness of the hydraulic head constructed against the upstream side 

of the concrete core wall. The remainder of the dam was constructed using the 

semi-hydraulic fi ll method in which the earthfi ll is dumped at the upstream or 

downstream embankment shoulder and is sluiced with jets of water, washing the 

fi nes into the center pool.

 McKay Dam, completed in 1926 with a maximum height of 160 feet 

above the streambed, rested almost entirely on bedrock and was constructed 

of compacted sand and gravel. The upstream slope at 1.75:1 is the steepest 

ever constructed on one of Reclamation’s embankment dams and was covered 

with a monolithic concrete slab tied to bedrock with a concrete cutoff. Three 

cutoff walls were constructed across McKay Dam’s foundation contact, and 

the foundation beneath each of the walls was grouted. Steps were cast into the 

upper part of the upstream concrete facing to break up the wave runup (unlike the 

smooth concrete-panel facing at Belle Fourche Dam). The concrete facing was 

very hard to construct and the construction engineer advised against using that 

design again.

 Guernsey Dam, completed in 1927 with a maximum height of 105 feet 

above the streambed, rested on a pervious foundation of unknown depth. Because 

of the foundation, the embankment section included an upstream “blanket” and 

a large downstream rockfi ll. The central portion of the embankment included 

an inclined impervious core zone confi ned by zones of sluiced sand and gravel 

located upstream and downstream of the core. This was the last hydraulic fi ll 

embankment constructed by Reclamation. A new concept used at Guernsey Dam 

was the incorporation of the upstream cofferdam into the embankment section. A 

partial cutoff trench was excavated and backfi lled with the impervious earthfi ll.

 American Falls Dam, also completed in 1927 with a maximum height of 

75 feet above the streambed, was a combination concrete gravity and earthfi ll 

structure. The bedrock foundation beneath its reinforced concrete core wall was 

grouted.

 Echo Dam, completed in 1931 with a maximum height of 130 feet above 

streambed, was another zoned embankment. The central core consisted of 

compacted clay, silt, sand, and gravel; the zones upstream and downstream of 

the core consisted of sand and gravel; and the downstream toe zone consisted of 

conglomerate rockfi ll rolled in 12-inch layers. The excavated cutoff trench was 

about 25 feet deep to bedrock and included a concrete cutoff wall. The cutoff 

trench was located well upstream of the central core and was connected to it 

by a thick blanket of the compacted core material. The earthfi ll materials were 

hauled to the damsite using gasoline-powered trucks, the fi rst such use on one 
96

of Reclamation’s embankment dams. Compaction of the embankment materials 

was accomplished using a sheepsfoot-type tamping roller for the fi rst time on a 

Reclamation dam. The sheepsfoot tamping roller was an important development 

in the evolution of earthfi ll compaction because of the kneading action produced 

by the steel knobs or “feet” fabricated around the roller drum. Water and/or sand 

were usually placed inside the steel drum to increase its weight and thereby the 

amount of stress applied by the ends of the feet during compaction.

 Cle Elum Dam, completed in 1933 with a maximum height of 135 feet 

above the streambed, was the fi rst instance in which a sheepsfoot tamping roller 

was specifi ed to be used for embankment compaction (it was used, but was not 

specifi ed, on Echo Dam). Cle Elum Dam was the last dam designed using just 

empirical rules and the last one constructed without earthfi ll testing to verify the 

quality of the as-built earthfi ll materials, to evaluate construction practices, and to 

confi rm design assumptions.

 Dams generally put more people at risk than any other type of civil works 

structure. Dam failures tend to be catastrophic, which causes them to be studied 

very thoroughly to try to explain why the failure occurred and to avoid repeating 

any mistakes. The dramatic failures of dams like St. Francis Dam at about 

midnight on March 12, 1928, near Los Angeles, California, tended to produce 

important changes in the practice of dam engineering. By the end of 1929 several 

states had enacted laws placing the construction and maintenance of non-Federal 

 dams that imperil the lives and property of others under the supervision and 

control of the state engineer or other authorized offi cial. With embankment dams, 

the need to explain why a dam failed when the same basic design had worked 

elsewhere was a major concern to all civil engineers, as well as the general 

public. As civil engineering evolved, the increasing knowledge of the engineering 

design of certain materials (such as wood, steel, and concrete) that are used in 

constructing civil structures (such as buildings, bridges, and dams) generally 

improved the overall record with respect to reducing the incidence of structural 

failure. However, the failure rate with respect to embankment dams did not seem 

to keep pace with the evolution of those other civil engineering structures, and 

remained of great concern into the 1920s and 1930s. In general, Reclamation 

had a very good record with respect to its embankment dams. However, 

Reclamation’s record was not perfect, as evidenced by the rapid drawdown failure 

of the upstream slope of Belle Fourche Dam in August 1931. While this slumping 

of the upstream slope material did not breach the dam or release the reservoir, the 

steep slope did become unstable, and it did fail.

 In the years just after World War I, several European engineers began to 

specialize in the mechanics of soil and rock materials, and thereby began the fi eld 

that has become geotechnical engineering. Dr. Karl Terzaghi (Honorary Member, 

ASCE) is generally considered the father of soil mechanics (geotechnical 

engineering). According to Karl Terzaghi—The Engineer as Artist by Professor 

Richard E. Goodman,18 Karl Terzaghi graduated from the Technical University 
97

of Graz in 1900 with a degree in mechanical engineering, having resisted his 

grandfather’s civil engineering profession. However, after a short stint working 

as a mechanical engineer, Karl Terzaghi switched and began his lifelong career 

in civil engineering. After receiving his Doctor of Technical Sciences degree 

from the Technical University of Graz in 1912, Dr. Terzaghi visited the United 

States for the next two years. He quickly found his way to a meeting with Service 

Director F. H. Newell and immediately began an extensive tour of Reclamation 

projects and dams then under construction. Back in Europe, Dr. Terzaghi began 

to study the mechanics of soils toward the end of World War I in 1917, working 

on the problem of earth pressure against retaining walls that had been worked 

on earlier by Coulomb and Rankine. Dr. Terzaghi’s work (in German) was fi rst 

summarized (in English) in Engineering News-Record in 1920, which wrote an 

editorial preface declaring that characterizing earth as an engineering material is 

“the outstanding research problem in civil engineering” and that Terzaghi’s article 

“heralds the opening of an avenue of progress.” He completed the manuscript 

for Erdbaumechanik (Principles of Soil Mechanics) in April 1924 and, after it 

was translated from German to English, it was circulated widely in the United 

States by John R. Freeman (Honorary Member, ASCE). The Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology quickly offered Dr. Terzaghi the opportunity to develop 

a graduate course in foundations and soil mechanics. Because of Professor 

Terzaghi’s background and expertise in geology, the “marriage” of geotechnical 

engineering and geology has been one of his more important achievements.

Professor Terzaghi continued to lead in the development of the new fi eld of soil 

mechanics and foundation engineering in the United States, with a continued 

special interest in dams until his death in 1963. (In his memory, Mission Dam 

in British Columbia, Canada was renamed Terzaghi Dam in 1965.) Briefl y 

described, thus began what is now geotechnical engineering. The birth of 

geotechnical engineering as it relates to embankment dams “arrived” at ICOLD’s 

First Congress on Large Dams meeting in 1933 at Stockholm, Sweden, which 

was quickly followed by ICOLD’s Second Congress on Large Dams meeting in 

1936 at Washington, D.C. Reclamation engineers participated in both of these 

meetings, including Commissioner Mead and Chief Design Engineer Savage.

 Reclamation’s fi rst engineering publication, entitled High-Pressure 

Reservoir Outlets—A Report on Bureau of Reclamation Installations by

J. M. Gaylord, Electrical Engineer, and J. L. Savage, Designing Engineer, 

was published in 1923.19 This book of 179 pages included information and 

reproductions of drawings on the outlet works designed for and constructed 

at many Reclamation dams, including Minidoka, Belle Fourche, Strawberry, 

Lahontan, Minitare, Jackson Lake, Sherburne Lake, and McDonald Dams 

(McDonald Dam was designed and constructed by the Service under an agreement 

with Interior’s Indian Affairs Offi ce). A second engineering publication, entitled 

Dams and Control Works, was published by Reclamation in 1929.20 This book 

of 164 pages included information written by Reclamation engineers on various 

diversion and storage dams, including Tieton, McKay, Guernsey, American 

Falls, and Echo Dams. A section of miscellaneous articles presented information 
98

on topics such as: “Corewalls for Earth and Rockfi ll Dams,” and “Design and 

Construction of Small Earth Dams.” And the Appendix included a reprint of 

the recent specifi cations on Echo Dam. Included in the article on “Design and 

Construction of Small Earth Dams” was a material placement recommendation 

for two-zone embankment dams. This recommendation called for placement 

of the selected water-tight material in the upstream portion of the dam, and of 

the heavy, stable, free draining material such as sand, gravel, and stone in the 

downstream portion, distributed such that the coarser material was placed on the 

downstream slope, changing gradually to the fi ner and more claylike material 

as the impervious material in the upstream portion of the dam was reached.

The importance of the proper placement of soils with fi ne-grained vs. coarsegrained gradations within a dam embankment became much better understood 

subsequently in the 1940s and 1950s.

 Field and laboratory testing of soil and rock materials also began to 

emerge during the 1920s and early 1930s. In addition to the pioneering soil 

mechanics work by Dr. Terzaghi on topics such as soil permeability, others 

contributed greatly to the evolution of soil and rock testing in the attempt to 

characterize these materials. Reclamation’s Earth Materials Laboratory was 

established in Denver at the U.S. Customs House in the fall of 1933. The 

primary duties of the new Earth Materials Laboratory “were to determine the 

characteristics of proposed embankment and foundation soils, to work with the 

design section in planning fi eld control tests on the foundation and compacted 

embankment, and to train construction inspectors in the test procedure.”21 While 

the subject of soil compaction and optimum moisture content had been written 

about as early as 1907, Ralph R. Proctor developed a soil test procedure in 1933 

that established the principles of soil compaction and moisture content and their 

application. A four-article series was published by Engineering News-Record 

beginning on August 31, 1933. Proctor’s compaction control test standard was 

quickly adopted by every engineer and organization involved with embankment 

dams, which was a major milestone in the history of embankment dam design 

and construction. In addition to performing Proctor’s density test, Reclamation’s 

Earth Materials Laboratory used or developed a variety of soil testing equipment 

and procedures, which included mechanical (grain size) analysis, penetration 

resistance (on compaction specimens), percolation and settlement, consolidation, 

shear strength, specifi c gravity, and soluble solids. The laboratory also began 

to conduct studies and experimentation on different methods of compaction, on 

the percolation rates in different soils, on porewater pressure movement through 

different soils, and on consolidation rates of different soils. The rapid drawdown 

failure of the upstream slope at Belle Fourche Dam in 1931 indicated that there 

was still a lot for Reclamation’s engineers to learn about soil mechanics and 

earthfi ll embankments.

 As Period II began, World War I advances in mechanized equipment 

such as tanks and trucks led to the post-war development of new construction 

equipment. Gasoline engines were now used to power 5-ton trucks for hauling 
99

earthfi ll materials more quickly and with greater economy. The new 15-

horsepower Caterpillar tractor was introduced and could be used to pull a roller 

for earthfi ll compaction, a Fresno scraper for moving earthfi ll, or a bulldozer 

for excavating and moving earth materials. Further development of largersized engines lead to more powerful Caterpillar tractors and other construction 

equipment during Period II. As discussed on Echo and Cle Elum Dams, the use 

of sheepsfoot tamping rollers for compacting earthfi ll materials on Reclamation’s 

embankment dams began in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Period III (1934-1944)—Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam 

Design and Construction

 Reclamation’s state-of-the-practice in embankment dam design and 

construction at the beginning of Period III had developed to a fairly high 

degree of sophistication. Reclamation’s projects and dams were often written 

about in publications like Engineering News-Record and its engineers’ papers 

were often published in ASCE’s Transactions. Reclamation’s reputation and 

those of its engineers were well established in the West and the United States. 

Reclamation’s evolution in concrete dams peaked during Period III with the 

design and construction of Hoover Dam. While the concrete dams received more 

notice nationally and worldwide, Reclamation designed and constructed several 

milestone embankment dams during Period III.

 Reclamation’s centralized engineering design and construction 

organization and the Chief Engineer in the Denver Offi ce were well established 

and empowered. Reclamation’s Chief Engineers during Period III were Raymond 

F. Walter (mentioned earlier under Period II) and Sinclair O. Harper, and J. L. 

Savage remained the Chief Design Engineer during the entire period. 

 The embankment dams designed and constructed during Period III 

involved some revolutionary changes and they were larger and more numerous 

than ever before. At about the same time, testing of earth materials, construction 

testing for compaction and moisture control, and engineering design specialization 

all became part of Reclamation’s embankment dam design and construction 

process. The installation of performance monitoring instruments in Reclamation’s 

embankment dams became standard procedure during this period.

 Data from laboratory testing, construction control testing, and performance 

measurements obtained on Reclamation’s embankment dams were collected and 

analyzed by the specialized embankment dam design group, which determined 

that soil as a construction material was extremely variable and very sensitive. The 

data also indicated that the performance characteristics of many types of ordinary 

soil could not be adequately defi ned by the existing tests and procedures. Hence, 

the earthfi ll construction practices then in use would not necessarily produce the 

desired consistent performance. While attempting to solve these concerns and 

problems, the successful empirical design and construction practices historically 
100

used with success by Reclamation continued to be followed. Government 

regulations covering concerns such as working hours, transportation of 

equipment, safety, and wage rates became part of the process.

 Many notable embankment dams were designed and constructed by 

Reclamation during Period III. These included: Hyrum, Pineview, Agency Valley, 

Rye Patch, Taylor Park, Moon Lake, Alcova, Caballo, Bull Lake, Midview, 

Fresno, Green Mountain, Deer Creek, Vallecito, and Anderson Ranch Dams (the 

latter dam wasn’t actually completed until 1947). All of these embankment dams 

were constructed as compacted earthfi ll structures. The dams had upstream slopes 

ranging from 3:1 to 3.5:1 with fl atter slopes at the (upstream) toe where material 

needed to be wasted, and had downstream slopes ranging from 2:1 to 2.5:1, 

similarly with fl atter slopes at the (downstream) toe. These dams were built on 

a variety of foundations; almost all of them included a cutoff trench excavated 

down through the overburden soils to bedrock and quite a few of them included 

concrete cutoff walls in the bottom of the cutoff trench. The cutoff trenches 

moved toward the center of the dam. The rock(fi ll) material produced from 

required excavations, that was unsuitable for use as upstream riprap, was often 

placed on the downstream slope of the embankment.

 Pineview Dam, completed in 1936 with an initial maximum height of 

about 55 feet above streambed, included a steel sheet pile cutoff in the foundation, 

which was later determined to be ineffective, causing little if any porewater 

pressure drop in the seepage percolating downstream. The dam’s crest was raised 

about 29 feet in 1955.

 Taylor Park Dam, completed in 1937 with a maximum height of 167 feet 

above the streambed, was constructed as an embankment dam at a good concrete 

damsite because of its remoteness. Comparative cost estimates were developed 

for both types of dam, and they indicated little difference in cost. Contractors 

were allowed to submit alternative bids, and an embankment dam was the 

low bid. This reportedly indicated that earthfi ll construction had developed to 

the point where it could be cost competitive with concrete dam construction 

at a damsite suited to either type of dam. A large rockfi ll zone mantles the 

downstream slope.

 Alcova Dam, completed in 1938 with a maximum height of 185 feet above 

the streambed, was a fairly complex embankment dam. The foundation consisted 

of sedimentary rock dipping downstream that had quite different permeabilities, 

artesian pressure in one bedrock layer, and hot sulfurous groundwater. An 

extensive “U”-shaped grout curtain was constructed in the foundation and up 

the abutments to control seepage and uplift. A concrete gallery was constructed 

on top of the excavated bedrock to provide access for drilling drain holes and 

to perform additional foundation grouting if the need arose. Alcova Dam was 

thoroughly instrumented with the new hydrostatic pressure indicators at three 
101

sections of the embankment to monitor porewater pressures. A large rockfi ll zone 

mantled the downstream slope.

 Fresno Dam, completed in 1939 with a maximum height of 75 feet above 

the streambed, was built on a very soft foundation of questionable strength.

Consolidation of the foundation and settlement of the embankment became major 

problems as construction progressed. A theoretical approach and the results of 

plate bearing tests of the foundation were used to estimate the total settlement, 

which was estimated to be relatively minor. However, the actual settlement has 

been in excess of 8 feet, about half of which occurred during construction. The 

base of the dam embankment was widened, primarily to avoid abrupt changes 

in the stress in the foundation and to distribute the load from the embankment.

Piezometers were installed in the embankment for the fi rst time to monitor the 

development of construction porewater pressures in the earthfi ll. The control of 

embankment compaction and earthfi ll moisture content proved to be effective in 

controlling the earthfi ll porewater pressures. 

 Green Mountain Dam, completed in 1943 with a maximum height 

of 274 feet above the streambed, was the highest embankment dam yet built 

by Reclamation. Collectively, Green Mountain, Deer Creek, and Vallecito 

Dams marked Reclamation’s initial use of geological data in formulating the 

embankment dam’s design. The alignment of Green Mountain Dam was shifted 

downstream to avoid an old landslide in the left abutment. The upstream 

foundation was excavated to bedrock to remove potentially unstable foundation 

material. Shale bedrock unexpectedly deteriorated rapidly on exposure to the air, 

which was addressed by spraying an asphalt coating on the shale immediately 

after it was cleaned off. This procedure became standard practice on Reclamation 

dams whenever shale is encountered. The borrow material was processed to 

remove the cobble-size (plus 3-inch) particles from the earthfi ll used to construct 

the embankment. The compacted earthfi ll at Green Mountain Dam achieved 

the highest dry density yet at 132 lb/ft3

. Even at this high density, constructioninduced porewater pressures in the embankment caused by the weight of the fi ll 

were excessive. Studies were begun to discover what could be done to avoid this 

effect, with the fi nding that slight reductions in moisture content in the earthfi ll 

caused a marked reduction in the earthfi ll porewater pressures. Construction 

practices on Reclamation’s embankment dams were changed accordingly.

 Anderson Ranch Dam, started in 1941 and completed in 1947 with 

a maximum height of 344 feet above the streambed and with a cutoff trench 

excavated a maximum of 112 feet to bedrock, set a new record as the World’s 

highest embankment dam. The scheme developed on Green Mountain Dam 

to carefully control the earthfi ll moisture content to avoid excessively high 

porewater pressures was followed on Anderson Ranch Dam, but it wasn’t until 

near the end of construction that the moisture content control effort effectively 

controlled the porewater pressures. The designed upstream and downstream 

slopes gradually fl atten from crest to toe, going from 3:1 to 3.5:1 on the upstream 
102

slope and from 2:1 to 2.5:1 to 8:1 on the downstream slope. This was done in 

an attempt to balance the cost savings from minimizing the embankment volume 

(steeper slopes) vs. the need to maintain adequate slope stability (fl atter slopes). 

In 1941, the design of the embankment slopes on Anderson Ranch Dam was 

based with some confi dence on the results of the slope stability analyses and the 

earthfi ll strength data developed by Reclamation’s Earth Materials Laboratory. 

The contractor on Anderson Ranch Dam introduced a number of innovations 

during construction, including the use of a belt conveyor system for transporting 

the borrow material to the embankment, with facilities for adding moisture to the 

material moving along the belt conveyor.

 After Dr. Terzaghi and others began to develop geotechnical engineering 

during Period II, and after the First and Second Congress on Large Dams 

meetings in 1933 and 1936, Reclamation’s engineers joined the national and 

worldwide efforts in advancing the new fi eld as it related to embankment 

dams. Reclamation continued to develop and make available information on its 

engineering work. A second edition of Dams and Control Works was published 

in February 1938.22 This soft-cover 261-page book, again written by Reclamation 

engineers, contained three parts: One: Storage Dams; Two: Diversion Dams; and 

Three: Special Articles. Part 3 still included an article by engineer F. F. Smith 

on “Design and Construction of Small Earth Dams.” Paragraph 5 of that article 

contains the statement: 

Among Engineers charged with the responsibility for the safety of large 

earth dams, it is appreciated that the outworn empirical methods have 

given way to thorough preconstruction investigations, careful theoretical 

design, and construction on known and defi nite principles of soil 

mechanics.23

A fi gure in the article on page 254 portrays “Methods of Zoning Earth Dams,” 

and notes that zones 2 and 3 (zone 2 fl anks the zone 1 impervious core and zone 

3 is located between zone 2 and the rockfi ll zone on the downstream slope) 

“are roughly graded from fi ne material at the inner slopes to coarse at the outer 

slopes.” This grading from fi ner grained material at the zone 1 core to coarser 

grained material toward the outer slopes was generally used on Reclamation’s 

embankment dams, and provides the fi ltering action necessary to prevent soil 

“internal erosion” (piping). Dr. Terzaghi seems to have started the work to 

develop rational fi lter criteria. The results of his work and the research work 

by George E. Bertram with the assistance of Dr. Terzaghi and Professor Arthur 

Casagrande (Honorary Member, ASCE) resulted in a paper by Bertram24 that 

is generally given the credit as the fi rst document on fi lter criteria. The Corps 

conducted its own research into fi lters in the early 1940s.

 Field and laboratory testing of soil and rock materials continued to be 

refi ned in response to the need of designers to better characterize those materials 

for potential use in embankment dams. As noted above in the discussion of 

Anderson Ranch Dam, the Earth Materials Laboratory was able to provide the 
103

engineering data necessary to optimize the design of the embankment slopes to be 

constructed.

 Reclamation’s instrumentation for and monitoring of embankment dams 

continued to be improved, with the development and installation in 1935 of 

13 water level indicators (WLI) at Hyrum Dam and 12 more WLIs at Agency 

Valley Dam. The water level indicators were a combination manometer and 

piezometer, but it was not suffi ciently accurate. This led to the development of 

the hydrostatic pressure indicator (HPI), a modifi cation of the Goldbeck cell, 

which were installed at Caballo Dam, Alcova Dam, and several other dams in 

1938 and 1939. The hydrostatic pressure indicator used a thin gold-plated monelmetal diaphragm, which used air pressure on one side to balance and measure the 

porewater pressure on the other side of the diaphragm. The HPIs were installed 

in the embankment as it was constructed, and copper tubing was run in trenches 

from the instrument to the embankment surface where a recording apparatus 

could be attached and operated to measure the porewater pressure. Reclamation 

developed the more-rugged hydraulic piezometer that could be installed in 

either the foundation or the embankment; the fi rst 72 hydraulic piezometers 

were installed at Fresno Dam in 1939. Reclamation also developed the internal 

vertical movement device, which was fi rst installed at Caballo Dam in 1936. 

The device was installed as the embankment was constructed and allowed the 

vertical consolidation behavior of the embankment to be measured at 5- or 10-foot 

intervals and also measured the settlement of the foundation at the bottom.

 During Period III the equipment available for the construction of 

embankment dams continued to improve in size, power, speed, and effi ciency. 

The rockfi ll zones included in these dam embankments could now be constructed 

because the construction equipment now permitted the handling of larger and 

larger sizes of rock particles, which were usually obtained from the required 

excavations for the outlet works and/or spillway. The improved construction 

equipment and improved techniques for dewatering below the groundwater table 

allowed the excavation of cutoff trenches through overburden soils to become 

larger and deeper where necessary.

Period IV (1945-1975)—Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam 

Design and Construction

 Reclamation’s state-of-the-practice in embankment dam design and 

construction at the beginning of Period IV had developed to quite a high degree 

of sophistication. Reclamation’s projects and dams were generally written about 

in engineering and construction publications as indicative of the state of the 

practice. The reputations of Reclamation and its engineers continued to grow as 

more milestone embankment dams were designed and constructed during Period 

IV. Reclamation’s Chief Engineers during Period IV were Walker R. Young, 

Leslie N. McClellan, Grant Bloodgood, (both McClellan and Bloodgood were 
104

also Assistant Commissioners), Bernard P. Bellport, and Harold G. Arthur (both 

Bellport and Arthur were also titled Director, Offi ce of Design and Construction).

 The embankment dams designed and constructed during Period IV 

generally involved more diffi cult and complex damsites than had been built on 

before, and the resulting designs were more complex. After World War II, a new 

rush of dam construction occurred because of the delays caused by the war. The 

multi-purpose dam and project came into being at Reclamation, expanding its 

previous focus on irrigation projects and storage dams. Signifi cant improvements 

were made to the construction equipment available at the start of Period IV.

 Laboratory testing of earthfi ll materials saw new improvements in the 

quality and size of the apparatuses and instrumentation available for conducting 

soil and rock testing, aided especially by the introduction of computers for 

automated data acquisition during testing. Starting around 1957, Reclamation 

started to use computers in laboratory testing and in the analysis of slope 

stability. Larger sizes of testing equipment allowed research and development 

of data on the effects of larger-size particles on the shear strength of the true 

matrix of earthfi ll materials being used in embankment dams. The improved 

instrumentation used in monitoring the testing allowed them to be run more 

slowly and allowed for the measurement of porewater pressures generated during 

shearing of the saturated specimens. Reclamation’s research into fi lters was 

conducted by K. P. Karpoff, which led to The Use of Laboratory Tests to Develop 

Design Criteria for Protective Filters published in 1955.25

 In October 1961 Waco Dam in Texas, a Corps dam, suffered a slope failure 

during construction that dropped the crest 18 feet vertically and caused horizontal 

movements of up to 26 feet downstream. The slope failure was caused by a 

combination of high porewater pressures in the foundation clay shale generated 

by the weight of the overlying embankment that were transmitted through a sand 

layer and the failure of the low shear strength clay-shale foundation. Research on 

testing the Waco Dam foundation clay-shale material and improvements in slope 

stability analyses resulted from that event (this became important to Reclamation 

at the end of Period IV and the beginning of Period V).

 Sheffi eld Dam near Santa Barbara, California, had failed in 1925 due 

to earthquake-induced soil liquefaction in the dam’s foundation. Reclamation 

became more concerned about the seismic stability of its embankment dams in 

the late 1940s and early 1950s, and a technical memorandum entitled Seismic

Stability of Earth Dams26 by Civil Engineer Elbert E. Esmiol (Life Member, 

ASCE and USCOLD/USSD) was published in April 1951. Several large 

earthquakes occurred during Period IV, which led to the development of new soil 

tests and methods of analysis, trying to model the loading of and the response 

by the various soils that occurred during those earthquakes. The powerful 

earthquakes that occurred at Nigata, Japan, and in Alaska in 1964 caused 

geotechnical engineers to begin research on how to model the soil behavior called 
105

“liquefaction” that was exhibited by sandy soils during those events. The nearfailure and breaching of Lower Van Norman (San Fernando) Dam during the 1971 

earthquake that hit the Los Angeles area caused a renewed burst of research into 

soil liquefaction, fi eld and laboratory testing, and modeling of the deformations 

that occurred in the upstream portion of the Lower Van Norman Dam, a 

hydraulic-fi ll embankment. Reclamation’s Soils Engineering Branch participated 

in the post-earthquake evolution of fi eld and laboratory testing of liquefactionsusceptible sandy soils. Starting around 1962, computers had begun to be used 

to analyze soil stresses with the newly-developed fi nite-element method of 

analysis. This analysis method was subsequently upgraded to allow the Lower 

Van Norman Dam embankment and foundation to be modeled, and to estimate the 

deformations produced by the earthquake shaking for comparison with the actual 

deformations.

 Many embankment dams were designed and constructed by Reclamation 

during Period IV. These included: Davis, Granby, Martinez, Box Butte, 

Scofi eld, Shadow Mountain, Cascade, Dixon Canyon, Spring Canyon, Soldier 

Canyon, Long Lake, Dry Falls, O’Sullivan, Jackson Gulch, Enders, Medicine 

Creek, Heart Butte, Bonny, Cedar Bluff, Shadehill, Dickinson, Trenton, 

Kirwin, Webster, Cachuma, Carter Lake, Glen Anne, Lauro, Rattlesnake, Tiber, 

Jamestown, Palisades, Sly Park, Wanship, Lovewell, Casitas, Vega, Trinity, 

Navajo, Fontenelle, Merritt, San Luis, Soldier Creek, Pueblo, and Teton Dams. 

These Period IV embankment dams generally had upstream slopes that ranged 

from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1, with fl atter slopes ranging from 4:1 to 20:1 at the toe where 

excess material could be wasted. The steep 2.5:1 upstream slopes were used only 

where an upstream rockfi ll zone created the necessary strength and stability. The 

downstream slopes ranged from 2:1 to 2.5:1, similarly with fl atter slopes ranging 

from 3.5:1 to 20:1 at the toe. These dams were built on a variety of foundations; 

all of them were either founded on bedrock or they included a cutoff trench 

excavated down through the overburden soils to bedrock, and quite a few of them 

included concrete cutoff walls in the bottom of the cutoff trench. The cutoff 

trenches remained near the upstream center of the dam. The rockfi ll material 

from required excavations was generally placed and compacted in the outer slopes 

of the embankment.

 Granby Dam, completed in 1948 with a maximum height of 235 feet 

above the streambed, encountered several construction problems that were 

successfully dealt with. A signifi cant change in the borrow source for the 

embankment was accomplished with little adverse effect on the schedule. An 

attempt was made to use the surface mapping of the damsite’s geology instead of 

the usual amount of investigative drilling; however, the use of this approach (used 

elsewhere) proved to be inappropriate due to the complex geology of the damsite. 

The construction experience on Granby Dam was discussed in F. C. Walker’s 

publication:
106

It was necessary to perform additional grouting after the structure was 

placed in operation. However, this grouting was accomplished so 

economically that portions of other dams have since been left ungrouted 

until actual performance indicates a need for such treatment.27

This insight into Reclamation’s foundation grouting design philosophy by the then 

Head of the Earth Dams Section becomes more meaningful when Fontenelle and 

 Teton Dams are discussed.

 Davis Dam, which spans the Colorado River, was completed in 1950 

with a maximum height of 138 feet above streambed. This dam represented 

an important advancement because of the diversion scheme for bypassing the 

large fl ow of the river around the damsite. That diversion was accomplished 

by excavating an open channel through the left abutment that was later closed 

by the construction of a concrete dam, which contained the spillway and the 

hydroelectric powerplant penstocks.28

 Construction of Enders, Medicine Creek, and Heart Butte Dams and 

several other embankment dams were all begun around 1946 and 1947 in the 

Great Plains area where the foundations generally consisted of relatively weak 

Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of sand, silt, and/or clay. These formations 

tend to be fairly permeable if sandy or structurally weak if clayey. The valley 

fl oors are generally broad and are covered with moderately deep alluvium. The 

available borrow materials usually ranged from sandy silts to silty clays, with both 

gravel and rock (suitable for use as riprap) scarce to nonexistent. These damsites 

also had stream fl ows that were highly variable, with large fl oods possible. It 

proved to be cheaper to increase the size of the reservoir to increase fl ood-storage 

capacity rather than build a larger spillway.

 Cachuma (Bradbury) Dam, completed in 1953 with a maximum height 

of 206 feet above the streambed, was constructed in a highly seismic area close 

to where Sheffi eld Dam had failed during an earthquake in 1925. The design 

of the embankment dam was therefore more conservative than otherwise would 

have been necessary. A large amount of siltstone and shale rockfi ll was produced 

by the spillway excavation, and this otherwise unsuitable material was used by 

enclosing it entirely within the downstream sand and gravel zone. In one of 

the fi rst applications of this type, a concrete “grout cap” was constructed at the 

bedrock surface in the center-bottom of the cutoff trench at Cachuma Dam to 

provide fi rm support for the curtain grouting of the foundation beneath the dam.

 Tiber Dam, completed in 1956 with a maximum height of 196 feet above 

the streambed, was built on a shale foundation that contained numerous seams 

of low shear strength bentonite clay. Hence, the foundation shear strength was 

uncertain. The earthfi ll materials available for use as the embankment’s central 

core varied widely in characteristics and shear strength, which was expected to 

be low. The embankment cross section therefore refl ected these concerns with a 
107

waste material disposal zone between the upstream cofferdam and the upstream 

slope, and with downstream slopes ranging from 2.25:1 near the crest to 5.5:1 

toward the toe. The embankment also included zones fl anking both sides of the 

core that transition between the fi ner-grained clay, silt, sand, and gravel core 

founded on bedrock and the coarser outer shells that consisted of sand, gravel, and 

cobbles.

 Palisades Dam, completed in 1957 with a maximum height of 260 feet 

above the streambed, was one of the largest embankment dams yet built by 

Reclamation. The embankment volume of over 13,500,000 yd3

 caused the design 

to use nearby borrow materials that might otherwise have been rejected. The 

borrow soils available were pervious sand and gravel alluvium on the valley fl oor 

and impervious soils along the abutments, which had moisture contents either too 

high or too low with respect to optimum moisture for compaction. There was also 

some concern about potentially high construction porewater pressures created 

by the weight of the fi ll. The design was adjusted to place the better but wetter 

borrow soils in the lower and central parts of the embankment and the drier but 

poorer borrow soils in the upper and outer parts of the embankment, while still 

maintaining adequate slope stability.

 Sly Park Dam, completed in 1954 with a maximum height of 175 feet 

above the streambed, was one of the fi rst and few rockfi ll embankment dam 

designs built by Reclamation. The upstream rockfi ll slope was 2.5:1 and the 

downstream rockfi ll slope was 2:1. Because of the size of the rockfi ll particles, 

the rockfi ll material could not be tested in the laboratory. The design therefore 

had to assume that the shear strength should refl ect the natural slopes of the loose 

rock in the vicinity (the angle of repose). Again, the central core of compacted 

silt, sand, and gravel was fl anked by transition zones, consisting of quarry fi nes 

in this case. Because of the difference between the properties of the compacted 

central core and the rockfi ll shells, differential consolidation between these zones 

later caused longitudinal cracks along the crest.

 Although vibratory rollers had been developed for compacting 

cohesionless soils for roads in Europe in the 1930s, they were fi rst used to 

compact rockfi ll dam materials at Quoich Dam in Scotland around 1958. In the 

United States, the use of vibratory rollers for compaction of rockfi ll materials was 

fi rst attempted by the Corps at the 445-foot-high Cougar Dam in Oregon, built 

between 1959 and 1964. Reclamation fi rst used smooth steel-drum vibratory 

rollers to compact a sand and gravel zone at Navajo Dam in 1959.29

 Trinity Dam, completed in 1962 with a maximum height of 465 feet above 

the streambed, is the highest embankment dam ever designed and constructed 

by Reclamation, and its volume of 29,400,000 yd3 made it the largest yet built. 

Almost all of the overburden material was excavated such that the embankment 

rested almost entirely on bedrock. The embankment contained four zones, 

grading from the central core to outer toe zones of rockfi ll. The upstream slope 
108

ranged from 2.5:1 in the upper slope to 4:1 in the lower rockfi ll toe zone. The 

downstream slope ranged from 2:1 near the crest to 3:1 in the lower rockfi ll toe 

zone. The upstream and downstream rockfi ll toe zones were added to improve 

stability; the rockfi ll was placed in 3-foot-thick layers (without compaction). A 

belt conveyor system over 10,000 feet long, that dropped 1,000 feet in elevation 

and handled 1,850 yd3/hr, moved a total of about 10,000,000 yd3 of earthfi ll 

material from the borrow area to the damsite.

 Navajo Dam, completed in 1963 with a maximum height of 388 feet above 

streambed, had a miscellaneous earthfi ll zone downstream of the central core 

that was completely enclosed within a zone of “selected sand, gravel, cobbles, 

and boulders.” That selected sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders zone formed an 

inclined transition/drain zone between the core and the miscellaneous earthfi ll and 

formed a blanket/drain zone against the downstream bedrock foundation.

 Fontenelle Dam, completed in 1964 with a maximum height of 128 feet 

above streambed, included: irrigation canal outlet works in both abutments, a 

river outlet works near the middle of the dam capable of passing 18,700 ft3

/s, a 

hydroelectric powerplant, and a right abutment overfl ow spillway of 20,000 ft3/s

capacity at full pool. The river outlet works was large because it was less costly 

than increasing the size of the spillway. The embankment cross-section is shown 

in 2.11. The embankment zoning included: the zone 1 core, the zone 2

chimney and blanket drain of selected (pit run alluvium) sand, gravel, and 

cobbles, and a zone 3 miscellaneous fi ll that was completely enclosed within the 

Zone 2. The surface of the bedrock foundation was far more broken than had 

been anticipated, so the cutoff trench was deepened by 6 feet. The foundation and 

abutments were grouted by a single-row grout curtain installed through a grout 

cap. Grout “takes” in the upper 65 feet of the foundation were very large and 

a second line of grout holes was placed in the vicinity of the river outlet works 

and in the right abutment to perform additional grouting. The grouting program 

included a total of 45,900 linear feet of drill hole and 143,000 ft3

 of cement 

grout pumped into the foundation, for an average grout take of 3.1 ft3

 per foot of 

hole. Reservoir fi lling was to be very slow so that if any seepage leaks occurred, 

they could be plugged before permanent operations commenced—remember the 

previous reservoir fi lling and additional grouting experience on Granby Dam. 

2.11. Fontenelle Dam section.
109

There was no surface treatment of the foundation rock beneath the zone 1 core, 

such as slush (lean cement) grouting of surface cracks, and smoothing of the 

foundation with dental concrete.

 First fi lling of the 345,000 acre-foot reservoir commenced in April 1964. 

During the summer of 1964, after the reservoir had risen to a depth of about 

49 feet, seepage appeared in the fl oor of an exhausted borrow area 2,000 feet 

downstream of the dam and stabilized at a fl ow of 6 ft3

/s. The reservoir continued 

to fi ll through the spring runoff from the heavy snowpack winter of 1964-1965 

(which produced a peak reservoir infl ow of 17,560 ft3/s) until it reached a depth 

of about 85 feet in early June 1965. Seepage then began to discharge from a 

rock cut in the spillway discharge channel and from a cliff face about 0.6-mile 

downstream on the left abutment. The seepage fl owing from the downstream 

borrow area also appeared to have increased. The reservoir began to spill on 

June 15th and the rate of total seepage increased to about 70 ft3/s. A small slough 

occurred at the edge of the embankment on the left side of the spillway chute at 

about the mid-height of the dam on June 29th, with about 1 ft3

/s issuing from a 

crack in the rock beneath the chute. On the morning of September 3rd, a wet spot 

was observed on the downstream slope of the dam at about mid-height near the 

right abutment about 100 feet to the right of the slough that occurred in June. By 

mid-afternoon, seepage water started fl owing from the wet spot area, causing 

erosion and sloughing of the dam embankment material. The fl ow that evening 

was estimated at about 5 ft3/s. Local offi cials were then alerted to stand by, ready 

to evacuate downstream residents. The next morning (September 4th), the seepage 

fl ows had increased to about 21 ft3/s and an estimated 10,500 yd3 of material had 

2.12. Fontenelle Dam: Large sinkhole on downstream slope.
110

been eroded from the downstream slope (see 2.12). Rockfi ll was dumped into 

the hole on the downstream slope, trying to stop the erosion, and the seepage 

fl ows appeared to stabilize. On the morning of September 5th, it was decided to 

fully open the outlet works, and by the morning of the 6th the reservoir level had 

dropped 8 feet from the initial level. That afternoon, an area on the dam crest 

about 20 feet in diameter near the upstream edge collapsed (see 2.13) and dropped 

about 30 feet, exposing bedrock on the abutment side of the cavity. The reservoir 

continued to drop about 4 feet per day until the pool was low enough to halt the 

seepage.

 There were several causes for the near-breaching (and near-failure) of 

Fontenelle Dam, which was barely avoided because of the large outlet works 

capacity. According to Chief Engineer Bellport’s “appraisal of the accident” 

included in his paper Bureau of Reclamation Experience in Stabilizing 

Embankment of Fontenelle Earth Dam30 presented at the 1967 ICOLD Conference 

in Istanbul, Turkey, “It is apparent that the weak spot was in the abutment and not 

the embankment. Many dams have been placed on similar foundations.... With 

steep abutments, it is diffi cult to obtain adequate shallow grouting because of the 

low pressures that must be used to prevent movement in the foundation.”31 The 

single row grout curtain was judged to have been inadequate, given the nature 

of the sedimentary shale and sandstone bedrock jointing in the abutments. The 

problem was (supposedly) fi xed by a grouting program consisting of eight lines of 

grout holes in the steep right abutment; a total of 80,000 feet of hole was drilled 

and an additional 200,000 ft3 of grout were pumped into the abutments during 

August-December 1966. Bellport commented in the paper that

In the 20-year span from 1940 to 1960, increasing boldness in reducing 

the number of lines and amount of grout seemed to be proving a 

philosophy that grouting was mostly superfl uous. At the Bureau of 

Reclamation too, in situations where defi ciencies could be readily 

2.13. Fontenelle Dam: Crest sinkhole.
111

remedied, the process of “try and see” was being used with increasing 

success until the situation at Fontenelle Dam was encountered.32

Further, 

This diffi culty occurred on fi rst fi lling of the reservoir which was 

unusually rapid due to extremely large infl ows and the fact that the outlet 

work was not being used so that some repair work could be performed.

This experience illustrates the need for slow, controlled fi lling of 

reservoirs where unfavorable foundation conditions are known to exist.33

Within Reclamation, it appears that information on the near failure of Fontenelle 

Dam may not have been widely distributed, but other organizations, such as 

the Corps, reportedly changed some of their embankment dam design and 

construction practices after reviewing this incident. Fontenelle Dam will be 

discussed further under Period V.

 Merritt Dam, completed in 1964 with a maximum height of 120 feet 

above the original ground surface, was the fi rst embankment dam that used 

“soil cement” instead of rock riprap to protect the upstream slope. Merritt Dam 

is located on the Snake River in north-central Nebraska where the usual rock 

riprap material was not economically available. Reclamation had developed 

and successfully used soil cement on a test section constructed in 1951 at Bonny 

Reservoir in eastern Colorado. Since its fi rst success at Merritt Dam, soil cement 

slope protection has been used on twelve more embankment dams by Reclamation 

and on countless other structures.

 San Luis Dam, completed in 1967 with a maximum height of 244 

feet above the original ground surface and a volume of over 77,000,000 yd3,

is the largest embankment dam by volume ever designed and constructed by 

Reclamation. The embankment included a central impervious core with a volume 

of about 42,000,000 yd3

. The borrow material was excavated using a BucyrusErie wheel excavator with a 30-foot-diameter digging wheel equipped with ten 

21⁄2 yd3

 buckets. This machine had a capacity of about 4,000 yd3/hr and loaded a 

100-ton Euclid bottom-dump truck every 45 seconds. In September 1981 a 

rapid-drawdown of the reservoir led to a slide in the upstream slope that was 

caused by a weak clay layer in the foundation. The slide was about 1,300 feet 

long and involved the reconstruction of the upstream slope and construction of a 

berm along the toe, with a total volume of about 1.4 million yd3

.

 Soldier Creek Dam, completed in 1973 with a maximum height of 251 feet 

above streambed, was built to enlarge the reservoir originally impounded by the 

1913-era Strawberry Dam, which was then breached when the water on both sides 

equalized. The design and construction of Soldier Creek Dam were similar to 

Fontenelle Dam. Soldier Creek Dam was one of seven dams (both embankment 

and concrete dams) selected by the Department of the Interior for a postTeton 1977 study by W. A. Wahler & Associates to review recently completed 
112

Reclamation dams. Soldier Creek Dam will be discussed further in the Period V 

section.

 Pueblo Dam, completed in 1975 with a height of 165 feet above original 

ground, is a composite dam consisting of a concrete massive-head buttress 

structure containing the 550-foot- long spillway, fl anked by two earthfi ll 

embankments. The concrete structure is 1,750 feet long and consists of 23 

buttresses with a maximum height of 176 feet. The two wing embankments 

wrapped around the ends of the concrete structure and consist of the 3,570-footlong left embankment and the 4,910-foot-long right embankment. Bedrock at 

the damsite consists of fl at-lying Cretaceous sediments in alternating units of 

sandstone, limestone, and shale. The concrete dam section was founded on 

Dakota sandstone and the embankments rest partly on alluvium in the valley 

bottom and on Graneros shale on the gently rising abutments. The Dakota 

sandstone contained a few discontinuous lenses and seams of shale. The Graneros 

shale contained a number of seams of bentonite clay up to 6 inches thick. When 

the left embankment had risen to within about 20 feet of the fi nal crest elevation 

in November 1973, the inclinometer casing located at the downstream toe at 

station 90+00 indicated a downstream shear deformation through the casing that 

prevented the lowering of the inclinometer instrument. Additional inclinometer 

casings were installed along the downstream toe of the left embankment, which 

fi nally indicated the deformation had stopped, after reaching a total of about 

6 inches of downstream deformation. There were no piezometers installed in 

the shale or the bentonite clay seams prior to embankment construction that 

might have indicated the amount of construction-induced porewater pressure 

in the foundation. Sampling and laboratory testing of the Graneros shale were 

performed, and fi nite element analyses were conducted to help judge whether 

a long-term stability problem was indicated by this foundation deformation.

This left embankment deformation in the foundation, which occurred during 

construction, appears to have been similar to what occurred during construction 

at Waco Dam in 1961, although not to the same degree. The left and right 

embankments were both completed and the dam and reservoir were put into 

service. Pueblo Dam will be discussed further in the Period V section.

 Teton Dam was constructed between February 1972 and November 1975 

with a maximum height of 305 feet above the streambed. The embankment crosssection was remarkably similar to that of Fontenelle Dam (see 2.14). The wide 

zone 1 core consisted of silt, fl anked upstream and downstream by zone 2, which 

consisted of (pit-run alluvium) selected sand, gravel, and cobbles. There was also 

a zone 3 miscellaneous earthfi ll zone downstream, with zone 2 constructed as a 

chimney fi lter/drain and as a 20-foot-thick drainage blanket beneath the zone 3 

and up the abutments. The outlet works at Teton Dam consisted of the river outlet 

works with a capacity of 3,400 ft3

/s and an auxiliary outlet works with a capacity 

of 850 ft3/s. The construction schedule required that the river outlet works be 

operational by May 1, 1976, but the contractor was behind schedule and only the 

auxiliary outlet works were operational to control reservoir fi lling.
113

2.14. Teton Dam sections. Top of JOtrrl use CO(JOCtly, £1 5J200 Mar II'S El SJN 3 [ Crut of dam J'Htprop ' ( rop of macltre capoctty. Ct5189 J 

l..rop (1{ dead Cf/Poetty, Et 50fOO 

Slnpptnt) OS dtrKI•tJ ../ 

t Crest (1{ dam 

L tmtts of c111aff trench 

above Et 5030 

J

1

Mtn, mot os dtrecled 

dependtng on noture of formatiOn 

Grout noll> ot appro• to' crs 

Et5199 

I 

CONCRETE GROUT C A P 

MA XIMUM SECTION WITHOUT CAMBER 

·r Y ·r 

SCAU OF FEET 

UPSTREAM TOE DETAILS 

(A BOV£ CJ ,1651 

CROSS SECTIONS 

on 110/u

20' Th!CA 

prop

to a 

but n

EMBANKMENT 

0 Sttectttl cloy, St/1, sand .gro•tl

roll us fO 6 ·mcb layers @ Stltcled sand, gra••l. and 

10 12·tnch loytrs 0 Mtscelloneous malefiOI compocl

t2·lflc:h toyers 0 Sttecled Stll, sand, grovel, and 

rollers to 12- /ncb layers 0 Podftll placed '" J· foot layers 

t Grout COP -1 

'?,...-;' _y_:

- "' --::;--;. 

·-lKif:

JO 

r. 

_ 

FOUNDATION KE
114

 Foundation grouting at Teton Dam consisted of 3 lines of grout 

holes up to 310 feet deep. A test-grouting program was conducted in 1969 and 

was to inject about 260,000 ft3

 of grout into the foundation. The actual test 

grouting program pumped twice that amount of grout during the pilot grouting 

program, and just two of the test holes took 16,000 sacks of cement and 18,000 

sacks of sand, for an equivalent total of about 34,000 ft3 of grout. During actual 

construction, the grout was injected into 118,179 lineal feet of drilled holes and 

totaled: 496,515 ft3 of cement, 82,364 ft3 of sand, 132,000 pounds of bentonite, 

and 418,000 pounds of calcium chloride. Looking at just the cement and sand 

grout materials, the above fi gures equate to about 4.9 ft3 per foot of drill hole, or 

an increase of over 50 percent compared to the initial grouting done at Fontenelle 

Dam. Beneath the zone 1 core, the rock foundation surface was cleaned using air 

and water jets and some open joints and cracks in the bottom of the key trenches 

and the cutoff trench were treated by installing pipes and grouting with a grout 

slurry, or by fi lling with specially compacted zone 1 material. Surface grouting 

stopped at elevation 5205.34 The instrumentation installed at Teton Dam consisted 

of surface settlement points and strong motion accelerographs; there were no 

piezometers installed in the dam embankment or foundation. Reclamation’s 

embankment dam design engineers made only two visits to the damsite during 

construction; the construction liaison engineer made six visits during construction.

 Data on the dam obtained during subsequent investigations were 

summarized in the paper “Teton Dam: Summary of Technical Investigations” 

by D. J. Duck, R. W. Kramer, and L. W. Davidson that was presented at the 13th

ICOLD Congress in New Delhi, India, in 1979.35 The zone 2 chimney fi lter 

and drainage blanket located downstream from the core was intended to: fi lter 

the zone 1, prevent water from attacking the zone 3, reduce seepage pressures, 

and transmit seepage fl ows to the downstream toe. The permeability of the 

zone 2 material was not tested prior to construction. The zone 2 contained 2 to 

12 percent silt fi nes, average 4.5 percent; had been placed at a relative density 

ranging from 80 to 120 percent, average 94 percent; and had a permeability that 

ranged from 0.7 to 39.3 x 10-6 cm/s, average 9.4 x 10-6 cm/s. The zone 1 silt 

had a mean horizontal permeability of 5 x 10-6 cm/s, which was just a bit lower 

than the average for the zone 2 material.36 These permeability numbers indicate 

that the zone 2 fi lter/drain material was nearly as impervious as the zone 1 core 

material. According to Peter Aberle, Field Engineer on Teton Dam construction, 

when it rained during construction, the water would pond on the zone 2 surface.37

It appears that the as-constructed zone 2 did not have suffi cient permeability to 

function as the intended blanket drain.

 First fi lling of the 288,000 acre-foot reservoir commenced in October 1975 

with the reservoir at elevation 5060. The design considerations required that the 

reservoir not be fi lled faster than 1-foot per day above elevation 5200. In early 

March 1976, with the reservoir 135 feet deep at elevation 5170, the fi lling rate 

limit in the design considerations was “relaxed” and fi lling rate of 2 feet per day 

was “allowed” to accommodate the high reservoir infl ows from a large snowmelt 
115

runoff. However, they had no other option but to relax the reservoir fi lling rate 

limit and accept the 2-foot-per-day rate of rise—the river outlet works weren’t yet 

operational! By early May 1976 the reservoir was 185 feet deep. The decision 

was “made” (note once again the inoperable river outlet works) around May 13th

to fi ll the reservoir to the spillway crest, which led to an average fi lling rate of 

about 3 feet per day, and a maximum rate of 4.3 feet per day. Teton Dam failed 

catastrophically on June 5, 1976, when the reservoir had reached the spillway 

approach channel at elevation 5301.7. The failure of this embankment dam 

killed 11 people, left 25,000 people homeless, inundated partially or completely 

an area of about 300 mi2 that extended 80 miles downstream, and did property 

damage estimated at about $400 million. This dam failure changed the Bureau 

of Reclamation in many, very signifi cant ways. The construction of Teton Dam 

therefore completes Period IV. The failure of Teton Dam will be discussed further 

in the Period V section. 

 During Period IV, Reclamation’s engineers continued to enjoy national 

and worldwide acclaim as they helped to advance the new fi eld of geotechnical 

engineering and its sub-specialty of embankment dams by conducting research 

and publishing reports and professional society papers. Reclamation continued to 

develop and make available information on its engineering work. A total of 6,000 

copies of the “tentative edition” of Reclamation’s Earth Manual were printed and 

distributed in 1951, followed quickly by another 28,000 copies of the “fi rst formal 

edition.” The Earth Manual was a huge success worldwide and was in great 

demand. A First Edition—Revised, Second Printing was printed and distributed 

in 1968 with 783 pages. The Earth Manual combined and revised three earlier 

manuals: the Earth Materials Laboratory Test Procedures; the Field Manual for 

Rolled Earth Dams; and the Earth Materials Investigation Manual. The Earth

Manual was prepared by Reclamation’s engineers in the Earth Dams Section, 

Dams Branch, Division of Design, and in the Soils Engineering Branch, Division 

of Research, with editing and coordination performed by John (Jack) W. Hilf of 

the Earth Dams Section. Reclamation’s Design of Small Dams was published and 

distributed in 1960, with a Second Edition released in 1973. 

 Reclamation’s instrumentation for and monitoring of embankment 

dams continued to be improved during Period IV. During the 1950s, several 

modifi cations were made to the piezometers used on Reclamation’s embankment 

dams. The tubing used between the hydraulic piezometer tip and the embankment 

surface was updated to polyethylene tubing. In the 1960s, the tubing was updated 

again to polypropylene. Reclamation researched and developed the use of 

carborundum disks in the hydraulic piezometer tips in the 1950s for improved 

measurement of porewater pressures. In 1959 the use of ceramic fi lter disks in 

the piezometer tips was fi rst attempted by Reclamation at Steinaker, Sherman, 

and Merritt Dams. The fi rst strong-motion earthquake instrument was installed at 

Hoover Dam in 1937, and Cachuma (Bradbury) Dam was the fi rst embankment 

dam to have one installed in 1954. There are now over 20 embankment dams 
116

instrumented with such devices. As noted earlier, Reclamation seems to have cut 

back on the amount of instrumentation installed in its dams during Period IV.

 During Period IV, the variety of equipment available for the construction 

of embankment dams continued to improve in size, power, speed, and effi ciency. 

As already mentioned, the wheel excavator used at San Luis Dam produced 

4,000 yd3

 per hour, and the earthfi ll haul trucks used there were 100-ton capacity 

bottom-dump wagons. The versatile front-end wheel loader with a bucket of up 

to 12 yd3 capacity was added to the construction equipment available. Earthfi ll 

compaction rollers and scrapers became self-propelled instead of having to be 

towed behind a Caterpillar bulldozer or tractor. After its initial use at Cougar 

Dam, the vibratory roller, both the smooth drum and later the tamping pad-foot 

varieties, became available for improved compaction of earthfi ll and rockfi ll 

materials.

Period V (1976-2002)—Reclamation’s History of Embankment Dam 

Design and Construction

 At the start of Period V, the failure of Teton Dam on June 5, 1976, began a 

chain of events during which Reclamation’s design and construction organizations 

changed dramatically. As already mentioned, the fi rst fi lling of the reservoir was 

very rapid, due to the earlier-than-usual high infl ows from a heavy snowpack in 

the mountains upstream. The reservoir infl ow peaked at around 4,000 ft3

/s in midMay. It should be noted again that Teton Dam’s main river outlet works in the left 

abutment, with a full-pool capacity of 3,400 ft3/s, was not yet operational because 

the regulating gate had not yet been received from the manufacturer. Only the 

auxiliary outlet works in the right abutment, with a capacity of only 850 ft3/s,

could be used to control the rate of reservoir fi lling, or to lower the reservoir water 

surface in the event of a Fontenelle Dam type of emergency drawdown situation. 

Hence, even if the main river outlet works had been operational, the releases from 

the combined outlet works would have been about equal to the infl ows and would 

not have been able to drop the reservoir pool as had been the case at Fontenelle 

Dam.

 On June 3rd, with the reservoir at about elevation 5300, two small seeps 

fl owing about 60 and 40 gal/min were found 1,300 and 1,500 feet, respectively, 

downstream of the dam at the base of the right abutment. On June 4th, a small 

seep was found fl owing about 20 gal/min at the base of the right abutment about 

150 to 200 feet downstream from the toe of the embankment. At about 7:00 

A.M. on June 5th, a survey party observed a leak coming from the right abutment 

at the top of a berm at elevation 5045. It was immediately reported to one 

of the fi eld engineers who drove to the dam, and at 8:15 A.M. he estimated the 

leak to be fl owing 20 to 30 ft3

/s. At about 9:10 A.M., a slightly muddy leak was 

observed exiting from the right abutment at elevation 5200, fl owing about 2 

ft3/s. The lower leak at elevation 5045 was estimated to be fl owing 40 to 50 ft3/s

at about 9:30 A.M. Between 10:00 and 10:30 A.M., a wet spot was observed on 
117

the downstream slope of the dam at elevation 5200 and about 15 to 20 feet from 

the right abutment. The wet spot quickly increased to a fl ow of 10 to 15 ft3

/s

and was eroding the material on the downstream slope. At about 10:30 A.M., a 

loud sound (roar) was heard, followed by the sound of rapidly running water. At 

about 11:00 A.M., a whirlpool formed in the reservoir about 150 feet from the right 

abutment and its diameter rapidly began to expand. By about 11:20 A.M., attempts 

to bulldoze rockfi ll into the opening (as had been done at Fontenelle Dam) proved 

futile (see 2.15).

 A sinkhole developed on the downstream slope shortly before the 

embankment crest collapsed at 11:55 A.M. (see 2.16), and the dam was breached 

two minutes later at 11:57 A.M. (see 2.17). This sequence of observed new 

seepage, wet spots, erosion, sinkhole, whirlpool, crest collapse, and embankment 

breaching took only fi ve hours from start to fi nish and the complete release of 

the reservoir followed. By 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. that same day, the reservoir had 

completely emptied.

 On June 8, 1976, just three days after the failure of Teton Dam, the 

Under Secretary of the Interior, D. Kent Frizzell, established the Department 

of the Interior Teton Dam Failure Review Group (IRG) that was formed to 

examine the causes of the dam’s failure and to make recommendations as 

appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such failures. The IRG was directed 

to “review the following aspects of the failure: geologic, engineering, design, 

construction, hydrologic factors, and all other pertinent background information 

and testimony.” The IRG was composed of representatives from several Federal 

Government agencies, such as the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Secretary of 

the Interior, Thomas S. Kleppe, and the Governor of Idaho, Cecil D. Andrus, 

2.15. Teton Dam: Downstream sinkhole at about 11:20 A.M.
118

empowered another review group of experts not associated with the Federal 

Government, who were referred to as the “ Independent Panel to Review Cause 

of Teton Dam Failure” (Independent Panel). The IRG and the Independent Panel 

operated simultaneously from June to December 1976, with fi eld investigations 

coordinated and the results shared by the two groups. The Independent Panel’s 

report Failure of Teton Dam was published in December 1976.38 The IRG’s 

Failure of Teton Dam—A Report of Findings was published in April 1977,34

2.16. Teton Dam: Crest collapsed at 11:55 A.M.

2.17. Teton Dam. Dam completely breached.
119

and its Failure of Teton Dam, Final Report was published in January 1980.39

The reports/conclusions of the IRG and the Independent Panel were in general 

agreement, concluding that the failure of Teton Dam had been caused by:

1. Internal erosion (piping) of the core of the dam deep in the right 

foundation key trench, with the eroded soil particles fi nding exits through 

channels in and along the interface of the dam with the highly pervious 

abutment rock and talus, to points at the right groin of the dam;

2. Seepage moving through openings that existed in inadequately sealed 

rock joints, and that may have developed through cracks in the core zone 

in the key trench;

3. Once started, piping progressed rapidly through the main body of the 

dam and quickly led to complete failure; and

4. The design of the dam did not adequately take into account the 

foundation conditions and the characteristics of the soil used for fi lling the 

key trench.

 Regarding Cause No. 1 above, it should be noted that the apparently 

impervious zone 2 blanket drain material probably confi ned the seepage fl ows 

and eroded zone 1 core material within the abutment channels, joints, fractures, 

and cracks all the way to the right groin downstream, and prevented the safe, 

proper interception and collection of the seepage fl ows. The nature of the damsite 

geology, the design of the dam embankment, the treatment(s) of the foundation 

bedrock surface and open joints (or lack thereof), the characteristics of the 

embankment materials, the defensive measures taken to control seepage and 

piping erosion, and the construction practices at Teton Dam were all too similar 

to those involved on Fontenelle Dam. The IRG and the Independent Panel both 

recommended that Reclamation should take certain specifi c measures to prevent 

the recurrence of another dam failure:

1. An independent board of review should be convened for each major 

dam project to review both design and construction at frequent intervals;

2. Design decisions should be formally documented;

3. Design personnel should remain involved with a project during 

construction, including frequent scheduled site visits; and

4. Major dams and their foundations should include an instrumentation 

program to monitor construction and post-construction behavior. 

Instrumentation data should be promptly interpreted and evaluated.
120

 In a July 20, 1976, letter, the Comptroller General of the United States 

was asked by U.S. House of Representatives’ Environment, Energy, and Natural 

Resources Subcommittee to examine the dambuilding procedures and practices 

used by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. The resulting 

report Actions Needed to Increase the Safety of Dams Built by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers was published on June 3, 1977.40 The 

Comptroller’s report discussed several concerns involving the dam designers, 

recommending that

We recommend that the Secretary of Interior direct the Bureau of 

Reclamation to establish written procedures to better ensure that design 

intent is achieved. In so doing the Bureau should: (1) evaluate and 

implement ways to improve the clarity of instructions, specifi cations, and 

drawings; (2) evaluate and implement ways to better ensure that onsite 

personnel fully understand the intent of the designers, and (3) develop 

and implement policies and procedures calling for more frequent onsite 

inspections by designers during construction.41

The Comptroller’s report also noted the comments made in the paper by Chief 

Engineer Bellport about the lessons learned after the near failure of Fontenelle 

Dam, and recommended that 

Thus, by averting a disaster at Fontenelle, the Bureau had seemingly 

learned a valuable lesson regarding reservoir fi lling. Yet, at Teton Dam, 

over 10 years later, the lesson was not applied.

and

We believe that the failure of Teton Dam and the near failure at 

Fontenelle Dam should clearly illustrate to dambuilders the importance 

of (1) a slow, controlled fi lling rate during fi rst fi lling to closely monitor 

the behavior of the dam and (2) an operable outlet of suffi cient size to 

release enough water to lower the reservoir level when emergencies arise 

affecting dam safety.42

 Reclamation’s organization and its state-of-the-practice in embankment 

dam design and construction at the beginning of Period V, which were thought 

to have been developed to as high a degree of capability and sophistication 

as any dam-building organization in the World, were immediately put under 

the proverbial microscope. In April 1977 President Jimmy Carter ordered all 

Federal agencies that build, maintain, or operate dams to review their dam safety 

practices. Reclamation Commissioner R. Keith Higginson named a team to 

review Reclamation’s dam design and construction procedures, and charged 

the team “to review expeditiously all factors relevant to safety of dams in the 

Bureau’s plan-design-construct-operate process and to develop recommendations 

which would assure that Bureau procedures follow acceptable standards...” On 

March 31, 1977, the Department of the Interior contracted with W. A. Wahler 

& Associates to conduct a program entitled “An Emergency Study of Seven 
121

Completed Bureau of Reclamation Dams.” All seven dams were recently 

completed structures, both earthfi ll and concrete dams. The seven dams studied 

by W. A. Wahler & Associates were: Crystal, Mountain Park, Mt. Elbert Forebay, 

Nambé Falls, Pueblo, Ririe, and Soldier Creek Dams.43 On November 29, 

1977, Commissioner Higginson announced a reorganization plan in which 

the decentralized fi eld structure was retained, and the Denver Offi ce became 

Reclamation’s center for technical review and support. On November 6, 1979, 

under Commissioner Higginson, Reclamation changed its name to the “ Water and 

Power Resources Service,” but changed it back to the Bureau of Reclamation on 

May 20, 1981, under Commissioner Robert N. Broadbent.

 Reclamation’s Chief Engineers (now with different titles, which began 

as Director, Offi ce of Design and Construction) during Period V were Harold 

G. Arthur, Robert B. Jansen (title was changed to Assistant Commissioner for 

Engineering and Research on February 1, 1978), Rodney J. Vissia, James Cook 

(acting for 3 or 4 months in 1982), Darrel W. Webber, Felix W. Cook, Sr. (the title 

was changed once again in October 1994 to Director, Technical Service Center), 

and by Michael J. Roluti.

 While Reclamation still had many dams and projects in its “pipeline” 

awaiting funding and construction at the start of Period V, environmental “clouds” 

had been gathering on the horizon in both numbers and power and they wanted 

to put a halt to the continued construction of new dams. The embankment dams 

that Reclamation designed and constructed during Period V generally involved 

even more diffi cult and complex damsites than had been built on before, and the 

resulting designs were more complex. Part of this increased design complexity 

was a direct result of the fi ndings and recommendations by the IRG, the 

Independent Panel, and the Comptroller on the failure of Teton Dam.

 The Wahler Reports on seven of Reclamation’s recently constructed 

dams presented some fairly alarming conclusions and recommendations. For 

example, on Soldier Creek Dam, the Wahler Report concluded that “there may 

be signifi cant risk of serious distress and/or failure associated with fi lling the 

reservoir behind Soldier Creek Dam.” And on Pueblo Dam, the Wahler Report 

concluded that “the reservoir behind Pueblo Dam should not be permitted to rise 

signifi cantly above its present level until certain supplementary investigations 

and/or actions have been completed.” After the fi ndings of the Wahler Reports 

were presented to the Department of the Interior (and Reclamation), Reclamation 

responded by beginning its own reevaluation of these seven dams, which 

included fi eld and laboratory investigations, new evaluations of the design and 

construction, etc. With the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the 

two Teton Dam failure reviews needing to be implemented, Reclamation made 

dramatic changes in its design and construction organizations.

 In 1978 Reclamation instituted its new Safety Evaluation of Existing 

Dams (SEED) Program under the Division of Dam Safety and reporting directly 
122

to the Assistant Commissioner —Engineering and Research (ACER). The 

SEED Program began a comprehensive review of dam design, construction, and 

operation records; analysis of material data; fi eld inspections; and study of any 

apparent defi ciencies. The Denver Offi ce’s engineering staff was increased to 

handle the enlarged program. A Technical Review Staff, also reporting directly 

to ACER, was added to the Denver Offi ce and was tasked with independently 

reviewing all new dam and major structure designs, modifi cations to existing 

dams and major structures, and the SEED Program. Reclamation also hired 

independent consulting engineers and other professionals to review and approve 

Reclamation’s dam design and construction work.

 The work by the Denver Offi ce to respond to the embankment dam 

concerns raised in the Wahler Reports included fi eld investigations that produced 

embankment and foundation samples, which needed laboratory testing to develop 

information on their engineering properties. This additional engineering workload 

and the laboratory testing workload for projects already planned led to an increase 

in the size and capability of the Denver Offi ce Laboratory. Improved electronics 

and computers were involved with the upgrading of the Laboratory’s capability. 

New testing equipment was needed in a few cases because of the nature of some 

of the dam foundation problems encountered and for testing new materials such 

as synthetic geomembranes and geotextiles. For example, the weak clay seams 

in the foundation shale at Pueblo Dam required testing for residual shear strength, 

which Reclamation had never done before.

 During Period V, Reclamation continued to design and build some notable 

embankment dams in the West. These Period V embankment dams included: Mt. 

Elbert Forebay, Twin Lakes, Palmetto Bend, Funks, Wintering, Red Fleet (Tyzak), 

Stateline, Choke Canyon, Sugar Pine, Ridgway, Calamus, McPhee, McGee Creek, 

San Justo, Brantley, Davis Creek, Jordanelle, New Waddell, and Buckhorn Dams. 

The Period V embankment dams generally had upstream slopes that ranged 

from 2:1 to 3.5:1 and downstream slopes that ranged from 2:1 to 1.5:1, with the 

steepest slopes at Jordanelle Dam.

 These dams were built on a variety of foundations, but after the foundation 

problems that in part caused the failure of Teton Dam, the foundation treatments 

constructed during Period V were more aggressive and more “complete” than 

those previously constructed. This included design details and features such as: 

more aggressive cleanup and mapping of foundations, foundation shaping to 

fl atten steep slopes and remove bedrock overhangs, more dental concrete backfi ll 

to shape abutments, lean cement (slush) grouting of surface joints, thorough 

blanket grouting in the upper 20 to 30 feet of the foundation-core contact zone, 

more lines of curtain grouting, and removal of more poor-quality bedrock in the 

foundation. The concrete grout cap used at Fontenelle and Teton Dams was also 

eliminated, grouting from the rock surface, removing any damaged surface rock, 

or using a reinforced concrete slab so that grout pressure can be applied to near-
123

surface rock. Blanket grouting is then done after the curtain grouting has been 

completed.

 The embankment dam designs changed in several important ways during 

Period V. The chimney fi lter/drains placed between the core and the downstream 

shell material were revised to use processed materials instead to ensure the 

prevention of internal erosion/piping. A processed transition/fi lter zone was used 

between the core backfi lling the cutoff trench and the downstream alluvium. 

Blanket drains were used against the downstream foundation. Processing of 

borrow soils or the use of imported soil materials to supply the fi lter gradation(s) 

necessary was used more aggressively in the chimney fi lter/drains and the blanket 

drains. These fi lters included 1, 2, or even 3 zones of different soil sizes and 

gradations where necessary to prevent potential internal erosion/piping. These 

fi lter/drain systems were interconnected and drained by a perforated toe drain pipe 

with emphasis on monitoring seepage fl ows. There was also more emphasis on 

inspection manholes and monitoring devices in the toe drain system, and more 

emphasis on the use of relief wells for deeper seepage collection. The design 

of the embankment constructed adjacent and around concrete structures such 

as outlet works and spillways changed, eliminating the seepage collars around 

conduits to facilitate compaction by the tires of heavy equipment rolling next to 

the conduit instead of regular compaction equipment such as tamping rollers.

Processed fi lters and drains were also placed around the downstream section of 

the conduits. New synthetic materials such as geomembranes and geotextiles 

were used in modifi cations constructed at several embankment dams. Several of 

the embankment dams noted above, including San Justo and Jordanelle Dams, 

were constructed close to major “active” earthquake faults in California and 

Utah, respectively. Starting with the early work by Esmiol, 26 Reclamation has 

continued to investigate and develop appropriate design requirements for its 

 embankment dams in the earthquake-prone western U.S. that have been used by 

many others worldwide.

 Like other dam-safety programs nationwide, the results of Reclamation’s 

Safety Evalualtion of Existing Dams (SEED) Program and the reevaluation of 

the existing dams determined that quite a few existing embankment dams needed 

to be modifi ed to improve their condition and to ensure their continued safe 

operation. A partial list of Reclamation’s modifi ed embankment dams includes: 

Jackson Lake, Helena Valley, Soldiers Meadow (not built by Reclamation), 

Fontenelle, Navajo, Casitas, Soldier Creek, Pueblo, Lost Creek, Twin Buttes, 

Twin Lakes, San Justo, Horsetooth (modifi cation under construction), and 

Pineview (modifi cation being designed) Dams. Reclamation has also been 

involved with the analysis, design, and construction of modifi cations to several 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) embankment dams, including Black Lake, Pablo, 

and McDonald Dams on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, and dams 

belonging to the National Park Service.

 Red Fleet ( Tyzak) Dam, completed in 1978 with a maximum height of 

145 feet above streambed, was one of the fi rst embankment dam designs started 
124

by Reclamation after the failure of Teton Dam. Its design cross-section included 

the new defensive features: a two-stage transition zone and chimney fi lter/drain, 

a transition/fi lter zone between the core backfi lling the cutoff trench and the 

downstream alluvium, and a processed sand and gravel drainage blanket beneath 

the downstream shell.

 Mt. Elbert Forebay Dam, completed in 1980 with a maximum height of 

92 feet above the stripped foundation, was built above Twin Lakes as part of a 

pumped-storage hydroelectric project. The original forebay reservoir was lined 

with compacted earthfi ll, but excessive leakage was detected and it could have 

triggered an ancient landslide, endangering the powerplant at the edge of Twin 

Lakes Reservoir below. The design was changed to add about 290 acres of 45-

mil-thick reinforced chlorinated polyethylene geomembrane liner covered by 18 

inches of earthfi ll.

 Pueblo Dam was identifi ed in the Wahler Report as needing certain 

supplementary investigations and/or actions while restricting its reservoir level.

Field investigations were performed and samples of the Graneros shale and 

bentonite clay seams were obtained for laboratory testing, along with work to 

resolve several other concerns. Soil testing was performed to determine the 

residual shear strength of the bentonite clay and the test data were used to reanalyze the stability of the left embankment. The analysis results indicated the 

downstream slope stability was inadequate and the left embankment had to be 

modifi ed to increase its stability. An earthfi ll berm 2,500 feet long and 

35 feet high was constructed along the downstream toe of the left embankment 

in 1980-1981. Subsequent analysis of the concrete buttress dam section and a 

concern about the low strength shale seams in part of its sandstone foundation 

resulted in some recent (1999-2000) modifi cations to improve its resistance to 

sliding along the shale seams.

 Soldier Creek Dam was identifi ed in the Wahler Report as having certain 

defi ciencies that individually or in combination could jeopardize the safety of the 

dam. Field and laboratory investigations were conducted and Soldier Creek Dam 

was re-analyzed by Reclamation. The results confi rmed that several concerns 

raised by the Wahler Report were suffi ciently serious that modifi cation of the dam 

embankment was justifi ed. A lack of instrumentation made it diffi cult to evaluate 

the performance of the dam embankment, which led to the installation of over 

25 piezometers in the embankment and foundation. The foundation bedrock 

surface preparation and the lack of proper treatment with lean cement (slush) 

grout placed in surface cracks, shaping, and dental concrete were of concern.

The single-row grout curtain also caused concern. The nature of the zone 1 core 

material and the fact that it was placed directly against the untreated foundation 

bedrock caused concern. The permeability of the unprocessed zone 3 chimney 

fi lter/drain and blanket drain material caused concern, as did the fact that the 

chimney fi lter/drain and the toe drains did not extend all the way up to the full-
125

reservoir water surface. Embankment and foundation drainage modifi cations 

were constructed in 1983-1984 to address these problems.44

 Fontenelle Dam continued to have seepage and internal erosion/piping 

problems after it was supposedly fi xed by the additional abutment grouting 

performed in 1966. Instrumentation monitoring data in 1983 indicated that a 

potential dam safety problem was developing, and the decision was made to 

modify the dam by installing a continuous concrete diaphragm wall through 

2.19. Fontenelle Dam: Diaphragm wall construction.

2.18. Fontenelle Dam: Section of embankment with diaphragm wall.
126

the dam and into the foundation. There were several aspects of the existing 

Fontenelle Dam embankment’s design that were judged to have been partly 

responsible for the failure of Teton Dam, such as vertical to overhanging abutment 

cliffs, extensive joints and cracks in the abutments, no processed material placed 

as a chimney to fi lter the erodible silty zone 1 core as protection against internal 

erosion/piping, and silty core material placed directly against open, unsealed 

bedrock joints, cracks, and crevices. Only one solution was judged to be capable 

of alleviating all of these potential problems, and construction of a concrete 

diaphragm wall from the crest of the dam down through the embankment and the 

upper highly-fractured bedrock was selected as the appropriate modifi cation (see 

2.18). The concrete diaphragm wall had to avoid damaging the river outlet works 

near the middle of the embankment and the spillway on the right abutment. The 

concrete diaphragm wall modifi cation was constructed between 1987 and 1989. 

2.19 and 2.20 show the rockmilling equipment used to excavate embankment and 

rock for the diaphragm wall at Fontenelle Dam.

 Black Lake, 

Pablo, and McDonald 

Dams are BIA dams 

on the Flathead 

Indian Reservation in 

Montana; Reclamation 

had designed and 

constructed Pablo 

and McDonald Dams 

between 1905 and 

1920. At BIA’s 

request, Reclamation 

investigated and 

prepared Safety 

Evaluation of Existing 

Dams (SEED) reports 

on these three dams, 

along with the other 

14 dams on the 

Reservation. Under 

a contract with the 

BIA, the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes entered into an 

agreement with the 

TSC for Reclamation 

to perform fi eld 

investigations,

laboratory testing, 

and engineering 2.20. Fontenelle Dam: Hydromill rock excavator for diaphragm wall.
127

evaluations to determine the adequacy and safety of the dams on the Reservation. 

Starting with the dam of greatest initial concern, the investigation and analysis of 

Black Lake Dam indicated it needed to be modifi ed to prevent a piping/erosion 

failure. The original Black Lake Dam had failed by internal erosion/piping in 

1967, and the replacement embankment dam was judged to have several serious 

defi ciencies that could result in another piping/erosion failure. Black Lake Dam 

was modifi ed in 1992 by the construction of a geomembrane liner installed along 

the upstream right abutment, across the upstream slope of the embankment, 

and as a liner beneath part of the reservoir upstream of the dam. A downstream 

drainage berm is scheduled to be constructed in the near future and will hopefully 

remediate the current situation.

 Pablo Dam was investigated and analyzed next, and it was determined that 

the upper portion of the embankment was susceptible to seepage, internal erosion/

piping, and potential failure. The upper portion of the dam was more pervious 

because two embankment raises had been constructed and had used more pervious 

earthfi ll material than the original embankment. A geomembrane liner was 

constructed in 1993-1994, covering the upper embankment to control/prevent the 

seepage that had been percolating through it.

 McDonald Dam was the third embankment dam investigated and 

analyzed. It was located about 1⁄2-mile upstream of the Mission fault, which 

had experienced a major earthquake about 7,700 years ago, and which was 

judged capable of producing a magnitude 71⁄2 earthquake at any time. The dam 

embankment had been constructed by Project Manager/Engineer Frank Crowe 

(Honorary Member, ASCE) using dumped and sluiced earthfi ll, with a puddled 

core created by sluicing the dumped earthfi ll (see 2.21). The embankment 

and an outwash foundation beneath part of the dam were judged susceptible to 

liquefaction and excessive deformation. Various alternatives were developed 

and evaluated, with the fi nal decision reached to completely replace the existing 

dam embankment, spillway, and outlet works. These modifi cations were 

designed by Reclamation which also provided the construction management 

services. It should be noted that the Construction Engineer for McDonald Dam 

2.21. McDonald Dam: Original dam in 1920.
128

Modifi cation was on the Design Team. The new McDonald Dam embankment 

was a completely different embankment design. The new embankment crosssection included: a textured geomembrane covered by earthfi ll and riprap on the 

upstream slope, an impervious earthfi ll zone behind the geomembrane, followed 

by an inclined processed chimney fi lter/drain, all of which rest against a large 

miscellaneous earthfi ll zone that sits on top of a blanket drain consisting of 

processed drainage material sandwiched between two layers of the processed 

fi lter material. The instrumentation consisted of piezometers in the embankment 

and foundation, embankment measurement points, and weirs to monitor seepage 

fl ows. These McDonald Dam modifi cations were constructed in 1994-1995 

and 1999-2000 (see 2.22), after which its behavior during resumed fi lling of the 

reservoir in 2000 and beyond went very well.45

 At the beginning of Period V, the failure of Teton Dam and the results 

of the IRG, Independent Panel, and Comptroller reviews resulted in many 

organizational changes as already discussed. Several of Reclamation’s 

embankment dam design engineers retired, leaving a small cadre of experienced 

engineers to work with the new staff of engineers then being hired to work on 

Reclamation’s new dam safety program and on the embankment dam design work 

already in the “pipeline.” That work has been going on for over 20 years now and 

is expected to continue for some time. Reclamation’s current dam safety program 

includes conducting in-depth reviews, referred to as Comprehensive Facility 

Reviews (CFR), which are performed mostly by in-house senior engineers every 

six years. The CFRs include an examination of the dam and evaluations of: 

the dam’s design, analysis, and construction; its structural behavior; its seismic 

and hydrologic hazards; its potential failure modes; its failure consequences; a 

2.22. McDonald Dam: New dam in 2000.
129

risk analysis; and its performance parameters. Reclamation has continued to 

develop, revise, and make available information on its engineering work. The 

Earth Manual is now in its third edition, with Part 2 published in 1990 and 

Part 1 published in 1998.1 Part 1 of the Earth Manual (now containing 1,270 

pages) includes updated information on properties of soils, fi eld and laboratory 

investigations and test procedures, construction quality control testing of 

earthfi ll materials used as foundations and for dams, canals, and other types of 

structures built by Reclamation. Part 2 (now containing 329 pages) includes 

updated information on properties of soils, fi eld investigations, and control 

of earth construction. Reclamation’s Design of Small Dams was revised and 

published as a “revised reprint” in 1977 and was revised again and published 

as the Third Edition in 1987.2 In the 1980s, Reclamation developed its Design

Standards, with Design Standards No. 13—Embankment Dams6 covering all of 

the embankment dam design issues and concerns; they are all continually updated. 

Reclamation has continued to make its technical publications available to the 

public. Reclamation has recently embarked on a new program, generally referred 

to as risk-based analysis of existing structures, to help with its decision-making 

process.

 Reclamation’s instrumentation for and monitoring of embankment dams 

continued to be improved during Period V. Since their fi rst installation at Fresno 

Dam in 1939, almost 2,800 hydraulic twin-tube piezometers have been installed 

at Reclamation’s embankment dams. Pneumatic piezometers have more recently 

been used to measure porewater pressures and vibrating-wire piezometers are 

now the piezometer of choice installed at Reclamation’s embankment dams. In 

addition to piezometers, other instrumentation often installed at Reclamation’s 

new and modifi ed embankment dams includes: observation wells, seepage weirs, 

embankment measurement points, strong-motion accelerographs (in earthquakeprone areas), and inclinometer casings with inclinometers to monitor known slide 

areas. One important aspect of current instrumentation is the use of automated 

monitoring systems at Reclamation’s dams, allowing timely monitoring of 

embankment dams in remote locations where winter access can be a problem.

Such automated monitoring systems also allow the data to be used by early 

warning systems. The monitoring data are collected by the TSC’s Structural 

Behavior and Instrumentation Group which automatically interprets and evaluates 

the data in a timely manner and alerts the appropriate design groups if any of the 

instrumentation data cause concern. Reclamation published its Embankment Dam 

Instrumentation Manual in 1987.46

 As usual, during Period V, the variety of equipment available for the 

construction of embankment dams continued to improve in size, power, speed, 

and effi ciency. For example, 2.23 and 2.24 show the construction of New 

Waddell Dam (1986-1992) and the size of the equipment currently used to 

construct embankment dams. Compare the end-dump truck in 2.24 and its 35 

yd3 capacity to the train of 4 yd3 side-dump cars used to construct Belle Fourche 

Dam in 1909 shown in 2.7. Also compare the large excavator in 2.24 and its 
130

2.23. New Waddell Dam construction.

2.24. New Waddell Dam: Construction equipment.
131

12 yd3

 bucket with the steam shovel at Belle Fourche Dam with its 21⁄2-yd3

bucket shown in 2.7. During Period V, synthetic materials such as high-density 

polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene were developed into new products, such 

as corrugated pipe, geomembranes, and geotextiles, that were promptly put to 

use on embankment dams where judged appropriate. New types of equipment 

related to these new materials and products were developed, and quality control 

tests, testing equipment, and detailed test procedures were developed, with 

Reclamation’s signifi cant participation in these developments.

Conclusion

 The information presented in this paper has summarized the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation’s embankment dam design and construction history. During the 

past century, Reclamation has designed and built some of the most signifi cant 

embankment dams in the West. Reclamation and its dam engineers produced 

many successes and a few failures during that period. Reclamation and its 

civil engineers, through the study of both success and failure and the sharing 

of the knowledge gained with all professionals worldwide, have indeed played 

a signifi cant role in the evolution of embankment dam design and construction 

during the past century. Starting before World War II, Reclamation has provided 

technical assistance to more than 80 countries and has trained more than 

10,000 international colleagues. It is hoped that the lay reader of this paper has 

gained some appreciation of Reclamation’s history and just how remarkable 

the evolution of embankment dam design and construction has been. It is also 

hoped that the design and construction engineers reading this paper have gained 

some understanding of Reclamation’s embankment dam design and construction 

history, and of the reasons for doing all embankment dam work with the utmost 

knowledge, care, and caution. One of the most important lessons learned from 

the failure of Teton Dam involved the need for embankment dam designers and 

construction engineers to work as a team, with their primary concern being the 

need to design and build the very best and safest dam possible.

Richard Lyman Wiltshire, P.E., recently retired as a Civil Engineer 

and Principal Designer in the Geotechnical Services Division, at the 

Technical Services Center of the Bureau of Reclamation in Denver, 

Colorado. He is a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(F.ASCE) and serves on its History and Heritage Committee. He is also 

a member of the U.S. Society on Dams (USSD).

Endnotes:

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Part 1, 3rd

Edition, 1998; and Earth Manual, Part 2, 3rd Edition, 1990.

2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, 3rd

Edition, 1987.

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Bureau of Reclamation 

Historical Organizational Structure,” Bureau of Reclamation History Program, Denver, 
132

Colorado, 1997.

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Public Safety, A 

Water Resources Technical Publication, by Robert B. Jansen, Revised Reprint 1983.

5. Eric B. Kollgaard and Wallace L. Chadwick, editors, Development of Dam Engineering 

in the United States, for the United States Committee of the International Commission on 

Large Dams, 1988.

6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13, 

Embankment Dams, 1986.

7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Development of Earth Dam 

Design in the Bureau of Reclamation, by F. C. Walker, 1958.

8. James D. Schuyler, “Reservoirs for Irrigation,” Eighteenth Annual Report of the United 

States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, 1896-1897, Part IV Hydrography, 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1897, pp. 617-756.

9. Edward Wegmann, Jr., The Design and Construction of Masonry Dams, John Wiley & 

Sons, New York, 1888.

10. Edward Wegmann, Jr., The Design and Construction of Dams, Including Masonry, Earth, 

Rockfi ll, Timber and Steel Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1899.

11. James Dix Schuyler, Reservoirs for Irrigation, Water-Power and Domestic Water-Supply,

John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1901.

12. James Dix Schuyler, Reservoirs for Irrigation, Water-Power and Domestic Water-Supply,

2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1909.

13. Hiram N. Savage, “Flood Overfl ow of the Sweetwater Dam,” Engineering News,

August 15, 1895.

14. R. F. Walter, “The Belle Fourche Dam,” Engineering Record, v. 53, pp. 307-10, 

March 3, 1906.

15. O. T. Reedy, “Construction of Belle Fourche Dam,” Engineering Record, v. 61, 

pp. 466-69, April 2, 1910.

16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Resident Engineer’s Diary—

Belle Fourche Dam,” 1907-1911.

17. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Belle Fourche Project History,” 

1910-1971.

18. Richard E. Goodman, Karl Terzaghi—The Engineer As Artist, American Society of Civil 

Engineers Press, Reston, Virginia, 1999.

19. J. M. Gaylord and J. L. Savage, High-Pressure Reservoir Outlets—A Report on Bureau of 

Reclamation Installations, U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, D.C., 1923.

20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, Washington (D.C.), 1929.

21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, Washington (D.C.), 1938, p. 232.

22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, Washington (D.C.), 1938.

23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, Washington (D.C.), 1938, p. 252.

24. G. E. Bertram, An Experimental Investigation of Protective Filters, Publications of the 

Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, No. 267, January 1940.

25. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, The Use of Laboratory Tests to 

Develop Design Criteria for Protective Filters, Earth Laboratory Report no. EM-425, 

June 20, 1955.

26. Elbert E. Esmiol, Seismic Stability of Earth Dams, Technical Memorandum No. 641, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Branch of Design and Construction, 

Denver, Colorado, April 1951.

27. F. C. Walker, Development of Earth Dam Design in the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1958, p. 18.

28. This design for Davis Dam was conceptualized by Carl J. Hoffman, an oral history 
133

interviewee of Reclamation’s history prgram.

29. James L. Sherard, Richard J. Woodward, Stanley F. Gizienski, and William A. Clevenger, 

Earth and Earth-Rock Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1963, p. 582.

30. B. P. Bellport, Bureau of Reclamation Experience in Stabilizing Embankment of 

Fontenelle Earth Dam, Proceedings of the 9th Congress on Large Dams, Istanbul, 1967, 

pp. 67-79.

31. B. P. Bellport, Bureau of Reclamation Experience in Stabilizing Embankment of 

Fontenelle Earth Dam, Proceedings of the 9th Congress on Large Dams, Istanbul, 1967, 

p. 75.

32. B. P. Bellport, Bureau of Reclamation Experience in Stabilizing Embankment of 

Fontenelle Earth Dam, Proceedings of the 9th Congress on Large Dams, Istanbul, 1967, 

p. 77.

33. B. P. Bellport, Bureau of Reclamation Experience in Stabilizing Embankment of 

Fontenelle Earth Dam, Proceedings of the 9th Congress on Large Dams, Istanbul, 1967, 

p. 78.

34. U.S. Department of the Interior-Teton Dam Failure Review Group (IRG), Failure of 

Teton Dam—A Report of Findings, April 1977.

35. D. J. Duck, R. W. Kramer, and L. W. Davidson, Teton Dam: Summary of Technical 

Investigations, Proceedings of the 13th ICOLD Congress, New Delhi, India, 1979.

36. D. J. Duck, R. W. Kramer, and L. W. Davidson, Teton Dam: Summary of Technical 

Investigations, Proceedings of the 13th ICOLD Congress, New Delhi, India, 1979, p. 7.

37. Peter P. Aberle, Field Engineer on Teton Dam Construction, Bureau of Reclamation 

(retired), personal communication, July 2001.

38. Independent Panel to Review Cause of Teton Dam Failure, Failure of Teton Dam, Report 

to the Department of the Interior and the State of Idaho, December 1976.

39. U.S. Department of the Interior - Teton Dam Failure Review Group (IRG), Failure of 

Teton Dam—Final Report, January 1980.

40. Comptroller General of the United States, Actions Needed to Increase the Safety of Dams 

Built by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, General Accounting 

Offi ce, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1977.

41. Comptroller General of the United States, Actions Needed to Increase the Safety of Dams 

Built by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, General Accounting 

Offi ce, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1977, p. 45.

42. Comptroller General of the United States, Actions Needed to Increase the Safety of Dams 

Built by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, General Accounting 

Offi ce, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1977, p. 61.

43. W. A. Wahler & Associates, Review of Design, Construction, and Operation of Crystal, 

Mountain Park, Mt. Elbert Forebay, Nambé Falls, Pueblo, Ririe, and Soldier Creek 

Dams (actually seven separate reports), for U.S. Department of the Interior Contract No. 

14-01-0001-77-C-10, Palo Alto, California, June 1977.

44. Richard L. Wiltshire, Soldier Creek Dam and Foundation Drainage, Seepage and 

Leakage from Dams and Impoundments, Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the 

Geotechnical Engineering Division in Conjunction with the ASCE National Convention, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, Colorado, May 5, 1985.

45. Richard L. Wiltshire, Gordon L. Wind, Chuck R. Cooper, Robert K. McGovern, Walter 

E. Heyder, and Michael R. Brown, Removal and Reconstruction of McDonald Dam, 

Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana, Proceedings of the 21st Annual USSD Lecture 

Series, U.S. Society on Dams, Denver, Colorado, July 30-August 3, 2001.

46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Embankment Dam 

Instrumentation Manual, U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, D.C., January 

1987.
134
135

Historical Development of Durable Concrete for the 

Bureau of Reclamation

By:

Timothy P. Dolen

Introduction

 Bureau of Reclamation infrastructure stretches across many different 

climates and environments in the seventeen western states. Many of the dams, 

spillways, pumping plants, power plants, canals, and tunnels are constructed 

with concrete. These structures were built from Arizona to Montana, across 

the plains and in the mountains and deserts. Concrete structures had to remain 

durable to resist both the design loads and the natural environments of the western 

climate zones. Many natural environments can be quite destructive to concrete 

and the earliest Reclamation projects were faced with a variety of durability 

problems. The state-of-the-art of concrete construction advanced from hand 

mixing and horse and wagon transporting operations to automated mixing plants, 

underwater canal construction, and pumping and conveyor placing. This paper 

fi rst overviews the challenges facing concrete construction in the beginning of 

the twentieth century. It then traces the Bureau of Reclamation=s role in the 

development of durable concrete to resist the environments of the west.

What is Concrete?

 Before we begin, we must fi rst understand what is concrete, the most 

versatile building material. The American Concrete Institute defi nes concrete as

 a composite material that consists essentially of a binding medium 

within which are embedded particles or fragments of aggregate, usually a 

combination of fi ne aggregate and coarse aggregate; in Portland-cement 

concrete, the binder is a mixture of Portland cement and water.1

The earliest concretes date at least as far back as early Roman times including 

the aqueducts and the historic Pantheon in Rome. These concretes did not 

use Portland cement as a binder. Rather, they used combinations of lime and 

 pozzolanic sands mixed with broken rocks and shards of pottery. 

 Most twentieth century concretes are composed of about seventy-fi ve 

percent aggregates by volume and about 2 percent Aportland cement paste.@

The paste is the binder and contains cementitious materials and water. The 

cementitious materials include primarily Portland cement and sometimes an 

additional cementing material such as a pozzolan. Pozzolans are fi nely ground, 

calcined (heated to a high temperature) materials that react with lime to form 

compounds similar to Portland cement. Natural pozzolans are heated by events 

like volcanoes. Artifi cial pozzolans are calcined in a kiln or furnace, such as fl y 
136

ash. The ratio of water to cementitious materials is about 1.5:1 by solid volume 

or 1:2 by weight. The individual components are mixed wet for about 5 to 10 

minutes, then placed in forms to harden into their fi nal shape.

 The chemical process that turns the wet concrete into a hardened mass 

is called Ahydration,@ a reaction between the cement and water that forms 

strong chemical bonds. Concrete does not get hard by drying like some clay 

bricks and lime mortars. It must retain the moisture to allow the cement to 

chemically hydrate; usually for about one month. The best concrete is one that 

stays continuously moist at a temperature of about 40 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, 

such as the center of a mass concrete dam. The strongest concrete contains just 

suffi cient water to chemically react with the available cement, about 25 to 40 

percent water to cement by weight. The weakest concretes are those that contain 

excess water or prematurely dry out, stopping the reaction from continuing.

Pozzolanic materials do not naturally harden through hydration with water; they 

must have added calcium hydroxide, or lime, to allow the reactions to take place.

Fortunately, one of the chemical by-products of cement hydration is calcium 

hydroxide. Thus, added pozzolan when combined with cement and water makes 

for even stronger and often more durable concrete. Cement hydration also 

generates heat and can lead to temperature cracking when the interior mass wants 

to expand while the exterior contracts as it cools. Thus, any means of reducing 

the cement content reduces the potential for cracking.

 The durability of concrete depends on the durability of its constituents: 

cement paste and aggregates. A concrete with strong paste may not be durable 

if combined with poor aggregate, and vice versa. One of the most important 

parameters is the Aporosity@ of the paste, which is a function of the amount of 

water relative to the cementitious materials. Excess water can dilute the cement 

paste leaving a more porous medium. This can be attacked more easily by 

deleterious substances and physical processes. The climate is a signifi cant factor 

infl uencing the long-term durability of concrete structures. One of the reasons 

the ancient structures have survived is because they were constructed in relatively 

dry, temperate climates.

Early Obstacles to Durable Concrete

 The turn of the twentieth century presented numerous obstacles to 

constructing durable concrete structures, one of which was population expanding 

across America into harsh climate zones. The quality of concrete was impaired 

by limitations of the quality of the materials and the methods of construction. In 

some instances, limitations on the quality of the basic concrete materials: cement, 

sand, and gravel, and the proportioning of ingredients impaired quality concrete 

construction under the severe exposures and harsh climates of the West. In other 

instances, the methods of batching, mixing, placing, and protecting the concrete 

limited the rate of construction and the overall quality of the structures. Lastly, 

the methodology behind concrete design and construction was just developing 
137

and was not well documented or distributed throughout the industry. A number 

of signifi cant events and innovations during the twentieth century contributed to 

the development of concrete as a durable engineering material resulting in what 

is now considered Amodern concrete.@ First, let=s look at durability environments 

and then the state-of-the-art developments related to constructing durable 

concrete.

Mechanisms of Deterioration in the Western United States

 There are about a half dozen environments that aggressively attack 

Portland cement concrete. These include the following:

 • Sulfate environment

 • Alkali-silica or alkali-carbonate environment—Aalkali-aggregate 

 reactions@

 • Freezing and thawing environment

 • Acid environment

 • Chloride (corrosion) environment

 • Wetting and drying environment

Concretes that remain durable under these conditions were proportioned in some 

way to withstand the elements, either accidentally or purposely. Some advances 

in the development of durable concrete resulted from observations of concretes 

that essentially used chemically resistant cements or Aaccidentally@ introduced 

benefi cial admixtures, and comparing them with those that rapidly fell to pieces.

 The three most critical natural deterioration mechanisms affecting 

Reclamation structures are sulfate attack, alkali-silica reaction, and freezingthawing attack. These three mechanisms are described in the paragraphs that 

follow. In many cases, concrete deterioration is caused by a combination of 

aggressive environments, such as wetting and drying in concert with sulfate attack 

in some California desert climates or freeze-thaw attack and alkali-silica reaction 

in the northwest. Here, micro-fractures caused by one destructive element 

allow moisture to more easily penetrate the paste and contribute to a secondary 

reaction. One environment common to United States highways and bridges is 

chloride/corrosion of reinforcing steel and the resulting deterioration. It was not 

a major deterioration mechanism for Reclamation concretes due to the absence 

of chlorides, that is, until some rather dramatic failures of precast, prestressed 

concrete pipe in the 1990s.

Sulfate Attack

 Sulfate attack is a chemical degradation of cement paste caused by high 

concentrations of sulfates in soils and groundwater. Sulfate attack is caused by 

chemical interactions between sulfate ions and constituents of the cement paste.

The disintegration appears to be caused by chemical reactions with cement 
138

hydration products and the formation of a secondary compound, ettringite, 

accompanied by a large volumetric expansion and cracking of the concrete. 

Sulfate attack was also known as Acement corrosion@ in the early 1900s and is 

very common in the white Aalkali fl ats@ of the arid western states and in seawater, 

particularly tidal zones. Sulfate attack was noted in Reclamation structures on 

the Sun River Project in Montana 

in 1908, shortly after the formation 

of the U.S. Reclamation Service.2

3.1 shows the disintegration of a 

concrete canal lining in the Central 

Valley Project only fi ve years after 

construction.3 Early observations 

in these failures identifi ed certain 

cement brands as being more 

resistant to deterioration in these 

environments than others. ABad@

cements were less resistant and 

avoided if possible in favor of more 

resistant Agood@ cements.

Alkali-aggregate Reactions

 Alkali aggregate reactions (AAR) are the chemical reactions between 

certain specifi c mineralogical types of aggregates (either sand or gravel) and the 

alkali compounds (generally less than 2 percent of the cement composition) of 

cement in the presence of moisture. 

Typical manifestations of concrete deterioration through alkali-silica 

reaction are expansion; cracking, which frequently is of such nature the 

designation Apattern@ or Amap@ cracking; exudations of jelly-like or hard 

beads on surfaces; reaction rims on affected aggregate particles within 

the concrete; and sometimes popouts.4

The reaction products have a swelling nature, leading to tensile stresses that cause 

cracking within the concrete. The 

cracking may allow moisture to 

more readily be absorbed by the 

silica gel or accelerate freezing 

and thawing damage.

 Alkalies in cement can 

react with certain Aglassy,@

siliceous aggregates such as opals, 

chalcedony, cherts, andesites, 

basalts, and some quartz; termed 

alkali-silica reaction or ASR, 

and certain specifi c carbonate 

3.1. Concrete canal lining on the Central Valley 

Project.

3.2. Alkali-silica reaction within concrete.
139

aggregates called alkali-carbonate reaction.5

 Alkali-silica reaction, shown in 3.2, 

was probably fi rst experienced by Reclamation at American Falls Dam in Idaho, 

completed in 1927. However, extensive freezing and thawing deterioration 

and poor quality construction practices masked ASR as a primary cause of 

deterioration at American Falls Dam. Some structures, such as Parker Dam and 

Stewart Mountain Dam, suffered early rapid expansion and distress, and then 

became relatively stable after a few years as the available alkalies and reactive 

aggregates were consumed early in the process. Other structures, such as 

Seminoe Dam, are showing continued expansion and resulting distress even 50 

years after construction.6

Freezing and Thawing Deterioration

 Freezing and thawing (FT) deterioration is the deleterious expansion of 

water within the cement paste resulting in destruction of the concrete. Water 

present in the cement paste expands about 9 percent upon freezing. When 

confi ned within a rigid, crystalline micro-structure, the expanding ice crystals can 

exert pressures far exceeding the tensile capacity of the paste, causing cracking 

and ultimately failure of the concrete. The concrete must be nearly saturated 

when it undergoes the freezing for this form of deterioration to take place. 

Repeated cycles of freezing and thawing are common in Reclamation water 

conveyance structures. Areas subject to cyclic freezing, such as the spillway 

shown in 3.3, and particularly those in fl uctuating water surface levels, or in 

splash or spray zones are the most susceptible to deterioration.7

 Freeze-thaw 

deterioration is most pronounced in more porous concrete having a high water 

to cement ratio and those concretes without purposely entrained, air bubbles; 

the very same concretes commonly used in early twentieth century construction.

Freeze-thaw deterioration was fi rst identifi ed early in Reclamation history under 

the general term of durability 

of concrete without specifi c 

causes or solutions. This form 

of damage is present in the 

colder and mountainous regions 

and non-existent in the desert 

southwest. A mixture placed on 

the All-American Canal would 

have no problems, but, the very 

same concrete placed on the 

Yakima Project would be severely 

affected.

 Developing the State-of-the-Art of Concrete Technology

 Even with quality materials, durable concrete could not effectively be 

mixed and placed in the larger Reclamation structures without new construction 

practices and equipment. The historical development of durable Reclamation 

3.3. A spillway showing results of cyclic 

freezing and thawing.
140

concrete can roughly be divided into four generations with regard to both 

materials and methods of construction. Each generation contributed to the 

knowledge base of the developing state-of-the-art. The fi rst generation of 

Reclamation concrete technology covers from its inception in 1902 until about 

World War I. These practitioners were the fi rst Apioneers@ of Reclamation 

concrete construction. The next generation, from 1918 until the late 1920s, began 

developing concrete as an engineering material. The Boulder/Hoover generation 

began in the late 1920s and continued up to World War II. This generation solved 

many of the fundamental problems encountered in massive concrete construction 

and developed many of the standardized quality concrete construction practices.

They uncovered the mysteries of sulfate attack, alkali-aggregate reaction, and 

freezing and thawing durability, leading to the fi rst truly engineered, modern, 

durable concretes. The postwar generation incorporated the basic concepts of 

modern concrete to a multitude of applications for dams, pumping and power 

plants, canals, and tunnels under a variety of differing site conditions. This is the 

fi rst long-lasting, concrete infrastructure.

The Early Years —The Concrete Pioneers (1902-1918)

 The fi rst generation of concrete practitioners developed the technology 

largely through trial and error and continued observation. The earliest concrete 

was composed of poorly manufactured cements, unprocessed aggregates, 

and was mixed by hand or small mixers. The materials themselves; cement, 

sand, and gravel were subject to great variability. The concrete mixture was 

proportioned by Arecipe@ based on previous experience, not necessarily as an 

engineered material. Many early Reclamation projects were somewhat isolated 

geographically and there was less communication beyond regional boundaries.

A change in location or structural design was not necessarily followed with an 

appropriate change in concrete mixture design, resulting in spotty performance.

Labor was cheap, equipment and cement were expensive. The resulting 

mixtures contained the least amount of cement necessary to meet low strength 

requirements, at least by today=s standards. Concrete was largely transported by 

wheelbarrows and compacted in place by manual tamping, spading, and rodding.

The production rates were very slow, resulting in frequent Acold joints@ or 

unplanned fl aws that allowed seepage and subsequent deterioration.

 A major change in building technology, the introduction of steelreinforced, concrete structures, at fi rst did not improve concrete quality. Pre-1900 

structures were more massive and used a stiffer concrete that was tamped into 

place. The resulting concrete was less permeable and somewhat more resistant 

to the elements due to its low porosity; water simply had diffi culty entering the 

matrix to cause damage. Reinforced concrete structures took advantage of the 

tensile strength capacity of the steel and the sizes of structural members were 

reduced. In addition to thinner structures, the reinforcing steel interfered with 

the placing and tamping practices. As a result, water was added to the concrete 

mixture to make it more fl uid and thus easier to place. However, more cement 
141

was not necessarily added, and the weaker more porous concretes started 

falling apart in the fi eld in only a few years.8

 The favorite phrase of concrete 

construction workers Aadd more water@ likely came about during this era and a 

century later concrete technologists still shudder at the request!

 The earliest Reclamation construction projects did not have the benefi t 

of a developed methodology and specifi c equipment for concrete construction. 

Construction practices gradually improved during the fi rst Reclamation 

construction era. Many structures fortunately utilized techniques that have 

helped them resist degradation. Theodore Roosevelt Dam in Arizona utilized a 

masonry facing and cyclopean concrete methods: large Aplum stones@ were placed 

followed by smaller cobbles and boulders and then the concrete was added to 

fi ll the remaining voids. This construction technique left large stones across the 

construction joint surface that reduced shear planes. The mixtures had a low 

cement content on a per cubic yard basis that reduced thermal cracking and the 

cost.9

 One construction advance called Achuting,@ shown in 3.4, resulted in poor 

quality concrete. An Aimprovement@ over the back-breaking manual hauling by 

buckets, long chutes were used to transport concrete to the forms. This permitted 

a centralized concrete batching and mixing location and larger batches could be 

fed to sometimes intricate, gravity-fed, chute systems. Water was added to make 

the concrete fl ow down relatively fl at sloping chutes. The extra water diluted 

the cement paste in the concrete. These mixes were much weaker and had poor 

durability. To discourage this practice, engineers fi nally specifi ed that the slope of 

the chutes could not be fl atter than about 35 degrees from horizontal.10

 The developing stateof-the-art had a few Ahiccups@

along the way. ASand-cement@

was introduced to reduce the 

cost of cement by inter-grinding 

crushed rock fl our during the 

manufacturing process.11 The 

fi nely ground rock fl our was 

introduced as a Apozzolan@

to react with the cement for 

increased strength, and indeed, the 

sand-cement mixtures had higher 

7- and 28- day compressive 

strengths compared to the control 

mixtures. However, the compressive strength development did not continue 

much after 28 days as is more typical of Portland cement plus real pozzolans.

Thus, the problem was the fi ner ground sand-cement reacted faster, but did not 

act as a pozzolan because the rock fl our was not calcined. Arrowrock Dam, in 

Idaho, constructed using sand-cement in 1915, was rehabilitated with a higher 

3.4. “Chuting” of concrete resulted in poor quality 

concrete.
142

strength concrete facing in the mid-1930s to stop continued freezing and thawing 

damage.12

First generation Reclamation concretes were vulnerable to sulfate attack, ASR, 

and FT deterioration. In spite of these problems, some concretes seemed 

remarkably durable. Engineers and scientists began examining concrete materials 

to try to improve the quality. Studies conducted at the Lewis Institute in Chicago 

beginning in 1914 shed new light on the engineering properties of concrete.

The Abrams Generation (1918-1928)

The fi rst major advance in concrete technology during the twentieth 

century occurred about 1918 with the publication of Duff Abrams’s “Design of 

Concrete Mixtures.”13 Abrams improved on the recipe proportioning methods 

through deliberate design practices with proportioning methods and mix design 

tables. Abrams’s classic research and his Awater to cement ratio law@ provided

the foundation of concrete mix design still followed today. He found concrete 

strength and thus quality could be controlled by the relative proportions of water 

and cement. He also found it was possible to design mixes for the same strength 

using different materials. Concrete mixes could be designed and proportioned 

to meet a variety of conditions and structural requirements. Stronger concretes 

were developed to resist deterioration by the environment. Researchers began 

investigating the fundamental physical-chemical reactions that were needed 

to advance the state-of-the-art. One of the fi rst inroads to developing durable 

concrete took place with the identifi cation of the chemical reaction products 

of cement hydration, and development of a method to compute the relative 

proportions of each constituent in cement by Bogue in 1927.14 This important 

step was necessary to formulate different compositions of cement. Without the 

knowledge of its composition, it was not possible to purposely change materials 

and manufacturing processes to enhance the performance of Portland cement.

 Concrete manufacturing methods also improved during the 1920s, 

including centrally batched and mixed concrete plants and systems to haul and 

transport concrete to the site, as 

shown in 3.5. The daily output 

of concrete plants increased, 

resulting in fewer cold joints.

The horse and wagon was being 

replaced by the locomotive 

and trucks. Larger projects 

were constructed, and moremechanized processes were 

developed. Still, the process 

of consolidating concrete was 

left to the common laborer 

through rodding and spading.

3.5. Delivery of concrete by truck from a 

centrally located concrete plant.
143

The fi rst methods to consolidate concrete with mechanical equipment were 

just being developed. Better treatment of cold joints was developed during 

this time, improving the continuity between adjacent placements. For the fi rst 

time, control tests were used to design and monitor concrete mixtures within 

specifi c parameters. Abrams’s generation of concrete technologists provided the 

foundation of knowledge for the next generation, beginning with the decision 

in December 1928 to construct Boulder (Hoover) Dam on the mighty Colorado 

River.

Boulder Dam / The “Hoover Generation” (1928-1945)

In 1928, the Boulder Canyon Act ratifi ed the Colorado River Compact 

and authorized construction of Hoover Dam.15 The size of Hoover Dam required 

a completely new technology for large-scale concrete design and construction. 

The Hoover generation raised concrete materials technology, design methods, 

and concrete construction technology to unprecedented heights. This generation 

of concrete technologists formulated large-scale research and development 

programs of special cements to meet the specifi c engineering properties for 

massive concrete structures. They answered some fundamental questions about 

cement chemistry and the effects on mass concrete. Solving these questions 

required close cooperation and communication between government agencies, 

manufacturers, contractors, and private and academic research institutions. The 

application of scientifi c methods to solve complex durability problems led to what 

we now know as Amodern concrete.@

 One of the fi rst steps required for concrete for Hoover Dam was to 

investigate the composition of cement to reduce the amount of heat generated as 

it hydrated. Extensive research on cement composition resulted in developing 

a low-heat cement for mass concrete, now known by the American Society of 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) as Type IV cement. The hydration product Atricalcium aluminate,@ abbreviated in a simplifi ed form as AC3

A,@ was found to be 

one of the principal compounds that generates heat during the hydration process.

Reclamation specifi ed the chemical composition of cement supplied to Hoover 

Dam in 1933 to assure a low heat of hydration. The low-heat cement also had 

improved durability because the low C3

A cements had better resistance to sulfate 

attack. This improved resistance to sulfate attack was the basis for specifying 

less than 5 percent C3A for cement used on the Kendrick Project in 1938; another 

forerunner of the ASTM Type V (sulfate-resisting) cement.16

 Construction of such large projects as Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams 

could not have been accomplished without advances in concrete aggregate 

processing, concrete manufacturing, transporting, and placing. The use of 

 block construction techniques, shown in 3.6, and artifi cial post-cooling reduced 

the potential for thermal cracking. Specialized concrete batch plants with rail 

transporting and Ahigh-lines@ or cableways, were used to transport and place large 

quantities in round-the-clock operations. One of the underappreciated advances 
144

in concrete quality developed 

by eliminating the backbreaking Atamping@ techniques 

of consolidation with the highfrequency, mechanical concrete 

vibrator shown in 3.7.17 Vibrators 

allowed a lowered unit water 

content of the mixture and thus 

lowered the cement content. The 

concrete generated less heat and 

became less porous, while costing 

less.

 The size of Hoover Dam 

required not only signifi cant 

advances in construction equipment 

and materials processing but 

also in construction project 

management and process quality 

control techniques. The designers 

and constructors of Hoover and 

Grand Coulee Dams were diligent, 

meticulous, and to some degree 

lucky. Fortunately, one of the 

chemical processes that could 

cause expansion, cracking, and 

deterioration of concrete; alkaliaggregate reaction, was avoided 

at Hoover Dam. The cements 

furnished to the dam had a high 

alkali content and fortunately, the concrete was mostly free from potentially 

reactive aggregates; though not by design, because the alkali-aggregate 

phenomena had not yet been identifi ed and studied.18

 Two of the indirect products of the Hoover generation were the founding 

of the Concrete Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, in 1931 and the fi rst printing of 

the Concrete Manual in 1936. The Concrete Laboratory and Concrete Manual

grew out of the need for a better understanding of the behavior of concrete and the 

control of concrete construction. Over 100,000 copies of the Concrete Manual

have been printed in nine editions and at least four languages. AConcrete schools@

were developed for training engineering and fi eld personnel, and have continued 

to this day. Reclamation concrete technologists were active participants in ASTM 

and ACI, serving as both committee chairmen and as president. This commitment 

to voluntary standards organizations continues today.

3.7. The use of vibrators allowed a 

lowered unit water content of the concrete 

mixture.

3.6. Block construction techniques reduced the 

potential for thermal cracking.
145

 As the United States entered World War II, the last two pieces of the 

durability puzzle were identifi ed and fi nally corrected. Alkali-aggregate reaction 

was encountered by Reclamation at American Falls Dam, and about 150 miles 

downstream of Hoover Dam at Parker Dam. While American Falls Dam was 

undergoing rehabilitation from a variety of causes, Parker Dam was just being 

completed in 1937. Within two years, cracks appeared in the dam.19 The cracking 

at Parker Dam was severe enough to warrant a large scale research investigation 

and a blue ribbon panel of consultants. In the end, the chemical reactions between 

certain altered andesites and rhyolites in less than 2 percent of the aggregates 

and the alkalies in the cement fostered a deleterious, expansive reaction called 

alkali-silica reaction, known as ASR20. First observed in Pennsylvania in the 

early 1920s at the Buck Hydroelectric Plant, ASR became a noticeable problem 

throughout the country in the 1930s and early 1940s.21 The solution to ASR was 

to use petrographic techniques to identify those aggregates with the potential 

for expansion and to specify a 0.6 percent limit of alkalies in the cement.22

Reclamation quickly instituted the low-alkali limit for concrete with potentially 

reactive aggregates by April of 1941.23

 The last major advance in developing durable concrete was the result 

of both accident and observation in 1938. In New York State certain highway 

pavements were observed to have superior performance when a particular brand 

of cement was used in the concrete. The highway departments began specifying 

this particular brand of cement for all their highway construction without fully 

understanding the reason for superior performance. Microscopic examination 

of the concrete revealed a paste structure containing tiny, entrained, air bubbles 

brought about by using beef tallow in the cement kilns during manufacturing.24

This produced the fi rst Aair-entrained@ cement, accompanied by signifi cantly 

improved freezing and thawing resistance compared to other cements. The 

microscopic air bubbles absorbed the expansive forces of freezing ice crystals 

within the paste, preventing micro-cracking. Though not a direct player in the 

initial identifi cation of entrained air, Reclamation began testing concrete for 

freeze-thaw durability in the mid-1930s. This included evaluating concrete, 

aggregate quality, and other additives, some of which may have accidentally 

entrained air. The perceived superior durability of Grand Coulee Dam concrete 

in the 1930s may have resulted from specifi cations allowing grinding aids during 

cement manufacturing that may have entrained some air.25 Anecdotal evidence 

points to other accidental introductions of air in concrete in the United States as 

early as the 1920s. These concretes were quickly rejected due to lower density 

and compressive strength! Higginson even refers to the possibility of forms of 

entrained air in stucco specifi ed by Marcus Vitrivius Pollio in the fi rst century 

A.D.26 Reclamation quickly changed their specifi cations and changed to airentrained concrete by 1942.27 By the end of World War II, Reclamation had 

fi nally overcome the three primary causes of concrete durability problems in the 

West, resulting in what is considered Amodern concrete;@ an engineered concrete 

capable of resisting the physical and chemical forces of nature. 
146

The Post-War Generation: “The Constructors” (1945-1990)

The post-war generation of concrete technologists applied the 

fundamentals of modern concrete to Acustomize@ it for a variety of new 

applications and over a wide range of different environments. This generation 

began as post-war citizen soldiers returned to the United States and continued 

through the cold war. These people were the constructors. During the fi fties 

and sixties Reclamation was completing Aa dam a year.@ Large, thick arch 

dams became high-strength, double curvature, thin arch dams. Projects were 

constructed across the desert and through 14,000 foot high mountain ranges.

Some of the largest water development and distribution systems were completed 

during this era, the Central Arizona and Central Utah Projects. The concretes 

used new additives to achieve greater durability, economy, and performance. 

These concretes should remain durable through the next century.

 One of the most signifi cant contributions of this generation improved 

durability and also made concrete less expensive. The purposeful addition of 

natural pozzolans in the early twentieth century was done somewhat as a costsaving measure and later to reduce the temperature rise of mass concrete. The 

Bureau of Reclamation began investigating a power plant by-product, fl y ash, 

in the 1930s and 1940s as a substitute for natural pozzolans in mass concrete.

The fi rst large-scale specifi ed use of fl y ash was at Hungry Horse Dam in 

1950.28 Reclamation continued research on fl y ash, yielding other benefi ts such 

as improving the sulfate resistance of concrete. In the 1970s cement shortages 

prompted Reclamation to begin using fl y ash in normal structural concrete and 

canal linings to save cement. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency=s

implementation of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, beginning in 

1980, strongly encouraged the reuse of recycled materials, including fl y ash in 

concrete.29 The long-term benefi ts of using fl y ash will continue for generations 

as these concretes are less porous and more resistant to sulfate attack and alkalisilica reaction, even more than with sulfate-resisting, low-alkali cements.30

 The advances in construction equipment design dramatically increased 

concrete production during this time. Large-size canal linings are now placed 

at ten times the rate as in the early days. Instead of adding water to increase 

fl uidity, superplasticizers are now added to make concrete fl ow like water, yet 

be twice the strength of its predecessors. Concrete linings were even placed 

under water to reduce leakage in unlined canals.31 Concrete vibrators capable of 

consolidating 25 to 50 yd3 of concrete per hour were replaced by 10-ton, vibratory 

rollers capable of placing 500 yd3 per hour in roller-compacted concrete (RCC) 

dams.32 It is interesting to note that the earliest Reclamation concretes were of 

such a consistency that they had to be manually Arammed@ into place. The era of 

Reclamation concrete dam construction concluded at Upper Stillwater Dam using 

RCC of such consistency that was mechanically Arammed@ into place!
147

The Present Generation and Beyond (1990- )

By about 1990, the last large dams were being completed and a new era 

was underway. Most of Reclamation=s construction program is now devoted 

to rehabilitation of existing structures. The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act 

of 1978 provided the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to construct, 

restore, operate, and maintain new or modifi ed features at existing Federal 

Reclamation dams for safety of dams purposes.33 As the inventory of dams was 

closely examined, it became apparent that many dams were in need of attention.

The safety of dams program recognized dams constructed prior to changes in 

the state-of-the-art in dam design and construction were candidates for funding 

under this act. In addition to dam safety needs, many aging Reclamation 

structures were in need of some type of repair due to the ravages of time. An 

example is Tieton Dam, 3.8, 

constructed in Washington in 

1925. The concrete lined spillway 

suffered from serious freezing 

and thawing deterioration. It was 

fi rst rehabilitated in the 1970s and 

again in 1999 with operations and 

maintenance funding. Concrete 

canals, power and pumping plants, 

and appurtenant structures are also 

being rehabilitated throughout the 

West. The present generation of 

concrete technologists benefi ted 

from four generations of research 

and development. They must 

continue to apply the hard won 

practical knowledge of their 

predecessors to maintain the 

existing infrastructure well into the 

twenty-fi rst century.

Conclusions

 This paper reviewed the most signifi cant causes of concrete deterioration 

and Reclamation=s role in improving the technology to the current state-of-the-art. 

Without durable concretes, Reclamation could not have developed the western 

water resources infrastructure we enjoy today. The development and rapid 

implementation of these advances kept Reclamation at the forefront of the stateof-the-art through the twentieth century. This has extended the long-term service 

life of our infrastructure well into the twenty-fi rst century. 3.9 summarizes many 

of the steps encountered in developing durable, modern concrete. Although the 

list of accomplishments is long, the author nominates the following as the Atop

3.8. Tieton Dam spillway rehabilitated in 1999.
148

fi ve@ contributions to durable concrete in the twentieth century (in chronological 

order):

 1. Abrams= design of concrete mixtures and Awater-cement ratio

 law@—Abrams applied engineering practices to concrete mixtures

 and he was the fi rst to institutionalize control of the water content 

 to improve concrete quality.

 2. Development of special cements to improve concrete quality, such 

 as low-heat and sulfate resisting cements.

 3. Development of the internal vibrator to consolidate concrete—this 

 equipment signifi cantly reduced the water content of concrete, 

 making it less permeable.

 4. Determining the causes of and solutions to alkali-aggregate 

 reaction and freezing and thawing attack—using scientifi c methods 

 such as petrographic mineralogical examination and long-term 

 testing to identify the parameters which affected the durability of 

 concrete under these conditions.

 5. Incorporating fl y ash in Reclamation concrete construction—fl y 

 ash improved concrete workability, decreased the porosity of the

3.9. Timeline for major improvements in concrete quality and the development of 

Reclamation durable concrete.
149

 cement paste, and improved its resistance to sulfate attack and 

 akali-silica reaction. 

 The modern concrete of today incorporates all of the advances of the 

past century. An example of 1 cubic yard of modern concrete will include the 

following ingredients and their proportions:

Table 1. Bureau of Reclamation “modern concrete” - one cubic yard of concrete.

Ingredient Mass

(lb/yd3

)

Volume

(ft3/

yd3)

ASTM

Specifi cation Comments

Air 5 percent 1.3 C 260

Air-entraining admixture for freezing and thawing durability

Water * 220 3.5 C 94 Suffi cient for 3 inch slump

Cement * 390 2.0 C 150

Type II, moderate sulfate resisting with less 

than 0.6 percent alkalies to resist alkali-silica 

reaction

Pozzolan * 100 0.7 C 618

Class F, AR Factor@ less than 2.5 for improved 

sulfate resistance, and decreased potential for 

ASR

Sand 1080 6.6 C 33 Fineness Modulus of 2.75

Coarse Aggregate 2120 12.9 C 33 1-1/2 inch maximum size aggregate

Total 3910 27

* Water to cement plus pozzolan ratio = 0.45 for superior durability in sulfate

and freezing and thawing environments. Water reducing admixture included.

The Author’s Closure:

The Challenge for the Twenty-fi rst Century—Identify, Protect, 

Preserve

 Reclamation must now face the critical task of maintaining the existing 

infrastructure to meet the needs of the twenty-fi rst century. The aging of concrete 

structures will require a major investment for continued operation. The most 

immediate needs are to protect concretes constructed before the Abig three@

durability issues were solved. Unfortunately, this only narrows the fi eld down to 

about the 50 percent of our inventory constructed before World War II. Of these 

structures, those constructed before about 1930 are in need of the most urgent 
150

attention. A decision support system for aging concrete is under development to 

evaluate the earliest structures and present information on their long-term, service 

life potential.34 With this information, Reclamation intends to present the status 

of our concrete infrastructure on a time-line to prioritize funding for protection 

before deterioration processes damage these facilities beyond repair.

 I was fortunate to have as a mentor one of the great Reclamation concrete 

technologists of his time, Mr. Edward Harboe. Whenever I had a question, I 

would stop and talk to Ed because I knew he either had the answer or knew where 

to fi nd it. Within a couple of hours, Ed would stop by after digging through his 

fi les to come up with the results of a long-ago study. In my opinion, many of our 

questions have already been answered by our predecessors. We must continue 

to preserve and to pass on the knowledge base that is our history. I would like 

to dedicate this paper to Ed and the many pioneers of Reclamation concrete 

construction, with special recognition the late Mr. G. W. ABill@ DePuy, my old 

boss, who passed away on January 3, 2002.

Timothy Dolen is a Research Civil Engineer and Senior Technical 

Specialist for the Bureau of Reclamation, Materials Engineering and 

Research Laboratory. He has been employed for 30 years as a civil 

engineer with the Reclamation Concrete Laboratory.

Endnotes

1. American Concrete Institute, ACI 116R, Report on Cement and Concrete Terminology,

Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2001.

2. Jewett, J. Y., ACement and Concrete Work of the United States Reclamation Service with 

Notes on Disintegration of Concrete by Action of Alkali Waters,@ Proceedings of ASTM, Vol. 8, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1908, pp. 480-93.

3. Harboe, Edward M., ALongtime Studies and Field Experiences with Sulfate Attack,@

American Concrete Institute Special Publication No. 77-1, Detroit, Michigan, 1977.

4. ADurability of Concrete Construction,@ American Concrete Institute Monograph No. 4,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 

1968, p. 59-60.

5. Meilenz, R. C., APetrographic Examination of Concrete Aggregate to Determine Potential 

Alkali Reactivity,@ Highway Research Report No. 18-C, 1958, p. 29-35.

6. Mohorovic, C. E., and Dolen, T. P., A1998-99 Concrete Coring-Laboratory Testing 

Program, Seminoe Dam, Kendrick Project, Wyoming,@ Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado, August, 1999.

7. Smoak, W. Glenn, AGuide to Concrete Repair,@ Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado, April, 1997, p. 4.

8. Engineering News Record Editorial, ASome Doubts About Concrete,@ Volume 90, 

February 1923.

9. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, Third 

Edition, Washington, D.C., 1954, pp. 57-60..

10. Walter, L. W., AThirty Years Experience with Concrete,@ Proceedings of the American 

Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, Detroit, Michigan, 1929, p. 54.

11. Savage, J. L.,ASpecial Cements for Mass Concrete,@ Second Congress of the International 

Commission on Large Dams, World Power Conference, Washington, D.C., Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 1936.
151

12. Studebaker, Claude, A., ATentative Report on Gunite at Arrowrock Dam,@ U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise Project, Boise, Idaho, January 22, 1937.

13. Abrams, Duff, A., ADesign of Concrete Mixtures,@ Structural Materials Research 

Laboratory, Lewis Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1918.

14. Bogue, R. H., ACalculation of the Compounds in Portland Cement,@ Industrial and 

Engineering Chemical Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 4, October, 1929.

15. Bureau of Reclamation, ABrief History of the Bureau of Reclamation,@ Bureau of 

Reclamation History Program, Denver, Colorado, July, 2000, p. 4.

16. Moran, Willis, T. ABureau of Reclamation Viewpoint on Portland Cement Specifi cations,@

1952.

17. McCarty, M. I., AHigh Frequency Vibratory Machines for Concrete Placement,@

Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 30, ACI, Detroit, Michigan, September, 

1933.

18. Private conversations with William DePuy, Concrete and Structural Branch, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

19. DePuy, G. W., APetrographic Investigations of Concrete and Concrete Aggregates at 

the Bureau of Reclamation,@ ASTM STP-1061, Petrography Applied to Concrete and Concrete 

Aggregates, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1990, p. 33-46.

20. Stanton, T. E., AExpansion of Concrete Through Reaction Between Cement and 

Aggregates,@ Transactions of ASCE, Vol. 66, December, 1940, pp. 1781-1811.

21. Kammer, H. A. and Carlson, R. W., AInvestigation of Causes of Delayed Expansion of 

Concrete in Buck Hydroelectric Plant,@ Proceedings of ACI, Vol. 37, June, 1941, p.665.

22. DePuy, ibid, 1990.

23. Dolen, Timothy, P. ACement History Database,@ Bureau of Reclamation, Science and 

Technology Program, Research Project FI908, Decision Support system for Aging Concrete, 

2000.

24. Lawton, E. C., ADurability of Concrete Pavement—Experiences in New York State,@

Proceedings of ACI, Detroit, Michigan, Vol. 35, June, 1939, p. 561.

25. Bureau of Reclamation, AEffect of the admixture, T.D.A., on the durability of concrete,@

Cement Laboratory Report No. Ce-33, Denver, Colorado, June 30, 1942.

26. Higginson, E. C., AAir-Entrained Concrete in Modern Construction,@ Presented before the 

Engineering Section of the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science, Boulder, Colorado, May 2, 

1952.

27. Price, Walter, H., AIn the Beginning,@ Bureau of Reclamation, Concrete Laboratory 

Technical Conference, December, 1981.

28. Bureau of Reclamation, “Laboratory and Field Investigations of Concrete, Hungry 

Horse Dam, Hungry Horse Project,” Concrete Laboratory Report No. C-699, Denver, Colorado, 

December 4, 1953.

29. Harboe, Edward, M., AFly Ash and the EPA Guidelines,@ Presentation to the Division of 

Design, February 1984.

30. Kalousek, G. L., Porter, L. C., and Benton, E. J., AConcrete for Long-time Service in 

Sulfate Environment,@ Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1972, 

pp. 79-89.

31. Kepler, W. F., AUnderwater Placement of a Concrete Canal Lining,@ ACI Concrete 

International: Design and Construction, Detroit, Michigan, June, 1990 pp. 54-9.

32. American Concrete Institute, Guide for Consolidation of Concrete, Committee 309, 

Detroit, Michigan, 1999.

33. Public Law 95-578, November 2, 1978.

34. Dolen, T. P., ADecision Support System for Aging Concrete,@ Research Project No. FI908, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Science and Technology Program, 2001.
152
153

History of Drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation:

A History of Subsurface Drainage in the Bureau of 

Reclamation

By:

Rodney G. TeKrony, Glen D. Sanders,

and Billy Cummins

Abstract

In the early days of the Reclamation Service, the criteria for irrigability 

of lands generally consisted of two elements: 1. Is water available?, and, 2. 

Can we get it to the land? Within a few years, many of the early projects were 

experiencing reduced agricultural productivity and reduced ability to repay 

construction loans because their soils were becoming waterlogged and saline.

By 1915 construction of subsurface drainage facilities had been initiated on 

several projects. However, at the time, subsurface drainage was more of an 

art than a science. Much of the world’s experience with agricultural drainage 

had been gained in humid areas which are quite different than arid areas. With 

no standards and limited knowledge of ground water movement, these early 

drainage efforts met with varying degrees of success.

 Faced with large areas of nonproductive land, several irrigation districts 

requested and were granted deferments in their repayment contracts. Congress 

responded over a period of some 30 to 40 years by passing a series of laws that 

progressively attempted to correct the defi ciencies in Reclamation’s project 

formulation procedures. The Fact Finders’ Act of 1924 initiated the economic 

land classifi cation in which lands were charged according to their potential 

productivity. The Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1925 reduced the repayment 

obligations for several districts due to nonproductive lands. The Reclamation 

Act of 1939 provided for periodic reclassifi cations to adjust classifi cations 

based on current productivity. The Interior Department Appropriation Act of 

1954 required the Secretary of the Interior to certify sustainable productivity 

of the lands by means of irrigation. This law provides that the Secretary of the 

Interior must certify to the Congress that lands to be developed for irrigation are 

suitable for sustained productivity under irrigation. This means that the lands 

must be drainable at a cost that is economically feasible within the limits of the 

repayment capacity of the lands.

 To meet this challenge, Reclamation drainage engineers developed 

scientifi c methods for conducting soil and water investigations and mathematical 

procedures for the design of subsurface drainage facilities. Reclamation fi rst 

adopted existing steady-state methods for drain design and later developed the 

more accurate transient state procedures that are in use today. The methods and 

procedures developed by Reclamation have proven to be successful not only in 

correcting problems that develop on irrigated lands but also in predicting the 

drainage requirement before water is applied to the land.

 Reclamation drainage engineers were also involved in the development 

of modern construction practices and in the development of modern materials 

such as corrugated perforated plastic pipe which is used in drain construction 

today.
154

 Even armed with the legal authority and the technical knowledge to 

develop sustainable irrigation projects, good drainage practices were not always 

followed. Political decisions that run counter to the best available technical 

knowledge have contributed to such actions as the Riverton Third-Division 

buy-back and subsequent resale, and the utilization of Kesterson Reservoir as 

a terminal storage facility for return fl ows. Agriculture in California=s fertile 

Central Valley remains in jeopardy because the planned outlet drain has never 

been constructed. The curtailments on the Oahe and Garrison Diversion Projects 

were in part due to misconceptions regarding drainage. While these decisions 

did not make use of the best technical expertise, they are nonetheless an integral 

part of Reclamation=s drainage history.

 By the 1950s, Reclamation had gained recognition as a world leader 

in the fi eld of subsurface drainage. Reclamation drainage engineers have been 

responsible for the construction of several thousand miles of subsurface drains 

that maintain the productivity of over a million acres of irrigated land in the 

western United States. They have also been actively engaged in successful 

drainage projects in many countries around the world.

 This paper includes brief discussions of how the need for drainage 

helped to shape Reclamation law as we know it. It also summarizes the 

development of scientifi c methods to ensure success. Some of the early projects 

that suffered drainage problems, and the challenges and successes in providing 

drainage, are also discussed. Reclamation has introduced these methods to 

solve irrigated drainage problems at the international level. We will address the 

international experience, and how the same methods and procedures are now 

being used to design corrective drainage facilities for dams and other major 

structures and to support environmental enhancement programs.

Introduction

 Drainage of irrigated lands by the Bureau of Reclamation began shortly 

after the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902. However, not until the 

late 1940s and early 1950s did engineers in the Bureau of Reclamation begin 

pioneering efforts to develop the technology of drainage of irrigated lands into a 

modern engineering science. (USBR 1993)

 In the early days of Reclamation, the criteria for bringing land under 

irrigation were quite simple. If water was available and if it was economically 

feasible to get it to the land, the land was irrigable. Within a few years of 

development, waterlogging and salinity became serious problems for some of the 

irrigation districts. Beginning in 1911 the Huntley Project on the Yellowstone 

River in Montana constructed subsurface drainage systems that were very 

successful in returning the lands to full productivity. However, subsurface 

drainage was more of an art than a science at the time. Much of the world’s 

experience with agricultural drainage had been gained in humid areas which are 

quite different than arid areas. A lack of standards and limited knowledge of 

ground water movement led to early drainage efforts which met with varying 

degrees of success. Huntley is located on coarse alluvial deposits that drained 

easily and were very forgiving if the drain was not placed in exactly the right 

location, orientation, and depth. For other projects, such as Belle Fourche in 
155

western South Dakota, the solutions were more diffi cult. Attempts at drainage 

met with limited success at best and in many cases they were completely 

unsuccessful.

 Faced with large areas of nonproductive land, several Irrigation Districts 

requested and were granted deferments in their repayment contracts. Over the 

years, Congress passed various acts aimed at developing a sustainable irrigated 

agriculture in the western United States.

 In order to ensure development of lands that could be kept in production 

within economic limits, Reclamation drainage engineers realized that they needed 

better methods of measuring soil permeability, a better understanding of soil 

salinity factors, and better drain spacing procedures. Working in cooperation 

with the U.S. Salinity Laboratory and other researchers who were struggling with 

the same issues, they adopted state-of-the-art standards for soil salinity, sodicity, 

and toxicity to various trace elements. Various in-situ permeability tests were 

developed and perfected. They adopted the steady-state drain spacing formula or 

ellipse equation as it is often called. Although several authors have published the 

same formula in different forms, Reclamation typically uses William Donnan’s 

version which was published in 1935. While the Donnan formula is generally 

considered acceptable in the industry, it does not account for variations in 

irrigation practices nor does it account for specifi c yield, the natural water storage 

capacity of soils. To address these defi ciencies, Reclamation engineers developed 

transient state procedures that more accurately defi ned the required spacing and 

provided for risk analyses of drain systems. The fi rst version of the transient state 

procedure, published in 1953, underwent various modifi cations for about the next 

15 years.

 When the Chief Engineer’s Offi ce was established at the Denver 

Federal Center in 1948, it included the Drainage Engineering Section. This 

marked the fi rst centralized effort to address drainage issues in Reclamation. 

Design standards were developed in order to achieve consistency of methods 

throughout Reclamation. The location, depth and orientation of pipe drains were 

designed to achieve the greatest system effi ciency. Materials used and gradation 

and placement of envelope materials were controlled by standards, as were 

construction deviation tolerances. The standards were generally monitored and 

enforced by the Denver Offi ce drainage staff.

 Within the organizational framework of Reclamation, the drainage 

discipline has been unique in that it has been intimately involved in every phase of 

irrigation projects, from the preliminary planning through design and construction 

and, fi nally, operation and maintenance (O&M). The offi ce originally designated 

Drainage Engineering Section later became the Drainage and Ground Water 

Division, and later still the Drainage and Ground Water Branch of the Engineering 

and Research Center. From 1953 to 1994, the Reclamation Instructions required 

each Regional Director to have a Regional Drainage Engineer on staff. This 
156

person was to ensure that the Drainage and Ground Water organization in the 

Region was properly staffed and that Reclamation drainage policy was followed. 

On the organizational charts of that period, the Drainage and Ground Water 

Branch was located in the Planning Division in two of the seven Regions, in the 

Construction Division in one Region, and in the O&M Division in four Regions.

The functional statements were nearly identical in all of the offi ces. There has 

never been a Drainage Offi ce in Washington, D.C., but for many years there was a 

Drainage Liaison position in the Planning Division.

 Construction techniques have evolved over the years, sometimes in 

response to Reclamation design standards. Contractors developed new and better 

ways to handle envelope materials and to maintain grade within the limits of 

specifi cations. 

 In the late 1960s, the plastic pipe industry developed corrugated 

polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride tubing for use in agricultural drains.

Reclamation’s Open and Closed Conduit Systems (OCCS) research program was 

deeply involved in writing corrugated fl exible plastic pipe standards.

 From the 1950s, through the 1980s, Reclamation=s drainage program was 

heavily involved in irrigation and drainage projects all around the world. The 

methods and procedures developed for use in the western United States proved 

to be useful wherever we went, and the experience gained in other countries was 

used to modify and bolster the domestic program.

 In 1978 the Drainage Manual containing “the engineering tools and 

concepts that have proven useful 

for planning, construction, and 

maintaining drainage systems for 

successful long term irrigation 

projects” was published as a 

Department of the Interior water 

resources technical publication.

 In recent years, the 

methods and procedures that were 

developed for agricultural drains 

are gradually being accepted for use 

in control of seepage from dams, 

slope stabilization, and other nonagricultural applications.

4.1. In October 1913 a Pioneer traction engine pulled an Austin elevating grader 

digging drainage ditches on the Milk River 

Project near Malta, Montana.
157

Legislation

Fact Finder’s Act (December 5, 1924), (ch. 4, 43 Stat. 672)

 The status of some Federal Reclamation projects of the western United 

States in the early 1920s was dire. Waterlogging and salinity problems were 

widespread and such conditions had not been anticipated. Lands were failing, 

farmers were failing, and costs for corrective measures were far greater than the 

costs originally anticipated. The U.S. Government decided to take action in the Fact 

Finder’s Act of 1924, which charged the Secretary of the Interior, the cabinet offi cial 

responsible for federal irrigation development, that irrigable lands shall be classifi ed 

with respect to their capacity to support a farm family and pay water charges. The 

Secretary was also empowered in that act to apportion equitably the total costs 

assessed against the irrigable lands so that they all would pay in accordance with 

their productivities. Thus, a federal irrigation development would be composed of 

lands having varying productivities and payment capacities, but all would have to be 

able to support a farm family and pay operation and maintenance costs.

Omnibus Adjustment Act (May 25, 1926)

 This act adjusted water right charges on specifi ed projects (Belle Fourche, 

South Dakota; Boise, Idaho; Carlsbad, New Mexico; Grand Valley, Colorado; 

Huntley, Montana; King Hill, Idaho; Klamath, Oregon; Lower Yellowstone, 

Montana-North Dakota; Milk River, Montana; Minidoka, Idaho; Newlands, 

Nevada; North Platte, Nebraska-Wyoming; Okanogan, Washington; Rio Grande, 

New Mexico-Texas; Shoshone, Wyoming-Montana; Sun River, Montana; Umatilla, 

Oregon; Uncompahgre, Colorado; and Yakima, Washington.) The adjustments 

were deductions from the total repayment of projects’ costs because of unproductive 

lands determined by land classifi cation. Lands that were found to be permanently 

unproductive, generally due to waterlogging and salinity, were excluded from the 

projects.

Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (August 4, 1939) (ch. 418, 53 Stat. 

1187)

 This act provides that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to require 

provisions in Reclamation water contracts for proper accounting, to protect the 

condition of project works, and to protect project lands against deterioration “due 

to improper use of water.” The contracts will also require advance payment of 

adequate operation and maintenance charges. This act requires the classifi cation or 

reclassifi cation of project lands from time to time but not more often than at 5-year 

intervals “as to irrigability and productivity those lands which have been, are, or 

may be included within any project.” The reclassifi cation is to be done only at the 

request of the water users association or other authorized representatives of the water 

users.
158

Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1953 (July 9, 1952) (ch. 597, 66 

Stat. 445)

 This was the fi rst law that requires the Secretary of the Interior to certify to 

the Congress that an “adequate soil survey and land classifi cation has been made 

and that the lands to be irrigated are susceptible to the production of agricultural 

crops . . .” before any appropriation for any of the construction items for a project is 

available. This requirement was repeated in the Interior Department Appropriation 

Act of 1954 and is generally cited under that law.

Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1954 (July 31, 1953) (ch. 298, 67 

Stat. 261)

 This act provides that no appropriation for any of the construction items for a 

project is available until the Secretary certifi es to the Congress that an adequate soil 

survey and land classifi cation has been made and that the lands can be successfully 

irrigated.

Drainage and Minor Construction Act (D&MC) (June 13, 1956) (ch. 382, 

70 Stat. 274)

 The so-called D&MC Act provides for funding up to $200,000 per year for 

irrigation districts to correct minor defi ciencies that developed after the transfer of 

facilities to the district for operation and maintenance. The district enters into a 

contract with the United States to construct or repair minor facilities not to exceed 

$200,000 per year. One of the more common defi ciencies is inadequate subsurface 

drainage. The law allows districts to construct drainage facilities as the need 

develops over time. In some instances, it has been used in conjunction with a much 

larger rehabilitation and betterment (R&B) contract in order to get the most benefi t 

from the dollars spent. The D&MC loan is repayable at the rate established by the 

district=s primary repayment contract and usually is tacked on to the end to extend 

the time of repayment rather than increasing the amount of the payments.

Food Security Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1354; 16 U.S.C. 3801-3862)

 The Food Security Act of 1985, otherwise known as the Swampbuster Act, 

makes producers ineligible for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture farm program 

benefi ts if they convert wetland and use it to produce agricultural commodities after 

December 23, 1985. The problem then becomes determining what constitutes a 

“jurisdictional” wetland. The USDA Soil Conservation Service (renamed National 

Resources Conservation Service) was charged with making that determination 

on a case-by-case basis. Rules for making the determination were published in 

the Federal Register on September 17, 1987, and by October 1, 1987, wetland 

determinations had been made on about 750,000 acres on 34,000 farms. (Schnepf)
159

 The Swampbuster Act did not have a profound impact on Reclamation’s 

drainage program because our mission is to maintain agriculturally productive lands 

in a productive state, rather than draining jurisdictional wetlands. Nevertheless, 

it changed the process in that every proposed drainage project is now subject to 

Swampbuster rules and we must be vigilant in avoiding incidental drainage of 

wetlands.

Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 (May 12, 1986) (100 

Stat. 418)

 This Act requires that Reclamation conduct investigations and provide an 

estimate of any trace elements or toxic substances which may be present in return 

fl ows from irrigation. In order to make this estimate, it is necessary to explore the 

entire soil profi le through which the drainage water from the project will fl ow.

Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998 (November 10, 1998) (112 Stat. 

3280)

 This act eliminated the certifi cation of land classifi cation requirements by 

striking pertinent language of the 1953 and 1954 Appropriations Acts and Section 

10 of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. Reclamation may seek to 

reestablish the certifi cation through legislation.

Development of Transient State Drain Spacing Procedures

 The Bureau of Reclamation used a steady-state equation known as the ellipse 

equation to determine spacing between drains until the early 1950s. An adjustment 

to the equation is made to account for dissimilar fl ow conditions where drains are 

placed directly on an impermeable soil layer (“on barrier”) rather than at some 

distance (“above-barrier”). The validity of the drain spacing obtained by use of the 

ellipse equation is dependent upon the assumed steady recharge of water to the water 

table. The steady-state assumptions seldom represent the conditions produced by 

intermittent irrigation applications nor do they account for water storage capacity of 

the soil profi le.

 Reclamation drainage engineers believed that more precise drain spacings 

could be computed using an equation that refl ected the typical pattern of irrigation 

applications with alternate drain-out periods and would also account for storage 

capacity. Reclamation drainage staff embarked on an initiative to develop a drain 

spacing procedure which would be applicable to widely varying soil and ground 

water conditions.

 During the 1940s and 1950s drainage fi eld personnel were making many 

drainage investigations of soils across the western United States. The information 

collected during these investigations included the capacity of the soils to transmit 

water; the amount, source, movement, and chemical characteristics of the water 
160

to be transmitted; and the available hydraulic gradients. The data they were 

accumulating were sent to the Chief Engineer=s Offi ce and were used by Drainage 

Division staff to develop the transient state spacing procedure.

 Ray Winger initially conceived the transient state spacing theory and 

recruited Robert E. Glover to develop the mathematics. (Winger 2001) Glover had 

previously worked on the heat fl ow formulas that were used to cool the concrete at 

Hoover Dam. (Cunningham) Because the physics of heat fl ow is very similar to 

the physics of ground water movement, Glover was able to adapt the heat transfer 

formulas for cooling a fl at slab with initial uniform temperature distribution to the 

problem of ground water movement to a drain. 

 In 1953 the transient state procedure used an initial fl at water table for drains 

above the barrier and second degree curve for drains on the barrier. (Dumm 1953) 

Winger and Glover worked together to adjust the shape of the curve based on fi eld 

data from the Redfi eld Research Farm on the Oahe Unit in South Dakota. William 

Ryan installed and monitored wells on the drainage research plots at the Redfi eld 

farm to determine the water table response to various recharge and drawdown 

events. (Winger 2001)

 In 1959 the Offi ce of Drainage and Ground Water Engineering sent a 

memorandum to all Regional Directors presenting new formulas which redefi ned 

the initial shape of the water table between drains to more closely match conditions 

found on functioning drains in the fi eld. (Maierhofer) This description of the initial 

water table condition for the drain spacing solution is important because it more 

accurately predicts the height of the water table than the formula with a fl at initial 

water table and relates the behavior of the water table to time, physical subsurface 

characteristics, and drain spacing. The validity of this new concept of water table 

shape over a subsurface drain was checked extensively using data from Australia, 

Canada, and the western United States. Good correlation was found between the 

computed and measured values. (Dumm 1962)

 In 1966 W. T. Moody wrote a computer program that used a stable fi nitedifference formulation to solve the nonlinear differential equations for various 

depths to barrier from zero to infi nity and a fourth degree parabola initial water table 

condition. This is the fi rst time the fourth degree parabola initial water table shape 

was applied to the drain on barrier case. This is the basis for the drain-out curves 

that were published in the Drainage Manual. (Cunningham) The curves serve as 

a tool for designers, eliminating the need to slog through the rigorous mathematics 

for each new drain spacing effort. The intermediate curves have largely been 

underutilized by the drainage community although recent authors are discovering 

this important work.

 The success of the development of the transient state formula in design of 

drains is due to the fl exibility of the drainage engineers at that time. They were 

willing to apply the theoretical to the practical and use the results to refi ne and 
161

redefi ne the theoretical. Glover, Maierhofer, Dumm, Winger, and Moody were 

also willing to look at fi eld results and revamp the formulas for transient state drain 

spacing.

Development of Design Standards

 It has been said that drainage is as much an art as a science. As quaint as this 

sounds, as long as it was true failure to achieve satisfactory results would always 

be a probable outcome of building complex drainage systems. On the Shoshone 

Project, for instance, many drains were placed at 12 to 14 feet below ground, 

depending on how deep the contractor could bury them. This was done in the early 

1950s in the belief that deeper was better without regard to scientifi c examination of 

the soil profi le. The problem was that the shale barrier was at 8 to 10 feet—above 

the drain—in most locations. As a result, the drains are painfully ineffi cient. 

Although the drains do seem to work as well as they would at the barrier depth, the 

spacing is too wide, because it was based on the deeper depth.

 Reclamation adopted the attitude that failure was unacceptable. The cost 

was just too great. With this motivation, Reclamation set out to establish design 

standards that would be as close to fail-safe as good science and responsible 

economics would permit.

 The Function Statement of the Drainage Section, Chief Engineer’s Offi ce, in 

1948 charged the Section with the task of developing Reclamation-wide standards 

for drainage. Design standards were needed to establish consistency and to protect 

the taxpayers and the water users from spending large sums of money for facilities 

that offered a low rate of success. Over the years, Reclamation=s policy toward 

ground water control has evolved to a stated policy that “. . . drainage construction 

is an integral part of all irrigation projects.” Typically, projects must demonstrate 

favorable cost-benefi t ratio before they are funded for construction. The cost/benefi t 

factor includes costs for providing subsurface drainage.

 The collector drains have always been considered a project cost, but 

the relief drains are not always so. In 1951, a general Reclamation Policy was 

established that “. . . construction of project drains on farm should be precluded or 

defi nitely restricted and that the land owner should assume responsibility for such 

construction the same as for other on farm development.” (USBR 1954) This 

policy was reviewed and modifi ed in 1963 to allow the cost of drains to “. . . be 

considered, depending upon the circumstances, as a project, or a farm cost.” (USBR 

1963) Since that time, on farm drainage costs are decided during the planning stage 

of all projects. Since subsurface drainage problems tend to indiscriminately cross 

property lines and are usually contributed to by the distribution system, drainage is 

nearly always considered to be a project cost.

 Among the original set of design standards was the placement of a graded 

sand-gravel envelope around all pipe drains. While gravel envelopes were used as 
162

early as 1911, their use was inconsistent and there was no specifi c gradation. Design 

criteria for envelope design, based on hydraulic fl ow properties as well as fi lter 

properties, were published in 1970. (Winger and Ryan) The resulting envelope 

enhances the fl ow of ground water into the drain while excluding soil particles 

which would clog the drain pipe. Along with the advent of plastic pipe came a 

plethora of synthetic envelopes that were cheaper and easier to install. Beginning in 

the 1970s, Reclamation tested many of these envelope materials. Every attempt to 

replace the sand-gravel envelope with synthetic geotextiles, fabrics, beads, or mats 

has resulted in inferior performance or complete failure of the drains. Each research 

effort concluded that the sand-gravel envelope, even with the greater cost compared 

to synthetics, is very inexpensive insurance.

 The emergence of corrugated plastic pipe for use in subsurface drains 

represents the most signifi cant change in design standards since the standards 

were developed. In 1968 the fi rst test sections of 6-inch-diameter plastic pipe 

were installed in the Kansas River Projects and in the Columbia Basin Project in 

Washington. Within 4 years, plastic had become the most popular material for small 

diameter drains and, within 20 years, sizes up to 42-inch-diameter were available.

Concrete pipe is still used in some instances, but clay tile has all but vanished, 

and asbestos cement was eliminated when asbestos was classifi ed as a hazardous 

substance.

 The advent of plastic pipe allowed for curvilineal design of drains to better 

fi t topographic features and eliminated the need for certain manholes. It also 

speeded the construction process as pipe is laid as a continuous unit rather than in 

3-to-5 foot segments. It also opened the door to high-speed trenchers, which at the 

time were not large enough to handle rigid pipe sections.

 The Reclamation drainage community is concerned with protecting the 

resources that Reclamation develops. If we develop fl ourishing irrigation enterprises 

only to see them deteriorate into salt beds and low value marshes, we have failed in 

our mission. Reclamation’s design standards and procedures, as described in 1977, 

(Frogge and Sanders) have remained nearly unchanged since that time.

Evolution of Construction Practices

 The construction of drains over the last century has taken as many forms as 

contractors and engineers could conceive. The following discussion is by no means 

a complete history of the evolution of construction techniques for drainage, but 

includes what the authors are familiar with or could fi nd in the literature.

 When the fi rst drainage problems developed on Reclamation projects, 

the solution was to excavate open ditch drains using a horse-drawn earth-moving 

implement sometimes called a “tumblebug.” The tumblebug was pulled by 4 or 6 

horses or mules. As it was pulled along, it would scrape up about 1/3 of a cubic yard 

of earth. When it was full, the operator moved a lever to raise the blade for transport 
163

to the waste area, usually the drain bank. To unload, the operator pulled another 

lever and the implement tumbled to an upside down position, spreading its load over 

a short distance.

 Some early subsurface tile drains were laid in an open trench and backfi lled 

to make a subsurface drain. One such undertaking on the Huntley Project on the 

Yellowstone River just east of Billings, Montana, in 1912 lasted 4 months, from 

June 1 through September 30. The Contractor was paid $2,618.40 while his costs 

were $2,602.64 leaving a profi t of $15.76. (USBR 1912) However, even in that 

time better methods were available. The ancestor of modern trenching machines 

was introduced on the Huntley Project in 1912. It was an Austin trenching machine 

that excavated a trench up to 8 feet in depth. It was joined a year later by a Parsons 

trenching machine with similar capability. Construction of 2500 feet of tile drain in 

one month=s time was considered good progress. Neither machine carried a shield 

for laying the pipe, so where trench walls would not stand, shoring was constructed 

behind the machine. Where the grade line was deeper than 8 feet, laborers dug the 

last increment by hand, 2 to 4 feet in places. (USBR 1913)

 In the summer of 1913 laborers were hard to fi nd, so the wage rate was 

raised from $2.50 a day to $2.75 and rubber boots were furnished. The construction 

crew consisted of 30 to 40 men and from 2 to 8 teams of horses or mules. (USBR 

1913)

 Another early mode of excavation was the steam shovel, the precursor of 

modern backhoes. By the 1950s most open drains were excavated by modern drag 

lines which are particularly well suited to ditch excavation.

 Subsurface pipe drains were fi rst installed by digging an open ditch, laying 

a bedding for the pipe, placing the pipe by hand, covering it with a gravel envelope, 

and fi nally backfi lling the ditch. Often the bedding consisted of wooden cribbing 

placed in the trench to support the pipe. The wooden cribbing was later replaced 

by coarse gravel material which will stabilize a trench that displays quicksand 

conditions. Surprisingly, open ditch methods of construction are still used in many 

cases, although the excavation equipment has generally changed to large backhoes.

 In 1951 a trenching machine appeared on the Delta-Mendota Canal in the 

Central Valley Project. This machine towed a sled-mounted shield for laying pipe 

and gravel envelope. The forward movement of the trencher was assisted by a 

cable winch with a block and tackle arrangement hooked to a deadman dozer. This 

avoided slippage of the tracks which would quickly dig into the boggy ground 

and the trencher would become stuck. Similar arrangements were used to assist 

trenchers to move over boggy ground as late as the mid-1970s. In 1955 trenching 

machines were working in the Gila Project in Arizona and the Heart Mountain 

Division in Wyoming. Both machines were ladder-type excavators and had shields 

for placing the gravel envelope and pipe. The Cook and Butler machine on the Gila 

Project was mounted on a halftrack with large steel wheels on the front. The wheels 
164

made traversing boggy ground nearly impossible. Another design problem was that 

the shield was rigidly attached to the machine, which prevented separate control of 

the shield and the trencher. The machine was still in use as late as 1969. The Heart 

Mountain machine was a Parsons model 310. It was track-mounted and the shield 

was completely separate from the trencher, having its own set of tracks and being 

towed rather than carried.

 The Jetco wheel trencher was developed specifi cally for conditions on the 

Columbia Basin Project where rock-like caliche layers must be excavated. The 

wheel was 16 feet in diameter and could excavate a trench to a depth of 12 feet. In 

the Republican Valley of Nebraska and in California=s Imperial Valley, quicksand 

conditions presented the most diffi cult conditions. There, Buckeye trenchers with 

ladder excavators and wide fl oatation tracks were developed. The Buckeye machine 

with its trench shield attached was 50 feet long and weighed 50 tons. It could place 

drains in fairly boggy conditions at a depth of 10 feet. It carried two large diesel 

engines, one to move the machine forward and run the digging mechanism and one 

to run the hydraulic pumps to adjust the depth of the digger and the shield.

 Both the Jetco and the Buckeye carried a trench shield in which the concrete 

or clay tile sections were placed by hand. A hydraulic lift was used to lower 2.5-foot 

lengths or Ajoints@ of pipe into the shield where a man placed it in position on a 

set of steel rails. A hydraulic ram pushed the pipe tight against the preceding joint 

and held it there as the machine moved forward. When the machine had traveled 

the length of the pipe joint, the man in the shield sounded a horn and the operator 

stopped the machine to allow another joint of pipe to be lowered into place. The 

machine moved a pace of about 50 feet per hour, including the stops. Later a dual 

ram apparatus was introduced which allowed continuous forward movement as the 

joints were handled. The pace accelerated to a dizzying 300 feet per hour.

 Besides the rails, the hydraulic ram and cramped quarters for a man to work 

in, the shield contained a chute for placing the gravel bed for pipe to lie on and 

another chute to place gravel around and over the pipe before it left the shield and 

was subject to trench wall caving. Often there was a spool mounted on the back 

of the shield to dispense a continuous sheet of plastic or asphalt saturated felt along 

the top of the pipe. This so-called blinding was thought to prevent soil from being 

washed into the pipe along with the drain water. That practice was discontinued 

when the hydraulics of the system became better understood. Most shields also 

carried a hopper for gravel material so that a continuous feed of gravel was made 

as the pipe was laid. With the advent of plastic drain pipe, there was no longer 

a need for a laborer to ride inside the shield. The man and machinery inside the 

shield were replaced by a chute through which the continuous pipe is fed so that the 

pipe and gravel envelope emerge from the rear of the shield as a single unit. The 

machines were not manufactured for placement of a gravel envelope around the 

pipe as Reclamation standards require. Contractors typically found it necessary to 

modify their new machines by attaching shields, strengthening bearings and shafts, 
165

and adding special controls before the new machine ever went to the fi eld. This 

procedure is still common in the industry.

 In 1970 a German-made Hoess Machine was introduced in the Republican 

Valley. The Hoess was a smaller, lighter weight machine with a high-speed chain 

digger. Although the machine could not lay solid pipe joints, it could lay continuous 

4-, 6- and 8-inch plastic tubing at 7 feet deep at a pace of 1200 feet per hour. 

Several more years would pass before larger-diameter plastic pipe was approved for 

use. Many contractors preferred to stay with their old machines rather than have 

two large machines on the job. By the end of the 1970s plastic pipe was approved 

in diameters up to 18 inches. The need for greater depth and larger shields to 

accommodate the larger pipe meant that many contractors simply converted their old 

machines rather than investing in the new smaller ones. During this time, several 

European companies introduced the larger high-speed trenchers that are now in use. 

Forward speeds of 2,000 feet per hour are now common.

 In addition to the accelerated rate of construction, fi eld drainage engineers 

found that trenching machines provided a superior product when working in unstable 

soil conditions. (Frogge and Sanders) In 1974 the fi rst drains for which a trenching 

machine was required by the construction specifi cations were constructed down the 

center of a primary street in Loup City, Nebraska. The purpose of this requirement 

was to ensure that the gravel envelope was placed in direct contact with undisturbed 

soil to form a strong hydraulic connection between the soil profi le and the drain. 

Construction specifi cations requiring the use of trenching machines that excavate the 

trench, lay the pipe and the gravel envelope are becoming a common practice where 

construction costs are high and the consequences of failure unacceptable.

 A longstanding problem for contractors building subsurface drains is 

operating heavy equipment on wet ground. In many cases, the drains are designed 

to remove excess water from land that has become perpetually marshy. A drain 

contractor in the Kansas River Projects solved this problem by constructing 

through such areas in midwinter when there was a foot or more of frost. Using a 

concrete saw, two cuts were made through the frost layer, one foot on each side of 

centerline. The blocks of frozen soil were removed with a backhoe making a slot 

for the trenching machine to work through. This operation required great caution to 

avoid placing frozen chunks in the backfi ll, which is forbidden by the specifi cations. 

Another solution was the use of fl otation tracks. In the early 1980s, a Hollanddrain 

trencher having tracks that were 4 feet wide was used on the Riverton Project. It 

could easily trench through ground so soft that walking was diffi cult.

 With the early trenching machines, grade control was done one pipe joint 

at a time and the digger was adjusted as needed. As speed increased, contractors 

began using a string line which the operator tried to follow (with varying degrees of 

success) to maintain grade. Another approach to grade control was a line of targets. 

This line of targets was set up in the fi eld at an exact elevation above the grade 

line. The operator sighted on these targets and lined up two targets attached to the 
166

digging apparatus with the line of targets in the fi eld. The targets were more reliable 

than the string lines, but still required a skilled operator to maintain an acceptable 

grade on the drainpipe. Along with the high-speed trenchers came laser-controlled 

grade where the operator adjusted the machine according to a red laser dot that was 

aimed at the control panel. Often the laser beam would be warped by the heat of 

the trenching machine=s engine, making the dot much larger than the permissible 

deviation from grade. Sometimes the dot would disappear entirely. That system 

was quickly replaced by laser planes that project a plane of laser light on the correct 

slope over the entire fi eld by a revolving laser sending unit. The plane is intercepted 

by sensors on the trenching machine; the sensors signal the hydraulic controls 

several times per minute to adjust the digger and the shield up or down as needed.

Interference from engine heat has been overcome by placing the sensors on masts, 

several feet above the machine.

 The September 1955 issue of Intermountain Industry Magazine featured a 

machine developed by Sumner G. Margetts & Company of Salt Lake City, Utah, 

claiming it was “The only machine of its type in the world (government approved).” 

The manufacturer was not identifi ed and photos appear to be different from any of 

the machines discussed earlier in this writing, indicating that at that time there were 

at least 4 such machines in existence. However, as revolutionary as these giant 

machines were they never became common construction industry equipment. A 

total of 12 machines were reported to be in operation in 1977, (Frogge and Sanders) 

and in the United States, there are currently less than 10 operable machines with a 

depth capability greater than 8 feet.

Operation and Maintenance

 As noted earlier, the Drainage and Ground Water function organizationally 

resided in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Division in four of the seven 

Regions for nearly 50 years. This was due in part to the reality that drainage 

problems usually arose after the projects had been transferred to the O&M Division. 

However, regardless of their position on the organizational chart, the maintenance of 

drains after construction was the responsibility of the Regional Drainage Engineer 

with the support of the Projects Offi ce Drainage Branches.

 The same observation well network that is used for planning and design is 

used to monitor the effectiveness of drain systems after they are built. Usually, the 

records of ground water fl uctuation are maintained by the same drainage personnel 

who installed the wells. Most drainage offi ces in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 

maintained handwritten or typed records of all the well readings within their project 

area. The wells were measured 2 to 12 times a year, depending on the relative need 

for detail. Hand-drawn hydrographs of the measurements were updated annually 

and kept in three-ring binders for ready access. In more recent times, the records are 

usually kept electronically, and, thanks to modern software, hydrographs are printed 

as needed. The hydrographs are used to forecast emerging drainage needs in time 

to plan and execute corrective measures before they became a serious economic 
167

burden on the landowners or the irrigation district. The hydrographs are also useful 

in diagnosing defi ciencies in existing drainage works.

 In projects where drainage was a major factor, drainage personnel typically 

participated in scheduled reviews of maintenance along with the distribution system 

O&M experts. When problems developed in drainage systems, the drainage staff 

advised O&M forces on methods of repair and, in many cases, actively participated 

in the repair, as they still do. Through the years, these kinds of activities have aided 

in verifi cation of design criteria and methods.

Early Experience

 Many of the fi rst wave of Reclamation projects experienced severe 

drainage problems within a few years. Efforts to correct drainage defi ciencies met 

with varying degrees of success. The experiences of some of these early projects 

are recounted here.

Belle Fourche Project

 The Belle Fourche Project was among the fi rst Reclamation projects to 

be developed. The project was initiated with studies in 1903 and authorized 

in 1904. By 1910 many of the facilities were in place and water was being 

delivered. However, by 1912, seeped areas totaling 1,420 acres were scattered 

over most of the project. By 1914 the seeped areas had grown to 2,500 acres and, 

by 1917 they were estimated to be 35,000 acres. Small drainage districts were 

formed and managed to get several thousand acres relieved of water charges. 

Notes from a landowners meeting in 1920 state, “It begins to look like the only 

way to accomplish drainage of the project would be to have an order from the 

Secretary of the Interior with provision that the costs be charged to Operation 

and Maintenance of the Project.” (USBR 1920) The district requested and was 

granted a delay in the repayment contract. The 1926 Omnibus bill provided an 

adjustment to water charges due to drainage defi ciencies.

 From 1917 to 1930 a drainage construction program was carried out 

to correct the problems. Some 230 miles of drains, mostly open ditch, were 

constructed. Over the years, the Soil Conservation Service constructed buried 

pipe drains on many of the fi elds. Even that effort was not fully successful in 

relieving the drainage problems. Improved irrigation practices have helped. In 

1984 the District entered into a Rehabilitation and Betterment (R&B) contract 

with Reclamation. Work done under the R&B put most smaller irrigation 

laterals in pipe and lined many of the larger ditches, thus eliminating many 

sources of seepage. In the1990s a land reclassifi cation placed some of the more 

unproductive lands into class 6 (nonirrigable). All of these actions have improved 

the overall situation, but parts of the district suffer from unresolved drainage 

problems to this day.
168

Huntley Project

 Huntley Project was authorized in 1905 and many of the facilities were 

completed by 1908. As was the case on the Belle Fourche Project, within a 

few years serious waterlogging problems developed—but with a much happier 

outcome. In 1911 there were 

160 acres of waterlogged land 

and “another 40 farms where 

seepage has shown up.” (USBR 

1911) Even as drains were being 

constructed and successfully 

relieved seepage problems, the 

problems continued to grow. In 

1914 there were 1,426 acres 

“waterlogged” and 8,000 acres 

“threatened” (USBR 1914), but 

by 1920 construction had caught 

up with demand and the problem 

was well under control.

 From 1911 to 1920 some 65 miles of drains were constructed, most of 

which were clay tile. Eventually, the total drainage on the project reached 186 

miles. (USBR 1981) The manholes or “trap boxes” as they were called, were 3 

feet square, made of creosote-treated wood, with 6-inch by 6-inch vertical timber 

corners and sides consisting of 2-inch planks. Some of these manholes have been 

replaced by corrugated metal pipe, but many of them are still in use. As to the 

effectiveness of the drains, they were nearly 100 percent successful and continue 

to function with minimal maintenance.

Newlands Project

 The USBR Dataweb provides the early project history:

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) began 

investigations into possible irrigation projects in the Truckee and Carson 

River Basins in the late 1880s. In 1902, the newly organized United 

States Reclamation Service took over investigations. On March 14, 

1903, the Secretary of the Interior authorized the Truckee-Carson Project, 

making it one of the fi rst projects authorized for construction by the 

Reclamation Service.

 Work on the Truckee-Carson Project began in mid-1903. The 

original plan proposed reclamation of over 300,000 acres of land in 

western Nevada. (Eventually the service area included about 73,000 

acres. (USBR 1981))... The fi rst water deliveries to project settlers 

began in February 1906. ...

4.2. An Austin trencher digging a drain on the 

North Platte Project in 1917.
169

 As early as 1908 it had been recognized that there were serious 

problems throughout the project. In spite [of] the Reclamation Service’s 

belief that soils would support a wide variety of crops, that suffi cient 

water would be available to farms, and that markets existed for produce, 

many entrymen soon discovered that a forty-acre farm was too small to 

produce an adequate income, that irrigation water did not drain properly, 

and that little water was available during the later part of the irrigation 

season. By 1912, large areas on the project were saturated and unusable, 

and farm prices were much lower than expected. Drainage ditches 

excavated in 1906 did not suffi ciently drain irrigated fi elds, and the water 

table was very near the surface, saturating the root zone.

 Lack of adequate drainage was a signifi cant impediment to 

successful farming in the region. Area water users formed an informal 

organization and began to demand that the Reclamation Service 

provide a solution to the drainage problem. Confl icts over who was 

responsible delayed resolution of the situation. The water users claimed 

that the Reclamation Service had promised adequate drainage, while 

the Reclamation Service contended that the problem was due to overirrigation and that the farmers should assume the cost of constructing 

a drainage system. Offers by the Reclamation Service to correct 

the drainage problems with the costs paid by the water users were 

overwhelmingly rejected.

 In 1916, after several years of resisting the formation of a 

formal water users organization, the Reclamation Service proposed to 

begin work on a drainage system as soon as an irrigation district could 

be formed that could contract for payment of the costs of the drainage 

system. In March 1917, the Nevada Legislature passed a bill approving 

formation of the irrigation district, and on November 16, the TruckeeCarson Irrigation District (TCID) was created by a vote of nine-to-one in 

favor of organization.

 A contract for construction of a drainage system was not 

approved until 1921, and a second contract had to be approved in 1924.

By 1928, when work under the contracts was complete, more than 230 

miles of drains had been excavated. ...

 Following World War I, conditions on many Reclamation 

projects had become so bad with many farmers unable to fulfi ll their 

payment obligations that the Secretary of the Interior appointed 

a fact fi nding commission to investigate the situation and make 

recommendations. The commission determined that by 1926, $7,899,479 

had been spent on the Newlands Project. Of that amount, the 

commission determined that $4,437,820 had been spent without proper 

cause and that the water users should not be responsible for repayment 

of that amount. The Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 relieved the water 

users of that amount and gave them forty years to repay the remaining 

$3,281,999. (USBR Dataweb)
170

 Although the drainage system was considered complete upon completion 

of the contracts in 1928, drainage work continued at a slower pace. In a trip 

report dated October 28, 1964, Ray J. Winger, Jr., reported “. . . a total of about 

335 miles of open drains.” Winger also noted that they observed several small 

areas of 100 acres or so that needed additional drainage for good production. He 

was told that the farmers do not want drainage because they believed they were 

benefi ting from subirrigation. He noted that, “Under these circumstances, the 

lands are becoming salinized. Without drainage they will eventually become 

suffi ciently saline to limit or preclude crop production.” (Winger 1964) His 

conclusion was apparently acted on because a 1985 land classifi cation report 

by Reclamation says, “A maze of nearly 400 miles [additional 65 miles] of 

open drains and 4 miles of closed drains presently serve the Newlands Project.”

(USBR 1985)

 A unique feature of the Newlands Project is the concept of so-called 

“bench and bottom lands” based primarily on subsurface drainage characteristics 

which were not clearly defi ned until some 60 years after the concept was initiated. 

In 1925, following a series of legal actions and hearings that began in 1913, a 

temporary restraining order was issued. Under the restraining order farmers on 

the project were to receive, after transportation losses, 3.5 acre feet of water per 

acre for bottom lands and 4.5 acre feet of water per acre for bench lands. The 

restraining order neither defi ned nor identifi ed project bench and bottom lands. In 

1944 a fi nal decree simply restated the restraining order. Legal actions continued 

through the years and a 1986 Court Order directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

prepare and submit a “revised initial designation of Bench and Bottom lands in 

the Newlands Project.” The new map was to be based on two criteria, including 

waterholding capacity of the soils and the “seasonal high water table.” In 1990, 

Reclamation drainage personnel produced a “fi nal draft” report which included 

detailed maps and legal descriptions of the designations.

Challenges Met

 Examples of early Reclamation drainage history are too numerous 

and varied to include them all in this paper. A few of the more outstanding 

experiences are presented here.

Riverton

 The Riverton Project consists of three divisions. Construction began 

on the fi rst and second divisions in 1921, and fi rst water was delivered in 1925. 

 Drainage problems developed on some of the lands almost immediately. In the 

1930s and 1940s, a few open drains were constructed along farm boundaries but 

were largely ineffective in controlling the seepage because the spacing was too 

wide. In the 1950s additional open drains were constructed midway between 

the original drains, but still the spacing was too wide because the open drains 

were constructed to keep crop producing areas at an optimum. All of this was 
171

done prior to the development of the transient state drain spacing procedures.

Meanwhile, construction began on Third Division in 1947, and public notice 

number 26 opened 55 farm units for homestead. An additional 50 farm units 

were opened in 1950, and 54 units were opened in 1951. Since certifi cation 

of irrigability was not yet law, no drainage studies were conducted prior to 

settlement.

 As newcomers, mostly returning veterans from World War II, colonized 

the First and Second Divisions in greater numbers, Reclamation heard some bad 

news about the Third Division. The Third Division, a foundation of promise for 

post-war homesteaders, had a false bottom. A 1951 soil survey reclassifi ed large 

areas of shallow soil in the Third Division as Class 6-nonirrigable. This acreage 

drained poorly and was susceptible to waterlogging and salinity severe enough 

to prevent cultivation. Congress passed Public Law 258 in 1953 permitting 

homesteaders on inadequate farms to amend their existing properties with vacant 

lands on the same project. Public Law 258 also allowed farmers to exchange their 

units for land on other Reclamation projects. Every landowner on a Reclamation 

project in the West could fi le a claim under Public Law 258, but the law 

specifi cally helped farmers working unproductive acreage on the Riverton Project. 

(USBR Dataweb) Within a few years, all or parts of every farm unit in Third 

Division were suffering from waterlogging and salinity problems. The problem 

was attributed to poor irrigation practices as well as natural drainage defi ciencies 

of the land. Many of the farms were located downslope from other farm units, so 

they had to deal with return fl ows from neighbors as well as their own irrigation 

applications.

 Another problem faced by Riverton farmers and by drainage engineers 

trying to correct problems was sodium in the soils. Some of the lands contained 

high levels of sodium, which can cause the soil structure to break down leaving 

the land impossible to drain adequately. Although the problem may develop on 

any project in semiarid climates, the Riverton Project seemed to be particularly 

susceptible.

 Enactment of Public Law 258 resulted in many farmers leaving Wyoming. 

Those who relocated under the provisions of Public Law 258 settled on the 

Columbia Basin Project in Washington, the Minidoka Project in Idaho, and the 

Gila Project in Arizona. Those staying in Riverton added vacated land to their 

existing acreage. Public Law 258 stabilized the Riverton Project as remaining 

homesteaders increased the size of their units and subsequently improved 

themselves fi nancially. Those determined to farm the Third Division formed an 

irrigation district in August 1957. By the dawn of the 1960s, a Bureau “Project 

History” lamented their decision: “The ratio of operating expenses to prices 

received for crops and livestock continued unfavorable.” (USBR Dataweb) 

 By the early 1960s, the situation on the Third Division required the 

Government to make a hard decision. Reclamation proposed to buy out the 
172

homesteaders and write off most of the $20.5 million on the Federal books. 

A congressional delegation came to Riverton in October 1961 to hear local 

grievances. The testimonials the delegation heard “were adverse and favored 

abolishing the project.” Reclamation responded by threatening to shut off water 

to the Third Division if growers refused to sign a repayment contract. One 

farmer, Marvin H. West, stated to a Denver newspaper in 1962, “10 to 12 years 

should prove the feasibility of these places. We have not made a living or showed 

any repayment ability in that time.” (USBR Dataweb)

 The growers’ anger was enough to persuade the government in 1964 to 

pass Public Law 88-278 authorizing Federal purchase of Third Division lands. 

The Bureau bought back 78 units totaling about 22,000 acres. Farmers from 

the Midvale Irrigation District leased certain sections of the land over the next 6 

years. In September 1970 Public Law 91-409 consolidated the three divisions of 

the Riverton Project. Besides employing power sales to pay rehabilitation costs 

on project works, the bill restored 8,900 irrigable acres of the Third Division to 

private ownership, with provision that no further Federal funds would be provided 

for drainage works. In January 1971 the Third Division Irrigation District ceased 

operations. The following month, the Government auctioned 43 units to farmers 

of the Midvale Irrigation District. By spring, the farmers petitioned the 43 

units into Midvale. In December the Government executed a new amendatory 

repayment contract with Midvale. (USBR Dataweb) 

 In 1976, the Midvale Irrigation District entered into a Rehabilitation and 

Betterment (R&B) contract with Reclamation to upgrade certain facilities and to 

provide adequate subsurface drainage for the First and Second Division lands.

Over the next 10 years, some 200 miles of subsurface drains were constructed.

Many of the original open drain ditches, which had eroded to several times their 

design width, were replaced with more effective subsurface drains and backfi lled, 

reducing maintenance costs and increasing the tillable acreage. In an odd twist, a 

provision of the law authorizing the R&B contract precluded expenditures of any 

of the funds for drainage works on Third Division lands.

 A reclassifi cation of 

the Midvale Irrigation District 

in 1999 confi rmed that for the 

most part, the entire project was 

experiencing good productivity. 

Although small scattered parcels 

of land were placed in a nonirrigable class due to the sodium 

content of the soil being too high 

to permit economical drainage, 

waterlogging and salinization are 

under control within the project 

lands.

4.3. A CCC enrollee painting a pipe siphon 

across an open drain on the Gem Irrigation 

District, Owyhee Project, during February 1939.
173

Kansas River Projects

 A series of irrigation projects in the Republican River Valley from Trenton 

in southwest Nebraska to south of Courtland, Kansas, were completed around 

1960. By 1965 waterlogging was becoming prevalent in many areas along this 

200 mile reach of the river. Drain construction began in 1966 and more than 200 

miles of drains had been constructed in the Republican River Valley by 1975.

 The Bostwick Division, Kansas, is a 40,000 acre project located mostly 

on uplands around the town of Courtland. On July 3, 1967, a fi eld review of 

 drainage needs was conducted by representatives of the Chief Engineer=s Offi ce, 

the Region 7 Offi ce, and the Kansas River Projects Offi ce. During that review, 

Mr. Lee Dumm of the Chief Engineer=s Offi ce noted that the water table was in a 

delicate state of dynamic equilibrium and that sooner or later a spell of unusually 

wet weather would probably upset the balance, creating serious problems. His 

prediction came true sooner rather than later. The fall of 1968 brought heavy 

precipitation that continued through the winter and into the summer of 1969. By 

August 1969 fully 90 percent of the 27,500 acres under irrigation were seriously 

affected by high water tables, and about 2,000 acres were not farmed. In 1970, a 

12-person offi ce consisting of an investigations crew, a survey crew, an engineer, 

and a construction inspection crew, was opened in Superior, Nebraska, with the 

specifi c purpose of constructing drains on the Kansas-Bostwick Unit and the 

lower half of the Nebraska-Bostwick Unit. By 1981 when the Superior Field 

Engineering Offi ce closed, more than 250 miles of pipe drains and 50 miles of 

open ditch drains had been constructed on the Kansas-Bostwick Unit.

 In order for this small group to accomplish this effort in a span of 10 

years required some innovative measures. Ground water depth probes were 

made from 1⁄4-inch iron pipe lined with ǩ-inch plastic tubing. Water level was 

read by hooking an ohmmeter to the pipe and inserting a wire connected to the 

other terminal into the plastic tubing. When the wire reached the water surface, it 

completed the circuit. The probes were easily inserted to a depth of about 5 feet 

wherever the water table was less than 2 or 3 feet below land surface, which was 

almost everywhere. The probes allowed a 2-man crew to create ground water 

surface maps in about one-third the time needed to do it with augers.

 Soil profi les were logged using a variation of split tube sampler that was 

developed by the Superior Offi ce. It was driven directly into the ground without 

benefi t of the hollow stem augers that are usually used. While the tube increased 

production of the soil logging operation by four to fi ve times, it was specifi c to the 

Kansas upland soils and was never successful in other areas of the country or even 

other areas of the Kansas River Projects. 

 Another fi rst for the Superior Field Engineering Branch Offi ce was the 

hiring of Reclamation’s fi rst women as fi eld technicians, whose duties included 

operating small drill rigs. In 1973, Naomi Fritson, a Nebraska farm girl, and 
174

 Mary Torpin, daughter of a Hollywood fi lm director, were Engineering Tech 

students at Curtis Community College in Curtis, Nebraska. They were hired as 

summer employees. Their 4-month employment with Reclamation constituted 

one semester of their required curriculum. At the time, it was a signifi cant enough 

event to rate a spot on the evening news of the Nebraska Television Network.

Columbia Basin Project

 The Columbia Basin Project in eastern Washington is the most extensive 

 drainage construction that Reclamation has undertaken in our fi rst century 

of existence. About 540,000 acres has been developed of what was initially 

envisioned as a 1-million acre project. The fi rst water was delivered in 1948, and 

water tables began to rise almost immediately. By the early 1950s the need for 

artifi cial drainage was becoming evident. Water table levels rose steadily until 

they reached a point where drainage was needed on large areas of land to maintain 

productivity. By 1968 the water table had risen an average of 150 feet over the 

entire project. (Monteith and Myers)

 The extensive need for drainage had not been recognized in the original 

project formulation, and it was not until 1960 that a large-scale construction 

program was initiated. (Christopher and Campbell) The Columbia Basin 

Drainage staff was established in 1954 and, during the peak drain construction 

period of 1971 to 1976, the staff numbered around 60 full-time drainage 

personnel. Innovative approaches to fi eld investigations were initiated in an 

attempt to increase productivity without increasing staff. In the geologic setting 

of the Columbia Basin, 20 feet was the depth of most drainage borings. The 

need to increase productivity and lower engineering costs led to the modifi cation 

of the drill rigs used in fi eld investigations. The small rigs were fi tted with a 

mast and a 20 foot long continuous auger so that 20 foot holes could be drilled 

without stopping to insert and remove the standard 5-foot auger sections. Seismic 

equipment was used to locate caliche layers so that borings could be farther apart.

 The fi rst drains to be constructed were open ditches to be used as outlets 

for the pipe drains. In 1961 construction of pipe drains began with a 3-mile 

segment. This would increase fairly steadily until the peak in 1974 when 195 

miles of drains were constructed. By 1979 more than 2,200 miles of drain had 

been constructed and, by 1995, the total was 2,845 miles. (Hubbs)

 Drainage of the lands was complicated by the existence of caliche layers 

underlying most of the project lands. Caliche is a form of solidifi ed calcium 

deposit which occurs at depths shallower than the design depth of the drains.

Construction equipment was often unable to excavate the caliche until it was 

blasted with dynamite. The large wheel trenching machines were designed for 

this type of construction and were quite successful in reducing or eliminating the 

need to blast.
175

 Drain depths on the Columbia Basin Project are typically 8 to 9 feet, 

which is 1 to 2 feet deeper than on most Reclamation projects. This decision was 

based largely on the capability of the local contractors’ equipment, although the 

depth of the outlet drain and the depth to a favorable drain zone in the soil profi le 

may control the depth locally. (Brohl)

Central Valley Project

The Central Valley Project was authorized by Congress in 1937. First water 

was delivered from the Contra Costa Canal on August 16, 1940. Water deliveries 

began on the Delta-Mendota service area in 1950 and the fi rst tile drains were 

constructed on the Grasslands area in the early 1950s. The drains discharged into 

wetlands. (Most of the following was paraphrased from written communications 

provided by Michael Delamore, South-Central California Area Offi ce, USBR, and 

Joel Zander of the Mid-Pacifi c Regional Offi ce, USBR)

 In 1956 the California State Department of Water Resources recommended 

the state study a “comprehensive master drainage works system” indicating 

that drainage problems were beginning to develop on a signifi cant scale. Also, 

Reclamation submitted a feasibility report on the San Luis Unit to Congress. The 

report included a 300 cubic feet per second earth-lined interceptor drain as part of 

the “distribution system and drains.” On-farm drainage on the San Luis Unit was 

the responsibility of the landowner, but Reclamation was to provide an outlet drain 

that could be accessed by irrigators through irrigation district facilities. Construction 

of the San Luis Drain began in 1968, and Reclamation acquired 5,900 acres of land 

for Kesterson Reregulating Reservoir. The reservoir was to be operated according 

to a cooperative agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the conservation 

and management of wildlife, subject to the primary use of the lands for regulation of 

drain fl ows. Water was to be held in the reservoir until fi nal discharge permits were 

acquired for the drainage water.

 On July 1, 1969, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) began managing the 

lands acquired for Kesterson Reservoir under terms of the agreement. Construction 

of the reservoir began a year later. In 1972 construction of the fi rst phase of the 

reservoir and the adjacent drain were completed. However, by February 1975, 

funds had run out, and construction was stopped with about 40 percent (85 miles) 

of the drain and the fi rst stage of Kesterson Reservoir complete. Four months later, 

the fi rst contract for collector drains on Westlands Water District was awarded and 

construction began on a collector system, encompassing about 42,000 acres of 

irrigated lands.

 In 1977 Public Law 95-46, the 1978 appropriation, increased the ceiling 

for distribution and drainage systems on the San Luis Unit. Construction was 

not reinitiated at least in part because discharge criteria had not been established. 

Attempts to address this critical issue were unsuccessful as the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) had the authority to set discharge requirements 
176

but was “not in a position to do so at this time.” A March 20, 1978, letter from 

Reclamation=s Regional Director to SWRCB explained Reclamation=s position and 

hinted at the urgency of having discharge criteria established.

 In 1978 use of Kesterson Reservoir as interim evaporation ponds for 

subsurface agricultural drainage fl ows from Westlands Water District began. The 

proportion of subsurface drainage fl ows to surface fl ows increased yearly until 

infl ows to Kesterson were principally subsurface drainage water in 1981.

 In May 1979 FWS began expressing reservations about the quality of the 

drainage water from San Luis Drain and the possible effects of toxic constituents 

on receiving waters. A year later, they would notify Reclamation that such effects 

would need to be evaluated in a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Report and there 

were concerns over completion of the San Luis Drain.

 In 1981 Reclamation began studies to identify any potential toxic 

constituents in the drain water. The studies found high concentrations of selenium 

in San Luis Drain and Kesterson Reservoir. Reclamation imposed a moratorium on 

additional farm drainage connections to San Luis Drain because Kesterson Reservoir 

was reaching capacity and the outlet had not yet been constructed. Existing farm 

drains continued discharging through local wetlands to the San Joaquin River. 

Meanwhile, Reclamation was developing detailed plans for completion of San Luis 

Drain and, at the same time, reevaluating possible alternatives such as in-valley 

evaporation, desalinization, discharge to San Francisco Bay rather than Suisun Bay, 

and no action. Through the early 1980s, Reclamation and several cooperating state 

and federal agencies and universities spent about $4 million gathering information 

needed to obtain the discharge permit.

 In 1982 FWS found high selenium concentrations in fi sh at Kesterson 

Reservoir and discovered higher-than-normal waterfowl mortalities and deformities 

a year later. Reclamation took action to minimize waterfowl attraction at Kesterson 

Reservoir by reducing the number of ponds and providing additional water to 

neighboring wetland areas. In September 1984 a hazing program was started to keep 

the birds off Kesterson Reservoir. A number of techniques were tried, including 

periodic shotgun blasts and chasing birds with ATVs. At the same time, 15,000 acre 

feet of clean water was provided to alternate habitat sites.

 In February 1983, because of high rainfall, Reclamation fi led an application 

with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) 

for a discharge permit from Kesterson to the San Joaquin River. CVRWQCB 

responded by acknowledging the need to discharge excess water from San Luis 

Drain and Kesterson Reservoir and requiring Reclamation to immediately begin 

a sampling program and submit reports. On January 13, 1984, Reclamation 

notifi ed CVRWQCB that high rainfall amounts combined with drainage water were 

threatening the dikes and warning that failure would mean uncontrolled fl ooding. 
177

On February 2, the application was approved for limited discharge to prevent failure 

of the dikes, but large discharges were not allowed.

 On April 8, 1983, Reclamation requested SWRCB approve a schedule for 

preparation of a technical report to accompany the application for the discharge 

permit to Suisun Bay and for the board to act on the application by November 

1984. The Board responded on May 4 saying the schedule could not be met but that 

December 1984 was workable only if the report met acceptance by the scientifi c 

community, the SWQCB, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit conditions.

 In March 1985 the Department of the Interior announced plans to close 

Kesterson Reservoir and San Luis Drain and to terminate deliveries to 42,000 acres 

in Westlands Water District because of concern of violation of the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. A month later the Department reached an agreement with Westlands to 

continue delivering water to all of the lands in the district, but the drain remained 

closed. This was followed quickly by landowners fi ling lawsuits against the United 

States for taking of their property by seepage of drainage water from Kesterson 

Reservoir. In November Westlands Water District fi led a draft EIR on plans for 

on-farm management, water recycling and plugging of the farm drains if necessary. 

By May 1986 Westlands completed plugging of the drains to prevent drainage water 

from entering San Luis Drain.

 On December 30, 1986, the United States and Westlands Water District 

reached a compromise settlement known as the “ Barcellos Judgment” fi led in United 

States District Court as a court judgment. The judgment, among other things, 

required the Federal Government to develop a plan for drainage service facilities by 

December 31, 1991. The Judgment stipulates that the drainage facilities shall have 

suffi cient capacity and capability to transport, treat as necessary, and 

dispose of the annual quantity of subsurface agricultural drainage water 

from the District (not less than 60,000 acre feet and not more than 100,000 

acre feet) required to be disposed of by December 31, 2007 ...

To help fi nance construction of the drainage service facilities, the District was 

required to make annual contributions to a trust fund established under the judgment. 

These funds were released to the District in June 1992 when the court ruled that the 

Government had failed to meet the terms of the Barcellos Judgment.

 In January 1988, after considerable controversy, Reclamation began 

dewatering Kesterson Reservoir in preparation for cleanup. The dewatering was 

completed on April 12 and by November low-lying areas of Kesterson Reservoir had 

been fi lled with dirt. However, this did not end the life of the San Luis Drain. 

 In 1996 the San Luis Drain was reactivated as part of the Grassland Bypass 

Project. Drainage water from 97,000 acres of agricultural land in the Grasslands 
178

Basin that historically drained to the San Joaquin River is transported through the 

lower 28 mile segment of the drain. The drain water contains lower concentrations 

of selenium than did the original drain water that fl owed to Kesterson reservoir. 

The drain carries the water around the Grassland Conservation District to the 

terminal structure of San Luis Drain and returns to the San Joaquin River through 

Mud Slough. The selenium load is monitored for compliance with agreed-upon 

monthly and annual load limits. Fees of $25,000 to $250,000 are levied against the 

participating irrigation districts when the limits are not met. (Quinn, et al.)

 One of the many entities involved in the drainage problems surrounding the 

fertile Central Valley lands was the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (SJVDP). 

Public Law 96-375 passed in 1980 authorized the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 

Investigation feasibility study. In August 1984 Governor Deukmejian and Secretary 

of the Interior William Clark established the SJVDP as a cooperative effort of 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of 

Water Resources. The purpose of SJVDP was to conduct comprehensive studies 

to identify the magnitude and sources of the drainage problem, the toxic effect of 

selenium on wildlife, and what actions needed to be taken to resolve these issues.

By the end of 1990 funds totaling $50 million had been appropriated to support the 

Program.

 In April 1987 SJVDP issued a draft report which discussed ocean disposal 

possibilities. Public reaction was so strongly adverse that the SJVDP Management 

Committee narrowed the focus of the program to exclude any disposal of 

agricultural drainage water or brine outside the San Joaquin Valley. In September 

1990 SJVDP issued its fi nal report titled “A Management Plan for Agricultural 

Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the West Side San Joaquin Valley.” 

In December 1991 four federal agencies, including Reclamation, and four state 

agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation of the San 

Joaquin Valley Drainage Program=s Recommended Plan. The major components of 

the plan are to (1) reduce the amount of irrigation water applied to the fi eld, (2) reuse 

drainage water, (3) store drainage water in evaporation ponds, (4) cease irrigating 

lands that have high selenium levels in the subsurface, (5) pump ground water to 

lower the water table, (6) discharge to the San Joaquin River, and (7) protection, 

restoration, and provision of substitute water supplies for fi sh and wildlife habitat.

 The controversy over the trace element selenium and how to handle drainage 

waters containing elevated concentrations has sparked numerous research efforts 

and other spin-off activities. In September 1986 the Westlands Water District Board 

approved a $6.6 million drainage treatment plant and a prototype deep well injection 

unit. After 18 months, the research project was indefi nitely postponed because it 

did not appear to be economically feasible on a large scale. However, in October 

1989 the District entered into an agreement with state and federal agencies and 

universities to begin work on a treatment research center to be located in the district. 

At about the same time, Panoche Drainage District began construction of a prototype 
179

facility to remove selenium from water using an iron absorption process. In June 

1989 Westlands began drilling on an 8,100-foot-deep prototype injection well to be 

used for disposal of drainage water. 

 Several treatment methods were employed in an effort to reduce selenium 

in the soil, including fi eld testing of a biological cleanup plan using selenium eating 

fungi.

 The problems associated with high concentrations of selenium in the 

drainage water at Kesterson Reservoir were the primary reason why the Department 

of the Interior launched the Irrigation Drainage Program in 1985 with an inventory 

of more than 600 irrigation projects in the western United States to discover the 

extent of toxic trace elements in drainage water from the projects. (Department of 

the Interior, NIWQP website)

 In 1992 Reclamation announced that it would award Challenge Grants for 

demonstration projects of innovative approaches to advance water conservation 

and address agricultural drainage problems in the Mid-Pacifi c Region. Challenge 

Grants addressing drainage problems would be accepted only for the SJVDP 

study area. Six Challenge Grants investigating various methods of treatment or 

management of selenium rich drainage water were executed in 1994.

Central Utah Project

 In the middle to late 1960s the Central Utah Project (CUP) was one center 

of activity for Reclamation=s drainage forces. Detailed drainage investigations 

covering nearly 250,000 acres were completed in anticipation of development of 

the project, which would provide a full water supply to about 33,000 acres and 

supplemental water to the remainder. The bulk of these lands lay in the Uintah 

Basin, which is tributary to the Green River, in Emery County in east central 

Utah, and in the Sevier Basin, a closed dry lake bed in southwestern Utah. The 

CUP was one of the primary proving grounds for the auger hole permeability test, 

which has become a standard test for permeability of saturated soils. Several 

thousand auger hole tests were conducted, some as deep as 25 feet, and a number 

of minor modifi cations to the test procedure were initiated. Observation well 

networks were installed on about a 1-mile grid and monitored weekly. The 

wells generally consisted of a galvanized downspout with holes punched by a 

geologist=s pick and an endcap for a lid.

 For the most part, drainage fi eld crews across Reclamation at the time 

were mobile. The CUP crews would make a brief visit to the Provo Offi ce 

each Monday morning to get their assignment for the week, turn in time sheets 

and conduct any necessary personnel business. They would make the 2- to 

4-hour drive back to Provo on Friday evening, on their own time. A CUP 

fi eld crew generally consisted of 10 to 20 people, including a lead engineer, 

several subordinate engineers and technicians, and a group of 90-day temporary 
180

laborers. The lead engineer’s offi ce was a pickup truck containing all the tools 

and equipment needed for the investigations and briefcases containing reference 

materials, test forms, and personnel fi les for the engineer and his crew.

 The summer and fall of 1965 found enough Reclamation drainage 

personnel in the small town of Delta, Utah, to fi ll all 7 rooms in the only motel 

and a good part of the only apartment building for a period of about 6 months.

In October a football game was played between the Feds and the town in which 

the Feds scored a narrow victory. On the last day in Delta—before Christmas 

break—the local restaurant closed to the public and the owner prepared a special 

Japanese meal for the Reclamation employees in appreciation of their patronage.

By 1990 about 50 miles of subsurface drains had been constructed in the Uintah 

Basin and in Emery County. As of this writing, the Sevier Unit has not been 

developed.

Oahe Unit

 The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Plan envisioned two irrigation 

developments in the Dakotas to compensate the states for the loss of prime 

agricultural land to the Main Stem Reservoirs, which now form a nearly 

continuous lake from Yankton, South Dakota, to Williston, North Dakota. The 5 

dams, built for fl ood control and power generation, fl ooded thousands of acres of 

rich river bottom lands in the Dakotas. Originally the Garrison Diversion Project 

and the Oahe Project were each to be more than a half million acres. Construction 

was begun on both projects in the mid-1970s, but, to date, neither of them has 

been completed. 

 Although the Oahe Unit was never completed, it was an important 

milepost in the history of drainage in the Bureau of Reclamation. Investigations 

began on the Oahe Unit in 1950 with the exploration of glacial till soils in eastern 

South Dakota. Water for the project would be pumped from Oahe Reservoir on 

the Missouri River.

 Extensive investigations were carried out in an effort to determine the 

ability of glacial till soils to support sustained irrigation. The techniques for 

some of the in-place permeability tests that are standard Reclamation procedure 

were developed and proven on the Oahe Unit. At the same time Reclamation 

was developing the transient state drain spacing procedures, and data from the 

Oahe Unit was being used to help establish the relationships that are used in the 

calculations.

 An exhaustive study of prairie potholes was conducted to understand the 

connection between the surface water in the potholes and the ground water under 

and around them. At one point, in an attempt to understand the movement of 

water in till soils, men were placed in a cage and lowered into large-diameter drill 

holes in order to log the sidewalls of the hole.
181

 The studies of glacial till soils were in concert with similar studies on the 

Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota and in Alberta, Canada. Each study 

that was done concluded that the permeability of glacial till soils was inadequate 

to provide economical subsurface drainage for irrigation. In 1957, based on all 

available knowledge, the decision was made to bypass the till soils and develop 

the Oahe Unit on the lake plain soils in the James River Valley some 100 miles 

east of the Missouri River.

 A detailed drainage investigation was carried out on the lake plain soils 

in an effort to forecast drainage needs for the authorized 190,000 acre project. 

Soil sampling tubes adapted specifi cally to the Oahe soils investigations and 

other specialized tools were handmade by Oahe drainage engineers because no 

commercial supplier existed. (Burnett and TeKrony)

 Because soils at drain depth in the Dakota Lake Plain are very unstable 

when saturated and construction would be very costly, the plan was to construct 

drainage facilities along with the water distribution facilities “in the dry.” 

(Burnett and TeKrony) This procedure would also avoid the lag time between the 

need for drainage and the construction of facilities. Historically, the lag time on 

most projects was long enough to cause economic hardship for the farmers and 

the irrigation districts.

 Construction of the drainage system before the delivery of water would 

have been a fi rst for Reclamation. Since drainage construction was to take 

place prior to the development of high water tables from irrigation, the drainage 

investigations during the planning stage of the project were completed to 

design data standards, a much greater level of detail than normal for projects 

in the planning stage. As it turned out, project opponents gained control of the 

Conservancy District Board in 1977 and requested that Congress deauthorize 

the project. The takeover of the Board was bolstered by the fact that thousands 

of acres of glacial till lands were being impacted by the 100-mile-long canal, 

but were not allowed to share in the benefi ts because of their inherent drainage 

defi ciency. Deauthorization never was formalized, but the action nevertheless 

sounded the death knell for the Oahe Unit. Even though the pumping plant and 

parts of the Oahe canal were constructed, no further construction funding was 

provided.

Eastern South Dakota Basins Study

 The Eastern South Dakota Basins Study (ESDB) was the most farreaching drainage study ever conducted by Reclamation. This study was unique 

in that drainability was the fi rst controlling element in the assessment of potential 

for irrigation development. The entire area east of the Missouri River in South 

Dakota was covered by a subreconnaissance-level investigation aimed at locating 

lands that would sustain irrigation. Soils were logged on a 3-mile grid covering 

the entire area and about 6,000 in-place permeability tests were conducted. Based 
182

on these data and visual observations, the land was divided into four categories 

according to estimated drainage costs if the land were irrigated. Category I was 

the least expensive and category IV included lakes, rock outcrops and other areas 

considered to be nondrainable. The soils logs, permeability results, and category 

delineations were recorded on aerial photos at a 1,000-foot-per-inch scale, and a 

narrative report explained the process. The results were published in 1972. The 

original report and the photos are on fi le in the Great Plains Regional Offi ce in 

Billings, Montana.

Oakes 5,000 Acre Test Area

 One of the obstacles faced by North Dakota=s Garrison Diversion Project 

was that the project overlapped the continental divide into Hudson Bay drainage 

rivers. The Canadian Government raised concerns over the possibility of biota 

transfer from Missouri River waters to the Hudson Bay drainage, where it was 

feared that the fi shing industry might be adversely affected. Among the solutions 

that were proposed was a closed system concept in which no surface return 

fl ows from irrigation would be allowed. In order to test this concept, the Oakes 

5,000 Acre Test Area was constructed on the James River south of the city of 

Oakes, North Dakota. Missouri River water was to be carried through canals to 

the James River where it would be pumped to irrigate the test area. In the early 

1980s, the Oakes Offi ce drainage staff installed monitoring wells on a 1⁄4-mile 

grid so that the water table could be closely monitored. In 1985 42 miles of pipe 

drains were constructed to provide adequate subsurface drainage and a terminal 

seepage pit was constructed to handle all surface return fl ows. This was followed 

by construction of the pumping plant and distribution facilities. No water would 

be allowed to leave the project until it had passed through the aquifer.

 As of this writing, the canal system has not been completed and there 

has never been a full water supply for the test area. However, the drains have 

provided the opportunity to study various irrigation management schemes and 

iron ocher problems. The drains have also been effectively used to distribute 

artifi cial recharge waters through the aquifer. Spring fl ood fl ows on the James 

River are pumped to the main canal where it is discharged to closed depressions 

around the project. The pipe drains help to convey water from the depressions to 

other parts of the aquifer. During the irrigation season, the water is pumped by 

individual farmers for irrigation.

Wellton-Mohawk

 Early history of agricultural development in the Wellton-Mohawk area, in 

southwestern Arizona, dates back to 1538 when the Pima Indians irrigated some 

of the bottom land adjacent to the Gila River. In the late 1800s settlers developed 

irrigation in the area by diverting water from the Gila River, but alternating fl oods 

and drought encouraged them to turn to pumping the abundant supply of ground 

water. This worked well for a time, but, by 1934, Wellton-Mohawk farms were 
183

facing another hazard. Excessive salt appeared in many wells and the water table 

had declined alarmingly. One after another, farms were abandoned as water and 

soil became too saline for successful farming.

 In 1937 the Wellton-Mohawk Division was authorized as a Reclamation 

project. Construction of the irrigation features was started in August 1949. On 

May 1, 1952, water from the Colorado River was turned onto the WelltonMohawk fi elds for the fi rst time. However, importation of water from the 

Colorado River caused the water table to rise and threatened crops. (USBR 

Dataweb)

 Conventional drainage was contemplated, but investigations revealed 

that conventional drains would not be effective due to artesian pressures in 

the aquifer. (Tapp) The solution was to lower the water table by pumping the 

aquifer. Drainage wells were constructed to remove the excess ground water, and 

the drainage water was discharged into the Gila River. The drainage water was 

highly saline, initially averaging about 6,000 parts per million. Late in 1961, the 

Wellton-Mohawk Main Conveyance Channel was constructed for the entire length 

of the Wellton-Mohawk Division 

to carry drainage water from 

about 67 wells. Additional wells 

were installed in 1963 to allow 

for selective pumping to reduce 

the salinity of the effl uent during 

the winter months and to provide 

drainage to other areas with high 

ground water. (USBR Dataweb)

 The Wellton-Mohawk 

Division is unique in Reclamation 

as it is the only major drainage 

project that relies on pumping 

wells rather than horizontal drains 

to control ground water levels.

The concept works well with the 

single drawback that operation, 

maintenance, and replacement 

costs are very high compared to 

conventional drain systems.

National Irrigation Water Quality Program

 Subsurface drainage from Reclamation irrigation projects was generally 

considered to be a benefi cial side effect of irrigation as long as salinity levels in 

the water were not excessive. Even the high salinity waters were often welcomed 

by the managers of wildlife refuges. When unusually high numbers of waterfowl 

4.4. About 1959 Reclamation experimented 

with using dynamite to clean drains on the 

Lower Yellowstone Project.
184

deaths and deformities were found at California’s Kesterson Reservoir National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1982, FWS began an investigation which continued through 

1985. The problem was attributed to high levels of the element selenium in the 

water and sediments of the reservoir. At very low concentrations selenium is 

benign or even benefi cial, but at high concentrations it can be toxic to biological 

communities. The source of selenium in Kesterson reservoir was determined to 

be drainage water from irrigation, which was the primary water supply for the 

reservoir. This revelation was to have far reaching impacts to Reclamation=s

drainage program. A more detailed discussion of Kesterson Reservoir and reasons 

for the buildup of selenium is included in the Central Valley Project section of this 

paper.

 Congressional interest and widespread media attention, including several 

television programs and more than 100 newspaper and magazine articles, 

prompted the Secretary of the Interior to open an investigation of the possible 

toxic effects of irrigation drainage water in the western United States. The 

investigation resulted in the National Irrigation Water Quality Program (NIWQP). 

NIWQP focused on areas important to migratory birds and endangered species 

and public water supplies receiving water from DOI irrigation projects. NIWQP, 

which is ongoing, is a 5-phase program. The studies are conducted by a core team 

of DOI agencies including FWS, Geological Survey, and either Reclamation or 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), depending on which agency sponsored the 

project involved. 

 Phase 1, Site Identifi cation, was essentially complete by 1989 (more 

sites could possibly be identifi ed in the future). Based on existing information, 

sites likely to have irrigation-induced toxicity problems advanced to Phase 2, 

Reconnaissance Investigations. If selenium levels found posed a possible threat 

to fi sh and wildlife resources, the site moved on to Phase 3. Phase 3, Detailed 

Studies, consists of fi eld studies to measure the extent of any adverse biological 

impacts. Where adverse impacts are found, the site advances to Phase 4, 

Remediation Planning, and then to Phase 5, Remediation Implementation. FWS 

was the lead agency in phases 1, 2, and 3 with Reclamation or BIA having the 

lead role in phases 4 and 5.

 A survey of about 600 irrigation projects and wildlife areas was completed 

in phase 1. Thirty-one sites moved to Phase 2, eight sites to Phase 3, fi ve sites to 

Phase 4 and two sites are currently in Phase 5. All of the sites involved in Phases 

4 and 5 are Reclamation projects. The two Phase 5 sites are Middle Green and 

Kendrick. The Middle Green centers around Stewart Lake State Wildlife Area, 

which receives a large part of its infl ow from subsurface drains on the Jensen Unit 

of the Central Utah Project. Drainage water containing high concentrations of 

selenium are believed to be the source of selenium found in the lake sediments.

In 1999 facilities were constructed to route the pipe drains around the lake so 

they discharge directly to the Green River, where the water is quickly diluted to 

naturally occurring concentrations. A number of “cleanup” techniques are being 
185

tested to remove selenium from the lake sediments. The Kendrick site is being 

addressed by eliminating return fl ows to two small closed basins and providing 

fl ow-through water to fl ush two others. In addition, Reclamation will construct 

replacement wetlands at locations away from selenium sources.

Research

 Since the Chief Engineer=s Offi ce was established, Reclamation Drainage 

and Ground Water personnel have been involved in applied research into every 

aspect of subsurface drainage. Some of the subjects are:

• water movement through soils

• fi eld permeability testing

• salt balance in the root zone

• quality of return fl ows

• drain spacing, location, and depth

• orientation of drains with respect to natural hydraulic gradient

• infl uence of irrigation practices on drainage

• how water enters drain pipes

• envelope design

• biological and mineral clogging of drains

• construction methods

• construction costs

• materials used in pipe drains

• drain cleaning techniques

• well construction and rehabilitation

 The purpose of the research was to check scientifi c theories, improve 

constructability and maintenance techniques, and validate current practices. Analog, 

physical, and digital models were used extensively in the various research studies.

 The complicated processes by which water moves through soils have been a 

focal point of research efforts since Reclamation fi rst viewed subsurface drainage as 

a science. In many cases cooperating with other agencies or universities, researchers 

studied fl ow through saturated and unsaturated soils, between different soil textures, 

and through preferential fl ow paths. Sand tanks were constructed where water 

movement could be observed and 16-mm movie fi lms were made of the processes 

for training purposes.

 In 1978 a 16-mm movie titled “Subsurface Drainage” was produced in 

cooperation with Washington State University. The fi lm used sand tanks with 

manometers to show how water moves through soil profi les to buried drains, and 

how a shallow saline water table can harm or even kill growing plants. This fi lm has 

since been copied to video tape for use in standard VCR units.
186

 The Oahe Project in the early 1950s was the impetus for some of the most 

important research in the drainage discipline. The drainage requirements for Oahe 

were known to be extensive and the plan was to construct drainage facilities in 

conjunction with the distribution facilities. In that way, the fi nancial burden on the 

farmers and the irrigation districts resulting from the normal lag time between the 

need for and the provision of drainage could be avoided. Mathematical theories for 

the transient state drain spacing equations were developed in response to this need.

Analog models were used fi rst to verify the theories and later fi eld measurements 

would validate the procedures.

 Field tests for hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, that had been 

developed in the 1940s were adopted, tested, and, in some cases, modifi ed to meet 

specifi c needs of Reclamation projects. These tests were also subjected to analog 

model verifi cation as well as fi eld testing.

 Many analog models and digital models have been constructed in an attempt 

to predict return fl ow quantity and quality from various projects. Reclamation has 

worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Salinity Laboratory to 

establish safe root zone salinity levels and leaching requirements needed to maintain 

acceptable salinity levels.

 Drainage on sloping land was investigated in the early 1970s by constructing 

a sand tank in the Hydraulics Laboratory. The tank was 60 feet long, 2.5 feet deep 

and 2 feet wide and was mounted on a platform that could be tilted at slopes between 

zero and twelve percent. The wood frame tank was fi tted with Plexiglas panels so 

that observers could see what was occurring outside the drains. The tank was later 

used to study sediment accumulation in drains with sags built into the grade.

 Analog models were used during the 1960s and 1970s to predict the effects 

of placing interceptor drains on an angle to the natural hydraulic gradient on 

sloping land. Field verifi cation was done in the Columbia Basin and on the KansasBostwick Unit in Kansas.

 Drainage staff participated in the Irrigation Management Service (IMS) 

studies that were done beginning in the 1960s. IMS studies were conducted on 

several projects and in every region to determine the fate of irrigation water that 

was applied to fi elds. All water entering the fi eld through irrigation or precipitation 

was measured, consumptive use was estimated using state-of-the-art consumptive 

use formulae, root zone moisture levels were measured, and tail waters leaving 

the fi eld were measured. Cooperating irrigators were assisted in management of 

their irrigation water to the benefi t of production and reduction in water usage. 

Reclamation phased out the program in the late 1970s, but the practice is carried on 

by private industry for the benefi t of private irrigators as well as those on federal 

projects.
187

 Analog and sand tank models were used to study the way water enters 

clay tile and concrete drain pipe that had open joints for water to enter and how 

it enters perforated plastic pipe. Standards were set for the length of the clay tile 

and concrete pipe between open joints for various diameters of pipe. The larger 

the diameter of a pipe, the longer the pipe section can be. This research included 

establishing gradations and thicknesses for gravel envelopes around drain pipes.

Sand tank models to study envelope and pipe perforation design are still in progress.

 In the 1970s clogging by iron ocher caused by bacteria growth was noted at 

several locations. Reclamation initiated a cooperative program with Dr. Harry Ford, 

a renowned expert on ocher-forming bacteria, of Florida State University. The result 

was early identifi cation of problem soils and various means of treating the problems 

that develop.

 In the 1970s the “Open and Closed Conduit Systems” research program 

was used extensively to study various methods of construction, including the 

introduction of high-speed trenchers and trenchless drain construction or “plow 

drains.” The program was also used in the development of standards for plastic 

pipe drain materials. Video inspections of installed drains were used to determine 

defl ection and other problems associated with pipe strength. Working closely 

with the corrugated plastic pipe industry and the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, who were also developing a progressive drainage 

program, standards were developed for pipe strength and other properties. Mr. Ray 

J. Winger Jr. Chief of the Drainage and Ground Water Branch in the Engineering and 

Research Center from 1972 to 1981, was inducted into the Drainage Hall of Fame 

for his contribution to the advancement of plastic pipe for use in agricultural drains.

 In the 1980s a 12-inch-diameter hemispheric demonstration well was 

constructed in the Hydraulics Laboratory. The well was completed as an actual well 

except that it was fi tted with a Plexiglas plate across the fl at side so that observers 

could see what occurred in the aquifer and gravel pack outside the well during 

various rehabilitation treatments.

 Not every research venture ended in new methods or products being 

adopted. Through the 1970s Reclamation tested Ano envelope@ and thin synthetic 

envelopes under various conditions in California, Kansas, Wyoming, Washington, 

and Montana. In every case, the drains either failed completely or performed poorly 

compared to a sand/gravel envelope. In 1976 and 1978 ABS plastic pipe was 

installed at two locations in the Republican River Valley. ABS was a lightweight, 

thick-walled pipe formed in 5-foot long sections with bell and spigot joints. In both 

cases, the pipe failed to retain its shape after being in place for less than 1 year. In 

1974 a “trenchless” plow was used to install drains near Courtland, Kansas. The 

drains failed to control the water table and had to be replaced by conventional 

drains. In 1989, a thick or “voluminous” synthetic envelope consisting of styrofoam 

beads held in place by a nylon net was installed on a drain in central Nebraska.

Hydrostatic pressure forced the beads into the pipe perforations and thoroughly 
188

plugged them, preventing any water from entering the pipe. These learning 

experiences have not deterred the Reclamation drainage staff from being receptive to 

new products and ideas.

International Infl uence

 Since the Chief Engineer’s Offi ce was established in 1948, Reclamation 

Drainage and Ground Water staff have been involved in assisting other countries 

in developing responsible drainage programs. The fi rst foreign assignments for 

drainage staff were in Pakistan, India, Thailand, Peru, Egypt, Taiwan, Sri Lanka 

(formerly known as Ceylon), Afghanistan and the Philippines. Much of the 

data used to develop root zone moisture and salinity concepts was collected on 

assignments to Spain, Turkey, Australia, and other countries. Assignments to the 

African continent began when African nations gained independence from colonial 

rule: Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania. Our largest foreign involvement 

occurred during the 1970s, when we were involved in drainage and ground water 

activities throughout the developing world—South America, Africa, and Asia. 

 The foreign assistance focus has been to educate foreign nationals on the 

importance of understanding agricultural irrigation and the need to minimize land 

salinization or waterlogging of the soils. An economic land classifi cation which 

considers drainage costs is central to protecting the land resources from permanent 

degradation and ensuring that the lands being developed are productive enough to 

provide the farmer with a living wage. Another area of emphasis is the importance 

of operation and maintenance of all facilities, including drains.

 The individual assignments of a few weeks up to several years in length 

were typically fi nanced by World Bank, Asian Development Bank, or the U.S. 

Department of State under the Aid to Developing Countries Program.

 In the 1970s Ray J. Winger Jr. of the Engineering and Research Center 

participated in technical meetings of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Specialists Working 

group on Cooperation in the Field of Water Resources. The topic “Plastics in 

Hydrotechnical Construction” and subtopic “Investigating the Effectiveness 

of Utilizing Plastic Pipe in Irrigation and Drainage” were part of the U.S.-

U.S.S.R. Agreement on Science and Technology of May 24, 1972. Materials and 

specifi cations were exchanged, fi eld experiments were conducted in each country, 

and meetings and fi eld reviews were held in each country. The results of these 

experiments are incorporated into Reclamation=s technical drainage policy.

 Reclamation drainage staff served as consultants to the Prairie Farm 

Rehabilitation Administration, Department of Agriculture, Canada in the 1950s. A 

fi eld review and comment on the drainage and related salinity and waterlogging 

problems in Alberta and Saskatchewan Provinces were requested by the Canadian 

government.
189

 Through the 1980s and early 1990s Reclamation drainage engineers 

participated in an informal discussion group known as the Northern Plains Water 

Management Workshop. The workshop was made up of engineers and soil scientists 

from various universities and government agencies from the Dakotas, Montana, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The workshop had no formal structure, no offi cers, and 

no budget, but they would gather once a year at some facility and spend 2 to 3 days 

discussing the problems, research needs, and breakthroughs in irrigation of glacial 

till soils. The place and time of the gathering depended on someone volunteering to 

be the host.

Publications

Drainage Manual

 Drainage engineering was in its infancy during the 1940s through 1960s, 

and standard procedures for investigation and design had not been adopted. The 

purpose of the Drainage Manual was to present engineering tools and concepts 

that had proven useful in planning, constructing, and maintaining drainage 

systems for successful long-term irrigation projects. The fi rst drafts of the manual 

were in limited circulation within Reclamation in the early 1960s, but new 

procedures were being developed so rapidly that it was very diffi cult to arrive at 

a fi nal draft. It was not until the deluge of new concepts began to subside that 

the manual was published as a hardcover book. The fi rst edition was published 

in 1978. The manual was then quickly accepted as an authoritative publication 

by many in the world drainage community, and it is used now as a textbook by 

several universities. A revised reprint in 1993 contains only a few substantive 

changes.

 The Drainage Manual is used throughout Reclamation as a guide to 

performing drainage investigations, and the design, construction, and operation 

and maintenance of drainage systems for irrigated lands. The manual is gradually 

gaining acceptance as a guide to other drainage applications such as dam toe 

drains and slope stability.

Ground Water Manual

 The Ground Water Manual was developed as a guide to fi eld personnel in 

the more practical aspects and commonly encountered problems of ground water 

investigations, development, and management. It standardized Reclamation=s

procedures for ground water. The manual was developed over a period of years. 

Its contributors included personnel from the Bureau of Reclamation, other 

agencies, foreign governments, and many individual scientists and engineers.
190

Comprehensive Construction Training Program

 In 1987, Reclamation=s drainage and ground water personnel from several 

projects and regional offi ces contributed to the Comprehensive Construction 

Training Program by producing two modules titled Buried Pipe Drains and Well 

Construction.

Plastic Pipe Specifi cation

 With the introduction of plastic pipe for subsurface drains in the late 

1960s came a need to ensure reliability of the new product. Research and testing 

conducted by Reclamation led to the need to develop standards for the strength 

and performance of the pipe. As larger diameters of pipe became available, new 

specifi cations were written to accommodate these sizes. By the early 1990s, 

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) had developed 

parallel standards for the same product. On February 1, 1995, Reclamation 

produced a new document titled “M-20: Standard Specifi cations for Corrugated 

Polyethylene and Polyvinyl-Chloride Drainage Pipe” which combines all of the 

former specifi cation documents and relies heavily on ASTM and AASHTO while 

retaining certain standards that are more stringent than ASTM or AASHTO.

Spin-off Applications

 Not all of the drainage and ground water work is in the agricultural arena. 

Often dams, pumping plants, large canals, and other structures require subsurface 

drainage facilities to stabilize foundations and prevent damage from sloughing 

earthen slopes or seepage water.

Safety of Dams

 It has long been recognized that most earth dams and some concrete dams 

need adequate toe drains to maintain a stable foundation. It was not until the 

1980s that agricultural drainage experts began to have involvement in the design 

and construction of drains where the cost of failure could be measured in human 

lives. Replacement of the toe drains at Sherman Dam in Nebraska was the fi rst 

such venture for the agricultural drainage staff. Then slowly came Canyon Ferry 

Dam in Montana, Diamond Creek Dike at Buffalo Bill Dam in Wyoming, Bonny 

Dam in Colorado, and Glendo Dikes in Wyoming. Success in these projects 

has demonstrated that the science of ground water engineering is not limited to 

agricultural applications. While adaptations need to be made to deal with the 

greater hydraulic gradients and the greater risk in the case of failure, the same 

basic concepts, materials and construction techniques are applicable. 
191

Canal and Structure Stabilization

 Toe drains are constructed along major canals for a variety of reasons. 

Slope stability, waterlogging of agricultural lands, and salinity control have all 

been accomplished by use of subsurface drains. McClusky Canal on the Garrison 

Diversion Unit in North Dakota experienced slope stability problems through cut 

sections 100 feet or more in depth. The canal was constructed in the 1970s and 

suffered chronic sloughing of the banks into the canal prism. Attempts to solve 

the problems using horizontal wells placed with an AAardvark@ horizontal drilling 

machine proved futile. After 10 to 15 years of severe maintenance problems, 

drainage personnel in the Garrison Diversion Offi ce provided solutions to these 

problems by applying their knowledge of agricultural drainage in till lands.

 The New Rockford Canal in North Dakota was constructed in the mid1980s and marked the fi rst example of canal toe drains being constructed as part 

of the canal contract specifi cally to protect agricultural lands from seepage from 

the canal.

 The Courtland Canal along the Nebraska-Kansas border is perched atop 

the steep river bluffs and causes serious waterlogging problems in the irrigated 

fi elds below. Most of these problems have been relieved by use of interceptor 

drains at the base of the bluffs. However, the volume of water coming from the 

canal overwhelmed the fi rst attempts at interception in the mid-1960s. Additional 

drainage works were constructed periodically for the next 20 years. A fi eld 

review in the summer of 2000 concluded that the problems have fi nally been 

essentially solved.

 Agricultural drainage techniques were used in 1980 to prevent the 

Yellowstone River from washing out the Terry Pumping Plant. As the slope 

progressively sloughed, the river threatened to cut a new channel behind the 

60-cubic-foot-per-second pumping plant. Field investigations and transient 

state computations revealed the source of the problem, and it was solved by 

constructing a simple agricultural drain.

 Again in 1990 concepts that were developed for agricultural drainage 

came to the rescue of a 50-foot-wide, 22-foot-high drop structure that carries 

2,300 cubic feet per second at full capacity. The East Drain Terminal Drop 

structure below Palmetto Bend Dam on the gulf coast of Texas is subjected to 

extreme variations in hydrostatic pressure as tides move in and out. Perforated 

plastic pipe drains at the sides of the structure and a graded gravel bed at the 

bottom successfully relieved the stresses on the structure.

Wetlands Applications

 As the focus of Reclamation activities has shifted from construction 

to water management, drainage and ground water personnel have used the 
192

knowledge gained over the past 50 years to incorporate wetland construction and 

management into their realm of expertise. In the Bay Delta, programs associated 

with the Central Valley Project in California, the Platte River Recovery Program 

in central Nebraska, and the National Irrigation Water Quality Program, the same 

concepts that were developed for drainage are being used by drainage personnel 

to create and enhance wetlands.

Conclusions

 In our fi rst century, Reclamation has constructed over 13,000 miles of 

surface and subsurface drains to protect an estimated 1 million acres of irrigated 

land from damage due to waterlogging and salinity. This does not include 

the miles of drains or acres protected on projects that treat drainage as a farm 

development cost.

 The fi rst 50 years were typifi ed by struggles to cope with technical 

unknowns as scientists, engineers, farmers, irrigation managers, and politicians 

attempted to develop water projects to attract settlers to the American West. 

During the last 50 years, we have seen the uncertain art of drainage evolve into 

a science which removes most of the technical unknowns from the drainage of 

irrigated lands and allows development of sustainable agriculture to occur in a 

controlled manner.

 Changing social values in the last quarter century have preempted some 

very promising irrigation developments. We have seen our focus change from 

developing new agricultural lands to maintaining existing water resources 

and environmental assets for the good of all society. We want to take note 

of a common thread that repeatedly appeared in the references used for this 

paper. It was the concern that Reclamation employees have always had for the 

environment. Well before the time of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and most environmental groups, Reclamation drainage engineers were concerned 

about the quality of water that fl owed from the drains and the effect that it would 

have on wildlife and other downstream users. Drainage engineering also has 

provided the agricultural community with the comprehension and capability to 

keep irrigated farm land in productivity and avoid exploitation. The twentieth 

century has been the fi rst time in history that large-scale irrigation has not 

been marked by a majority of lands that became waterlogged, salinized, and 

abandoned.

 The lessons learned and the science that was developed around 

Reclamation=s experience in drainage and ground water will be useful to future 

developments in the United States and around the world as developing countries 

endeavor to feed and clothe their people.
193

References:

Brohl, R. E., “Design Considerations for Agricultural Drains on the Columbia Basin Project,” 

 (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1971).

Burnett, Roger, and Rodney TeKrony, “Drainage Investigations on the Oahe Unit, South Dakota,” 

 (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1977).

Christopher, J. N., and K. Campbell, “Drain Construction on the Columbia Basin Project,” 

 (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1980).

Cunnigham, A. Jack, Jr., written communication, unpublished chronology of Reclamation=s

 Transient Spacing Formulae, June 2001.

Delamore, M., South-Central California Area Offi ce, USBR, written communication, unpublished 

 chronology of West Side Drainage History, 2001.

Department of the Interior, National Irrigation Water Quality Project website, http://www.usbr.

 gov/niwqp/prgmdscr.html

Dumm, Lee D., “New Formula for Determining Depth and Spacing of Subsurface Drains in 

 Irrigated Lands,” (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1953).

Dumm Lee D., “Drain-spacing Method Used by the Bureau of Reclamation,” (Denver: Bureau of 

 Reclamation, 1962).

Frogge, R. R., and G. D. Sanders, “USBR Subsurface Drain Design Procedures,” (Denver: Bureau 

 of Reclamation, 1977).

Hubbs, Danny, Columbia Basin Area Offi ce, written communication, unpublished Summary of 

 Subsurface Drainage Program—Columbia Basin Project, 1960 to 1995, March 21, 2001.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, January-February, 1988.

Mairhofer, C. R., memorandum from Chief, Offi ce of Drainage and Groundwater Engineering, to 

 Regional Directors, subject Drain-Spacing Formulas and Charts, April 20, 1959.

Monteith, John, III, and Phillip M. Myers, “Construction of Pipe Drains on the Columbia Basin 

 Project,” (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1968).

Quinn, Nigel W. T., M. Chris Eacock, and M. Gardener, “A Watershed Approach to Load 

 Management of Agricultural Selenium Drainage,” (in preparation).

Schnepf, Max, “The Food Security Act: A Redefi nition of Conservation,” Journal of Soil and 

 Water Conservation, vol 43, no 1, p. 8, 1988.

Tapp, W. N., Trip Report, “Subject: South Gila Valley Drainage Wells, Yuma, Arizona,” dated

 February 20, 1961.

USBR, Drainage Manual, A Water Resources Publication, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

 of Reclamation, 1993.

USBR, http://dataweb.usbr.gov/html/gila.html#development

USBR, http://dataweb.usbr.gov/html/rvrton2.html

USBR, letter from Commissioner to Regional Director, Billings Montana, Subject Oahe Irrigation 

 Project, March 1, 1954.

USBR, letter from Assistant Commissioner to Chief Engineer (et al.), Subject Drainage Policy, 

 April 15, 1963.

Water and Power Resources Service (USBR), Project Data, (Denver: Government Printing Offi ce, 

 1981).

USBR, “Project History,” Belle Fourche Project, 1920.

USBR, “Project History,” Huntley Project, 1911.

USBR, “Project History,” Huntley Project, 1912.

USBR, “Project History,” Huntley Project, 1913.

USBR, “Supplementary Irrigation Suitability Land Classifi cation Report, Phases I and II, 

 Newlands Project-Nevada, Truckee and Carson Divisions,” February 1985.

USBR, http://dataweb.rsgis.do.usbr.gov/html/newlandsh.htm#Post-Construction_History

Winger, Ray J., Jr, “Trip Report, Review of Maintenance Program - Drainage - Newlands and 

 Humboldt Projects,” 1964.

Winger, Ray J., Jr., and W. F. Ryan, “Gravel Envelope for Pipe Drains-Design,” American Society 

 of Agricultural Engineers Paper 70-708. Presented at the 1970 Winter Meeting, 
194

 American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Sherman House, Chicago, Illinois, 

 December 8-11, 1970.

Winger, Ray J., Jr, personal telephone communication, June 27, 2001.

Zander, J., Mid-Pacifi c Regional Offi ce, USBR, written communication, unpublished chronology 

 of Challenge Grants, 2001.
195

Evolution of the Hoover Dam Infl ow Design Flood:

A Study in Changing Methodologies

By:

Robert E. Swain

Abstract

Over the years many changes have taken place in estimating the 

maximum fl ood potential at Bureau of Reclamation dams. This paper traces the 

technological changes by using the Hoover Dam fl ood studies as an example.

 The largest recorded fl ood in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, 

which is the site of Hoover Dam, occurred in July 1884. It was estimated to 

have a peak discharge of about 300,000 ft3/s. The Bureau of Reclamation and 

the Geological Survey determined the magnitude of the 1884 fl ood based on 

high water marks in the Black Canyon; fl ood observations at Lees Ferry; and 

gage height observations at Grand Junction, Colorado, and Yuma, Arizona. The 

fi ve-month volume of the fl ood was estimated to be about 30,000,000 acre-feet. 

The 1884 fl ood was considered a Anear maximum fl ood@ and became the basis 

for the design of the spillways and fl ood control space in Hoover Dam.

 In 1990 the Bureau of Reclamation revised the probable maximum 

fl ood studies for the Colorado River Basin and for Hoover and Glen Canyon 

Dams. The Dam Safety Offi ce identifi ed the need for the study when fl ood 

operations during the 1983 fl ood required operating the spillways and resulted 

in considerable damage to the concrete lining of the spillways. The fl ood 

hydrology data used for the original dam design were not found to conform to 

current technical methodology for estimating the probable maximum fl ood.

 New hydrologic studies were conducted using a hydrologic model to 

convert precipitation to runoff. The design storm was developed from historical 

storm data that indicated the possibility of two large rain events occurring within 

a few days of each other. For Hoover Dam the most critical situation could 

occur in August, when a Pine and Cedar Mountains-centered storm follows 

a San Juan Mountains centered storm by seven days. This storm sequence 

would produce a probable maximum fl ood at the dam with a peak discharge of 

1,130,000 ft3

/s and a 60-day volume of 9.3 million acre-feet.

 Oftentimes, technological change has resulted in the need to modify 

dams to ensure public safety. In this case, routing the probable maximum fl ood 

through Lake Mead does not overtop the dam and results in a maximum water 

surface that is still three feet below the top of the parapet wall. However, about 

100 of Reclamation=s dams are unable to safely accommodate the probable 

maximum fl ood.

Introduction

 A large fl ood resulting from late season snowmelt in the spring and 

summer of 1983 required operation of the Hoover Dam spillways. During this 

operation, damage to the concrete lining of the spillways occurred, leading to the 

assessment of potential modifi cations to alleviate the problem. As a part of this 
196

analysis, the Flood Section of the Bureau of Reclamation evaluated the adequacy of 

the hydrologic engineering aspects of the dam. Additional high runoff occurrences 

in 1984 and 1986 kept the fl ood issues at Hoover Dam in the forefront.

 Upon reevaluation, the hydrologic data used as a basis for sizing the dam, 

the outlet works capacity, and the allocated fl ood storage/surcharge space were not 

found to conform to the current state-of-the-art with respect to operational criteria 

and technical methodologies. These data also do not refl ect recent hydrologic and 

meteorological data acquired since the original design was completed. Previous 

design fl ood investigations were crudely developed from high water marks left from 

large historical fl ood events. More recent investigations account for the effects of 

upstream basin development and reservoir regulation, as well as the knowledge 

gained from the many large storms that have occurred over the basin since the dam 

was built.

Basin Description

 The Colorado River above Hoover Dam drains an area of 167,000 mi2

. The 

drainage basin includes parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, 

and Nevada. Approximately 108,000 mi2 of the drainage basin are above Glen 

Canyon Dam.

 Many dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the basin over the years. 

The larger reservoirs are formed from water impounded by Fontenelle, Flaming 

Gorge, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, Crystal, Dillon, Navajo, Glen Canyon, and 

Hoover Dams.

 The basin is arid to semi-arid with an average annual rainfall of about 

10 inches. The annual precipitation varies from over 40 inches in the higher 

mountainous areas to less than 3 inches near Hoover Dam. Long cold winters and 

cool short summers characterize the climate of the mountains in the basin. In the 

lower areas the winters are mild and short, and the summers are long and warm. The 

temperature extremes in the basin range from B45qC to 46qC. The average annual 

runoff is less than 1.5 inches for the entire basin. Most of this runoff is produced in 

the upper basin areas. Snow accumulation normally begins in October in the high 

mountains and in some years continues through May.

Basis for Original Spillway Design

 Hoover Dam (also known as Boulder Dam) was sized using streamfl ow 

records in existence prior to 1929. Reliable recorded streamfl ow records for the 

Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona, began in 1902. Less reliable gage heights were 

also available at the Yuma site for the earlier period from 1878 through 1901. The 

largest recorded fl ow was 210,000 ft3

/s on June 26, 1920. The maximum historic 

discharge, since the river was fi rst occupied by civilized man in 1856, was believed 
197

to have occurred in the summer of 1884 and was estimated to range from 250,000 to 

350,000 ft3

/s.1

 On the basis of the fl ood data and other safety considerations, a spillway 

capacity of 400,000 ft3/s with the reservoir water surface at the crest of the dam 

(elevation 1232.0 feet) was provided to prevent any possibility of the dam being 

overtopped by an unprecedented future fl ood. The total discharge capacity of the 

dam was 520,000 ft3/s, which included the spillway capacity along with the outlet 

works release capacity of 100,000 ft3

/s and the power plant release capacity of 

20,000 ft3/s.2

 The total reservoir capacity is 30.5 million acre feet, which includes 

9.5 million acre feet of fl ood control storage. The design and construction reports 

for the Diversion, Outlet, and Spillway Structures indicate that the intent of the 

design was to accommodate not only the largest possible fl ood but also a fl ood 

resulting from a dam failure upstream. The report states, AThe ponding effect of the 

fl ood storage, combined with the 520 thousand second-feet of discharge capacity, 

provides for an estimated infl ow into the reservoir of nearly 1 million second-feet 

for several days without overtopping the dam. The provision for so large an infl ow 

into the reservoir was based on the criterion that the dam must be entirely safe for 

any fl ood condition, even though the fl ood might be caused by the failure of a dam at 

some upstream location.@3

Original Flood Study

 E. B. Debler, Hydraulic Engineer with the Bureau of Reclamation, conducted 

the original fl ood studies that were used to size the spillways and fl ood control space 

for the dam. In 1930 he wrote Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir. Data 

that were used in the analysis consisted of stream gage records, high water marks, 

and newspaper accounts.4

 Prior to construction of the many major dams now located in the Colorado 

River basin, high fl ows in the lower portion of the basin occurred frequently. 

Between 1878 and 1929, peak fl ows were estimated to exceed 100,000 ft3/s twentythree times and 200,000 ft3

/s three times in the vicinity of Hoover Dam. The 

Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation estimated the peak discharge for the 

1884 fl ood as 250,000 and 300,000 ft3/s, respectively. These estimates were based 

on high water marks in the Black Canyon, gage heights at Grand Junction and Yuma, 

newspaper accounts, and a fl ood observation at Lees Ferry.5

 The Geological Survey estimated that the 1884 fl ood had a peak of 250,000 

ft3

/s at Lees Ferry. A high water mark given by a local resident was compared with 

gage heights for the Lees Ferry gage. The rating curve that was used is unknown. 

Since the largest gaged fl ow at this site was 114,000 ft3

/s, the rating curve that was 

provided by the Geological Survey for this station was extended to estimate the 1884 

peak. Several extension techniques were explored to try to reproduce the Geological 
198

Survey fl ood estimate. Reclamation engineers could get close to their estimate but 

could not reproduce it. Therefore, Reclamation decided to develop its own estimate 

of the 1884 fl ood.6

 Newspapers of 1884 contain numerous references to heavy snows 

throughout the basin. The Gunnison Daily Review Press reported in mid-May snow 

from two to fi ve feet deep at several locations between elevations of 9,000 and 

10,000 feet. The normal snow depth for the Gunnison watershed was about 

18 inches for the end of April. Other newspaper accounts indicated that this 

condition was widespread over the upper basin.7

 Only one precipitation station was available for the upper basin in 1884. It 

was located at Fort Lewis, La Plata County, in the San Juan basin. At this station 

precipitation was about 40 percent above normal from October through May, and 

temperatures were below normal during the spring months.8

 Flows in upstream tributaries were at all-time highs. The Gunnison River, 

 Colorado River at Fruita, and Green River at Green River were at their highest 

known stages in 1884 and were reported in 1929 as the highest of all time. High 

fl ows were also reported in Utah by the Salt Lake City newspapers. Inhabitants 

reported that high fl ows continued for weeks.9

 Based on these accounts and various fl ow records, Reclamation concluded 

that the peaks at Green River, Utah, and on the Colorado River at Fruita occurred 

simultaneously. Mr. Robert Follansbee, District Engineer with the Geological 

Survey, estimated the fl ow at Fruita to be 125,000 ft3

/s and at Green River to be 

95,000 ft3/s. After making an allowance for the lower streams, the discharge at 

Black Canyon was estimated as 300,000 ft3

/s.10

 To check the 1884 fl ood peak Reclamation used the gage height at Yuma 

and channel cross section to compute the associated discharge. Based on 1920 

and 1921 fl ow velocity data, a mean velocity of 7.2 ft/s was used for the hydraulic 

calculations. The discharge was estimated as 250,000 ft3/s at Yuma. Since fl ows 

at Black Canyon were greater than at Yuma due to channel storage in the lower 

reaches, the Yuma discharge was increased by 19 percent to arrive at the Black 

Canyon discharge of 300,000 ft3

/s.11

 Flows, which formed the basis of a fl ood frequency analysis, were estimated 

at Black Canyon using data from the gages at Yuma, Topock, Hardyville, Boulder 

Canyon, Bright Angel, Lees Ferry, and some unidentifi ed main tributaries. 

Empirical relationships were used to transfer peak fl ows to Black Canyon. Flows for 

1878 through 1901 were solely based on the fl ow at Yuma. Later years, 1902-1929, 

relied on comparisons between gages and considerable engineering judgment 

to develop the annual peaks at Black Canyon. The fl ow data were plotted on 

probability paper using methods developed by H. Alden Foster and R. D. Goodrich. 
199

The results are shown on Table 1. The 1884 fl ood was determined to be about a 

500-year fl ood.12

Table 5.1. 1930 Flood Frequency Analysis for Hoover Dam

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable 

Maximum Floods - Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, (Denver, 1990), 9.

.

Peak Flow

(ft3/s)

Return Period

(Years)

Annual Exceedance Probability

(Percent)

130,000 5 20.00

160,000 10 10.00

190,000 20 5.00

230,000 50 2.00

260,000 100 1.00

320,000 500 0.20

360,000 1,000 0.10

450,000 10,000 0.01

 The volume of the 1884 fl ood was estimated as 30,450,000 acre feet for the 

period May 3 through August 22. Flow records were reconstructed for the Yuma 

gage to develop the volume estimate. When the infl ow design fl ood was developed, 

the duration of the fl ood was extended to include April through the end of August 

by using comparisons with other high runoff years. Table 2 displays the monthly 

volumes of the infl ow design fl ood. As indicated on the table, the infl ow design 

fl ood volume increased to 33,200,000 acre feet after adding additional spring fl ows 

and extending the period from April through August.13

Table 5.2. 1930 Infl ow Design Flood Volumes for Hoover Dam

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable 

Maximum Floods - Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, (Denver, 1990),10

Month Volume

(Acre-feet)

Mean Monthly Flow

(ft3/s)

April 2,000,000 33,610

May 5,000,000 81,320

June 11,850,000 199,160

July 11,350,000 184,590

August 3,000,000 48,790

Total 33,200,000
200

1990 Probable Maximum Flood Study

 Reclamation revised the infl ow design fl ood for Hoover Dam in 1990. 

Meteorological studies were conducted by Morrison-Knudsen Engineers and 

are documented in the report entitled, Determination of an Upper Limit Design 

Rainstorm for the Colorado River Basin Above Hoover Dam. Reclamation 

performed the hydrologic analysis, and the results of this study are documented in 

the report, Colorado River Basin Probable Maximum Floods - Hoover and Glen 

Canyon Dams. The following sections of this paper describe these studies 

in more detail.14

Meteorological Analysis

 Modern procedures for developing a probable maximum fl ood involve 

development of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) and rainfall-runoff 

modeling. Probable maximum precipitation is generally defi ned as Atheoretically, 

the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible 

over a given size storm area at a particular geographical location at a certain 

time of the year.@ Traditionally the PMP storm is developed by transposing 

moisture maximized storms to various locations in the basin. Then differences in 

orographic effects between the storm location and the selected storm centerings 

are accounted for either by a transposition index or by storm separation 

techniques. For Hoover Dam, a slightly different approach was taken due to the 

very large drainage area, extreme variation in orographic effects, and defi ciency 

of large-area storms.15

 Upper limit design rainstorms (ULDRS) were developed for three 

locations in the Colorado River drainage above Hoover Dam. The term, ULDRS, 

was used to emphasize that there are differences in the procedures used to develop 

these storms from those used to develop the traditional PMP for smaller area 

sizes. Specifi c storm analyses involved determination of the ULDRS magnitude, 

spatial and temporal distributions, storm sequencing, and seasonal variation.16

 As with any study of this nature, it was fi rst necessary to assemble an 

exhaustive listing of all known major storms that have occurred in or near the 

region surrounding the Colorado River Basin above Hoover Dam. Due to the 

large drainage area and the availability of extreme precipitation estimates from 

Hydrometeorological Report No. 49 for areas less than 5,000 mi2, the search for 

critical storm data concentrated on fi nding severe rainfall events covering larger 

areas. Of the 20 storms for which detailed meteorological investigations were 

performed, 13 storms were analyzed to provide the necessary depth-area-duration 

data.17

 Since the study basin is located in a region of complex topography, 

which produces a signifi cant effect on total storm rainfall, it was necessary to 

estimate likely storm centerings and associated Ageneric@ isohyetal patterns prior 
201

to development of the ULDRS. An important consideration in the development 

of likely storm centerings was the location of Glen Canyon Dam in relation to 

Hoover Dam. The objective was to provide the necessary design storms that 

would affect not only Hoover, but also the two dams operating in combination. 

Examination of the isohyetal patterns of rainfall associated with major storms 

occurring in the drainage was particularly useful in identifying three storm 

centerings and their related isohyetal patterns. The three storms were located in 

the San Juan Mountains (Colorado), Boulder Mountains (Utah), and Pine and 

Cedar Mountains (Utah).

 The ULDRS magnitude for each of the three storm centerings was 

evaluated by two separate methods. The fi rst approach is commonly referred 

to as the storm separation method, where observed areal storm precipitation is 

separated into components (convergence and orographic). Each precipitation 

component is treated and evaluated separately, and later recombined, to provide 

total design storm precipitation. The second approach used the traditional 

method of storm moisture maximization and transposition. After evaluation of 

the assumptions and uncertainties involved in application of each approach, the 

results were averaged to produce the fi nal ULDRS magnitude.

 Due to the large basin and storm areas involved, it was necessary 

to describe the spatial distribution of average areal ULDRS precipitation.

Hydrologic trials were conducted using preliminary average areal precipitation. A 

storm area of 40,000 mi2

 was critical for development of the maximum infl ow to 

Hoover Dam. The ULDRS magnitude was estimated as averaging from 6.93 to 

7.29 inches in depth for 72-hour storms for the three locations.

 Critical infl ow to the dams could result from a series of storms occurring 

in sequence. Investigations were conducted to defi ne the relationship between 

storm magnitude and dry-period interval separating the sequenced storms. A 

relationship between the days separation between storms, and the magnitude of 

areal rainfall both prior and subsequent to the main storm was developed.

 To adequately assess the fl ood potential, it was necessary to defi ne the 

magnitude of the ULDRS event for the period from May through October. It 

is during this period that the greatest fl ood threat on the Colorado River above 

Hoover Dam would likely result from the combination of the ULDRS event with 

the snowmelt hydrograph. The ULDRS event for all three centerings could occur 

with the same magnitude during the period from August 1 through October 31. 

Prior to August, the seasonal variation of the ULDRS would indicate a decrease in 

rainfall potential.

Hydrologic Analysis

 Selection on an infl ow design fl ood (IDF) is generally based on an 

incremental hazard evaluation downstream for the dam. AThe IDF is the fl ood 
202

fl ow above which the incremental increase in water surface elevation downstream 

due to failure of a dam or other water retaining structure is no longer considered 

to present an unacceptable additional downstream threat.@ In this case, the 

probable maximum fl ood (PMF) was selected as the infl ow design fl ood because 

if the dam failed, it would result in catastrophic consequences, including loss 

of life. The PMF is defi ned as Athe maximum runoff condition resulting from 

the most severe combination of hydrologic and meteorologic conditions that are 

considered reasonably possible for the drainage basin under study.@18

 Reclamation used the Flood Hydrograph and Routing (FHAR) computer 

program to convert excess precipitation to runoff and generate the fl ood 

hydrograph for the ULDRS. FHAR, which was developed by Reclamation, uses 

unit hydrograph theory. The program derives the fl ood hydrograph by applying 

increments of excess precipitation to the unit hydrograph. The unit hydrograph is 

computed from the dimensionless graph, given the basin area, lag time, and unit 

time.

 The lower and upper basins were divided into 99 subbasins for the 

analysis. In general, subbasin delineation was made by following major tributary 

boundaries. Subbasins that had similar characteristics of elevation, slope, 

land use, and drainage pattern were combined where possible. The size of the 

subbasins was limited to areas of less than 5,000 mi2

.

 Field trips were made to become familiar with the subbasins. Soil and 

geologic conditions, land use, vegetation type and cover, and basin roughness and 

steepness were examined to better estimate loss rates and lag coeffi cients. These 

observations were used for all subbasins visited.

 Loss rates are a measure of the precipitation lost to infi ltration, 

evaporation, transpiration, absorption, and minor depression storage in the 

basin. In general, the lower basin near Lake Mead and the north-side tributaries 

to the lake are areas of low infi ltration and are subject to fl ash fl ooding. The 

other areas and tributaries, especially Kanab Creek, Kaibab Creek, and most 

of the Little Colorado River basin had somewhat higher loss rates. In these 

areas, the vegetative cover was heavier, and the loss rates appeared to increase 

with elevation rise. Most of the Little Colorado River basin showed very little 

evidence of fl ash fl ooding or stream channel development.

 In the upper basin, those areas tributary to Lake Powell were very desertlike and exhibited signs of fl ash fl ooding. The loss rates appeared quite low, 

and the vegetative cover was very sparse. Some portions of the lower Green 

River subbasin had extensive outcrops of Mancos Shale. The upper basin areas 

exhibited a similar increase in vegetation and loss rates with elevation rise.

 In applications of the unit hydrograph approach, the Reclamation lag 

equation is used in determining the lag time of the fl ood hydrograph. Lag time 
203

is defi ned as the time from the center of mass of unit rainfall excess to the time 

that one-half the volume of unit runoff from the drainage basin has passed the 

concentration point. The lag coeffi cient is a measure of the hydraulic effi ciency 

of a basin to transmit water, which refl ects overall basin roughness, steepness, and 

vegetative cover. Lag coeffi cients for the basins above Hoover ranged from 

1.3 to 5.5.19

 The dimensionless unit hydrograph was used to calculate the fl ood 

hydrograph for each subbasin. The basin above Hoover Dam includes three basic 

types of terrain—deserts, foothills, and mountains. Data gathered from the fi eld 

reconnaissance and from analysis of basin features shown on topographic maps 

were compared with similar data for basins where unit hydrographs had been 

developed from observed fl ood hydrographs. Separate dimensionless graphs were 

used for each type of topography. The following three dimensionless graphs were 

used in the study: (1) Salt River for the desert areas, (2) Buckhorn for the foothill 

areas, (3) Uinta for the mountainous areas.20

 The Tatum method was used to route fl ood hydrographs from one 

subbasin to the next downstream subbasin, and to combine them with additional 

fl ood hydrographs as the fl oods move downstream. The Tatum method is a 

successive average lag procedure. It is commonly used to route hydrographs 

through channels, which have no appreciable storage or large tributary infl ows, 

or where costs of obtaining channel cross-section and other data needed for more 

sophisticated methods are prohibitive. FHAR uses the modifi ed Puls method to 

route fl oods through reservoirs or through short stream reaches in which the time 

of travel and wedge storage is negligible.

Antecedent Flood

 The antecedent fl ood is that fl ood, and associated climatic conditions, 

affecting the basin prior to the onset of the upper limit design rainstorm. For this 

study, the antecedent fl ood is a 100-year snowmelt event. This fl ood is not nearly 

as large as what might be expected as the probable maximum snowmelt fl ood, 

but the volume is still very large when compared to the volume of the ULDRS 

fl ood event. In order to model operations of the reservoirs of the Colorado River 

above Hoover Dam, daily fl ows were required for a complete calendar year. The 

100-year base snowmelt fl ood, which was developed statistically, had an annual 

volume of 25,375,000 acre feet into Lake Powell and 1,281,000 acre feet as 

intervening fl ow into Lake Mead from the contributing drainage area downstream 

of Lake Powell.

Reservoir Operations

 The reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin are operated as an 

integrated system. The system has a total fl ood control space requirement of 

5,350,000 acre feet, which must be evacuated from storage by January 1. At least 
204

1,500,000 acre feet of that space must be in Lake Mead, which is the only facility 

in the system with exclusive fl ood control space. One of the primary goals of the 

fl ood control operations for the Colorado River system is to keep the exclusive 

fl ood control storage at Hoover vacant year-round to regulate potential rain 

fl oods.21

 The 1982 fi eld working agreement between Reclamation and the Corps of 

Engineers for fl ood control operations of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead establishes 

the reservoir operating criteria. Two sets of operating rules are used to operate 

the system. During the space-building or drawdown season, which extends from 

August through December, the objective is to gradually drawdown the reservoir 

system to create space for next spring=s snowmelt runoff. During the runoff 

forecast season, from January through July, the forecasted maximum infl ow 

hydrograph is routed through the reservoir using predetermined release rates, so 

that the reservoir system is full by July 1.22

 Using the 100-year snowmelt fl ood values, routing studies were performed 

to simulate reservoir operations during the antecedent fl ood event. The Colorado 

River system operation was modeled bimonthly beginning January 1 to refl ect 

proper operations during a forecasted 100-year snowmelt fl ood. Runoff forecast 

errors were subtracted from the actual infl ows through July 31 in order to make 

operational decisions that refl ect a reasonable degree of conservatism. The results 

of these investigations produce the starting elevations that were required to route 

the ULDRS fl ood event.

Probable Maximum Floods

 Determination of the probable maximum fl oods for Hoover Dam 

involved generating seasonal fl ood hydrographs by applying the results of the 

meteorological investigation. Numerous combinations of ULDRS centerings 

and storm separations were evaluated to determine the most critical hydrologic 

conditions for the dam. The ULDRS fl ood hydrographs were combined with the 

snowmelt antecedent fl ood to determine the most critical hydrologic condition at 

the dam. Results of these analyses produced PMFs for the critical May through 

August storm season.

 The most critical fl ood situation for Hoover Dam occurs when the 

San Juan storm is followed by the Pine and Cedar Mountain storm. The 

fl ood hydrographs developed for the upper basin were routed through Glen 

Canyon Dam, and combined with concurrent runoff and intervening base fl ow 

hydrographs for the area between Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. The resulting 

PMF had a peak infl ow of 1,130,000 ft3

/s and a 60-day volume of 

9.3 million acre feet.23
205

Discussion

 Reclamation=s approach toward estimating the infl ow design fl ood for 

 Hoover Dam has changed dramatically over the years, moving from simple hand 

calculations to more complex computer simulations. The original fl ood study 

for Hoover Dam relied on high water marks and gage heights to construct the 

largest possible fl ood for design. The analysis assumed that the largest fl ood had 

already occurred in the basin and was refl ected in the historical record. Even 

today, the 1884 fl ood is still the largest fl ood on record in this basin. When put 

in a statistical context, it was estimated to have a return period of about once in 

500 years. By modern standards, this is considered an unsafe design standard.

However, the engineers who designed the dam sized the spillways and outlet 

works to pass the peak of this fl ood without taking credit for the additional fl ood 

regulation provided by the storage space in the reservoir. These very conservative 

design decisions produced a dam that is still safe when tested against today=s

design criteria.

 The magnitude of the differences between the two studies can be 

determined by comparing the peak discharge and the 60-day volumes. The 1930 

fl ood study produced an infl ow design fl ood with a peak discharge of 300,000 ft3

/s

and an approximate 60-day volume of 23,200,000 acre feet. The 1990 PMF had a 

peak discharge of 1,130,000 ft3/s and a 60-day volume of 9,300,000 acre feet. So 

even though the peak discharge of the 1990 PMF is nearly four times as large as 

the 1930 IDF, the volume is less than half the 1930 volume.

 An additional 60 years of data have been collected since the 1930 study 

was completed. Because PMF procedures attempt to produce the maximum fl ood 

possible at a site, one would expect additional data to result in larger fl ood values 

in the 1990 study. Since most of the volume comes from snowmelt, one could 

speculate that the 1884 fl ood was predominately a snowmelt fl ood with a return 

period much greater than the once in 100 years, which was used as the antecedent 

fl ood in the 1990 study. This could account for the smaller peak and larger 

volume in the 1930 analysis.

 The dams and reservoirs that have been built upstream of Hoover could 

also be responsible for some of the volume differences. Hoover Dam was one 

of the fi rst major structures on the Colorado River. The other large dams, which 

were built after 1930, can store much of the fl ood volume. Normal reservoir 

operations use fl ood forecasting to regulate snowmelt fl oods by vacating reservoir 

storage prior to the occurrence of the fl ood peak. This helps maximize power 

generation and minimize fl ood damages in the basin, and reduces the volume of 

water into Lake Mead.

 Since Hoover Dam was built, engineers and hydrologists have collected 

a lot of data and gained additional understanding of meteorological, hydrologic, 

and statistical processes. Climate and streamfl ow data available for analysis has 
206

increased dramatically in both quantity and quality. Computer technology now 

allows analysis of detailed storm patterns and construction of rainfall-runoff 

models in order to obtain a better understanding of the hydrology of the Colorado 

River. This allows the engineer to run numerous computer simulations to 

determine the most critical hydrologic condition for the dam.

Robert E. Swain, P.E., is a longtime engineering employee of the Bureau of 

Reclamation and served as a Flood Hydrology Technical Specialist in the Flood 

Hydrology and Meteorology Group. He was actively involved in safety of dams 

work for Reclamation and is now retired.

Endnotes

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder Canyon Project Final 

Reports: Part IV-Design and Construction; Bulletin 3-Diversion, Outlet, and Spillway Structures, 

(Denver, 1947), 255.

2. Bureau of Reclamation, Diversion, Outlet, and Spillway Structures, 255.

3. Bureau of Reclamation, Diversion, Outlet, and Spillway Structures, 255.

4. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir with Reference Especially to 

the Height of Dam to Be Adopted,” Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

(January 31, 1930). 

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable 

Maximum Floods–Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, (Denver, 1990), 9.

6. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 36-37.

7. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 39.

8. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 39.

9. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 39-40.

10. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 40.

11. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 40-43..

12. Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 24-34.

13. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable Maximum Floods–Hoover and 

Glen Canyon Dams, 10; Debler, E. B., “Hydrology of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir . . .,” 198.

14. Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc., Determination of an Upper Limit Design Rainstorm 

for the Colorado River Basin Above Hoover Dam, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, (Denver, 1990); Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable Maximum 

Floods–Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams.

15. Cudworth, A. G., Flood Hydrology Manual, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, (Denver, 1989), 25.

16. Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc., Determination of an Upper Limit Design Rainstorm 

for the Colorado River Basin Above Hoover Dam, xi-xii.

17. Hansen, E. M., F. K. Schwarz, and J. T. Riedel, “Probable Maximum Precipitation 

Estimates–Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages,” Hydrometeorological Report No. 49,

National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, (Silver Spring, 1977); Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc., Determination of an Upper 

Limit Design Rainstorm for the Colorado River Basin Above Hoover Dam.

18. Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting 

And Accommodating Infl ow Design Floods for Dams, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

(1998), 1; Cudworth, A. G., Flood Hydrology Manual, 114.

19. Cudworth, A. G., Flood Hydrology Manual, 68-71.

20. Cudworth, A. G., Flood Hydrology Manual, 90-95.

21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin–

Hoover Dam–Review of Flood Control Regulation–Final Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Los Angeles District, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, (July 1982).
207

22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin–

Hoover Dam–Review of Flood Control Regulation–Final Report.

23. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Probable Maximum Floods–Hoover and 

Glen Canyon Dams, 86.
208
209

A Struggle of Needs: A History of Bureau of 

Reclamation Fish Passage Projects on the Truckee 

River, Nevada

By:

Rick Christensen and Brent Mefford

Abstract

 The Truckee River fl ows from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of 

California eastward to Pyramid Lake, Nevada. The river basin experienced 

explosive growth in the mid-to-late 1800s when gold was found in California 

and Nevada. The gold rush was followed by an infl ux of farmers and ranchers to 

the area. In about 1905 Reclamation constructed the Truckee-Carson Irrigation 

Project, one of the agency’s fi rst water diversion and storage projects. Pyramid 

Lake and the Truckee River are home to two important fi sh that are lake 

dwellers and stream spawners. This paper follows the history of Reclamation’s 

fi sh passage projects designed to protect this important fi shery. 

Background

 The Truckee River originates in Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains of California and runs east into Nevada. The river forms Pyramid 

Lake where it fl ows into a large natural sink that lies about 50 miles east of Reno, 

Nevada. Being a terminal lake, the water quality of Pyramid Lake is slightly 

saline, however, the lake supports several fi sh species among which are two 

notable lake dwellers and stream spawners, cui-ui lake suckers (Chasmistes cujus)

and Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi). Both of these 

species migrate up the Truckee River to spawn during high spring fl ows. Prior 

to the 1900s, cui-ui likely spawned as far as twenty-fi ve miles upstream, and 

Pyramid Lake Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning reached into the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. Historical fl ows in the Truckee River vary between 1,000 and 2,000 

cubic feet per second (ft3/s) during the spawning runs in normal years, with fl ows 

in excess of 3,000 ft3/s in wet years. For nearly one and a half centuries, demand 

for waters of the Truckee River by immigrants to the area has impacted the unique 

fi sheries native to this closed basin ecosystem. And for nearly as long, attempts 

have been made to protect fi sh in the presence of a growing demand for water. 

However, during the 1900s, fi sh protection could not keep pace with the growth 

of urban and agricultural water demand. The last spawning run of the Pyramid 

Lake Lahontan cutthroat trout occurred in about 1938, and the trout was thought 

extinct by 1940. In 1967 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1

 listed the cui-ui 

sucker as endangered. This paper follows the progression of Reclamation fi sh 

passage projects on the lower Truckee River that accompanied a century of water 

development.
210

Early History

 The river and its fi sheries were impacted suddenly when gold was 

discovered near Virginia City, Nevada, in 1859. For the next forty years the 

Truckee River experienced rapid changes along its path. Joe Simonds2

 depicts the 

rapid early growth and its impact on the river as follows: 

 The Comstock Lode, as it would come to be called, began an 

infl ux of settlers to northern Nevada that would place heavy demands 

on the region’s natural resources, including water and timber. Water to 

supply the growing needs of the Comstock’s’ mines was diverted from 

the Truckee River and Lake Tahoe Basins, marking the beginning of 

interbasin water diversions. The demands for lumber to supply the mines 

and railroads led to the rapid growth of logging and milling operations 

throughout the Sierra Nevada. Before long, the rivers and streams in the 

area became clogged with sawdust and logging debris, preventing fi sh 

migration and seriously degrading the quality of water in the Truckee 

River.

 In 1861, Congress granted Nevada territorial status. Among 

the fi rst acts of the Territorial Assembly was to pass a requirement that 

all dams constructed in Nevada allow for the natural transit of fi sh. 

Unfortunately, this requirement was frequently overlooked. 

 In the early 1860s, the fi rst irrigation ditches began to appear. 

The Pioneer and Cochran Ditches diverted water from the Truckee River 

to irrigate lands in Truckee Meadows. Numerous dams were constructed 

on the Truckee River to divert water for irrigation or to power mills. In 

1870, the California Legislature authorized the Donner Lumber and 

Boom Company to improve the channel of the Truckee River from the 

outlet of Lake Tahoe to the California/Nevada state line. The company 

constructed a rockfi lled timber crib dam at the outlet of the lake, 

controlling the outfl ow of the lake for the fi rst time. Throughout the later 

part of the 1800s, growth along the Truckee River continued at a rapid 

pace. More dams were constructed, increasing diversions from the river 

and further limiting migration of fi sh.

 By about 1900 the federal government through the United States 

Geological Survey and, later, the United States Reclamation Service was 

investigating a large scale irrigation project involving the lower Truckee and 

Carson Rivers. In 1903 the Secretary of the Interior authorized the TruckeeCarson Irrigation Project (Newlands Project). On the Truckee River, the project 

included storage reservoirs on the upper river and a diversion dam on the lower 

river, 6.1. The diversion dam, initially called the Truckee River Dam, was 

renamed Derby Diversion Dam. Derby Diversion Dam diverts water from the 

Truckee River basin through a canal to Lahontan Reservoir on the Carson River. 

The thirty-one foot high dam providing about fi fteen feet of hydraulic head was 

completed in 1905, 6.2. The dam has an embankment that runs across the river 

valley to a 155-foot-wide concrete buttress gated spillway that spans across the 
211

Truckee River channel. The spillway originally consisted of 

16, 5-foot by 5-foot cast iron slide gates separated by 5 foot-wide-piers. The 

impact of the dam on fi sh moving upstream to spawn was recognized early in 

the project. It is believed a weir and pool fi shway was constructed on the right 

abutment shortly after the dam was completed. This fi shway was replaced in 

1913 with another pool and weir fi shway constructed downstream of the fi rst 

spillway gate, 6.3. The 1913 fi shway was a wood fl ume containing fl ashboards 

(weirs). The fi shway provided a series of 16, 6-ft-long by 10-ft- wide pools, 

each pool dropping about one foot to the next. The height of the fl ashboards 

was adjustable to accommodate large changes in river fl ows. The 1913 fi shway 

was not unlike many of today’s pool and weir fi shways. There are no records of 

fi shway effectiveness or how long the fi shway remained in service.

 Despite these early attempts to provide fi sh passage, there is little doubt 

 Derby Diversion Dam was one of several signifi cant factors that led to the 

extinction of the Pyramid Lake Lahontan cutthroat trout by the 1940s. For 

the next half century following the extinction of the Pyramid Lake Lahontan 

cutthroat trout there was little pressure to provide effective fi sh passage at Derby 

Diversion Dam. In the early 1970s another species of Lahontan cutthroat trout 

was reintroduced to Pyramid Lake. This population has largely been sustained 

by hatchery spawning. The goal of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and many 

public and private organizations is to restore spawning Lahontan cutthroat trout 

to the Truckee River. To this end, in 2000 Reclamation announced a plan to 

design and construct a new fi shway on Derby Diversion Dam. Working with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation designed a rock channel fi shway 

that will allow passage of Lahontan cutthroat trout, cui-ui, and other resident fi sh 

species currently held below the dam. The rock fi shway will consist of a 940 ft 

long channel sloping 1.8 feet every 100 feet, 6.4. Flow down the channel will 

be controlled by a series of boulder weirs that create pools upstream and small 

drops downstream. Each weir is formed by placing boulders about 1 ft apart in an 

upstream pointing chevron pattern. The boulder weirs create a hydraulic control 

that produces a drop in water surface of about 0.4 ft, producing a maximum 

passage velocity of about 5.0 feet per second (ft/s). The fi shway was scheduled 

for construction in 2002-2003.

The River’s End

 The problem of fi sh passage on the lower Truckee River is not limited to 

Derby Diversion Dam. The confl uence of the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake 

is a critical location where fi sh passage has often been blocked by the infl uences 

of man and nature. An excerpt from the Nevada Governor’s address to the 

Legislature in 1875 cited the start of many efforts to deal with passage issues that 

have occurred at the river’s end.3

A subject of importance to many citizens of the state,... is the 

preservation of the fi sheries of the Truckee River...unless preventative 
212

measures are soon adopted and rigidly enforced, their certain destruction 

is imminent.... To the Indians there residing (Pyramid Lake) the fi sheries 

are a valuable source of food, employment and profi t.

 The mouth of the Truckee, where the river empties into the lake, 

is closed by a bar of sawdust at least a mile in length, three hundred 

yards in breadth and three feet in depth... I saw hundreds of fi ne trout 

dead and rotten upon the shores. The air was poisoned with the stench of 

their decay.

 With the construction of Derby Diversion Dam and other upstream 

diversions the passage problem at the river’s end changed from sawdust to a 

declining lake elevation. The average annual infl ow to Pyramid Lake for the 

period of 1918 to 1970 was approximately 250,000 acre feet, while the average 

annual evaporative loss is approximately 440,000 acre feet.4

 In 1967 Pyramid 

6.1. Map of the Newlands Project.
213

Lake’s water level reached its lowest recorded level—more than 87 feet lower 

than it was in 1906 when Derby Dam diversions began. This lowering was due to 

the increased diversions of water out of the Truckee River, the natural evaporative 

loss at Pyramid Lake, and also due to some major droughts within this period.

6.2. View of Derby Diversion and Truckee River.

6.3. Pool and weir fi shway constructed at Derby Diversion Dam in 1913.
214

 As the water 

level in Pyramid 

Lake began to fall in 

the early 1900s, the 

gradient of the Truckee 

River steepened in 

the lower river and 

exposed a large fl at 

delta area at the mouth 

of the river. This made 

upstream migration of 

the Pyramid Lake fi sh 

diffi cult.

 The fi rst major 

structural effort to 

improve fi sh migration 

up the Truckee River 

was started by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1942 when it started construction 

of a diversion dam and fi shway channel near the site of the present Marble Bluff 

facilities. However, World War II interrupted construction, and the dam was 

washed out during fl ood fl ows in 1950. 

 In 1975 Reclamation completed construction of Marble Bluff Dam and 

 Pyramid Lake Fishway. The dam was designed as a grade control structure to 

stabilize the lower Truckee River gradient. The fi shway was designed to provide 

fi sh passage from the lake to the river upstream of the river delta. The dam is 

6.4. View of proposed rock channel fi shway overlaid on a 

photograph of Derby Diversion Dam.

6.5. View of Marble Bluff Dam and the exit of Pyramid Lake Fishway.
215

located approximately three miles upstream of Pyramid Lake, 6.5. The 

35 foot high dam is a 1440-foot long, earth fi lled embankment with 150-foot long, 

centered, uncontrolled concrete ogee crest spillway with gated sluiceway. The 

spillway and sluiceway pass fl ow down a baffl ed apron drop to the downstream 

river channel. Storage at the dam is negligible, as the facility was not intended to 

store water.5

 In conjunction with the dam’s construction, a fi sh handling facility and 

two different paths for fi sh passage from the lake to the river above the dam 

were constructed. The primary purpose of the fi sh handling facility was to trap, 

examine, and document fi sh that migrated from Pyramid Lake into the Truckee 

River.6 Two fi sh passage paths were needed as river access for fi sh is often 

blocked, for lake elevations below about 3800 feet, by a large sediment delta at 

the junction of the river and lake. Historically, when exposed, the delta causes 

the river to fan out into a shallow braided channel that blocks fi sh passage up 

the river. For these conditions, a direct route was constructed from the lake to 

upstream of Marble Bluff Dam, called the Pyramid Lake Fishway. The Pyramid 

Lake Fishway combined fi ve fi sh ladders and about three miles of fi shway 

channel to provide a maximum elevation gain of about seventy-six feet between 

the lake and the river upstream of the dam. Typical salmon style fi sh ladders 

with weir/orifi ce baffl es were designed for the fi shway, 6.6. Each fi sh ladder was 

sloped at a grade of one foot vertical to ten feet horizontal (10% grade), while 

the fi shway channels linking the fi sh ladders were sloped at one foot vertical in 

10,000 feet horizontal. The fi shway was designed to pass up to 50 ft3

/s at a fl ow 

depth of 4 feet and fl ow velocity of 1 ft/s. The weir/orifi ce baffl es in each fi sh 

ladder were spaced 10 feet apart, provided an approximate 1 foot drop across each 

baffl e, and a passage fl ow velocity of 8 ft/s.

 For years when Pyramid Lake elevation covers the sediment delta, 

fi sh can move up the Truckee River to the dam and must be passed over. Fish 

passage over the dam was originally achieved by constructing a fi sh trap with a 

mechanical hoist lift system to raise the trapped fi sh over the dam. 

6.6. Location map showing Marble Bluff Dam and Pyramid Lake Fishway.
216

 The trap, 6.7, was lowered into a sump at the head of a fi sh attraction 

channel located on the right bank of the downstream river channel. Fish moved 

up the attraction channel following attraction fl ows and passed into the fi sh trap. 

Operators judged when to raise the trap with the mechanical hoist. The original 

system was designed such that all fi sh entering the trap/lift system must pass 

through the fi sh handling facility. In 1987 the trap/lift system was modifi ed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the lifted fi sh to be released directly to the 

upstream river, via the upper fi shway channel. 

 Neither of the original Marble Bluff Dam fi sh passage facilities functioned 

as intended. During the fi rst years of fi shway operation, the ladder baffl e design 

and head drop were found to be a poor match for cui-ui behavior and swimming 

strength. The cui-ui displayed a strong bottom oriented behavior in the fi shway 

that was contrary to passing over a weir and the 8 ft/s fl ow velocity was found to 

be too high for many cui-ui. Cui-ui attempting to move up the fi shway at times 

crowded so densely that many fi sh were smothered. To improve fi sh passage, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added a fi sh exclusion gate at the fi shway entrance 

to regulate the number of fi sh entering the fi shway and modifi ed the fi sh ladders. 

In each fi sh ladder, weirs were added halfway between the original ladder baffl es 

to reduce the drop over each baffl e to 0.5 foot and slow down the passage velocity 

to about 5 ft/s. Passage of the cui-ui improved, however, fi sh passage effi ciency 

remained low. 

 The fi sh trap/lift system also had numerous operational problems and 

limitations. The biggest limitation was that the system was too slow, resulting in 

6.7. Schematic of the Marble Bluff Dam fi sh trap used to lift fi sh over the dam from 

1987 to 1997.
217

fi sh over-crowding, delays, and mortality. 

 In 1993, two thousand cui-ui died in the river trap due to a mechanical 

failure.7

 Both fi sh passage structures were progressively modifi ed by U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in a continual effort to improve fi sh passage at the site. 

However, fi sh passage for the cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat remained a signifi cant 

problem.

 The period from the mid 1980s through the 1990s brought fl oods 

accompanied by large cui-ui runs that the fi sh passage facilities couldn’t handle 

and periods of drought with few spawning fi sh. High water years in the mid1980s raised Pyramid Lake to an elevation submerging the Pyramid Lake fi shway 

entrance and opening up river passage to the dam. During these high water 

years, thousands of fi sh moved up the river to the dam overwhelming the ability 

of the fi sh trap to pass fi sh. This period of high water was followed by a period 

of lower than normal winter precipitation from 1988 to 1992. The lake declined 

to elevation 3797 feet prior to the spring runoff of 1993. For these fi ve years of 

operation, the entire fl ow (30-50 ft3/s) of the lower Truckee River was diverted 

into the Pyramid Lake fi shway during the spawning run seasons. Lahontan 

cutthroat trout ascended the fi shway in 1988-1990 with the runs ranging from just 

over 100 fi sh to a high around 450 fi sh in 1989.8 During this timeframe, only in 

1989 did cui-ui migrate up the fi shway to the fi sh handling building, and these 

seventy-one fi sh were transported to the Tribal Hatchery at Suttcliff, Nevada. Due 

to the continued drought in 1991 and 1992, bar racks were installed at the terminal 

ladder to prevent fi sh from migrating into the fi shway. Water releases from 

upstream storage during this fi ve year drought period were minor and intermittent. 

This dry period was followed by a record wet winter in 1992-1993. Even 

though the lake was low, both the fi shway and the river trap were operated that 

year. It was estimated that on April 3, 1993, tens of thousands of cui-ui entered 

the terminal ladder. This mass movement of fi sh exceeded the rate that cui-ui 

could ascend up the ladder resulting in cui-ui being killed due to crowding and 

suffocation, and no fi sh passed on up the fi shway to the river. A second and even 

larger run started on May 29th. To keep the fi sh from again overcrowding, fi shery 

personnel netted cui-ui from the entrance ladder, to reduce their numbers. These 

fi sh were then transported and released upstream of Marble Bluff Dam. During 

the 1993 spawning run, over 18,000 cui-ui and 108 Lahontan cutthroat trout were 

passed upstream of Marble Bluff Dam from the fi shway, river trap by netting 

and transporting, while approximately 4000 cui-ui died due to overcrowding in 

the fi sh ladders and a mechanical failure in the river trap. Prior to the spawning 

run of 1994, Fish and Wildlife Service again modifi ed the entrance ladder and 

river trap to reduce the mortality rate of the migrating cui-ui. The 1994 fi sh 

runs resulted in 66,425 cui-ui and seventy-nine Lahontan cutthroat trout being 

passed upstream of Marble Bluff Dam with about 250 cui-ui killed at the entrance 

ladder.9

 In 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation assisted a team of federal, tribal, state, 

and local organizations in addressing the fi sh passage problems at Marble Bluff 
218

Dam.10 The main objective was to improve passage over the dam. An identifi ed 

objective was an estimated fi sh passage capacity of 300,000 fi sh during a threeday period to prevent migration delays at the dam. By 1998 this process had 

resulted in the Bureau of Reclamation replacing the fi sh trap/lift system with a 

hydraulic fi sh lock, and constructing a new fi shway channel exit ladder, 6.8. This 

was the fi rst time that a hydraulic lock was built for fi sh passage by the Bureau of 

Reclamation.

Reclamation’s Fish Lock

 A hydraulic fi sh lock is simply a water elevator which operates similar to 

a boat lock. The sequencing of events required during passage of fi sh through the 

lock is shown in 6.9. Each lock cycle is divided into four phases: fi sh attraction, 

lock fi lling, fi sh release, and lock draining. In the fi sh attraction phase, fl ow 

attracts the migrating fi sh into the fi sh lock chamber. After a preset time, the 

fi sh entrance gate is closed and the lock is fi lled with water (lock fi lling phase). 

When the fi sh lock is approximately full, a fi sh crowder is raised by a hoist and 

the lock exit gate opened (fi sh release phase). The fi sh crowder moves fi sh up 

near the surface and into the fi sh lock exit channel. Once the fi sh are out of the 

lock, the exit gate is closed, the false fl oor lowered, and the fi sh lock chamber 

drained (draining phase). The lock cycle then repeats. The system is operated 

manually or automatically via a software based control system linked to water 

level and gate position sensors. The new hydraulic fi sh lock required modifying 

the existing 15 foot by 15 foot fi sh trap/lift concrete well and building a new fi sh 

lock exit channel. The existing fi sh attraction channel was lengthened and a fi sh 

barrier gate was added to provide a method of controlling fi sh access to the fi sh 

lock.

6.8. Plan view of Marble Bluff fi sh lock and Pyramid Lake Fishway exit ladder.
219

 Soon after the fi sh lock design was fi nished, nature again changed fl ow 

conditions at the river’s end. In January 1997 a large fl ood on the Truckee 

River (23,000 ft3

/s) scoured the river channel downstream of Marble Bluff 

Dam lowering the river elevation by several feet leaving fi sh access to the fi sh 

lock facility in question. It was decided that the pre-fl ood elevation of the river 

downstream of the dam had to be recovered if the existing trap/lift structure was 

to be modifi ed into a fi sh lock. The problem was solved in 1998 when a nearly 

450-foot-long by 2-foot-high rock ramp was constructed in the river channel 

about 300 yards downstream of the dam. The rock ramp was designed to imitate 

a natural riffl e so as not to block fi sh passage to the dam.

 In 1998 the Reno Gazette-Journal, ran a story that exclaimed “Cui-ui 

spawning the biggest in years.”11 The journal further reported that this was the 

largest spawning run since Marble Bluff Dam was built. It was estimated that the 

new fi sh lock can move 3,500 fi sh at a time, compared to only 600 to 800 fi sh at a 

time by the old fi sh trap/lift system. In its fi rst year the lock passed over 400,000 

spawning cui-ui upstream of Marble Bluff Dam. A year later an estimated 

600,000 cui-ui passed through the fi sh lock with no apparent delay.

A Look to the Future—Rebuilding the Pyramid Lake Fishway

 Construction of the fi sh lock required removing the upstream-most fi sh 

ladder on the Pyramid Lake fi shway (exit ladder) and presented the opportunity 

to design and construct a replacement fi sh ladder tailored to cui-ui. Fish ladder 

6.9. Marble Bluff Dam fi sh lock operating phases.
220

construction was preceded by hydraulic tests of several fi sh ladder designs at 

Reclamation’s Water Resources Research Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. These 

tests resulted in a unique fi shway ladder design tailored to the behavior and 

swimming capabilities displayed by the cui-ui sucker. A dual-slot-chevron shaped 

baffl e design was chosen, 6.10. The new fi sh ladder’s slope is about one-third that 

of the ladder it replaced (3.1% grade) and holds fl ow velocity to about 

4 ft/s.12 The fi shway channel with the new bypass fi sh ladder is still not 

considered fully operational as the fi shway still contains four old weir/orifi ce style 

ladders along its route to the dam. Rebuilding the Pyramid Lake fi shway channel 

to an effective fi shway for both cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat trout remains a 

major task to fulfi lling the original goals of the Marble Bluff Dam and fi shway 

project.

Brent Mefford, P.E., and Rick Christensen work for the Bureau of Reclamation 

in Denver, Colorado.

Endnotes

1. Scoppettone, G. Gary and Rissler, H. Peter, Endangered Cui-ui of Pyramid Lake, Nevada,

United States Geological Survey, http://biology.usgs.gov/s-i-t/noframe/r250.html

2. Simonds J. William, “The Newlands Project.” Bureau of Reclamation History Program, 

Third Draft, 1996, http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/newlands1.html

3. “Restoring the Lahontan cutthroat trout to the Truckee River System Pyramid Lake to 

Lake Tahoe,” http://pacifi c.fws.gov/nevada/public/truckeelct.html.

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) Second Revision Recovery 

Plan, Portland, Oregon, 1992.

5. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Data Web, “Marble Bluff Dam,” http://dataweb.usbr.gov/

dams/nv20006.html.

6. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Designers’ Operating Criteria. Marble Bluff Dam and 

Pyramid Lake Fishway,” November 1979.

7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Nevada Fishery Resources Offi ce, “Cui-ui and 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Spawning Runs at Marble Bluff Fish Facility,” 1988-1993.

8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Nevada Fishery Resources Offi ce, “Cui-ui and 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Spawning Runs at Marble Bluff Fish Facility,” 1988-1993.

9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Nevada Fishery Resources Offi ce, “Summary of 

Cui-ui and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Data. Marble Bluff Fish Facility,” 1994.

10. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Marble Bluff Dam Fish Passage Concept Study,” 

June 1995.

11. Reno Gazette-Journal, May 25, 1998.

12. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Draft - Designers’ Operating Criteria. Modifi ed Marble 

Bluff Dam Fish Passage Facilities,” May 21, 1999.

6.10. Marble Bluff Dam Fishway exit Ladder.
221

Explaining Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Shasta 

Dams: Institutional Stability and Professional 

Identity in the USBR

By:

Karin Ellison 

Abstract

 Between 1923 and 1943 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 

changed dramatically. In 1923, after two decades of operation, the USRS was 

small and embattled. It had 27 irrigation projects, 3700 full-time employees, and 

a budget of $20.6 million. In contrast, in 1943 the USBR could have celebrated 

20 years of growth and success and anticipated more. In 1943, the USBR had 52

projects. It had increased its staff to 6500, or more than doubled it. Even more 

impressively, it had increased its budget to $91.7 million, or to almost 41⁄2 times 

1922’s budget. One of the big changes in the USBR was the construction of large 

multiple purpose dams—Hoover, Grand Coulee, Shasta, and, after World War II, 

many more. Multiple purpose dam building, of course, did not arise out of the 

blue in the 1920s. USBR engineers took utilitarian conservation ideas, espoused 

by Progressive Era scientists, engineers, and politicians, and implemented them by 

building large multiple purpose dams.

 I explain the advent of multiple purpose dam building, and the growth 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, in terms of a stable agency leadership and its 

professional culture. Clearly, the Depression and the New Deal government 

provided the means that developed rivers, hired new staff, and, generally, fueled 

agency growth. President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Interior Ickes, Washington 

Senator Dill, and others involved in directing relief funds to water development 

did not, however, determine the features of the techno-environmental systems that 

rivers would become. USBR engineers drew on engineering paradigms, common 

solutions that could be fi tted to new problems, to refi ne both the production 

practices and design choices of river development and create these systems. These 

men gazed at the world through engineers’ glasses and saw disorderly construction 

sites and disorderly rivers. In response, they applied the tools of their trade and 

rationalized construction sites and rivers. The result was multiple purpose dams, 

conservation ideas put into practice, and an expanding USBR.

 Biographical data establish the stability of the USBR’s leaders in the 

1920s and 1930s, their virtually exclusive orientation towards engineering, and 

links between this group and Progressive Era engineering reforms. Two features 

of the careers of USBR leaders particularly indicate the stability of the group in 

the 1920s and 1930s: the long length of their employment with the USBR and 

the dates and reasons that men left. Education and professional affi liation reveal 

the group as one of professional engineers. With respect to Progressivism, the 

biographical data show possibilities. These engineers were in the right places at 

the right times to be exposed to Progressive ideas about conservation of natural 

resources and scientifi c management. They were educated in the Progressive 

Era. More importantly, these men began their careers at the USBR in its fi rst 

decade. They trained into their profession under Director Fredrick Newell and 

Chief Engineer Arthur Powell Davis, both notable fi gures in the conservation and 

engineering reform movements.
222

 As with many groups of engineers in this period, this stable group 

of engineers with links to Progressivism embraced industrial practices and 

rationalization. They applied these paradigms to both the processes of building 

dams and to the designing of river systems. To illustrate the industrialized and 

rationalized elements of dam building and river development plans, I compare 

these activities with scientifi c management. I chose Taylorism as a framework 

for comparison because F. W. Taylor laid out an explicit program for rationalizing 

workplaces that can serve as a way to distill the broad ranging changes of 

industrialization and rationalization. Further, Taylorism was broadly discussed and 

debated in this period, so these concepts would have been part of the intellectual 

resources of the USBR leaders as they engaged in river planning and directed dam 

construction. Taylor sought to standardize and routinize everything in a factory—

production processes, spatial layout of factories, machines, and, especially, 

workers. To do this, he created expanded roles for engineers. Not only would 

mechanical engineers invent and refi ne factory machinery, but they would also 

oversee factory operations.

 By analyzing the construction methods used at Grand Coulee Dam, 

I show that the USBR and its contractors set up a process, like Taylorism, that 

placed engineers in the center, emphasized fl ow, and refi ned machinery. During 

the construction of a dam, USBR employees provided important management 

oversight through drawings and inspectors. Contractors set up fl owing processes 

construction systems, such as a set of trucks and conveyor belts to remove the 

“overburden” from the dam site. The USBR employed experts to study and refi ne 

the machinery used in the construction of dams, for example concrete mixers.

 As with construction sites, Federal engineers developed the ideas about 

river development, advocated by Progressive Era conservationists, into a set of 

technical practices, structures, and new landscapes with analysis and management 

techniques similar to those used by F. W. Taylor and his followers. Like Taylorism, 

conservation included places for professional engineers in large organizations. 

Planning and constructing large dams prompted growth of engineering 

organizations. When engineers changed free-fl owing rivers into series of lakes, 

they used the same kind of spatial logic as Taylor’s rearrangement of machinery 

on factory fl oors. The USBR’s Denver offi ce specialized in designing, analyzing, 

and refi ning the main technology of comprehensive river development—multiple 

purpose dams—just as Taylor worked on making faster and more precise 

machine tools. While Taylor stretched rationalization to encompass workers, 

comprehensive planning stretched rationalization to encompass another new 

area—large natural systems.

 When Interior Secretary Hubert Work called for an investigation and 

reorganization of the U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS)1 in 1923 and Interior 

Secretary Harold Ickes repeated the exercise in 1943, the institution that they 

targeted could hardly have been more different. In 1923 after two decades of 

operation, the USRS was small and embattled. By 1922, it had constructed twentyseven irrigation projects, had 3,667 full-time employees, and $20,603,793 in funds 

to spend. Its major constituency, the farmers who worked the USRS’s irrigated 

land, was in open revolt. The cost of creating irrigation farms had far exceeded rosy 

government estimates, and, with the revival of European agriculture in the wake 

of World War I, markets for American farmers collapsed. In contrast, in 1943 the 

USBR could have celebrated twenty years of growth and success and anticipated 

more. In 1943 the USBR had fi fty-two projects. It had increased its staff to 6,543,
223

or more than doubled it. Even more impressively, it had increased its budget to 

$91,665,613, or to almost 41⁄2 times 1922’s budget. Further, this growth included 

the construction of Hoover,2 Grand Coulee, and Shasta dams—the fi rst set of 

monumental multiple purpose structures and the entree to integrated development of 

rivers after World War II.3

 Given the weakness of the USRS as an organization in the early 1920s, the 

institutional success of the USBR in the 1930s and 1940s begs explanation. The 

Depression is surely part of the story. The severe economic problems of the 1930s 

and the willingness of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration to spend money in an 

attempt to solve them provided great opportunities for men with plans. However, 

dams were not the only way, or even a particularly important way, for the federal 

government to spend money.4

 One might argue that the multiple purpose dams themselves adequately 

provided the rest of the story of the USBR’s success. The concept of a multiple 

purpose dam is clearly well suited to the American political system. Each dam 

offers a range of services—navigation improvement, irrigation water, fl ood control, 

and hydroelectricity, most commonly. Each service can have a constituency and 

each constituency one or more votes to fund a dam in Congress. However, in 

the early 1920s, multiple purpose dams were much more an idea than a reality. 

Engineers had reported favorably on a proposal to build Hoover Dam on the lower 

Colorado River. However, neither the compact dividing the waters of the Colorado 

between the tributary states nor the political coalition, which would wrest approval 

and funding for Hoover Dam from Congress, yet existed. The Army Corps of 

Engineers had built a hydroelectricity dam and two nitrate plants at Muscle Shoals 

on the Tennessee River during World War I. Congress, however, would fi ght over 

how to dispose of these seeds of the Tennessee Valley Authority until Franklin 

Roosevelt took offi ce in 1933.5

 People, as much as money and a new technology, explain the successes 

of the USBR in the 1920s and 1930s. In this period, a remarkably stable and 

homogeneous group of men6

 led the USBR. In the fi rst part of this paper, I will 

show that overwhelmingly the leaders of the USBR between 1923 and 1943 were 

engineers familiar with Progressive reform engineering. In the second part, I 

will suggest that the training and professional identifi cation of USBR leaders as 

Progressive engineers made a signifi cant impact on its development. USBR leaders 

used experience with and enthusiasm for industrialization, scientifi c management, 

and conservation to reshape the organization’s activities. Conservation provided 

a broad conceptual framework for water development by pairing “comprehensive 

planning” with reservoir construction. Industrialization and scientifi c management 

emphasized process-place engineers at the center and study and refi nement of all 

processes and components.7
224

Engineering Leaders

 One of the most striking features of the USBR between 1923 and 1943 

was the stability and uniformity of its leadership. USBR leaders devoted their 

careers to government service. Overwhelmingly, they came to the USRS during the 

Progressive Era with strong ties to engineering through education and professional 

affi liations.

 The organization chart appearing in the USBR’s monthly magazine 

Reclamation Era identifi ed the small groups of key fi gures in the commissioner’s 

offi ce in Washington, D.C., and the chief engineer’s offi ce in Denver, Colorado, 

as well as a larger group of men heading the various irrigation projects and 

investigations across the West. Standard biographical data, such as found in Who’s 

Who and other common biographical sources, was available for fi fty-three of the 

167 individuals so identifi ed.8

 The fi eld engineers were by far the largest group.9

Some 125 men held high positions in fi eld offi ces as opposed to twenty-four men 

in Denver and seventeen men and one woman in Washington, D.C. However, 

information was much more readily available on leaders from the commissioner’s 

offi ce and from the chief engineer’s offi ce than on fi eld men. Data on thirteen 

individuals from the Washington group and twenty from the Denver group provided 

information on over 70 percent of these leaders. The additional twenty fi eld men 

identifi ed only allow analysis of 16 percent of this group.10

 The career paths of USBR leaders established a remarkable stability in this 

group between 1923 and 1943. The longevity of these men as USBR employees 

paired with when and why they left the USBR indicates the stability of this group.

Many of these men worked for the USBR for lengthy periods. Field engineer 

 Frank Banks, who oversaw the construction of Owyhee and Grand Coulee dams, 

set the challenge with fi fty-one years of service. While few rivaled Banks, twentyfi ve additional men spent twenty years or more as employees of the USBR. This 

pattern of lengthy service is particularly striking when compared with other groups 

of federal experts. In agricultural economics, for example, men used employment 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Agricultural Economics in lieu 

of graduate school. Many of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics’ early staff only 

worked there briefl y.11

 The small number of USBR leaders who departed between 1927 and 

1942—ten—and the reasons they left, further indicate stability. Many of these 

leaders did not leave by choice. Seven of the men died while employed by the 

USBR. The men in the USBR pushed out the one woman in the group, Mae 

Schnurr. Schnurr worked her way up through the federal bureaucracy to a position 

of responsibility under Commissioner Mead—assistant to the commissioner and, on 

occasion, acting commissioner. After Mead died in 1936, Schnurr was repeatedly 

demoted until she arranged a transfer to the Offi ce of the Secretary of the Interior in 

1941. Even the two leaders who willingly left did not make signifi cantly different 
225

career choices. One retired and the other transferred to a very similar position with 

the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).12

 A clearly defi ned group of ten engineers did leave the USBR between 1924 

and 1926—fallout from reorganization. The Interior Secretary pushed Director 

 Arthur Powell Davis out of the USRS in 1923.13 He replaced A. P. Davis with David 

W. Davis, a banker and politician from 

Idaho. After a brief period of reorganization, 

D. W. Davis was one of the early 1920s 

departers. A second, Morris Bien, retired 

in 1924 at age 65 to pursue a private law 

practice. The rest followed Chief Engineer 

Weymouth. Weymouth resigned in 1924 as 

Elwood Mead, an engineer, replaced David 

Davis. After slightly over one year in private 

practice, Weymouth went on to work as 

chief engineer for J. G. White Engineering 

Corporation from 1926-1929, for the City of 

Los Angeles Water Works from 1929-1930, 

and for Southern California’s Metropolitan 

Water District (MWD) until he retired. All 

seven of the other men who left the USBR 

between 1924 and 1926 worked with 

Weymouth at one or more of these three 

organizations.14

A stable group, these men also made a very homogeneous group. Homogeneity 

started at home. Geographically, Commissioners Mead and Page and Chief 

Engineer Walter all hailed from the Midwest or Plains states, and they exemplifi ed a 

trend. In all, twenty-two of fi fty-three USBR leaders, or 42 percent, came from this 

region. The Reclamation West15 and Northeast evenly split a second twenty. Only 

three men came from each the South and Europe. This geographic distribution, 

however, shifted over time. When I divided the fi fty-three USBR leaders by both 

birth decades and hiring decades, the eleven born in the 1890s and 1900s and the 

thirteen hired in 1923 or later more strongly represented the Reclamation West. In 

these divisions, 36 percent and 38 percent respectively came from federal irrigation 

states.

 In respect to marriage and children, USBR leaders were even more uniform 

and conservative. The large majority married and had children. Commissioner 

Mead, for example, married Florence Chase in 1882 and, after she passed away, 

married Mary Lewis in 1905. In all, Mead had six children. While most USBR 

leaders had fewer children: biographical sources identifi ed none as life-long 

bachelors and only three as childless. Information on family, however, was reported 

less frequently than many of the data on these leaders. No information on marriage 

or children appeared for roughly one-third of these individuals. 

7.1. Frank E. Weymouth.
226

 Similarities multiplied at work. The typical USBR leader was born in 

the 1880s (42 percent), attended a land-grant university (70 percent), majored in 

civil engineering (42 percent), completed his education with a bachelor’s degree 

(62 percent), began working in the Progressive Era (74 percent), belonged to the 

American Society for Civil Engineers (62 percent), worked for the USBR for 20 

years or longer (68 percent), and ended his career at the USBR (51 percent). A 

closer look at this data suggests not just similarities, but patterns linking USBR 

leaders to Progressivism and engineering reform more specifi cally. 

 USBR leaders were Progressive engineers. Dates of birth, education, fi rst 

employment, and hiring by the USRS place the beginning of these men’s careers 

fi rmly in the Progressive Era. The fi rst leaders of the USRS pursued reform goals 

and taught the leaders of the 1930s and 1940s their jobs in an atmosphere of 

activism. Further, the careers of the latter group demonstrated a commitment to 

public service indicative of engineering reformers.

 Dates place the USBR leaders of 1923-1943 as young professionals during 

the Progressive Era. USBR leaders were born between 1858 and 1905. The largest 

portion was born in the 1870s (nine) and, especially, the 1880s (twenty-two). Age 

meant that the men attended college and began their careers in the Progressive Era.

Thirty-one of fi fty-three graduated with a bachelor’s degree between 1900 and 1919. 

The addition of the few men who did not have a college degree and those for whom 

education information is not available meant that even more began working in these 

two decades—thirty-nine of fi fty-three.

 More specifi cally, the leaders of the 1920s and 1930s began working 

for the USRS in the reformist atmosphere of its fi rst decade. The USRS hired 

thirty-four of the fi fty-three between 1902 and 1912—the fi rst decade of the 

organization’s existence. In these early years, reform-minded men led the USRS 

and trained the future leaders into their profession. Before 1923, the USRS had two 

heads— Frederick Haynes Newell and Arthur Powell Davis. Both these men began 

their careers in the U.S. Geological Survey under John Wesley Powell, a colorful 

explorer, administrator, and founder of the conservation movement. Newell helped 

Nevada Senator Newlands and other western senators draft the Reclamation Act 

and became the fi rst director of the USRS. He was a leader of the conservation 

movement and, as part of the major effort of Progressive engineers directed at their 

own profession, advocated unifying engineers in one professional society through 

his Committee on Cooperation and the American Association of Engineers. In 

1914 a fi nancial house cleaning in the USRS led to Newell’s fi ring. Newell’s chief 

engineer and Powell’s nephew, Arthur Powell Davis, moved into the top leadership 

position, Davis too pursued conservation. He formulated an early reform tradition 

plan for the development of the lower Colorado River.16

 A commitment to government service evident in the careers of the USBR’s 

second generation of leaders suggests that these men did indeed adopt some of the 

values of their mentors. Both career paths and number of years spent in the USBR 
227

show a commitment to government engineering. Of fi fty-three men, thirty-one—

over half—either spent their entire career with the USBR or ended it there. Another 

13 gave long periods of service at the beginning or in the middle of careers. Only 

fi ve worked for the USBR for less than 10 years. 

 Unlike one strain of Progressive engineering reformers, USBR engineers 

demonstrated a commitment to government service without condemning 

corporations or corporate work. Morris Cooke represented the anti-corporate 

strain in engineering reform. A member of the inner circle of the founder of 

“‘scientifi c’management,” F. W. Taylor, Cooke began his career by applying 

scientifi c management ideas to the running of a government agency, as Director 

of Public Works in Philadelphia, and to the operation of a professional society, the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. These efforts convinced Cooke of the 

dishonesty of corporations, and especially electrical and other utility companies.

He campaigned against utility infl uence in the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers in the mid-1910s and, in the New Deal, headed the Rural Electrifi cation 

Administration, one of Roosevelt’s efforts to curb the excesses and go beyond the 

self-imposed limits of electrical utilities.17

 USBR leaders, in contrast, worked closely with corporations in relevant 

fi elds and did not see former corporate employment as a ban to a job in the USBR. 

Starting in 1925 the USBR organized most of its major construction work by 

contract and, as a result, worked closely with corporate executives and engineers.

For example, between 1934 and 1943 two successive groups of general contractors 

made Grand Coulee Dam a massive and concrete reality from a set of plans.18 A 

consortium of Silas Mason Company of New York; Walsh Construction Company 

of Davenport, Iowa; and Atkinson-Kier Company of San Francisco won the fi rst 

contract. Kaiser Construction Company of Seattle, Morrison Knudsen Company of 

Boise, Utah Construction Company of Ogden, J. F. Shea Company of San Francisco, 

Pacifi c Bridge Company of San Francisco, McDonald and Kahn of San Francisco, 

and General Construction Company of Seattle joined the fi rst group to complete 

construction. Below I describe how USBR engineers and their contractors interacted 

during routine construction and how they could collaborate to experiment on, and 

improve production processes. In terms of careers, many USBR leaders—thirty-two 

or almost two-thirds—worked for private companies at some point in their careers.

A handful worked for the large electrical companies Cooke and other reformers 

found especially repugnant. For example, Leslie McClellan, the USBR’s chief

electrical engineer, worked briefl y for Southern California Edison. Robert Monroe, 

another Denver offi ce man, worked for Pacifi c Gas & Electric before coming to the 

USBR.19

 Between 1923 and 1943 a remarkably stable and homogeneous group of 

men steeped in Progressive Era reform movements provided the leadership for the 

USBR. Additionally, the ties between these men, the USBR, and engineering cannot 

be overstated. The domination of the USBR by civil engineers, rather than experts 

on water resources or irrigated agriculture, was a contingent historical phenomenon. 
228

Other groups with technical expertise critical to the planning, construction, and 

operation of irrigation projects were available as choices to staff the new USRS. 

Experts in the U.S. Geological Survey, with stronger ties to geology, hydrography, 

and geography than to civil engineering, dominated federal debates over irrigation in 

the nineteenth century. Experts in the U.S. Department of Agriculture worked with 

Wyoming Senator Francis E. Warren to prepare an alternative to the bill prepared by 

Senator Newlands and engineer Newell, which created the USRS. Still, engineers, 

rather than experts in other related areas, led the USBR. The structure of the USBR, 

the fi elds of education of USBR leaders, and the professional affi liations of these 

men show their disciplinary ties to engineering generally, and civil engineering 

in particular. Further, these leaders had much in common with other engineers in 

this period: regional affi liation, educational institutions, level of education, and 

international work.20

 An organization chart from the 1920s or 1930s immediately reveals the 

importance of engineering in the USBR. The USBR was a very strict hierarchical 

organization with engineers in all leadership positions, except for a small legal 

branch parallel to the main engineering organization. Physically, space separated the 

 USBR engineers. A commissioner and a small staff led the USBR from Washington, 

D.C. By far, however, most of the employees and leaders worked in the West. The 

chief engineer’s offi ce in Denver served as the technical hub for the USBR. In 

addition, each irrigation project had a fi eld offi ce. 

 A commissioner—typically with substantial engineering experience—led 

the USBR. From Washington, D.C., commissioners and their small staff primarily 

interacted with others in the capital—members of 

Congress, Interior Secretaries, and other upperadministration offi cials. The USBR had three 

commissioners between 1923 and 1945. David W. 

Davis broke virtually all USBR patterns. Interior 

Secretary Hubert Work appointed this banker and 

former governor of Idaho commissioner in hopes 

that a businessman could place the USRS on a more 

sound fi nancial footing. Davis only stayed with 

the USBR for a few years. Engineering training 

and long careers in public service made the other 

two commissioners typical of leaders of the USBR.

 Elwood Mead took the commissioner’s offi ce in 1924. 

It was his fi nal position in a lengthy career in water 

resources. After working on a survey team during his 

teenage years, Mead earned bachelor’s and master’s 

degrees at Purdue University and a bachelor’s in civil 

engineering at Iowa State College in the early 1880s.

A short tenure as professor of irrigation engineering 

at Colorado Agricultural College led to the position 

of State Engineer of Wyoming during the 1890s. In 

7.2. Secretary of the 

Interior Hubert Work and 

Commissioner Elwood Mead 

at the site of the Stony Gorge 

Dam on the Orland Project, 

California, in 1927.
229

Wyoming Mead participated in writing water law that made the state the sole owner 

of all water. This legislation became the basis for revising water rights doctrine in 

several western states. Subsequently, Mead promoted irrigated agriculture through 

the following positions: director of irrigation investigations in the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission in Victoria, 

Australia; and director of the state planned irrigation communities at Durham and 

Delhi, California. He also worked as a professor at University of California, Berkeley. 

When Mead died in 1936 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes appointed civil engineer 

John C. Page acting commissioner and then commissioner. Page was a much less 

well-known engineer. Other than a year as assistant city engineer of Grand Junction, 

Colorado, Page spent his entire career in USBR. His training consisted of a bachelor 

of science from University of Nebraska and a year of graduate study at Cornell 

University. Page’s work in the early 1930s as the second in charge of the fi eld offi ce 

for Hoover Dam moved him from USBR staff to USBR leadership.21

 Designation of a chief engineer as the USBR’s second-in-command further 

focused the USBR around engineering. The chief engineer held fi nal authority for 

all technical matters—construction, design, and research—but focused on overseeing 

construction. Denver, Colorado, housed the chief engineer and his engineering staff, 

which grew dramatically between 1923 and 1943. In the early 1920s, a few senior 

engineers coordinated USBR engineering from Denver. By the 1930s, a leadership 

staff of nine—an assistant chief engineer, a chief designing engineer, an assistant 

chief designing engineer, a chief electrical engineer, a designing engineer of dams, 

a designing engineer of canals, a mechanical engineer, and an engineer on technical 

studies—oversaw a staff of over 750.22

 Three men held the job of chief engineer between 1923 and 1943. Like the 

commissioners, in both education and public service, the chief engineers had strong 

links to engineering and engineering reform. A civil engineer from the University of 

Maine (1896), Frank Weymouth served his last of twenty-two years with the USBR 

in 1924. When Weymouth left, Chicagoan Raymond (Ray) Walter became chief 

engineer. Walter joined the USRS as a freshly minted civil engineer from Colorado 

State College in 1903, one year after conservationists and western congressmen 

created the USRS. He held the position of chief engineer from 1924 until his death 

in 1940. Walter’s long-time assistant chief engineer and another career USBR man, 

 Sinclair Ollason Harper, held the top position in Denver from 1940 to 1944. Harper 

received his bachelor’s in civil engineering from the University of California.

 After the chief engineer, the most important man in Denver was John (Jack) 

Savage, the chief designing engineer. While Chief Engineer Walter focused on 

construction, Savage oversaw all aspects of design, planning, and research in the 

USBR. Savage too followed the typical education and career pattern. Except for 

eight years with a small consulting engineer fi rm, Savage spent his entire career 

with the USBR. His formal training consisted of a bachelor of science in civil 

engineering from the University of Wisconsin. Savage’s achievements, however, 

exceeded most USBR engineers.’ He held three honorary doctorates. The National 
230

Academy of Sciences and the American 

Academy of Arts and Science elected 

him a member. The four engineering 

founder societies—the American Society 

of Civil Engineers, American Institute of 

Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

and the American Institute of Electrical 

Engineers—awarded Savage the John Fritz 

Medal for notable achievement in 1945. In 

addition, the Concrete Institute awarded 

him its Turner gold medal for his work on 

hydraulic structures.

 Beyond the central staffs in 

Washington, D.C., and Denver, the USBR 

detailed engineers to oversee construction 

and operation of projects. This group—

the largest by number—consisted of 

surveyors, construction inspectors, and 

“offi ce engineers.” These last drafted, 

made cost estimates, and performed other 

engineering offi ce tasks. Frank Banks, described by Chief Engineer Walter as 

“our best construction engineer,”23 followed the education and career path of other 

USBR leaders. Banks studied for his degree in civil engineering at the University 

of Maine. He joined the USRS immediately upon graduation in 1906 and retired 

in 1957, after 51 years of service. He supervised the construction of several USBR 

major dams including Owyhee Dam in Oregon in the 1920s and Grand Coulee Dam 

in Washington State in the 1930s.24

 Finally, the USBR hired consulting engineers to monitor major construction 

endeavors like Hoover and Grand Coulee dams. These men met as a board a couple 

of times a year to review designs and specifi cations, to inspect the quality of the 

work and procedures, and to provide opinions on issues raised by the USBR regular 

staff. For example, the USBR’s consulting board for Grand Coulee Dam consisted 

of Columbia University Professor of Geology Charles Berkey; retired Stanford 

Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Fluid Mechanics William Durand; Seattle 

consulting engineer and former USBR employee Joseph Jacobs; and Dayton, Ohio, 

consulting engineer Charles Paul, also a former USBR engineer.25

 The education and professional affi liations of USBR leaders cemented the 

connection between the engineering organization and the broader profession of 

civil engineering. USBR men primarily chose civil engineering as their fi eld of 

education—twenty-two men or 42 percent. Another thirteen men selected other 

engineering fi elds. Electrical and mining at four each were the best represented. 

The single man with topographical engineering as a major suggests the weakness 

7.3. Raymond F. Walter while he served 

as Chief Engineer of the Bureau of 

Reclamation.
231

of remaining ties to the disciplines of the U.S. Geological Survey. Unfortunately, 

biographical sources did not reveal the fi eld of study for more than 20 percent of the 

USBR leaders.

 Participation in professional societies maintained the connection to 

engineering, and especially civil engineering. USBR leaders belonged to honor 

societies, professional organizations, and social clubs for engineers. Tau Beta Pi 

(an engineering honor society), Chi Epsilon (the civil engineering honor society), 

and Sigma Xi (a science and engineering research honor society) elected thirteen 

USBR leaders as members. Thirty-seven men (70 percent) belonged to at least 

one professional organization. By far, the American Society of Civil Engineers 

claimed the most USBR men—thirty-three. Societies representing other areas 

of engineering, such as the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (5) and

the American Concrete Institute (5), only claimed a handful of men. Roughly 

one-quarter of the men also belonged to regional organizations for engineers 

and scientists. Among these were the Colorado Society of Engineers (7), the 

Commonwealth Engineers Club in San Francisco (3), and the Cosmos Club in 

Washington D.C. (3). Membership in professional organizations associated with 

geology and agriculture again show only very weak ties between USBR leaders and 

these closely related areas of expertise. Two of the leaders belonged to American 

Geophysical Union, and one of these men also belonged to American Meteorological 

Society. One additional man belonged to the semi-popular National Geographic 

7.4. June 23, 1929, the Board of Engineers for Hoover Dam posed on a viewpoint above 

the Black Canyon Damsite. Probably left to right: A. J. Wiley and Louis C. Hill, consulting 

engineers; Chief Designing Engineer J. L. Savage, Bureau of Reclamation; Chief Electrical Engineer L. H. McClellan, Bureau of Reclamation; Designing Engineer B. W. Steele, 

Bureau of Reclamation; and Project Construction Engineer Walker R. Young, Bureau of 

Reclamation.
232

Society. In terms of agriculture, only three men belonged to the American Society 

of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). 

 The similarities between USBR leaders and other groups of engineers further 

show how engineering dominated the USBR. The best quantitative information on 

another group of American engineers in the 1920s and 1930s comes from Deborah 

Fitzgerald’s Every Farm a Factory. Fitzgerald describes agricultural engineers and 

these men shared many, but not all, characteristics with USBR leaders. Fitzgerald 

reports on a group of founders, offi cers, or council members of the ASAE between 

1907 and 1930. The founders were men of the same generation as the USBR 

leaders. They were born in the 1880s and attended college in the fi rst decade of 

the twentieth century. They also took degrees in engineering fi elds and, far from 

rejecting business ties, moved easily in and out of commercial employment. Further, 

both groups overwhelmingly attended the same kinds of institutions of higher 

education, fi nished their education at the same level, and worked internationally for 

part of their careers.26

 The tie between USBR leaders, engineers more generally, and engineering 

reform was to a type of education institution and the profession generally, rather 

than one specifi c university. USBR leaders attended state schools—thirty-seven 

or 70 percent. They chose universities all across the West and Midwest. ASAE 

founders likewise chose land-grant schools, although all midwestern. Neither group 

came out of a unique strong department at a single university. Two groupings, 

however, did exist among USBR leaders. Six men came from the University of 

Maine. Frank Weymouth—later chief engineer and clearly more of an institution 

builder than many in the USRS—returned to his alma mater, Maine, to speak about 

his work with the USRS in 1904. His visit recruited Francis Crowe to work for 

the USRS that summer (and Crowe would return after graduation). The following 

school year Crowe spoke about the West and reclamation with enthusiasm. The 

tales of Weymouth and Crowe led several other young men from Maine to join the 

USRS.27 Less surprising, given the location of the chief engineer’s offi ce, a group 

of men also came to the USBR from the universities in or near Denver. Three took 

undergraduate degrees at Colorado State College, two at the Colorado School of 

Mines, and one at the University of Colorado. 

 In level of education, USBR leaders followed general patterns for 

engineering. For many of the men, 72 percent, the bachelor’s degree completed 

their formal education. Likewise, Fitzgerald found that a substantial portion of 

ASAF founders and leaders had college degrees. USBR men in the commissioner’s 

offi ce, as a group, did have more education than their USBR peers or ASAE leaders. 

Two held a second bachelor’s degree and three held master’s or professional 

degrees. One additional man had done one year of graduate work. These men were 

six of the eleven total who had undertaken schooling beyond the bachelor’s and 46 

percent of the thirteen individuals from the Washington Offi ce. 
233

 Many American technical professionals of the early decades of the twentieth 

century consulted or worked internationally. Fitzgerald examines the experience 

of agricultural experts in the Soviet Union. Twenty USBR leaders—fi ve from the 

Washington offi ce, nine Denver offi ce men, and six of the men from fi eld offi ces—

worked internationally too. They worked on a range of international projects. 

These included planning irrigation communities in Australia, building waterworks 

in Mexico, and working on the Panama Canal. The Near East, Far East, British 

Empire, and Central and South America all provided opportunities for USBR men.28

 In all, a special group of men led the USBR during the 1920s and 

1930s. All of the USBR’s main hierarchy—commissioners, chief engineers, 

Denver offi ce department heads, and the top staff of large projects—was a stable 

and uniform group of men affi liated with engineering and, more particularly, 

Progressive engineering reform. Long tenure of USBR leaders created stability 

and few departures in the late 1920s and 1930s, in particular, reinforced this 

trend. The USBR uniformly hired western or midwestern family men for its 

leaders. Strong patterns in education and career paths further demonstrated the 

uniformity of the group and linked them to engineering and, especially, Progressive 

engineering reform. Virtually all of these men fi nished their formal education 

with undergraduate degrees in engineering from land-grant universities during the 

Progressive Era. They maintained ties to engineering through professional societies, 

most commonly the American Society of Civil Engineers. Long careers in public 

service further suggest they adopted values of their engineering reform mentors.

USBR leaders did not, however, belong to the anti-corporate wing of Progressive 

reform engineering. The USBR worked closely with corporate contractors, and 

many USBR leaders worked for private companies at some point in their career. 

Engineering Rivers

 This group of stable and uniform Progressive engineers drew on the 

important experiences of their disciplines as they remade the USBR in the 1920s and 

1930s. The sibling Progressive reform movements of conservation and scientifi c 

management, as well as industrialization more generally, were the most important 

of these experiences. USBR men used scientifi c management, and some of the 

more general principles of industrialization, to refi ne conservation and create both 

industrialized dam construction and industrialized rivers. 

 Over the nineteenth century, industrialization fundamentally changed the 

production of goods and ways of life in the United States. Items made by artisans, 

such as guns and shoes, or in homes, such as cloth or butter, became goods produced 

in factories. For example, skilled armorers making complete guns gave way to 

armories. In the latter, semi-skilled men or boys used special purpose machine tools 

to produce standardized parts to assemble into guns. Compared to earlier ways of 

making things, factories were specialized, mechanized, capital-intensive, marketoriented, and big.29
234

 At the turn of the century, engineers formulated rational management 

systems, as the fi nishing touch to this transformation. Many engineers worked on 

such systems but “scientifi c management,” as propounded by Frederick W. Taylor, 

was the best known and, in many ways, epitomized this movement. A son of a 

Philadelphia aristocrat, Taylor became a mechanical engineer by apprenticing to the 

eminent businessman-engineer William Sellers and completing a correspondence 

course at the Steven’s Institute of Technology. A zealot for “effi ciency,” Taylor 

sought to standardize and routinize everything in a factory—machines, production 

processes, and, especially, workers.30

 Taylor’s general approach included tuning-up all the work processes and 

machinery in a factory and implementing an exceedingly detailed management 

regimen. To refi ne work processes, experts would observe and time the motions 

of workers. The experts then broke down complex processes, refi ned movements, 

assigned optimal times, and provided workers with explicit instructions on how 

to perform tasks. Taylor tried to sweeten these changes for workers by tying the 

reformulated work to incentive pay scales. Refi ning machinery entailed replacing 

belting to make it uniform, installing high-speed tool steel, and arranging machinery 

on a factory fl oor so that work could fl ow from one to the next and so on through 

the factory. The most visible parts of Taylor’s management reforms were planning 

offi ces. In these spaces, engineers oversaw the operations of a factory and 

coordinated sets of cards, which tracked items around the shop fl oor. Finally, Taylor 

called his system scientifi c because he believed that analysis would provide a unique 

“one-best-way” to reorganize a workplace and the process occurring within it.

 Drawing on experiences from industrialization and Taylorism, the USBR 

and its contractors built dams in a fully industrialized and Taylorized fashion by 

the 1930s. The USBR and its contractors split the tasks of building large dams. 

The USBR managed and refi ned work processes, such as pouring concrete. The 

contracting corporations handled the construction plant and workers. 

 Dam sites lacked a space labeled a planning offi ce, but, during the 

construction of a dam, USBR employees primarily provided the management 

oversight, which Taylor placed in planning offi ces. The USBR used drawings and 

inspectors to manage construction of dams in the 1930s. For example, in building 

Grand Coulee Dam, the USBR created at least three distinct sets of drawings to 

guide the process. First, preliminary studies, such as the one conducted by Major 

 John Butler of the Army Corps of Engineers between June 1928 and July 1931, 

contained a handful of general drawings to convey the concept behind a proposal.31

For the Grand Coulee site, the printed version of Butler’s report contained an elevenpage description of a high dam and hydroelectric power plant and two drawings: 

one plate with a plan and an elevation for a dam cresting at elevation 1266.6 feet 

and one plate with sections of the same structure.32 Second, junior engineers in the 

USBR’ s Denver offi ce prepared a more detailed set of drawings and specifi cations 

for contractors to use in preparing bids. There were two separate major contracts 

for Grand Coulee Dam and two sets of specifi cations. The second document, 
235

from 1937, covered the completion of the dam from roughly low water level to 

its full height, the base of a facility to pump irrigation water, and one power plant 

to generate hydroelectricity. This document used 161 pages and 122 drawings to 

describe the undertaking in much greater detail than Butler.33 Third, during the 

process of construction, USBR engineers in Denver made numerous detail drawings 

that superseded those in the specifi cations. Every particular of the dam would be 

laid out in a series of drawings. For Grand Coulee Dam, the Denver Offi ce sent 

these drawings to USBR Construction Engineer Frank Banks at the site offi ce. He, 

in turn, gave the drawings to the contractors. Nothing happened on the dam without 

authorization from Denver. For example, in January 1936 the contractors and Banks 

negotiated with the Denver Offi ce over the pouring schedule for a section of the 

downstream edge of the dam but could not go ahead without drawings from Denver. 

H. Leslie Myer, the contractors’ general manager, worried that any delay in pouring 

this section would delay the entire dam. Correspondence only gradually brought 

agreement on a modifi ed plan. Banks wrote several times requesting drawings to 

prevent delay before the Denver engineers approved a plan and sent the illustrated 

guidelines.34

 Inspectors provided the second key mechanism of engineering oversight 

in the Taylorist fashion by guaranteeing that contractors followed directions 

communicated through drawings. A USBR project offi ce employed many inspectors 

who worked shifts alongside construction men. Inspectors primarily oversaw the 

pouring of concrete for the dam and the grouting of its foundation. (Foundation 

grouting was a procedure in which technicians pumped very thin cement into deep 

holes drilled into the bedrock under a dam to seal any cracks in the rock.) Inspectors 

verifi ed the quality of these operations. For example, contractors poured Grand 

Coulee Dam in blocks and engineers reviewed the setup for each before pouring.

First, men placed wood and metal forms capable of holding 265 cubic yards to 

463 cubic yards of concrete. The largest forms measured 50 feet by 50 feet by 

5 feet. Second, workers installed hardware for the block, including pipes for grout, 

metal sheets to manage the fl ow of grout in the structure, pipes to carry water to cool 

the concrete as it set, and pipes for drainage. Third, they cleaned the concrete and 

metal surfaces. This step insured that the new block bonded to those surrounding it. 

USBR inspectors checked the performance of all these tasks and issued an OK valid 

for three hours. If the contractor did not place the concrete in that time, USBR men 

had to reinspect.35

 The Taylorist style of management conducted by the USBR matched the 

extensively mechanized, fl ow-oriented, and capital intensive construction plant 

erected by the contractors. The contractors employed partially or completely 

mechanized systems to remove the dirt, rock, and debris down to bedrock at the 

dam site; to prepare materials for and mix concrete; and to convey concrete to the 

dam. Unwanted materials fl owed out of the site and needed ones fl owed into it. To 

clear the dam site, contractors brought in a fl eet of shovels, bulldozers, and dump 

trucks. The trucks moved debris to a conveyor system with four 60-foot feeder 

belts serving a mile long main belt, which transported materials to Rattlesnake 
236

Canyon. After clearing the dam site, producing and placing concrete dominated 

construction. The basic components of concrete are gravel, sand, cement, and water. 

Contractors mined gravel and sand at a location 1.5 miles from the dam site. From 

pits, a mechanized system washed, screened, and separated the raw materials into 

three grades of sand, four grades of gravel, and waste. Two automated concrete 

mixing plants—one on each side of the river—combined sand, gravel, cement that 

had arrived by rail, and water in set ratios to make concrete. Locomotives hauled 

buckets of concrete from the mixing plants onto a trestle over the dam. Crane 

operators, high above the dam, picked up the buckets and swung them down to 

the next block to be fi lled. At the block, men dumped the buckets and urged the 

concrete into place with electrical vibrators.36

 In addition to Taylorist oversight of production and a Taylorist mechanized, 

fl ow-oriented, capital-intensive workplace, the USBR employed experts to study 

and refi ne work processes, much as Taylor and his colleagues used time and motion 

studies to modify workers’ performance. USBR men, however, could not analyze 

workers. In 1911 molders struck the Watertown Arsenal when Carl Barth, one of 

F. W. Taylor’s inner circle, attempted to reorganize the foundry. Ultimately, 

Congress banned the use of stopwatches to analyze workers and incentive pay 

systems in federal workplaces. Instead of workers, USBR men took on machinery. 

Work with cement mixers exemplifi ed this impulse to refi ne. The two plants for 

making concrete—Westmix and Eastmix—each had four mixers that could each 

hold four cubic yards (a total of thirty-two cubic yards). During the winter of 

1936-1937, USBR engineers and the contractors’ men collaborated on redesigning 

these mixers to increase mixing speed. They built model mixers of one-thirteenth 

capacity and tested them at a laboratory at the Grand Coulee Dam site. The USBR 

engineers tested between fi fty and sixty different arrangements of mixer blades 

seeking the shortest time to produce a uniform product. The best design reduced 

nine blades to three and reoriented them. These new arrangements shortened mix 

and discharge time by 16 percent. Since the second contract alone required mixing 

5,800,000 cubic yards of concrete thirty-two cubic yards at a time, this timesaving 

was substantial.37

 While the comparison of a factory fl oor and a construction site is fairly 

direct, an analogy between a factory fl oor and a river is necessarily much 

more abstract. At the damsite, USBR engineers provided expert oversight, the 

contractors built a mechanized and rationalized construction plant, and the two 

groups worked together to investigate ways to refi ne the equipment. Similarly, 

Taylorism experts implemented planning offi ces, organized shop fl oors, and tuned 

up processes, machinery, and workers. With multiple purpose dam building, federal 

engineers combined ideas about river development advocated by Progressive Era 

conservationists with analysis and management techniques similar to Taylorism.

 While engineers formulated around scientifi c management, a broader 

group of scientists, engineers, and politicians brought conservation to the fore as 

a set of “scientifi c” ideas to govern the management of natural resources during 
237

the Progressive Era. Championed by forester and politician Gifford Pinchot, 

conservation called for the maximum sustained use of natural resources, such 

as forests, grazing lands, rivers, and oil and mineral deposits. As with scientifi c 

management, technical experts—engineers, foresters, geologists, etc.—implemented 

the programs to achieve the goals of conservation. Conservationists called for two 

major changes in river development. Comprehensive planning provided schemes 

that combined navigation, fl ood control, irrigation, hydroelectricity, and other 

improvements. Construction of reservoirs captured seasonal fl oods and made 

“wastewater” into a critical supplement to water supply in arid regions.38

 In order to implement conservation ideas about river development, in 

a Taylorist style, federal engineers began by measuring rivers. Rather than 

stopwatches, engineers, like John Butler, used gaging stations, topographical maps, 

and geological assessments of potential dam sites to assess the river’s current 

practice and as a basis for constructing a new “rational” river. Butler invested 

over half of his funds for studying the upper Columbia River (the river above its 

confl uence with the Snake River) in collection of data and preliminary analysis 

of water supply, topography, geology, and land classifi cation. Gaging produced 

quantitative data on the monthly discharge at 21 locations and on the stages of fi ve 

lakes. Topography provided an overall profi le of the river. Finer topography and 

core drilling (removing columns of rock to assess the structures) provided more 

specifi c data on 12 potential dam sites. Land classifi cation ranked land near the river 

by its quality for irrigation farming.39

 To redesign the river, as Taylor redesigned workers’ movements and 

machinery, Butler combined this information with broad conservationist goals. 

Butler began with the canonical conservation goal for river development: the 

intention to consider all of the possible uses of water and their interactions. Butler 

stated:

The purpose of this report is to formulate plans for the most 

effective improvement of Columbia River for the purposes of navigation, 

and for combining such improvement with the most effi cient development 

of the potential water electricity, the control of fl oods, and the needs of 

irrigation.40

 Adapting this general mandate to the Columbia River, Butler quickly 

concluded that production of hydroelectricity and irrigation of the Columbia Basin, a 

large arid area southwest of Spokane, Washington, would be the most valuable uses 

of the upper Columbia River. Navigation was unlikely to be cost effective, and the 

upper river had few fl ooding problems. With knowledge of the water supply and an 

assessment of water needs, Butler set aside water for the irrigation of the Columbia 

Basin. He then used knowledge of topography and geology to identify a set of dams 

that would allow full use of the remaining water for producing hydroelectricity. 

Butler sketched a plan in which each dam backed water to the foot of the next, so 

that all the potential energy created by change in elevation could be converted into 

hydroelectricity. This approach gave rivers planned in the early twentieth century 
238

a characteristic stair-step, or chain-of-lakes, profi le—the conservationists’ “onebest-way” to develop a river. Geology narrowed the possible dam sites to those 

suited to hold large structures. Ultimately, Butler proposed fi ve hydroelectric dams; 

an electricity and irrigation project at the head of the Grand Coulee; three storage 

reservoirs in the headwaters of tributaries to the Columbia River; and two sets of 

locks and lateral dams to improve navigation, if increased river use justifi ed these 

last structures at some point.41

 Butler, his staff, and his counterparts in the USBR provided the expertise, 

called for by both Taylor and conservationists. Butler headed eighteen men 

from fi ve fi elds who conducted the upper Columbia River study. Butler’s 

acknowledgements indicated a permanent staff of eight men: fi ve members of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, two members of the American Institute of 

Electrical Engineers, and one man identifi ed simply as an irrigation engineer. Butler 

also drew on the advice of ten consultants: four civil engineers, two electrical 

engineers, three geologists, and one economist. Similarly, the USBR placed studies 

of potential new irrigation projects in the hands of a senior fi eld engineer and a small 

staff. Men from the Denver offi ce often provided consulting services on dam design 

and in other areas.42

 While fi eld staff analyzed and refi ned the river, the Denver offi ce 

specialized in analyzing and refi ning the main technology of multiple purpose 

river development—dams. During the 1920s and 1930s as the Denver offi ce grew, 

it substantially expanded investigation and analysis. First, the USBR developed 

two methods for analyzing stresses and strains in dams. Using mathematics, 

USBR engineers developed the trial-load method of analyzing arch dams as part of 

designing Hoover Dam. When a dam curves from side to side, as Hoover Dam does, 

some or all of the weight of the water behind the dam is transmitted to the abutments 

(canyon sides) through arch action, rather than to the foundation under the dam by 

gravity effects. Trial-load analysis provided a more accurate approach to calculating 

the extremely complicated stresses and strains in a potential structure due to this 

dual distribution of forces. In parallel with trial-load analysis, USBR engineers 

developed a program of photoelastic analysis using models to determine stresses and 

strains on potential structures. Beginning in 1927 the USBR built models of dams 

at a facility at the University of Colorado in Boulder. The engineers constructed 

the earliest models—those of Stevenson Creek Test Dam and Gibson Dam—out 

of concrete and used a rubber pouch fi lled with mercury to simulate the weight of 

a reservoir. They used optical instruments and a system of gages to measure stress 

and strain in the models. For Grand Coulee Dam, the combination of mathematical 

and photoelectric analyses led USBR men to add twist adjustment slots near each 

abutment to reduce twist forces in the structure.43

 The second major experimental program for refi ning dam technology 

developed in this period used hydraulic models. Building on a European tradition, 

USBR men began making models of dams in metal and wooden beds and running 

water over them to observe the qualitative effects of elements of the structure on 
239

water fl ow. The USBR men located their fi rst laboratories at Colorado State College 

(now University) in Fort Collins and in Montrose, Colorado. For Grand Coulee 

Dam, the USBR men used hydraulic experiments to refi ne the “toe” of the dam. 

At the downstream edge of Grand Coulee Dam, the structure must dissipate the 

substantial energy of a large river pouring off a 430 ft prism of concrete. The shape 

of the toe determines whether the water digs a hole under the dam, digs at the dam’s 

edge, geysers up in the air, boils and then joins the fl ow at the base of the dam, or 

any number of better and worse possibilities. After observing models of several 

different options, engineers chose a curved toe with a 50-foot diameter bucket for 

the base of Grand Coulee Dam. USBR men also used a hydraulic model to plan 

the order of pouring Grand Coulee Dam. This work reduced the damage to the 

riverbanks above and below the dam site caused by the hydraulic characteristics of 

the partly complete structure.44

 Finally, the USBR used a materials laboratory to tune up dams. The primary 

work of this facility was concrete analysis. Originally located at the University of 

California, USBR men and their academic collaborators studied cement and concrete 

to reduce shrinkage during drying, which could cause uneven distribution of forces 

and cracks in a structure. Out of such work, USBR men developed a system of 

embedding thin water pipes throughout very large structures to speed concrete 

cooling. They also wrote new specifi cations for cement.45

 Gazing at the world with vision sharpened by engineering training, USBR 

leaders saw disorderly construction sites and disorderly rivers. They drew on the 

experiences and enthusiasms of their profession—industrialism, Taylorism, and 

conservation—to fi x the problems they saw. Construction sites looked a lot like a 

factory fl oor where engineers could be put in charge, work could be mechanized 

and made to fl ow, and components could be analyzed and tuned for speed. USBR 

engineers placed themselves at the metaphorical center managing construction with 

drawings and inspections. From removing dirt to delivering concrete, contractors, 

such as Morrison-Knudsen and H. J. Kaiser, used trucks, conveyor belts, and cranes 

to make materials fl ow out of and into dam sites. USBR engineers and contractors 

collaborated to analyze not workers but machines, such as concrete mixers, to tuneup and speed work. 

 Rivers looked less like factories. Still, USBR leaders fused ideas from 

conservation and Taylorism in the planning and building of the fi rst generation of 

multiple purpose dams. As with Taylor and his program, USBR engineers placed 

experts in control, analyzed and rationalized both processes and components, 

and believed single “best” solutions existed for the problems they tackled. They 

used the conservation concepts of comprehensive planning and increasing water 

supplies through storage as the framework in which to seek Taylorist solutions. 

First, groups of engineers gaged water supply, mapped terrain, examined beds 

of rivers, and classifi ed lands. They used this analytic deconstruction and the 

concept of comprehensive planning to create a new water system tuned to supply 

the water resources in a single best way. For example, the whole Columbia River, 
240

reconceptualized as a signature chain-of-lakes, would use 92 percent of possible 

head for an installed capacity to produce 8.5 million kilowatts of electricity while 

providing water to irrigate 1.6 million acres and providing a 9-foot navigation 

channel 200 miles inland along the Washington-Oregon border.46 Second, engineers 

turned their rationalizing attention to dams, the technological backbone of new 

rivers. For dam building, they conducted mathematical and experimental analyses to 

maximize desired performance—a safe structure with good hydrodynamics—while 

minimizing cost.

Conclusions

 In this paper, I have demonstrated that between 1923 and 1943 a very 

stable and uniform group of engineers with a Progressive pedigree led the USBR. 

I have also suggested that the signifi cance of this fi nding lies in the ways that 

these men drew on the experiences and enthusiasms of engineering, especially 

industrialization, Taylorism, and conservation, as the USBR grew and instituted 

multiple purpose dam building. In the Taylorist fashion, USBR men created central 

managerial spaces for themselves, analyzed and rationalized large processes and 

their components, and undertook this work with a faith that it would produce unique 

optimal solutions. They did this to both dam construction sites and to the planning 

of water resources. In the latter, USBR leaders fused Taylorism and conservation to 

take multiple purpose dam building from an idea to a reality.

 Philosophers of science traditionally end papers with a promissory note that 

acknowledges important areas for future research. While I am no philosopher, I 

would like to note that the second part of this paper suggests an important area for 

additional research. The USBR was certainly not the only dam builder in this period 

nor the only one to employ industrialized and Taylorized construction plants. A 

broader consideration of the technologies and industrialization of dam construction 

would trace the shift from brick or stone and mortar dams built primarily using 

animal and human power to concrete dams whose construction relied on internal 

combustion engines and electricity.

Table 7.1: Sources on engineers

Name Offi ce Source 

Banks, Frank Arthur Field “Banks, Frank Arthur.” In Who Was Who in America, Vol. 3, 47. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1960. 

Bashore, Harry WDC

“Bashore, Harry William.” In Who Was Who in 

America with World Notables, Vol. 5, 42. Chicago:

Marquis Who’s Who, 1973. 

Bien, Morris WDC

“Morris Bien.” Reclamation Record 6 (March 1915): 

121 and “Morris Bien 1859-1932.” Reclamation Era 

23 (August 1932): 147. 

Bissell, Charles A. WDC “Charles A. Bissell Retires with Honors.” Reclamation Era 42 (February 1952): 45. 
241

Boden, Oscar G. Field

Goodman, D. L. “Oscar G. Boden--Builder of Lifelines: Reclamation’s Hall of Fame Nomination No. 

12.” Reclamation Era 42 (February 1952): 30-3 1, 

38.

Brown, Hugh A. WDC

Davis, A. P. “The Editor of the Reclamation Record.” Reclamation Record 7 (October 1916): 

469-70 and “Hugh Arbuthnot Brown, 1877-1932.” 

Reclamation Era 23 (September 1932): 157. 

Bunger, Mills Emerson Field “Bunger, Mills Emerson.” In Who’s Who in the West, 

98. Wilmette, Illinois: Marquis Who’s Who, 1980. 

Burch, Albert Nelson Field Perkins, W. A. “Albert Nelson Burch, M. ASCE.” 

ASCE Transactions 101 (1936): 1532- 1533. 

Calland, Robert S. Field “Appointments and Retirements.” Reclamation Era 

47 (February 1957): 19. 

Cole, C. M. Field “C. M. Cole.” MWAK Columbian (24 July 1936): 3. 

Crowe, Francis Trenholm Denver 

Harper, S. 0., Walker R. Young, and W. V. Greeley. 

“Francis Trenholm Crowe, Hon. M. ASCE.” ASCE

Transactions 113 (1948): 1397-1403. 

Darland, Alvin F. Field

Alvin F. Darland to James O’Sullivan, 20 September 

1933, 29:Personnel 1933, Columbia Basin Commission Papers, Washington State Archives, Olympia, 

Washington. 

Davis, David W. WDC

“Davis, David William.” In The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. 46, 435- 436. New 

York: James T. White and Company, 1963. 

Day, C. M. Denver “C. M. Day, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Denver, 

Dies.” Reclamation Era 27 (March 1937): 68. 

Debler, Erdman B. Denver “Debler, Erdman B.” In Who Was Who in America, 

Vol. 7, 147. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1981. 

Dibble, Barry Denver “Dibble, Barry.” In Who Was Who in America, Vol. 

4, 248. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who. 

Golzé, Alfred Rudolf WDC 

“Golzé, Alfred Rudolf.” In Who’s Who in America, 

1236. Wilmette, Illinois: Marquis Who’s Who, 

1978.

Harper, Sinclair Ollason Denver 

“Harper, Sinclair Ollason.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 7, 255. Chicago: Marquis Who’s 

Who, 1981. 

Hinds, Julian Denver “Hinds, Julian.” In Who Was Who in America, Vol. 6, 

194. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1976. 

Houk, Ivan Denver

McWhinnie, Robert C. “Ivan Edgar Houk, F. 

ASCE.” Transactions of the ASCE 138 (1973): 

628-629.

Keener, Kenneth Bixby Denver 

“Honorary Degrees Conferred on Reclamation Offi cials.” Reclamation Era 30 (September 

1940): 262-263. 

Koppen, Charles Edward Field “Edward Charles Koppen 1879-1940.” Reclamation

Era 31 (January 1941): 13. 

Kreutzer, George Charles WDC 

Mead, Elwood, and R. F. Walter. “George Charles 

Kreutzer, M. ASCE.” ASCE Transactions 95 (1931): 

1526-1528.
242

Lowry, Ralph Field

“Lowry, Ralph.” In Who Was Who in America with 

World Notables, Vol. 8, 253. Chicago: 

Marquis Who’s Who, 1985. 

McCasland, Stanford Paul Field 

“McCasland, Stanford Paul.” In Who’s Who in the 

West, 478. Wilmette, IL: Marquis Who’s Who, 

1980.

McClellan, Leslie Newman Denver 

“McClellan, Leslie Newman.” In Who Was Who in 

America with World Notables, Vol. 8, 268. Chicago: 

Marquis Who’s Who, 1985. 

McPhail, Harvey Franklin Denver 

“McPhail, Harvey Franklin.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 9, 244. Chicago: Marquis Who’s 

Who, 1989. 

Mead, Elwood WDC

“Mead, Elwood.” In The National Cyclopaedia of 

American Biography, Vol. 26, 44-45. New York: 

James T. White and Company, 1937; Conkin, Paul 

K. “The Vision Of Elwood Mead.” Agricultural

History 34 (April 1960): 88-97; and Kluger, James 

R. Turning on Water with a Shovel: The Career of 

Elwood Mead. Albuquerque: University of New 

Mexico Press, 1992.

Miner, James Henry Field 

Sharkey, Fred J. “James Henry Miner, Assoc. M. 

ASCE.” ASCE Transactions 109 (1944): 1576- 

1577.

Mitchell, L. H. WDC “L. H. Mitchell Dies.” Reclamation Era 46 (May 

1956): 50. 

Monroe, Robert Ansley Denver 

“Monroe, Robert Ansley.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 8, 286. Chicago: Marquis Who’s 

Who, 1985. 

Moore, John S. Denver “John S. Moore Promoted.” Reclamation Era 31

(February 1941): 50. 

Moritz, Ernest A. Field “Moritz, Ernest A.” In Who Was Who in America, 

Vol. 7, 414. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1981. 

Munn, James Denver “James Munn, 1865-1939.” Reclamation Era 29

(June 1939): 155.

Nalder, William H. Denver

“Bureau Design Engineer Ends 43 Years Service.” 

Engineering News-Record 149 (30 October 1952): 

52.

Neeley, Parley R Field

“Neeley, Parley R.” In Who’s Who in Engineering, 

edited by Gordon Davis, 577. Washington, D.C.: 

American Association of Engineering Societies, 

1988.

Nelson, Wesley P. WDC

“New Appointments in the Bureau of Reclamation: 

Roy B. Williams, J. Kennard Cheadle, and Wesley 

P. Nelson.” Reclamation Era 27 (September 1937): 

200-201.

Nielsen, Edwin George Field 

“Nielsen, Edwin George.” In Who’s Who in America, 

2402. Wilmette, Illinois: Marquis Who’s Who, 

1978.

Page, John Chatfi eld WDC 

“Page, John Chatfi eld.” In Who Was Who in America, Vol. 3, 660. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 

1960.
243

Parker, Horace A. Field

“H. A. Parker Now Irrigation Engineer, Columbia 

Basin Project.” Reclamation Era 29 (January 1939): 

20.

Preston, Porter Johnstone Field 

“Porter J. Preston Retires.” Reclamation Era 

31(1941): 51 and “Preston, Porter Johnstone.” In 

The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 

Vol. 39, 356. New York: James T. White and Company, 1954. 

Rawn, A. M. Field

‘Rawn, A. M.” In The National Cyclopaedia of 

American Biography, Vol. 55, 194-195. New York: 

James T. White and Company, 1974 and “Rawn, A. 

M.” In Who Was Who in America with World Notables, Vol. 8, 332. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 

1985.

Savage, John Lucian Denver 

McMechen, Edgar C. “The Billion Dollar Engineer.” 

Reclamation Era 27 (April 1937): 82- 84; John Fritz 

Medal: Biography of John Lucien Savage, Medallist for 1945. New York: John Fritz Medal Board, 

1945; “Savage, Dr. John Lucian.” In American Men 

of Science, 11th edit., 4669. New Providence, New 

Jersey: R. R. Bowker, 1968; Wolman, Abel and W. 

H. Lyles. “John Lucian Savage.” In Biographical

Memoirs: National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 49, 

225-239. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of 

Sciences, 1978; and Rhodes, Benjamin D. “From 

Cooksville to Chungking: The Dam-Designing 

Career of John L. Savage.” Wisconsin Magazine of 

History 72 (1989): 243-272. 

Schnurr, Mae A. WDC Pfaff, Christine. “Mae Schnurr: A Woman’s Rise to 

Prominence.” Prologue 29 (Fall 1997): 232-242. 

Sharkey, F. J. Field “F. J. Sharkey.” MWAK Columbian (31 July 1936): 

3.

Snell, Roy Martin Field Given, J. A. “Roy Martin Snell, M. ASCE.” ASCE

Transactions 106 (1941): 1679-1680. 

Walker, Albert Willard Field 

Hosig, Irwin B. and H. P. Wangen. “Albert Willard 

Walker, Assoc. M. ASCE.” ASCE Transactions 109

(1944): 1580-1582. 

Walter, Raymond Fowle Denver 

“Walter, Raymond Fowler.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 1, 1295. Chicago: The A. N. Marquis 

Company, 1942. 

Weiss, Andrew Denver “Andrew Weiss.” Civil Engineering 43 (January 

1949): 55-6. 

Weymouth, Frank Elwin Denver 

“Weymouth, Frank Elwin.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 1, 1326. Chicago: The A. N. Marquis 

Company, 1942. 

Williams, Charles Page Denver 

“Williams, Charles Page.” In Who Was Who in 

America, Vol. 3, 920. Chicago: Marquis Who’s 

Who, 1950. 
244

Williams, Roy B. WDC

“New Appointments in the Bureau of Reclamation: 

Roy B. Williams, Kennard Cheadle, and Wesley P. 

Nelson.” Reclamation Era 27 (September 1937): 

200-201 and “Gold Medals for Enginers [sic] Williams and Patch.” Reclamation Era 39 (December 

1949): 233.

Young, Walker Rollo Denver

 “Young, Walker Rollo.” In Who Was Who in 

America with World Notables, Vol. 7, 633-634.

Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1981.

Table 7.2: Abbreviations used in footnotes

CE Offi ce of the Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado, RG 115

EC-CB

General Correspondence Files 1902-42 (Engineering), 

Columbia Basin, CE, RG 115

Entry 10

Entry 10 Project Histories, Feature Histories, and Reports 

1902-1932, WDC, RG 115

Entry 7/30-45-CBP

Project Correspondence File 1930-1945, Entry 7 General Administrative and Project Records 1919-1945, WDC,RG 115

RG 115

Records of the Bureau of Reclamation, Record Group 115, 

National Archives-Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado

WDC Offi ce of the Commissioner, Washington, D.C., RG 115

Citations to collections may include box number, box and folder numbers, or box number and fi le 

name. This information will come after the document information and prior to the collection information. It will be abbreviated box number:fi le designation 

(e.g., 3 or 3:21 or 3:Monthly Reports).

Dr. Karin Ellison was formerly at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is 

now the Director of Responsible Conduct of Research Initiatives in the Center 

for Biology and Society at Arizona State University. The paper was prepared in 

2001.

Endnotes

1. As part of the reorganization, the USRS’s name was changed to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Throughout this paper, I will use USRS to refer to events and periods before 1923 

and USBR to refer to events and periods in 1923 or later and to refer to things which fall into both 

periods.

2. Called Boulder by USBR engineers from 1918, the Interior Secretary named this dam 

Hoover when he announced its construction in 1930. The next Interior Secretary, Harold Ickes, 

changed the name back to Boulder Dam in 1933. Congress restored the name Hoover Dam in 1947.

William E. Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation, Praeger Library of U.S. Government Departments 

and Agencies, no. 34 (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 36. For simplicity, I will refer to it as 

Hoover Dam throughout.

3. Figures come from Twenty-First Annual Report of the U.S. Reclamation Service, 1921-22 

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1922); “Annual Report of the Bureau of Reclamation,” in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the fi scal year ended June 30, 1943.

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1943); and Karin Ellison, “The Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam: Engineering Culture, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Grand Coulee Dam, 
245

1917-1942” (Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000), 265-6. I use 1922 

because the USBR did not report personnel statistics in its annual report between 1923 and 1936. For 

a discussion of the 1923 investigation and the status of projects at that time see: Brain Q. Cannon, 

“‘We Are Now Entering a New Era’: Federal Reclamation and the Fact Finding Commission of 1923- 

1924,” Pacifi c Historical Review 66 (May 1997): 185-211.

4. On the place of dam building in New Deal policy see: Ellison, “Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam,” 193-226.

5. On Hoover Dam see: Norris Hundley, Jr., “The Politics of Reclamation: California, the Federal Government, and the Origins of the Boulder Canyon Act-a Second Look,” California Historical 

Quarterly 52 (1973): 292-325, and Joseph E. Stevens, Hoover Dam: An American Adventure (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988). On the origins of the TVA see: Paul K. Conkin, “Intellectual and Political Roots,” in TVA: Fifty Years of Grass-Roots Bureaucracy, ed. Erwin C. Hargrove and 

Paul K. Conkin (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 3-34, and Preston J. Hubbard, Origins of 

the TVA: The Muscle Shoals Controversy, 1920-1932 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1961).

6. The USBR leaders were virtually all male- 166 of 167. Given their overwhelming maleness, I will refer to the USBR leaders as men.

7. In the original paper the author thanked “Deborah Fitzgerald for sharing a copy of her forthcoming book: Deborah Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More: The Industrialization of Agriculture in America

(New Haven: Yale University Press, forthcoming). She argues that one factor in the industrialization 

of American agriculture was the work of agricultural engineers. These engineers took the farm as 

the focus of their profession and encouraged changes that mirrored Taylorism. The second part of 

this paper is an extension of that argument to the civil engineers employed by the USBR between 

1923 and 1943. Of course, the limits of and errors in the extension of Fitzgerald’s argument are my 

own doing.” Editor’s note: while at the press there was a change of title, and this book was actually 

published as Every Farm a Factory: The Industrial Ideal in American Agriculture (New Haven: Yale 

University Press, 2002).

8. Except for the small number of people clearly identifi ed as legal or clerical staff, the 167 

individuals are all the individuals found by checking this tabulation once each year between 1923 and 

1943. I omitted the legal and clerical staffs because they are identifi ed small divisions of the USBR 

separate from the main organization. I generally checked tabulations from January or December issues of Reclamation Era. Breaks in publication during the worst of the Depression and during World 

War II, as well as decisions made in binding the set of Reclamation Era to which I had access while 

researching this paper, account for variations from this general approach. The specifi c volumes I 

consulted were: June 1923, January 1924, December 1924, December 1925, January 1927, December 

1927, January 1929, January 1930, January 1931, January 1932, January 1933, February 1935, January 1936, January 1937, January 1938, January 1939, January 1940, January 1941, and January 1942.

9. I assigned each leader to a group by the highest offi ce in which he served during this period. 

Harry Bashore, for example, worked for the USBR for 39 years advancing from a junior engineer on 

the North Platte Project to commissioner. He appears in the Washington, D.C., category because his 

highest position between 1923 and 1943 was as assistant commissioner in Washington.

10. All biographic and quantitative data on USBR leaders comes from the sources listed in 

Table 1.

11. Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More, 43-4. (See note 7 above.)

12. Porter Johnstone Preston retired in 1940. Robert Ansley Monroe transferred to the TVA in 

1937. Indeed, given the technical collaboration between the USBR and the TVA in the 1930s, surprisingly few men made Monroe’s choice. The USBR’s Denver offi ce designed Norris and Wheeler 

dams for the TVA. When these dams went into construction and TVA established its own design 

team, the new organization was willing to hire men from the USBR. For a very brief mention of the 

USBR’s work for TVA, see: Edgar C. McMechen, “The Million Dollar Engineer,” Reclamation Era 

27 (April 1937): 82-4.

13. The head of the USRS was a director rather than a commissioner.

14. On the reorganization in 1923-1924, see: Cannon, “Entering a New Era.”

15. The original states and territories in which the USRS operated were Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Texas was added in 1906. Michael C. Rob-
246

inson, Water for the West: The Bureau of Reclamation 1902-1977 (Chicago: Public Works Historical 

Society, 1979), 17-18.

16. “Newell, Frederick Haynes,” in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New 

York: James T. White and Company, 1933), 162-3; Donald C. Jackson, “Engineering in the Progressive Era: A New Look at Frederick Haynes Newell and the U.S. Reclamation Service,” Technology 

and Culture 34 (July 1993): 539-74; Edwin I. Layton, The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1971), 109-27; “Davis, Arthur Powell,” in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography,

vol. 24 (New York: James T. White and Company, 1935), 116-7; Gene M. Gressley, “Arthur Powell 

Davis, Reclamation, and the West,” Agricultural History 42 (1968): 241-57; Hundley, “Politics of 

Reclamation;” and Ellison, “Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam,” 70-7.

17. Layton, Revolt of the Engineers, 154-78 and Deward Clayton Brown, Electricity for Rural 

America: The Fight for the REA, Contributions in Economics and Economic History, no. 29 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980).

18. I use Grand Coulee Dam as an example throughout this paper because it was one of the 

USBR’s largest undertakings in the 1920s and 1930s. Also, as a major undertaking following and 

overlapping Hoover Dam examples from its construction illustrate how the USBR institutionalized 

some of the practices used for Hoover Dam. For more complete accounts of the planning and construction of Grand Coulee Dam see: Ellison, “Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam” and Paul C. Pitzer, 

Grand Coulee. Harnessing a Dream (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1994).

19. “Reclamation Engineering Number,” Reclamation Era 30 (July 1940): 193. For descriptions of construction Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams, see: J. E. Stevens, Hoover Dam and Pitzer, 

Grand Coulee.

20. On the U.S. Geological Survey in the nineteenth century, see: Thomas G. Manning, Government in Science: The U.S. Geological Survey, 1867-1894 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 

1967) and A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 1940 (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957), 195-214 and 232-6. On 

irrigation in the nineteenth century and the creation of the USRS, see: Donald J. Pisani, To Reclaim a 

Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy, 1848-1902, Histories of the American Frontier (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992), 273-325.

21. For a brief description of the responsibilities of the commissioner, chief engineer, and 

project managers, see “Division of Functions of Bureau put into Effect,” Reclamation Record 14

(November-December 1923): 312. In addition, Warne, Bureau of Reclamation, 21-5 describes the 

function of the commissioner’s offi ce in the early 1970s. While the subdivisions within the Interior 

Department and the USBR’s Washington, D.C., offi ce differed in the 1920s and 1930s from those 

described by Warne, the basic tasks were the same.

22. Warne, Bureau of Reclamation, 25-7 and Robinson, Water for the West, 56, 71-3, and 75.

23. R. F. Walter to E. Mead, telegram, 28 July 1933, 478:101.03, Entry 7/30-45-CBP, WDC, RG 

115. See Table 2 for abbreviations used in footnotes.

24. The USBR engineers compiled “Annual Project Histories,” which, in part, described fi eld 

staff and their activities. See, for example, USBR, “Columbia Basin Project: Annual Project History,” vol. 1, 1934, Entry 10, WDC, RG 115. “H. A. Parker Now Irrigation Engineer, Columbia 

Basin Project,” Reclamation Era 29 (January 1939): 20 also describes the work of a fi eld engineer. F. 

A. Banks, “Problems in Handling Large Construction Work by Contract,” New Reclamation Era 20

(December 1929): 182-5 describes the tasks and pitfalls of serving as a project superintendent.

25. The “Annual Project Histories” also describe the activities of the consulting boards. See, 

for example, USBR, “Columbia Basin Project,” 1934, Entry 10, WDC, RG 115, 35-37. See also: 

“Berkey, Charles Peter,” in Who Was Who in America, vol. 3, (Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1960), 

70; “Durand, William Frederick,” in Who Was Who in America, vol. 3, (Chicago: Marquis Who’s 

Who, 1960), 244; and “Paul, Charles Howard,” in Who Was Who in America, vol. I, (Chicago: The A. 

N. Marquis Company, 1942), 945.

26. Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More, 82-6 (see note 7 above).

27. S. 0. Harper, Walker R. Young, and W. V. Greeley, “Francis Trenholm Crowe, Hon. M. 

ASCE,” ASCE Transactions 113 (1948): 1397-8.

28. Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More, 179-207 (see note 7 above).
247

29. A vast literature discusses the transition to industrial production. Fitzgerald synthesizes this 

literature concisely and accurately: Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More, 16-24. On early factory production 

of guns, see: Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of 

Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977).

30. For a description of the main elements of Taylorism and how agricultural engineers adopted 

them see: Fitzgerald, Yeoman No More, 93-9. Other concise discussions of Taylorism include: Layton, Revolt of the Engineers, 134-53 and Thomas Hughes, American Genesis: A Century of Invention 

and Technological Enthusiasm (New York: Penguin Books, 1989), 184-203. Important longer discussions include: Hugh G. J. Aitken, Scientifi c Management in Action: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal, 

1908-1915 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985); Samuel Haber, Effi ciency and Up1ift: Scientifi c Management in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964); 

Daniel Nelson, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientifi c Management (Madison: University of 

Wisconsin Press, 1980); and Robert Kanigel, The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the 

Enigma of Effi ciency, The Sloan Technology Series (New York: Viking, 1997).

31. In a study of the Columbia River as a whole, Butler was the fi rst to print a plan for Grand 

Coulee Dam substantially as it would be built. USBR engineers adopted Butler’s data and analysis 

with very minor modifi cations as they worked with Washington congressmen on legislation in 1932, 

which ultimately failed. They again used Butler’s materials when President Roosevelt approved 

the construction of a dam at the Grand Coulee site and told Washington congressmen to work with 

the USBR to develop the project. The study was published as: Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 73rd Cong., 1st sess., 1933, H. Doc. 103. Editor notes that 

this was the Columbia River 308 Report of the Corps of Engineers. These reports began in the 1920s 

when Major Harold C. Fiske initiated comprehensive river basin studies which ultimately resulted 

in establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority. More on 308 reports can be found in David P. 

Billington, Donald C. Jackson, and Martin V. Melosi. The History of Large Federal Dams: Planning, 

Design, and Construction (Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Reclamation, 2005.) The book is available 

from the Government Printing Offi ce.

32. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, Plates 57 

and 58. On studies of the Columbia Basin during the 1920s and the signifi cance of Butler’s study, 

see: Ellison, “Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam,” 120-41.

33. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Completion of Grand Coulee Dam, Left Powerhouse, and 

Foundation for Pumping Plant, Columbia Basin Project, Washington, Schedule, Specifi cations, and 

Drawings, Specifi cations, no. 757 (Denver: W. H. Kistler Stationery, 1937). See also: U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Grand Coulee Dam and Power Plant, Schedule, Specifi cations, and Drawings, Specifi -

cations No. 570 (Denver: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1934).

34. The task of transmitting drawings was important and general enough to require instructions on performing it. See: R. F. Walter to All Field Offi ces, 7 March 1934, 774:395.30 1/30-6/45,

Entry 7/30-45, WDC, RG 115 and Offi ce Memo No. 199, 7 February 1940, 774:395.30 1/30-6/45,

Entry 7/30-45, WDC, RG 115. Also, Commissioner Page resisted the idea of changing these procedures for Grand Coulee Dam. See: J. Page to H. J. Kaiser, 7 June 1938, 478:101.03 1930 thru, 

Entry 7/30-45-CBP, WDC, RG 115. On the episode where the lack of drawings threatened to delay 

construction, see: H. L. Myer to F. A. Banks, 6 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; 

F. A. Banks to R. F. Walter, 14 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; F. A. Banks to 

R. F. Walter, telegram, 15 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; F. A. Banks to R. F. 

Walter, 15 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; R. F. Walter to F. Banks, telegram, 

17 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; R. F. Walter to F. Banks, telegram, 20 January 1936,444:791-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; F. Banks to R. Walter, 23 January 1936,444:791-I 

1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; Acting Chief Engineer S. Harper to F. Banks, 24 January 1936,444:791-I 

1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115; and Acting Chief Engineer S. Harper to F. Banks, telegram, 24 January 

1936,444:79 1-I 1936, EC-CB, CE, RG 115.

35. F. A. Banks, “Signifi cance of Grand Coulee Dam,” The Reclamation Era 26 (December 

1936): 278-9 and “Handling Concrete. In the Blocks at Coulee,” Pacifi c Builder and Engineer 45 (5 

August 1939): 26, 27, 65.

36. The construction magazine Pacifi c Builder and Engineer covered the construction of Grand 

Coulee Dam in detail. Major articles on the construction plant include: Walter A. Averill, “Moving 
248

a Mountain a Mile at Grand Coulee,” Pacifi c Builder and Engineer 41(12 October 1935): 28-38; 

Robert J. Jenks, “Producing Aggregate for the World’s Largest Concrete Structure,” Pacifi c Builder 

and Engineer 41 (7 December 1935): 26-32; “Manufacturing 4,500,000 c.y. of Concrete for Coulee 

Dam,” Pacifi c Builder and Engineer 42 (4 January 1936): 30-6; “Handling Concrete”; and “Cranes 

are Vital Cog in Placing Concrete at Coulee,” Pacifi c Builder and Engineer 45 (2 September 1939): 

36-9.

37. “Manufacturing Concrete” and Fred K. Ross, “Mixing Time Reduced at Grand Coulee: 

Reclamation Bureau Works out New Blading Arrangement for Mixers,” Pacifi c Builder and Engineer 

44 (5 November 1938): 28-9.

38. The defi nitive work on federal conservation in the Progressive Era is: Samuel P. Hays, 

Conservation and the Gospel of Effi ciency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920,

Harvard Historical Monographs, vol. 40 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 

1959). See also: Clayton R. Koppes, “Effi ciency, Equity, Esthetics: Shifting Themes in American 

Conservation,” in The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, ed. Donald 

Worster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 230-51; Joseph M. Petulla, American

Environmentalism: Values, Tactics, Priorities, Environmental History Series, no. I (College Station: 

Texas A&M University Press, 1980), 34-9; and J. Leonard Bates, “Fulfi lling American Democracy: 

The Conservation Movement, 1907 to 1921,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 44 (1958): 29-57. 

On conservation ideas as applied to waterways see: Ellison, “Making of a Multiple Purpose Dam,” 

105-20.

39. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 566-72.

40. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 566.

41. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 1058-67.

42. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 1067.

43. Ivan E. Houk, “Experimental Work on Small-Scale Models of Arch Dams,” New Reclamation Era 18 (October 1927): 152-4; Elwood Mead, “Research Work of the Bureau of Reclamation,” 

Reclamation Era 24 (May 1933): 54-55, 57; J. L. Savage, “Dam Stresses and Strains Studied by 

Slice Models,” Engineering News-Record 113 (6 December 1934): 720-3; Ivan E. Houk, “Twist 

Effects in Straight Gravity Dams,” Engineer 164 (24 December 1937): 702-705; and McMechen, 

“Billion Dollar Engineer.” 

44. Jacob E. Warnock, “Experiments Aid Design at Grand Coulee,” Civil Engineering 6 (November 1936): 737-41 and D. P. Barnes, “Hydraulic Models Aid Design of Reclamation Structures,” 

Reclamation Era 27 (February 1937): 34-5.

45. Mead, “Research Work”; McMechen, “Billion Dollar Engineer”; and “Designs and Specifi -

cations,” Reclamation Era 30 (July 1940): 192.

46. House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, 6-15.
249

From Pathfi nder to Glen Canyon: The Structural 

Analysis of Arched, Gravity Dams

By:

David P. Billington,

Chelsea Honigmann,

Moira A. Treacy

Abstract

 Shortly after its 1902 establishment the Reclamation Service embarked 

upon an ambitious program of designing and building large masonry dams in 

the West. The design engineers focused attention on the problem of high dams 

curved in plan such that the behavior was partly as a horizontal arch and partly 

as a vertical cantilever. This physical reality for dam sites in the fi rst decade of 

the twentieth century posed a challenge to the analytic talents of engineers and 

called forth an approach that eventually in the 1920s came to be called the trialload analysis.

 In March 1903 the Reclamation Service hired George Y. Wisner as 

their structural consultant, and in 1904, with E. T. Wheeler, he embarked on a 

mathematical study focused on the Pathfi nder Dam. Their report, published 

in 1905, identifi ed the two types of behavior—horizontal arch and vertical 

cantilevers—and showed how a highly approximate approach could be used 

to estimate the overall performance of curved masonry or concrete dams. The 

Service used the result for the design of Pathfi nder and used it to check the 

design for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam.

 In a 1921 landmark paper, Fred Noetzli, a Swiss-trained engineer, 

developed a more complete procedure for the arch-gravity dam analysis 

which he applied to Pathfi nder and found results reassuringly similar to those 

published by Wisner and Wheeler.

 After much published discussion of Noetzli’s paper, C. H. Howell and 

A. C. Jaquith presented, in a 1929 paper, a more extensive procedure and for the 

fi rst time used the term trial-load as the method of defi ning the extent of the arch 

action and that of the cantilever action. Hoover Dam, then under design, did not 

benefi t from this analysis but in the 1950s the trial-load method helped justify 

the design for Glen Canyon Dam, which unlike Hoover Dam, could not stand 

safely as a pure gravity structure.

 The paper will conclude with some general observations about the role 

of conceptual design, based on approximate methods of analysis, in the search 

for structural forms that are suffi ciently safe and relatively economical. Also 

included will be a related discussion about the tension between the massive and 

structural traditions of concrete design.

The Beginning of Rational Design

 Structural engineering as a modern profession begins with the building of 

iron bridges in the late eighteenth century in Great Britain. It began because of 

the desire for lighter bridges that could nevertheless be as strong or even much 
250

stronger than those built of stone or wood. Starting with the French schools, the 

Ponts et Chaussées established in 1748 and the Ecole Polytechnique established 

in 1794, structural engineering by the early nineteenth century began to have a 

foundation of a scientifi c basis where mathematical theory could help predict 

performance and be, therefore, a guide to designing new forms.

 Bridges were the primary focus of early structural theory because they 

were pure structure, they had the longest spans, and they also had the most 

dramatic failures. During the last half of the nineteenth century structural theory 

became formalized, began to be used extensively for buildings, and was taught 

systemically in the Polytechnic Institutes of Western Europe. By contrast with 

bridges and buildings, dams did not receive the same intensive attention in 

schools or in the technical literature. This was so because most dams were low, 

were built of earth or rock, and thus remained part of a preindustrial technological 

culture. Throughout the nineteenth century dams received little attention either in 

the technical literature or in schools of engineering. But at the end of the century 

three major changes in the United States brought dams into the forefront of 

 engineering: fi rst, cities were expanding at an unprecedented rate and they could 

not grow without new sources of water; second, the new electric power industry 

moved rapidly into hydroelectric stations; and, third, the closing of the frontier 

raised strong social pressure to develop the west in large part through irrigation.

 Those social pressures combined with the advanced state of structural 

theory produced the desire for a more scientifi c treatment of dams with the belief 

that they could therefore be more rationally, hence more economically and more 

safely, designed. Just at this time the new and prototypical twentieth century 

material, structural concrete, came into general practice to encourage designers 

to abandon stone masonry and sometimes embankment dams for ones built using 

the new material. But even where earth or rock dams seemed still preferable, 

concrete became widely used in spillways, powerhouses, and diversion works.

 In addition to these social and technical forces there was the crisis of fl ood 

to prompt federal funds for control dams. The political actions that such fl oods 

bring naturally result in population growth and urban expansion. As the twentieth 

century unfolded, the major dam building in the United States and elsewhere 

began to take a new direction, characterized by high dams, huge reservoirs, and 

the search for rational methods of analysis as a basis for design. This search led 

to two competing visions of structural form, one characterized by the structural 

tradition and the other by the massive tradition which we can rephrase as the 

battle between form and mass.1

Form and Mass in Structure

 In the preindustrial world, with the notable exception of the high gothic 

cathedrals, there was an implicit belief that great works were built as massive 

structures which were primarily of stone. This aesthetic of mass connoted 
251

permanence, opulence, and power; it stood in opposition to the ephemeral wooden 

structures of peasants and the urban poor. To be monumental was to be safe 

and handsome. When engineers began to construct skeletal metal bridges in the 

nineteenth century, they were initially banned from urban settings, and when 

concrete entered practice in the 1890s it had to be covered in, or formed to look 

like, stone to be accepted.

 It is therefore of no surprise that when large dams entered modern 

America of the twentieth century, they would refl ect that context, especially those 

dams designed by large municipalities and agencies of the Federal Government. 

And yet right from the start of federal dam building in concrete, with the founding 

of the Reclamation Service in 1902, the confl ict between form and mass was 

immediately present and it would remain as a continuing issue, never fully 

resolved, throughout the century.

 In its most elementary form, a dam in the massive tradition consists of a 

mass of material that, by its weight alone, holds back a volume of water. Such 

structures are known as gravity dams, an appropriate name because it is the force 

of gravity pulling vertically down on the dam that provides resistance against 

pressure exerted horizontally by water in the reservoir. Designs adhering to the 

massive tradition can be based upon sophisticated engineering analysis, but the 

basic principle underlying the tradition is simple: accumulate as much material as 

economically or physically possible, thus insuring that the dam will not tip over, 

slide or rupture; in turn, the massive dimensions will increase the likelihood that 

the dam can achieve long-term stability in holding back a reservoir.

 A dam in the structural tradition, in contrast to gravity designs, depends 

upon its shape, and not simply its mass, to resist hydrostatic pressure. For 

example, an arch dam in a narrow canyon with hard rock sides allows a signifi cant 

amount of the hydrostatic pressure to be carried by arch action horizontally into 

the canyon walls. Because of this arch action, the thickness (and hence bulk) 

of the dam’s profi le can be much less than a gravity dam of the same height. In 

essence, the amount of material in (or the mass of) a structural dam is a less 

important attribute than it is for a massive dam. For a dam adhering to the 

structural tradition, it is more important to develop a design that takes advantage 

of shape and not just weight.

The Profi le of Equal Resistance

 Masonry gravity dams can be built without any reliance upon 

mathematics, but in the nineteenth century European engineers realized that this 

type of structure was amenable to a quantifi able approach to design. In the early 

1850s a paper published by the French engineer J. Augustine DeSazilly set the 

course for all subsequent work in this area of gravity dam design.2

 Knowing 

the hydrostatic force exerted by a given height of water (which weighs about 

62.5 pounds per cubic foot) and the approximate weight of masonry used in dam 
252

construction (usually about 140-150 pounds per cubic foot), DeSazilly conceived 

what he termed the “profi le of equal resistance.” Using basic formulas of statics, 

he developed a cross-section in which compressive stresses at the upstream 

face when the reservoir is empty equal compressive stresses at the downstream 

face when the reservoir is fi lled. In taking these two extreme conditions, he 

hypothesized a design that, at least in cross-section, would minimize the material 

necessary to erect a stable masonry gravity dam.

 The profi le of equal resistance came from a consideration of two major 

conditions of dam loading (see 8.1): reservoir empty or reservoir fi lled. For the 

former case the dead load of the dam, assumed to be a pure triangle in cross 

section, caused a maximum vertical compressive stress f h

1 at the heel of the dam 

(upstream edge) equal to the weight of concrete or stone above that point or

f Hw h

1 c (Height H times the density of concrete wc ). For the case of the full 

reservoir, to the vertical stress of case one must add the infl uence of the horizontal 

force F due to water pressure. This force causes the dam to bend and thus creates 

maximum vertical compressive stresses at the toe f Hw H

B 2 w

2

2

t §

©

 ̈ ·

1

 ̧ with equal vertical 

tensile stress at the heel (see Figure 8.1). The criterion for equal resistance is that 

the maximum vertical compressive stress for case one be the same as for case two, 

hence Hw Hw

H

B c w §

©

 ̈ ·

1

 ̧

2

2 or 

H

B

w

w

c

w

2

2 . For example where the density of concrete wc

is taken to be 140 pounds per cubic foot and the density of water ww to be 62.5 

pounds per cubic foot then H

B

2

2

140

62 5 2 25 . . so that H

B 2 25 15 . . or 3/2. For example, 

for a dam 60 feet high the base width would be 40 feet.

The Middle Third

 In the early 1870s, the Scot W. J. M. Rankine confi rmed the validity 

of DeSazilly’s work; he further observed that a stable gravity dam must have 

suffi cient cross-section so that the combined vector force (or “resultant force”) of 

the horizontal hydrostatic pressure and the vertical weight of masonry will pass 

through the center (or middle) third of the structure at any horizontal elevation.3

Should the resultant fall outside the center third, a gravity dam will become 

susceptible to dangerous cracking because tension (rather than compression) 

will develop along the upstream edge of the structure; the further outside the 

center third the resultant passes, the greater the tensile stress and the greater the 

likelihood that cracking will occur. And if the resultant should fall completely 

beyond the downstream edge, then the structure will “overturn.” Although 

the “middle third” precept was inherently adhered to by any design developed 

in accord with De Sazilly profi les, Rankine’s work established it as an overt 

principle of masonry gravity design.4

 When the stresses for case two are plotted over the dam base we fi nd that 

they form a triangle with the maximum value at the toe and the minimum (equals 
253

zero) at the heel. The centroid of that pressure lies at B/3 from the toe. Likewise 

for the reservoir empty in case one the centroid lies at B/3 from the heel. Thus, 

the centroids of all loading cases between one and two lie between those two 

positions or within the middle third of the dam width B (see 8.2).

The Danger of Uplift and Sliding

 Interest in other issues relating to gravity design did not remain stagnant 

and this is best refl ected in concern over the infl uence of uplift on the safety of 

gravity structures. Uplift is a phenomena resulting where water seeps under the 

foundation (or into the interior of the dam proper) and—because of pressure 

8.1. Profi le of equal resistance.
254

exerted by water in the reservoir—pushes upward and increases the likelihood 

that the structure will slide horizontally downstream. Uplift attracted the attention 

of engineers in the early twentieth century and encouraged both the use of thicker 

profi les as well as the development of grouting and drainage techniques that 

would mitigate its occurrence and possible effect.

 The 1911 failure of a gravity dam in Austin, Pennsylvania, led the 

American engineering profession to look more closely at the infl uence of uplift 

on dam safety especially as it related to sliding. Figure 8.3 illustrates the forces 

that infl uence the horizontal movement of a gravity dam over its foundation. In 

addition to the force of the water F and weight of the dam W, the water pressure 

underneath the dam produces uplift U while the cohesion C between dam and 

rock resists sliding. The friction between dam and foundation (usually rock) tan I

will resist sliding in proportion to the vertical force W less the uplift. Neglecting 

cohesion and assuming full uplift on a dam where B/H = 2/3, the safety factor 

against sliding is less than one. This result helps explain the Austin Dam 

failure, where B/H = 0.6 and investigations after failure led to the conclusion of 

substantial uplift. Part of the solution was to increase B/H and also to drain the 

base to relieve the pressure (see 8.3) and hence reduce the uplift force to 0.5 or 

less.5

 The most signifi cant drawback to gravity designs involved their high cost. 

While the “profi le of equal resistance” offered a mathematically rational basis of 

design, this did not mean that gravity dams would necessarily be cheap to build.

For major municipalities, the economic benefi ts that accompanied an increased 

water supply might easily justify the huge expenditures required to build large 

masonry gravity designs. But once cities such as Boston (with the Wachusetts 

Dam completed in 1904) and New York (with the New Croton Dam completed 

in 1907) erected masonry gravity structures as part of major civic improvement 

projects, the technology came to represent—at least in many people’s eyes—the 

most conservative, the most appropriate, and, if at all economically feasible, the 

most desirable type of dam. In such dams, the free end (top) of a straight gravity 

dam will move horizontally as the cantilever bends downstream under water 

pressure. In this way the water load is carried down to the foundations (on the 

valley fl oor) by bending.

Arch and Cantilever Behavior in Dams

 Unlike the Croton structure, many dams in narrow valleys have been 

designed as arches using an elementary mathematical theory based upon the 

 cylinder formula (see 8.4). The dam, curved into an arch between the sides of 

the valley, will carry water load to the vertical canyon walls, by compression 

forces calculated from the cylinder formula. As these horizontal arches carry 

compression they will become shorter and hence move in the horizontal 

direction downstream. Thus a curved arch dam can carry loads both vertically 
255

as a cantilever and horizontally as an arch. The challenge to the engineer is to 

determine how much of the load goes to the canyon fl oor and how much to the 

canyon walls.

 This issue is crucial to design because much more material is required 

for safe cantilever behavior than for safe arch action. For example, designers 

proportioned gravity dams (those assumed to act as cantilevers alone) with a 

base thickness B equal to about 2/3 of H, the dam height. Where H = 60 ft. and 

B = 40 ft. the amount of concrete required per foot of dam length would be 

V = 60 x 40 x 1⁄2 = 1200 cubic feet. By contrast an arch dam with H = 60 ft. and 

Ru

 = 100 ft. would require a base thickness of about 7.5 feet from the cylinder 

formula ( for f = 350 psi) and hence a total volume of 60 x 7.5/2 = 225 cubic feet 

or less than 20% of the material required for the gravity or massive dam.

 As a result, some engineers, seeing this great advantage of arch dams, had 

a strong incentive to fi nd a rational way to determine analytically how much load 

was carried by the arching action and thereby justify designing a safe dam with 

far less material than a gravity dam carrying load by cantilever action. Engineers 

8.2. Dam Design: The middle third.
256

consulting with the newly 

established Reclamation Service 

began this process of analysis as 

early as 1903.

The Wisner and Wheeler 

Report on Pathfi nder Dam

 In September 1903, the 

Reclamation Service held a 

 conference of engineers at Ogden, 

Utah, where their newly appointed 

(March 1903) consulting engineer, 

 George Y. Wisner (1841-1906), 

presented a paper which called 

for a thorough study of stresses in 

high masonry (stone or concrete) dams to ensure safety and achieve minimum 

construction cost.6

 F. H. Newell, the chief engineer of the Service, asked a select 

committee of four, including Arthur Powell Davis (1861-1933) later to become 

8.3. Uplift and Sliding.

8.4. The cylinder formula.
257

director of the Service, to make him a recommendation which it did formally on 

October 5, 1904. Its letter spoke of the two high dams proposed for Wyoming 

(Pathfi nder and Buffalo Bill later renamed Shoshone Dam) and of the fact that 

“no thorough analysis has ever been made of the relative economy and stability of 

reinforced concrete dams as compared with similar dams of gravity sections....”

They suggested that such an analysis be commissioned by the Service, and 

they recommended Mr. E. T. Wheeler of Los Angeles for the job.7

 Under the 

supervision of Wisner, Wheeler began work in January of 1905. Wheeler 

submitted his fi nal report on May 5, 1905, and Wisner sent that report, preceded 

by a lengthy discussion of his own, to Newell on May 16. Its importance was 

considered to be so great that the Wisner-Wheeler paper was published in the 

August 10, 1905, issue of Engineering News. Since this report inaugurated the 

structural tradition of large-scale dam design within the federal government of the 

United States, it is essential to explain its substance and its impact.8

 Although Wisner proposed the study in the light of the Service’s new big 

dams—Roosevelt, Buffalo Bill, and Pathfi nder—he and Wheeler actually focused 

only on Pathfi nder (see 8.5), it being the fi rst one to be completed (1909). Wisner 

described how an arch dam in a narrow valley (he called it “of short span”) 

carried water loads and also how it behaved under wide swings of temperature 

both with reservoir full and with it drawn down. He then gave Wheeler’s report 

which consisted of the sets of formulas for water loads: one which assumed that 

the dam carried the water pressure as a series of horizontal arches supported by 

the side walls of the Canyon. He 

then computed the horizontal 

defl ection of these arches at 

their crowns—essentially only 

the vertical centerline of the 

dam (see 8.6). Wheeler next 

took a vertical slice of the dam 

at this centerline and, assuming 

it carried all the water pressure 

as a cantilever, supported only 

on the fl oor of the Canyon, he 

computed its horizontal defl ection 

at various points from base to top 

of the dam. The arch defl ections 

and the cantilever defl ections 

should have been the same at 

the same points on the dam, but 

this two-part calculation did not 

give such results. Thus Wheeler 

had to make a second calculation 

by adjusting the amount of load 

taken by the arches and that taken 

by the cantilevers. The fi rst 

8.5. Upstream face of Pathfi nder Dam on the 

North Platte River near Casper, Wyoming, is a 

masonry arch and cantilever section. Source:

Bureau of Reclamation.
258

calculation shows that the free cantilever defl ects far more than the arches do in 

the top portion of the dam while the reverse is true at the bottom. Thus the arches 

carry more load at the top and the cantilevers carry more load at the base. This 

redistribution of load would eventually be called the trial-load method of analysis. 

Moreover, Wheeler found that the Pathfi nder Dam could carry all the water load 

as a series of arches with compressive stresses under 200 psi for a material (stone 

masonry) whose compressive strength is well over 2000 psi.

 Next Wheeler studied temperature stresses in the Pathfi nder dam. Here 

he assumed that the temperature dropped 15°F at the top with the reservoir only 

fi lled up to 100 feet from the top and that the temperature drop decreased linearly 

to zero at 120 feet below the top. This drop would cause the arches to bend 

and defl ect in the downstream direction that would cause vertical cracks in the 

upper arches; and the defl ection of the arches above relative to the undefl ected 

cantilevers below would cause vertical bending in the lower parts of the dam and 

hence horizontal cracks there. This qualitative description helps explain where 

reinforcing steel needs to be placed (if it were a concrete dam), but it does not

give a good quantitative measure. However, by iteration again Wheeler was able 

to make a more reasonable estimate of the temperature stresses which he then 

combined with the water load to give one design condition.

Noetzli and the Curved Dams

 Strictly speaking, the analysis of Wisner and Wheeler was a trial-load 

method because it assumed a distribution of loads between arches and cantilevers 

and then after various other trials it based design on a fi nal iteration. Fred Noetzli 

(1887-1933), a Swiss trained engineer, summarized the situation in a landmark 

8.6. Pathfi nder Dam section and elevation diagrams. Wheeler took a vertical slice of the 

dam as a cantilever and analyzed the defl ections. He then analyzed the defl ections in a 

horizontal arch section. He repeated these analyses, distributing load to both the arches 

and cantilever, until the two sets of defl ections were nearly equal.
259

1921 paper in which he reviewed the practice of arched dams, gave relatively 

simple formulas for calculating the cantilever and the arch actions in horizontally 

curved dams, and then applied his formulations in detail to the Pathfi nder Dam. 

This last part is the heart of his paper in which he compares his semi-graphical 

approach to the purely analytical calculations presented by Wisner and Wheeler in 

1905. He concludes that his “distribution of load between cantilever and arches 

compares very favorably with that obtained analytically by Mr. Wheeler.”9

 Noetzli then proceeded to discuss the central issues in dam design that 

went beyond the statics of water-pressure loading: stresses due to temperature 

change, to shortening of the arches under water pressure, and to shrinkage of the 

concrete as well as the infl uence of cracks in the concrete. He showed by simple 

calculations that these effects were at least as important as those due to the statics 

of water pressure loading.

 The benefi t of analyzing the dam as a set of independent arch and 

cantilever elements is that one can use simple calculations to determine the 

defl ection of any point along an arch or cantilever element. Cantilever defl ections 

are approximated using the moment area method. The height at which a 

defl ection will occur along the cantilever can be calculated for members with 

constant and linearly varying cross-sections using simple equations.

 The process of determining the load distribution between arches and 

cantilevers in a given dam is an iterative approach based on fi nding the height, H1

,

above which cantilever action no longer exists and arch action takes all the load.

A fi rst approximation of H1 is made by applying the full water load individually 

to the arch and cantilever elements. The arch and cantilever defl ections will 

coincide at a single point. The results of an independent analysis of the Pathfi nder 

Dam based on the method outlined by Noetzli in his 1921 paper are shown in 

8.7 below. 8.7a shows the intersection of the arch and cantilever elements at a 

defl ection of approximately 0.25 inches. This value is used to calculate the height 

at which this defl ection would occur in an idealized structure. As the actual 

cross-section of the dam is something between prismatic and triangular, the fi rst 

approximation of H1 is taken as the average of the results from the two equations.

 The load distribution defi ned by this new value of H1

, becomes the basis 

for the second iteration. The defl ection of the arch and cantilever elements is 

calculated as before for the new loading and is shown in 8.7b.

 Although the cantilever carries no load above H1, the defl ection continues 

to increase up to the waterline. In some cases, the calculated cantilever defl ection 

may exceed the arch defl ection at the top of the dam, as it does in 8.7b for the 

Pathfi nder Dam. In actuality, however, the defl ection of the cantilever and arch 

must coincide, requiring that the arch must resist any additional defl ection of the 

cantilever. Subsequent iterations involve adjusting the value of H1 and fi nding, by 

trial and error, the additional “reaction” load on the arches required to bring the 
260

cantilever defl ection approximately into coincidence with the arch defl ection, as 

shown in 8.7c.

 Table 8.1 summarizes Noetzli’s results for the Pathfi nder Dam and the 

results of the independent check of Noetzli’s analysis. Additionally, a fi nite 

element model was analyzed using SAP 2000® to check the accuracy of Noetzli’s 

values. These results are also given in Table 8.1. In general, the fi nite element 

results compare favorably with those obtained by the simplifi ed hand analysis, 

indicating the applicability of this method for approximating the behavior of arch 

dams under the combined effects of temperature and water load.

 After giving the details of his analysis of the Pathfi nder Dam, Noetzli 

went on to point out that pure gravity dams rarely have a safety factor against 

overturning of over 2.0 and usually it is close to 1.0 (see 8.8). This surprising 

claim allowed him to make a strong criticism of such dams, i.e. “no other 

engineering structure of acknowledged good design has such a small factor of 

safety as a pure gravity dam.”10

 The paper, which drew vigorous discussions from major fi gures of the 

period, established the Swiss engineer as a leading theoretician for dams, and the 

discussion largely confi rmed Noetzli’s reputation. Running through Noetzli’s 

writing was the two-part theme, prototypically Swiss, that good design implies 

form over mass and that analysis—often graphically done—can be greatly 

simplifi ed to improve understanding as well as to encourage designers to think in 

terms of form over mass. He was at great pains to stress the historical fact that 

8.7. Defl ection of Pathfi nder Dam, based on Noetzli’s analysis. Defl ection of arches and 

crown cantilever under combined 20o temperature change and a) full water load, b) under 

partial water load, and c) under partial water load and reaction from cantilever.
261

mass did not mean safety, but that form, properly conceived, did so—and with 

greater economy as well.

 Much of the discussion revolved about the relative simplicity of the 

graphical approach as compared to the complexity of the mathematical one.11 One 

factor in the form versus mass debate was the perception that lighter forms needed 

more rigor in solution.

The Trial-Load Method

 The writings on curved dams continued throughout the 1920s as the nation 

was beginning to move into the largest program of dam building ever attempted. 

The articles and discussions up to 1929 discussed both arch and cantilever 

behavior and hence qualify as trial-load methods. However, not until publication 

of an article in the 1929 ASCE Transactions by C. H. Howell and A. C. Jaquith 

does the method acquire publicly the name of “trial load.”12 Both authors had 

worked for the Bureau of Reclamation in Denver where they had begun to study 

the method in 1923.

 In the paper they defi ned the method as one which considers the dam to 

be made up of a series of horizontal arches and a series of vertical cantilevers 

with part of the water load carried by the dam considered as arches and part 

by the dam considered as cantilevers. The arch loads and the cantilever loads 

are adjusted so that the defl ections of the arches are nearly the same as the 

defl ections of the cantilevers at the same points. They distinguish the trial-load 

method from previous similar methods by the fact that they were considering 

more than the one single cantilever, which is what Wheeler, Noetzli, and others 

had done. By considering a series of cantilevers, rather than one cantilever only 

at the centerline of the dam, the Bureau engineers created a detailed procedure 

which was used for later dams. In their paper, the authors began by noting the 

Table 8.1. Comparison of Pathfi nder Dam defl ections from several analysis methods.
262

variations in the shapes of canyons in which dams appear and thus they 

established the need to use more than one cantilever for more realistic analysis.

 As with Noetzli’s paper, the Howell and Jaquith paper brought forward 

much substantial discussion. Noetzli and Jakobsen both observed that Alfred 

Stucky had used the trial-load method for a Swiss dam in 1922 although the 

method was not so named. In fact Robert Maillart had used the same idea 

in 1902 for a water tank also in Switzerland.13 Probably the most signifi cant 

discussion from the point of view of federal dams came from John Savage and 

 Ivan Houk, both of the Bureau. They gave a more detailed discussion of Gibson 

Dam and gave also results from their analysis of the 405 ft. high Owyhee Dam 

in eastern Oregon. Savage had assumed a dominant role in the Bureau and was 

already in 1929 deeply involved with the Boulder Canyon project. But as the 

dams got higher and higher, the Bureau recognized the need to develop not just 

mathematical analyses but also physical model testing, and the instrumentation of 

full scale dams.

The Stevenson Creek Test Dam

 During the fi rst three decades of the twentieth century engineers focused 

intently on concrete arches, creating numerous designs for bridges as well as 

dams, and stimulating more mathematically complex analytic schemes. In 1924, 

four of the twenty Transactions papers dealt with concrete arches and many 

8.8. Factor of safety against overturning.
263

of these pages were fi lled with formulas and tables. The 1925 Transactions 

contained two extensive articles on arch analysis, in total about 20% of the entire 

volume.

 But already by 1922, some engineers became uneasy with so much 

abstraction and began to worry about fi eld performance as opposed to offi ce 

abstractions. Particularly engineers in the western states saw the need for a 

different approach to analysis which led Fred Noetzli to request fi nancial support 

from the Engineering Foundation for collecting performance data on existing arch 

dams and for designing new tests and experiments.14 Noetzli noted the national 

signifi cance of arch dams by referring to two recent papers on the subject which 

had won the Croes Medal in 1920 and 1921 (the second highest award given by 

the ASCE; it recognizes special commendation as a contributor to engineering 

science). He urged aid for physical testing because “the methods by which most 

existing arch dams have been designed are defective and more or less unreliable.” 

Noetzli had been worried about the lack of fi eld data and later that year would 

publish a paper on tests results in full size dams.15

 It was becoming clear then that the Service would have to play a major 

role in the project.16 In December 1923 W. A. Brackenridge, senior vice president 

of the Southern California Edison Company, proposed the building of a large 

scale concrete arch dam designed expressly for research, and he further offered 

to provide a large amount of the money for it as well as the use of his company’s 

facilities. Located on Stevenson Creek, a tributary of the San Joaquin River about 

60 miles east of Fresno, California, this dam was approved by the committee and 

construction began in August of 1925.17

 The test arch design was startlingly thin. The physical structure was set 

in a V-shaped canyon, and was 60 feet high with a thickness throughout the top 

half of only 2 feet tapering from mid-height to the base from 2 feet to 7.5 feet.

The arch is of a constant 100 ft. radius throughout (see 8.9).18 The tests used 

mechanical strain gages and from these measurements stresses were calculated.

Defl ection and temperatures were also measured.

 Meanwhile engineers had been collecting measurements from existing 

dams as part of the overall program, and they had found discouraging results 

because of the diffi culties in relating strains and displacements to loading and 

temperature changes. They debated the materials from the test dam construction 

and instrumentation at a meeting in Fresno in early December 1925.19

 The Bureau was becoming convinced that the test dam alone would not 

be suffi cient and that a series of small scale models ought also to be included in 

the program.20 In early 1926 the Commissioner of the Bureau, Elwood Mead, 

approved funding for part of the work with small scale models.21 A full report on 

all this work appeared in November 1927 and on December 8, 1928, a concrete 

model of the Stevenson Test Dam was loaded to destruction.22
264

 We can summarize the conclusions reached by the committee in late 1927 

under three categories: fi rst, the great strength of the arch dams; second, physical 

experiments have given data useful to engineers developing mathematical 

analyses; and, third, arch dams may be designed more economically (by being 

thinner) in the future.23

 The full report included an analysis by Noetzli following his 1921 paper. 

The results are tabulated in Table 8.2. An independent crown-cantilever analysis 

was also carried out by the authors of this paper, based on the procedure outlined 

in his 1921 paper. The fi nal defl ection of arches and crown cantilever under 

the combined effects of temperature and water pressure are shown in 8.10. 

Additionally, a fi nite element model of the arch under water load was constructed 

as a comparison to the crown-cantilever method. These results are also tabulated 

in Table 2, along with actual measurements (excluding temperature effects) taken 

from the dam itself. As can be seen from 

the results, the crown-cantilever method 

overestimates the actual defl ections 

whereas the SAP 2000® analysis is 

relatively close. However, the crowncantilever method provides a reasonable 

and conservative approximation of the 

behavior.

Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams

 During the early planning stages 

for what became the Boulder Canyon 

Project, the Director of the Bureau of 

Reclamation, A. P. Davis, and his staff 

made an effort to consider a range of 

possibilities for the design of the big 

storage dam on the Lower Colorado.

Based upon the Service’s experiences 

with the Roosevelt, Elephant Butte, and 

Arrowrock dams, it is not surprising 

that a massive concrete/masonry gravity 

8.9. Stevenson Creek Dam: Plan, section, and profi le along upstream face.

8.10. Defl ection of arches and crown 

cantilever in Stevenson Creek Dam, 

based on Noetzli’s analysis method.
265

design attracted the interest of Davis, his chief engineer Frank Weymouth, dam 

design engineer John L. Savage, and project engineer Walker Young. At the same 

time, the Service had experience building massive embankment dams (such as 

Belle Fourche in South Dakota and Strawberry Valley in Utah) as well as thin 

arch concrete masonry dams (Pathfi nder and Shoshone, both in Wyoming); in 

this context, the decision to utilize a curved gravity concrete design did not come 

without some consideration of alternative designs. However, the selection did 

come quickly and without a laborious public review of alternative designs.

 These plans were ultimately carried out and the Hoover Dam was designed 

as a pure gravity dam (see 8.11), although later the Bureau made a trial load 

analysis of the structure.

 The calculation of the factor of safety against overturning, based on the 

equations given in 8.8, shows the considerable overturning resistance of the crosssection. Based on the fi nal dimensions of the dam (height H = 727’ and base 

width B = 660’), the factor of safety is S.F. (2.25)(2)

660

727 3.7,

2

2 = ×= neglecting uplift.

Considering uplift, the factor of safety decreases to S.F. (1.25)(2)

660

727 2,

2

2 = ×= still 

reasonably safe. Although the fi nal design utilizes an arched plan, the additional 

resistance provided by the arching action is unnecessary to carry the loads 

imposed on the structure. The fi nal structure is shown as built in 8.12below.

 Unlike Hoover Dam, the Glen Canyon design did benefi t from the trial 

load analysis method that had developed in the 1920s and for the site (located 

on the main stem of the Colorado River only a few miles upstream from the 

spot marking the division between upper and lower basins), the Bureau made 

a design for a thin arched dam. The site had long been familiar to the Bureau. 

In fact, it had fi gured as a possible alternative to Boulder/Black Canyon in 

Table 8.2. Comparison of Stevenson Creek Dam defl ections from several analysis 

methods.
266

the early 1920s. By the 1950s, 

the Bureau was eager to begin 

construction of a huge 700-foot 

high dam at Glen Canyon that 

would represent another major step 

in the development of the Colorado 

as a source of hydroelectric power 

for the burgeoning Southwest. 

Whereas Echo Park lay within a 

part of the National Park System 

and thus comprised a site well 

suited for wilderness advocates to 

defend, the Glen Canyon dam and 

reservoir site simply encompassed 

federally-owned land and thus was 

8.11. Hoover Dam, preliminary design of 

gravity section.

8.12. Hoover Dam: Downstream face showing powerhouses. 
267

easier to justify in terms of inundating for the greater public good. Although the 

canyon lands upstream from Glen Canyon could certainly have been characterized 

as a natural (and national) treasure, they held no place in the national public 

consciousness and no great movement developed to protect them. Thus, when 

Congress agreed in 1956 to protect Echo Park, wilderness advocates offered little 

protest against approval of Glen Canyon Dam in what could later be understood 

as a de facto compromise regarding development of the two dam and reservoir 

sites.24

 In terms of design, the Glen Canyon Dam differed from Hoover in its use 

of an arch design featuring a profi le insuffi cient to stand as a gravity dam; in this 

strictly technological context it diverged from the precedent set by the Boulder 

Canyon Project and instead drew from the Bureau’s work in building thin arch 

dams that extended as far back as Pathfi nder and Shoshone dams prior to 1910. 

The fi nal structure (see 8.13), with a height of 690 ft. and a base thickness of just 

290 ft., had a factor of safety against overturning of just 0.80 without uplift and 

0.44 with uplift. Thus the design relied heavily on arch action to resist the loads.

 The early version of the trial-load analysis, improved on by Noetzli in 

1921 and further refi ned by Bureau engineers in the late 1920s laid a basis for its 

use on the Glen Canyon Dam. This confi dence helped lead the design engineers 

to design and construct a dam far thinner than Hoover and thus rely on arch action 

instead of only cantilever behavior. There were other reasons too. Concrete 

quality had improved since the 1920’s so that 415 psi stress limit at Hoover could 

be increased 1000 psi for Glen Canyon.25

 However, compensating somewhat for the improved concrete, the canyon 

walls at Glen Canyon were sandstone, a weaker material than the granite walls of 

Black Canyon. Therefore, the stress at the arches abutments was kept at 

600 psi by thickening the arches as they approached the canyon walls. The 

weaker walls also required the injection of a grout curtain to strengthen the 

foundations and prevent seepage under and around the dam. These are the hidden 

dam components that are as essential to safety as the more visually obvious 

shaped and solidity of the concrete structure itself.

Concrete Forms and Complex Analysis

 Fred Noetzli, whose primary aim had been to use tests and calculations, 

predicted in 1924 that gravity dams would be replaced by thin arch structures; he 

quoted several engineers saying that “the gravity dam is a thing of the past” and 

“the gravity dam is an economic crime.” He held the belief common to many 

in the 1920s that “engineering science is advancing” and that a more rational 

analytic base would lead to thinner and less costly structures.26 But Noetzli did 

not imply that more rational would necessarily mean more complex. He worked 

with graphical methods typifi ed by his education at the Federal Technical Institute 
268

in Zurich. He did not publish the detailed mathematical formulations that had 

begun to appear in the 1920s and would culminate in the Bureau’s 1938 report.27

 This type of mathematical complexity was criticized sharply by one of the 

most famous structural engineering teachers, Hardy Cross of Illinois University. 

In discussing a highly mathematical 1925 paper on concrete arches, Cross noted 

the uncertainties of loadings, of actual stress, and of foundations none of which 

were dealt with in the paper which “having swallowed these ‘camels’ only the 

‘gnat’ of mathematical analysis remains. The ‘gnat’ should be an hors d’oeuvre 

and engineers are giving abnormal gustatory attention to it.” He goes on to 

proclaim that “the theories of arch analysis which are now being elaborated 

in engineering literature are distinctly ‘high brow’ in that their elaborateness 

camoufl ages with erudition uncertainties and inaccuracies which are inevitable.”28

 In spite of Noetzli’s hope and Cross’s warning, the profession charged 

ahead with complexity of analysis and the result was that the Bureau of 

Reclamation dams did not get thinner but thicker until after World War II when 

the trial-load analysis would be used to justify the Glen Canyon Dam design. A 

recent summary of this period stated that:

8.13. Glen Canyon Dam. View towards downstream face showing powerhouse. 
269

Many arch dams built at the time showed a tendency for increasing 

thickness. On the one hand the failure of St. Francis Dam in 

California in 1928 had raised questions regarding the safety of 

any proposed dam of large size. On the other hand, it seemed 

that the excellent results obtained at Stevenson Creek, including a 

verifi cation of the trial load method, were not carried forward with 

these arch gravity-type dams.29

 By 1927 there had emerged well documented traditions of massive and of 

structural dams. The structural tradition brought forth new methods of analysis 

both by physical test and by mathematical calculation. The goal had been to build 

lighter, less expensive, and safer dams. But as the methods of analysis got more 

complex there seemed to grow an anxiety about uncertainties in the analysis itself 

and the Federal agencies addressed these worries by designing heavier structures 

which they believed to be safer even though the lighter ones were performing at 

least as well.

 It seems to be a natural characterization of centralized agencies that they 

seek to avoid risks, to question innovations, and to justify heavy expenditures 

by invoking the specter of failure. But behind this apparent criticism, there lay 

a deep cultural ideology that was characterized by the new and prototypical 

building material of the twentieth century. American society and indeed western 

society as a whole reacted to reinforced concrete in a profoundly ambiguous way.

 Modern concrete clearly stimulated the search for new forms that would 

carry loads with less material and at least as much safety as heavier designs. But 

many engineers, not seeing these possibilities or not valuing them, sought to 

discredit this search for innovation. They saw concrete as a mere substitute for 

stone masonry rather than a new material which, when cast monolithically, made 

the building of integrated structures possible leading to great savings of materials 

and weight.

Professor David P. Billington is the Gordon Y. S. Wu Professor of 

Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental 

Engineering at Princeton University. He has written: Robert Maillart’s 

Bridges: The Art of Engineering (1979); The Tower and the Bridge: The

New Art of Structural Engineering (1983); Robert Maillart and the Art 

of Reinforced Concrete (1990); Thin Shell Concrete Structures (1982); 

The Innovators: The Engineering Pioneers who Transformed America,

(1996); with Donald C. Jackson and Martin Melosi, The History of 

Large Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and Construction (2005); with 

David P. Billington, Jr., Power, Speed, & Form: Engineers and the 

Making of the Twentieth Century (2006); with Donald C. Jackson, Dams

of the New Deal Era: A Confl uence of Engineering and Politics (2006).

He has co-edited: Solomon Cady Hollister Colloquium: Perspectives 

on the History of Reinforced Concrete in the United States, 1904-1941

(1980). Chelsea Honigmann and Moira A. Treacy provided research 

and writing assistance to Professor Billington on this article. Donald 
270

Jackson has been of great help to Professor Billington on the history of 

dams and Sinead MacNamara also made valuable studies of Hoover and 

Glen Canyon Dams. Brit Storey has also been of considerable value 

throughout Billington’s study of the Bureau’s dams.

Endnotes

1. The concept of ‘traditions’ as applied to dam design is discussed in Donald C. Jackson, 

Building the Ultimate Dam: John S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West, Lawrence, 

Kansas, 1995, pp. 18-21.

2. J. A. De Sazilly, “Sur un type de profi l d’égale résistance proposé pour les murs des 

reservoirs d’eau,” Annales des Ponts et Chaussees (1853): 191-222; and E. E. Delocre, “Memoire 

sur la forme du profi l a adopter pour les grande barrsages en maconnerie des réservoirs,” Annales 

des Ponts et Chaussee, Memoires et Documents (1866): 212-272. Both of these references are 

taken from Norman Smith, A History of Dams, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1972.

3 Construction of Masonry Dams,” The Engineer 33 (January 5, 1872): 1-2.

4. When Rankine discussed the signifi cance of the middle third in the 1870s there is no 

evidence that anyone considered it a reiteration of previously discussed ideas.

5. C. L. Harrison, “Provision for Uplift and Ice Pressure in Designing Masonry Dams,” 

Transactions ASCE, Vol 75 (1912), pp. 142-5 with discussion pp. 146-225. For a modern 

treatment see Max A. M. Herzog, Practical Dam Analysis, London 1999, p. 80.

6. Wisner reviews this history in his report, George Y. Wisner, “Investigation of Stresses 

Developed in High Masonry Dams of Short Span.” Report submitted to F. H. Newell, Chief 

Engineer, USGS, Washington, D. C., May 16, 1905, 22 pages.

7. Letter from Wisner, et al., in Montrose, California, to Newell in Washington, D.C., 

October 5, 1904; response from Newell to Wisner in Detroit, October 12, 1904; and the 

recommendation of Wheeler comes in a letter from Wisner and J. H. Quinton to Newell on 

November 2, 1904. Presumably the fi nal approval came quickly thereafter. For details on 

A. P. Davis see Charles H. Bissell and F. E. Weymouth, “Memoir for Arthur Powell Davis,” 

Transactions ASCE, Vol. 100 (1935) pp. 1582-91.

8. Letter report from Wheeler in Los Angeles to Wisner in Los Angeles, May 5, 1905, 

9 pages. Covering letter from Wisner in Los Angeles to Newell in Washington, D. C., 

May 16, 1905, with the complete report. The published paper appeared as George Y. Wisner and 

Edgar T. Wheeler, “Investigation of Stresses in High Masonry Dams of Short Spans,” Engineering

News, Vol. 54, No. 60, August 10, 1905, pp. 141-4. Earlier publications did deal with the arch 

designs but they appeared in obscure publications; for example, L. Wagoner and H. Vischer, “On 

the Strains in Curved Masonry Dams,” Proceedings of the Technical Society of the Pacifi c Coast,

Vol. VI, December 1889. Such articles did not have the infl uence of Wisner and Wheeler.

9. Fred A. Noetzli, “Gravity and Arch Action in Curved Dams,” Transactions of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84 (1921), p. 23.

10. Ibid., p. 41. The low factor of safety can be calculated for overturning as follows: For 

H/B = 1.5 and for no uplift S.F. = 2.00 (assuming a triangular dam section) while for full uplift 

S.F. = 1.1 (see Figure 8.3).

11. William Cain, “Discussion”, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers,

Vol. 84, pp. 71-91. His analysis was expanded and published as “The Circular Arch Under 

Normal Loads,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 85 (1922), 

pp. 233-48. Noetzli wrote a discussion to the paper in Vol. 85, pp. 261-4. Also in the discussion 

William Cain, a professor of mathematics at North Carolina University, compared Noetzli’s 

graphical method to a purely analytic approach given the previous year by B. A. Smith and noted 

their close correspondence.

12. C. H. Howell and A. C. Jaquith, “Analysis of Arch Dams by the Trial Load Method,” 

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93 (1929), pp. 1191-225.

13. R. Wuczkowski, “Flussigkeitsbehälter”. Handbuch für Eisenbetonbau, ed. M von 

Emperger, Berlin, 1907, Vol. 3, pp. 348-351, 407-413.
271

14. Letter from Fred Noetzli in San Francisco to the Board of Trustees of the Engineering 

Foundation in New York City, March 3, 1922, 2 pages.

15. Fred Noetzli, “Arch Dam Temperature Changes and Defl ection Measurements,” 

Engineering News-Record, Vol. 89, No. 22 (November 30, 1922), pp. 930-2.

16. Letters F. E. Weymouth in Denver to Davis in Washington, November 10, 1922, and from 

Morris Bien (acting director) in Washington to Weymouth in Denver, November 20, 1922. In the 

fall of 1922 Weymouth asked Davis if the Bureau could not give fi nancial support to the project; 

the acting director agreed to some support.

17. Report on Arch Dam Investigations, Vol. 1, November 1927, Proceedings of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers (May 1928), pp. 6, 43. In Bulletin No. 2 (June 1, 1924) the 

Engineering Foundation noted that the Edison Company had put up $25,000 and another $75,000 

was needed.

18. A Progress Report on the Stevenson Creek Test Dam, Bulletin No. 2, Engineering 

Foundation, December 1, 1925, 8 pages. On December 1, 1925, the Engineering Foundation 

issued a progress report giving the dam design and the list of contributors, dominated by private 

industry. The Bureau of Reclamation is not listed although the Bureau of Standards was, largely 

through the assignment of W. A. Slater, its engineer-physicist. 

19. Letter from Julian Hinds in Denver to R. F. Walter in Denver, December 17, 1925.

20. Letter from R. F. Walter in Washington to Elwood Mead in Washington, 

December 16, 1925.

21. Letters from R. F. Walter in Denver to Elwood Mead in Washington, February 11, 1926, 

and from Mead in Washington to Walter in Denver, February 19, 1926.

22. John L. Savage, “Arch Dam Model Tests—Progress Report,” December 17, 1928.

23. Report, November 1927, op. cit, pp. 8-9.

24. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, pp. 280-3, describes how wilderness advocates came to 

accept the need for Glen Canyon Dam in the mid-1950s; while there was some desire to push for 

blocking Glen Canyon Dam it was much less vociferous than the effort to protect Echo Park.

25. Glen Canyon Dam and Powerplant, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1970, pp 55-89.

26. Fred Noetzli, “Improved Type of Multiple-Arch Dam,” Transactions of the American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 87, 1924, Closure, p. 410.

27. “Trial Load Method of Analyzing Arch Dams,” Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports, 

Part V, Technical Investigation, Bulletin 1, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1938.

28. Hardy Cross, “Discussion of Design of Symmetrical Concrete Arches by C. S. Whitney,” 

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 88, 1925, pp. 1075-77. In 1932 

Cross would introduce the most signifi cant simplifi ed analysis procedure ever presented for 

reinforced concrete frame structures. Noetzli worked from a solid math basis but simplifi ed it by 

graphic statistics (a Swiss tradition). Cain (ref. 11) was a mathematician, not an engineer, and 

his work is very complex, but Noetzli could understand it easily. The Bureau carried on from 

Noetzli’s simplifi ed approach to develop an elaborate and highly complex mathematical method. 

Cross criticized all such complexity and sought to develop methods that the average practicing 

structural engineer could easily use.

29. Eric Kollgaard and Wallace Chadwick, eds., Development of Dam Engineering in the 

United States, Penguin Press, New York, 1988, p. 269.

30. This paper grew out of an MSE thesis by Moira Treacy, The Development of Concrete 

Arch Dam Design in the United States and France, 1998; and a report co-authored by David 

P. Billington, Donald C. Jackson and Martin V. Melosi, The History of Large Federal Dams: 

Planning, Design and Construction, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 2005, 605 pages, and a 

book coauthored by David P. Billington and Donald C. Jackson, Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A 

Confl uence of Engineering and Politics, Oklahoma 2006, 369 pages.
272
273

Origins of Boulder/Hoover Dam: Siting, Design, 

and Hydroelectric Power

By:

Donald C. Jackson

 Boulder/Hoover Dam is the most prominent structure ever built by 

the Bureau of Reclamation and arguably the most famous dam in the world. 

Authorized by Congress and President Calvin Coolidge in December 1928, the 

structure was commonly referred to as Boulder Dam throughout the time it was 

under congressional debate. In 1930 

it was designated Hoover Dam by 

Ray Lyman Wilbur (President Herbert 

Hoover’s Secretary of the Interior) 

and construction contracts were issued 

under that name. In 1933 Harold 

Ickes (President Franklin Roosevelt’s 

Secretary of the Interior and no great 

admirer of the prior president) decreed 

that the name Boulder Dam be used 

in place of Hoover Dam. In 1947, 

Congress passed legislation, signed 

by President Harry Truman, formally 

designating the structure Hoover Dam, 

the name it still retains. But whatever 

the nomenclature, the curved gravity 

concrete structure was built in essential 

accord with plans developed in the 

1920s—a time when the name Boulder 

Dam held currency. 

This essay describes: 1) the relation of the dam to agricultural development of the 

Imperial Valley; 2) the role played by hydroelectricity in the dam’s early history; 

3) why and when the decision was made to relocate the dam from Boulder 

Canyon (where it was originally proposed and from whence its original name 

derived) to Black Canyon, the site of its actual construction; 4) the adoption of a 

massive, curved gravity concrete design for the structure; and 5) the importance of 

Los Angeles and urban development to the dam’s authorization and construction. 

These are prosaic goals, perhaps, but worth addressing because of the dam’s 

importance within the history of the Bureau and within the larger history of 

twentieth century western water development. Because this essay primarily 

involves events that occurred at a time when the proposed structure was known as 

Boulder Dam, that is the name used in the following discussion. 

9.1. Secretary of the Interior Harold 

Ickes.
274

Imperial Valley

 The conception of Boulder Dam is rooted in a privately-fi nanced project 

to irrigate Southern California’s Imperial Valley. As conceived by the Colorado 

Development Company in the 1890s, this scheme diverted water from the 

Colorado River to nourish a huge tract of desert land just north of the California/

Mexico border. Much of this land lies below sea level making it relatively 

easy for water to fl ow to the valley. Conversely, this distinctive topographical 

condition also makes the valley susceptible to fl ooding. In the 1850s, the AngloAmerican pioneer Oliver Wozencroft perceived the agricultural possibilities 

afforded by the topography of the lower Colorado River delta. In particular, 

Wozencroft realized that the “ Alamo River,” an ancient silt-fi lled channel of the 

Colorado River about 50 miles long had once carried fresh water directly into the 

expansive valley known as the “Colorado Desert.” And he appreciated that, with 

a little human assistance, it could readily do so again. In the 1890s Wozencroft’s 

idea was picked up by the California Development Company, an enterprise 

masterminded by Charles Rockwood in partnership with George Chaffey, and 

marketed as irrigating the bright sounding “Imperial Valley” rather than the more 

foreboding “Colorado Desert.”1

 Just north of the Mexican border the company dug a short canal (about 

four miles long) to connect the existing mainstem of the lower Colorado River 

with the ancient channel. Fitted with wooden headgates designed to regulate 

fl ow and block excessive fl oods, the Alamo Canal provided an effective and 

inexpensive way to divert Colorado River water into the Imperial Valley. In 

the short term, the company’s plans to “make the desert bloom” proved easy 

to implement because, in centuries past, nature had accomplished most of the 

excavation work needed for the lengthy waterway. By 1902 thousands of acres 

of prime agricultural land was “under the ditch” and the company’s prospects 

appeared bright. However, a serious problem loomed, as the “cut” connecting 

the Alamo Canal and the mainstem of the Colorado kept clogging with silt, thus 

impeding water fl ow to farmers in the valley.2

 Because silt accumulation proved 

particularly troublesome in the section of the canal closest to the river—and 

because interests allied with the company sought to move the headgates beyond 

U.S. jurisdiction in order to more readily irrigate land in Mexican territory—the 

company excavated a larger, more direct opening to the river at a site a few miles 

south of the U.S./Mexico border. Completed in 1904, this new cut also relied 

upon wooden headgates to protect the canal from heavy fl oods.3

 To the company’s dismay, in June 1905 heavy storms in the Gila River 

watershed of central Arizona unleashed huge fl oods into the Lower Colorado, 

washing away the headgates protecting the Alamo Canal. Soon a tremendous 

surge of water washed into the Imperial Valley. As fl ow from the Colorado River 

accelerated, the Alamo Canal deepened and widened, allowing yet more water 

to be diverted out of the mainstem. Although the Southern Pacifi c Railroad (a 

corporate ally of the California Development Company whose trackage served the 
275

valley) dumped trainload-after-trainload of rock to close off the canal entrance, 

it achieved little short-term effect. Despite appeals to the federal government to 

help stanch the deluge, President Teddy Roosevelt declined to interfere in what 

he considered the affairs of a private corporation. Eventually, the fl ooding was 

brought under control by the Southern Pacifi c, but it took almost two years and an 

expenditure of 2 million dollars to close the breach. In the meantime, thousands 

of acres of low lying land were inundated under what is now known as the Salton 

Sea.4

 In 1909, the California Development Company entered bankruptcy 

after transferring most of its assets to the Southern Pacifi c Railroad. In 1911, 

landowners north of the international border formed the Imperial Irrigation 

District and fi ve years later the district purchased the water supply system from 

the railroad.5 Once the fl ooding stopped, agricultural production resumed in the 

valley. Nonetheless, fear that a devastating uncontrolled “break” might recur was 

never far from the minds of residents and investors alike. Soon the district and 

its boosters began clamoring for federally-supported fl ood protection and, in the 

midst of the uncertainty that followed collapse of the Porfi rio Diaz government in 

1910, for protection from possible Mexican interference with the valley’s water 

supply.

The Fall/Davis Report

 Prior to the end of World War I, the Imperial Irrigation District sought 

assistance from the federal government for excavation of a completely new canal 

entirely within U.S. territory (designated the “All-American Canal”).6

 As the war 

ended, the district also sought federal support for construction of a fl ood control/

storage dam somewhere in the lower Colorado River watershed that would protect 

the Imperial Valley from a recurrence of the disastrous inundation of 1905-07. 

In holding back fl ood water, such a dam could also increase water supplies for 

irrigation in the Imperial Valley. 

 Although the Federal government had refrained from fi ghting the fl oods 

of 1905-1907, the lower Colorado River had not been ignored by the Reclamation 

Service. As early as 1902 Arthur Powell Davis (at that time Assistant Chief 

Engineer of the Service) had considered development of the basin.7 However, for 

many years the issue of a major storage dam across the lower Colorado River was 

overshadowed by other Reclamation Service projects including Roosevelt Dam 

in Arizona, Arrowrock Dam in Idaho, and Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico. 

By the end of World War I these large projects were complete and the Service 

was seeking new venues for its dam-building skills. In 1915 Davis had ascended 

to become Director of the Reclamation Service: in that position he appreciated 

that controlling the lower Colorado could involve construction of one of the most 

prominent dams in the world. In the words of California water historian Norris 

Hundley:
276

The proposed legislation [for an All-American Canal] immediately 

caught the eye of Arthur Powell Davis... who saw it as a perfect 

opportunity to raise anew his dream of harnessing the Colorado River... 

the canal made sense, concluded Davis, but only if it were part of a 

larger design. To build such an aqueduct without also constructing dams 

to control “the fl ood menace” would doom the canal to a short life... 

Davis told all who would listen [that the Imperial Valley problem] “is 

inseparably linked with the problem of water storage in the Colorado 

Basin as a whole.”8

 As a result of Imperial Irrigation District lobbying and support from 

Davis, in May 1920 Congress authorized the Reclamation Service to develop 

preliminary plans for an All-American Canal and a Colorado River storage dam.9

Known as the Kinkaid Act (it was sponsored by Nebraska representative Moses 

Kinkaid, Chairman of the House Committee on Irrigation), this law initiated 

practical planning for Boulder Dam.10

 In 1922 the Kinkaid Act bore fruit in the form of the “Fall/Davis Report” 

a major study formally prepared under the auspices of Secretary of the Interior 

Albert Fall and Director Davis. This landmark report proposed a large dam that 

would do much more than simply store fl oods and protect the Imperial Valley. 

Aware of objections that would arise if project fi nancing was perceived as a 

federal hand-out, Davis advocated hydroelectric power development as a key 

part of the project simply because only power revenues could repay construction 

costs with any degree of certainty. From a strictly practical point-of-view, the 

development of hydroelectricity made much sense as a dam over 500 feet high 

and impounding more than 20 million acre-feet of water could generate many 

millions of kilowatt hours per year. But from a political perspective, the use of 

power revenues as the primary means of fi nancing the dam was problematic. 

Specifi cally, it raised questions about the proper role of the Federal government in 

the generation and marketing of electricity. 

 Privately-fi nanced companies controlled America’s electric power grid in 

the 1920s and they viewed askance any legislation that would authorize a huge 

federally-fi nanced dam to be paid for by hydroelectric power revenues. In the 

political environment of the pro-business 1920s—when the Republican Party 

controlled both the White House and Congress—the “public power” issue always 

loomed over the proposed Boulder Canyon Project. As historian Paul Kleinsorge 

noted in the 1940s: 

The controversy over the power aspects of the [Boulder Canyon] 

project, however, was not a dispute that was confi ned to the relatively 

local ambitions of [California and Arizona]. It was a clamorous 

argument that took on the aspects of a nation-wide debate, chiefl y 

because it involved the whole question of whether or not the federal 

government should enter large-scale power production activities...11
277

 In the face of possible objections from private power interests, the Fall/

Davis Report nonetheless advocated construction of a high dam and hydroelectric 

power plant in the vicinity of Boulder Canyon. The Reclamation Service 

recognized that there were other possible storage dam sites along the length of the 

Colorado River (including Diamond Creek, Bridge Canyon, and Glen Canyon) 

but quickly focused on Boulder Canyon because of its large storage capacity 

and its proximity to prospective water users and electric power consumers in 

Southern California.12 Both Boulder Canyon and the nearby Black Canyon (lying 

about twenty miles farther downstream) featured dramatic, narrow gorges with 

steep granite walls extending upwards for several hundred feet. While initial 

investigations focused on Boulder Canyon (hence the name historically attached 

to the project), Service engineers soon initiated studies at Black Canyon in order 

to discern the best possible site for the dam.

Selection of the Black Canyon Site

 Even prior to the release of the Fall/Davis Report, Davis had considered 

Black Canyon as an alternative to Boulder Canyon. The two canyons offered 

similar possibilities of service to southern California, but, because Black Canyon 

lay about 20 miles farther downstream, it allowed development of a small (yet 

not insignifi cant) amount of hydropower that would otherwise be diffi cult to 

capture. This issue was directly addressed in a December 1921 letter from Davis 

to Reclamation Service Chief Engineer Frank Weymouth:

I am inclined to think it best to make one or more borings at Black 

Canyon, because a dam at that point would utilize about thirty feet of fall 

[for power generation] which occurs between that point and our camp at 

Boulder Canyon, and this fall cannot be utilized in any other way.13

 At the same time, the Black Canyon 

dam site was close enough that it could 

inundate the expansive reservoir site lying 

above Boulder Canyon; in fact, the Black 

Canyon site could actually provide for 

greater storage capacity than the original 

dam site surveyed in Boulder Canyon.

By the beginning of 1922 geological 

explorations were underway at Black 

Canyon to discern the quality of bedrock 

and the depth of excavation necessary for 

dam foundations.14 In July Weymouth 

reported to Davis that initial investigation 

of the upper end of Black Canyon (termed 

line “A”) did not appear promising, 

advising him that: 

9.2. Arthur Powell Davis while Director 

of the Reclamation Service.
278

The foundation rock at line A in Black Canyon is not suitable for 

bearing pressures of 40 tons per square foot as used on the granite of 

Boulder Canyon, [and] the soft and porous structure of some of the rock 

may render this site entirely unsuitable for such a high dam. In this 

connection I will say that I am personally very doubtful of the feasibility 

of a dam 600 feet high in Black Canyon, unless the conditions at the 

lower site prove to be very much better...15

 Despite this less than encouraging prognosis, exploratory work continued 

at the lower end of Black Canyon (line “D”). Conditions at the latter location 

proved more agreeable to Service engineers and, following a two-day fi eld visit 

by the Director in November 1922, Davis could advise Weymouth:

No one doubts the feasibility of the Black Canyon site. The rock in 

the bottom of line D is much better than that secured at the head of the 

canyon last year... I think we should make a choice between Black and 

Boulder Canyons as soon as possible so as to stop expenditures at the site 

rejected.16

 With this endorsement by Director Davis, full attention soon shifted 

to Black Canyon. In early 1924—after Davis had formally resigned and the 

Service was offi cially renamed the Bureau of Reclamation—Weymouth offi cially 

recommended Black Canyon as the site for the proposed Boulder Dam. As 

the voluminous 1924 planning study for the project (commonly known as the 

“ Weymouth Report”) explained: 

An extensive geological examination has been made... [and while] 

both dam sites [Boulder and Black Canyons] are excellently adapted to 

the construction of a very high dam... , the granite of Boulder Canyon 

is superior to the breccia of Black Canyon for carrying great loads... 

[nonetheless] the investigations led to the adoption of the lower site in 

Black Canyon for the reason that it is more accessible [for construction 

equipment and materials]; the maximum depth to bedrock is less than 

at the upper site in Boulder Canyon and for the same height of dam the 

reservoir capacity is greater.17

 Thus, the selection of Black Canyon was not made because it offered 

better geological conditions (in fact, based on this criteria, it was judged a bit less 

desirable than Boulder Canyon). Rather, Black Canyon was preferred because 

it would allow for a less costly structure (based upon savings in site excavation 

and in connecting the site to regional transportation networks) and provide for a 

larger reservoir.

 In this light, it is worth recalling that the decision in December 1921 to 

investigate the Black Canyon site had been rationalized in terms of an additional 

thirty feet of head available for hydroelectric power production. This rationale 

was excluded from the recommendation presented in the 1924 Weymouth Report, 

but the omission was likely made more for political expediency than because the 
279

additional 30-foot power drop had somehow been forgotten. Hydroelectric power 

generation remained at the core of the planning for the “high dam” but—in light 

of possible controversy related to “Public Power” development—it was often 

downplayed in the mid-1920s. This is apparent in a description of the proposed 

dam provided to the engineer/author Edward Wegmann by the Bureau in 1927: 

The primary objects in the construction of this dam are: 1) To permit the 

use of the normal fl ow of the Colorado River in the upper Colorado River 

Basin without injury to prior rights below the reservoir by replacing 

such diversions from storage. 2) To extend the use of the waters of the 

Colorado River for irrigation and domestic purposes in and adjacent to 

the lower Colorado Basin. 3) To provide fl ood protection for lands along 

the Colorado River below the reservoir and in the Imperial Valley. The 

accomplishments of these objects requires a reservoir of large capacity 

and a high dam, presenting attractive possibilities of power development 

incidental to the use of water for the primary objects of the reservoir.18

 Thus, the Bureau’s offi cial position was that hydroelectric power 

production was only “incidental” to the “objects” for building the dam. But, in 

fact, this was not refl ective of the de facto role played by hydroelectric power in 

justifying the fi nancial underpinnings of the dam. As Kleinsorge later observed: 

The generation of electrical energy was given the last place in the list of 

purposes of the act [authorizing construction of the dam] and last place 

in the priority of uses. Yet in spite of this ranking it is one of the most 

important phases of the project. It is through the sale of electric power 

that the project is to be made a fi nancially solvent and self-supporting 

undertaking... The fact remains that no other practical method of 

fi nancing the project had been suggested and if the project could not have 

been made self-supporting through the sale of electric power it would not 

exist today.19

 Legislation calling for “construction of the All-American Canal and a dam 

at or near Boulder Canyon” was fi rst introduced in Congress in 1922. Known 

publicly as the Swing-Johnson Act (and more formally as the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act), it remained in committee for the legislative session and never came 

up for a vote. Undeterred, Congressman Phil Swing and Senator Hiram Johnson 

(both of California) revised and resubmitted their bill three more times over 

the next six years. By the time of its passage in 1928 it called for a dam with a 

reservoir capacity of at least 26 million acre-feet and a power plant to be built by 

the federal government but leased to other entities (be they public or private) for 

operation and power generation.20

 By the time the fi nal site location for the lower Colorado storage dam 

was recommended in the 1924 Weymouth Report, so much effort already had 

gone into the promotion of a “Boulder Canyon Project” that no effort was made 

to transform the nomenclature to the “Black Canyon Project” or “Black Dam.”
280

Nonetheless, from 1924 on, all work related to Boulder Dam revolved around the 

lower site (line “D”) in Black Canyon and this is where the structure stands today. 

The Design of Boulder Dam

 During the early planning stages for what became the Boulder Canyon 

Project, Davis and his staff made an effort to consider a range of possibilities 

for the design of the big storage dam on the 

Lower Colorado. Based upon the Service’s 

experiences with the Roosevelt, Elephant 

Butte, and Arrowrock dams, it is not surprising 

that a massive concrete/masonry gravity 

design attracted the interest of Davis, his Chief 

Engineer Frank Weymouth, and Dam Design 

Engineer John L. Savage. At the same time, 

the Service had experience building massive 

embankment dams (such as Belle Fourche 

in South Dakota and Strawberry Valley in 

Utah) as well as thin arch concrete masonry 

dams (Pathfi nder and Shoshone, both in 

Wyoming). Although the decision to utilize 

a curved gravity concrete design involved 

some preliminary consideration of alternative 

designs, selection of a massive curved gravity 

design came quickly and apparently involved 

little laborious review of alternative designs.

 In late 1920 Davis initiated correspondence with Lars Jorgensen, a 

European-trained engineer who had become a prominent advocate of thin arch 

dam design (especially constant angle arch dams). Davis wrote to Jorgensen in 

order to help determine whether a large thin arch dam might be feasible to build 

across the lower Colorado.21 While previously Davis had been prominently 

associated with massive gravity dams such as Roosevelt and Arrowrock, he 

also retained an interest in the arch designs (such as those used for the Service’s 

Pathfi nder and Shoshone dams in Wyoming) and his interaction with Jorgensen 

testifi es to this point.22 During the next year, the use of a thin arch design (either 

constant radius or constant angle) offi cially remained a possibility, but little action 

to promote or investigate such a design is evident in available records.23

 The idea that the Service would rely upon a massive design was publicly 

expressed by Davis as early as October 1920 (even before he corresponded with 

Jorgensen) when he wrote to J. W. Reagan, Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles 

County Flood Control District, in response to a “request for some information 

concerning tentative plans made for a dam in Boulder Canyon.” In his response 

to Reagan, Davis indicated that “studies have been made for a section of masonry 

or concrete of the gravity type, and a rock fi ll and earth section, the latter not 

9.3. John (Jack) L. Savage, 

Chief Design Engineer, Bureau of 

Reclamation.
281

being regarded as certainly feasible.”24 In 1924 Volume Five of the Weymouth 

Report focused specifi cally on “Investigations, Plans and Estimates” and 

presented the results of the Bureau’s dam analysis undertaken over the preceding 

four years. In this study, no mention is made of any thin arch designs that may 

have been considered for the big storage dam. Instead, the Weymouth Report 

indicated only that “studies have been made of rock-fi ll and concrete dams of 

various types,” further explaining:

there is a grave question whether life and property below a dam of such 

unprecedented height and a reservoir of such enormous capacity should 

through the construction of a rock fi ll dam be subjected to a risk which 

could be removed by the adoption of a concrete dam... With all possible 

safeguards taken in the construction of a rock-fi ll of the height proposed 

it must be admitted that its overtopping would result in certain and 

sudden destruction with overwhelming disaster in the valley below. The 

dams adopted are believed to be the safest that can be built—concrete 

dams of the gravity type built on a curved plan and estimates prepared 

indicate that the concrete dams could be built at less cost than rock-fi lls 

of the same height.” [note: the use of the plural ‘dams’ in this quotation 

refers to three designs of various heights ranging from about 525 feet to 

over 700 feet developed for the same site].25

 Although the Bureau estimated some possible economic advantages 

for selecting a massive curved gravity design, concerns over the possibility 

that a rock-fi ll design might someday be overtopped comprised a key rationale 

for selecting a curved gravity design. In fact, the Weymouth Report went so 

far as to advocate a curved gravity design that would not feature any spillway, 

noting that overtopping could probably be prevented by opening up all possible 

discharge outlets through the powerhouse and the dam. But even if the fl ooding 

overwhelmed the capacity of the discharge outlets, the report reassured that:

Any overtopping would be of short duration and [designs for the concrete 

gravity] dams have been designed to pass rare fl oods over the top with 

safety which can not be done in the case of a rock-fi ll dam.26

 Instead of spillways drilled through the rock abutments, the Weymouth 

Report proposed that outlet pipes (controlled by huge valves) be built directly into 

the dam itself. These could draw water from the lower depths of the reservoir 

and discharge it from the downstream face of the structure. The other means 

of discharging water from the reservoir would be through penstocks drilled 

through the rock abutment along the Nevada side of the canyon; these would 

feed into a hydroelectric power house about a half mile downstream from the 

dam. In formulating a basic plan for how best to construct the dam, Weymouth 

also proposed that the same tunnels used to carry water to the powerhouse could 

provide vital service during construction. Specifi cally, they were to divert the 

fl ow of the Colorado River so that temporary rock-fi ll cofferdams could protect 

the site from fl ooding and facilitate excavation.
282

 By the beginning of 1924 the Weymouth Report laid out the basic features 

of what would become Boulder Dam. The plan evolved over the next few years 

and by 1928 important revisions had been made under the supervision of dam 

engineer J. L. Savage. These included: 

1) drilling of diversion tunnels through both the Nevada and 

 Arizona abutments (two tunnels on both sides of the river); 

2) construction of two “glory-hole” spillways that would connect 

 into the diversion tunnels and insure that the dam would never 

 be overtopped; 

3) construction of powerhouses immediately downstream and 

 adjacent to the dam structure on both the Nevada and Arizona

 sides of Black Canyon; these would tap into the diversion 

 tunnels and to other tunnels connected to outlet towers built 

 directly upstream from the dam.27

 Clearly, these changes represent important alterations to the Weymouth 

design and are of central importance in defi ning the form of the dam/powerhouse/

penstock/ spillway system as it was actually built. But, beyond the drilling 

of spillway discharge tunnels to feed into the diversion tunnels, they do not 

constitute anything that cannot be understood as an evolution of the Weymouth 

design. And even the addition of spillway tunnels represented an uncomplicated 

(yet certainly creative) expansion of Weymouth’s diversion tunnel concept.

 During the mid-1920s, the specifi c character of the Boulder Dam design 

continued to evolve as more was learned about geological conditions and as 

the Bureau became interested in utilizing the “Trial-Load” method of design to 

confi rm the safety of the massive curved gravity design. While the “ Trial-Load” 

method of analysis undoubtedly fi gured into the fi nal dimensioning of the dam’s 

profi le, it did not prompt any dramatic changes or modifi cations.28 In fact, it is 

diffi cult to discern any radical differences between the preliminary profi le that 

accompanied Weymouth’s 1924 report and the design as built. Both represent 

curved gravity designs featuring extremely ample gravity sections and the use of 

“Trial-Load” techniques of analysis did little in terms of altering the basic form 

of the design. In the same way, research on scale models of the dam also fi gured 

into the Bureau’s analysis of structural safety and gave them greater confi dence 

in its stability, but it is diffi cult to perceive how the basic form of the design was 

altered by such work.29

 In May 1928—near the end of the approval process for the Boulder 

Canyon Project—Congress authorized the formation of a special “ Colorado 

River Board,” separate and distinct from the Bureau’s own board of consulting 

engineers, and charged it with providing an independent assessment of the 

proposed dam’s safety and feasibility.30 At the end of the year, just prior to 

congressional passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Colorado River 
283

Board approved the dam’s basic design, but recommended that the maximum 

allowable stresses in the massive structure be reduced from 40 tons per square 

foot to 30 tsf. Although this might have appeared to the layperson as a rather 

simple way to increase the strength of the design, to the Bureau it presented a 

problem because strict adherence to a 30 tsf limit would signifi cantly add to the 

(already massive) bulk of the dam and signifi cantly increase its cost. Without 

overtly resisting this directive, the Bureau nonetheless made no meaningful 

alteration to the existing design. Instead, the Bureau opted to claim that more 

sophisticated mathematical analysis (in line with the “Trial-Load” method) 

indicated that the proposed design in fact did not exceed a maximum allowable 

stress of about 34 tons per square foot and this was considered adequate to meet 

the 30 tsf criteria. In Mead’s words: “It is not believed that the maximum stress 

as fi nally calculated will appreciably exceed the 30-ton limit. It is believed that 

the general plan of the dam can be agreed upon without serious diffi culties.”31

The Colorado River Board’s recommendation thus had no substantive effect on 

the fi nal design as the Bureau simply asserted that they could adhere to the 30 tsf 

limit without making any substantive design changes.32

 In his 1928 “Revised Plan” for the dam, Savage took care not to criticize 

the Weymouth Report as being somehow faulty and in need of correction. Rather, 

he stated that “The Weymouth plan for the dam and power plant... constitutes 

a preliminary study on which to base an estimate of cost. The plan was not 

considered as a fi nal design and should not be considered as such.”33 In this 

context, the design of Boulder Dam cannot be ascribed to any single individual, 

but instead represents a collaborative effort that extended over several years’ 

time. Davis, Weymouth, and Savage all played important roles in overseeing 

preparation of the basic design, and, in concert with other Service/Bureau staff 

members, deserve credit as designers of Boulder Dam.34

Los Angeles

 The preceding discussion has focused on engineering aspects of the basic 

dam design. In contrast, the architectural treatment of the dam’s surface features 

was handled in a very different manner and emanated from a source separate from 

the Bureau’s Denver offi ce. During the 1920s the architectural treatment of the 

dam was assumed to adhere to a neo-classic style featuring design motifs such as 

eagles with wide-spread wings. In 1931, long after all the major technical issues 

involving the design had been determined, the Bureau commissioned Los Angeles 

architect Gordon Kaufmann to develop a more modern appearance for the dam. 

By simplifying the surface treatment of the design and adopting a monumental 

“art deco” style, Kaufmann created an evocative, streamlined facade for the 

massive structure. While the prominence of the dam in American culture is no 

doubt tied in part to its modernistic design motif, the circumstance of hiring a 

non-government architect to carry out this work occurred very late in the design 

process and was very much separate and distinct from the rest of project.35
284

 In many ways it is appropriate that the surface treatment for the 

Boulder/ Hoover Dam emanated from a Los Angeles architect because, in the 

interim between the initiation of the project by Imperial Valley advocates after 

World War I and its fi nal authorization in the late 1920s, the City of Los Angeles 

and other southern California communities came to play an increasingly vital role 

in promoting the Boulder Canyon Project. As early as July 1921 Los Angeles 

had expressed interest in helping build Boulder Dam in return for control over the 

hydroelectric power plant.36 And by 1924 this interest had expanded into a formal 

water claim fi led on the city’s behalf for 1500 cubic feet per second of Colorado 

River fl ow.37 With this claim, the City of Los Angeles served as the catalyst for 

the Colorado River Aqueduct and for what soon evolved into the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California (MWD).

 Perhaps most importantly in terms of Congressional approval for the 

Boulder Canyon Project, the MWD was to comprise the most important customer 

for hydropower. As noted in the MWD’s fi rst annual report: 

It was early recognized that to secure favorable [congressional] 

consideration [the Boulder Canyon Project] must be self-supporting 

and that the power to be generated from any development... must fi nd 

a market which would eventually return all costs of the entire project to 

the Government. As additional engineering work for a Colorado River 

Aqueduct was done it became evident that any practicable diversion of 

the river must... involve pumping. Such pumping was practicable only 

if a large amount of power could be obtained at low price. This created, 

at once, a potential market for a substantial part of the power from any 

major Colorado River development. When these facts... were laid 

before Congress support for the Swing-Johnson measure became easier 

to obtain.38

Put another way, the need to use huge amounts of electric power to pump 

water through the Colorado Aqueduct helped convince hesitant Congressmen 

that Boulder Dam would not become a fi nancial white elephant, generating huge 

quantities of unmarketable power. The MWD could sign contracts guaranteeing 

power sales, and, in turn, the Federal Government (and Federal taxpayers) could 

rest assured that such contracts would be honored because the MWD possessed the 

right to directly tax land within its service area. In 1930, when Secretary of 

the Interior Wilbur authorized 50-year leases governing use of Boulder Dam 

power, 64 percent of the dam’s power was reserved for use in Southern California, 

36 percent went to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to 

pump water through the Colorado Aqueduct, a little more than 9 percent to the 

Southern California Edison Company and other private power companies, and 

about 18 percent to the City of Los Angeles and other municipally-owned utilities 

in Southern California (Los Angeles and Southern California Edison were to share 

primary responsibility for operating the dam’s power plant). Although Arizona and 

Nevada were each allotted 18 percent of the dam’s power, many years would pass 

before these states developed markets large enough to utilize their full share.39
285

 Thus, the primacy of hydroelectric power that energized Davis’ initial 

promotion of the Boulder Canyon site because of its relative proximity to southern 

California—as well as the initial investigation of the Black Canyon site because it 

allowed for the capture of an additional 30-foot water drop — proved key to the 

dam’s legislative and fi nancial success. While the project may have been born out 

of the fl ooding of the Imperial Valley by a rampaging Colorado River, its longterm viability rested upon the ability of urban interests in greater Los Angeles to 

absorb its enormous cost— budgeted at a minimum of $165 million in the 1928 

Boulder Canyon Project Act.40 And because of the tremendous revenue that could 

be generated by power sales to an urban market, the Bureau could readily adopt 

a massive curved gravity design requiring more than 4 million cubic yards of 

concrete.

 Fostered by a desire to promote and protect irrigation in the Imperial 

Valley, Boulder/ Hoover Dam ultimately depended upon the urban development 

of Los Angeles to effect its construction. In this, the dam’s history highlights 

how in the 1920s the Bureau’s mission was shifting away from support for 

irrigated agriculture (as called for in the 1902 National Reclamation Act) and 

towards a broader involvement in western economic development encompassing 

hydroelectric power generation and urban growth.

Donald C. Jackson is a professor of History at Lafayette College, Easton, 

Pennsylvania. His publications include: Great American Bridges and Dams

(Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1988); Building the Ultimate Dam: John 

S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West (Lawrence: University Press 

of Kansas, 1995); “Engineering in the Progressive Era: A New Look at Frederick 

Haynes Newell and the U.S. Reclamation Service;” Technology and Culture

34 (July 1993), pp. 539-74. He co-authored with: Norris Hundley, “Privilege 

and Responsibility: William Mulholland and the St. Francis Dam Disaster,” 

California History, 82 (Fall 2004) pp. 8-48, 72-8; with David P. Billington, Big

Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confl uence of Engineering and Politics (Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 2006); and with David P. Billington, and 

Martin V. Melosi, The History of Large Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and 

Construction (Denver, Colorado: Government Printing Offi ce, 2005). He has 

edited Dams, Volume 4, in the Studies in the History of Civil Engineering series 

(Aldershot/Ashgate Variorum: Brookfi eld, Vermont, Singapore, Sydney, 1997).

Endnotes:

1. Norris Hundley, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770-1990 (Berkeley: University 

of California Press, 1993) p. 205; Mildred de Stanley, The Salton Sea: Yesterday and Today (Los

Angeles, California: Triumph Press, c. 1966), pp. 17-24; and Kevin Starr, Material Dreams: Southern

California Through the 1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 20-44. The Colorado 

River drains over 200,000 square miles of land fl owing west and south out of the Rocky Mountains. 

After crossing the Utah/Arizona border and passing the river crossing point known as Lee’s Ferry, 

the Colorado fl ows westward through the Grand Canyon. Soon afterwards it reaches the Boulder 

and Black Canyons that straddle the Arizona/Nevada border. Turning southward once it reaches the 

vicinity of Las Vegas, Nevada, the Colorado River soon forms the 200-mile long border between the 

states of California and Arizona. Finally, at a distance more than 1000 miles from its headwaters in 

Wyoming and Colorado, the Colorado River enters, at least it did prior to the erection of large storage 

dams, the state of Sonora, Mexico and disperses across an expansive delta to the Gulf of California.
286

2. Starr, Material Dreams, pp. 25-9; Beverly Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1971), p. 5; de Stanley, The Salton Sea, pp. 25-7. Economic growth 

of the valley was rapid and, by October 1903, 100,000 acres were under cultivation, supporting a 

population of 4,000.

3. Starr, Material Dreams, pp. 34-6.

4. Starr, Material Dreams, pp. 38-40; de Stanley, The Salton Sea, pp. 33-43.

5. Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, pp. 10-1.

6. Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, p. 15.

7. Hundley, The Great Thirst, pp. 204, 449-50.

8. Hundley, The Great Thirst, p. 207.

9. At fi rst, fearing that it might overshadow their efforts to promote an All-American Canal, 

the Imperial Irrigation District did not embrace Davis’ efforts to promote a large-scale storage dam as 

part of the development of the Lower Colorado River, but this reticence dissolved fairly quickly. See 

Hundley, The Great Thirst, pp. 208-9. The possibility of federal involvement in building some type 

of storage dam across the lower Colorado River was championed by the indefatigable Congressman 

Phil Swing who had earlier served as lawyer for the Imperial Irrigation District. As a member of 

the U.S. House of Representatives throughout the 1920s, Swing assumed responsibility for keeping 

the All-American Canal/Boulder Canyon Project in the public eye. Working with his counterpart, 

California Senator Hiram Johnson, Swing kept abreast of all the political nuances related to the 

Boulder Canyon Project, and he made sure that during the 1920s Congress was presented with a 

series of Swing-Johnson Acts positing federal authorization of the project.

10. Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, pp. 17-8; Paul Lincoln Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon 

Project: Historical and Economic Aspects (Stanford University, California: Stanford University 

Press, 1941), p.76; the cost of planning studies for Boulder Dam eventually came to about $400,000 

with approximately $170,000 of this coming from irrigation interests in Southern California.

11. Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon Project, pp. 281-2; also see Jay Brigham, Empowering the 

West: Electrical Politics Before FDR (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998) for useful 

background on the debate over public vs. private power in the pre-New Deal Era.

12. For more on early surveys of Colorado River dam sites see E. C. La Rue, Colorado River 

and Its Utilization (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1916), USGS Water Supply 

Paper No. 395; E. C. La Rue, Water Power and Flood Control of Colorado River Below Green River 

(Washington D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1925), USGS Water Supply Paper No. 556; and

Joseph Stevens, Hoover Dam: An American Adventure (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1988), p. 270. During debates about the project in the mid-1920s, the possibility of building a 

smaller-scale, less expensive “fl ood control” dam (usually at a site designated Mohave Valley near 

the town of Topock, California) was frequently raised because it could be erected without reliance 

upon hydroelectric power sales. However, this dam would not have allowed for a signifi cant storage 

of fl ood waters for irrigation, domestic water supply or power and thus held little appeal except for 

people interested in essentially blocking the construction of a large-scale dam on the lower Colorado. 

The desirability of a Boulder Canyon reservoir over one located at Glen Canyon (located upstream 

from the Grand Canyon) is prominently stressed in A. P. Davis to F. E. Weymouth, 

December 18, 1921; National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; 

General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 

301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, November 1, 1921-

December 31, 1923

13. A. P. Davis to F. E. Weymouth, December 18, 1921; National Archives, Denver; Records of 

the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 

1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re: Dams and 

Reservoirs, November 1, 1921- December 31, 1923.

14. Stevens, Hoover Dam: An American Adventure, p. 21, provides a Bureau of Reclamation 

photograph showing geological test drilling underway in Black Canyon in February 1922.

15. Chief Engineer (F. E. Weymouth) to Director (A. P. Davis), July 7, 1922; National 

Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and 

Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, 

Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, November 1, 1921-December 31, 1923.
287

16. A. P. Davis to F. E. Weymouth, November 30, 1922; National Archives, Denver; Records of 

the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 

1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and 

Reservoirs, November 1, 1921-December 31, 1923.

17. Bureau of Reclamation, “Report on the Problems of the Colorado River, Volume 5, Boulder 

Canyon: Investigations, Plans and Estimates,” February 1924, p. 3; National Archives, Denver; 

Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, 

Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 477; Colorado River, Weymouth Report, 1924, part 5.

18. Memorandum from Chief Engineer R. F. Walter to Commissioner Mead, February 21, 

1927; National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General 

Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, 

Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, December 31, 1923-1929.

19. Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon Project, pp. 83-4.

20. Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon Project, p. 78.

21. Lars Jorgensen to A. P. Davis, December 15, 1920; A. P. Davis to Lars Jorgensen, December 

23, 1920; Lars Jorgensen to A. P. Davis, December 29, 1920; and A. P. Davis to Lars Jorgensen, 

January 10, 1921; all in National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 

115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 

301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, 1920-November 1, 1921.

22. For evidence of Davis’s early interest in Jorgensen’s design work see the fi le on “Yuba 

Dam” (later called Spaulding Dam) built by the Pacifi c Gas and Electric Company in northern 

California in 1912-1913 in the, John R. Freeman Papers, MIT Archives and Special Collections, 

Cambridge Massachusetts.

23. See index attached to F. E. Weymouth (Chief Engineer) to Director (A. P. Davis), 

December 2, 1921; National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 

115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; 

Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, November 1, 

1921-December 31, 1923.

24. A. P. Davis to J. W. Reagan, October 5, 1920; National Archives, Denver; Records of the 

Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 

1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and 

Reservoirs, 1920-November 1, 1921.

25. Bureau of Reclamation, “Report on the Problems of the Colorado River, Volume 5, Boulder

Canyon: Investigations, Plans and Estimates,” February 1924, p. 4; National Archives, Denver; 

Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, 

Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 477; Colorado River, Weymouth Report, 1924, part 5.

26. Bureau of Reclamation, “Report on the Problems of the Colorado River, Volume 5, Boulder 

Canyon: Investigations, Plans and Estimates,” February 1924, p. 6; National Archives, Denver; 

Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, 

Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 477; Colorado River, Weymouth Report, 1924, part 5.

27. J. L. Savage, “Revised Plan for Boulder Canyon Dam and Power Plant: Memorandum to 

Colorado River Board,” November 24, 1928; National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau of 

the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; 

Entry 7; Box 492; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project.

28. For early confi rmation on how the “Trial-Load” method was used to justify the fi nal design 

see Elwood Mead, “Memorandum to the Secretary re the Meeting of the Consulting Engineers to 

Approve Detail Plans of Boulder Dam,” December 28, 1929; National Archives, Denver; Records of 

the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 

1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Board & Engineering Reports 

on Construction Features, 1929. Also see U.S. Department of the Interior, Boulder Canyon Project 

Final Reports, Part IV - Design and Construction (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1941), pp. 25-8.

29. Model tests are noted in U.S. Department of the Interior, Boulder Canyon Project Final 

Reports, Part IV- Design and Construction (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1941), pp. 28-9.

30. The Colorado River Board was authorized in May 1928 as Congress debated the fourth 

Swing-Johnson Act. Concern over the safety of the proposed Boulder Dam was heightened by the 
288

failure of Los Angeles’ St. Francis Dam in March 1928 which killed approximately 400 people; 

the Colorado River Board apparently intended to help assuage fears that a similar fate might befall 

Boulder Dam. See Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, pp. 11, 114-5, 118. Also see Donald C. 

Jackson and Norris Hundley, “Privilege and Responsibility: William Mulholland and the St. Francis 

Dam Disaster,” California History, 82 (Fall 2004) pp. 8-48, 72-78. 

31. The manner in which the design could be considered as meeting the 30 tsf criteria are 

described in Elwood Mead, “Memorandum to the Secretary re the Meeting of the Consulting 

Engineers to Approve Detail Plans of Boulder Dam,” December 28, 1929; National Archives, 

Denver; Records of the Bureau of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project 

Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Board & 

Engineering Reports on Construction Features, 1929.

32. The acceptance by the Colorado River Board of the Bureau’s rationale for not revising the 

design is acknowledged in U.S. Department of the Interior, Boulder Canyon Project Final Reports, 

Part IV-Design and Construction (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, 1941), p. 25.

33. J. L. Savage, “Revised Plan for Boulder Canyon Dam and Power Plant: Memorandum to 

Colorado River Board,” November 24, 1928, p. 1; National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; 

Entry 7; Box 492; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project.

34. 1927 correspondence concerning how design of the proposed Boulder Dam should 

be credited, reported that the design “was fi rst proposed in the Denver Offi ce of the Bureau of 

Reclamation under the supervision of Mr. J. L. Savage. Member, A.S.C.E (Designing Engineer, 

Bureau of Reclamation) and subsequently modifi ed in minor particulars by Consulting Engineer 

A. J. Wiley Member, A.S.C.E, of Boise, Idaho, and L. C. Hill, Member, A.S.C.E, of Los Angeles, 

California.” Signifi cantly, both Davis and Weymouth, who were unquestionably involved in the 

evolution of the Boulder Dam Design, were both no longer employees of the Bureau when this letter 

was written and perhaps were excluded simply for this reason. See Chief Engineer (R. J. Walter) to 

Commissioner (Elwood Mead) February 21, 1927, National Archives, Denver; Records of the Bureau 

of the Reclamation, RG 115; General Administration and Project Records, Project Files, 1919-1945; 

Entry 7; Box 490; Folder 301.1, Colorado River Project, Correspondence re Dams and Reservoirs, 

December 31, 1923-1929.

35. The best discussion of Kaufmann’s work in developing the architectural form of the dam is 

Richard Guy Wilson, “Machine Age Iconography in the West,” Pacifi c Historical Review 54 (1985) 

pp. 463-93. After undertaking considerable research into the subject, Wilson could only report that: 

“Why Kaufmann was selected [as architect] remains unknown.” p. 476.

36. Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam, p. 24.

37. Charles A. Bissell, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: History and 

First Annual Report (Los Angeles: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1939) 

p. 36.

38. Bissell, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: History and First Annual 

Report, p. 38-9.

39. A good review and analysis of the Boulder/Hoover Dam power contracts is provided in 

Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon Project, pp. 146-66.

40. Kleinsorge, Boulder Canyon Project, pp. 138-40, provides cost analysis of the Boulder 

Canyon Project Act indicating that more than $206 million would ultimately be due the Federal 

Government in repayment.
289

The First Five: A Brief Overview of the First 

Reclamation Projects Authorized by the Secretary 

of the Interior on March 14, 1903

By:

Shelly C. Dudley

 While Frederick Jackson Turner might have declared that the frontier was 

at an end in 1893, countless lands within the American West had not yet been 

reclaimed or made productive. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the 

federal government surveyed the country in the western states and territories, 

examining potential diversion and storage sites while calculating irrigable 

acreage. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 30 million acres could be 

irrigated, but by 1890, only 3.6 million acres were being farmed. Because of the 

vision of certain individuals who knew that for America to reclaim its arid western 

lands required the involvement of the national government, the fertile acreage in 

the Salt River Valley in Central Arizona, the lands in western Nevada, the valley 

of the North Platte River in Nebraska and Wyoming, the farmers along the Milk 

River situated in northeastern Montana, and the region along the Uncompahgre 

River in Colorado would have the necessary water to promote and sustain growth. 

This is a brief overview of the fi rst fi ve projects authorized by the Secretary of the 

Interior under the national Reclamation Act from their beginning, to their place 

today in the settlement of the West.

10.1. Reclamation’s fi rst fi ve projects.
290

 John Wesley Powell, Civil War veteran, explorer of the Grand Canyon, 

surveyor of Western lands, and head of the U.S. Geological Survey, believed 

that the federal government should reserve lands for the small family farmer and 

assist in the development of irrigation projects. Powell wanted settlement of 

the West to be in the hands of the individual homesteader even though it would 

require support by Washington, yet not all the lands were still available; land 

speculators claimed much of the potentially good farm acreage. But neither the 

early small landowning farmer, nor land developers or eastern entrepreneurs, had 

the necessary resources to fi nance the construction of dams to store additional 

water to reclaim the western lands. In his report on arid lands, Powell wrote that 

he considered the character of the lands themselves, the engineering problems 

and suggested “legislative action necessary to inaugurate the enterprises by which 

these lands may eventually be rescued from their present worthless state.”1

 Promoters of western irrigation, including the infl uential National 

Irrigation Congress, maintained that the federal government should be involved in 

developing the arid lands. George Maxwell, a leading spokesman for the national 

irrigation movement, believed that settlement of western lands by yeoman farmers 

would solve the social ills of the eastern urban centers with the movement of 

the population and met with Frederick Newell, chief hydrographer with the U.S. 

Geological Survey. Newell, a protege of John Wesley Powell, surveyed the arid 

lands of the West and understood the plight of the homesteader who could not get 

enough water to irrigate his lands and grow crops to support his family. Maxwell 

and Newell met frequently with Wyoming Senator Francis E. Warren and Nevada 

Congressman Francis G. Newlands to devise a plan so that the government could 

sponsor federally funded water projects.”2

 At the turn of the century many in Congress realized that, without the 

support of the national government, settlement of additional lands in the West 

would not be possible; various congressman supported a reclamation act which 

would provide federal monies to construct irrigation works and further the 

development of the arid lands. Yet, only after the assassination of President 

William McKinley and the ascendency of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency 

did Congress enact the national Reclamation Act. The statute, by authorizing the 

use of federal money from the sale of public lands, would make extensive areas 

of the West suitable for irrigation, provide homes for America’s citizens, increase 

the agricultural production of the nation, and “make benefi cial use of two of its 

national assets, land and water.”3

 Although the national Reclamation Act was not signed until June 17, 1902, 

government engineers prior to its passage had already investigated the western 

landscape for potential dam sites and irrigable farmlands. After the measure’s 

enactment, the engineers of the U.S. Geological Survey and then the newly 

created U.S. Reclamation Service prepared a list of potential projects for the 

Secretary of the Interior to authorize. The Reclamation Service considered certain 

criteria, such as water supply, storage facilities, alignment of canals, and selection 
291

of feasible lands. While the engineers usually required several years of study to 

make these necessary determinations, the western settlers were eager to begin the 

work of reclaiming the land and wanted projects announced as soon as possible.

 The Reclamation Service, aware of the current circumstances, 

recommended fi ve projects that could be clearly defi ned with the costs and results 

estimated. As early as 1889 John Wesley Powell had explored the arid lands of 

the West, noting potential storage dam sites and the fertility of the land. Fellow 

geological engineer, and later offi cial in the Reclamation Service, Arthur P. Davis 

surveyed the land in the West by the turn of the century. With this background in 

place, it would not take long for the fi rst projects to be selected by the Secretary 

of the Interior.

 On March 7, 1903, Charles D. Walcott, Director of both the U.S. 

Geological Survey and the U.S. Reclamation Service recommended the fi rst fi ve 

projects to the Secretary of the Interior: Sweetwater (North Platte) situated in 

Wyoming and Nebraska, Milk River in Montana, Truckee (Newlands) in Nevada, 

Gunnison (Uncompahgre) located in Colorado, and the Salt River Project in 

central Arizona. On March 14, 1903, Secretary Ethan A. Hitchcock concurred 

with the suggestions, stating that the Reclamation Service should concentrate its 

efforts upon these fi ve projects, secure the lands needed for the dams, reservoirs 

and appurtenant irrigation works, negotiate with current owners of irrigable lands, 

and prepare contracts for the construction of the reclamation works.4

 Each project presented both unique conditions while being similar in other 

respects. All fi ve projects contained both private and public lands. A few projects 

had some irrigation works, while others needed the construction of storage dams 

to provide additional water supply as well as canals and ditches to bring the 

water to the land. Towns and communities were created within the reclamation 

projects while the opportunity for others to grow and become major cities became 

a reality. By examining individually the fi rst fi ve projects, we can appreciate the 

impact of the national Reclamation Act on western America.

The First Five

Newlands Project (Truckee)

 Is it any wonder the Newlands Project was selected by the staff of the 

Geological Survey, considering the national Reclamation Act was sponsored by 

Nevada congressman Francis Newlands and much work was already done in the 

state by government and private engineers? Even though the money available 

from Nevada’s reclamation fund was the smallest of all the western states and 

territories, the need was great. At the turn of the century, farmers irrigated 

approximately 500,000 acres throughout the state, but the potential was limited 

because a few settlers and cattlemen controlled much of the land around the water 

sources. The Humboldt, Truckee, Carson, and Walker streams provided most 
292

of the water during the winter months, but water storage was necessary for the 

successful reclamation of the desert lands year round.5

 As early as 1860 ranchers arrived in the Lahontan Valley in northwestern 

Nevada and gradually started to farm, with cultivated land reaching 5,000 acres by 

1880. The Powell Irrigation Survey examined the resources in Nevada, indicating 

that the Truckee River could be diverted through a canal to the Lahontan Valley, 

but beyond this study, no viable action was taken. At approximately the same 

time, Francis G. Newlands, son-in-law and trustee of the William Sharon estate 

which held extensive acreage in Nevada, moved to Carson City and started to 

acquire his own land along the Truckee River in 1889. Newlands expanded his 

holdings and commissioned surveying parties to examine reservoir and canal 

sites; the entrepreneur also used reclamation as an issue in his bid for political 

offi ce. Between1899 and 1900, L. H. Taylor, an engineer and director of the 

University of Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, investigated a number 

of reservoir locations and, after the passage of the Reclamation Act, surveyed 

additional sites, including those along the Carson and Truckee rivers. Rainfall in 

the Carson Sink Valley averaged approximately six inches a year, not enough to 

provide a stable water supply without the construction of storage reservoirs.6

 The initial irrigation structures of the project designed by the reclamation 

engineers included the earthen Derby Diversion Dam on the Truckee River, the 

thirty-one-mile Truckee Canal, with a carrying capacity of 1,200 to 1,500 second 

feet, the Carson River Diversion Dam, and a distribution system of canals and 

laterals carrying water to the farm units. The original plan for a storage dam 

on Lake Tahoe was halted by the property owners along the lake who feared 

the water levels would fl uctuate greatly, so federal engineers constructed the 

Lahontan Dam and Reservoir in 1911. A legal settlement was fi nally reached with 

the Truckee River General Electric Company concerning storage of water at Lake 

Tahoe, and the federal engineers proceeded with construction of a dam on the 

lake. As part of its work to insure the productivity of the lands, the Reclamation 

Service constructed a network of drainage ditches to prevent rising groundwater 

levels from causing alkali damage to the land and to crops.7

 With designation 

of the Newlands Project 

as one of the fi rst projects, 

changes occurred that could 

only happen when enough 

water is available. Prior to 

its selection as a reclamation 

project, Churchill County, 

being the slowest growing 

county in the state, contained 

only 830 people within 4,883 

square miles, but within ten 10.2. Levelling land on the Newlands Project.
293

years Fallon alone, the county seat, boasted a population of 1,000 people in 1913. 

The community, which had originally served as a supply depot for the nearby 

mining districts, experienced real growth and a building boom. By 1926 Fallon’s 

residents doubled to 2,000 as the town’s population increased due to construction 

workers on the reclamation project, suppliers providing needed livestock and 

equipment to Reclamation, and new homesteaders eager to farm the land with 

the newly developed water. The City of Fallon contracted with the Reclamation 

Service to supply residents with electricity produced by the Lahontan hydropower 

plant. The system had grown to such an extent that eighty-fi ve percent of possible 

customers were receiving power from the reclamation project.8

 By the mid-1920s alfalfa was the principal crop, still providing for the 

original livestock industries focused on cattle, sheep, and hogs, while dairy farms 

started to make an ever growing appearance in the region. Farmers also grew 

wheat, barley, potatoes, sugar beets, and garden truck with celery and cantaloupes 

harvested commercially. With the assurance of a stable water supply for growing 

sugar beets, the Hinze Brothers of California organized the Nevada Sugar 

Company in 1910 and opened a factory in the center of Fallon, providing new 

opportunities for the farmers and factory workers.9

 The acreage on the Newlands Project encompassed over 200,000 acres, 

and boosters, including the Central and Southern Pacifi c Railways which owned 

approximately 10,000 acres, expected to have all that land farmed. Within ten 

years of the selection of the Newlands Project, however, farmers irrigated just 

43,000 acres, and that amount increased to only 45,000 a decade later despite 

water right applications having been fi led for 70,000 acres in 1923. While at least 

half the farmland held was in private ownership, the remaining public lands were 

open to homestead entry, providing opportunities for new settlers.10

Uncompahgre Project (Gunnison)

 First described by Captain J. W. Gunnison in 1853, “as a desert unfi t 

for cultivation and inhabitation only by savages,” the southwestern Colorado 

territory attracted new people beginning with the westward movement of miners.

The Ute Indians were forced to give up their lands between 1868 and 1881 and 

relocate to the Utah Territory, while their homelands opened to the public for 

settlement. With the development of the mining industry and the necessity for 

foodstuffs to be near at hand, enterprising farmers seized the opportunity to move 

into the Uncompahgre Valley and construct ditches, diverting water from the 

Uncompahgre River to irrigate the crops; the fi rst shipments of hay were delivered 

to the mines.11

 The valley contained approximately 175,000 acres of irrigable land and 

the new settlers believed the river contained enough water for the fertile acres.

In the early 1880s the immigrants formed several canal companies, including 

the Montrose and Uncompahgre Ditch Company and the Delta Ditch Company, 
294

constructing over 110 ditches and 475 miles of canals. Besides providing water 

to the farmlands, a number of these companies delivered water to the burgeoning 

towns. As was typical in many western regions, the farmers and canal companies 

overestimated the amount of land that could be irrigated by the 1890s, putting 

only 30,000 acres under the plow. Water was in short supply, especially during 

the summer growing season, and there was not enough to irrigate the agricultural 

lands.12

 The farmers started looking elsewhere for an additional water supply, at 

fi rst considering taking water over the divide from the Cimarron River. Then in 

1890, F. C. Lauzon conceived the idea of building a tunnel from the Gunnison 

River to the Uncompahgre Valley. Although the U.S. Geological Survey 

conducted a reconnaissance survey of this project, the implementation of any 

plan involving the construction of a tunnel was beyond the means of the people 

in western Colorado. The Colorado Legislature was approached about assisting 

in this project, and in 1901 the Legislature set aside $25,000 for the construction 

of the tunnel. That same year, Frederick Newell allocated $4,000 to survey the 

tunnel and canal location. The Geological Survey mapped the region as well 

as conducted several additional surveys, including the geologic structure of the 

tunnel route and the elevations of the region. The State of Colorado started 

construction on the tunnel in the fall of 1901, but the project was abandoned due 

to lack of funds.13

 On Secretary of the Interior Ethan Hitchcock’s initial list of fi ve projects 

was the Gunnison Project. Beyond the initial expenditures made on surveying 

possible irrigation sites in southwestern Colorado, Walcott may have had other 

reasons for suggesting the Uncompahgre Valley as the location of one of the 

fi rst reclamation projects selected. Congressman James Shafroth of Colorado, 

besides being a member of the House Committee on Irrigation, met extensively 

with Representative Newlands, Senator Henry Hansbrough of North Dakota, 

and Senator Warren and Congressman F. W. Mondell of Wyoming, following 

President Theodore Roosevelt’s decision that reclamation would be a priority 

in his administration. While Shafroth initially introduced his own reclamation 

legislation, he worked with these men on a congressional conference committee 

that eventually drafted the measure that became the national Reclamation Act; 

Shafroth was also the fl oor manager of the House when the Newlands bill came to 

a vote in Congress.14

 To supplement the fl ow of the Uncompahgre River, the federal engineers 

used the original plan of diverting the Gunnison River by a tunnel six miles in 

length and a canal almost twelve miles long. The Reclamation Service started 

work almost immediately and over the next several months the government 

acquired the rights to the tunnel, although it took several years before the 

arrangements became fi nal. Under the aegis of the Reclamation Service, 

contractors began digging the tunnel, but within a year, the builders went bankrupt 

and the federal engineers continued to direct the crews on the project, having to 
295

change the location of the tunnel. As a testament to the engineering efforts, a 

model of the Gunnison tunnel was prepared and shown at the Louisiana Purchase 

Exposition in St. Louis in 1904, and President William Howard Taft was the guest 

of honor at the grand opening ceremonies for the Gunnison-Uncompahgre Tunnel 

on September 23, 1909. During the ensuing decades, the Reclamation Service 

built additional diversion dams and either purchased private canals or constructed 

new ones, totaling approximately 470 miles, to bring water to the project lands.

In 1932 the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users’ Association accepted control of the 

project from the federal government.15

 When the Uncompahgre Project was authorized in 1903, the reclamation 

engineers estimated that approximately 171,000 acres could be irrigated, with 

116,000 acres being already in 

private ownership and most of 

the balance open for reclamation 

homestead entry. As construction 

continued on the irrigation works, 

water was delivered as soon as the 

Gunnison tunnel was completed.

Although Charles Dana Wilber’s 

epigram that “rain follows the 

plow” was part of the Myth of the 

Garden in the nineteenth century 

Great Plains, in the West “where 

there is water people will come” 

is a truism. The population of the 

Uncompahgre Valley grew as did 

the acres of cultivated lands. The 

population in the Uncompahgre 

Valley was 5,171 in 1912 with 3,464 

living on the project farms, which 

increased to over 6,000 in 1923. In 

1913, the Uncompahgre Project 

canals delivered water to 37,000 

acres while the private irrigation 

structures transmitted water to 

13,600 acres. While the major crops 

were alfalfa, potatoes, oats, wheat, 

sugar beets, and apples, the Project 

Engineer suggested the farmers diversify their products to include dairy stock. He 

also suggested settlers better prepare the soil, acquire better seed, and improve the 

methods of water delivery and use. Within the next decade, the acreage increased 

to 64,180 acres irrigated within the project.16

10.3. About 1914, “Slim” Pickins, an 

Uncompahgre Valley farmer, displayed 

produce from his farm at the county fair in 

Montrose, Colorado.
296

Milk River

 As in most western territories, farming in the Montana region saw little 

activity until the 1860s, although limited agriculture occurred earlier near the 

fur trading posts. The gold miners rushing to stake and work their claims did 

not want or have the time to till the soil for vegetables and grains, requiring 

others to provide those commodities. Farmers soon came to cultivate the land 

and construct small water delivery systems. Although the Milk River Valley in 

northeastern Montana receives approximately 20 inches of rainfall, irrigation was 

a necessity. The communities of Chinook and Harlem developed canal systems 

with a communal diversion dam, as did the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre tribes on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. By 

the turn of the century farmers irrigated 35,000 acres, growing oats, vegetables, 

and pasturage for livestock. But without a stable water supply, the economic 

growth of the region could not be assured.17

 Under the instructions of Frederick Newell, Geological Survey Engineer 

Gerard H. Matthews studied the feasibility of diverting water from the St. 

Mary River to the Milk River in 1900. The engineers determined that with the 

construction of a gravity canal between the two rivers, it was possible to transport 

water from one river to the other. Cyrus Babb continued the survey of the region, 

investigating various diversion points and identifying what lands needed to be 

withdrawn. Eventual plans depended, however, on an agreement between the 

governments of Canada and the United States, because the waters of the St. Mary 

River traveled through Canada before returning to the United States. Although 

a treaty would not be reached for almost a decade, the Reclamation Service 

suggested that the Milk River Project be among the fi rst approved. The waters 

of the Milk River Project also created problems within the continental United 

States when, as requested by the Reclamation Service, a determination of water 

rights was set in motion in 1905. The U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding the case of 

Winters v U.S. in 1908, established the Indian and federal reserved rights doctrine, 

a precedent followed by today’s judicial system.

 Although it is not clear why the Milk River Project was among the fi rst 

chosen, the United States government may have wanted to protect the water 

supply of the Milk River from overuse by Canadian farmers or possibly guarantee 

it as a stable source of water for the Indians on the Fort Belknap Reservation. In 

his autobiography, Newell noted that the Milk River Project had “international 

complications,” and like the other fi rst projects, he was instrumental in sending 

out the engineers to survey potential reservoir sites and alignments for canals.18

 The Reclamation Service engineers designed a system of irrigation canals 

and dams which would deliver water to the farmers for the irrigation of 120,000 

acres. Beginning with the construction of Lake Sherburne Dam, the stored water 

would be released into the St. Mary River before being diverted into the twentynine mile long St. Mary Canal and then discharged into the Milk River. The water 
297

continues to fl ow northward 

into Alberta, Canada, before 

re-entering the United States, 

traveling more than 200 miles 

where it is stored in the Fresno 

Reservoir until it is needed by 

the farmers, proceeding through 

a series of diversion dams having 

journeyed through 200 miles of 

canals, 219 miles of laterals, and 

295 miles of drains.19

 As construction of the 

engineering features continued 

through several decades, settlement of the lands progressed slowly. Even though 

there was no formal opening of the Milk River Project by the Secretary of the 

Interior for many years, the Reclamation Service allowed World War I veterans to 

fi le entries on the public lands in 1920. During the next decade, landowners with 

large holdings, not eager to divide their land into the smaller units as required by 

the Reclamation Act, hindered development on the Project. New farmers also 

had a diffi cult time adjusting to the farming conditions and many left within the 

year after planting their fi rst crop. Those that remained produced good yields 

of grains, hardy vegetables, and alfalfa, which supported the local livestock 

industry.20

 Throughout the Montana drought of the late 1920s, and the Dust Bowl 

of the 1930s, the Milk River Project acted as a haven for those farmers who lost 

everything. The federal government assisted in relocating both the “dry land 

farmers” who had tried to make a living in other parts of Montana and Texas and 

Oklahoma settlers who saw their lands blown away. The Bureau of Reclamation’s 

mission was still helping the small farmer make a living and settle the arid West.21

North Platte

 When the early fur trappers and traders traveled through the North Platte 

Valley seeking beaver in the fi rst decades of the nineteenth century, they were 

among the fi rst Euro-Americans to visit the region west of the 100th meridian. 

The trails they helped blaze led later immigrants across the land to the northwest 

territories and established the fi rst trading posts at Fort Laramie and Fort Casper 

in the Wyoming region. Following in the wake of the pioneers, who crossed the 

prairies to the green lands of Oregon and Washington, were the cattlemen who 

saw the open range as the space necessary for their livestock. But within the last 

two decades of the nineteenth century, homesteaders decided to stay in Wyoming 

and Nebraska, fi ghting the cowmen, the blizzards, and the droughts.

10.4. Freighting a portable engine to a sawmill on 

lower St. Mary Lake in June of 1906. The lumber 

was to be used in construction work on the Milk 

River Project.
298

 Although not initially receptive to the idea of irrigation as a means 

of watering the land, the farmers along the North Platte saw that increases 

in agricultural production were possible when they no longer relied solely 

on rainfall. They dug canals, used water wheels, and while envisioning the 

cultivation of 60,000 acres along the North Platte, they were lucky to irrigate 

between 5,000 and 8,000 acres with the limited water supply. As with most 

locations in the arid West, local capital or private investors could not raise 

the funds necessary to construct dams to store enough water for the irrigable 

lands. Surveys had been prepared at the turn of the century for the construction 

of irrigation works, but it was not until Wyoming Senator F. E. Warren helped 

with the passage of the national 

reclamation bill that there was hope 

for the lands along the North Platte.22

 As possible recognition for 

Warren’s assistance as well as the 

Nebraska congressional delegation’s 

efforts in enacting the national 

reclamation law, Secretary of the 

Interior Hitchcock authorized the 

Sweetwater Project, later known as 

the North Platte, as one of the fi rst to 

be developed by the newly formed 

Reclamation Service. Within the 

space of ten years Reclamation completed the Pathfi nder Dam, cornerstone of 

the project and named after the early explorer, John C. Frémont, who traversed 

the North Platte River and perchance thought one day that the river would be 

tamed and provide the necessary life-giving water to the land. Over the next 

two decades, federal engineers constructed a diversion dam and irrigation 

system, including the 130-mile long Fort Laramie Canal and the Interstate Canal. 

Reclamation delivered water to farmers as early as the 1908 irrigation season.23

 There were immediate signs of success on the North Platte Project with 

the construction of the Pathfi nder Dam. Agriculture expanded with over a 

thousand newly irrigated farms by 1912, and during the next two years, the farm 

population increased by fi fty percent. Livestock, both cattle and sheep, were 

brought to the project lands to feed on the crops during the winter. By the mid1920s, over two thousand miles of canals and laterals were constructed on the 

North Platte Project, bringing water to about 220,000 acres in both Wyoming 

and Nebraska. Reclamation engineers resurrected an earlier idea to construct a 

regulating reservoir with Guernsey Dam, at Goshen Hole, Wyoming, and built 

additional reservoirs at Lake Alice and Lake Minatare in Nebraska. With the 

assurance of a water supply, the farmers started growing “speciality crops,” such 

as sugar beets and alfalfa while continuing to raise potatoes, oats, corn, wheat, and 

barley. Under Warren Act contracts, the waters from the North Platte Project’s 

storage dams are delivered to an additional 100,000 acres.24

10.5. Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte 

(Sweetwater) Project.
299

 Although the early reclamation settlers on the North Platte Project now 

had a water supply, they still faced other hardships, especially if they were 

unfamiliar with irrigation farming. The strong winds often blew the topsoil away 

with the newly planted seed, and uneven application of water could send it all 

down the drainage ditch to the canal or river. Bounties were often placed on 

grasshoppers and gophers. Many of the new farmers could not produce enough 

crops to pay for all the costs of keeping a household and paying the reclamation 

charges too. Those who were successful were usually the farmers who came from 

neighboring states or regions and were familiar with agricultural techniques, such 

as soil preparation and crop rotation. After the First World War, the United States 

gave returning servicemen the opportunity to farm on the North Platte Project, 

but while these soldiers and sailors could survive on the battlefi eld, few would 

be productive in raising crops. Farming was not always an easy enterprise on a 

reclamation project.25

Salt River Project

 The early travelers crossing southern Arizona on their way to California 

followed the Gila River, not usually proceeding up the Salt River. But when 

the miners discovered bodies of ore along the Hassayampa River and then the 

military came to keep the hostile Indians away, Jack Swilling found the remains 

of prehistoric canals in what became the Salt River Valley. By the 1870s other 

farmers and settlers found the land along the Salt River to be fertile and stayed 

to cultivate the soil, growing extensive fi elds of grain or alfalfa, or establishing 

commercial businesses, but within thirty years the fl ow of the river was overappropriated and growth could not be maintained.

 At least a half dozen companies constructed canals, and most were 

cooperative organizations of local farmers who worked together to build the 

irrigation channels to deliver water to their own land. In 1883 the Arizona Canal 

Company sold bonds to investors around the country in order to construct the 

Arizona Canal in the northern area of the Salt River Valley. This canal company 

expected to make a profi t from the sale of land and water rights to new settlers 

and with its chief construction contractor, W. J. Murphy, and original incorporator, 

Clark Churchill, formed the Arizona Improvement Company. Sitting on the fi rst 

Board of Directors were local businessmen, Murphy, Churchill, and William 

Christy, along with California and Nevada entrepreneurs, Frederick W. Sharon 

and Francis G. Newlands.26

 W. J. Murphy and his family purchased several tracts of land under the 

Arizona Canal and started an experimental citrus orchard with over 1,800 young 

orange and other fruit trees from southern California. The trees proved so 

successful that other varieties were planted including olive and lemon. Because 

the Arizona fruit ripened prior to the orchards in Southern California, Arizona 

landowners could sell their produce to the eastern markets fi rst. By the mid-1890s 

over 150,000 citrus trees were growing on 1,500 acres, and farmers learned they 
300

could grow the trees with less acreage 

and work than the traditional harvests of 

grain.27

 W. J. Murphy built the Ingleside 

Club, complete with a golf course, near 

the Arizona Canal to bring investors 

and potential landowners to the Salt 

River Valley. With the help of men like 

Murphy, the population of the Salt River 

Valley doubled between 1890 and 1900, 

reaching almost 20,000 residents, and 

irrigated acreage increased from 111,000 

to 130,500 acres. By the turn of the 

century, however, the landowners realized that a storage dam was needed on the 

upper Salt River for growth to continue, but private enterprise could not provide 

the needed funding.28

 Arizona’s struggle for a permanent water supply moved to Washington, 

D.C., at the beginning of the new century. Benjamin Fowler, chairman of the 

Maricopa County Water Storage Committee, had been in the federal Capitol at 

various times since 1900, lobbying for passage of a bill to permit the county to 

issue bonds for construction of a dam, and he then stayed to fi ght for a federal 

reclamation act. Through the efforts of national reclamation lobbyist George 

Maxwell, Fowler, who later became the fi rst president of the Salt River Valley 

Water Users’ Association, became well acquainted with Frederick Newell and 

Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester. Fowler offered the U.S. Geological Survey 

$1,500 in matching funds to continue its earlier investigation of the Salt River, 

including a survey of a damsite at the confl uence of the Salt River and Tonto 

Creek. Maxwell moved to the nation’s Capitol, leasing a house near Newell to 

aid Francis Newlands in his congressional fi ght for a reclamation act. At his 

Washington residence, Maxwell gathered Newell, Fowler, and Pinchot to discuss 

the national irrigation movement and a possible Salt River Valley reclamation 

project.29

 Gifford Pinchot and George Maxwell were good friends with vicepresident Theodore Roosevelt, a strong supporter of the reclamation and 

conservation movements. Following the ascendency of Roosevelt to the offi ce 

of President, the reclamation measure passed Congress and received Roosevelt’s 

signature. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to choose the fi rst projects 

from a list supplied by Newell. The infl uence of Newell, Pinchot, and Maxwell, 

with Fowler’s organization in the Salt River Valley, made the Tonto Project an 

attractive enterprise to the federal government, although most of the land was in 

private ownership.

10.6. The Granite Reef Diversion Dam 

diverting water into the Arizona Canal in 

1908.
301

 Within months of the passage of the Reclamation Act, engineers arrived 

in the Salt River Valley to survey the lands and possible location of irrigation 

works. Prior to the construction of what would become Theodore Roosevelt 

Dam, the engineers constructed a sixty-mile road through the rugged Superstition 

Mountains and the canyons of the Salt River to bring supplies from the railhead 

at Mesa to the dam site. Building the “ Apache Trail” would be one of the 

most dangerous tasks of the dam construction process, and in its fi rst month of 

operation, over a million and one half pounds of freight would be hauled over 

it. Louis C. Hill, the supervising 

reclamation engineer traveled the 

Apache Trail while overseeing 

construction of the Roosevelt Dam.

Built between 1905 and 1911, crews 

laid stone quarried from the neighboring 

canyon walls for the rubble-masonry 

thick-arch structure which spanned 

the Salt River to an original height of 

280 feet and crest length of 723 feet, 

holding back over 1,300,000 acre 

feet of water. Stonemasons cut the 

upstream and downstream faces of the 

six to ten-ton blocks which were laid 

in a stair step fashion, giving the dam 

its identifi able appearance. President 

Theodore Roosevelt attended the dam’s 

dedication, traveling over the Apache 

Trail, on March 18, 1911.30

 Flooding would delay construction at the dam site, but would also lead to 

the present confi guration of the Salt River Project. The Arizona Dam, just below 

the confl uence of the Salt and Verde rivers, diverted water to the north side canals 

but was prone to damage by fl oods, and in 1905 a major fl ood swept down the 

Salt River. The Arizona Dam was washed away and the farmers north of the Salt 

River approached Louis C. Hill for assistance. To unify the lands in the Salt River 

Valley, the Reclamation Service constructed the 1,000 foot long Granite Reef 

Diversion Dam which diverts water to both the north and south side canals. The 

federal government purchased many of the existing canals within the Salt River 

Project boundaries and built additional ones to bring the waters of the Salt and 

Verde rivers to 170,000 acres.

 After prolonged conferences on irrigable acreage and repayment costs of 

the project, Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane signed over operational 

control of SRP to the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association in 1917. 

Signifi cantly, the September 6, 1917, agreement permitted the Association to 

retain the power revenues generated at SRP facilities, thus allowing for its future 

growth. Conceived by the Reclamation engineers as a source of electricity for 

10.7. By 1907 the aerial tramway was 

delivering concrete from the batch plant 

to the Theodore Roosevelt Dam site. In 

order to reduce the cost of the project, 

Reclamation built a plant to manufacture 

cement at the dam site and even shipped 

cement down the Apache Trial to the 

construction at Granite Reef Diversion 

Dam.
302

construction of Roosevelt Dam, power generation, developed at fi rst through 

construction of a power canal and later as part of the dam, was in the drawings 

almost from the initial plans. During the 1920s, Salt River Project management 

expanded its hydropower installations with the construction of three additional 

dams on the Salt River, and more lands joined the Association, bringing its 

membership up to 242,000 acres.

2002

 In 1902 the authors of the national Reclamation Act provided a way for the 

settlers to support their families and develop the West through farming. The fi rst 

fi ve reclamation projects encountered varying degrees of success, but all managed 

to transform the land, some as originally intended, others with certain limitations, 

and at least one changed a fertile agricultural valley into a major metropolitan 

center that sparked development of the whole state.

 While the men of the Newlands Project envisioned irrigating 200,000 

acres at its inception, only 62,000 acres received project water by 1970. Today 

claims by others to the waters of the Truckee and Carson rivers and Lake Tahoe, 

including land and water set aside for a wetlands project in Lahontan Valley and 

settlement of water rights with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, limit the amount 

available for farming. Despite these water woes, the population has increased 

from under 1,000 people when the Newlands Project was authorized to over 

18,000 people living within the Project lands. The “businessman/farmer” has 

become a part-time entrepreneur and more than 4,000 part-time farms, averaging 

thirteen acres, contribute approximately 35% of the current economy in Churchill 

County with a total crop value of a little over $13 million in 1992. The waters of 

the Newlands Project also support the growing recreational activities of camping, 

boating, and fi shing.31

 Currently farmers irrigate approximately 70,000 acres on the 

 Uncompahgre Project, more than double the amount prior to its selection as a 

reclamation project, but less than the 130,000 acres planners imagined could be 

cultivated. Following the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the project 

to the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users’ Association in 1932, additional irrigation 

works were constructed, including the Taylor Park Dam to regulate the water for 

the Gunnison Tunnel. With the exception of sugar beets, crops grown today are 

principally the same as when the project started. In the 1960s project farmers 

started growing malt barley for the manufacture of beer by the Adolph Coors 

Company. Today the population is closer to 20,000, whereas a century ago, the 

region contained fewer than 5,000 residents.32

 Farmers on the Milk River Project cultivate about 100,000 acres, more 

than three times the amount irrigated 100 years ago. Project lands, stretching 165 

miles, are divided into the Dodson Pumping Unit, and the Chinook, Malta, and 

Glasgow Divisions with individual irrigation districts operating the transmission 
303

and distribution facilities and the Bureau of Reclamation retaining control over 

the storage works. Like the Newlands Project, many of the current farm sizes 

provide income for only a part-time living, while owners have jobs in nearby 

cities. The irrigated acreage has remained relatively stable in recent years, with 

ranching and farming the main industries on project lands.33

 Urbanization has not been a factor on the Milk River Project, but other 

elements have infl uenced this reclamation project. Over the years, changes in 

crops grown have impacted the neighboring communities. Sugar beets, once a 

major crop that required a large labor force as well as producing feed for sheep, 

are no longer grown on the project lands. The elimination of this crop had a 

trickle down effect—without the sugar beets, the large numbers of migrant 

workers have not been needed and the sheep industry left the Milk River area.

Extreme weather conditions, ranging from 100 degrees in the summer to minus 

40 degrees in the winter, have aided in the reduction of population on the Milk 

River Project. Farmers also have to contend with endangered or threatened 

species issues in the future to keep their irrigation water. Recreation is a major 

growth industry in the West and the creation of the Fresno and Nelson reservoirs 

and Lake Sherburne, have provided a favorite venue for boaters and fi shermen 

who can also enjoy the waters of this reclamation project.34

 Since a handful of mountain men began trapping beaver, to the early 

immigrants looking for a better life, to the rancher seeking grazing lands, to the 

farmer searching for the fertile acreage and enough water, the North Platte Project 

transformed the prairies into a part of America’s farmland. At the turn of the 

century, the population of Scotts Bluff County was less than 3,000 people, while 

in 2002, in the city of Scottsbluff alone, there are over 14,500 residents. With 

the North Platte Project, the irrigated acreage increased from 3,000 acres to over 

300,000 acres and encouraged the development of the sugar beet industry worth 

over $47 million in 1991. Besides being a cash crop, sugar beets also provide 

feed for the traditional western occupation of ranching; nearly a half a million 

head of cattle, sheep and hogs are raised on the North Platte Project. Almost from 

its start, the waters of the North Platte have been a safe haven for wildlife because 

President William Howard Taft created the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge. 

Project lakes continue to provide a resting place for migratory fowl as well as a 

setting for recreational activities, including boating and fi shing.35

 From its foundation, bringing water and power to its shareholders in the 

Salt River Valley, SRP has become the largest raw water supplier in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and the nation’s third-largest public power utility, delivering 

power to over 745,000 customers. Maricopa County is the major population 

center of Arizona, increasing from 20,450 people in 1900 to over 3 million in 

2000. Phoenix, in the heart of the Salt River Valley, is the county seat, the state 

capitol of Arizona, and now the 6th largest city in the United States. 
304

 For almost one hundred years, the Association has continued to provide 

water to over 300,000 acre member and neighboring lands and has evolved into 

a multi-dimensional water service provider. Although only 44,000 acres are still 

being farmed in 2002 within the Project, SRP delivers water to urban irrigators 

and several municipalities which treat the water and distribute it to SRP’s urban 

shareholders. To this end, ten water treatment plants operated by eight cities dot 

the SRP water system.

 SRP’s stewardship of central Arizona’s water supply has made it a 

leader in the management of water resources, encompassing a wide range of 

activities. In partnership with several Valley cities, SRP jointly owns and operates 

the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP), one of the largest 

recharge projects in the United States. GRUSP stores Central Arizona Project 

water on behalf of the Arizona Water Banking authority and others for use in the 

future when dry conditions will prevail. To assist various Valley entities, SRP 

cooperated with the Bureau of Reclamation in the delivery of Central Arizona 

Project water with the construction of the CAP/SRP Interconnect Facility near 

Granite Reef Dam. Operated by SRP, the interconnect links the CAP canal with 

SRP’s irrigation system, further allowing for the purchase of surplus Colorado 

River water to meet the demands of our shareholders during times of water 

shortage as well as to assist in water exchanges.

 At the end of World 

War II, the Salt River 

Valley experienced a major 

explosion of growth which 

impacted SRP’s traditional 

farming community. The 

returning veterans wanted 

homes, and farmers sold 

agricultural lands for 

thousands of houses in 

the newly developed 

subdivisions. With 

increased urbanization, 

the Association had to 

10.8. The Salt River Project’s modern control room for 

its water system. Courtesy of the Salt River Project.

10.9. The SCADA system on the Salt River 

Project controls this canal control structure. 

Courtesy of the Salt River Project.
305

fi nd new ways to operate and maintain its canal system. Under the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Rehabilitation and Betterment Program, SRP started construction 

and implementation of the Supervisory Control System in the late 1960s. The 

advances in electronic equipment allowed for the design of a water distribution 

system covering 138 miles to be handled by a single operator. By the mid-1970s, 

computer equipment monitored telemetered data which displayed water levels 

and gate positions. The dispatcher could regulate 331 radial gates and almost one 

quarter of the deep-well pumps belonging to SRP. With this system, the water 

levels of the canals and laterals could be maintained at a constant level. Gone are 

the days when bells rang at the home of the gate operators to warn about pending 

trouble.

 Keeping pace with new technology allowed SRP to utilize the new water 

 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system developed between 

1989 and 1991. SCADA is a complex computer-based system which allows 

remote control and monitoring of the entire water canal system, a major portion 

of the deep-well system, and numerous sites of interest to water accounting 

concerns. The system remotely scans and operates over 120 sites on the canals 

and controls over twenty off-project fl ow and special-delivery sites and an everexpanding number of water quality monitoring stations throughout the system.

 With thousands of homes adjacent to the canals, SRP continues to 

maintain the physical appearance of its irrigation facilities. No longer are 

sheep seen eating the grass along the canal banks or Yaqui laborers leading 

the horses in the ditches to eliminate aquatic moss and weeds. In 1989 SRP 

instituted a program of stocking its canals with white Amur, a sterile weed-eating 

fi sh that originally came from China and is considered an economically and 

environmentally safe alternative to chemical and mechanical weed control. SRP 

crews trim the trees and remove brush and other vegetation along the canal banks, 

not only for its own maintenance vehicles, but for the thousands of bicyclists, 

joggers, and horseback riders who use the paths for recreation. As part of a 

program completed in 1989, SRP installed safety steps and ladders providing a 

quick exit for stray animals and people who accidently enter the canal system.

 From its earliest development providing electricity for the construction 

of Roosevelt Dam, power generation has been an integral part of the Salt River 

Project. The Association constructed its fi rst hydropower plants on the Valley 

canals between 1911 and 1913, expanding its production with the construction of 

three additional dams, Mormon Flat, Horse Mesa, and Stewart Mountain, on the 

Salt River between 1923 and 1930. SRP had forty-nine power customers in the 

1920s; by 1947 it delivered electricity to over 12,000 customers, and by 2003 it 

should transmit power to close to 800,000 people.

 To meet this continually growing demand for electricity, SRP upgraded 

its transmission and distribution systems over the years, converting from 25 cycle 

power to 60 cycle after World War II and building non-hydropower plants. Within 
306

the Salt River Valley, SRP built several oil or natural gas generating stations and 

participated in several coal-fi red power plants in the southwest region, including 

Mohave Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant. As part of the 

Central Arizona Project, SRP was chosen as the construction manager and plant 

operator of the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, participating 

with other utilities and the federal government. During the 1970s, SRP decided 

to construct the coal-fi red Coronado Generating Station alone, while being a 

partner in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station southwest of the Salt River 

Valley. In order to provide its customers with a reliable source of power in the 

future, SRP is expanding its Valley generating stations and fi nding new and 

environmentally compatible methods for the production of power, including 

landfi ll gasses and solar energy. From its inception to the present day, Salt River 

Project has supplied both water and energy that helped fuel the growth of the 

Association and central Arizona.

 The passage of the national Reclamation Act heralded a new era in the 

development of the arid West. While some might argue that the rhetoric of its 

passage is mythic, nonetheless, the act President Theodore Roosevelt signed 

on June 17, 1902, transformed the West. Prior to selection by Secretary of the 

Interior Ethan A. Hitchcock as the fi rst fi ve reclamation projects, the lands in 

Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming-Nebraska, and Arizona, were being 

farmed, but without a stable water supply sustained growth could not be achieved. 

The federal government, in the name of the Reclamation Service and later the 

Bureau of Reclamation, provided the funding and the engineering expertise to 

construct the necessary storage works, to allow for that development, whether in 

actual increased irrigated acreage, population, or economic value. The success 

of the national Reclamation Act can be measured by the accomplishments of the 

Newlands, Uncompahgre, Milk River, North Platte, and Salt River reclamation 

projects.

 John Wesley Powell surveyed the American West more than one hundred 

years ago and saw thirty million acres that could be irrigated. Because of the 

vision of a few men and the Bureau of Reclamation, nine to ten million acres 

are productive, whether growing crops, homes, communities, or industries.

Reclamation is the cornerstone of growth in the West: providing a stable water 

supply for crops, transforming the desert to farmlands, and now farmlands to 

cities, businesses, and communities; producing electricity to operate the irrigation 

pumps, light the homes, and now power our industries. Reclamation’s objective 

hasn’t ceased, but instead becomes more fully developed: the foundation of 

growth in the American West.
307

10.10. Newlands Project.
308

10.11. Uncompahgre Project.
309

10.12. Milk River Project.
310

10.13. North Platte Project.

GOSHEN 

.. 

.., " 

z "' 

-· .. 

' 

5 I 0 U )( c 0 

L 

____ _c_o ___ _ 

.., 

z 

" 0 

,. 

... ' 

" "' ..

"' .. 

"'' 

... 

• z 

l .t. NNER CO. 

IRRIGABLE AREA 

I • 0 ' I U T T E CO 

' 

I 

' 

MINATARE 

liNE CANA l, 

M O RR IL l CO 

LINE CANAL. 

I NORTH PLATT£ RIVER ---
311

10.14. Salt River Project.

J 

/ 

\ 

.... QQ. 

I 

.... oo 
312

Endnotes

1. John Wesley Powell, Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States: With 

a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah. Edited by Wallace Stegner. (Cambridge: Belknap 

Press, 1962), 8.

2. Karen L. Smith, the Magnifi cent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation 

Project, 1890-1917. (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986) 17-18. Karen L. Smith, “The 

Campaign for Water in Central Arizona, 1890-1903,” Arizona and the West 23:2 (Summer 1981): 

136-137.

3. U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, (Washington: Government 

Printing Offi ce, 1926), 1.

4. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation Project Feasibilities and 

Authorizations, (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1957), 5-15.

5. Southern Pacifi c Company, “Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project, Nevada,” 1914. 

Informational brochure extolling the virtues of the Newlands Project.

6. For a detailed history of the Newlands Project, see John Townley, Turn This Water 

Into Gold: The Story of the Newlands Project, 2nd ed. (Reno: Nevada Historical Society, 1998). 

This citation see pages 4, 9. U.S. Reclamation Service, First Annual Report of the Reclamation 

Service, (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1903), 227-28. 

7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 36.

8. Southern Pacifi c Company, “Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project.” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 36. Mary Ellen Glass, “The Newlands Reclamation Project: 

Years of Innocence, 1903-1907,” Journal of the West 7:1 (January 1968) 57. Churchill County 

Chamber of Commerce, Resources of Truckee-Carson Project and Churchill County, Nevada, c. 

1914, 29.

9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 36. Churchill County 

Chamber of Commerce, Resources of Truckee-Carson Project and Churchill County, Nevada, 

19-20.

10. Southern Pacifi c Company, “Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project.” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 36.

11. U.S. Reclamation Service, “Project History: Uncompahgre Valley Project 1901-1912,” 

vol. 1, 4-5. Typescript. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Uncompahgre Project, 1994. Internet version. 

U.S. Reclamation Service, First Annual Report, 134.

12. U.S. Reclamation Service, First Annual, 134. U.S. Reclamation Service, “Uncompahgre 

Valley Project: Project History 1901-1912,” vol. 2. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Uncompahgre 

Project, 1994.

13. U.S. Reclamation Service, “Project History: Uncompahgre Project,” vol. 1: 6, 9. U.S. 

Reclamation Service, First Annual Report, 137.

14. Donald Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West, (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 

Press, 1992), 312. According to Frederick Newell’s diary, he met with Shafroth and other 

legislators in 1900 to discuss federal reclamation. Frederick Newell, “Autobiography,” typescript, 

University of Wyoming, American Heritage Center, [61, 65].

15. Acting Director, U.S. Reclamation Service to Secretary of the Interior, July 6, 1903. 

National Archives, Denver, Record Group 115, Entry 3, Box 987. David Clark and William Joe 

Simonds, “Uncompahgre Project,” U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1994. Internet version.

16. Fred D. Pyle, “Uncompahgre Valley Project,” report to the Uncompahgre Valley Water 

Users’ Association, February 3, 1914. National Archives, Denver. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Federal Irrigation Projects, 21. Clark and Simonds, “Uncompahgre Project.”

17. Rolla L. Queen, “Historic Cultural Resources of the Milk River Project,” vol. 1: History 

and Resource Overview. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1991, 32-34.

18. Newell, “Autobiography” [67].

19. Wm. Joe Simonds, “Milk River Project,” U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Internet version. 

U.S. Water and Power Resources Service, Project Data, (Denver: Government Printing Offi ce, 

1981), 632-633.

20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 30.
313

21. Simons, “Milk River Project.”

22. L. Carl Brandhorst, “The North Platte Oasis: Notes on the Geography and History of an 

Irrigated District,” Agricultural History, 51:1 (1977): 168.

23. Brandhorst, “North Platte Oasis,” 170.

24. Brandhorst, “North Platte Oasis,” 171. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation 

Projects, 33-34. Robert Autobee, “North Platte Project,” U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Internet 

version.

25. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “North Platte Project,” Online version.

26. For a complete history of the Arizona Canal see Shelly Dudley, “Arizona Canal, HAER 

No. AZ-19”, (SRP 1991). SRP Research Archives staff have written HAER (Historic American 

Engineering Record) reports on all the major canals of the Salt River Project.

27. Dudley, “Arizona Canal.”

28. Dudley, “Arizona Canal.” U.S. Census, Historical Data. Hurley v. Abbott No. 4564, 

Decision and Decree, March 1, 1910.

29. Smith, “The Campaign for Water in Central Arizona,” 136-37.

30. SRP Research Archives staff is in the process of completing a centennial history of the 

Salt River Project, to be published in the fall of 2002 by Arthur H. Clark Company.

31. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Newlands Project.”

32. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Uncompahgre Project.”

33. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Milk River Project.”

34. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Irrigation Projects, 29-30. Correspondence, 

Paula Bolland, Malta Irrigation District, July 11, 2001. Telephone interview, Bob Inman, Zurich 

Irrigation District, August 20, 2001.

35. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “North Platte Project.”
314
315

Creating an Irrigator’s Reclamation Service: 

 I. D. “Bud” O’Donnell, Civic Capitalism, and the 

U.S. Reclamation Service in the Yellowstone Valley, 

1900-1930

By:

Carroll Van West

 The capitalist transformation of rural America in the late nineteenth and 

early twentieth centuries is a central issue in American history. The economic 

development of the Yellowstone Valley of the northern plains between 1880 and 

1920 mirrors the wider American experience in its intersection of governmental 

policy, the decisions of major corporate interests and international bankers, and the 

actions of local leaders. Throughout the Yellowstone, the passage of the Newlands 

Reclamation Act in 1902 and the creation of the United States Reclamation Service 

(USRS) encouraged local interests to think of their communities and their futures in 

new ways. Twenty years of agriculture in the valley was proof enough that farmers 

could not tame the region=s demanding environment, but they could replace nature 

with massive engineering works that they could control. Although privately funded 

ventures had started the valley=s irrigation, key civic capitalists in the Yellowstone 

were eager to exchange private development for federal funds and expertise to 

build a physical infrastructure for modern, market-driven farming. This exchange, 

however, was not a simple top-down reordering of the landscape and local economic 

priorities as dictated by federal policy. Rather, the goals and needs of local interests 

shaped the reclamation projects of the Yellowstone from the beginning, and the 

interaction between federal policy and local interests eventually led to basic 

change—a heightened regard for both irrigation and the individual farmer—in the 

United States Reclamation Service itself.

The central fi gure in the Yellowstone=s search to build an irrigated empire, and a 

central fi gure in the history of the irrigation in the U.S. Reclamation Service, is 

I. D. O’Donnell of Billings, the service=s fi rst Supervisor of Irrigation. The USRS=s

Thirteenth Annual Report announced O’Donnell’s appointment and praised his 

contributions. The report=s authors noted:

The underlying thought which prompted the creation of this offi ce and the 

appointment of Mr. O’Donnell as the fi rst incumbent was that there should 

be in the fi eld, connected with the service, a practical business farmer, who 

could look at questions involved in the operation and management of the 

projects from the standpoint of the water user as well as from that of the 

service; who could advise the other offi cers of the service on all matters 

having to do with the effi cient operation of the projects, and assist the water 

users on all matters coming under the general head of “better farming” 

methods.1
316

 For the rest of the decade O’Donnell would push the interests of irrigators, 

and “practical” farmers before local, regional, and national forums, culminating in 

the 1918 publication of his treatise Better Business, Better Farming, Better Living: 

Hints from a Practical Farmer to the Settlers on the Projects of the United States 

Reclamation Service by the Reclamation Service. Although recognized today as 

“the father of irrigation in Montana,” he is a neglected, largely forgotten fi gure 

within the history of the Reclamation Service and the later Reclamation Bureau, 

even though he continued to preach his vision of an irrigated West into the 1930s.

 O’Donnell came to the west as a cowboy, not an irrigator. Ignatius Donnelly 

“Bud” O’Donnell was born in Ontario, Canada, on September 19, 1860; he was the 

second child of second-generation Irish immigrants, Daniel and Margaret McIntosh 

O’Donnell. His family moved in 1864 to Michigan where his father worked in the 

timber industry for several years before buying his own farm in Midland County, 

Michigan. Young Bud O’Donnell worked the farm and attended school in Saginaw, 

Michigan, until his early teen years, when he took up full-time work in the local 

timber business. He continued working in Michigan until he was twenty-one years 

old and he left with a friend for work in Chicago. Jobs were lacking there, however, 

and the lure of the west proved irresistible. O’Donnell took a Northern Pacifi c 

Railroad train to Dakota and Montana, where he looked for construction work.2

 O’Donnell=s fi rst stop in Montana was at Miles City, where the Tongue 

River joins the Yellowstone River. A natural with an axe, he took a job cutting ties 

for the railroad, which was then streaking westward towards the Rockies. With 

that grubstake in hand, O’Donnell left for the gold and silver mines at Maiden, 

to the north of the Yellowstone. Quick riches proved beyond his reach, and once 

his grubstake was gone, O’Donnell was on the move again, and accepted his fi rst 

cowboy jobCputting up hay for a federal government contractor. He effi ciently built 

corrals, stables, and fences and his experience qualifi ed him for the next jobCbeing

a cowboy at the I J Ranch, a stock-raising enterprise owned and operated by a bunch 

of rich kids from back East—including Parmly Billings and Edward Bailey, the son 

and nephew, respectively, of railroad capitalist Frederick Billings, a former president 

of the Northern Pacifi c Railroad and the largest private landowner in the newly 

established Yellowstone County.3

 O’Donnell proved to be the right man, in the right place, at the right time. 

Frederick Billings had long been interested in agricultural reform, and in making his 

sizeable interests along the Northern Pacifi c line, especially in Yellowstone County, 

highly profi table. While Northern Pacifi c president, he had encouraged the creation 

of the Cass-Cheney demonstration farm, which popularized the “bonanza farm” 

boom of the late 1870s and swelled land sales in Dakota Territory. He operated 

his own farm in Vermont as a demonstration farm, especially one that touted the 

value of hybrid seeds, purebred livestock, conservation, and diversifi cation. But in 

Montana Territory his son and nephew soon tired of the hard work of ranch life, and 

Frederick Billings had a problem of his own in the city of Billings where his agent, 

Congregational minister Benjamin F. Shuart, had proven to be unreliable. In 1885 
317

the elder Billings rearranged his business ventures in the Yellowstone Valley. He 

ordered his son and nephew to move to Billings, where they took over management 

of the family’s land and development company, the Minnesota and Montana Land 

and Improvement Company, and established a private bank, the Bailey and Billings 

Bank. Frederick Billings then placed his various agricultural interests under 

the supervision of O’Donnell, who was placed in charge of the I J Ranch, along 

with other valley ranch land, and Reverend Shuart, who moved to his own ranch 

along Canyon Creek and the land company’s “Big Ditch” irrigation system, east 

of Billings adjacent to large parcel of Billings family land, where he started the 

famed Hesper Farm. Shuart too followed the lead of his patron, Frederick Billings, 

and operated Hesper Farm as a model agricultural landscape, with irrigated fi elds, 

diverse crops, and modern soil conservation techniques.4

 O’Donnell made the most of his opportunity to impress his patrons and after 

Parmly Billings’s death in 1886, Edward Bailey sold O’Donnell the agricultural 

interests owned by Parmly Billings and they became partners. By 1890 Bailey 

and O’Donnell was a well established livestock fi rm; as O’Donnell later recalled, 

“we fed a number of bands of sheep, took up various land holdings, and kept a 

quantity of range. It was through these experiments that I caught a glimpse of 

a great future for farming in the Yellowstone Valley.” Since the Billings family 

trusted his management instincts, and O’Donnell had already proved to be a quick 

study, the family named him as manager of the Minnesota and Montana Land and 

Improvement Company. By default, he became an irrigator since the land company 

had established and operated the “Big Ditch,” the largest private irrigation effort in 

the region since 1883.5

 For a cowboy, O’Donnell took to irrigation quickly, and by decade’s end, 

he was considered one of the region=s irrigation experts. He helped to establish 

the Montana Irrigation Society and served as its president. O’Donnell became 

an aggressive spokesman for northern plains irrigation. In the 1894 national 

publication, The Irrigation Age, O’Donnell bragged about the potential of the 

Yellowstone Valley’s Clark Fork Bottom (where his Hesper Farm was located), 

predicting that due to irrigation the land was “destined to be the great feeding center 

of this section of the country.” He improved and expanded the works of the “Big 

Ditch” and improved the land company=s image and reputation among the farmers 

who relied on it. In 1892 he and Bailey purchased the Hesper Farm for $10,000 

and O’Donnell began his own experiments with irrigation, with a special concern 

about what crops would grow most effi ciently. The Billings Gazette Illustrated 

Edition of July 1894 approvingly commented that O’Donnell “enlists science to his 

aid in farming, irrigation and stock ranching, with the best results.” Also in 1892, 

O’Donnell founded the Yellowstone Fair Association, where he began an annual 

ritual of promoting irrigation, scientifi c agriculture, and the cultivation of alfalfa and 

sugar beets, which he had successfully cultivated at Hesper Farm.6

 O’Donnell is credited with producing the Yellowstone’s fi rst successful sugar 

beet crop and the fi rst alfalfa crop in Montana. Both products, however, needed 
318

more water than other crops typically cultivated in the northern plains—a fact that 

also drove O’Donnell to support irrigation development. In 1893-1894 he began to 

serve as a lecturer for the Farmers’ Institutes, sponsored by the Experiment Station 

of Montana State University, with alfalfa and irrigation being his favorite topics. 

 O’Donnell also established new local irrigation ventures; the High Line Ditch 

Company, capitalized at $10,000, came in 1895 and fi ve years later he joined with 

Preston Moss and others to create the Big Ditch Company, capitalized at $64,000. 

In 1898 he applied for a patent for his own improved headgate design. He served 

as a Montana delegate to various regional and national irrigation congresses; a 

meeting in Cheyenne, Wyoming, he recalled, was where “I gave my maiden address 

in the interest of an [federal] irrigation law” several years prior to the passage of the 

Newlands Reclamation Act.7

 By the end of the nineteenth century, O’Donnell had proven sugar beets 

could withstand the harsh Montana climate—and that a Montana beet was higher in 

sugar content than those from other sections of the country. He had patched together 

a network of fellow irrigators across the region; and he had improved the effi ciency 

of the Big Ditch as a water provider. He was ready to launch his holdings, and 

those of many other Yellowstone farmers, into a new agricultural age, one based on 

irrigation and the production of sugar beets. As horticultural expert S. M. Emery, the 

director of the Montana State Experiment Station, predicted to O’Donnell in April 

1900: “The time is surely coming when Montana will produce its own sugar. You 

have all the conditions down there to make such a plant a success.”8

 To make that success, O’Donnell needed help from a variety of quarters. 

First, he needed new partners. The Billings family and Edward Bailey had 

bankrolled his ventures for over ten years, but with the new century on the horizon, 

the Billingses and Bailey had both tired of their western adventure. They were 

willing to sell the land company to O’Donnell, if he could fi nd the partners. 

O’Donnell formed an alliance with the president of the First National Bank in 

Billings, Preston Moss, and together they bought out the Billings and Bailey 

interests. Moss and O’Donnell, soon joined by engineer Henry W. Rowley, became 

powerful business partners, and good friends. (In the early 1900s they all built 

architecturally distinctive homes next to each other in a new trendy neighborhood 

of Billings.) Moss was a native of Missouri, who moved to Billings in 1892 to 

be the vice-president of the First National Bank. Four years later he became the 

bank’s president and invested in new Billings enterprises and agricultural projects 

in the Yellowstone Valley. He also owned a local telephone company, the Northern 

Hotel, the Gazette Printing Company, and the Billings Utility Company. Trained 

in civil engineering at the University of Minnesota, Rowley had been the original 

engineer of the Big Ditch and a Billings resident since 1882. He too brought money 

(gained from real estate investments and the Billings Water Power Company) to 

the partnership, along with experience with building large irrigation systems from 

scratch, something that O’Donnell had never done.9
319

 The importance of the O’Donnell-Moss-Rowley alliance should not be 

underestimated; all three were classic examples of what historian John Cumbler has 

called “civic capitalists,” who sought their “own profi t, but each understood that 

his welfare was bound up with the welfare of others of his kind and the city that 

nourished them.” The fi rst major venture of these three civic capitalists was the 

Billings Land and Irrigation Company. They also jointly ventured into banking, 

commercial, and manufacturing enterprises while demonstrating their civic duty 

through support of such institutions as the new Parmly Billings Library. Due to 

his prior career within the Billings family’s business circles, O’Donnell perhaps 

understood better than the others the need for reciprocal arrangements to nurture the 

fragile economy and settlements of the northern plains. As argued by an editorial in 

the Billings Gazette, after his appointment to the Reclamation Service in December 

1913,

 In Billings, there are many men, who are really doing things, who 

have the right mental attitude. They make up the predominating infl uence 

of society, they lead, and the result is that the right mental attitude, the 

spirit, the loyalty of the Billings citizen has become proverbial throughout 

the land.

 The “Doctor of Mental Attitude,” concluded the editorial writer, was “I. D. 

O’Donnell.” A later contemporary account of O’Donnell=s career, published in 1919 

after his years with the Reclamation Service, noted that O’Donnell “is the city=s

principal booster and has had more to do with organizing and getting new businesses 

started than almost any other man there.” And a 1923 story praising O’Donnell in 

the Great Falls Tribune concluded that “in Billings whenever money is needed to 

build an addition to the public library or money is needed for something of historical 

importance [or] the help is needed of some public spirited citizen, the community 

instinctively turns to Mr. O’Donnell.”10

 To build a Yellowstone empire, O’Donnell needed more than strong local 

allies. He also needed, at least, federal recognition of the potential of an irrigated 

Yellowstone, if not federal support and money for Yellowstone irrigation. Through 

his offi ce as president of the Montana Irrigation Society, and by attending various 

irrigation conferences, he had connected with various federal offi cials then exploring 

the possibility of new irrigation programs for the arid West. In particular, he 

assisted and supported the efforts of Elwood Mead to promote irrigation within the 

Department of Agriculture. He had met Mead at an 1897 irrigation conference, 

a key meeting that encouraged Congress to establish a division of Irrigation 

Investigations within the Agriculture department’s Offi ce of Experiment Stations 

in 1898. Under this program, Samuel Fortier and Elwood Mead came to the 

Yellowstone in 1900 and investigated the Big Ditch, while interviewing O’Donnell 

at Hesper Farm. In their follow-up report, Fortier and Mead acknowledged the 

assistance of O’Donnell, approvingly noted the 10,000 acres of alfalfa currently in 

the irrigated Yellowstone, and discussed how O’Donnell paid for Mead to install a 

weir at Hesper Farm in order to measure the water fl ow.11
320

 Federal recognition, strong local allies, and a marketable crop were all 

important, but most importantly, O’Donnell needed more land than what the 

scattered holdings of the old Minnesota and Montana Land and Improvement 

Company provided. To acquire the needed land at the lowest possible cost, 

O’Donnell and Moss initially turned to the Carey Act of 1894, which granted free 

federal land to states for major irrigation projects. In 1903, a group of Washington 

state investors arrived in Billings to investigate the possibility of establishing an 

irrigation project on the Billings Bench northeast of the city. O’Donnell toured the 

capitalists around the city and county, convincing them that indeed the Yellowstone 

was the right place for such a project. In mid-October 1903 John Schram and W. 

T. Clark of Washington State, in partnership with Preston Moss, I. D. O’Donnell, 

and Henry Rowley, incorporated the Billings Land & Irrigation Company. The 

Washington investors put up $75,000, which was matched by a $50,000 loan from 

Moss and his First National Bank and $12,500 each from Rowley and M. A. Arnold, 

the cashier at Moss=s bank. By 1905, the construction of the irrigation system was 

largely complete, cultivation was underway, and in April 1905 the company received 

its fi rst land deeds from state offi cials who administered the Carey Land Act board. 

The project eventually irrigated over 24,000 acres.12

 O’Donnell and Moss, however, did not plan to stop with Carey Act 

largesse—Bud O’Donnell had argued for a more comprehensive federal reclamation 

law for several years, and when the Newlands Reclamation Act became a reality in 

1902, he immediately began to look for a suitable Yellowstone project. He located a 

perfect site: 35,000 acres of “open” land south of the Yellowstone River, bordered by 

the Big Horn River Valley, and serviced by the rails of the Northern Pacifi c Railway 

(NP) and the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy (CBQ or Burlington Route). There 

was one hitch—and in the West of those days it was viewed as a hindrance more 

than an obstacle—the preferred land was on the Crow Indian Reservation.

 CBQ offi cials had pushed their railroad through the Crow reservation in the 

mid-1890s, where the line linked with the Northern Pacifi c, and spurred growth in 

the Yellowstone Valley. That cession had proven easy enough to negotiate, but the 

railroad merely passed through the reservation and could do little to develop local 

traffi c along the line. After railroad magnate James J. Hill, international fi nancier J. 

P. Morgan, and others combined the interests of the Burlington Route with those of 

the Northern Pacifi c and the Great Northern Railway at the turn of the century, the 

new Hill-Morgan empire became even more interested in cracking open the Crow 

reservation to settlement. The railroads strongly supported the reclamation project, 

and for more reasons than mere traffi c on the line. In 1900, a worried Montana 

Senator T. H. Carter warned James J. Hill: “This state will be dominated by a mob 

until the reclamation of the arid lands transfers the balance of power of the farmers.” 

Hill, in particular, wished to boost agricultural production for both political and 

economic reasons, and his correspondents in 1902-1903 periodically informed him 

of developments in Montana.13
321

 In April 1904 Congress approved a bill to amend current agreements 

with the Crow Indians to permit the withdrawal of land from the reservation to 

be used for the reclamation project in exchange for $1.15 million. The Crows 

already living in the ceded area had a choice: stay or accept compensation for their 

improvements and leave. Only three Crow settlers stayed. Engineers from the U.S. 

Reclamation Service soon surveyed the ceded land, and in May Assistant Chief 

Reclamation Engineer Arthur P. Davis came to Billings, where he met with X. H. 

Fitch, Supervising Engineer, and Robert Stockman, Engineer of Billings, to assess 

the engineers’ fi ndings. Davis ruled that the preliminary surveys were promising 

enough to justify the creation of a reclamation project and he ordered more intensive 

survey work under Stockton’s supervision.14

 Billings interests carefully monitored the work of the federal engineers; 

Moss and O’Donnell began their plans for creating a sugar beet refi nery in earnest. 

On February 26, 1905, the USRS’s Board of Engineers ratifi ed the feasibility of the 

project—all that was needed now was an offi cial authorization from the Secretary 

of the Interior. The approval of the engineering board was enough for Moss, 

O’Donnell, and Rowley. Less than three weeks later, on March 14, 1905, the three 

allies, together with M. A. Arnold and F. W. Shaw, incorporated the Billings Sugar 

Factory, with a capitalization of $750,000. Moss put up $650,000 while O’Donnell, 

Rowley, Arnold, and Shaw pitched in with $25,000 each. After Secretary of Interior 

E. A. Hitchcock signed off on the construction of the $900,000 Huntley Project (so 

named after an early settlement in the project area) on April 18, 1905, the creation 

of an expanded irrigated Yellowstone empire was formally underway. In May 

the Billings group signed a contract with the newly created Great Western Sugar 

Company (incorporated in New Jersey in January 1905) to provide sugar refi ned 

from Yellowstone-grown sugar beets. O’Donnell and his allies had used their own 

moxie, engineering expertise, boosterism, irrigation experience, federal land, and 

federal dollars to establish a potential powerful economic engine of change, where 

federal support made private enterprise possible. Billings now had its fi rst truly 

large locally owned and operated industry, which depended totally on the success of 

irrigation and sugar beet cultivation.15

 In 1906 the sugar company signed contracts with local farmers for seven 

thousand acres of beets. With the building of the Billings Sugar Factory—with a 

capacity of converting 55,000 tons of beets into 161,000 bags of sugar—a new age 

of reciprocal agricultural-industrial partnership was underway. The completion of 

the Huntley Project did not come as quickly as local interests had wished, although 

from the perspective of USRS engineers, the project had the sort of delays common 

to the service’s initial projects. Local historian William Hancock observed:

They all had problems common to construction today including wages, 

strikes, delays in the delivery of materials, adverse weather, fl ooding 

conditions and soil and drainage problems not contemplated. Horses and 

men were hard to fi nd. One contractor shipped in two carloads of horses 

from Iowa and inexperienced Indian labor was often used.
322

 On May 21, 1907, progress had proceeded to the point that President 

Theodore Roosevelt offi cially declared the Huntley Project acreage open for 

settlement, a total of 28,921 acres, enough for 585 farms between 40 and 160 acres 

in size. The remaining project acreage had too high of an alkali content, and the 

USRS only allowed settlement if prospective settlers knew they were claiming land 

of dubious value. To serve as trade centers for the Huntley settlers, the Reclamation 

Service also platted towns, such as Huntley, Ballantine, Worden, Osborn, and 

Pompeys Pillar, and opened lots for sale in August 1907.16

 That most of the Huntley Project properties were small—40 or so acres in 

size—refl ected a shared assumption by both O’Donnell and F. B. Linfi eld, director 

of the Montana Experiment Station and later dean of the College of Agriculture at 

Montana State University. Small acreage forced farmers to cultivate thoroughly and 

carefully as well as showing restraint in using the all-too-valuable supply of water. 

It also called for some diversifi cation: small garden plots to provide food could exist 

adjacent to the sugar beet fi elds (indeed the small plots were a convenient way to 

force farmers to rely on sugar beets for their primary cash crop). Small lots also 

meant more settlers—and increasing the population was always a goal of O’Donnell 

and other like-mind investors in Yellowstone County.17

 Forty-acre farms, however, did not please other Billings residents. The 

publisher of the Billings Gazette, E. H. Becker, pointedly referred to O’Donnell 

when he complained that the 40-acre tract refl ected “a pet hobby of the reclamation 

service, backed by a very small minority of those who call themselves experienced 

farmers in irrigated districts.” Becker insisted that there was “no demand in eastern 

Montana for 700 40-acre tract farmers at the very doors of this city.” Admitting 

that the goal of the project was to produce sugar beets for the local factory, Becker 

pointed out that the “lands under the Huntley ditch alone, if intensely cultivated, 

would supply a suffi cient number of beets to supply the demand of four factories,” 

but there were no other factories on the horizon. To “protect the best interests of 

the settlers, but the best interests of the community commercially as well,” he urged 

local residents to demand that the federal government grant larger farms.18

 Becker=s comments refl ected the concerns of the region’s large stockgrowing 

interests—some of whom had been grazing on Crow land for years—as well as the 

interests of real estate speculators who wanted to grab as much of the cheap irrigated 

land as possible when it became available. When the Huntley lands were made 

available to settlers, most registrants were merely interested in seeing how high a 

number they would draw in order to select the best available land. 5,491 individuals 

registered for the fi rst 582 farms, but of the fi rst 1,000 names drawn, a mere 76 

completed fi ling and claimed a farm.19

 Those who were serious about settling at Huntley soon discovered that while 

water had been diverted into the system, it was only for the priming and puddling 

of the canals, laterals, and structures. It would be months—April 6, 1908—before 

water was actually delivered to the farms. Then the Reclamation Service did little, 
323

in the farmers’ eyes, to help the settlers. Since the irrigation system only delivered 

water to the high point of the farm unit, farmers had to build their own ditches, and 

most knew nothing about irrigation technology or even when and how to irrigate 

their fi elds to best advantage. Alex Kimonth, who lived near Ballantine, recalled his 

problems that fi rst summer of water in July 1908:

After a lot of hard work correcting mistakes made by ourselves and, also, 

by the government in placing ditches in the wrong place, we ordered water. 

Having never done any irrigating, we had a hard time to get the water in 

the places where it did any good. . . Our ditches were too small and we had 

to build them larger. By the time we had worn out two shovels, we got the 

ditches so that they could carry water.

The fi rst year of cultivation at Huntley was generally a bust. While fi elds were 

planted by April, grains were largely produced, and yields were disappointing. 

Sugar beets would have to wait until the 1909 season.20

 The delays and controversies of 1907-1908 troubled O’Donnell. The 

Reclamation Service had built the irrigation machine he always wanted for the 

Yellowstone, but now it seemed the machine did not immediately produce the 

garden that he and his allies envisioned. True to his personality, however, O’Donnell 

aggressively sought solutions. In 1907 he moved to shore up support for the project 

within the Billings business community by leading the transformation of the city’s 

old Commercial Club into the Billings Chamber of Commerce, with himself as 

President. The chamber strongly supported the sugar factory and beet farming in its 

early publicity.21

 O’Donnell also joined with others to establish a new educational institution 

to further the cultural process of turning cowboys into farmers. As early as 1904 

Billings merchants John Losekamp and Christian Yegen had joined forces with 

educators Ernest T. Eaton and Lewis Eaton to establish a private high school, which 

operated out of various downtown buildings for its fi rst four years. In late July 

1908 the school was reorganized as the Billings Polytechnic Institute, with fi ve 

individuals providing the vast majority of its capital: Losekamp and Yegen with 

$10,000 each, and O’Donnell, Preston B. Moss, and Henry W. Rowley with $5,000 

each. The latter three also helped to provide the location for a new 60-acre campus, 

north of town along the Big Ditch. The announced educational goal of the Billings 

Polytechnic was 

industrial and technical education. It is now realized that hand training is 

mind training and that the young man or woman who is not trained to do 

something and to do that something well, has not been half educated.

The new school would have machine shops, home economics classes, and (not 

surprisingly) a demonstration farm where about 40 acres “will be put into crops 

under the direction of an expert in intensifi ed farming.”22
324

 Another goal of the institute was to transform cowboys into farmers by 

replacing the region=s early dependency on stockgrowing with industrial and 

agricultural ventures. This theme became predominant in 1911 as the institute’s 

founders approached railroad magnate James J. Hill to donate 100 acres to the 

school. Hill’s Great Northern Railway had operated a small dry land farming 

demonstration next to the school’s 40 acres of irrigated land in 1909. School 

offi cials promised that with Hill=s donation these efforts would be magnifi ed into 

a “Model A” demonstration farm. “To bring about a solution to the agricultural 

problem here,” a 1911 memorandum to Hill explained, “the Institute would conduct 

a series of model demonstration farms. These farms would be placed under average 

condition and on an entirely practical basis. It would have them so arranged that 

the farmers could come and study the methods for themselves. Not experiment but 

demonstration would be the work of these farms.” This mailing to Hill included 

mock “before and after” photographs, with one showing three boys in cowboy hats 

and chaps, labeled as before, and the after photograph showed the same boys in 

farmer clothing and caps, with a big stack of sugar beets in front of them, as happy, 

healthy farmers.23

 Also in 1908 O’Donnell directly helped the Huntley Project settlers by 

bankrolling its fi rst experiment station, so the farmers could learn proper irrigation 

and cultivation techniques. In the summer of 1907 USRS engineers stationed at 

Huntley understood that many of the settlers who claimed units needed help. They 

contacted the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station and asked state offi cials to 

create a demonstration program for the project. When in 1908 the state refused to 

step forward—budgets were tight already and the experiment station was actively 

promoting dry land farming—USRS Supervising Engineer H. N. Savage asked 

O’Donnell to help immediately before the growing season was over. “I know it 

would profi t the settlers very much to have this demonstration farm operated by 

you,” claimed Savage, “in order that they might have the benefi t of your experience 

and example, and also opportunity to consult with you about the crops growing 

under your management and their own within the project.” Savage could offer 

O’Donnell little in return for his assistance. He promised to supply a “suitable” 

barn, a couple of small residences, four horses, a wagon, plow, disk harrow, 

tooth harrow, and plank smoother, and about 45 acres, of which the Reclamation 

Service only wanted fi ve acres planted in sugar beets and a “few” acres in alfalfa. 

O’Donnell would be liable for everything else, including “all the running expenses 

and furnish the labor and seed.”24

 O’Donnell had too much tied to the future of the Huntley Project to say no; 

he accepted the arrangement and the Huntley Project Demonstration Farm became a 

reality. In 1910 O’Donnell=s control passed to a partnership of the USRS, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, and the Montana State Experiment Station. The property 

was expanded to 300 acres and renamed the Huntley Project Experiment Station.

Over the next decades, especially during the administration of Dan Hansen, who was 

superintendent between 1910 and 1949, the various programs at the demonstration 

farm proved of great benefi t to the settlers. By 1910-1911 sugar beets had fi nally 
325

become a dominant crop, with approximately 4,000 acres planted, and even railroad 

promotional brochures were passing on the O’Donnell doctrine of intensive 

agriculture to prospective settlers. “After beets have been grown for three years,” 

a Northern Pacifi c Railway pamphlet recommended, “some other crop should be 

planted, and a proper rotation of grain, alfalfa, and sugar beets will retain the fertility 

of the soil and make maximum yields possible.”25

 The early diffi culties at Huntley opened O’Donnell=s eyes, and purse strings, 

to the possibility of dry farming as a complementary method of cultivating the vast 

bench lands of eastern Montana. In 1909 Billings was the host city to the Fourth 

Dry Farming Congress and International Dry Farming Exposition. Preston W. Moss 

was the local chair, and I. D. O’Donnell was the treasurer. Dry farming was all 

the rage in Montana in the fi rst two decades of the twentieth century, and incessant 

boosting of dry farming encouraged hundreds of thousands of settlers to come to 

the state and try their luck. O’Donnell and Moss were never vocal dry farming 

proponents, but they accepted that dry farming, in addition to the irrigated lands 

of the Yellowstone Valley, could open up a potential 2.5 million acres “directly 

tributary” to Billings. Moreover, supporting the congress would be good for local 

business, and their various other local ventures. For example, the conference was 

a perfect way to boost the Huntley Project (a tour was planned), the Billings Sugar 

Company (a photograph was included in the conference book), and Moss’s Northern 

Hotel, where the important national and international delegates and offi cials 

would stay. Since the Great Northern’s James J. Hill was going to give one of the 

congress=s major addresses, Moss also would have an opportunity to discuss with 

Hill his development plans for “Mossmain,” a planned community that never really 

developed, located near the new railroad yards at Laurel in Yellowstone County. 

Their involvement in the successful dry farming congress is an excellent example of 

the civic capitalism of Moss and O’Donnell in these crucial decades of expansion in 

Yellowstone County.26

 The early years at Huntley showed O’Donnell both the potential and the 

problems inherent in the initial USRS irrigation projects. He was not alone in 

realizing that while the projects were impressive engineering feats, mere engineering 

alone would not transform the arid West into an agricultural garden. In fact, as 

more of the initial projects went into operation, criticism of the Reclamation Service 

grew among the settlers and adjacent local leaders who had hoped to substantially 

benefi t from the federal largesse. The criticism had grown to a storm of protest by 

the time the administration of President Woodrow Wilson took offi ce in March 1913. 

A series of conferences took place in Washington in 1913-1914, and Congress took 

action to amend the payment schedule for settlers while the USRS itself looked to 

internal reforms. In its Thirteenth Annual Report, the Reclamation service reminded 

readers (and quite likely its own staff) that “home making” was its primary goal: 

“increasing the number of farm homes and extending the area of productive lands 

in the United States are the objects of the work of the Reclamation Service.” The 

USRS then admitted “that in order that the greatest possible good may be realized 

from the efforts of the Government and the irrigators, it is necessary that the 
326

irrigators appreciate the efforts of the United States to further their interests and that 

offi cials responsible for the administration of the irrigation projects fully understand 

the needs of the irrigators.”27

 In late 1913 Secretary 

of Interior Franklin K. Lane 

addressed the problem 

aggressively by appointing 

a Reclamation Commission, 

a fi ve-member panel headed 

by USRS Director F. H. 

Newell and including I. D. 

O’Donnell in a new position, 

titled Supervisor of Irrigation. 

Bud O’Donnell now had an 

opportunity to do on a national 

stage what he had been doing 

in the Yellowstone Valley 

for twenty years—promote 

reciprocal partnerships 

between farmers, agricultural 

experts, and irrigation 

specialists; teach farmers the value of scientifi c agriculture; and demonstrate how to 

best use irrigation technology to cultivate individual crops.28

 From all accounts, he entered his new career with missionary zeal. 

Numerous meetings have been held with the farmers and the offi cials 

of the water users’ associations for the purpose of discussing on the 

ground questions of interest to the water users, stress being laid upon the 

improvement of farming methods,

reported the Reclamation Service. He became a regular contributor to the agency’s 

offi cial magazine, the Reclamation Record, where published versions of his favorite 

lecture topics appeared. His family kept news stories about his appointment and 

travels across the irrigation systems of the west in a large scrapbook. The local 

Montana press carefully reported his various trips and his frequent proclamations.

In its 1914 anniversary edition, the Billings Gazette published O’Donnell’s overview 

of his fi rst months in offi ce, ending with a message that he constantly repeated over 

the next four years:

To view as a whole the magnifi cent constructive work of the government 

irrigation plan is to forget the small and relatively unimportant irksome 

details involved in the administration of this work. With a knowledge of 

the good that may be accomplished, I fi nd unending pleasure in helping 

the farmers on all the projects with their diffi culties. I fi nd that these 

men and their families who have with confi dence in the integrity of the 

11.1. The Reclamation Commission, left to right, 

W.A. Ryan, Comptroller; I.D. O’Donnell, Supervisor 

of Irrigation; A.P. Davis, Chief Engineer; Will R. King, 

Chief Counsel; F.H. Newell, Director; Franklin K. Lane, 

Secretary of the Interior.
327

representatives of their government settled on these government irrigation 

projects do not expect our Uncle Sam to demonstrate a paternal interest 

in their affairsCall they expect is opportunity to make good under the 

conditions in which they are placed.

O’Donnell saw his responsibility as providing them with that opportunity through 

instruction, demonstration, and preaching the virtues of being a “practical business 

farmer.” He relished this role as a national farm advisor. By organizing and 

hosting a major national meeting on irrigation in Billings in March 1915, however, 

O’Donnell showed that he had not forgotten his role as a Yellowstone civic 

capitalist. The business generated by those who attended the meeting, and the 

positive national exposure of a rapidly booming Billings, brought added, and direct, 

benefi ts to the various business ventures of his local partners. The following year, 

1916, he extended his help to the immediate region by creating the Midland Empire 

Fair, a huge celebration of the greater Yellowstone region, with particular emphasis 

on the areas included in the USRS projects at Huntley and at Shoshone, south of the 

Montana-Wyoming border, land that O’Donnell referred to as the Midland Empire 

with Billings as its urban commercial and industrial center. In the eyes of O’Donnell 

and his allies, the two Reclamation Service projects created the potential for an 

agricultural bonanza rarely equaled in the northern plains.29

 The Reclamation Service at fi rst provided O’Donnell with considerable 

praise. The Thirteenth Annual Report, published in 1915, observed 

It may be safely stated that the work of the Supervisor of Irrigation had 

aided materially in bringing out a feeling of confi dence among the water 

users in the administration of the Reclamation Service and a desire on the 

part of the water users to cooperate to the fullest extent with the service in 

the interest of the projects.

But support within the agency waned over the next three years; by the time the 

Reclamation Service published O’Donnell’s Better Business, Better Farming, Better 

Living: Hints from a Practical Farmer in the summer of 1918, O’Donnell resigned 

as Supervisor of Irrigation.30

 Agriculture groups outside of the agency acknowledged the signifi cance of 

O’Donnell’s years in the Reclamation Service. In his 1919 article for The Country 

Gentleman, Philip S. Rose praised O’Donnell as the best farmer in Montana, but 

reserved his highest commendation for his USRS service: “the humanizing of the 

Reclamation Service has been Mr. O’Donnell’s greatest public service.” While he 

may have resigned from the Reclamation Service, he “had not resigned from doing 

what he can for the general public welfare.”31

 O’Donnell’s work in the next decade showed his continued commitment to 

his early civic capitalist philosophy. While no longer a federal employee, O’Donnell 

continued as a voice for irrigation and diversifi ed farming for the remainder of 

his career. He signed on as an agricultural specialist and spokesman for the Great 
328

Northern Railway, and the extended 

Hill railroad interests, during the 

1920s. He watched as an outsider 

as the Reclamation Service was 

reorganized and renamed the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation in 1923. He 

continued to write articles supporting 

reclamation and irrigation. In a 1925 

article in the New Reclamation Era 

titled “Irrigation Hints from a Practical 

Irrigator,” he once again sounded 

a favorite theme: “the better the 

farming the less irrigation required . . . 

Cultivation before and after irrigation 

should be your motto.” O’Donnell 

approved when in 1928 a local group 

of farmers and settlers created the 

Huntley Project Irrigation District, 

ending the federal government’s 

twenty years of administration. In 

the decade, he also became one of the 

Yellowstone’s fi rst serious collectors 

of the valley’s early history. He 

paid for a stone obelisk to be placed 

at the fi rst cemetery in the Billings 

area; he collected stories from other 

early settlers and published them as 

Montana Monographs in 1927. He 

began to enjoy a semi-retirement, 

taking a world tour with two of his 

daughters in 1931. When the New 

Deal came in the 1930s, some of his 

early friends in western agriculture, 

such as Elwood Mead and M. L. 

Wilson, held important national 

positions. O’Donnell, however, 

accepted only local responsibilities, 

with an appointment to the state’s fi rst 

Water Conservation Board in 1934.32

 By the Depression decade, his friend Elwood Mead was commissioner of 

the Reclamation Bureau and historians stressed that the future of the agency was to 

return to its original focus on home making as the true purpose of the Reclamation 

Bureau. But few now remembered O’Donnell’s contribution to reclamation as 

a “home making” endeavor. O’Donnell himself, in interviews in his last years 

and in his stab at writing his memoirs, emphasized his cowboy days and the early 

11.2. Pursuing his belief in education of 

Reclamation settlers, I. D. O’Donnell wrote this 

article “Common Birds Around the Farm,” for 

the June 1915 issue of Reclamation Record.
329

settlement of Montana, going so far as to pose on the cover of the Western Humane 

News of December 1940 in full cowboy regalia, complete with chaps. After his 

death in 1948, his family continued Hesper Farm and today his grandson, Harley 

O’Donnell, still farms the land and maintains the homestead much as it was eighty 

years ago. But by the end of the century, his contributions had been mostly forgotten 

even in his home of Yellowstone County. Yet, when the Agriculture Committee of 

the Billings Area Chamber of Commerce recently planned a one-day guided tour of 

the now “historic” Huntley Project, “one of Montana=s most productive agricultural 

areas,” its schedule included a stop at one of Huntley’s best farms, where “the 

careful rotation of corn, malt barley and sugar beets helps these producers maximize 

productivity, while combating disease and insect threats.” Bud O’Donnell’s legacy 

as the “practical farmer and irrigator” of the early twentieth century is not in the 

history books, but in the land itself.33

Carroll Van West, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Historic Preservation 

at Middle Tennessee State University; senior editor of the Tennessee Historical 

Quarterly; editor-in-chief of The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and 

Culture website; and Director of the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage 

Area. His research interests lie in nineteenth and twentieth century southern and 

western history, architecture, and material culture. He has written extensively 

on Tennessee history, agriculture, historic preservation, parks, culture, and 

landscapes. In 1993 the University of Nebraska Press published his Capitalism

on the Frontier: The Transformation of Billings and the Yellowstone Valley in 

the 19th Century, and the Western Heritage Center Press, in 1990, published 

his Images of Billings, a photographic history of Billings. He has published 

numerous articles and given many talks on southern and western history.

Endnotes

1. U.S. Reclamation Service, Thirteenth Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, 1913-1914 

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1915), 33.

2. Helen F. Sanders, A History of Montana (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1913), 1193; 

“I. D. O’Donnell,” Montana Pioneers Collection, Montana Historical Society, Helena [hereinafter 

referred to as MHS].

3. Ibid.; also see the brief biographical sketch of O’Donnell in Lawrence Small, A Century of 

Politics on the Yellowstone (Billings: Rocky Mountain College, 1983), 45-46.

4. Affi davits from Parmly Billings and Edward Bailey, February 1885, Frederick Billings 

Papers, Billings Mansion and Archives, Woodstock, Vermont; Robin W. Winks, Frederick Billings: 

A Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 209-210; for a fuller description of the Billings 

family=s operations in the Yellowstone Valley in the mid-1880s, see Carroll Van West, Capitalism on 

the Frontier: The Transformation of Billings and the Yellowstone Valley in the Nineteenth Century 

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 168-172.

5. “Life Of A Pioneer As Told by I.D. O’Donnell to Ruth Korber,” 1933, “I. D. O’Donnell,” 

Montana Pioneers Collection, MHS; West, Capitalism on the Frontier, 192-193.

6. Billings Gazette, April 7, 1894 and January 29, 1948; “Talks with Practical Irrigators,” 

The Irrigation Age (Chicago: The Irrigation Age Company, 1894), 170; Billings Gazette, Illustrated 

Edition, July 1894, pp. 21-22; Great Falls Tribune, February 8, 1948.

7. “Life of a Pioneer,” Montana Pioneers Collection, MHS; Philip S. Rose, “The Best Farmer 

in Montana,” The Country Gentleman, August 2, 1919, pp. 6-7; Stanley W. Howard, Green Fields 

of Montana: A Brief History of Irrigation (Manhattan, Kansas: Sunfl ower University Press, 1992), 

22-3; Merrill G. Burlingame and Edward J. Bell, Jr., The Montana Cooperative Extension Service: A 

History 1893-1974 (Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University, 1984), 7-8.
330

8. S. M. Emery to I. D. O’Donnell, April 4, 1900, I. D. O’Donnell Papers, Harley O’Donnell 

Collection, Billings.

9. Tom Stout, ed., History of Montana (Chicago: American Historical Society, 1921), ii, 241, 

384; Myrtle E. Cooper, From Tent Town to City: A Chronological History of Billings, Montana, 

1882-1935 (Billings: Privately published, 1981), 38-9; Billings Gazette, June 25, 1931.

10. John T. Cumbler, A Social History of Economic Decline: Business, Politics, and Work 

in Trenton (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1989), 15; I. D. O’Donnell 

Scrapbook, Harley O’Donnell Collection; Rose, “Best Farmer in Montana,” 6; “Montana=s Greatest 

Farmer,” Great Falls Tribune, September 21, 1923; West, Capitalism on the Frontier, 202.

11. Elwood Mead, Report of Irrigation Investigations for 1900. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Offi ce of Experiment Stations, Bulletin No. 104 (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1902), 

276-9, 292; Robert G. Dunbar, Forging New Rights in Western Waters (Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1983), 49-50.

12. Samuel E. Dove, A History of the Billings Bench Water Association and its Predecessors, 

1903-1935 (Billings: Yellowstone County Historical Society, 1984), 6-11; Carroll Van West, “Good 

Times, Bad Times: The Economic Transformation of the Yellowstone Valley, 1880-1940,” William L. 

Lang, ed., Stories from an Open Country: Essays on the Yellowstone River Valley (Billings: Western 

Heritage Press, 1995), 121-2; Irrigation in Montana (Helena: Montana State Government, 1920), 

33-4.

13. T. H. Carter to James J. Hill, November 14, 1900, General Correspondence fi les, James 

J. Hill Papers, James J. Hill Reference Library, St. Paul, Minnesota [hereinafter referred to as Hill 

Papers, Hill Library]; C. S. Mellen [of the Northern Pacifi c] to James J. Hill, Letterbook June 10, 

1902-July 7, 1905, Hill Papers, Hill Library; Howard L. Dickman, “James Jerome Hill and the 

Agricultural Development of the Northwest,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977; 

West, Capitalism on the Frontier, 209-12.

14. William H. Hancock, “Huntley Project Irrigation District,” in Huntley Project History 

Committee, Sod >N Seed >N Tumbleweed: A History of the Huntley Project, Yellowstone County 

Montana (Ballantine, Montana: Frontier Press, 1977), 9; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Huntley 

Project: Annual Project History,” 1909. Record Group 115, Records of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Project Histories, Huntley, Box 46, vol. 1 (1909), p. 9, U.S. Reclamation Bureau Records, National 

Archives, Denver [hereinafter cited as Huntley Project History].

15. Ibid., 9; Hancock, “Huntley Project,” 9; Records of Incorporation, Registrar Offi ce, 1905, 

Yellowstone County Courthouse, Billings, Montana.

16. Cooper, From Tent Town to City, 42; West, “Good Times, Bad Times,” 122; Timothy A. 

Dick, “The Huntley Project (Second Draft, 1966),” Historic Reclamation Project Book, Bureau of 

Reclamation DataWeb, accessed October 26, 2000, p. 3-9 [http://dataweb.usbr.gov/html/huntley1.

html]; “Huntley Project History,” 154-155. “A Proclamation by the President of the United States, 

May 21, 1907,” in Charles J. Kappler, compiler and editor, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Volume 

III, Laws (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1913); One of the engineers at Huntley was 

Bernard A. Etcheverry, and his drawings for several Huntley Project structures are preserved in the 

Etcheverry Specifi cations, MSS 219, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University.

17. Howard, Green Fields of Montana, 40. O’Donnell preached the virtues of thorough 

cultivation, pure seed, pure stock, and diversifi cation in his Better Business, Better Farming, Better 

Living: Hints from a Practical Farmer.

18. Becker is quoted in Howard, Green Fields of Montana, 41-42.

19. Hancock, “Huntley Project Irrigation District,” 11; Dick, “The Huntley Project,” 10.

20. Hancock, “Huntley Project Irrigation District,” 11; Kinmonth’s full story is in Huntley 

Project History Committee, Sod >N Seed >N Tumbleweed, 22.

21. Billings Chamber of Commerce fi le, Western Heritage Center, Billings, Montana 

[hereinafter referred to as WHC].

22. Billings Polytechnic Institute Bulletin 2(May 1, 1910): 7-8; “The Story of the Polytechnic,” 

Annual, 1909: Billings Polytechnic Institute (Billings: private, 1909); Ernest T. Eaton to James J. Hill, 

March 18, 1911, General Correspondence, Hill Papers.

23. See the memorandum, “An Explanation of the Proposed Demonstration Farms And What 

They Would Mean To The School And The Region In General,” in Ernest T. Eaton to James J. Hill, 
331

March 18, 1911, General Correspondence, Hill Papers. Hill did eventually convey the 100 acres to 

the school.

24. H. N. Savage to I. D. O’Donnell, April 15, 1908, Huntley Project-Demonstration Farm fi les, 

Huntley Project Museum of Irrigated Agriculture, Southern Montana Agricultural Research Center, 

Osborn, Montana.

25. Ethel Fleming, “Huntley Experiment Station,” in Sod >N Seed >N Tumbleweeds, 13-8; 

Howard, Green Fields of Montana, 43; Northern Pacifi c Railway, Huntley Irrigation Project, 

Montana (N. P.: Northern Pacifi c Railway, 1912), 2.

26. The Montana Board of Control, The Fourth Dry Farming Congress and International Dry 

Farm Exposition (Billings: n.p., 1909); Great Northern Railway, Fourth Dry Farming Congress (St. 

Paul: Great Northern Railway, 1909); Billings Gazette, October 24-October 30, 1909.

27. U.S. Reclamation Service, Thirteenth Annual Report, 5; Katherine Coman, “Some Unsettled 

Problems of Irrigation,” American Economic Review 1(1911): 1-19; George Wharton James, 

Reclaiming the Arid West (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1917), 35-52; Donald C. Swain, 

Federal Conservation Policy, 1921-1933 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), 73-95; 

Alfred R. Golzé, Reclamation in the United States (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1961), 27; 

William E. Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 27; Howard, 

Green Fields of Montana, 37-8.

28. Billings Gazette, December 19, 1913; Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation, 27.

29. U.S. Reclamation Service, Thirteenth Annual Report, 33; O’Donnell Scrapbook, Harley 

O’Donnell Collection, Billings; Billings Gazette, May 24, 1914 and March 4-7, 1915.

30. U.S. Reclamation Service, Thirteenth Annual Report, 33; Golzé, Reclamation in the United 

States, 28; I. D. O’Donnell, Better Business, Better Farming, Better Living: Hints from a Practical 

Farmer to the Settlers on the Projects of the United States Reclamation Service (Washington: 

Government Printing Offi ce, 1918).

31. Rose, “The Best Farmer in Montana,” 7.

32. I. D. O’Donnell, “Irrigation Hints From A Practical Irrigator,” New Reclamation Era 16 

(January 1925): 11; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Reclamation 

Projects (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1935), 54; Cooper, From Tent Town to City, 1934.

33. Lawrence B. Lee, Reclaiming the American West: An Historiography and Guide (Santa 

Barbara, California: ABC-Clio, 1980), 28-31; Billings Gazette, June 27, 1999.
332
333

“Did The Secretary Sell Us ‘Blue Sky?’”: Inclusion 

of Warren Act Contractors in the North Platte River 

Project

By

Alan S. Newell

Introduction

 Construction of Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte River beginning in 

1905 suggested the dawn of a new era of economic growth and prosperity for 

farmers in Wyoming and Nebraska. Since the early days of settlement in the North 

Platte River Valley in the 1880s, irrigators had contended with excess water during 

the spring and early summer months and with water shortages during the months 

of July through September. Pathfi nder Dam and its one million acre foot reservoir 

offered the hope of a more regulated and predictable water fl ow, particularly in the 

critical late summer months.

 The North Platte Project (authorized in 1903 as the Sweetwater Project) 

involved the construction of numerous dams and canals along a 111-mile stretch 

of the North Platte River between Guernsey, Wyoming, and Bridgeport, Nebraska. 

(See Figure 1) Reclamation Service engineers anticipated storing suffi cient water 

behind Pathfi nder to irrigate more than 300,000 acres of public land downstream 

from the project. However, as conceived, the North Platte Project offered little 

benefi t to existing downstream irrigators; those who held water rights to the natural 

fl ow of the North Platte River. Established farms, some with water rights dating 

to the early 1880s, were not considered in the initial legislation. The benefi ts of 

Pathfi nder and similar Reclamation Service projects were readily apparent to these 

North Platte farmers, who looked to the project to supplement their precarious 

supply of water. Congress responded to this interest by enacting the Warren Act in 

1911 (34 Stat. 925). Legislators viewed the statute as a vehicle for incorporating 

existing private district irrigators into the new government sponsored units, thereby 

more effi ciently utilizing the public project.

 The Warren Act, similar to the Reclamation Act, received overwhelming 

support in both houses of Congress. Yet few supporters of the bill gave much 

thought to just how these existing irrigation districts would be integrated into the 

federal project. This task was left to Reclamation Service offi cials, who, during 

the fi rst year following passage of the act, addressed three threshold administrative 

issues—all three of which fundamentally altered operation of the North Platte 

Project and eventually spawned protracted litigation. The fi rst issue focused on 

the nature of “surplus water” as envisioned under the Warren Act. Was this to 

be a temporary disposal of water, contingent upon a determination of the yearly 

surplus prior to the sale? Or, would lands in private irrigation districts be able to 

acquire permanent rights to surplus water and be integrated into public district 
334

ap.
335

lands? Potential contractors overwhelmingly favored the later approach, and as 

the spokesmen for a private irrigation company remarked in 1931, without this 

guarantee of permanency, the United States would be selling farmers “blue sky.”

 The second issue followed closely on the heels of the secretary of the 

interior’s decision in November 1911 to provide permanent surplus water to 

 Warren Act contractors. At that time, the fi nal design of the North Platte Project 

was not yet complete. But, it was clear to Reclamation engineers that providing 

permanent water to Warren Act contractors would necessitate a reduction in the 

size of future government units. The secretary made the decision to reconfi gure 

the project and to reduce the size of prospective government districts during the 

fi rst few months after passage of the Warren Act.

 The disposal of permanent water and the reconfi guration of what became 

the Fort Laramie Unit structurally incorporated the Warren Act irrigators into 

the North Platte Project. The operational integration of them into the project, 

however, required an additional threshold decision. Facing pressure from its 

fi rst potential contractor, Tri-State Land Company (later Farmers’ Irrigation 

District), early in 1912 to allow for future as well as existing lands to be served 

by Pathfi nder water, the Reclamation Service imposed a limit on the maximum 

amount of water that would be delivered to Tri-State by the government. As a 

practical matter, the imposition of this “cap” required the commingling of natural 

fl ow and storage water. The contract provision was readily agreed to by Tri-State 

and future Warren Act contractors. But, it had little signifi cance until the drought 

years of the 1930s.

 Faced with periodic water shortages, beginning in 1931, the Bureau of 

Reclamation allocated water to government and Warren Act districts on a prorated 

basis. In doing so, the Bureau was consistent with the decisions made in 1911 and 

1912, that Warren Act contractors were equal partners in the North Platte Project. 

From the perspective of management, the Bureau of Reclamation believed that 

such an allocation was the only way practically to administer the North Platte 

system. Despite peripheral legal and other challenges to their interpretation of the 

Warren Act, Bureau engineers consistently followed this allocation system.

The Origins of the Warren Act

 Historians have long recognized the importance of the National 

 Reclamation Act of 1902. Some have argued that the act represented the 

expectations of a technical elite, focused on directing the effi cient use of the 

nation’s resources in a “progressive era.” Others have seen the act as a triumph 

of established western interests seeking to utilize public money to encourage 

economic prosperity in the nation’s arid region.1

 Given the diffi culty in separating 

realistic economic goals from political decisions, it is no wonder that the 

legislative and administrative history of the 1902 act soon assumed an identity 

distinct from its legislative history.
336

 One of the progeny of the Reclamation Act of 1902 was the “ Warren Act”, 

passed by Congress on February 21, 1911. This rather short statute provided for 

the distribution of surplus storage waters from reclamation projects to existing 

private irrigation districts within federal project areas. It authorized the secretary 

of the interior to contract for the storage and delivery of surplus waters conserved 

by any reclamation project in excess of the requirements of the project. Three of 

the nation’s leading proponents of federal irrigation projects, Francis E. Warren 

of Wyoming, William Borah of Idaho, and Thomas Carter of Montana, were 

the principal fi gures behind passage of the Warren Act. All three men saw the 

advantage of incorporating private irrigation ventures into the federal projects 

then being constructed by the Reclamation Service.

 Wyoming’s Republican Senator 

Francis Warren was particularly interested 

in developing as much of the North 

Platte River Basin as possible. Warren, 

longtime Wyoming merchant, rancher, and 

the state’s fi rst elected governor, lobbied 

the federal government for construction 

of Pathfi nder Dam, but also advocated 

funding other reclamation projects, such as 

the Shoshone Irrigation Project in the Big 

Horn River Basin of northern Wyoming. 

As Warren explained to one supporter 

from Wheatland, Wyoming, eventually all 

of the arable land in Wyoming would be 

occupied and developed either by dryland or irrigated farms. The senior senator 

visualized:

The full development of the water 

in Wyoming ... to have it as an adjunct to reinforce the rainfall and the 

conservation of rain and snow fall, so that, while certain crops may be 

raised without irrigation, there will be water on hand for other crops that 

demand partial irrigation, complete irrigation, or a little bit of help—say 

once in the course of the summer;2

Such an optimistic view of the state’s agricultural potential led Warren to believe 

that Pathfi nder Dam had “ample capacity to irrigate all of the lands under it in the 

North Platte Valley in Wyoming and Nebraska which can be reached by irrigation 

works of reasonable expenses.”3

 Warren was an early proponent of allowing existing private district lands 

to benefi t from Pathfi nder storage water. The Wyoming senator may have viewed 

the incorporation of these irrigators, many of whom resided in Nebraska, as a 

means to resolve downstream irrigators’ claims to early direct fl ow water rights. 

Indeed, Warren expressed both concern and uncertainty as to the extent of these 

12.2. Senator Francis E. Warren of 

Wyoming. Courtesy of the U.S. Senate 

Historical Offi ce.
337

potential rights.4

 However, Warren’s interest in expanding the North Platte 

Project was driven principally by his desire to see lands south of the river, in what 

was termed the “Goshen Park” area, benefi t from the planned Fort Laramie Canal. 

It appears likely that Warren believed that by broadening the scope of the North 

Platte Project through such measures as incorporating private district lands into 

the project, he could ensure the greatest development possible at Goshen Park.

Ironically, it would be the need to serve these “ Warren Act” contractors that would 

later require the Reclamation Service to scale back the extent of lands that would 

be irrigated by water from the new canal.5

 The salient feature of the various bills introduced by Warren beginning in 

December 1909 was the authority given to the secretary of the interior to 

(1) deliver surplus storage water to non-project entities and (2) to cooperate with 

individuals, districts and associations in enlarging existing project facilities to 

accommodate additional non-project lands. Opposing this effort were various 

western interests who either feared federal control over the distribution of water 

or who were concerned that the already ambitious plans of the Reclamation 

Service would be expanded to include new federal projects that served only 

private lands.

 Both the title and the text of the original bill as introduced in 

mid-December 1909 (S. 4002), and later under new numbers in late February and 

March 1910 (S. 6723 and S. 6953 respectively), clearly stated the proponents’ 

objectives. The proposed legislation authorized the secretary of the interior 

to contract for the delivery of “surplus water” from any reclamation project to 

private projects that had been established under the Carey Act of 1894 “or under 

the laws of any State or Territory.”6

 The various bills as introduced also suggested 

that the sponsors envisioned expanding current federal projects to serve existing 

private district lands. This clause specifi cally authorized the secretary to enter 

into agreements “with persons, irrigation districts, associations, or corporations” 

to deliver water from enlarged federal facilities (dams, canals, etc.). As explained 

in the bill, these structures could be expanded because the government had 

secured a favorable site where a dam could be raised to store additional water, or 

canals widened to convey water to additional acreage.7

 The purpose of S. 6953 and its predecessors may have been a bit too clear 

for members of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, who 

at the urging of the Interior Department amended the title of the bill to remove 

the term “surplus” water and to be less specifi c about the nature of a project site 

that might benefi t from the legislation. Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger 

made clear his understanding of section 2 of the bill however, when he stated that:

In some cases the Government has secured available sites whereon 

reservoirs may be erected of such dimensions as will irrigate a much 

larger area of land than it is deemed advisable to include within a 

government project. In the construction of a government reservoir the 

reclamation fund should only be used to construct it of such dimensions 
338

as will impound a quantity of water suffi cient to supply the lands within 

the government project. Hence, unless the Secretary of the Interior can 

cooperate and contract with companies, associations, or districts to the 

end that reservoirs may be erected of such dimensions as to irrigate 

larger areas than the Government has included within its own project, 

great quantities of arid lands capable of irrigation will necessarily remain 

barren.8

Ballinger’s concept was to allow federally-funded reclamation projects to expand 

by incorporating existing privately irrigated lands into the government project.

The implication in this idea that public money might be used to fi nance private 

district irrigation or that, under state law, there could even be such a thing as 

“surplus water” fueled much of the congressional debate over the Warren Act.

 Senator Weldon Heyburn of Idaho addressed the issue of “surplus water” 

in the spring of 1910. Heyburn was a resident of Wallace, Idaho, and represented 

industrial water users, such as mines and smelters, rather than irrigators. His 

Senate colleague, on the other hand, William Borah, lived in Boise in the Snake 

River Basin and had long been interested in irrigation ventures. Borah strongly 

supported Warren’s bill. But Heyburn viewed it as an assault on state control of 

water, which he proudly claimed was sanctifi ed by the Idaho constitution. Much 

of the lengthy and, at times, raucous debate, on S. 6953 centered on Heyburn’s 

assertion that Congress was allowing the federal government to usurp a state 

right.9 Heyburn was particularly intrigued by the Committee on Irrigation’s 

amendments to the original bill and charged that “They took out the word 

‘surplus’ in order to disarm those who are opposed to the bill.”10 Heyburn may 

have been correct about why the language of the bill was changed. However, 

the bill’s supporters maintained that these changes clarifi ed the purpose of the 

legislation, which remained consistent throughout the debates; i.e., to allow the 

Reclamation Service to derive revenues from existing excess storage capacity and 

to utilize fully prime reservoir sites that were under federal control.11

 In the end, Senator Heyburn convinced few that his concern for federal 

infringement on state water law was a real threat. Indeed, this issue had been 

addressed earlier in passage of the Reclamation Act, and most congressmen 

seemed satisfi ed that supplementing that legislation would not pose additional 

problems. Given the senatorial sensitivity to this issue, however, Heyburn 

extracted a concession in the form of a proviso to section 2:

That nothing contained in this Act shall be held or construed as enlarging 

or attempting to enlarge the right of the United States, under existing law, 

to control the waters of any stream in any State.

This did not mollify Heyburn who quipped, “The amendment is an apology, and 

only adds to the confusion as to what the statute will mean.”12
339

 Of more concern to proponents of the Warren Act and more illuminating 

as to the legislation’s provisions is the skepticism of Nebraska Senator Elmer 

Burkett. Burkett distinguished between the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the 

bill. While voicing support for section 1, he had reservations about the wisdom of 

section 2. Burkett was not concerned about Heyburn’s charge that, by passing the 

bill, Congress was authorizing the secretary of the interior to sell surplus water. 

At the same time, the Nebraska senator was not misled by phraseology.

The fact is we can call what we are selling the delivery and charging a 

price for it, or we can say we are selling water and charging a price for it. 

But the result is just the same. We are going to charge the people who get 

the water, call it whatever we may.13

What one called the process of “selling ... excess water,” as provided for in the 

bill did not bother Burkett. However, section 2 of the proposed bill, according to 

the senator, provided “for another and a distinct thing.”14

 Burkett believed that section 2 would allow the United States to invest 

in private irrigation projects, even if that investment involved no public domain 

lands. He explained: 

The fi rst section [of the bill] provides that they [Reclamation Service] 

may use the water for private lands, but the second section provides that 

we will go into partnership with private concerns, and we will build these 

reservoirs, we will dig these canals, we will construct these ditches, for 

what? For private lands.15

While supporting the sale of truly “surplus” water, Burkett had grave concerns 

about the effi cacy of promoting broader ventures between public and private 

entities. Burkett noted during the debate that the Reclamation Service was 

already strained by the cost of projects that it was presently involved in, and he 

saw little value in further expansion.16

 Most senators did not share Burkett’s concern for over-extending the 

reclamation fund. They understood section 2 to simply allow the secretary of the 

interior to enter into agreements to extend existing or planned federal projects.

Indeed, given the requirement of the Reclamation Act that federal projects be 

designed to reclaim public domain land, they could not envision the scenario 

contemplated by Burkett.17 Wyoming Representative Frank Mondell clearly 

articulated what he saw as the two prong benefi ts of S. 6953. In making his 

comments, Mondell was thinking specifi cally of the North Platte River Project.

The fi rst section of the bill relates primarily to those works which have 

been constructed. As I have said, it is an income to the service which 

otherwise the service could not acquire, and without this law, in the case 

of the North Platte Dam, the additional impounded water not needed for 

the irrigation of the lands under the project would simply be turned into 
340

the stream and the service would receive no benefi t from it. This is the 

fi rst section.

Now, the second section contemplates two essentially different 

operations: First, that the settlers on a unit of a reclamation project who 

are anxious to have immediate construction and do not care to wait for 

the time when the service in the expenditure of its funds can build their 

canals may make contracts with the Reclamation Service under which 

they build their own works on the unit, and the contract with the service 

in fi xing their water-right charges gives them credit for the work they 

have done at their own expense, and which otherwise would have to be 

done by the Government.18

Mondell considered this provision of section 2 to be the most important feature of 

the bill and he understood that it gave the secretary of the interior broad authority 

to maximize irrigable acreage.

 Congress clearly expected private irrigation companies and the federal 

reclamation project to benefi t from this new legislation. However, in only 

one instance during the entire debate on the Warren Act did Congress actually 

consider how the integration of a private system into a federal reclamation project 

might actually work. In the fi nal House debate on S. 6953 on February 17, 1911, 

Illinois Representative James Mann queried Kansas Representative William 

Reeder, “Suppose there is a shortage of water in the end—who loses the water, the 

private parties, or the parties on the Government project?” This question would 

plague Bureau of Reclamation engineers for the next 50 years, and it immediately 

perplexed Reeder, who could only respond by hypothesizing that the fi rst unit of 

the government project would be served fi rst. However, if private existing lands 

were added to the project before completion of the federal portion, those earlier in 

time would be served before the public entity.19

 Wyoming Congressman Frank Mondell again stepped in to clarify 

Reeder’s response by explaining that the contracts entered into pursuant to the 

bill “can not affect the water right of any entryman under a reclamation project, 

for this reason, that when the reclamation project is inaugurated or initiated the 

water rights for the entire project and all units of it are fi led, and the right dates 

from the time when the water-right application is made, provided due diligence is 

used in building works.”20 According to Mondell, all users of project water would 

have the same priority under state law and would be served equally by the United 

States.

 Mondell’s reference to the “relation back doctrine,” as with Reeder’s 

adherence to priority, underscored Congress’ concern for ensuring that the Warren 

Act did not undermine state water law. However, the job of delivering water to 

the various government and “Warren Act contractors” was left to the discretion of 

the secretary of the interior. This task would require the Bureau of Reclamation 
341

to develop fl exible procedures to ensure that all parties were dealt with equitably, 

particularly during periodic dry weather cycles on the Great Plains.

Creating and Administering Warren Act Contracts on the North Platte 

Project

 Passage of the Warren Act in 1911 provided a statutory mechanism to 

incorporate lands within private irrigation districts into the publicly fi nanced 

North Platte Project. Numerous questions remained, however, as to the number of 

potential irrigators who might elect to contract for surplus water. Moreover, since 

the only water that could be disposed of was “surplus water,” the Reclamation 

Service had to determine the available supply from Pathfi nder Reservoir, as well 

as the ultimate demand from future government project units that would be part of 

the North Platte Project. What indeed was “surplus water”? The answer that the 

Service found to this and other questions led to interpretations of the Warren Act 

that guided federal reclamation policy for much of the twentieth century.

 The clamor to incorporate existing private irrigation district facilities into 

the North Platte River Project began even before passage of the Warren Act. A 

number of private irrigation companies and districts petitioned Secretary of the 

Interior Richard Ballinger during the winter of 1910-1911 to purchase water from 

Pathfi nder Reservoir.21 The secretary responded by explaining that legislation 

was pending to allow such a sale, but, at present, he was without authority to do 

so. Ballinger argued that, even with legislative authorization, he would need to 

be assured that there was suffi cient water available in the reservoir to serve new 

irrigators on the government project before providing water to existing private 

lands. Unfortunately, Secretary Ballinger explained that the Board of Army 

Engineers had already prepared a report in 1910 indicating that there would be 

no surplus water available after meeting the needs of the North Platte Project 

as then contemplated.22 Notwithstanding the secretary’s fi nding, requests to 

purchase water from Pathfi nder increased after passage of the Warren Act in late 

February 1911.23 The Interior Department continued to base its response on the 

1910 Board of Army Engineers report that had concluded that a surplus of storage 

water was unlikely, given current plans for the North Platte Project. Accordingly 

it would not agree to requests to sell storage water.24

 The departure of Ballinger in March 1911 signaled a change in department 

policy. Beginning in June 1911 the secretary’s offi ce started forwarding 

applications for surplus storage water to the Reclamation Service.25 That summer, 

Reclamation engineers began working on adjustments to the North Platte Project 

in order to free water for private use. The Board of Engineers determined in its 

July 24, 1911, report that Pathfi nder Reservoir could provide 600,000 acre feet of 

water. Approximately 200,000 acre feet was committed to the Interstate Canal, 

40,000 acre feet to a pending contract with North Platte Irrigation Company and 

240,000 was to be reserved for the planned Fort Laramie Canal. The balance of 

surplus water was thus estimated to be 120,000 acre feet annually. The board 
342

recommended that the best use of this surplus was its “disposal” to existing canals 

on some equitable basis.26

 The federal government’s 

initial policy was to “rent” water 

to private district irrigators on 

a temporary, one-year basis 

until engineers could make a 

determination of what surplus 

water was available. As 

Reclamation Service Director 

Frederick Newell explained to 

Nebraska Senator Norris Brown 

in July 1911, “The system for 

utilization of the surplus stored 

water in the Pathfi nder Reservoir 

will not be completed for several 

years and the Department feels 

that pending such completion it should not provide for any permanent rights for 

these canals.”27 Although most irrigators desired a more secure supplemental 

water supply, the Interior Department was soon inundated with petitions for 

temporary contracts.28

 Newly appointed Secretary of the 

Interior Walter L. Fisher and Reclamation 

Service Director Newell were well aware of 

the importance of the North Platte Project 

when they met with irrigators at Mitchell, 

Nebraska, on August 4, 1911. At that meeting, 

the secretary heard testimony concerning the 

development of the North Platte River Valley. 

He learned that the sugar beet processing 

industry had focused its interest on intensifying 

agriculture in the region through access to 

government and private irrigation projects.

Secretary Fisher also was informed of the need 

for late season water. F. M. Sands of the Gering 

district explained that:

I believe we are all agreed as to the great benefi t coming to this country 

when the Government came in and constructed the Pathfi nder reservoir. 

But in the administration of the reservoir, there is a chance that the 

waters withdrawn from use by the early ditches during the fl ood season 

will not revert to them later in the season.... In other words, without 

any intention in the matter, there is a possibility that the Government 

will take waters from us in June and not give it to us in August. A gallon 

12.3. Pathfi nder Dam on the North Platte Project.

12.4. Walter L. Fisher while Secretary of the Interior.
343

of water in August is worth two or three gallons in June. It is right and 

proper that the excessive June fl ow should be reduced—but I think we 

have a right to ask that the Government sell us at a fair price water that 

they have withheld from us in June.29

 The secretary also heard from those who wanted the Reclamation Service 

to begin construction on a long-sought southside canal. The Fort Laramie or 

Goshen Hole Canal was considered by many to be part of the initial plan for 

the North Platte Project. Secretary Fisher noted a distinction between those 

mostly private district lands on the southside of the river from the largely public 

district lands on the northside. He questioned whether the participants in the 

Fort Laramie Canal would allow the federal government to place liens on their 

property to secure payment for the cost of construction and operation of the canal. 

The project’s supporters assured the secretary that they would agree to such a 

condition.30

 The interests of the Fort Laramie Project participants were potentially in 

confl ict with the private district irrigators who sought permanent rights to surplus 

water from Pathfi nder Reservoir. As noted above, consistent estimates placed 

the supply from Pathfi nder at 600,000 acre feet annually. If those estimates were 

correct, there was potentially 160,000 acre feet available annually for private 

projects.31 Estimates did not always prove correct, however, and Secretary Fisher 

wanted assurances from the private district irrigators that their right to surplus 

storage water under the Warren Act was second to that of the government project.

One of the questions raised is what would be the situation of the present 

settlers or those coming in under the Government canal as compared with 

those holding land under the old ditches, if in the future there should be 

an actual shortage of water in the Pathfi nder reservoir, and there would 

not be suffi cient for all. Under those circumstances, you recognize 

you would probably have to concede the prior right of those under the 

Government canal. That seems to be the purpose of the law.32

 The North Platte River Valley irrigators agreed with the secretary, but 

they also believed that the federal government would not sell them a water supply 

that was not dependable. Private district irrigators sought permanent rights to 

Pathfi nder storage water and expressed a willingness to pay a fi xed sum for the 

cost of construction and operation of the reservoir. They did so, as Fred Wright of 

Farmers’ Irrigation District explained, “In view of the permanency that would be 

given us by the lump sum payment ...”33

 Secretary Fisher also had to insure the permanency of the government 

project, specifi cally, the Interstate Canal. He did so by 1) confi rming a secure 

supply of water for the “Government [Interstate] canal” and 2) by suggesting 

that future confi guration of the federal project be determined by the need to serve 

Warren Act contractors as well as government district irrigators. An exchange 

between Fred Wright, one of the fi rst Warren Act contractors, and Secretary Fisher 
344

is illuminating. In responding to the secretary’s concerns about a government 

district needs in water short years, Wright offered the following:

MR. WRIGHT: In regard to that I take it that the Government knows 

better than any one else as to what the probabilities are and as to whether 

they were selling us anything of value or not. If the reservoir supply 

of water is taken up—that is a matter that the Government would be 

able to determine and regulate. I would assume that the position of the 

Department would be not to do anything intentionally that would bring 

hardship upon any one.

THE SECRETARY: That is one of the serious questions on the south side 

[Fort Laramie Canal]. It would be a very serious thing if the Government 

should establish a project and invite settlers to take up the lands and build 

their homes, and there was a liability of being a shortage of water.

I must say frankly that I concur in the general proposition stated—that 

the existing settler on the ground, even though he may not have come in 

under a Government canal, but coming under a private enterprise, if they 

are willing to do what is fair and reasonable, is entitled to a priority of 

right over an unknown settler who has not got here. ...

Secretary Fisher’s view was that Warren Act contractors would be sold a 

permanent water supply from Pathfi nder, recognizing the preference to the 

existing government districts. He did not anticipate, however, the irrigation of 

any new government district lands so as to threaten the supply to Warren Act 

contractors. The secretary’s views were welcomed by those potential contractors. 

According to the reporter, the secretary’s statement was met with “unanimous and 

hearty applause.”34

 With this statement, Secretary Fisher initiated a policy that would govern 

the Bureau of Reclamation’s future operation of the North Platte Project with 

respect to water delivery during years of shortage. Henceforth, Warren Act 

contractors would be considered part of the North Platte Project and would 

receive a guarantee of water delivery alongside the government district lands.

The key to understanding of the government’s position is the recognition that 

Secretary Fisher, adhering strictly to the terms of the Warren Act, protected 

the Interstate Canal, while providing for Warren Act contractors through a 

reconfi guration of the future North Platte River Project. The importance of this 

compromise was apparent soon after the August 4 meeting.

 Early in October 1911 R. F. Walter, Reclamation Service supervising 

engineer in Denver, wrote to Chief Engineer A. P. Davis in Washington, D.C., 

acknowledging the latter’s request for a recommendation on departmental policy 

with respect to the sale of surplus Pathfi nder storage water. Walter claimed that it 

was premature to fi x the amount of surplus water that would be available from the 

project. He acknowledged that there were senior water rights to the project held 

by downstream irrigators in Nebraska, and, until they were determined, he (Walter) 
345

would be unable to render an opinion. Walter recognized that “People under these 

Nebraska ditches as well as the people under the proposed Fort Laramie unit are 

clamoring for water and are very anxious to make a contract at this time.” The 

Denver engineer thought that the Reclamation Service could use this anxiety “as 

a lever” to secure a fi nal determination of senior water rights. To that end, Walter 

reported that his offi ce had begun an investigation of Nebraska water rights, albeit 

without the cooperation of the State of Nebraska.35

 A few days later, North Platte Project Engineer Andrew Weiss echoed 

Walter’s concerns, but acknowledged that “It is probable that extremely strong 

pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to sell excess water rights from 

the Pathfi nder, and it seems doubtful to me that if in the end this pressure can be 

successfully resisted.” Weiss also noted that if the Reclamation Service did not 

prevail and continue to issue temporary, rather than permanent rights, then “it is 

exceedingly doubtful if the Fort Laramie unit can be undertaken at all.”36

 Neither Weiss nor Walter had to wait long for a response. Chief Engineer 

Davis reacted angrily to Walter’s plea to allow more time to assess the volume of 

surplus water available in Pathfi nder Reservoir. Davis charged that Walter was 

forgetting “that the Departmental policy in this matter was carefully considered 

and decided by Secretary Fisher last June.” The secretary had determined that 

“preference should be given to lands already irrigated which require additional 

water supply, and that the irrigation of new lands should be secondary to their 

requirements.”37 Davis placed the future Fort Laramie canal in the same category 

as other new government or private district projects. He stated emphatically that 

“you ... appear to assume that we must build the Fort Laramie project to its full size 

and then perhaps have a little water to sell to old ditches. This is the reverse of the 

present policy.” Rather, surplus water should be offered as soon as possible so that 

the Reclamation Service could determine the size of the Fort Laramie unit.38

 Walter’s caution was not only unwarranted, but also politically ill timed. 

Davis informed Walter that the secretary had approved a letter drafted for Nebraska 

Representative Moses P. Kinkaid to be used at a public meeting in Bridgeport, 

Nebraska. That speech adhered to the policy of using surplus water for “old 

irrigated lands.” By this, Davis meant that only existing privately irrigated lands 

would have a preference. Projected irrigable lands within the potential Warren Act 

contracts would not be considered comparably. Davis added that Walter would 

have to show a very good reason to reverse departmental policy on this issue.39

 Both Walter and Weiss quickly responded to the chief engineer in a joint 

letter dated November 1, 1911. They claimed that they were in complete accord 

with departmental policy and had only raised this issue because they assumed 

“that the Fort Laramie Canal like the Third Lateral District under the Interstate 

Canal is part of the North Platte project.” The engineers expressed concern 

about a possible confl ict with the Warren Act. However, absent such confl ict, 

they concurred in the plan to offer surplus water as soon as possible and “before 
346

the construction of the Fort Laramie extension is authorized.”40 With all project 

personnel in line, Secretary Fisher announced his policy on November 6, 1911, 

and, soon thereafter, the North Platte Project declared its intention to enter into 

contracts for the supply of permanent surplus water.41

 The United States entered into its fi rst Warren Act contract with existing 

water users on the North Platte River before the fi rst major canal (the Interstate 

Canal) was completed on the north side of the river in 1915. That contract, 

executed in 1912, was with Tri-State Land Company, predecessor to Farmers’ 

Irrigation District. By the end of 1912, “practically all the representatives of the 

older canal systems west of Bridgeport [had] expressed a desire to supplement 

their water rights to the direct fl ow from the river by Pathfi nder storage.”42 In 

1913 the United States signed fi ve more Warren Act contracts with irrigation 

districts and companies that were using natural fl ow water from the North Platte 

River.43 In 1914, 1915, and 1917 three more Warren Act contracts for North 

Platte Project water were signed with existing irrigators, bringing the total to nine 

contracts (see Figure 1).44

 All nine of the contracts contain the proviso from section 1 of the Warren 

Act that the government projects shall be “prior to” the Warren Act contractors 

in the right to the use of storage water.45 Of course, as noted above, the 

availability of surplus water through the reconfi guration of the project had already 

been decided through secretarial policy. Thus, all of the contracts confi rmed 

that surplus storage water was available from Pathfi nder Reservoir with the 

expectation that existing government district irrigators and Warren Act contractors 

could be satisfi ed with the available supply. The contracts provided for the 

government to deliver a supply of water to the Warren Act contractors in exchange 

for a fi xed purchase price from the contractor plus the contractor’s commitment 

to pay a set percentage of operation and maintenance costs connected with the 

storage facility providing the water. A delivery schedule with amounts and dates 

was included in each contract, together with the cumulative amount of water that 

each contracting district was to receive each year.46

 Soon after execution of the fi rst contract, private irrigation companies 

began raising issues that strained Secretary Fisher’s accommodating policy. 

Fisher had initially approved the sale of surplus water under the Warren Act with 

the proviso that only currently irrigated lands would receive water.47 Tri-State 

approached the Interior Department in 1912 with a proposal to include “lands 

which, although never irrigated, are under existing ditches or ditches existing at 

some particular time.”48 Responding to this request, the Reclamation Service 

established a new policy of setting a “maximum limit” on “the total water rights 

of the purchasing company after purchase shall have been completed.”49 This 

new policy allowed Tri-State and other potential Warren Act contractors greater 

fl exibility in defi ning the lands that would receive surplus water, while providing 

a measure of certainty to the Service of the total demand for water.
347

 The issue for Tri-State 

and other private companies was 

how much control the federal 

government would have over the 

total water supply (natural fl ow and 

storage) to their lands. Although 

the Interior Department consistently 

deferred to valid early rights 

to natural fl ow from the North 

Platte River, Reclamation Service 

engineers also recognized that, with 

construction of Pathfi nder Dam, the 

North Platte no longer operated in a 

natural state. Reclamation’s answer 

to the problem was to incorporate 

the “maximum” natural fl ow and 

storage water into the Warren 

Act contracts. This solution was 

apparent in the Tri-State contract. 

In reviewing a draft of that contract 

in July 1912 Reclamation Engineer Morris Bien informed the director that he had 

objected to Article 11 as initially drafted. That article stated that:

In order to enable the United States to deliver the supply of water herein 

specifi ed on the basis of payments as herein provided it is agreed that the 

United States shall hold in trust for the benefi t of the lands of the District 

all claims of the Company to the waters of the North Platte River and 

that the said Company shall assist the United States in the defense of 

said claims by the furnishing of all evidence and other like matters in its 

power or knowledge.50

Bien objected to this clause “because it places upon the United States the 

responsibility of acting as trustee in regard to these waters for the benefi t of the 

lands of the District.”51 The Interior Department in Washington suggested a 

change in the language of Article 11 to provide for the company assigning its 

“rights, title and interest to the waters of the North Platte River” to the United 

States.52 But this proposed change did not satisfy Bien. Rather, he suggested the 

following contract revision.

The delivery of the water supply provided for in this contract will be 

accepted by the Company as in full satisfaction of all its rights to water 

of the Platte River, both natural fl ow and surplus storage from the 

Pathfi nder reservoir and other reservoirs of the Reclamation Service 

constructed in connection with the North Platte Project.53

Although Bien’s suggested language was used in the fi rst Warren Act contract 

with Tri-State (August 20, 1912), subsequent contracts employed the substitute 

12.5. Morris Bien of the U.S. Reclamation 

Service.
348

language originally proposed by the Interior lawyers in Washington.54 The 

Reclamation Service’s practical approach to providing storage and natural fl ow 

water apparently satisfi ed North Platte irrigators in 1912. However, the legal 

validity of assigning natural fl ow rights to the United States would be contested 

by those irrigators during the years of low water supply beginning in the 1930s.

Completion Of the North Platte River Project

 Prior to passage of the Warren Act, the Reclamation Service had 

calculated the annual storage supply from Pathfi nder Reservoir at a minimum of 

600,000 acre feet.55 In its July 1911 estimate of water supply requirements for 

anticipated projects, the Board of Army Engineers concluded that lands irrigated 

by the Interstate Canal system would require 200,000 acre feet and the proposed 

Fort Laramie Unit would use 240,000 acre feet.56 Reclamation engineers also 

considered that, in the future, more surplus water might be available because of 

1) more economical methods of water use; or 2) the Goshen Park unit of the 

project might not be constructed. One month later, Reclamation Service Director 

Newell stated that “no man is safe in prophesizing what will happen,” but he 

reiterated that the Service would be “reasonably safe in disposing of 600,000 acre 

feet [from Pathfi nder] as a minimum.” Of this amount, he said, “250,000 [acre 

feet] goes to the Project, and under the terms of the law, this Project has a prior 

right.”57

 North Platte Project Engineer Andrew Weiss concluded in 1912 that 

250,000 acre feet of Pathfi nder water would eventually be sold to Warren Act 

contractors, including an anticipated 120,000 acre feet of storage water to the TriState Canal.58 Estimates for the Interstate Unit remained at 200,000 acre feet of 

Pathfi nder’s storage water. The total of committed water was thus established at 

450,000 acre feet. Engineer Weiss acknowledged that this amount could change 

if additional lands were to be irrigated, either by enlarging the North Platte Project 

or the private irrigation districts. However, based on current reports, Weiss 

expressed concern that all of Pathfi nder’s minimum fl ow of 600,000 annually 

would be utilized.59

 The Board of Engineers reviewed the North Platte Project again in May 

1912 and concluded that the Fort Laramie Canal would cover 125,000 acres.60

The board added that selling storage rights to existing irrigators who had applied 

for storage water would not jeopardize the Pathfi nder’s water supply for the new 

unit under the anticipated scenario.61 This optimistic view of the project’s water 

supply changed quickly following the close of the January 1, 1913, deadline for 

Warren Act applications. By 1913 construction of two of the three canals making 

up the Interstate Canal system were completed. The Highline Canal diverted 

water from Lake Alice, which had a storage capacity of 11,015 acre feet, and 

the Reservoir Supply Canal carried water from Lake Alice to Lake Minitare (see 

Figure 1).62 Also, by the end of 1913, six private irrigation districts had entered 
349

into Warren Act contracts for surplus storage water from Pathfi nder.63 The total 

amount of storage water sold to the Warren Act users was 143,465 acre feet.64

 With these additions to the project, computations of available water and 

irrigation needs in 1914 showed that there was an inadequate supply of water 

for the proposed Fort Laramie Unit, which by then had been reduced from the 

1912 estimate of 125,000 acres to 107,000 irrigable acres. According to the 

new calculations, the planned unit could now only accommodate 84,000 acres.

Accordingly, consultants to the Reclamation Service recommended suspending 

further Warren Act contracts, except those in progress, until more water supply 

studies could be completed.65 The consulting board also suggested that the Fort 

Laramie Unit be reduced to a smaller size and that the planned Goshen Park Unit 

be eliminated.66

 Further analysis of the 1914 study, as well as additional studies, were 

completed in 1915 by three of the four members of the 1914 consulting board.

This new board considered the storage water demand by Warren Act and project 

users to determine the total amount of required storage water. The board also 

reassessed the amount of storage water available. It’s analysis involved use 

of a “more correct method of applying actual demand,” assumption of a larger 

diversion into the Interstate Canal at the beginning of the irrigation season, and a 

slightly smaller amount of storage water per acre for any new project land to be 

irrigated.67

 In their 1915 recalculation, engineers determined that there was an 

adequate water supply to irrigate 116,000 acres of new project land.68 They 

recommended that the 116,000 acres of land be divided between a unit to be 

irrigated by the proposed Fort Laramie Canal and a new project district that would 

be irrigated by an anticipated extension of the Interstate Canal, via the Warren 

Act Tri-State Canal (Northport). Despite their higher estimate of available water 

supply, they affi rmed the earlier recommendations that there be a moratorium on 

new Warren Act contracts and that the proposed Goshen Park High Line project 

be cancelled.69

 Construction of the Fort Laramie Canal system started in 1915, after 

liens were placed on 90 percent of the deeded land to guarantee repayment of 

construction costs. The Reclamation Service estimated that the canal would 

irrigate 100,000 acres when fi nished.70 Upon its completion in 1924, the canal 

actually was capable of delivering water to 107,000 acres.71 By that time, the 

secretary had entered into agreements with the Gering and Fort Laramie District 

of the North Platte Project covering all of the Fort Laramie division in Nebraska 

and the Goshen Irrigation district covering all of the Fort Laramie division in 

Wyoming.72 Also by the time of completion of the Fort Laramie Unit other 

project units were operating. In accordance with the 1915 Board of Engineers 

report, the secretary of the interior signed a contract with the Northport Irrigation 

District in 1919, agreeing to construct a canal that would provide water to 
350

15,000 acres of land in the new project unit. Construction on the Northport Canal 

started that year and was completed in 1923 (see Figure 1).73

 The constant 

recalculations and revisions 

to the North Platte Project 

ultimately allowed the Bureau 

of Reclamation to meet most 

irrigator demands, at least 

partially. By 1924, the Bureau 

had completed construction of 

the principal components of 

the project, which included the 

four government units and the 

nine Warren Act contractors. 

To accommodate these interests, the Bureau had to redesign portions of the 

government units as originally conceived in the early 1900s.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Delivery of Water During Water-Short 

Years

 The Bureau of Reclamation, delivered storage water to Warren Act 

contractors by following the delivery schedules in the specifi c contracts for 

the eighteen years following the fi rst Warren Act contract—1912. Warren Act 

irrigators used their appropriated natural fl ow waters from the North Platte 

until that water ran out. Then they requested the delivery of their storage water 

according to the schedule in their respective contracts. Sometimes, when demand 

was particularly heavy, the Bureau implemented a rotation system. In 1912, for 

example, the rotation period was four days.74

 Even though there was no shortage of project water during the 1920s, 

the Bureau faced questions as to whether or not government districts should 

have a “better right” than other users to project water, based on the Warren Act’s 

acknowledgment of government contractors’ “fi rst right” to the use of storage 

water. In addressing this question in 1924, the Bureau suggested that water sold 

under the terms of the Warren Act were “permanent water rights.” It noted, “It is 

argued by some that the water users under the projects proper [government units] 

should have a better right than the water users outside of the projects [the Warren 

Act users].” The Bureau acknowledged that Warren Act contracts “are now rather 

generally being made under section 2 of the [Warren] Act, and provide for rights 

having the same priority as those on the project from which the water is sold.”

In cases of existing Warren Act contracts, the Bureau dismissed the position that 

the government projects should have any better right than the Warren Act users. 

“There does not ... seem to be any good reason to uphold this position,” the 

Bureau concluded. “The Warren Act contractors outside of the projects pay in full 

for what they get in the same manner as do the water users under the projects.”75

12.6. The Frank Vanchura homestead on the Fort 

Laramie Division of the North Platte Project.
351

The drought that visited the high plains beginning in the early 1930s added 

poignancy to this academic discussion.

 In 1931 lack of snow in the mountains and an absence of rain the previous 

summer, resulted in signifi cant shortages of water in the North Platte River. 

Storage water from Pathfi nder Reservoir was predicted to be exhausted before the 

end of August 1931, if withdrawals were to continue as in the past.76 Anticipating 

drought, early in 1931, Farmers’ Irrigation District fi led a request with the Bureau 

of Reclamation to change its summer delivery schedule. Farmers sought to defer 

receiving early water in April and May and, instead, receive a greater allocation 

than its contract allowed between June and September.77

 The Bureau’s response to the predicted drouth was to initiate its allocation 

system. Bureau offi cials explained this plan at a June 17, 1931, meeting with 

irrigators in Mitchell, Nebraska. At that meeting, W. J. Burke, the Bureau’s 

district counsel, advised the four North Platte Project irrigation districts that “the 

Warren Act contractors had purchased a water right and were entitled to their 

share of water.” During the same meeting, the Bureau’s Superintendent of Power 

C. F. Gleason advised the North Platte districts that he expected to “pro rate the 

water on an acreage basis, [and that] the acreage to be used would be the same as 

the acreage used in computing the O. & M. payments for the reserved works.”78

 Within days of stating this position, Bureau engineers began refi ning an 

allocation system to address the water shortage. They apportioned a prorated total 

supply to the various users, allowing the districts to determine when and at what 

rate to divert the apportioned amount. Under this system, the Bureau allotted 

approximately one-eighth of the total water supply to Warren Act contractors, 

after “carefully” studying the matter of how to apportion the available water 

among them and the government project districts. The Warren Act apportionment 

was “prorated upon their [the districts’] several contract schedules according to 

the percentage of a full reservoir supply” at Pathfi nder on May 12, 1931.” As a 

result of the proration, each Warren Act contractor received 62.5% of the water 

in its contract schedule. The Bureau notifi ed the project users of the allocation 

system in late June.79

 Later in the summer of 1931, Acting Chief Engineer S. O. Harper restated 

his intention to supply Warren Act irrigators in water short years. Harper 

responded to project users’ arguments that Warren Act contractors should not 

receive any storage water until the project users received their full amounts. He 

stated that the uncertainties inherent in the contracts “leaves the way open for the 

adoption of a policy that would not result in direct confl ict with the provisions 

of the contract and yet result in the most equitable use and distribution of the 

available water in a year like the present.”80

 While Bureau offi cials were implementing their allocation system, the 

Farmers’ Irrigation District’s earlier request to change its delivery date remained 
352

pending. In late December 1931 the Bureau’s chief engineer addressed a letter 

to all North Platte Project water users (government projects and Warren Act 

contractors) seeking their views on the Farmers’ request. Most of the districts 

responded by opposing Farmers’ request and raising various interpretations of 

Warren Act contracts. Two government units—the Pathfi nder and the Goshen 

districts—contended that language in the Warren Act “preserving a fi rst right 

to lands and entrymen under the project” gave the government districts a prior 

right to project storage water over Warren Act contractors.81 Gering Irrigation 

District, a Warren Act contractor, contested that position, arguing that such an 

interpretation amounted to saying that the Warren Act “authorized the secretary 

to sell blue sky.”82 The Bureau supported Gering’s view and rejected the 

government projects’ interpretation. Seeking an equitable distribution to all 

irrigators, Chief Engineer R. F. Walter eventually rejected Farmers’ request for a 

contract modifi cation.83

 The Bureau continued to allot a partial schedule of storage water to 

Warren Act and government project users throughout the dry years of the 1930s.84

Yet, government districts persisted with their position that they had rights to 

storage waters that were superior to Warren Act users’ rights. Pathfi nder Irrigation 

District objected to the Bureau’s allocation system in 1934, continuing to insist 

that stored water could not be delivered under those Warren Act contracts unless 

there was “more than suffi cient to supply the project lands.”85 Commissioner 

Elwood Mead concluded that the matter probably could be settled “only by a 

court decision in a case where all parties affected will have had an opportunity 

to be heard.”86 Nebraska offi cials weighed in on the side of the Warren Act 

contractors arguing that:

No responsible person would enter into a contract if he knew that the 

rights obtained by him through such contract could be taken away 

from him at any future time. Neither would the Nebraska Warren 

Act contractors have contracted to pay one million dollars for storage 

capacity in the Pathfi nder Reservoir if that storage capacity could be 

taken away from them for the use of any government canal that might be 

constructed in the future.87

 In 1940 Bureau offi cials again debated how to treat Warren Act contractors 

in water shortage years, tying the debate to the issue of whether the Warren 

Act districts had rights to storage water that were junior to North Platte Project 

districts. They anticipated a water supply of about 45 percent for the 1940 

irrigation season. District Counsel W. J. Burke initially signaled a reversal of 

the government’s position when he suggested that Warren Act users had rights to 

storage waters that were junior to the government districts. On instruction from 

the commissioner, Burke, joined by other Bureau offi cials, drafted a new position 

paper more in line with Bureau policy. That paper confi rmed the Bureau’s earlier 

view, as refl ected in a commissioner’s decision in 1932, that Congress did not 

intend project lands to have a priority over Warren Act lands.88 Burke and his 

co-authors proposed that Warren Act schedules for storage water be reduced 
353

to a percentage of the total contract amounts, as an administrative method of 

addressing water shortages. Warren Act contractors would receive their natural 

fl ow water as they saw fi t, with storage water being used to supplement that 

natural fl ow up to the established percentage of the total amount as refl ected in 

the individual contracts. The Bureau would apply the pre-determined percentage 

equally to Warren Act and government project contractors. This proposal was 

accepted on a temporary basis by the secretary of the interior.89

 In accordance with this policy, storage water for the 1940 irrigation season 

was again allotted to Warren Act contractors on a prorated basis. Rather than 

basing the amount on the relative interest that contract holders had in Pathfi nder 

Reservoir, however, the basis of the proration was now a percentage of the total 

contract schedule, which had been determined to be 41 percent of the amount in 

the contracts with the government.90 Farmers’ Irrigation District protested the 

method of allocation for 1940 claiming that it improperly deprived the district of 

storage water from Pathfi nder.91 In 1941 water again was allotted to Warren Act 

contractors based on a percentage of the total contract amount, which in 1941 

was 68 percent of the schedule. There were no water shortages during the years 

1942-1944 and Warren Act contractors had their full contract amounts available to 

them.

 The protests of Farmers’ Irrigation District and others to the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s water allocation system did not end with verbal or written 

exchanges. Beginning in the mid-1930s, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Warren 

Act contractors, and the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado were 

involved in legal action seeking answers to questions that were fundamental to the 

operation of the North Platte Project. Although neither of the two principal cases 

(United States v. Tilley, et al. and Nebraska v. Wyoming) specifi cally addressed 

the nature of Warren Act contracts, the courts’ conclusions forced the Bureau to 

incorporate new factors in its water delivery method.

 The issue of whether Warren Act contractors had transferred or assigned 

their natural fl ow rights to the United States in exchange for their Warren Act 

contract rights was before the court in the case of United States v. Tilley, et al.

Establishment of the Northport Unit in 1915 required an agreement with Warren 

Act contractor Farmers’ Irrigation District’s predecessor, Tri-State Land Company 

to carry 250 cfs through its canal to the government project. The Bureau 

negotiated this agreement and Farmers’ complied with it until the drouth year 

of 1936, when Farmers’ failed to deliver suffi cient fl ow downstream to Northport. 

The Bureau took the position that the Warren Act contractors had assigned their 

appropriative rights to the United States, and that this water was available to the 

United States for storage and delivery back to the contractors. The Bureau of 

Reclamation protested Farmers’ action, but failed to deter the irrigation district. The 

State of Nebraska appealed the Bureau’s interpretation of the Warren Act contract 

to the secretary of the interior, arguing that Nebraska’s water rights could not be 
354

legally assigned to the United States or any other entity. In a June 1937 decision, the 

secretary found in favor of the Bureau and against Nebraska.92

 The issue eventually ended up in federal court in Nebraska, when the United 

States sought injunctive relief against Nebraska and Farmers. The district court 

ruled in 1938 that a Warren Act contractor did not convey its natural fl ow rights 

to the United States under its Warren Act contract.93 The case was appealed to 

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in 1941, also held that a Warren Act 

contractor’s appropriative rights did not transfer to the United States. The circuit 

court reasoned that the language in Article XI of the Tri-State contract “does not on 

its face purport to transfer anything directly to the United States.”94

 The Tilley decision forced the Bureau to reconsider the validity of its 

allotment provisions for water short years. Specifi cally, the Bureau questioned the 

propriety of restricting natural fl ow diversions to the contract schedules and using 

a percentage of the contract amount as the basis for water allotments to Warren Act 

contractors in water short years. The Bureau interpreted the decision as requiring it 

to adopt a policy of supplementing natural fl ow water with storage water up to the 

amount of water provided for in the delivery schedule in the Warren Act contracts at 

any given time. From its reading of the Tilley case, the Bureau determined that the 

1940 method of allocation for water-short years, based on contract schedules alone, 

could not be used as a basis for a water allotment.95 Prior to the decision in Tilley,

the Bureau apportioned natural fl ow and storage water. After Tilley, the agency 

revised its procedures to apportion only storage water in the North Platte River 

system.

 The Supreme Court in its initial decision in Nebraska v. Wyoming (1945) 

also briefl y addressed the Warren Act when it spoke about “surplus water.”96 In 

that litigation, the United States argued its long held position that a determination 

that there was surplus storage water available for use by Warren Act users was 

made prior to entering the Warren Act contracts. The United States contended that 

“surplus water” was “storage water in excess of that believed to be needed for the 

North Platte Project as then constructed and as proposed for extension....”97 The 

opinion and decree that resulted from the original Nebraska v. Wyoming litigation 

addressed only the interstate apportionment of the natural fl ow of the North 

Platte River.98 Nonetheless, the court stated that storage water “should be left 

for distribution in accordance with the contracts which govern it,” and generally 

acknowledged that the contracts were to be honored, including in times of low water 

supply.99 The court also considered the management issues facing the Bureau and 

confi rmed that a pro rata distribution among contractors was appropriate. In its 

opinion, the court recognized “the nature of the problem of apportionment and the 

delicate adjustment of interests which must be made.”100

 The Bureau’s system for delivering water since 1945 has recognized the 

Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the Tilley and the Nebraska v. Wyoming

decisions.101 In making adjustments to its allocations, the Bureau continued to 
355

maintain the same essential delivery system that it had established during the fi rst 

year of water shortage, whereby it delivered pro rata shares of all contractors’ 

water. During water short years, the Bureau designed and implemented an 

equitable method of ensuring that the four North Platte Project districts and the 

nine Warren Act districts all received a portion of their full amounts of water. But, 

following these decisions, Bureau offi cials also were more fl exible with Warren 

Act and government unit contractors.

 In 1954 the Bureau established a water allocation system when the 

storage water reached its maximum. The stated purpose of setting up the system 

of allotment was to “allow both the Warren Act contractors and the Project 

districts to participate in the storage with benefi ts to both groups.” The advantage 

described for the Warren Act contractors was that it gave them “an opportunity 

to receive storage at a later date in lieu of natural fl ow.” The advantage to the 

projects was that they would be able to “participate indirectly in the natural fl ows 

and thus supplement their storage during the entire season.”102 The formula 

used to compute allocations included documentation and averaging of previous 

years’ storage water and diversions. After making adjustments for credits and 

improvements, Bureau offi cials determined the amounts for each of the thirteen 

districts.103 The formula established for computing the water allotments for all of 

the districts was developed by Peter Anker, Chief of the North Platte Irrigation 

Operations, and has continued to be used since the 1950s.

Conclusion

 Existing private irrigators within planned federal reclamation projects at 

the turn of the century recognized the value of partnering with the public projects 

in providing an adequate and dependable water supply from the North Platte 

River. Following passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902 and authorization 

for the North Platte Project less than one year later, irrigation companies along 

the river in Wyoming and Nebraska quickly moved to ensure their place in the 

reclamation plan. Passage of the Warren Act in 1911 confi rmed the importance 

that Congress placed on responding to these needs and to garnering broad support 

for ambitious projects like the one planned for the North Platte River. It was left 

to the Bureau of Reclamation, however, to devise a mechanism to incorporate 

these private companies into the public project and, at the same time, not diminish 

the importance of reclaiming public lands for a new generation of farmers.

 During the fall and summer of 1911, Interior offi cials faced the problem 

of reconciling the needs of potential Warren Act contractors for “surplus water” 

with expectations for the ultimate size of the North Platte Project. They reached 

an accommodation by 1) negotiating contracts for a permanent supply of storage 

water for Warren Act irrigators; 2) reconfi guring the remainder of the project 

to meet the needs of all irrigators; and 3) placing a “cap” on the total amount 

of water that would be delivered to Warren Act contractors. This approach 

satisfi ed the needs of all parties until the water short years of the 1930s. Faced 
356

with the prospect of diminished supplies throughout the system, the Bureau 

of Reclamation allocated water on an equitable basis both to government and 

Warren Act districts. Although both government and private irrigation districts 

complained about the system of allocation, and eventually fi led lawsuits to stop 

or alter it, the Bureau continued to use the approach while refi ning the methods 

of calculation. To have done otherwise would have jeopardized the tripartite 

relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation, the government districts, and 

the Warren Act contractors. To not provide the Warren Act contractors with a 

permanent water supply would have been to admit that the United States had sold 

them “blue sky.”

Alan S. Newell is the founder of and a Senior Associate Historian with 

Historical Research Associates, Inc., in Missoula, Montana. He is active in and 

past-president of the National Council on Public History.

Endnotes

1. A number of historians have written on the national Reclamation Act of 1902. These 

include, Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936 (University of 

Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 1992); Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and The Gospel of Effi ciency: The 

Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1959); 

Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (Oxford 

University Press: New York, 1985); and Donald Pisani, To Reclaim A Divided West: Water Law and 

Public Policy, 1848-1902 (University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, 1992).

2. F. E. Warren to L. W. Moore, July 12, 1910, Francis E. Warren Papers, Political Papers, 

1878-1945, General Correspondence, 1890-1929, “General Correspondence Letterbook, 29 May 

1910- 13 September 1910. Box 10, Folder 2, Microfi lm Reel No. 49, Accession Number 00013, 

American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

3. F. E. Warren to J. M. Wilson, June 7, 1910, Ibid.

4. For example, see F. E. Warren to F. W. Mondell, August 20, 1910, Ibid. Warren’s concern 

was expressed in his response to Mondell’s letter of August 15 in which the Republican representative 

reported on his trip to the North Platte Project with the Board of Army Engineers. Mondell related 

that some of the Board’s members viewed the unadjudicated water claims by Nebraska irrigators as 

a possible complication to the project’s expansion. Mondell claimed that he was of the opinion that 

any such rights were well below the threshold that might jeopardize further development. See F. W. 

Mondell to F. E. Warren, August 15, 1910, Ibid.

5. F. E. Warren to L. W. Moore, July 12, 1910; F. E. Warren to Charles E. Perkins, August 

18, 1910. Ibid. See also F. E. Warren to E. F. Hurdle, December 9, 1910; F. E. Warren to Hon. R. A. 

Ballinger, December 19, 1910, “General Correspondence Letterbook, 26 August 1910-28 January 

1911”, Box 10, folder 3, Microfi lm Reel No. 50. For the relationship of the Warren Act to future 

expansion at Goshen Park, see Walter L. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior to F. E. Warren, May 2, 

1911, “General Correspondence Letterbook, 5 April 1911-13 June 1911”, Box 11, Folder 1, Microfi lm 

Reel No. 52.

6. “Contracts For Disposition of Waters of Projects Under Reclamation Act,” Sen. Rpt. No. 

442, March 23, 1910, 61st Cong. 2d session (1910) p. 1; Congressional Record, April 6, 1910, vol. 

45, pt. 4, p. 4315.

7. Congressional Record, April 6, 1910, p. 4315.

8. “Contracts for Disposition of Waters,” Sen. Rpt. No. 442, p. 3.

9. For instance, during the Senate debate on April 14, 1910, Heyburn denounced the bill for 

allowing “the Government—not the Government, but one executive offi cer of the Government—to 

take possession of the waters of the streams of the State, and to sell them, not to all the people, but to 

a selected customer to the exclusion of the people.” Heyburn also charged that giving the secretary 

of the interior the authority to deliver water to non-project entities was tantamount to selling water, 
357

which was prohibited by state law. “This bill is to provide the water user with a master and make him 

pay the master’s salary.” Congressional Record, vol. 45, pt. 5, pp. 4666-4668.

10. Ibid., p. 4665.

11. The principal sponsor of the 1902 Reclamation Act, Nevada Senator Francis Newlands, 

articulated this later point in response to Heyburn. Newlands posited the scenario where:

“the Government has entered upon a reclamation project, and that project involves the construction of 

a dam on an excellent reservoir site, possibly the only practicable reservoir site within a large range 

of country; we will assume that the Government proposes to enter upon the reclamation of an area 

of land which will not require more than half of the storage capacity of the reservoir; we will assume 

that private parties, under the Carey Act, or outside of it, are entering upon another reclamation 

project within a convenient distance of the government project, and they have not a convenient 

reservoir. I understand it to be the purpose of this bill to enable the Secretary of the Interior in such a 

case to enter into a contract with the promoters of the second project. ...”

Congressional Record, March 25, 1910, vol. 45, pt. 4, p. 3745.

12. Congressional Record, April 6, 1910, vol. 45, pt. 4, p. 4319.

13. Congressional Record, April 6, 1910, vol. 45, pt. 4, p. 4321.

14. Ibid., p. 4322.

15. Ibid., p. 4322.

16. Ibid., pp. 4322-4323.

17. See, for example, Thomas Carter’s comments, Congressional Record, April 6, 1910, vol. 45, 

pt. 4, p. 4321.

18. Congressional Record, February 17, 1911, vol. 46, pt. 3, p. 2782.

19. Congressional Record, February 17, 1911, vol. 46, pt. 3, p. 2781.

20. Ibid., p. 2782.

21. Mitchell, Ramshorn, Gering, Winter’s Creek, Central, Castle Rock, Minatare, Steamboat, 

Nine Mile, Alliance, Chimney Rock, Brown’s Creek, Lucern, Farmer’s Mutual, and Belmont 

companies and irrigation districts, to Secretary of Interior, Petition, December 30, 1910; Secretary 

of Winter’s Creek Irrigation Company to Richard A. Ballinger, Secretary of Interior, Jan. 6, 1911, 

CCF, BOR North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3. “Surplus Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1 

1-10-1911–8-31-1911, Record Group (RG) 48, National Archives, College Park, Maryland (NA).

22. This report is referenced in letters from the offi ce of the Secretary of Interior to water 

applicants, e.g., R. A. Ballinger to Winter’s Creek Irrigation Company, February 1, 1911; Acting 

Secretary of Interior to Sen. Norris Brown, May 16, 1911; Secretary of Interior to Norris Brown, 

May 23, 1911, p. 1, RG 48, all in CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3, “Surplus 

Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1, 1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

23. E.g., S. H. Osborne to Sen. Norris Brown, May 11, 1911, telegram; Sen. Norris Brown 

to Secretary of Interior, May 12, 1911; Sen. Norris Brown to Frank Pierce, May 20, 1911, all in 

CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3, “Surplus Waters-Pathfi nders Dam,” Part 1, 

1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

24. Frank Pierce, Acting Secretary of Interior, to Sen. Norris Brown, May 16, 1911; Secretary of 

Interior to Senator Norris Brown, May 23, 1911, CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3, 

“Surplus Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1, 1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

25. Samuel Adams, Acting Secretary of Interior, to Senator Norris Brown, June 5, 1911; 

Walter Fisher, Secretary of Interior, to Senator Norris Brown, June 27, 1911, RG 48, NA, all in 

CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3, “Surplus Waters-Pathfi nders Dam,” Part 1, 

1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

26. “Report On The Disposal of Pathfi nder Water by Board of Engineers, July 24, 1911,” p. 113 

and D. C. Henny, “Report On The Irrigation Uses of Pathfi nder Reservoir by D. C. Henny, Consulting 

Engineer,” September 30, 1909, p. 81 both in vol. IX, Drainage Hydrology, Interstate Unit, History of 

The Platte Project, Neb.-Wyo. The 600,000 acre feet estimate was considered a minimum fi gure and 

was consistent with the report of Consulting Engineer Henny. The fi rst such sale was contemplated 

with the North Platte Valley Irrigation Company, a Carey Land Act project in Douglas, Wyoming. 

A. P. Davis to First Assistant Secretary of Interior, July 13, 1911; Samuel Adams to Director of 

the Reclamation Service, July 22, 1911; CCF, BOR, North Platte, Box 1626, File 8-3, “Surplus 

Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1, 1-10-1911–8-31-1912, RG 48, NA.
358

27. Frederick Newell to Norris Brown, July 24, 1911, CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 

1626, File 8-3 “Surplus Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1, 1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

28. For example see Fred Wright and Others to the Secretary of the Interior, August 4, 1911, 

CCF , BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626 File 8-3 “Surplus Waters-Pathfi nder Dam,” Part 1, 

1-10-1911–8-31-1911, RG 48, NA.

29. “Report of a Public Meeting before Honorable W. L. Fisher. Secretary of the Interior at 

Mitchell, Nebraska, August 4, 1911,” p. 22, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based 

on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 

Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains 

Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

30. Ibid., pp. 8-14.

31. This fi gure includes the 40,000 acre feet committed to the North Platte Irrigation Company.

32. “Report of a Public Meeting before Honorable W. L. Fisher. Secretary of the Interior at 

Mitchell, Nebraska, August 4, 1911,” Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on 

Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 

Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains 

Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming, p. 25. As later events suggest, Secretary Fisher was 

probably only referring to the existing Interstate Canal and not to future canals.

33. Ibid. p. 24.

34. Ibid., pp. 25-6.

35. R. F. Walter to A. P. Davis, October 9, 1911, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska 

Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 

10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

36. Andrew Weiss to R.F. Walter, October 12, 1911, Informal Production of Documents to 

Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction 

with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming. See also, A. P. Davis 

to Project Engineer, November 3, 1911, Warren Act Legislative History Documents, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

37. Davis probably exaggerated the longevity of the secretary’s policy, which seems to have 

been fi rst articulated at the August 4, 1911, meeting. A. P. Davis to R. F. Walter, October 24, 1911, 

Warren Act Legislative History Documents, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming 

Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. R. F. Walter and Andrew Weiss to A. P. Davis, November 1, 1911, Warren Act Legislative 

History Documents, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, 

Wyoming.

41. F. H. Newell to Supervising Engineer, December 12, 1911; and F. H. Newell to Secretary 

of the Interior, December 30, 1911, both in CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3 

“Surplus Waters-Pathfi nder Dam” Part 2, 9-22-1911–3-18-1912, RG 48, NA.

42. Reclamation Service, Eleventh Annual Report, p. 127. See also, Local Board of Review, 

May 29, 1916, p. 17, noting the early petitions to the Secretary of Interior to purchase storage rights 

under the Warren Act. Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th 

Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. 

Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area 

Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

43. A contract with the Gering Irrigation District was executed on January 17, 1913; with 

Chimney Rock Irrigation District, Beerline Irrigation District and Central Irrigation District on March 

6, 1913; and with Browns Creek Irrigation District on July 14, 1913. The date of the 1912 contract 

with Tri-State was August 20. All of these contracts are found in contract fi les for the respective 

companies and irrigation districts in fi les of the Land and Water Division of BOR, Mills, Wyoming.

44. On November 27, 1914, a contract was signed with the Pleasant Valley Lateral Association, 

the predecessor to Hill Irrigation District. On July 1, 1915, a contract was signed with Goshen Land 
359

Company, the predecessor to Lingle Irrigation District, and on April 17, 1917, a contract was signed 

with Lincoln Land Company, predecessor to the Rock Ranch Irrigation District.

45. All of the contracts were made under the authority of section 1 of the Warren Act, which 

provides for delivery of surplus waters from Reclamation projects to existing water users. Section 

1 is specifi cally cited as authority for fi ve of the contracts. Three of the contracts that fail to specify 

what section of the Warren Act authorizes the contract, simply refer to the Warren Act, without 

referring to any section. The other contract that fails to specify any particular section of the Warren 

Act—the Beerline contract—appears to have a typographical error, with a reference to “Section, of 

the Warren Act,” but omitting any section number. All nine of the contracts, however, contain criteria 

for Section 1 of the Warren Act: determination that there is surplus water from the North Platte 

Project available in Pathfi nder Reservoir, and a recitation of the “prior” right to the use of storage 

water by government contractors, “in accordance with Article 1 of the Warren Act.” Specifi cally, all 

of the original versions of the Warren Act contracts contain the following provisions:

· The agreement is entered pursuant to the 1902 Reclamation Act and acts “supplementary thereto 

and amendatory thereof, and in particular ... the Warren Act.”

· The Secretary of Interior considers it “advantageous upon the terms herein agreed upon to dispose 

of surplus storage capacity” in Reclamation-Act reservoirs “constructed or to be constructed” in the 

North Platte River basin; and surplus storage water is available for disposal under the Warren Act 

from the Pathfi nder Reservoir.

· The respective companies or irrigation districts have a distribution system in place for irrigation 

from natural fl ow waters to which they had perfected a right on the North Platte River in specifi ed 

areas.

· The United States will supply a defi nite amount of water to the districts, to be paid for in specifi ed 

installments.

· The irrigation districts will make an additional payment of a specifi ed portion of each year’s 

operation and maintenance expenses.

· Government project rights to storage water are “prior” to the Warren Act users’ rights.

46. The contract with Tri-State Company provides for the largest delivery of water, the highest 

purchase price and the largest portion of operation and maintenance costs. Tri-State purchased 

180,000 acre feet of water for $500,000, plus payment of one-quarter of operation and maintenance 

costs for the storage works. The smallest purchase was made by the Rock Ranch District, which 

purchased 1,941 acre feet of water for $9,705 plus a commitment to pay one-two hundred and sixth 

of operation and maintenance costs.

47. Walter Fisher to Director, Reclamation Service, February 3, 1912, CCF, BOR, North Platte 

Project, Box 1626, File 8-3 “Surplus Water-Pathfi nder Dam” Part 2, 9-22-1911–3-18-1912, RG 48, 

NA.

48. Acting Secretary of the Interior Samuel Adams to F. H. Newell, March 12, 1912, 

CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, Box 1626, File 8-3 “Surplus Water-Pathfi nder Dam” Part 2, 

9-22-1911–3-18-1912, RG 48, NA.

49. “Memorandum For Secretary Adams,” March 18, 1912, CCF, BOR, North Platte Project, 

Box 1626, File 8-3 “Surplus Water-Pathfi nder Dam” Part 2, 9-22-1911–3-18-1912, RG 48, NA.

50. “Draft of Contract—Tri-State Land Co,” p. 8, n.d. attached to A. R. Howard to Director, 

Reclamation Service, July 12, 1912, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on 

Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 

Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains 

Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

51. Supervising Engineer Morris Bien to Director, Reclamation Service, July 15, 1912. 

Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 

(Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John 

Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, 

Wyoming. The Reclamation Service frequently turned to Morris Bien for advice on state water law. 

Bien was responsible for preparing a model water law that the federal government tried, with varying 

success, to have states adopt. See Hays, Gospel of Effi ciency, p. 16.

52. “Draft of Contract—Tri-State Land Co,” p. 8.

53. Bien to Director, July 15, 1912.
360

54. See Agreement with Tri-State Land Company, August 20, 1912. The agreements that utilize 

the assignment language were with the Gering Irrigation District (January 17, 1913), the Chimney 

Rock Irrigation Canal and Water Power Company (March 6, 1913), the Beerline Irrigation Canal 

Company (March 6, 1913), the Central Irrigation District (March 6, 1913), and the Brown’s Creek 

Irrigation District (July 14, 1913).

55. D. C. Henny, “Report on the Irrigation Uses of Pathfi nder Reservoir,” September 30, 1909, 

History of the North Platte Project, Nebraska, Wyoming, vol. IX, p. 81.

56. “Report on the Disposal of Pathfi nder Water, by the Board of Engineers, July 24, 1911,” in 

History of the North Platte Project, Nebraska, Wyoming, vol. IX, p. 112.

57. “Report of a Public Meeting before Honorable W. L. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior, at 

Mitchell, Nebraska, August 4, 1911,” p. 32.

58. Andrew Weiss to Consulting Board, April 27, 1912, Memorandum on extent and condition 

of irrigable lands on the North Platte and Platte Rivers in Nebraska, History of the North Platte 

Project, Nebraska, Wyoming, vol. IX, pp. 128-9.

59. Ibid.

60. Board of Engineers, “Report on the Sale of Pathfi nder Water, May 3, 1912,” History of the 

North Platte Project, Nebraska, Wyoming, vol. IX, p. 141.

61. Ibid.

62. Bureau of Reclamation, Platte River Briefi ng Book: North Platte River Projects Tour, 

August 14-16, 1995, pp. 5-6.

63. Rock Ranch, Lingle, and Hill had not yet entered contracts.

64. History of the North Platte Project, Nebraska-Wyoming, vol. IX, Project History, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming, p. 41.

65. Consulting Board to Reclamation Commission, “Water Supply, North Platte Valley,” 

December 8, 1914, History of the North Platte Project, Nebraska-Wyoming, 1914, pp. 236-7. In 

1914, landowners on the south side of the river organized local support for construction of the 

Fort Laramie Canal, for irrigation of private lands. F. H. Newell to Lane, May 11, 1914, Report, 

Legislative History Documents, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, 

Mills, Wyoming.

66. Consulting Board to Reclamation Commission, “Water Supply, North Platte Valley,” 

December 8, 1914, p. 237.

67. Walter Henny and Weiss, Board of Engineers, to Reclamation Commission, “Report on 

Water Supply — North Platte Project,” March 10, 1915, Project History, 1915.

68. Ibid., p. 306.

69. Ibid. p. 307-8. The proposed extension of the Interstate Canal was discussed by the director 

of the Reclamation Service, F. H. Newell, in his report to the secretary of the interior in 1914. Newell 

recommended that project lands that would be served by such an extension enter into an agreement 

with the Farmers’ Irrigation District to convey Pathfi nder water through the Tri-State canal. Newell 

to Lane, May 11, 1914, Report, p. 8, Legislative History Documents, Bureau of Reclamation, Great 

Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

70. Department of the Interior, Fifteenth Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, 1915-1916,

pp. 257, 271. The principal portion of the unit was Goshen Hole or Goshen Park.

71. Department of the Interior, Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, p. 58.

72. This contract is discussed in correspondence to the Casper Chamber of Commerce from 

acting commissioner of the Reclamation Service, P. W. Dent, in Dent to Stafford, August 25, 1926, 

Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 

(Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John 

Lawson, Box 2 of 20. Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, 

Wyoming. The acting commissioner notes that the contract is a contract with government project 

users rather than with Warren Act users. He states, as his opinion, that Warren Act contractors receive 

storage water only after the water requirements of project users are met.

73. BOR, Eighteenth Annual Report, p. 208; Twenty-Second Annual Report, p. 81.

74. BOR, Tenth Annual Report, p. 157; Eleventh Annual Report, p. 126.

75. BOR, Twenty-third Annual Report of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 1924, p. 35.
361

76. Minutes of Meeting of District Boards, June 17, 1931, Folder 2-13-9: Hydrology, Misc. 

Correspondence, Box 49, BOR, RG 115, NA-Denver.

77. “Decision of the Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, May 27, 1932, Informal 

Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket 

#576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John Lawson, Box 

1 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

78. Minutes of Meeting of District Boards, June 17, 1931, Folder 2-13-9: Hydrology, Misc. 

Correspondence, Box 49, BOR, RG 115, NA-Denver, p. 1. This position was consistent with the 

Bureau’s position in 1924, that there didn’t “seem to be any good reason” for government project 

contractors to have any better right to storage water than Warren Act users, discussed above. 

Twenty-third Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1924, p. 

35.

79. Superintendent of Power to North Platte Project Districts, June 25, 1931, pp. 2-3, Folder: 

Storage Distribution 1931, Box 47, BOR, RG 115, NA-Denver. See, also, Superintendent of Power 

to Chief Engineer, June 26, 1931, Folder 2-13-9: Hydrography, Misc. Correspondence, Box 49, 

BOR, RG 115, NAFRC - Denver, pp. 2-3; “Decision of the Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, 

May 27, 1932, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request 

of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms 

from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, 

Mills, Wyoming.

80. Acting Chief Engineer S. O. Harper to Superintendent of Power, July 3, 1931, Folder 2-3-6: 

Hydrology, Misc. Correspondence, Box 49, BOR, RG 115, NA-Denver. 

81. Gering Irrigation District to Walters, January 30, 1932, p. 1; Gering Irrigation District to 

Walters, “Answer” to Goshen and Pathfi nder Irrigation District claims, February 18, 1932, Third 

Party Interveners, Farmers’ Irrigation, Goshen Irrigation District, Chimney Rock Irrigation, Exhibits 

in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Interrogatories Motion for Summary Judgement 11-18-89, 

WTR-4.10, p. 1, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, 

Wyoming.

82. Gering Irrigation District to Walters, February 18, 1932, “Answer” to Goshen and Pathfi nder 

districts, p. 9.

83. R. Walter, “Decision of the Chief Engineer,” May 27, 1932. The Bureau’s conclusion about 

the meaning of “preserving a fi rst right to lands and entrymen under the project” coincided with 

some of the basic arguments presented by the Gering District on this point. Gering District to Walter, 

“Answer” to Goshen and Pathfi nder districts, p. 12.

84. C. F. Gleason to district counsel, April 28, 1936, p. 1, Folder 771: North Platte, Water Right 

Appropriations, Whalen Falls Enlargement #1398, 1931 thru 1940, Project Histories, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Mills, Wyoming; C. F. Gleason to Acting Commissioner, May 29, 1936, Folder: Willis 

Water Requests, etc.-1936, Box 48, RG 115, NAFRC-Denver, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains 

Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming, p. 2. See, also, State of Nebraska, Supplemental 

Brief to the Department of the Interior, July 31, 1936, pp. 5-6. In 1932, 1933, 1937 and 1938, there 

was no water shortage. The Bureau’s acting commissioner outlined the bureau’s procedure for 

determining the allocations in July 1936. Superintendent of Power to acting commissioner, July 

28, 1936, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 

10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms 

from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, 

Mills, Wyoming.

85. Pathfi nder Irrigation District, “Resolution,” August 7, 1934, p. 2, doc. File: 232, North 

Platte, Project Cost Repayment, Pathfi nder Irrigation District, 1931-1948, Crop Reports, Box 43, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

86. Elwood Mead to Schroeder, September 17, 1934, File: 232.-North Platte, Project 

Cost Repayment, Pathfi nder Irrigation District, 1931-1948, Crop Reports, Box #43, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

87. State of Nebraska, Supplemental Brief to the Department of the Interior, July 31, 1936, p. 

4, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska Based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 

(Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 Letter to Richard A. Simms from John 
362

Lawson, Box 2 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, 

Wyoming. 

88. W. J. Burke to Commissioner of BOR, May 20, 1940. Debler, Gleason, and Burke to 

Secretary of Interior, June 17, 1940; Acting commissioner to Burke, May 24, 1940; Commissioner, 

June 15, 1940, all cited documents in Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska based on 

Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter 

to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 1 of 20.

89. Acting Under Secretary to Superintendent of Power, June 25, 1940, Informal Production 

of Documents to Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) received 

in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 1 of 20, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

90. Warren Act Contract Summary, 1940; United States BOR, “North Platte Project, Final Water 

Supply for 1940,” 1940; North Platte Project History, 1940, pp. 29-30 all in Informal Production of 

Documents to Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) received in 

Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 4 of 20, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

91. Neighbors and Danielson, “Protest”; E. O. Daggert, Manager of Farmers Irrigation District, 

to BOR Commissioner, February 19, 1941, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska based 

on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 

letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 4 of 20. Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains 

Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

92. W. J. Burke, district counsel, Rebuttal Brief of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, 

before the Department of the Interior, November 3, 1936, pp. 41-2. See also United States Department of the Interior, Offi ce of the Secretary, “Summary of Decision,” June 4, 1937, copy available at 

Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming, p. 9.

93. United States v. Tilley, 124 F.2nd 859 (8th Cir. 1941). 

94. Ibid. p.854.

95. C. F. Gleason to W. J. Burke, March 13, 1944; Burke to Gleason, March 4, 1944; Gleason 

to Regional director, September 24, 1945, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska based on 

Wyoming’s 6th Request of October 18, 1993, (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with October 

24, 1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 1 of 20, Bureau of Reclamation, Great 

Plains Region, Wyoming Area Offi ce, Mills, Wyoming.

96. The United States Supreme Court has maintained its jurisdiction over the original decree 

that it issued in the 1945 case of Nebraska v. Wyoming. The case has remained active and, indeed, the 

United States originally commissioned the research for this paper as part of that ongoing litigation. 

The parties have negotiated a settlement of the lawsuit, which is currently awaiting fi nal approval by 

the court.

97. United States, Opening Brief, Nebraska v. Wyoming, June 4, 1942, volume 1, p. 53.

98. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 608, 610, 621 (1945). N.b.—that litigation goes on.

99. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. at 631. The court defi ned storage water in a way to give the 

Warren Act contracts “effectiveness,” 325 U.S. at 631, 639-640.

100. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. at 618.

101. Gleason to Regional Director, September 24, 1945, Informal Production of Documents to 

Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of October 18, 1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with October 24, 1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 1 of 20, paragraph 3.

102. BOR, “Method of Allocations — 1954 Irrigation Season,” with cover page, Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) 

Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20.

See also, “Meetings Between Water Users and Regional Director,” Four States Irrigation Council 

Conference, n.d., Informal Production of Documents to Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request 

of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter to Richard Simms from 

John Lawson, Box 7 of 20.

103. The eight steps involved in this system are described, together with calculations for 1954, in 

“Allocation Method for 1954 (using current effi ciency and average diversions),” Informal Production 

of Documents to Nebraska based on Wyoming’s 6th Request of 10/18/1993 (Docket #576) Received 

in Conjunction with 10/24/1994 letter to Richard Simms from John Lawson, Box 2 of 20.
363

The Path Not Taken: The Development Company 

of America’s Hudson Reservoir Project, Arizona 

Territory, 1898-1902

By:

Robert L. Spude

 During the early summer of 1900, a group of businessmen held 

clandestine meetings over lunch or in private offi ces in New York City to discuss 

the building of the nation’s highest dam and creation of a thirty-three square mile 

reservoir. Among them was Elton Hooker, the chief engineer of New York state’s 

Public Works and a just returned member of the U.S. investigatory commission 

that studied the possibility of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama. Ex-Secretary 

of War Russell Alger, soon to be Senator from Michigan, was in attendance 

as was Henry M. Robinson, New York City corporate lawyer and player in 

the consolidation then underway to create U.S. Steel, the fi rst billion dollar 

corporation. Two westerners, Governor Oakes Murphy of Arizona Territory and 

his brother Frank, a rising fi nancier of the territory’s mines and railroads, brought 

the group together to negotiate with Henry Man, of Man & Man, New York City 

lawyers, and possessors of the right to build a dam on the Salt River upstream 

from Phoenix.

 The editor of the Arizona Republican, the Phoenix newspaper, shadowed 

the group in New York and leaked the story.1

 It appeared that the long-awaited 

storage dam and reservoir to ease all water shortages in the Salt River Valley were 

to be built, if, the editor asked, the citizens would agree to supply a $500,000 

bonding subsidy. In the months following, two factions in the Salt River Valley 

soon coalesced, one supportive of the private project, another demanding that the 

federal government take charge of the site and build the dam.2

 Instead of supporting the Murphy brothers, the other group in Phoenix 

accused the governor and his brother of trying to bilk taxpayers of $500,000 

and defraud the Salt River Valley’s residents. For the next two years the two 

factions clashed, one pro-Murphy and private enterprise, the other in opposition 

and pro-federal control. Today, the tale of the passage of the Newlands Act in 

1902 and the federal construction of Roosevelt Dam at the site on the Salt River, 

1903-1911, is well known. What is left out is the other group, the proponents of 

corporate dam building projects, of the path not taken.3

 The leading promoters of the private project were the Murphy brothers, 

Frank and Nathan Oakes. Born in Maine, but raised in the lumber camps of 

Wisconsin, the two men followed separate paths West, sometimes together 

in Kansas or California, sometimes not. In December 1877 Frank moved 

to Prescott, Arizona Territory. After a period of varied jobs—stage driver, 

haberdashery clerk, scribe for the territorial legislature—Frank found his calling 
364

as a mine promoter. In 1883, his older brother Nathan Oakes Murphy, always 

known as Oakes, joined him in Prescott.4

 Oakes had taught school, served in the military, then joined his brother 

in the fi rm of F. M. Murphy & Brother. One of the properties they acquired was 

the hydraulic gold mining operation along Lynx Creek, ten miles east of Prescott. 

Hydraulic mining used a stream of water to cut down stream banks, which then 

fl owed into sluice boxes where the gold nuggets and fl akes were washed out of 

the gravels. In the late 1880s, F. M. Murphy & Bro. operated their diversion dam, 

fl ume, and hydraulic nozzles during the high water of each spring.5

 As others have pointed out, the basics of western water law came from 

the experience of hydraulic miners in the placer gold mining regions of Colorado 

and California. The experience at the Lynx Creek hydraulics would be used by 

Oakes, in training to be a mining lawyer and in his later irrigation views. He 

also understood the engineering basics as evidenced in his promotional pamphlet 

printed ca. 1889 in an effort to sell the mines. A British company, the Lynx Creek 

Gold & Land Co., Ltd., bought the property, built a sixty foot dam, cleared a 

storage reservoir site, and by 1891 began working the Arizona gold fi elds. By 

then Oakes had taken his profi ts and moved to Phoenix.6

 Oakes had become active in Republican politics and rose through various 

appointed positions, fi rst as personal secretary to the governor, then secretary of 

the territory, similar to a lieutenant governor today, and then, fi nally, governor 

in his own right in 1892. Forced to move to Phoenix with the removal of the 

territorial capital from Prescott, Oakes soon became a leader in the growing 

agricultural community in the Salt River Valley.7

 Phoenix had risen upon the ruins of the prehistoric Hohokam peoples’ 

homes and irrigation system. After 1867 a series of ever larger and longer ditches 

and canals supported the new farms and ranches along the Salt River. Phoenix 

became a territorial trade and political center, especially with the arrival of the 

capital in 1889. The 1890 census takers counted 3,152 residents.8 When Oakes 

arrived in the small town, the city fathers had been working to build a railroad 

connecting the northern and southern parts of the territory via Phoenix. He 

organized a company, ushered through a twenty year tax exemption from the 

territorial legislature, and ceremoniously broke ground for the Santa Fe, Prescott, 

& Phoenix Railroad. Because of his gubernatorial duties, he passed the leadership 

of the project to his brother Frank, who completed the line to Phoenix between 

1892 and February 1895. Wealthy investors from Chicago and Detroit, backing 

the Murphy brothers’ railroad, also invested in Salt River Valley canal companies 

and land.9

 During the 1890s the water diverted from the Salt River did not meet 

demands of boosters and land speculators, especially during drought years.

Oakes Murphy became a leader in the political debate over water and irrigation, 
365

especially governmental support. At the 1892 National Republican Convention, 

Oakes was able to have included as part of that major party’s platform the fi rst 

call for federal support of private irrigation projects.10

 In 1894 Oakes ran for and was elected to the U.S. Congress as Arizona 

Territory’s delegate or non-voting member, and again pushed for support for 

irrigation projects in the territories. During his tenure as a member of the U.S. 

Congress, Phoenix hosted the National Irrigation Congress, one with many ideas 

but dominated by disputing factions and many resolutions. Murphy pushed for 

the cession of lands for irrigation projects, in line with the 1894 Carey Act.11

 When Oakes left offi ce in 1897, he turned to developing a resort 

and opening a land offi ce in the Adams Hotel, Phoenix. Among the investors 

who had backed the Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railroad were some of the 

nation’s most prominent businessmen, who now invested in his new projects. 

These investors included Dexter M. Ferry and C. C. Bowen of Detroit, the 

nation’s largest seed producers. Through a fi eld man, Dr. Alexander J. Chandler, 

they had bought Salt River Valley lands and built a major canal. Simon Murphy, 

a millionaire timber man from Detroit and “uncle” of Frank and Oakes, also 

invested in Salt River Valley lands, and supported the canal and land promotions 

of the Ferry and Bowen crowd through Simon’s ranch manager A. C. McQueen.12

 Included in the group of Detroit men was Russell Alger, another 

millionaire timber man. Alger had been a one-time candidate for U.S. President, 

but relinquished his bid to aid the Republicans and elect Benjamin Harrison.

Eight years later, as payback, President William McKinley appointed Alger as 

his Secretary of War. Alger provided access to the White House for the Murphy 

brothers, and, in 1898, helped Oakes Murphy receive a second appointment as 

governor of Arizona.13

 Upon his return to offi ce Governor Murphy joined other residents in 

stating that the biggest need in the Salt River Valley was a means to store 

enough water to ensure that a steady stream could be provided for the expanding 

farmlands. He spoke at national arid lands meetings, raised awareness within the 

federal government, and sought incentives to assist private enterprise. By 1898 

too, he, with his brother Frank, looked at ways to take over the company owning 

the best dam and reservoir site along the Salt River, the foundering Hudson 

Reservoir & Canal Company.14

 Some sixty air miles east of Phoenix, the Salt River fl ows from a broad 

twenty-six mile wide valley into a narrow canyon barely two hundred feet across, 

an ideal water storage dam site. An 1889 visit by a Senatorial committee to 

Phoenix spurred the fi nding and description of the dam site, followed by a savvy 

New York lawyer who lay claim to it under the revised 1891 Federal land laws. 

In 1893 Wells Hendershott organized the Hudson Company Reservoir & Canal 

Company to build the dam and create a reservoir estimated, at fi rst, at eighteen 
366

square miles. U.S. Senator John Martin of Kansas became president and secured 

the company’s claim from the federal land offi ce.15

 However, 1893 was the worst time in the nineteenth century to promote 

new ventures. Across the nation railroads, banks, and canal companies went 

bankrupt as the country entered a depression that lasted from 1893 to 1897.

Hendershott, a tall handsome promoter with personality, raised only $3,900. Sims 

Ely, secretary for Senator Martin, recalled that Hendershott had borrowed from 

the New York City law fi rm of Man & Man in order to keep an offi ce open in 

Phoenix, take water measurements, and do minimal engineering assessments for 

the Hudson Company. The amount of capital needed—the Hudson Company 

had estimated $2.5 million—was beyond the reach of the Salt River Valley 

fi nancial world at that time. Overextended, Hendershott transferred his control 

of the company to the Man brothers, particularly Henry Man. Sims Ely moved to 

Phoenix in 1895 as manager for the company.16

 The company received a boost two years later when the U.S. Geological 

Survey published a report that confi rmed that the site was the best along the 

river—indeed, was one of the best sites for a reservoir and storage dam in the 

West. That year Frank Murphy with Dr. Chandler visited the Hudson site. In 

addition, Sims Ely, Hudson Company manager, became part-time reporter for 

Frank Murphy’s Arizona Republican newspaper. The following spring of 1898, 

Ely also became personal secretary to Governor Murphy.17

 In his fi rst report as governor, Oakes Murphy outlined in optimistic terms 

the products of the Salt River Valley, but added that without the Hudson Reservoir 

the limit of water for irrigation had been reached. His report also contains a 

lengthy description of the potential of the Hudson Company project, written as 

a promotional tract by secretary Ely. It stated “the further development of water 

supply is, therefore, one of the most absorbing problems with which the people of 

this Territory have to deal with.”18

 The Governor proposed several legislative initiatives to help build the 

dam, which was to remain a private enterprise. The territory should be given 

federal lands which it could then sell and use the revenues for irrigation projects.

Also, the dam project should receive subsidies like railroad projects had, 

including tax breaks and county or territorial bonds. Frank Murphy had been in 

Washington asking Congress to allow the territory to issue gold bonds for public 

improvement projects, including water systems. He also boasted to a New York 

Times reporter that Arizona oranges could reach eastern markets two days ahead 

of those grown in California.19

 Frank was the key to raising capital to build the dam. Ferry, Bowen, 

Simon Murphy, and Alger all helped back Frank Murphy’s Santa Fe, Prescott & 

Phoenix Railroad. These men owned large tracts of land southeast of Phoenix. 
367

They also pushed for a railroad extension to these undeveloped farmlands. The 

railroad could also support the dam building effort.20

 In 1900 Frank Murphy and his partners owned the territory’s richest gold 

mine, were consolidating its richest silver mining district, and held one of its most 

profi table railroads. They also owned newspapers, banks, mercantile, and other 

support business.21 Imitating others, they began discussing the formation of a 

large holding company, ultimately called the Development Company of America 

(DCA), to transfer their operating companies to and then seek other opportunities 

for investment. The DCA would investigate new business proposals and, when 

one had promise, undertake its initial fi nancial support by setting up an operating 

company. They would control the operating company by holding half its stock 

and bonds, but selling shares and mortgage bonds to the general investing public 

to raise funds. The Hudson dam project was an obvious choice for the group.22

 The meeting in New York City in the summer of 1900 was followed 

by the drafting of the proposed company’s documents. George W. Kretzinger, 

Chicago attorney and a director of Murphy’s railroad and investor in Arizona 

mines, described the best way to organize the company. The Hudson Company 

was to be taken over by a new corporate entity, all the canals in the valley were 

to be acquired, the canals were to be improved and extended, all water franchises 

acquired, and the operation of an electric power system begun. This company 

would be controlled by a holding company, the Development Company of 

America (DCA).23

 The DCA would be presided over by Frank Murphy. Engineer Elton 

Hooker would serve as vice president and general manager; he also represented 

his father-in-law Dexter Ferry. Making up the rest of the holding company 

directorate would be Senator Alger of Michigan; New York City lawyer Henry 

M. Robinson; N. K. Fairbank, Chicago grain and fl our millionaire; Benjamin P. 

Cheney, representing the Santa Fe railroad and a Boston millionaire; Clement 

A. Griscom, Philadelphia shipping magnate; Eliphalet B. Gage, president of 

the Phoenix National Bank, Tempe Land Co., and the Tombstone Consolidated 

Mines Co., Ltd.; and seven other directors. Each had holdings in Arizona, were 

participants in earlier Murphy projects, and controlled wealth in their own fi elds.24

 More importantly, while they were discussing possible projects in Arizona, 

they were ready to come into massive amounts of investment funds. Robinson 

was negotiating for steel and coal men in Michigan and Ohio with banker J. P. 

Morgan, who would buy them out to form U.S. Steel in 1901. At the same time, 

Frank Murphy was negotiating the sale of the Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix 

Railroad to the Santa Fe Railway for a reported three million, consummated 

in October 1901. These funds would be directed through the DCA to Arizona 

projects.25
368

 The fi rm of Man & Man stood as ready and willing sellers of the Hudson 

project. Man & Man had continued to hold claim to the site and had funded Sims 

Ely, its Phoenix agent, to monitor water fl ow, collect statistics, and to work with 

local canal companies to ensure, if built, there would be water for all. In 1899 he 

had arranged an agreement with the canal companies that ensured certain water 

levels and levels of profi t for the Hudson Company.26

 The canals on the south side of the river, controlled by the Michigan 

group, would come into the new DCA operating company. Murphy was 

discussing cooperation with lawyer W. B. Cleary, manager of the New York 

controlled Arizona Water Company, owners of the Arizona, Grand, Maricopa, 

and Salt River canals, all the major canals north of the river. Also in support 

was Moses H. Sherman, now of Los Angeles, but major owner of the Phoenix 

municipal water and electric power system, trolley line, and an extensive land 

owner.27

 Governor Oakes Murphy pushed the territorial legislature to pass a 

tax break of 15 years for new reservoir projects and then began pushing for a 

bond package of up to $2 million. During 1900-1901, various backers of the 

consolidation and holding company visited Phoenix. Senator Alger visited as 

did others including Chicagoan Marshall Field, backer of Murphy’s railroad and 

one of the ten richest Americans of all time. Most importantly, in May 1901, 

President William McKinley visited Phoenix and the Congress gold mine, owned 

by Frank Murphy’s group. McKinley made quips about Arizonans backing the 

gold standard, but, unstated, he supported his governor and his pro-business 

political attitude.28

 During fall 1901 the fi nishing touches on organizing the Development 

Company of America were completed, and the initiation of construction of 

the Phoenix & Eastern Railroad began. The railroad would support valley 

communities and the dam construction. Papers were drawn to transfer the Hudson 

Company to the DCA. DCA vice president and engineer Elton Hooker readied 

himself to take charge of the DCA’s many projects, including building the nation’s 

largest dam. Construction engineer F. S. Washburn of Tennessee, expert in water 

control systems, joined DCA.29

 As Oakes Murphy pushed for bonding legislation and Frank Murphy 

drafted papers for the organization of a strong operating company, advocates 

of federal irrigation continued to oppose private projects. Fate would be on 

their side. Outspoken leader of the group George Maxwell, a California lawyer 

specializing in water and irrigation law, was adamantly opposed to private sector 

involvement. The residents of Phoenix were of mixed minds; some, when 

meeting with Maxwell, followed his lead. Just as easily, when meeting with 

the Murphys, the same groups backed the Murphys’ program of bonds and tax 

support for private projects. The name calling, begun in the summer of 1900 

when the Murphys’ newspaper fi rst announced the plan, had died down—one 
369

can speculate that this abusive rhetoric was part of a political attack on Oakes 

Murphy, then the Republican candidate for Delegate to Congress (he lost). But 

the desire for public ownership and control continued to grow.30

 In 1901 events took a decided turn. In September 1901 President 

McKinley was assassinated and Vice President Theodore Roosevelt took offi ce. 

Unfortunate for the old guard, including Oakes Murphy, their access to the White 

House closed (Roosevelt had been a major critic of Secretary of War Alger 

during the Spanish-American War). In his fi rst message to Congress, December 

1901, Roosevelt also became a friend to federal irrigation project proponents by 

including a strong pro-federal reclamation statement and concluding that such 

projects were “too vast for private effort.” The president’s speech was followed 

by resolutions and outpourings of popular western support of a federal program.31

 At that time, Frank Murphy wrote to a business partner,

I have about made up my mind there is not much use trying to organize 

a local company on the lines we discussed, as I am inclined to believe 

we would fi nd great diffi culty in placing the securities of a reservoir 

company if controlled by local infl uences. I am about convinced that 

if the water consumers and tax payers are not willing to let a private 

enterprise take hold of the reservoir proposition on a fair basis, the next 

best thing for them to do is to get authority to issue their county bonds 

for enough money to construct the dam ...32

 As the Maxwell contingent gained access to the White House through 

Roosevelt’s friend Gifford Pinchot, Governor Murphy was rapidly falling out of 

favor. Oakes met his new boss at the Grand Canyon April 6, 1902, and announced 

his resignation the next day. In a letter to a friend two weeks earlier, Governor 

Murphy had written that he would be relieved to quit the “very unprofi table and 

thankless offi ce.”33

 The Murphys continued to push for support of the bond issue for the 

reservoir project. In May 1902 Frank met with some 300 business leaders in 

the Adams Hotel, Phoenix, asking their support for bonding their county for $1 

million in order to get the reservoir built. At the same time, Governor Murphy, 

not offi cially out of offi ce until July, was in Washington as part of a lobbying 

effort to infl uence reclamation legislation. The group worked with Senator 

Francis Warren of Wyoming for a reclamation bill friendly to the territory, 

especially its businessmen. Unfortunately, Senator Warren left suddenly because 

of his wife’s death, and Oakes Murphy wired Phoenix that there would be no 

passage of the bond bill—it would not even make it to the fl oor of the House.34

 As we know today, another group, led by George Maxwell, inserted 

instead the legislation introduced by Francis Newlands, Representative from 

Nevada, which passed June 17, 1902. At the last minute the initial proposal to 

provide support for only undeveloped federal lands was changed to allow for 
370

aiding private lands. As Karen Smith wrote, with this change, Salt River Valley 

land speculators “saw their land turn golden.”35

 With the passage 

of the Newlands Act, if not 

before, the Development 

Company of America halted 

the Hudson Dam project, 

a project later completed 

by the U. S. Reclamation 

Service as the Roosevelt 

Dam. Elton Hooker left in 

the fall of 1902 to become 

a leader in chemical 

manufacturing. The 

Murphy brothers continued 

to promote land deals in the 

valley, Oakes opening an 

offi ce in the Adams Hotel. He profi ted from his speculations, sailed to Europe, 

and died in 1908 at the Coronado Hotel in San Diego.36

 Frank Murphy and the DCA turned primarily to mining and operated some 

of the territory’s largest mines. Unfortunately, the holding company’s Tombstone 

Consolidated Mines, Ltd., hit an underground river equivalent to the fl ow of the 

Salt River and spent $8 million trying to pump the mines dry. The fi rm lost nearly 

as much as the Roosevelt dam would cost in the unsuccessful attempt and closed 

operations in 1911, the year Theodore Roosevelt dedicated his namesake dam.37

 The different tracks followed by the Murphys from the well known 

triumphal story of the events leading to the passage of the Newlands Act and the 

construction of Roosevelt Dam brings up the question, could private industry have 

built and profi ted from the project? Were 90% of canal and irrigation companies 

in fi nancial straits in the 1890s, as proponents of the federal act claimed? 

Evidence suggests that proponents of federal reclamation over-stated the crisis 

of the time. They claimed that not enough capital existed to build such works. 

Obviously, the Development Company of America had the funds.

 The muckraking critics of the era pointed to the government’s Roosevelt 

Dam project as being a scandal, called Uncle Sam a lawbreaker. The government 

by its lax regulation of land laws, one muckraker wrote, had encouraged 

fraudulent irrigation of thousands of acres of the public domain held by Dr. 

Chandler and his backers, when the water was to aid small farmers and owners 

of 160 acres or less. Further accusations were aimed at giveaway electricity. 

The Reclamation Service’s contracts with Pacifi c Gas & Electric, heir of Moses 

Sherman, Murphy and other investors’ Phoenix Light & Water Company, the 

muckraking critic pointed out, were scandalously low priced.38

13.1. This 1909 Phoenix orange grove is typical of the 

agriculture local farmers expected to be able to support 

with water from the Salt River Project.
371

 Finally, Man & Man, through Sims Ely and ex-Governor Murphy, gained 

less than they hoped but their rights were bought out for a profi table $40,000. The 

New York, Michigan, and Chicago investors also made money in selling their 

canal companies to the government. In short, the Murphys and their friends were 

not hurt by the passage of the Newlands Act.39

 The Development Company of America’s Hudson Reservoir project 

fi t well into the politics-as-handmaiden-of-business outlook of the William 

McKinley era of the 1890s. But, like many such projects, it was never undertaken 

by private enterprise. Instead, Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives brought new 

ideas and legislation, and for the West, irrigation projects beyond the imagination 

of any nineteenth century empire builder.

Dr. Robert L. Spude works for the National Park Service in Santa Fe. He has 

served in the Alaska Region, the Rocky Mountain Region, and the Southwest 

Region. He is currently in Santa Fe and has authored many Park Service reports 

on historic preservation-related topics. He has also written Tombstone: Arizona 

Silver Camp (1979); Skagway, District of Alaska, 1884-1912 (1983); and To Test 

by Fire: The Assayer in the American Mining West, 1848-1920 (1989).

Endnotes:

1. Arizona Republican (Phoenix) July 19, 1900.

2. Arizona Republican, August 3, 1900; Earl A. Zarbin, Roosevelt Dam: A History to 1911

(Phoenix: Salt River Project, 1984), pp. 31-49.

3. Ibid.; Karen L. Smith, The Magnifi cent Experiment, Building the Salt River Reclamation 

Project, 1890-1917 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986).

4. Portrait and Biographical Record of Arizona (Chicago: Chapman Publishing Company, 

1901), pp. 61; Albert Nelson Marquis, Who’s Who in America, Vol VIII, 1914-1915 (Chicago: 

A. N. Marquis & Co., 1914), pp. 1699-1700.

5. Ibid.; William O. O’Neill, Central Arizona, For Homes, For Health, For Wealth (Prescott, 

Arizona: Hoof & Horn, 1887), p. 110.

6. On hydraulic mining and water law see Augustus J. Bowie, Jr., A Practical Treatise on 

Hydraulic Mining in California, with Description of the Use of Ditches, Flumes, Wrought-Iron Pipes, 

and Dams; Flow of Water on Heavy Grades, and its Applicability, Under High Pressure, to Mining

(New York: D. Van Nostrand & Co., 1885), pp. 44-50; Charles F. Wilkinson, Crossing the Next 

Meridian, Land, Water, and the Future of the West (Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1992), pp. 231-4; 

and Norris Hundley, Jr., The Great Thirst, Californians and Water, 1770s-1990s (Berkeley: University 

of California Press, 1992), pp. 67-77. Also see Jim McBride, “Hydraulic Mining in Arizona, Using 

the Giant Monitor in an Arid Territory,” in J. Michael Canty, H. Mason Coggin, and Michael N. 

Greeley, eds., History of Arizona Mining, Vol. III (Tucson: Mining Foundation of the Southwest, 

1999), pp 177-85; Nathan O. Murphy, comp., Lynx Creek Hydraulic Mining Water Storage 

Enterprise, Illustrated, Located near Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, no date, no publisher, Cline 

Library, Northern Arizona University; and Thomas G. Barlow-Massicks collection, Lynx Creek 

hydraulics papers, Sharlot Hall Historical Society, Prescott, Arizona.

7. His political career is sketched in Jay J. Wagoner, Arizona Territory, 1863-1912, a Political 

History (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970), passim.; and Howard R. Lamar, The Far 

Southwest, 1846-1912, a Territorial History (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, revised

ed. 2000), passim.

8. Bradford Luckingham, Phoenix, the History of a Southwestern Metropolis (Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press, 1989), pp. 12-42.
372

9. John W. Sayre, The Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway, the Scenic Line of Arizona 

(Boulder: Pruett, 1990), pp. 13, 15-6.

10. Geoffrey Padraic Mawn, “Phoenix, Arizona: Central City of the Southwest, 1870-1920,” 

Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, 1979, p. 221-3.

11. Ibid.

12. Castle Hot Springs Resort fi le, Sharlot Hall Historical Society, Prescott, Arizona; Earl 

Zarbin, “Dr. A. J. Chandler: Practitioner in Land Fraud,” Journal of Arizona History (Summer 1995), 

pp. 173-188; Simon J. Murphy (Detroit: Union Trust Company, 1905); Arizona Republican February 

2, 1905.

13. Rodney Ellis Bell, “A Life of Russell Alexander Alger, 1836-1907,” Ph.D. Dissertation, 

University of Michigan, 1975, pp. 208-12, 325-30.

14. Zarbin, Roosevelt Dam, pp. 29-30.

15. Ibid.; Smith, Magnifi cent Experiment, pp. 8-9; Earl Zarbin, “In Pursuit of a Reservoir,” 

in G. Wesley Johnson, Jr., editor, Phoenix in the Twentieth Century, Essays in Community History 

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993).

16. Sims Ely reminiscences, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson.

17. Ibid.; Murphy and Chandler visited as part of survey of a proposed railroad Phoenix to 

Globe.

18. N. O. Murphy, Report of the Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior, 1899

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1899), pp. 162-74; Arizona Republican,

February 28, 1898.

19. Ibid.; “Against State Cession,” Irrigation Age, July 1899, pp. 359-61; Arizona Graphic,

September 16, 1899; New York Times May 16, 1899.

20. Sayre, Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway, p. 113.

21. Mason H. Coggin, “Frank M. Murphy—Arizona Gold Miner,” in J. Michael Canty and 

Michael N. Greeley, eds., History of Mining in Arizona, Volume II (Tucson: Mining Club of the 

Southwest Foundation, 1991), pp. 111-7.

22.William F. Stanton, “Reminiscence,” Special Collections, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

p. 105, 126; Stanton was general manager for the Development Company of America.

23. Ibid.; Zarbin, Roosevelt Dam, p. 32.

24. Tombstone Consolidated Mines Company, Ltd., prospectus, ca. 1902, Lawler collection, 

Sharlot Hall Historical Society, Prescott, Arizona; The Development Company of America, Annual 

Reports, 1903-1912, Historical Corporate Reports fi les, Baker Library, Harvard University.

25. Rockwell Hereford, A Whole Man—Henry Mauris Robinson, and a Half Century, 

1890-1940 (Pacifi c Grove, California: Boxwood Press, 1964), pp. 20-1; Sayre, Santa Fe, Prescott & 

Phoenix Railway, pp. 95-6.

26. Ely reminiscences, p. 20; Murphy, Governor’s Report, 1899, p. 172.

27. F. M. Murphy to L. H. Chalmers, Phoenix, January 13, 1902, M. H. Sherman to My 

Dear Chal, September 27, 1901, M. H. Sherman to My Dear [E. B.] Gage, June 6, 1903, Louis H. 

Chalmers collection, Arizona Historical Foundation, Tempe.

28. Zarbin, Roosevelt Dam, p. 31; Arizona Republican, May 8, 1901. 

29. Stanton, Reminiscence, p. 126; Sayre, Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway, p. 113.

30. Zarbin, Roosevelt Dam, pp. 32-8; Donald J. Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West, Water, Law, 

and Public Policy, 1848-1902 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1992), passim.

31. Ibid.; William E. Smythe, “Public Works of Irrigation,” Out West (January 1902), 

p. 88-92 declared, “The President of the United States is for irrigation! But that is only half the 

glorious truth. He is for irrigation on lines of wisdom and everlasting justice. In dealing with the 

delicate relations of State and Nation—of the vested rights of capital, on one hand, and the vested 

rights of humanity on the other—he has plucked the fl ower Safety, from the nettle Danger.”

32. F. M. Murphy to L. H. Chalmers, Phoenix, January 13, 1902, Louis H. Chalmers collection, 

Arizona Historical Foundation, Tempe.

33. N. O. Murphy to Mr. Banta, March 20, 1902, A. F. Banta Collection, Sharlot Hall Historical 

Society, Prescott.

34. Arizona Republican May 28, 29, June 14, 1902; William Lilley III and Lewis L. Gould, 

“The Western Irrigation Movement, 1878-1902: A Reappraisal,” in Gene M. Gressley, ed., The

American West, a Reorientation (Laramie: University of Wyoming Press, 1966), pp. 57-74.
373

35. Karen L. Smith, “The Campaign for Water in Central Arizona, 1890-1903,” Arizona and 

the West (Summer 1981), 127-148.

36. Arizona Republican August 23, 1908; on Hooker see Who’s Who in America, 1935-6, 

pp. 1189-1190.

37. Stanton, Reminiscences, passim.; The Copper Handbook, 1910-1911, p. 736.

38. Frank Blighton, “Uncle Sam, Lawbreaker,” Everybody’s Magazine (April 1913), 

pp. 435-442; Earl Zarbin, “Desert Land Schemes: William J. Murphy and the Arizona Canal,” 

Journal of Arizona History (Summer 2001), 155-180; Earl Zarbin, “Dr. A. J. Chandler: 

Practitioner in Land Fraud,” Journal of Arizona History (Summer 1995), pp. 173-188.

39. Ibid.; Smith, Magnifi cent Experiment, p. 58; Ely reminiscences, p. 22; F. M. Murphy, 

New York City, to E. P. Ripley, A. T. & S. F. Rly, Chicago, July 8, 1902, Atchison Topeka & Santa 

Fe Railway Papers, Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka.
374
375

Irrigation and Early Hydropower Development in the 

Salt River Valley

By:

Stephen Sloan

Abstract

Water and power have always had an intricate relationship 

throughout the modern history of the American West. The limited 

availability of reliable sources for irrigation and accessible traditional 

means of energy production led residents of Arizona’s Salt River Valley 

to take extreme measures to guarantee water and power. Without the 

development of these two resources in the early decades of the twentieth 

century, the post World War II boom in central Arizona would have 

remained an impossibility.

 Experiments with hydropower development in western U.S. 

reclamation projects at the turn of the century provided a glimpse of the 

dividends water storage could offer in energy production and revenues. In 

the Salt River Valley, the success of early power generating plants on the 

canal system and at Roosevelt Dam led developers to seek an expansion 

of reservoir capacity and hydropower generation. As a result, the Salt 

River Project constructed three dams below Roosevelt and above the 

canal diversion dam at Granite Reef. Through the operation of generating 

stations at these sites, the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association sought 

a rapid and signifi cant increase in power revenues to fuel further project 

expansion and ease governmental debt.

 In the case of the Salt River Valley, however, the goals of 

hydropower generation and effi cient irrigation were divergent during 

periods of the 1920s and 1930s. In times of drought, farmers often 

demanded additional water to be released from dams on the upper Salt to 

water their fi elds. When requests went unheeded, many of the farmers 

claimed that SRP was holding water to be used for power generation, which 

provided much higher revenues than irrigation. Farmers’ organizations 

argued that the project was catering to power buyers rather than focusing 

on their primary mission, providing a reliable and suffi cient water supply 

for irrigation. Until the development of additional reservoirs and the 

implementation of pump storage technology, times of drought renewed the 

underlying tensions between hydropower and irrigation.

 Although much has been written on water in the West, the 

relationship between western irrigation and hydropower is a topic often 

neglected. Focusing on the decades of the 1920s and 1930s, the paper 

reveals how the character of a project changes when irrigation and 

generation not only coexist, but compete. Such a study offers needed 

insight into not only the history of the Bureau of Reclamation, but reveals 

much about the nature of the twentieth-century arid West.
376

 Water and power have always had an intricate relationship in the history of 

the American West. These two elements were the cornerstone for the creation of 

modern Arizona and the Salt River Valley. Without the development of each of these 

resources in the early twentieth century, the reality of the post World War II Valley 

boom would have remained an impossibility.

 Aridity, according to many western scholars, is the defi ning characteristic of 

the American West. For early residents of the Valley in the late nineteenth century, 

aridity represented a primary obstacle to permanent settlement. The Salt River, the 

major water source for central Arizona, varied in fl ow from raging torrent to a small 

stream. Early settlers, such as the Swilling party, based the fi rst recorded attempts 

to irrigate the fl atlands along the Salt River upon a system of irrigation ditches 

constructed by prehistoric Valley residents. The Hohokam left a legacy of 600 to 

700 miles of primary irrigation canals and laterals. Many of these ditches became 

the foundation for the modern network of Valley waterways.1 Like the Hohokam, 

modern settlers began damming, diverting, and ditching the Salt to make the most 

effi cient use of limited water resources.

 As the population grew and more irrigation enterprises depended on the 

erratic fl ow of the Salt, better control over the water supply became a necessity. 

Farmers along the river witnessed cycles of fl ood and drought that compromised 

their ability to prosper. Flood meant not only damage to crops, but, more 

importantly, was seen as a waste of valuable river water. Drought brought confl ict 

over water rights and dramatic drops in farm production. A solution to the problems 

of fl ood and drought required a comprehensive irrigation plan for reducing loss 

and increasing supply. An answer to the question of how to develop the irrigation 

resources of the Valley came with the passage of the federal Reclamation Act 

of 1902. The act allowed funding for the construction of Roosevelt Dam at the 

confl uence of the Salt River and Tonto Creek, seventy-seven miles east of Phoenix. 

The dam impounded fl oodwaters for agricultural use during dry years and served as 

the keystone of the new irrigation system. With creation of the Salt River Project, 

local farmers had hope that triumph over the obstacle of aridity was close at hand.

 Along with the challenge aridity presented in much of the West, western 

power generation development was an equally formidable task. In the Salt River 

Valley, the inaccessibility of traditional power sources, such as timber and coal 

deposits, caused developers to look for alternatives for energy. Steam plants 

that used fuel oil to operate boilers provided an early, yet expensive, alternative. 

The development of western U.S. reclamation projects provided glimpses of the 

dividends that water storage could provide in energy production and revenues. 

The fi rst reclamation projects, including the Salt River Project, used hydroelectric 

power in the construction of irrigation features. As Bureau of Reclamation Director 

Elwood Mead would later note, the earlier government effort made “extensive use 

of the opportunities which existed on many mountain streams, to cheapen the cost of 

excavating canals by employing hydroelectric power to displace coal and gasoline, 

horses and mules.”2
377

 Soon after planning began 

for Roosevelt Dam construction, 

reclamation engineers realized 

that hydropower could provide 

the most reliable and effi cient 

source of energy for construction. 

Developers noted that the energy 

produced at Roosevelt could not 

only be used for construction, 

but also wholesaled to the nearby 

Globe area mines, sent to the 

Valley as power for pumping, 

or transmitted to Phoenix as a 

municipal energy source.3

 The 

hydroelectric units installed at 

Roosevelt started the Salt River 

Project in the power business 

and created the fi rst multipurpose 

project under the Reclamation Act.

 As the Bureau of Reclamation continued to develop irrigation features 

throughout the Valley, the work at Granite Reef Diversion Dam and along the 

canal system required a new network of transmission lines to power construction 

and excavation equipment. The lines erected during this period would later form 

the main distribution system reaching out to all corners of the Valley.4

 The water 

distribution network thus determined the structure of the early power grid for the 

valley. As work continued, additional hydropower plants were created along the 

canal system to supplement the primary generation at Roosevelt.

 In 1917, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane insisted that the project 

cease to be federally operated and that control be turned over to the landowners. He 

argued that government paternalism had no place in such a local concern. Although 

many local representatives were hesitant about the change, Karen Smith argues 

that one of the factors that led them to agreement was a recent “reinterpretation of 

reclamation policy which allowed profi ts from the sale of power to be used in any 

way the water users wanted.”5

 The prospect of future hydropower development was an important factor 

in rallying local support for the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association’s 

assumption of project control. The revenues created by hydropower sales could be 

used by the Association to pay off government debt and subsidize the cost of water 

storage and transmission. Although plans for expanded power production were not 

yet widely considered, the revenues being generated by the power production system 

in place indicated the profi t potential that might be available from an expanded 

system.

14.1. Roosevelt Dam and Powerhouse in August of 

1909.
378

 In 1917, the generation 

system included the Roosevelt 

units and four small hydro plants 

in the canal system. The principal 

power development of the project 

remained at Roosevelt, where the 

Association operated a generating 

station with an installed capacity 

of 16,000-horsepower. The 

Association, in accordance 

with a 1910 contract with the 

government, created the four 

smaller plants, Crosscut, South 

Con, Arizona Falls, and Chandler. 

Built in 1914 at the junction 

of the New Arizona Crosscut and the extension of the Grand Canal, the Crosscut 

hydro-plant was the closest generating station to metropolitan Phoenix. The South 

Con, built in 1910, served as a generating station at the junction of the Eastern 

and Consolidated Canals, a few miles below Granite Reef diversion dam. Arizona 

Falls, an older facility on the Arizona Canal, was fi tted with two hydroelectric units 

in 1912. Originally a steam plant, the Chandler Power Plant was converted to 

hydropower around the beginning of the decade at the existing site on the Tempe 

Canal.6

 All four generating stations operated on the existing canal network and did 

not involve any signifi cant retention or diversion of water that was to be used for 

irrigation. Together with Roosevelt, the fi ve generating stations had a total capacity 

of 27,000-horsepower.7 The small network of power producing hydro-plants would 

soon prove inadequate to satisfy the growing demand for industrial and residential 

power.

 Soon after taking control of the project, the leadership of the Association 

began to realize the unique positioning of the project in relationship to power for 

Arizona. T. A. Hayden, an Association engineer, noted that, in 1920, 80% of the 

total annual power load for the state of Arizona was “used within a radius of less 

than 100 miles of the Association=s plants; half of this load being already in touch 

with the Association=s existing transmission lines.”8 Project leadership recognized 

that a ready and accessible market needed new power sources and the unused 

hydropower potential of the Salt could provide the answer.

 One of the leading proponents for the expansion of hydropower generation 

on the Salt River Project was C. C. Cragin, the general superintendent and chief 

engineer of the Association in the 1920s. Cragin, who was recently named one of 

Energy Markets Most Infl uential People in Electricity and Gas, had a bold vision 

of what the Association generation system could become with new developments. 

In a proposal for additional hydropower development submitted to the Association 

board in 1922, Cragin provided a detailed analysis of the power situation for the 

Association board. His Report on “Proposed Additional Hydro-Electric Power 

14.2. Granite Reef Diversion Dam in 1910.
379

Development in the Salt River” included a brief analysis of the early relationship 

between hydropower and irrigation. In the report, the engineer acknowledged 

that the superior right to the waters of the Salt had been and should always be for 

irrigation. Cragin argued, however, that the centrality of irrigation did not preclude 

the development of power resources. For Cragin, the Association could no longer 

ignore the unused power potential of the Salt. He noted that it had become “quite 

evident that large quantities of power are now going to waste while the water drawn 

from Roosevelt Reservoir, for irrigation use, drops to the lower level of the Valley.”9

 Early proponents of energy development such as Cragin recognized 

the diffi culties of matching the goals of an irrigation project and a hydropower 

generation venture. The water movement patterns for irrigation were by no 

means ideal for power generation. Water releases through Roosevelt and the 

canal system vary greatly throughout the year. In summer, when the agricultural 

demand for water was high, generation capacity could exceed demand, while in 

winter electricity available plummeted with the drop in irrigation. Any future 

development of hydropower had to deal with a heavy water fl ow for seven months 

of the year and a very light fl ow for fi ve months. Cragin argued that the relationship 

between irrigation demand and hydropower production forced the Association to 

choose between three alternatives: contract for a variable power supply depending 

on irrigation demand, waste water for power, or build additional storage to 

regulate water releases for power purposes.10 In considering a course of action, 

the Association=s concern regarding competing power suppliers made contracting 

for variable power an unattractive alternative and wasting water went against the 

fundamental nature of the project.

 Although proponents of hydropower expansion spoke of the usefulness of 

the new power for residential and agricultural purposes, a large consideration in 

pursuing additional energy development was the potential industrial load. Some of 

the larger enterprises in the market for additional hydropower at the time included 

the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, Ray Consolidated Copper Company, 

Magma Copper Company, and Southwest Cotton Company. These fi rms represented 

potential markets for power as well as partners that could be used to help fi nance 

new developments. As H. J. Lawson, president of the Association in the 1930s, 

would note, “the Project was most fortunately situated as regards to power 

development, being far from any other source of power or fuel supply and in a fast 

developing country with a very considerable and industrial mine load.”11

 It became evident by the early 1920s, that a new source of energy was 

required to supply the growing needs of the developing Valley. Many members of 

the Association were of the opinion that if the Project did not provide the desired 

energy, outside interests would take advantage of the opportunity. The introduction 

of new competitors in power production could not only have resulted in a loss of 

revenue due to lower rates and less customers, but could have caused an interference 

with the existing irrigation system.12 Additional hydropower development was 

necessary both to reach new markets and protect established ones.
380

 Additional reservoir construction along the Salt seemed to be the only 

acceptable solution for the power generation situation encountered by the 

Association. More storage could ease the complications presented by attempting to 

generate hydropower on a system with a single dam. With additional water storage, 

irrigation water passed through Roosevelt Dam could not only generate power and 

be captured by lower dams until needed, but also generate additional hydropower 

when passed through the lower dams. The additional water storage would bring 

power production to an underutilized 45-mile long, 604-foot drop from Roosevelt 

Dam to Granite Reef Diversion Dam. Once water left Roosevelt, it could be used 

for power several times before entering the canal system. Just as waste had been an 

overriding concern in developing the irrigation system, it became a central theme in 

developing the Valley’s power resources.

 The fi rst dam constructed on the new system was built approximately 

seventeen miles below Roosevelt in a box canyon near Mormon Flat. The 

construction of Mormon Flat Dam, 1923 to 1925, began the fundamental shift of 

the project from one devoted exclusively to irrigation to an irrigation/hydropower 

development. According to Cragin, the value of the Mormon Flat Dam would 

be that it “permits the generation of hydro-power during times when there is no 

irrigation draft on Roosevelt.”13 Of secondary importance, the new dam could 

stabilize the daily and weekly fl uctuations in power development at Roosevelt by 

offering additional irrigation storage downstream.

 Along with the Mormon Flat Dam, the Association constructed two 

additional storage reservoirs on the lower Salt and gated the Roosevelt spillways in 

the 1920s. Horse Mesa, located between Mormon Flat and Roosevelt, 1924 to 1927, 

and Stewart Mountain, constructed 1928 to 1930, completed a seven-year period of 

construction, and Stewart Mountain, built below Mormon Flat above the Granite 

Reef Diversion Dam, contributed both additional water storage and hydropower 

generation to the Project. Manipulating the water levels at the four generating dams 

on the Salt, the Association could better maximize energy production.

 Power, which in the early days of reclamation was viewed as primarily 

for construction and pumping, was now supplied to towns, homes, cotton gins 

and mines. As a result of the additional development, the Project increased 

the generating capacity of the hydroelectric system from 23,000-horsepower 

to 103,000-horsepower. The gross annual power revenues escalated from 

approximately $500,000 annually to yearly revenue of nearly $2,500,000.14 The 

additional revenue proved important in many ways: to subsidize water delivery 

costs, to pay portions of the expansion costs, and to repay government debt. As 

Association President H. J. Lawson would later note, “the only reason why the Salt 

River Project has been able to meet its obligations to the government can be given in 

one word—power.”15
381

 The expansion of the power system increased the electricity available to both 

the urban and rural areas of the Salt River Valley. For the Salt River Valley farmer, 

the benefi ts provided by the new development were many. By 1930 2,000 farms had 

electricity with approximately fi fty new connections per week. Power was used not 

only for pumping, but for “cooking ranges, water heaters, ensilage cutters, milking 

machines, cream separators, feed grinders, incubators, brooders and a host of other 

farm appliances.”16 Advertisements for the latest in home electrical appliances were 

prevalent in local newspapers as retailers claimed the ways in which new products, 

such as the vacuum cleaner and the washing machine, could lessen manual work and 

improve the quality of life in the Valley.

 Despite the gains in rural electrifi cation realized through the expansion of 

the hydropower system, some argued that the irrigation/hydropower relationship 

remained strained. The dual objectives of maximizing hydropower generation 

and effi ciently providing irrigation were often at cross-purposes. Although the 

development of additional storage below Roosevelt Dam was proposed as a way to 

reconcile the variant goals of irrigation and hydropower, the expansion served to 

increase the tension within the relationship by raising the importance of hydropower 

to the Project.

 In a 1932 journal article in the American Society of Civil Engineers Papers,

C. C. Cragin refl ected on the dynamics of developing hydropower on an irrigation 

project. He noted three fundamental restrictions that must be honored when 

embarking upon combined development: power development is justifi ed only when 

there is little or no interference with the irrigation system, generation expansion 

is only warranted when the profi t margin assured is signifi cantly greater than that 

required in an independent power concern, and an irrigation project is justifi ed 

to enter the general power business only in the most unusual of circumstances.17

Although he argues that the Salt River Project’s hydropower expansion considered 

these three restrictions, Cragin was conscious of the many tensions inherent in the 

creation of a dual-purpose project.

 In the early 1930s some Salt River Valley farmers’ groups argued that the 

Project had forgotten its true purpose and lost its way. Critics protested that the 

pursuit of hydropower distracted the Association leadership from the heart and soul 

of the Project, water storage and irrigation. In times of drought, unmet demands for 

water releases from Valley farms caused some to accuse the Association of catering 

to power buyers over irrigation interests. By holding water, critics argued, the 

Project was timing releases for the generation and sale of power, which provided 

much higher revenues than irrigation.

 In some cases, the Association offered to sell power to Valley farms for the 

pumping of irrigation water rather than release reservoir storage. Farmers often 

objected to this new policy based on claims that the land was legally entitled to 

river fl ow, which they argued was of a much higher quality than pump water. In a 

1936 court case, E. C. Adams vs. Salt River Water Users’ Association, the plaintiff 
382

sued maintaining that “crop yields have for a number of years been gradually going 

down, down, down and that these things are a direct result of what the Association 

had done.”18

 Critics of the changing character of the Project contended that the 

relationship between hydropower and irrigation was irreconcilable. Some argued 

that a farmers’ organization had no place in such a highly competitive business 

as energy; an endeavor that required a great deal of long term planning and 

management as well as the development of new sources of capital for expansion.19

The local division of opinion regarding the future role of the Association in 

hydropower was so prevalent that it eventually reached Washington. In a 1937 

memo, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John C. Page noted that in light of the 

dispute, Association directors “might well consider the basis on which they would be 

willing to release all power facilities to the United States.”20

 The Association hydropower development of the 1920s became a heated 

political issue in Valley political debates during the 1930s. The argument 

over the irrigation/hydropower relationship created warring factions vying for 

control. Critics attempting to gain control of the organization contended that the 

leadership of the previous decade guided the Association down the incorrect path of 

hydropower expansion. Defenders of hydropower countered that their reactionary 

opposition preferred to eschew progress for a return to the horse-and-buggy age.

They argued that, for whatever fl aws may exist in the hydropower system, “it is a 

utopian condition too good to be lost, just because some petty conspirators are trying 

to paint the picture far blacker than it really is.”21

 Tensions in the relationship between hydropower and irrigation remained 

high until several new developments in the Valley in the late 1930s. Three changes 

that quieted the controversy were the creation of additional water storage on the 

Verde River, the implementation of pump storage technology, and the development 

of alternative power sources. Bartlett Dam, completed in 1939, had no hydropower 

generation and offered water storage exclusively for irrigation. The new dam on 

the Verde was also situated below Salt River generation and could release water 

directly to Granite Reef and into the canal system. Pump storage technology made 

it possible for the Project to use inexpensive, off-peak power to pump from the 

tailwaters below dams back up into the reservoir at night. Pump storage allowed the 

Project to replenish reservoir capacity with waters that had already been released 

for power generation. The development of additional steam plants in the late 1930s 

and the completion of transmission lines for Colorado River power in 1940 eased 

the reliance on Salt River generation by providing a variable load not dependent 

on irrigation demands. The Association now had alternative answers to the often 

challenging problem of supplying a reliable source of energy.

 With the transformation of the Valley following World War II, the 

relationship between hydropower and irrigation changed dramatically. In the context 

of the new rapid residential and industrial growth the earlier hydropower expansion 
383

was seen as a critical development for the future success of central Arizona. Upon 

refl ecting on the changes of the 1920s and 1930s, the period was not just one of the 

evolution of the Salt River Project, but the beginnings of a Valley metamorphosis 

from an agricultural/rural area with a priority of irrigation to a non-agriculturalurban region with a need for energy.

 In 1998, only 22 percent of the water deliveries from the Salt River Project 

went to agricultural customers. Although agricultural production still exists in the 

Valley, the urbanization of the Valley has changed the basic function of the Project. 

In the 1930s, critics argued against attempts to build hydropower on a project 

devoted to irrigation. By the end of the twentieth century, irrigation now exists as 

somewhat of an adjunct on a project much of the population perceives as devoted to 

power generation.

 Only through knowledge of the early relationship between hydropower 

and irrigation can one realize the dramatic changes that have taken place in the 

Salt River Valley. Such awareness provides a new angle on the well told story of 

the West and its water. Understanding the dynamics of the relationship between 

hydropower and irrigation offers needed insight into not only the history of central 

Arizona, but much of the twentieth century arid West.

Stephen M. Sloan is an assistant professor of history and co-director of 

the oral history program at the University of Southern Mississippi in 

Hattiesburg.

Endnotes

1. Earl Zarbin, Two Sides of the River: Salt River Valley Canals, 1867-1902 (Phoenix: Salt 

River Project, 1997), 

2. .Elwood Mead, “Social and Economic Value of Electrical Development in Federal 

Reclamation,” Reclamation Era (July 1932), 121.

3. Karen Smith, The Magnifi cent Experiment: Building the Salt river Reclamation Project, 

1890-1917 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986), 79.

4. Mead, 121. 

5. Smith, 142.

6. Salt River ValleyCA Story of Water, Salt River Project Environmental Affairs, Salt River 

Research Archives, Phoenix, Arizona, 17.

7. C. C. Cragin, “Report on Proposed Additional Hydro-Electric Power Development of the 

Salt River,” Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, February 1922, Salt River Project Research 

Archives, Phoenix, Arizona, 1.

8. T. A. Hayden, “Salt River Project, Arizona,” Western Construction News, 25 June 1930, 

295.

9. Cragin, 1.

10. Ibid., 66.

11. H. J. Lawson, Memo to E. P. Osgood, 29 December 1937, Salt River Project Research 

Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.

12. Hayden, 296.

13. Cragin, 27.

14. Hayden, 297.

15. H. J. Lawson, “Profi ts from Power” Arizona Producer, 1 April 1932, 1.
384

16. Mead, 121.

17. C. C. Cragin, “Development of Hydro-Electric Power as an Aid to Irrigation,” American

Society of Civil Engineers Papers (April 1932): 546-547.

18. E. C. Adams vs. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, Superior Court of the State of 

Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa No. 41005, 23 January 1936, Salt River Project Research 

Archives, Phoenix, Arizona, 18.

19. H. J. Lawson, Memo to E. P. Osgood.

20. John C. Page, Memo to R. F. Walter, 23 October 1937, Salt River Project Research 

Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.

21. “Power Unit Sale May Be New Danger,” Farmers’ Free Press, 19 March 1934, 2.

Selected Bibliography

Cragin, C. C. “Development of Hydro-Electric Power as an Aid to Irrigation,” American Society

 of Civil Engineers Papers (April 1932), 545-557.

________. “Report on Proposed Additional Hydro-Electric Power Development of the Salt 

 River.” Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, February 1922. Salt River Project 

 Research Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.

E. C. Adams vs. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, Superior Court of the State of Arizona 

 in and for the County of Maricopa No. 41005, 23 January 1936. Salt River Project 

 Research Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hayden, T. A. “Salt River Project, Arizona.” Western Construction News 25 June 1930, 294-302, 

 319-27.

Lawson, H. J. Memo to E. P. Osgood, 29 December 1937. Salt River Project Research Archives, 

 Phoenix, Arizona.

________. “Profi ts from Power.” Arizona Producer 1 April 1932, 1-2.

Mead, Elwood. “Social and Economic Value of Electrical Development in Federal Reclamation.” 

Reclamation Era (July 1932): 121-2.

Page, John C. Memo to R. F. Walter, 23 October 1937. Salt River Project Research Archives, 

 Phoenix, Arizona.

“Power Unit Sale May Be New Danger.” Farmer’s Free Press 19 March 1934, 1-2.

Salt River ValleyCA Story of Water. Salt River Project Environmental Affairs, Salt River Research 

 Archives, Phoenix, Arizona.

Smith, Karen. The Magnifi cent Experiment: Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, 

 1890-1917. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986.

Zarbin, Earl. Two Sides of the River: Salt River Valley Canals, 1867-1902. Phoenix: Salt River 

 Project, 1997
385

Water, Culture, and Boosterism: Albin and 

Elizabeth DeMary and the Minidoka Reclamation 

Project, 1905-1920

By:

Laura Woodworth-Ney

 In July 1904 thirty-three year-old Albin C. DeMary traveled from his 

home in Boise, Idaho, to the Reclamation Service’s newly opened Minidoka tract.1

DeMary’s duties as clerk of the U.S. Assay Offi ce alerted him to the Reclamation 

Service’s fi rst Idaho irrigation project. Proposed in 1903, the project would provide 

water to the arid sagebrush plains of southern Idaho’s Snake River desert. DeMary 

returned with an enthusiastic vision for Minidoka’s commercial future and with a 

steadfast commitment to reclamation. “The character of the soil is such that the 

establishment of a beet sugar factory upon the tract would prove an unbounded 

success,” DeMary told a Boise newspaper reporter. He and his companions had 

been “struck” by “the absence of lava rock...upon the entire 60,000 acres.”2 Less 

than a year later, DeMary moved his parents and his wife of four years, Elizabeth 

Layton DeMary, to Minidoka, where he established a homestead three miles 

northeast of present-day Rupert.

 DeMary’s optimism, 

characteristic of a generation of 

early irrigation entrepreneurs in 

the arid West, stemmed from the 

notion that government aid could 

do what individual investors could 

not—turn Idaho’s windswept, 

lava-rock-strewn desert into an 

agrarian oasis. Federally-funded 

irrigation projects, DeMary 

and other boosters reasoned, 

would provide small farmers 

an unprecedented opportunity 

for economic independence.

DeMary’s Commercial Club 

and Water Users Association, along with his wife’s Culture Club, represented the 

political and cultural infl uence that young, educated settlers exercised in newly 

established irrigation communities during the settlement period (1870-1920). The 

efforts of the DeMarys and their like-minded associates—a self-styled Protestant 

“elite”—infl uenced the formation of city government, shaped community policy, and 

challenged gendered divisions of work. The activities of the Commercial, Culture, 

and Water Users associations refl ected the political and social values of Progressive 

reform; their methods married coercive and positive environmentalist approaches 

to social change.3

 While their methods and their technology represented the future, 

15.1. The buildings on the east side of the square 

in Rupert, Idaho, on the Minidoka Project in July 

of 1906.
386

their vision of agrarian utopia was grounded in the Jeffersonian past. Dusty and 

desperate, reclamation towns offered middle-class reformers a unique opportunity to 

shape business and social environments..4

 After arriving on the Minidoka tract in 1905, Albin DeMary quickly built a 

modest house on his claim, where he and Elizabeth began raising their four-year-old 

daughter, Dorothy. A photograph from this period shows Elizabeth and Dorothy 

DeMary standing on the packed dirt outside of their one-room house, dressed in 

their fi nest clothes and hats, seemingly oblivious to the blowing dust and sagebrush 

surrounding them. Their ability to look beyond the dust to an agrarian paradise 

transcended economic development. The future held more than accessible water–it 

also possessed a Progressive culture. Reclamation promised to turn the desert into 

an “irrigated Eden,” but new irrigation towns offered the promise of cultural, as 

well as land, reclamation.5 Irrigated settlement harkened back to a past of small 

farms in rural America, but irrigation’s entrepreneurial settlers challenged the social 

landscapes of the rural West. The creative work produced by Elizabeth DeMary’s 

Culture Club resided at the center of cultural construction on the Minidoka Project. 

The creative expressions of Rupert clubwomen refl ected the unique circumstances of 

settling an arid land, and provided a contrast to the progress narrative articulated in 

booster literature. Through their literary practices, Culture Club members redefi ned 

and shaped cultural perceptions of the 

irrigated landscape.6

 Albin DeMary had been a 

reporter for the Idaho Statesman and a 

clerk in the U.S. Assay Offi ce in Boise 

before coming to the project. DeMary’s 

background, coupled with his degree 

from Illinois College, distinguished 

him as one of the Minidoka Project’s 

elite settlers. When suspicions of fraud 

and embezzlement forced the U.S. 

Land Commissioner for the newly 

platted town of Rupert to resign in April 1906, DeMary received the appointment to 

succeed him. DeMary held the offi ce until 1924, and throughout his tenure served 

as an informal liaison between the Minidoka settlers and the Reclamation Service.

His various roles as land commissioner, charter member of the Rupert Commercial 

Club (became the Rupert Chamber of Commerce in 1917), and founding member 

of the Minidoka Settlers’ Association (later the Minidoka Water Users Association, 

and one of the earliest water users’ organizations in Idaho and the Intermountain 

West), gave DeMary the authority to infl uence Rupert’s business environment. At 

the same time, he negotiated with federal offi cials to achieve control of reclamation 

water for Minidoka settlers. Like many Progressive reformers, DeMary believed 

in the scientifi c management of resources, and he remained committed to the ideal 

of federal reclamation. He also believed that once the service completed a project, 

local control of water became essential for business development. Reclamation 

15.2. Harvesting potatoes in 1909 on the 

Henschied Ranch near Rupert, Idaho.
387

could provide both agricultural and commercial opportunities, but only if local 

settlers and businessmen exercised authority over the project.7

 While Albin DeMary worked to achieve local control of the Minidoka 

reclamation project, his wife, Elizabeth DeMary, labored to provide the project’s 

fastest-growing community–Rupert–with an urban, Progressive culture. DeMary 

seemed intent on proving that an early twentieth century reclamation town did not 

have to exhibit the abhorrent cultural characteristics of many frontier outposts.

Elizabeth DeMary was salutatorian of her class at MacMurry College, Jacksonville, 

Illinois, in 1893, and she had further literary training at the University of California 

and the University of Chicago. Throughout her life she published poetry, essays, 

and travel articles. Her work appeared in many local and national publications 

and anthologies, including Times Magazine, The Reclamation Era, Seeing Idaho,

Sunlit Peaks, Poems of the Northwest, Homespun, and The Book of American 

Verse. Before coming to Rupert, DeMary organized the South Boise Improvement 

Society, which applied Progressive “city beautiful” principles to a section of the 

state’s capital city. Reclamation towns, however, offered the kind of aesthetic and 

social control that could never exist in an established community. Rupert possessed 

none of the problems “city beautiful” adherents associated with older, “decaying” 

environments.8

 The land that the DeMarys 

chose to homestead occupied a tiny 

portion of the Minidoka Project, 

designed to encourage agricultural 

settlement in the arid regions of the 

Snake River Plain in southern Idaho. 

The sagebrush desert and lava fi elds 

of the south-central Snake had long 

intimidated potential homesteaders.

Oregon Trail diarists told of the dust 

and heat of southern Idaho—for 

overlanders the trail through what 

would become Idaho’s “Magic 

Valley” signifi ed only hardship, an 

obstacle to bypass on the way to the Willamette Valley. Because of its lack of appeal 

to homesteaders, the area did not experience large-scale agricultural settlement until 

late in the nineteenth century. Much of this late-arriving settlement, moreover, came 

from the West, not the East. Homesteaders who reached Oregon and California 

too late to procure land in those regions turned back to try their luck in the arid 

interior regions. The fi rst non-Indian settlement in the Minidoka area began in the 

1880s and 1890s, when small numbers of farmers and ranchers came to the region 

and settled near the Snake River. Farmers like Henry Shodde constructed private 

irrigation systems, some under the homestead provisions of the Desert Land Act 

of 1877, using water wheels in the river’s fl ow to irrigate up to about two-hundred 

acres. With its vast elevation variation, hot summers, and a yearly rainfall of 

15.3. The offi ce of the Minidoka Irrigation District 

in Rupert in 1927.
388

between nine and twelve inches, the Snake River Plain defeated most individual and 

private irrigation enterprises.9

 The failure of private and state irrigation projects provided federal 

reclamation adherents with the ammunition to lobby for a federal reclamation act.

The national bill came in 1902 with congressional approval of the Newlands Act, a 

bold measure which created the United States Reclamation Service and authorized 

the federal government to fi nance and construct large-scale irrigation projects in the 

arid West.10 After passage of the Reclamation Act, the Interior Department withdrew 

130,000 acres of land from homestead fi lings north and south of the lower Snake 

River to create the Minidoka tract. Crews, including an all-female survey group, 

arrived to survey the Minidoka Dam site in March 1903. In April 1904 the Interior 

Secretary appropriated $2,600,000 for the construction of a dam, spillway, canal 

system, power house, and pumping mechanism at Minidoka, making it the seventh 

project funded under the Newlands Act. The Reclamation Service entered into a 

contract with Bates-Rogers Construction Company, Chicago, in August 1904 and 

within the year work on the dam commenced. Bates-Rogers completed the dam and 

its supporting structures in 1909; at that time the project’s irrigation water impacted 

approximately 45,000 acres. It 

was during this initial phase of 

construction that Albin DeMary, 

along with his father and two 

other interested businessmen, 

visited the Minidoka Project and 

became enthusiastic about the 

economic prospects of the region 

north of the Snake River—the 

territory that, through DeMary’s 

infl uence, became Minidoka 

County in 1912.11

 Homesteaders appeared in the Minidoka area almost immediately after the 

Reclamation Service chose the site. Most of the early inhabitants of the project 

associated themselves with the Rupert town site, though the Reclamation Service 

also created the towns of Heyburn and Paul as part of the project. The Rupert

Pioneer announced in November 1905 that “Rupert is on the map, and is out for 

business, all she can get in a legitimate way.” The boosters had their eye not only 

on the land north of the Snake River, at that time part of Lincoln County, but also 

on development opportunities south of the river, in Cassia County. “... No ordinary 

stream will be permitted to become a barrier in extending Rupert’s commercialism,” 

the Rupert paper warned the neighboring community of Burley in 1905. “Eight 

months ago a sagebrush plain, inhabited only by coyotes and long-eared jacks,” the 

Pioneer continued, 

now, at the close of eight months, a city of 400 inhabitants, a school of a 

hundred scholars, a business aggregation of 64 concerns, an opera house, 

15.4. Minidoka Dam in 1911.
389

two secret orders, a Methodist Church, a Sunday school, a lawyer to get 

people out of trouble ... a doctor to cure people of their ills, and a glorious 

future that no man can doubt.12

 Albin and Elizabeth DeMary committed themselves to securing that 

“glorious future.” Elizabeth DeMary infl uenced the cultural climate of Rupert 

primarily through her founding of the Culture Club. Rupert’s unformed social 

structure held great promise for DeMary and her associates, for they could engage 

in municipal building rather than in mere “Municipal Housekeeping,” the term then 

applied to women’s club reform.13 Instead of battling existing institutions, they were

the institution. Considered “the fi rst rural community woman’s club in Idaho,” the 

Culture Club heralded Rupert’s entrance into the Idaho Federated Women’s Club 

movement. The General Federation of Women’s Clubs, founded in 1890, served 

as a national umbrella for women’s organizations. Though wide-ranging in size, 

location, and membership, the federated clubs shared a commitment to education, 

literacy, political activism, and environmental beautifi cation. The clubs enjoyed 

their greatest membership in urban environments, but may have had their greatest 

relative infl uence in rural environments. Isolation, blowing dust, unrelenting 

sun, and scarce water led many women on the reclamation frontier to seek female 

companionship through the club movement. Throughout the irrigated West, these 

groups supported public libraries, city parks, and restrictions on certain behaviors, 

including sidewalk spitting and alcohol consumption. The Culture Club and other 

federated clubs advocated a conservative political role for women, based on the 

moral exceptionality of women, rather than a more radical equal rights position.

They also took the majority of their membership from the ranks of white, Protestant, 

and well-educated women. The General Federation motto “Unity in Diversity” 

referred not to the diversity of the women but to the variety of clubs—few 

immigrant, African-American, American Indian, or Hispanic American women were 

invited to join the ranks.14

 Women’s clubs in the reclamation West were particularly lacking in 

diversity. In places like Rupert, where everyone started out in the same dusty 

shack, “keeping up appearances” placed additional emphasis on associating with 

the “right people.” By the early twentieth century, a certain level of consumption 

was required to maintain middle- or upper-class status, consumption that was 

often unattainable on the sagebrush fl ats. The household manual Our Home, Or 

Infl uences Emanating from the Hearthstone, published in 1899, warned housewives 

that appropriate furnishings were essential for the proper rearing of children: “It is 

as much the duty of parents, then, to adorn and beautify their home as it is to keep 

the moral atmosphere of that home pure.”15 Nineteenth-century sentimental novels 

portrayed the degraded and “uncivilized” conditions of frontier life. Women in 

irrigated settlement areas attempted Victorian and Progressive domesticity without 

gas lighting, indoor plumbing, or household help, at a time when their urban peers 

experienced a revolution in home convenience. To avoid the grim demise of 

female protagonists in Victorian sentimentality—to lose status, refi ned taste, and 

thus authority—middle-class women in irrigated settlement communities founded 
390

literary societies.16 If their living conditions placed them among the laboring 

masses, their creative endeavors set them apart from both the irrigated landscape 

and from association with the working class. The societies also formed the basis for 

a political voice that infl uenced living conditions for all residents on the sagebrush 

plains.

 Elizabeth DeMary and six other women inaugurated Rupert’s Culture 

Club at the home of Anna LaRue, the wife of another of Rupert’s fi rst homestead 

fi lees and businessmen, in October 1905.17 The club chose to limit its membership 

to eighteen, ostensibly because it planned to meet exclusively in private homes, 

and committed itself to the cultural and artistic advancement of Rupert. The club 

did not welcome immigrants or Catholics. The group held its second meeting 

in the DeMary home, but by the spring of 1906 moved some of its meetings to 

the (relatively) prestigious dining room of the Rupert Hotel, located on the town 

square. At the fi rst meeting, club members signed a petition requesting that the State 

Traveling Library include Rupert on its schedule. The traveling library, founded by 

the Columbian Club of Boise in 1893, had become the primary source of literary 

material for over two hundred Idaho communities by 1905. Hosted by women’s 

clubs throughout the state, the traveling library illustrated the connection between 

literacy, education, class and culture that infused rural women’s groups. The Culture 

Club claimed the traveling library, which fi rst visited Rupert in 1906, as an early 

victory in its perceived struggle against frontier illiteracy and degradation.18

 The Culture Club engaged in a variety of other civic programs, and actively 

encouraged the literary and artistic pursuits of its own members. The group funded 

a lyceum lecture series, sponsored an art exhibit, lobbied for women’s public 

restrooms, and spawned a plethora of other women’s clubs, including the Clionian 

Club, Fortnightly Club, Rupert Civic Club, and Merry Go Round Club.19 In 

advocating the institution of public restrooms, the club supported more than a place 

for a lady to use private facilities. Public restrooms for women corresponded to a 

value system of domestic consumption–in order for women to shop in town, they 

needed to have access to a private place. Women’s lounges offered an escape from 

street grime, and a place in which to gather, where literature and reading could be 

placed for the pleasure of the cultured woman. Restrooms also enabled farm women 

to come to town with the knowledge that there would be somewhere to rest and, 

perhaps, to read.20 To further expand the minds of Rupert’s populace, Culture Club 

women also leant their support to Rupert’s Opera House and Dramatic Association, 

which hosted its fi rst production in November 1905. The only such venue south of 

Boise, the opera house refl ected the cultural idealism of Rupert’s clubwomen. When 

it fi rst opened the town newspaper declared that the theater was “designed in such a 

manner that between acts out of town people can gaze upon it and be convinced that 

their wants can be supplied in our city.”21

 The ladies of the club did not, however, want all needs to be met in Rupert.

The club discouraged alcohol consumption and participated in the elimination of 

Rupert’s “Red Light District.” Village trustees and “a large number of citizens,” the 
391

Rupert Pioneer reported in September 1906, met to discuss the town’s “social evil.” 

The group informed red light district occupants that they had twenty-four hours to 

leave town or face arrest and fi nes; the “social evil” responded by leaving on the 

night train.22 Saloons also became a target of the Progressive spirit in early Rupert. 

In November 1909 three Minidoka project reclamation towns—Rupert, Heyburn, 

and Acequia—passed legislation illegalizing the sale of alcoholic beverages.23

 Elizabeth DeMary’s club drew upon the irrigated landscape to portray Rupert 

as a uniquely progressive urban center. Yearly “moonlit excursions” to Minidoka 

Dam married the ideals of the Culture Club to the optimism of reclamation.24 A 

photograph housed at the DeMary Memorial Library in Rupert indicates that the 

Culture Club held meetings in the verdant, irrigated backyard of the DeMary home.

Eight well-dressed women in hats sit near an arbor while Elizabeth DeMary serves 

tea and cookies from a white-clothed table.25 In giving her 1907 presidential address 

to the Culture Club, Elizabeth DeMary declared that the club, like reclamation water, 

was responsible for breaking “the unspeakable quiet of the desert.” Reclamation 

water turned the desert green; Progressive women’s clubs provided the appropriate 

social and cultural landscape. The club had grown in membership “until a name 

upon our roll is a coveted possession,” DeMary explained in her 1907 presidential 

speech, because “our aim is one of mutual helpfulness and a reaching out for those 

things which broaden and enrich life.” “Our vision is not bounded by the endless 

sage brush and the encircling hills,” DeMary continued; “We have penetrated 

beyond.” The 1907 banquet ended with a series of lecture presentations by Rupert’s 

elite settlers. Topics included “A Little Journey in the World: A Contrast of Naples, 

Italy, and Minidoka, Idaho,” “Reminiscences on Roast Turkey,” and “Art in a 

Shack.” The latter speech emphasized the need for culture even in a “humble 

shack” in a “bleak desert.”26 DeMary later described her cultural contribution in the 

Reclamation Record. Every reclamation woman, she emphasized, “had made a great 

sacrifi ce to come to this new land in order that she might help to create in the desert 

a new garden.”27

 The literary practices—the reading, writing, and poetry—maintained by 

the Culture Club, and other irrigated settlement women’s clubs, refl ected and 

defi ned cultural perceptions of the irrigated landscape. DeMary’s poem “Irrigation” 

appeared in Reclamation Era magazine, and illustrates the connection between 

women’s literary work and the “reclaiming” of the desert:

Oh, Mesa, with those wise clear eyes of old

Could you have dreamed this vision to behold?

Long aeons you have gazed across the plain

And Man’s control have held in high disdain

But now where gone are deer and antelope

The stubborn sage that clung to every slope

The caravan that wound its weary way,

The lurching stage that would not brook delay?

Again where vanished tribes of warriors bold

Who bravely fought these native trails to hold?
392

Gone to oblivion, and through the land

A magic wand is Irrigation’s hand.

From distant ports skilled birdmen

wing their fl ights

While desert dark gives way to myriad lights;

Where once the drifting dunes of sand held sway

The children gather fl owers as they may,

And tapestries are spread o’er all the fi elds

Where yellow ripening grain abundance yields

Oh, Mesa, with those wise clear eyes of old

Could you have dreamed this vision to behold?28

 Like DeMary, Irene Welch Grissom, a clubwoman appointed Idaho’s PoetLaureate in 1923 “in response to the request of the State Federation of Women’s 

Clubs,” portrayed a gendered irrigated landscape in her work. DeMary’s desert is 

transformed by “Man’s control”; Grissom’s desert yields to masculine engineering:

A dreamer comes–as dreamers will–

To watch the swirling torrents spill

Between the steep, black lava walls, 

And on the foaming, crashing falls.

He sees the desert, vast and grand,

Give way before a man-made land,

The sparkling streams fl ash here and there,

And life is springing everywhere.29

With the desert’s greening comes feminine infl uence; DeMary’s “children gather 

fl owers as they may,” while Grissom’s irrigated landscape is dotted “with houses set 

in misty green, And church spires lifted high.”30 These gendered portrayals defi ned 

the position of women’s clubs on the irrigated frontier. First, men tamed the desert 

with engineering marvels. Then, women “settled” the new “garden” by introducing 

the elements of civilization—children, homes, and churches.31

 In providing a forum for women’s views, supporting women’s literacy and 

education, and by sponsoring women’s creative practices, the Culture Club indirectly 

supported other Progressive reforms, including suffrage. No evidence exists 

that the club openly endorsed national suffrage. Indeed, many Minidoka settlers 

viewed the group as narrow and elitist. But, as the fi rst women’s organization on 

the Minidoka Project, the club inspired a host of other organizations that supported 

more radical reforms. The Federation of Women’s Clubs, of which the Culture Club 

was a member, endorsed suffrage at its 1910 national convention.32 A photograph 

of the Rupert square, taken during the early 1910s, reveals that the reclamation 

community hosted a suffragette parade. Finely dressed women march down the 

dusty street, carrying signs with slogans such as “Rupert for Suffrage” and “Votes 

for Women.” The parade appears to be well-attended; rows of men and women line 

the streets of the square. Minidoka Project suffragettes already possessed the right 

to vote, because Idaho became the fourth state to grant that right in1896. Rupert’s 

suffrage parade suggests that women in states and communities that already had the 
393

vote were essential in procuring the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. They actively 

lobbied for a right that they already possessed, so that women who could not safely 

fi ght for that right would eventually possess it as well. Many of the women who 

already had the vote lived in the arid West, the area served by the Reclamation Act. 

Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893), Washington (1910), California 

(1911), Oregon (1912), Arizona (1912), Montana (1914), and Nevada (1914) all 

granted full suffrage to women before 1920. Women in reclamation communities 

used their unique relationship with the federal government to support national 

suffrage. Reclamation communities received unprecedented federal attention; 

suffrage advocates used this attention to lobby for women’s voting rights.33

 Elizabeth DeMary’s infl uence extended beyond the cultural landscape to 

the built environment. Rupert’s central green, the only town square in the state 

of Idaho, recalled the city squares of Midwestern towns, where both DeMarys 

spent their childhoods. The Reclamation Service platted Rupert in 1904; by 1905 

businesses had sprung up on four streets facing a square, where Reclamation 

offi cials planned to dig the fi rst well on the Minidoka tract. Settlers called the town 

Wellfi rst, or Wetfi rst, until the service offi cially changed the name to Rupert.34 The 

earliest businesses to locate on the town square did so illegally, as the lots were not 

appraised and sold until 1907 and 1908. Pressure from concerned citizens, like the 

DeMarys, helped to maintain the integrity of the square throughout 1905 and 1906, 

despite problems with squatters and a lack of water. When, during the spring of 

1906, an enterprising businessman attempted to erect a building in the center of the 

square, a group of concerned citizens formed a committee to halt the construction.

Albin DeMary participated in the group, which convinced Cal Masterson to 

move his building and collected six dollars in donations to help defray the cost of 

relocation.35

 In June 1907, with the fi rst irrigation water in sight, Rupert surveyed, 

cleared and graded its streets and planted poplar trees throughout the central 

green. “In the center will be a circle of 75 feet in diameter surrounded by trees,” 

the paper explained, “in which seats will be placed for summer lounging, and to 

which walks will lead diagonally from each corner, and one from each side of the 

four side centers.” To further enhance the irrigated landscape of the town square, 

town trustees forbade carriage traffi c on the immediate side streets, so that women 

would not have to step over steaming clumps of manure, and instituted an ordinance 

requiring teams to be “properly tied either to a hitching post or suitable weight.”

In 1910, Rupert’s trustees issued contracts to build sidewalks around the square; 

the town voted to pave its streets in 1919. By 1947, the Minidoka County News

declared, “no city of comparable size in Idaho has as many hard-surfaced streets 

as the City of Rupert, and every one of them oiled since 1919!” The Rupert town 

square remains a testament to the Edenic idealism of reclamation settlers. An elite 

corps of Rupert founders managed to make the city green a priority, even when 

water was scarce and intended for crop irrigation, not aesthetic use. In January 2001 

the National Park Service listed the Rupert town square and its surrounding historic 

district on the National Register of Historic Places.36
394

 Albin DeMary’s infl uential civic organizations overlapped and 

complemented the efforts of the Culture Club, blurring the lines between the 

political and domestic spheres of men’s and women’s activity. In February 1906 

DeMary and twenty-three other men, many fl edgling Rupert business owners, 

gathered at the Benton building on the square to form the Commercial Club. The 

group committed itself to procuring a water works, electric power plant, fl our 

mill, sugar factory, and graded city streets. Throughout the 1910s and early 1920s 

DeMary and his colleagues never missed an opportunity to further Rupert’s business 

environment. The establishment of the Amalgamated Sugar Factory between the 

towns of Rupert and Paul in 1917 provides an example of the Commercial Club’s 

accomplishments. The Minidoka Project’s vast acreages of irrigated land and 

small family farms attracted the Amalgamated Company; the Commercial Club 

provided the push to bring the 

plant to Rupert. The Commercial 

Club helped convince Minidoka 

farmers to appropriate over 5,000 

acres for sugar beet production.

DeMary’s organization also 

secured the right-of-way for 

a road leading directly from 

Rupert to the processing plant.

Throughout 1917 the Commercial 

Club collected donations to 

compensate farmers for the land 

they surrendered for the road.37

 In spite of victories like the traveling library, Rupert town square, and 

sugar factory, organized optimism and boosterism did not create the kind of 

cultural agrarian paradise that the DeMarys envisioned. The Minidoka Project 

remains one of the most successful in reclamation history—Rupert and the other 

project settlement communities are still viable communities with economies 

based on irrigated agriculture. But the DeMarys were not successful in fending 

off the “frontier image,” or in preventing dangerous settler squabbles. Elizabeth 

DeMary’s club activities could not, in the end, produce a permanent Protestantcontrolled culture. In many ways, the idealism of Progressive settlers like the 

DeMarys stemmed not from actual successes, but from the desire to appear to be 

succeeding in their efforts to turn irrigation projects into Progressive garden oases. 

Observations by visitors to the project during the fi rst decade illustrate the diffi culty 

of this endeavor. Henry A. Wallace, who toured the Minidoka project in 1909 as part 

of his investigation of irrigated farmland for the family journal Wallaces’ Farmer,

found little to praise in Rupert and its surrounding farmland. Wallace attributed the 

slow development of irrigation and urban culture in the Minidoka area to the very 

fact that it was a federal project—as opposed to the more developed, private Carey 

Act project in Twin Falls. “Rupert is a government townsite [sic], and shows the 

effects of it,” Wallace wrote, “for it is one of the most dilapidated little towns which 

I have ever seen.” His description must have horrifi ed Rupert’s boosters:

15.5. Irrigating sugar beets on the Minidoka 

Project.
395

All the buildings are little square frame affairs with just enough ambition 

to be painted. The ramshackle buildings are arranged on four sides of a 

square which has a fi ne stand of blue grass and white clover which the town 

hasn’t had energy enough to mow. There are a few poplar and locust trees 

which may make some shade some day.

After observing the Rupert square, Wallace toured the countryside and interviewed 

individual homesteaders, many of whom expressed frustration with the landscape 

and with reclamation. “At fi rst we didn’t get water when the government promised 

it to us,” a woman from Iowa told Wallace, “then when we did get water the wind 

was so strong that we could hardly get anything seeded down before the wind would 

come along and blow it out or cut it down.” The owner of a three-year old claim, 

a man from Montana, explained that Minidoka farms had a ramshackle appearance 

because “these people around here are not a very high class of irrigators.” Most of 

the homesteaders came to the country without capital, and “for the fi rst two years 

they had an awful hard time hanging on, for the water wasn’t ready yet and on their 

own places there wasn’t anything but sage brush ... then when the water did come 

they didn’t have enough money to fi x their land right, and they just stuck in their 

crops haphazard.” Another settler complained of the wind, and to illustrate told 

Wallace the already mythic story of the Minidoka project. A man on one side of the 

project, the tale went, planted a garden. The wind came up and blew it fi fteen miles, 

across the river, to another settler’s claim, who then raised the garden himself.38

 Despite Wallace’s grim observations and disgruntled interviewees, he looked 

beyond the poverty of the present to a prosperous, well-watered future. Wallace saw 

potential in the Minidoka soil, even as he wrote that “it is a backward country, the 

people are without money, and there is no booming whatever.” The country “should 

grow steadily,” he predicted, “and a thickly populated little farming community 

should develop here.” He also shared Albin C. DeMary’s Progressive commitment 

to scientifi c solutions. While the town and homesteads disappointed Wallace, the 

Minidoka dam did not. The structure “is a tremendous affair,” Wallace proclaimed, 

with “3,200 feet of spillway” on the south of the main dam which makes up “the 

prettiest part of the whole thing.” Wallace’s description of the concrete spillway as 

creating a “beautiful parabola in going over” mixed natural imagery with scientifi c 

accomplishment, an integral characteristic of the reclamation vision. Terms like 

“tremendous,” “prettiest,” and “beautiful” presented Wallace’s Midwestern readers 

with an image of the Minidoka Dam as a natural wonder.39

 Wallace’s research uncovered the contradictions inherent in the reclamation 

vision.40 Homesteaders desired government-supplied water, but they wanted to 

control it; claimants took advantage of accessible land, but they didn’t possess 

the capital to develop it; settlers envisioned an agrarian Eden but lived in oneroom houses on plots of blowing dirt; Progressive ideals competed with the needs 

of immigrant farmers; and a growing schism between middle-class irrigation 

professionals and impoverished farmers threatened the cooperation necessary to 

make reclamation work. These problems reached a fever pitch during the early 

1910s, creating the need for settlers’ and water users’ associations to negotiate 
396

directly with the Reclamation Service. DeMary served as the settlers’ representative 

throughout this period. As reclamation settlers and government offi cials 

institutionalized the patterns of irrigation on the Minidoka tract, Progressive ideals 

began to take a back seat to water allocation, control, and development.

 From the project’s inception, the confl ict between vision and reality 

contributed to the disillusionment of settlers and deteriorating relations between 

the Reclamation Service and water users. The geographic characteristics of the 

Minidoka project created diffi culties for water users. Most of the land suitable for a 

gravity-fl ow canal system lay on the north side, or Rupert side, of the Snake. Terrain 

on the south side of the river necessitated construction of a pumping system to lift 

the water to farmland. Construction of both the gravity canals and the south side 

lifts proceeded slowly, while reclamation offi cials struggled to work out the complex 

allocation and payment schedules of both sides of the river. Settlers who fi led and 

moved onto their claims waited for several years before they received irrigation 

water. The dam at Minidoka reached partial completion in the fall of 1906, but a 

scarcity of available labor forced delays in the construction of the north side canals, 

which did not deliver water until July 1907. Many north side settlers planted seed 

in anticipation of water that year, but did not receive it in time to save their crops. 

North side settlers complained, but they were fortunate; on the south side, settlers 

waited until 1912 and 1913, when reclamation offi cials completed the lift stations.41

 Dam and lift completion inaugurated new problems. In November 1906, 

only two months after Minidoka Dam began service, the Snake River shrank to a 

trickle. The Rupert Pioneer declared that “for many miles below the Minidoka dam, 

there was hardly enough water fl owing to fl oat a toothpick.” Dam gates were closed 

and ferry service was interrupted until reclamation offi cials released water from 

the Minidoka reservoir, Lake Walcott. Canal erosion and seepage wasted irrigation 

water, which bled the Snake dry. By 1906 the Reclamation Service employed one 

water master and eleven “ditch tenders” or “ditch riders” to monitor canal banks 

for bank erosion. During the early years of the project, before the canal banks 

were packed solid and sodded, waves created by southern Idaho winds constantly 

threatened to wash out their banks. Ditch riders patrolled about six miles each of the 

main canals. If they encountered a wash or bank erosion, they notifi ed the service 

and made the necessary repairs. Seepage, or water leakage through soil infi ltration, 

represented a more insidious, and invisible, threat to water control. Nearly 100,000 

acre-feet of water seeped out of canals on the Minidoka Project’s north side in 

1912. Even after the early settlement years, seepage and erosion continued to haunt 

Minidoka settlers, necessitating the eventual lining of main canals with stone and 

mortar or concrete.42

 Other unexpected environmental consequences accompanied the Minidoka 

construction. Canal digging and fi eld plowing stirred up enormous clouds of dust, 

which combined with strong southern Idaho winds to make the project nearly 

uninhabitable. Dust settled in homes, destroyed machinery, and blocked out the 

sun, requiring the use of oil lamps during the middle of the day. “When we looked 
397

toward the west,” Minidoka settler Gerhard A. Riedesel recalled of a 1914 dust 

storm, “we saw a dark, threatening wall of dust advancing with a vertical front 

perhaps 1,000 feet high, extending from the southwest to the northwest as far as 

we could see.” Riedesel’s family sought cover in the house, but the “dust sifted 

through the cracks around the door and windows and soon the entire fl oor and all 

the furniture were covered with a dusty, dry, gritty layer of yellow silt.” Respiratory 

problems plagued Minidoka homesteaders. Dry winds and dust often forced farmers 

to reseed, as they did across the project in 1908 and 1909. Since most settlers 

lived in one- or two-room houses, often without adequate windows or door frames, 

homesteaders could not escape the fi ne silt that invaded their private oases.43

 Frustrated by delays and dust storms, settlers eager for water found that 

once they had it, they couldn’t get rid of it. Water seeped out of the canals only to 

cause saturated fi elds to fl ood. Drainage on the north side of the Snake presented as 

great an engineering challenge as construction of the original gravity canals, forcing 

water users to pay additional funds to the Reclamation Service in order to fi nance 

the construction of miles of drainage ditches. “Funny, how we hurried to get water 

on the land and then had to spend a lot of money in drainage to get it off again,” 

Albin DeMary recalled in a 1944 letter to a former reclamation offi cial. “Just now,” 

DeMary added, “we have the promise of another drain a mile south of Rupert to take 

care of some wet land.” By 1909 more than 10,000 acres of Minidoka soil were no 

longer arable because they were too wet. In August 1909 the Reclamation Service 

began construction of a $400,000 surface drainage system in order to regulate the 

elevation of the sub-water. Surface drainage ditches did not provide adequate relief, 

so the service added drain wells and pumping stations to remove excess water. More 

than seventy miles of drainage ditches had been dug on the project by 1912.44

 Settlers on the north side battled drainage problems, while on the south 

side pump division settlers found that they had to construct their own lateral canals 

when the service diverted part of the Minidoka Project’s funds to the Boise-Payette 

Project. Beginning in 1906 the service envisioned a cooperative effort between 

water users, who were supposed to dig the lateral, or sublateral, irrigation ditches 

connecting individual farms to the main canals. The service organized more 

than four hundred local districts to complete the work, but did not always get the 

cooperation it sought. Farmers competed with each other for completion of their 

section of the lateral ditches. Homesteaders hired someone else to build their 

section of the lateral canal, leaving their neighbors to complete the task on their 

own. Disagreements between neighbors over lateral water distribution, in some 

cases, turned violent. In July 1908 a settler referred to only as Mr. Landford and 

his neighbor, John Fleming, had a heated argument over who would have the use 

of the lateral water on that day. Landford prevailed; Fleming went home to plan 

his revenge. The following morning, Fleming hid himself in a fi eld of alfalfa and 

waited for his neighbor, the father of three, to arrive to check his ditches. When 

Landford approached, Fleming shot and killed him. Fleming received the sentence 

of death by hanging, but it was later reduced to life. The guilty Minidoka settler 

served twelve years in the state penitentiary.45
398

 Dust storms, water shortages, settler rivalries, and reclamation policy 

combined to create near rebellion on the Minidoka Project in 1911. Some 

discouraged water users relinquished their improved claims for sums ranging from 

$400 to $4000 (for eighty acres), while others worked through the settler association 

to achieve control of reclamation water. Settlers openly questioned the authority 

of the Reclamation Service, despite the fact that their very existence on the desert 

tract depended on the service. In March, one settler lamented in the PioneerRecord that the Reclamation Service’s “charges for operation and maintenance 

are assessed against the settler without his consent and expenditured [sic] without 

his knowledge.” “No function of this United States government is self-contained 

enough, or big enough,” J. D. Akins continued, “that it can trample with impunity 

the rights of its humblest citizens.” Settler anger increased in April when the service 

revealed that it intended to issue a new contract replacing the original water charge 

of $22.00 per acre with a charge of $26.00 per acre. Albin DeMary’s Commercial 

Club rushed to form a committee to draft a statement to send to Idaho Senator 

William Borah, decrying the new policy and demanding graduated water payments 

“without any strings.” Ignoring the fact that Minidoka businesses and farms had 

been the benefi ciaries of the government’s construction projects, the club issued a 

public statement declaring that if the service had overspent on construction, then it 

“should stand the loss the same as any individual would have to stand it . . .” The 

Minidoka Water Users Association, which replaced the fi rst settlers’ organization, 

joined with the Commercial Club in rejecting the new contract. DeMary, acting 

on behalf of both the Commercial Club and the Minidoka Water Users Board of 

Directors, prepared a series of resolutions to unite the settlers in their opposition.

DeMary recommended that the settlers agree to the new contract, provided that the 

service publish an itemized schedule of 

its operation and maintenance expenses; 

offer the settlers a graduated scale for 

water right payments; give the settlers fair 

representation in the management of the 

project; and pledge itself to help secure 

passage of legislation giving settlers patents 

to their lands (as it stood, patents could only 

be issued after water users had paid for their 

water right in full).46

 The water users succeeded in 

prompting the Interior Department to send 

“legal representatives” to Rupert in May 

1911 to meet with Albin DeMary and other 

members of the board. On May 23 Morris 

Bien and Philip H. Wells met privately with 

DeMary and several other men from the 

water users’ executive committee; later in 

the evening they held a public hearing. The 

executive meeting lasted several hours and 

15.6. 1920 portrait of Morris Bien who 

was sent to deal with settlers over 

charges on the Minidoka Project.
399

threatened to erupt when one board member accused local reclamation offi cials of 

making false statements. DeMary outlined the settlers’ position, emphasizing that 

“a good many of the settlers when they fi led on this project ... believed that the 

government would take it and operate it at its expense.” Now, DeMary explained, 

the settlers resented what they viewed as “improper use of money in the operation 

and maintenance of the project.” Reclamation offi cials made no apologies for the 

policies of the service, noting instead that “it is easy to say that this should have 

been done better. ... Everybody knows if they look back, they could have done 

differently.” Still, the federal offi cers concluded that they intended to “work up a 

public notice ... that will settle everything.”47

 Albin DeMary’s proposals and his representation of the settlers at the 

users’ meeting did not meet with the satisfaction of all of the project’s farmers. 

Some settlers refused to participate in the association, which they viewed as a 

self-interested, elitist institution. “We are sick and tired of the antics of the men 

who style themselves the Minidoka Water Users Association ...,” P. O. O’Rourke 

bellowed in an editorial in the Pioneer-Record: “There will be no treaty making 

[sic] with the truce breakers, there will be no surrender.” Despite the opposition 

of settlers like O’Rourke, DeMary and the water users could claim at least some of 

the credit when Interior Secretary Walter 

L. Fisher and Reclamation Director 

Frederick Newell visited the project in 

September 1911. Fisher and Newell met 

with the water users and listened to their 

grievances; by October, the water users 

had a new contract which addressed 

some of the settlers’ concerns. The new 

contract allowed for graduated payments 

and divided water and drainage payments 

equally throughout the project. It also 

grandfathered any settler who had an 

original contract at the $22.00 per acre 

rate. Interior Secretary Fisher refused 

to reconsider the loathsome $26.00 per 

acre amount, however, and he further 

maintained that the authority of the 

Reclamation Service could not be divided 

by providing for offi cial representation of 

the water users in the governing body of 

the agency.48

 The new contract and visit by reclamation offi cials met with criticism in the 

Pioneer-Record; one editorialist declared that “this city was infl icted last Tuesday 

with the presence of a bunch of high reclamation offi cials, whose visit amounted 

to about as much as ___(fi ll in the blanks for yourself).” Nonetheless, the new 

contract heralded a better relationship between the water users and the Reclamation 

15.7. Frederick H. Newell visited the 

Minidoka Project in 1911 with Secretary of 

the Interior Walter L. Fisher.
400

Service. The years following 1911 were good ones for Minidoka farmers. By 1913 

DeMary estimated that 8,700 people lived on the project, which also boasted 1,684 

farms at an estimated average value of $6,454. DeMary’s boosterism paid off when, 

in November 1914, voters on the Minidoka Project voted to make Rupert the seat 

of Minidoka County. DeMary’s 1913 history of the project credited the Interior 

Department with giving settlers “more latitude,” extending the time for water 

payments, and limiting the number of cancellations made on homestead entries.

DeMary also recognized his wife’s efforts at shaping the culture of the reclamation 

community. Several women’s clubs engaged in “serious literary work,” DeMary 

noted, and exerted “a large infl uence in moulding the character of the citizenship.”49

 DeMary’s efforts at forming an infl uential water users’ association laid the 

groundwork for future organizations, including the Minidoka Irrigation District, 

founded in 1917, and the Burley Irrigation District, formed in 1918. The power 

these groups wielded, however, declined by the late 1910s. As more watered 

acreage was added to reclamation projects along the Snake River, competition 

for water from homesteaders outside of the Minidoka tract increased. Scientifi c 

engineering complicated the river’s fl ow, and made water allocation for all Snake 

River users more complex. Throughout the 1910s, water users upriver, in Rigby and 

Idaho Falls, decried what they viewed as unfair allocation of the water to “Magic 

Valley” (Minidoka and Twin Falls) users. Reclamation offi cials attempted to 

preserve the Minidoka Project’s water in the Jackson Lake reservoir (completed in 

1907 and expanded in 1910 and 1916), but this allocation had to travel downstream, 

past Idaho Falls and Rigby farms, to reach Rupert farms. The service could not 

specifi cally identify, of course, what part of the living river was Minidoka water. 

Confl icts up and down the Snake resulted in the creation of intra-cooperative 

water users’ associations. Groups like the Snake River Committee of Nine utilized 

attorneys, water engineers, and relations with the Bureau of Reclamation (the 

Reclamation Service became the Bureau 

of Reclamation in 1923) to negotiate 

water allocation between projects on the 

upper and lower Snake. At the same 

time, the bureau increasingly relied on 

technical experts to manage its projects, 

particularly after creation of American 

Falls reservoir in 1927. These trends 

limited the ability of small, projectoriented settlers’ groups to negotiate, 

like the Minidoka Water Users did in 

1911, directly with the government 

agency.50

 Changes in the political environment also affected the Culture Club. 

Like many federated women’s clubs, the group disbanded during World War I. 

Competition from other women’s organizations, the transfer of club goals from 

cultural advancement to the support of the war effort, the debate over women’s 

15.8. American Falls Dam in 1927, soon after 

completion.
401

suffrage and pacifi sm, and a perceived linkage between socialist groups and 

organized women’s clubs hurt attendance nationwide.51 The demise of the Culture 

Club may also have been refl ective of a population shift on the project. Despite 

Albin DeMary’s best efforts to expand reclamation on the north side of the river and 

to attract businesses to the city, by 1920 it became clear that Burley, the community 

on the southern side of the Snake River, would outstrip Rupert in population and 

become the premier commercial center on the Minidoka tract. Burley’s proximity 

to Twin Falls, Paul, and Heyburn gave it a strategic geographic advantage. Between 

1920 and 1930, the town of Rupert lost population, dropping from 2,372 to 2,250 

inhabitants.

 Some of DeMary’s commercial projects confl icted with the values of his 

wife’s Culture Club. The Amalgamated Sugar Factory stimulated the production of 

sugar beets; sugar beet farmers employed children to do the monotonous hoeing that 

beets required, at a time when federated clubs worked to limit child labor. Snake 

River farmers hired immigrant workers, changing the original demographic structure 

of reclamation towns like Rupert. German and Russian Catholic immigrants came 

in large numbers to take advantage of homestead claims, particularly on the “North 

Side” of Rupert, where it was found that a natural aquifer made dryland farming 

possible. These immigrants found the kind of opportunity advocated by Progressive 

women’s clubs, but, at the same time, their presence diluted the infl uence of Rupert’s 

elite Protestant settlers. Moreover, these new immigrants failed to adhere to the 

domestic and cultural standards maintained and supported by clubwomen. By the 

1920s, the Idaho State Federation of Women’s Clubs was advocating a fi rm stance 

on the issue of immigration and Idaho communities. “Throughout the Federation 

this term emphasis was on Americanization,” the Federation’s historian explained, 

“for war had shown the need for assimilating into American life the foreign born 

upon her shores.”52 It may have seemed to Elizabeth DeMary that the urban 

evils she had tried to escape–child labor, corporate infl uence, Eastern European 

immigration, poverty–had followed her to the desert.53

 The efforts of Elizabeth and Albin DeMary to create a locally-controlled 

irrigated oasis with a Progressive culture on the Minidoka Project revealed the 

complex ideology underlying reclamation settlement. Albin DeMary’s careful 

negotiations between water users and the Reclamation Service, his relentless support 

of commercial enterprises, and his involvement in southern Idaho’s earliest water 

users association made Rupert the business center of the Minidoka Project until 

the 1920s. In founding the Culture Club, Elizabeth DeMary created one of rural 

Idaho’s fi rst women’s organizations. Her support of Progressive aesthetic values 

helped to preserve Idaho’s only town square. Rupert’s opera house staged the only 

live musical performances south of Boise; its streets played host to suffrage parades; 

its elite Protestant founders outlawed houses of prostitution and saloons; and its 

paved streets offered shaded, manure-free walking. Through their literary practices, 

clubwomen shaped and defi ned cultural perceptions of the irrigated landscape.
402

 The reality of life on the sagebrush fl ats often interfered with the Progressive 

vision. Rupert’s position as the lead Minidoka city faded as the relationship between 

local water users and the Bureau of Reclamation became more complex. By the 

mid-1920s, large, multi-project water users’ organizations had overshadowed 

their smaller, project-based antecedents. New reclamation dams and reservoirs, 

population growth, and greater demand for power generation limited the relative 

power of small users’ associations in reclamation settlement towns. The demise 

of the DeMary vision for Rupert paralleled a decline in the relative authority of 

small farmers on the projects. During the brief settlement period, however, the 

DeMarys demonstrated that water users and reclamation homesteaders possessed a 

considerable amount of authority in determining the shape of their projects and the 

cultures of their towns.

Laura Woodworth-Ney prepared the original of this paper for the history 

of Reclamation symposium on June 18-19, 2002, at the University of Nevada–Las 

Vegas. In September of that year she revised the paper. A different version of 

this paper, one based on Elizabeth DeMary, was published as “Elizabeth Layton 

DeMary and the Rupert Culture Club: New Womanhood in a Reclamation 

Settlement Community,” in Dee Garceau-Hagan, editor, Portraits of Women in the 

American West (New York: Routledge, 2005). Dr. Woodworth-Ney is chair of the 

Department of History at Idaho State University in Pocatello. She is the author of 

Mapping Identity: Creation of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, 1805-1902

which was published by the University Press of Colorado in 2004.

Endnotes

1. This paper is based on research conducted for a larger manuscript using the Albin C. 

DeMary Manuscript Collection at the DeMary Memorial Library in Rupert, Idaho. DeMary collected 

government documents, personal photographs and letters, newspaper articles, and publications 

on Idaho and the Rocky Mountain West until his death in 1977. He donated the funds for the 

construction of Rupert’s city library, built in 1958, which houses the manuscript collection and the 

library that he compiled and also donated. Elizabeth DeMary’s papers are also held at the city library, 

as well as her personal book collection. Elizabeth died in 1942; after her death, Rupert’s history 

became Albin DeMary’s focus and passion. Madelyn Player was extremely generous in allowing me 

access to her private library and manuscript collection, which also aided in the research for this paper. 

Albin C. DeMary Manuscript Collection [DMC], DeMary Memorial Library, Rupert, Idaho.

2. As quoted in Susan E. Williams, “An Urban Study of Rupert, Idaho” (Unpublished Master’s 

Thesis, Kent State University, March 1963), 54-7. See also “Minidoka County Grew Fast After ‘Late 

Start’ in Idaho,” in The Minidoka Story: The Land and the People (Rupert, Idaho: Minidoka County 

News, 1963; Reprint, 2001), 1-2. The Minidoka Story is comprised of reprinted newspaper articles 

from the Rupert Pioneer and other early papers. I will give page citations for the reprint, rather than 

citations for the individual articles.

3. Paul Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920 (Cambridge: Harvard 

University Press, 1978), 189-190.

4. Minidoka County Historical Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People (Dallas, 

Texas: Taylor Publishing Company, 1985), 185-6. For a general treatment of Progressive politics 

and ideals, see Alan Dawley, Struggles for Justice: Social Responsibility and the Liberal State

(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991).

5. “Photograph of Elizabeth and Dorothy DeMary,” circa 1906, DeMary Photograph 

Collection, DMC. 

6. Anne Rugles Gere, Intimate Practices: Literacy and Cultural Work in U.S. Women’s Clubs, 

1880-1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 1-16.
403

7. Minidoka County Historical Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 185-86; 

Albin C. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, March 29, 1906, April 5, 1906, Unpublished 

Typed Manuscript, DMC, DeMary Memorial Library, Rupert, Idaho. DeMary’s History of Rupert is 

comprised mostly of typed transcripts from the area’s earliest newspaper, The Rupert Pioneer. My 

citations give the dates that DeMary assigned his manuscript entries.

8. For a brief biography of Elizabeth DeMary, see Minidoka County Historical Society, 

A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 185. For a discussion of the ideology of Progressive 

urban planning, or “positive environmentalism,” and its relationship to social control, see Paul 

Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 

University Press, 1978), especially 220-32.

9. There were, of course, exceptions to this pattern of failure. The Carey Act, passed by 

Congress in 1894, provided that each state containing “desert land” as defi ned by the Desert Land 

Act (1877) could select up to one million acres for reclamation. The land would be held by states 

“in trust” for homesteaders; the land was available as long as the states found a way to irrigate it.

States could either construct their own irrigation projects or hire private companies to do the work, 

for a price per acre set by the state. One of the Carey Act’s greatest successes occurred in Twin Falls, 

Idaho, located approximately forty-fi ve miles west of Rupert. There, Ira B. Perrine headed the largest 

private irrigation project in the United States. Indeed, Idaho eventually contained three-fi fths of all 

land irrigated under the provisions of the Carey Act. For an overview of the Desert Land and Carey 

acts, see Donald J. Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy 1848-1902;

Histories of the American Frontier, Ray Allen Billington, ed. (Albuquerque, New Mexico: University 

of New Mexico Press, 1992), 88-9, 251-72; and Tim Palmer, The Snake River: Window to the West

(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1991), 53-111. For a brief examination of pre-1902 irrigation 

projects in Idaho, see Carlos A. Schwantes, In Mountain Shadows: A History of Idaho (Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1991), 163-6. For a contemporary observer’s comparison of the 

Minidoka Reclamation Project with the Twin Falls Project, see Richard Lowitt and Judith Fabry, 

eds., Henry A. Wallace’s Irrigation Frontier: On the Trail of the Corn Belt Farmer, 1909 (Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 158-66. Minidoka County News, The Minidoka Story, 1; 

Congress, Senate, “National Irrigation Policy–Its Development and Signifi cance,” 76th Cong., 1st

Sess., Senate Document No. 36, 2, DMC; Department of Interior, Twenty-fi rst Annual Report of the 

Reclamation Service (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1922), 63, DMC.

10. For a detailed examination of the politics surrounding passage of the Newlands Act, see 

Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West, 273-325. The full text of the Reclamation Act can be accessed 

through the Center for Columbia River History website, located at http://www.ccrh.org/content.htm.

11. Burley Irrigation District Home Page, Burley Irrigation District History, http://www.

cyberhighway.net/~bid/history.htm; Eric A. Stene, “The Minidoka Project,” Fifth Draft, Bureau 

of Reclamation History Program, Research on Historic Reclamation Projects, 1997, Bureau of 

Reclamation DataWeb, http://dataweb.usbr.gov/html/minidoka1.html; DeMary, History of Rupert, 

1905-1922, February 22, 1912, March 14, 1912, April 4, 1912; Minidoka County News, 

The Minidoka Story, 1.

12. DeMary, History of Rupert 1905-1922, November 9, 1905, December 28, 1905, 

October 19, 1905, February 15, 1906.

13. Karen J. Blair, The Clubwoman as Feminist: True Womanhood Redefi ned, 1868-1914

(New York: Holmes and Meier, 1980), 73-5.

14. Vernetta Hogsett, The Golden Years (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1955), 1-7; 98; 

Sandra Haarsager, Organized Womanhood: Cultural Politics in the Pacifi c Northwest, 1840-1920

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997), 179-82.

15. Charles E. Sargent, Our Home, Or Infl uences Emanating from the Hearthstone (Springfi eld, 

Massachusetts: The King-Richardson Company, 1899), 367.

16. See Lori Merish, Sentimental Materialism: Gender, Commodity Culture, and NineteenthCentury American Literature (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2000), 1-27.

17. Frank LaRue was elected City Treasurer of Rupert in 1909. See Minidoka County 

Historical Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 11.

18. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, October 19, 1905; The Minidoka County News, The

Minidoka Story, 2; Vernetta Murchison Hogsett, The Golden Years: A History of the Idaho Federation 
404

of Women’s Clubs (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1955), 365; Haarsager, Organized Womanhood,

161-165.

19. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, December 23, 1915; Minidoka County News, The

Minidoka Story, 2.

20. Gail McDonald, “The Mind a Department Store: Reconfi guring Space in the Gilded Age,” 

Modern Language Quarterly Volume 63 (June 2002): 227-50.

21. “‘Joe Ruggles’ Was First Play at New Opera House in Rupert,” The Rupert Pioneer,

November 23, 1905, reprinted in Minidoka County News, The Minidoka Story, 31.

22. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, September 20, 1906.

23. The measure passed by a vote of 274 to 107 in Rupert. See Minidoka County Historical 

Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 12.

24. Another example of the cultural interpretations of irrigation can be found in the art and 

writings of Mary Hallock Foote, perhaps Idaho’s best-known nineteenth-century female writer. Foote 

accompanied her engineer husband to the Boise Valley, where he worked for a number of years on a 

failed irrigation project. Some of her manuscripts and letters are housed at the Huntington Library, 

California.

25. This unlabeled photograph is displayed in the reading room at the DeMary Memorial 

Library, Rupert, Idaho.

26. Haarsager, Organized Womanhood, 148, 332-6. Details of the Culture Club’s fi rst annual 

banquet can be found in DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, January 3, 1907.

27. Elizabeth DeMary as quoted in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation Record 7 

(February 1916): 60-1; also quoted in Mark Fiege, Irrigated Eden: The Making of an Agricultural 

Landscape in the American West, Foreword by William Cronon (Seattle: University of Washington 

Press, 1999), 222n1.

28. Irrigation was published in the Service’s journal, Reclamation Era. I found it taped to the 

inside cover of Elizabeth DeMary’s book Sunlit Peaks, housed in the DeMary Manuscript Collection 

at DeMary Memorial Library in Rupert, Idaho.

29. From The Passing of the Desert, in Irene Welch Grissom, The Passing of the Desert (Garden 

City, New York: Country Life Press, 1924), 2.

30. From The Mirage, in Grissom, The Passing of the Desert, 3.

31. Mark Fiege discusses the various cultural myths associated with irrigation in Irrigated Eden,

171-202.

32. Hogsett, The Golden Years, 41.

33. The photograph of the suffrage parade is the private property of the James Goodman family, 

Rupert, Idaho. The photograph is reproduced in Minidoka County News, The Minidoka Story, 8.

For more about the founding of Rupert’s Methodist Church, see A. M. Lambert, “Church History on 

Project,” in DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922. For information about another of Rupert’s social 

clubs, the Pansy Club, see Mrs. C. B. Burgher, “Flowers Nurtured in Sheltered Spot Gave Pansy Club 

Its Name,” in The Minidoka Story, 10. The Pansy Club supported the Boise Children’s Home and the 

American Red Cross.

34. The source of Rupert’s name has been cause for much speculation by regional 

historians. The Reclamation Service did not keep a record of the sources for all of its place names. 

Contemporary historians suggested that it was named for a prominent writer of the time period, 

Rupert Hughes, though Hughes later denied the assertion. Another theory suggested that it was 

named for Prince Rupert of the Hudson Bay Company. Albin C. DeMary unsuccessfully attempted to 

uncover the origins of the town’s name during the 1940s, by writing to retired reclamation offi cials. 

See Minidoka County News, The Minidoka Story, 2; J. T. Burke to A. C. DeMary, October 25, 1944, 

“Letter Scrapbook,” DMC, DeMary Memorial Library, Rupert, Idaho.

35. A 1906 photograph of the Rupert square shows four rows of framed wood buildings 

surrounding a completely treeless, grassless plot of dirt. See “Early Rupert Scenes,” in Minidoka 

County News, The Minidoka Story, 39; Minidoka County Historical Society, “Scrapbook of Rupert, 

Idaho: Articles and Pictures,” 5, Minidoka County Museum, Rupert, Idaho.

36. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, June 6, 1907, June 13, 1907; Minidoka County 

Historical Society, “Scrapbook of Rupert, Idaho,” 5; “Rupert Square Had Sidewalks Built in 1910,” 

in Minidoka County News, The Minidoka Story, 14; U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park 
405

Service, National Register of Historic Places Listings, January 26, 2001, http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/

listings/20010126.htm.

37. Many of Rupert’s current residents are not as pleased with the sugar refi nery as its earliest 

residents were. Some current residents blame the plant for Rupert’s large number of unskilled, lowpaying agricultural jobs. Others complain about the stench and air pollution caused by the plant.

Minidoka County Historical Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 11; DeMary, 

History of Rupert, 1905-1922, May 23, 1917.

38. Lowitt and Fabry, Henry A. Wallace’s Irrigation Frontier, 144-52.

39. Ibid., 154-7. Mark Fiege examines the interplay of “myth, metaphor and the irrigated 

landscape” in Irrigated Eden, 171-202.

40. For an examination of the patterns of modern state control of resources, and the inherent 

diffi culties in their “organization of nature,” see James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain 

Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). 

41. Department of Interior, Fifteenth Annual Report of the Reclamation Service (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1916), 157; Ralph W. Maughan, Historical Highlights of Cassia 

and Minidoka Counties (Rupert, Idaho: Privately Printed, 1990), 5-9.

42. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, November 8, 1906; Minidoka County Historical 

Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 10; Fiege, Irrigated Eden, 28.

43. Riedesel as quoted in Maughan, Historical Highlights of Cassia and Minidoka Counties,

19-20; Minidoka County Historical Society, A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 14.

44. As stated by Ralph Maughan, “wet and swampy areas where no crops will grow” remain to 

the present on the Minidoka Project. Burley Irrigation District Home Page, Burley Irrigation District 

History, 5, 7; Department of Interior, Fifteenth Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, 157; 

Albin C. DeMary to J. T. Burke, October 17, 1944, “Letter Scrapbook,” DMC; Maughan, Historical

Highlights of Cassia and Minidoka Counties, 10.

45. Charles Coates, “Federal-Local Relationships on the Boise and Minidoka Projects, 

1904-1926,” Idaho Yesterdays 25 (Summer 1981): 2-9; Maughan, Historical Highlights of Cassia and 

Minidoka Counties, 9; Fiege, Irrigated Eden, 127-128; Minidoka County Historical Society, 

A History of Minidoka County and Its People, 10-11.

46. DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922, March 9, 1911, April 6, 1911, May 18, 1911.

47. “Stenographic Report of Meeting of Board of Directors of the Minidoka Water Users 

Association with Bien and Wells,” May 23, 1911, in DeMary, History of Rupert, 1905-1922.

48. Ibid, August 31, 1911, October 5, 1911.

49. Ibid, August 31, 1911, January 1, 1914, November 5, 1914.

50. For an extensive discussion of the Snake River Committee of Nine and other cooperative 

organizations, see Fiege, Irrigated Eden, 25-7; 81-116. 

51. Hogsett, The Golden Years, 98.

52. Hogsett, The Golden Years, 90.

53. Williams, “An Urban Study of Rupert, Idaho,” 59. Leonard J. Arrington addressed the 

population growth of Idaho’s twentieth-century agricultural communities in History of Idaho, Volume 

I (Moscow: University of Idaho Press, 1994), 471-532. Population of some of Idaho’s communities, 

particularly Twin Falls and Rexburg, have exploded since this paper was fi rst written in 2002.
406
407

“LAW OR NO LAW!”—Elwood Mead and The 

Struggle Over Power Plant Revenues,

Shoshone Project, 1926-1953

By:

Robert E. Bonner

 On January 11, 1912, the fl edgling Water Users Association on the 

 Shoshone Reclamation Project held its third annual meeting. Following an 

animated discussion and the passage of resolutions in support of such things as 

an extension of the repayment period and public accounting for operation and 

maintenance expenses, they offered their fi nal resolution of the evening. Their 

outgoing president referred to the matter as their “birthright,” and urged them to 

look well to it. They resolved

 To the end that all waterpower rights, privileges and possibilities 

may be conserved to the people of this project we ask that no step in 

relation to same be taken which may have within it the possibility, 

however remote, of either loss or deterioration in respect to such 

property rights. That absolute ownership and control of all power 

sites, perquisites and privileges, within the limits of this Project, must 

ultimately repose in the aggregate body of land owners or water users.

Our heritage in this connection must not in any wise or at any time be 

placed in jeopardy.1

 Much of the discussion among historians of the waterpower developed by 

the Bureau of Reclamation at its damsites throughout the West has centered upon 

the big question of the relation of this publicly-produced power to the private 

power industry.2 Indeed, the issue of public vs. private power was of concern to 

Reclamation leaders from the passing of the Waterpower Act of 1920. Settlers on 

Reclamation projects, however, had a quite different view of the power question. 

The prospect of hydroelectric power development on a project meant a signifi cant 

increase in the standard of living of the local farmers, and as such was advertised 

heavily in publications like Reclamation Record. But the Shoshone water users in 

January of 1912 were not thinking of electric lights in their houses. Since April of 

1906 every person who bought a water right on a Reclamation project purchased 

at the same time a future interest in the profi ts of any power development on the 

project. Tacked on (section 5) to the act governing the withdrawal of townsites 

on Reclamation Projects was a provision directing that the money derived from 

the lease of power on a project be “placed to the credit of the project” in the 

Reclamation Fund.3

 From 1906 to 1939, according to the offi cial historian of the Bureau, 

Reclamation policy with respect to the distribution of profi ts from power plants 

was governed by that provision.4

 Power revenues on many projects were handled 

in this way. And it is true that the only general legislation on power revenues 
408

between 1906 and 1939 merely confi rmed the 1906 law.5

 However, the policy 

was frequently a subject of controversy and required authoritative redetermination 

more than once.6 Moreover, the offi cial account ignores the facts that there 

were legislative interventions for a decade before 1939 designed to direct power 

revenues away from projects, in contravention of the Act of 1906, and a serious 

sustained effort to rewrite Reclamation law to separate water and power income in 

the early 1930s.

 As it happened, 

the legal storm over 

power plant revenues 

broke on the Shoshone 

Project in northwestern 

Wyoming. The Project 

consists of four divisions. 

The fi rst to open, in 

1908, was the Garland 

Division, approximately 

35,000 acres divided into 

roughly 650 farms on the 

fl at bench land around the 

town of Powell. A decade 

later the Frannie Division, 

north and east of the Powell fl at and less than half the size of Garland, was opened 

to homesteading. Settlers in both of these areas took land in full knowledge of the 

1906 act. They were paying the costs of the dam in the canyon west of Cody, and 

they expected to benefi t someday from the development of a power plant there. 

The Reclamation Service put off building the power plant until they needed a 

source of power to operate construction machinery on the third unit of the project, 

 Willwood. The power plant was completed in 1922, as construction began on the 

Willwood Diversion Dam and canal system.7

 The twenties were a 

diffi cult period for American 

agriculture, especially on 

Reclamation projects saddled 

with rising construction 

costs. The major effort of the 

Reclamation Service in the early 

20s was the so-called FactFinders’ Commission, a kind of 

Domesday inquest into every 

facet of every project to fi nd 

solid ground of agreement on 

costs and procedures between 

farmers and administrators. This 

16.1. The “Claim shanty of Roderick Seaton, Garland 

Flat,” Shoshone Project, Wyoming, April 13, 1906.

16.2. School children on the Willwood Division of 

the Shoshone Project in September of 1930.
409

was Interior Secretary Hubert Work’s great effort to refound Reclamation. Out 

of it came a new name, the Bureau of Reclamation, a new leader ( Elwood Mead, 

who had been prominent on the Commission), and comprehensive legislation 

known as the Fact Finders’ Act, passed December 5, 1924. Many changes were 

embodied in the Act, but power policy remained unchanged. Subsection I of the 

Act provided that whenever water users take over the operation of a project, the 

profi ts “as determined by the Secretary” of any power plant on the project will 

be credited annually to the construction charges of the water users, confi rming 

thereby the Act of 1906.8

 The same Act provided for a new and more generous method of repaying 

construction charges, limiting the payment per acre to fi ve per cent of the average 

gross annual income over the past ten years. However, in order for settlers to 

take advantage of the provisions of this act they needed to form an irrigation 

district under state law. The farmers of the Garland Division had generally 

resisted forming such a district, but the enticement of the 5% provision plus the 

confi rmation of the power plant rights convinced them that it was time to take on 

the responsibility. They formed the Shoshone Irrigation District November 28, 

1925, and then entered upon lengthy negotiations with the Bureau for a contract.

Almost a year later they completed those negotiations, and the Irrigation District 

took over the operation of the works for the Garland Division. Paragraph 31 of 

their contract, in language that directly repeated Subsection I of the Fact Finders’ 

Act, guaranteed that any net profi ts realized by the power plant would be credited 

to the construction charges owed by the district.9

 The Frannie Division of the Project also organized itself into an irrigation 

district, the Deaver Irrigation District (so-named for the major town in that part 

of the project) and worked out a contract with the Bureau in the fall of 1926. The 

contract with Deaver contained a signifi cant new provision with respect to the 

power plant, whereby the Deaver district obligated itself to pay a proportionate 

share of the costs of the Shoshone power plant, “in order to receive its share of 

net profi ts of said plant.” This provision was to be effective only if the Shoshone 

Irrigation District similarly agreed to accept a share of the power plant costs, 

which they had not done in their contract.10 Commissioner Mead stated that the 

idea to include this provision arose from the district negotiators, although since 

similar provisions had been showing up in contracts with other districts, it seems 

likely that the government negotiators had some role in it.11

 The Deaver contract caused some consternation among Shoshone unitholders. Some felt their own contract language protected their rights in the power 

plant, believing that they were already being charged those costs as the plant was 

an integral part of the project, while others thought it best to amend the contract 

to accept specifi c obligation for the costs of the power plant. At the same time, 

offi cials of the Bureau were trying to sort out their own position. E. E. Roddis, 

District Counsel, offered his opinion that the law gave the Secretary no power to 

build a power plant without a repayment contract, and therefore the water users 
410

were implicitly understood to have contracted for it and could expect profi ts from 

it to be applied to their construction charges. This was not how Elwood Mead 

saw it. Whatever the legal theory of Reclamation might be, it was the policy of 

the Commissioner from December 1927, that districts had to accept a specifi c 

obligation to repay the additional construction expenses of building a power plant 

before they could expect to benefi t from power revenues.12

 Among other developments, the impending construction of Boulder Dam 

made it imperative, in Mead’s mind, to separate power revenues from irrigation 

repayments; power was no longer simply incidental to irrigation construction.

The power plant on the Salt River Project had shown for years the potential for 

commercial power sales.13 Although the Shoshone power plant was smaller than, 

say, Minidoka, none of the power was required for pumping for irrigation, and 

the potential commercial development was consequently larger. The Bureau was 

pursuing plans for expansion of the Shoshone power system, but found itself 

ensnarled in legislation from an earlier time.

 The news about power plant repayment was unwelcome to the Shoshone 

farmers, but they quickly overcame their disappointment and began to negotiate 

a new contract to assure their rights. Everyone knew that their power plant was 

now a profi table venture and was likely to become a cash cow very soon. Bureau 

offi cials in Powell, Billings, Denver, and Washington continued to grapple with 

the meaning of Subsection I of the Fact-Finders’ Act. Some wanted to hold off 

payment to Deaver and Shoshone until all power project costs had been repaid.

Since there were still three units of the project to be constructed, each of which 

presumably would incur a share in the power system expenses and profi ts, 

that position would mean the fi rst two districts would have to wait decades to 

receive any benefi ts. Others said that the 1924 legislation clearly directed that 

surplus revenues be applied as soon as they became available, which would 

be very soon. This was the position of the Denver offi ce, stated forcefully in a 

letter accompanying a draft contract dated March 5, 1928. Powell, Billings, and 

Washington offi cials were, however, increasingly uncomfortable with the prospect 

of so much money going to the credit of these unit-holders. They began to search 

for a means to hold it back.14

 The District Counsel in Billings initially proposed that a repayment 

contract be made for 20 years or less, presumably to prevent it from being too 

generous a deal for the farmers. He based his position on the theory that power 

plant repayment was an entirely separate contract rather than an amendment to 

the 1926 contract, and therefore the repayment could not be made on the 5% 

of crop-return basis embedded in that contract. Congress had repealed the 5% 

crop-return repayment method in the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926. The 

Commissioner, in seeking clarifi cation from the Interior Department, pointed 

out that if their current contract were applied to the power plant the unit holders 

would pay nothing for the power plant until 1986, when the plant would probably 

be obsolete, but they would collect at least fi ve cents per acre immediately based 
411

on present prices. The Department solicitor ruled that while a contract could not 

be made on the basis of the 1924 repayment method, a new contract might go 

forward on the basis of a 40-year repayment period, according to the provisions of 

the 1926 act.15

 Knowing the water-users’ antipathy to increased assessments, the 

Bureau believed no contract would be acceptable to the Shoshone District that 

did not simply extend their 5% crop-return payment schedule to cover the new 

indebtedness. Moreover, when the Commissioner instructed the Denver offi ce 

how to proceed with the contract he stipulated that any new contract include a 

provision for paying depreciation on the plant, estimated at fi ve to seven per cent, 

as a matter of operation and maintenance. He also interpreted the forty-year 

repayment provision as having begun when the fi rst water-right contracts were 

taken out, in 1908 (more than a decade before the plant was even designed!), 

leaving a twenty-year period for the district to accomplish the repayment of power 

system costs. Acting Commissioner Dent suggested to the Chief Engineer in 

Denver that he remind the water users that the plant is not presently showing a 

profi t if depreciation is fi gured in, as that “may make the district disinclined to go 

on with the purchase of an interest in the power plant.”16

 R. F. Walter, the Chief Engineer, seems to have been uncomfortable with 

his colleagues’ strategy of discouraging negotiation. He proposed terms more 

attractive to the water users and continued to deal with them in apparent good 

faith.17 The Bureau sustained an appearance of serious negotiation throughout 

the spring and summer. In August Elwood Mead himself met with the Shoshone 

District board at the Burlington Inn in Cody, and in September Secretary Ray 

O. West visited the Project with Mead and discussed the contract. District 

negotiators worked to secure a 40-year repayment schedule that would begin in 

1929, but the Bureau resisted. It seems clear that as the negotiations began both 

District and Bureau negotiators assumed that not only Shoshone and Deaver but 

the yet-to-be-built divisions of the project would share in the costs and benefi ts 

of operation of the power system. But as contract negotiations stretched out, 

 Elwood Mead developed other ideas. In the negotiations he was driving a hard 

bargain, apparently hoping to discourage the District. At the Cody conference, 

for instance, Mead took the position that the District must agree in 1928 to pay as 

much as it would have had to pay if they had agreed in 1926, meaning they would 

have to make up two years’ payments when a new contract was signed and cover 

any operating losses during that same period of time.18

 On November 16, 1928, Mead made public his new view, in his 

introductory message to the Subcommittee of the House Committee on 

Appropriations in charge of Interior Department appropriations for fi scal year 

1930. He had previously circulated it within the department, particularly to 

those engaged in the Shoshone negotiations, as a confi dential memo, in search 

of responses. The core of the matter, as Mead presented it, was that projects 

with power plants were deriving a subsidy from their power sales that gave 
412

them a striking advantage in repayment over water users on projects without 

power plants, and this problem could only be expected to grow worse as power 

revenues increased. He cited situations on the Newlands and Minidoka projects, 

and dwelt on the Shoshone negotiations at some length. He noted that expansion 

of the Shoshone power system was under consideration, the money for which 

would come from the Reclamation Fund, but that under current law the eventual 

profi ts would all go to the farmers, “and the revenue promises to be large.” He 

proposed a legislative remedy, in which power revenues would be applied fi rst to 

power system expenses, then to construction debts of the project on which it is 

located, and fi nally back into the Fund to recover losses incurred in Reclamation 

development.19

 It seems unlikely that Mead was as concerned with disparities among 

project repayment situations as he was horrifi ed at the possibility of power 

revenue leaking away into the hands of so many farmers. Experience seemed to 

be showing him on every side that control of falling water was more important to 

the future of his Bureau than control of spreading water. The Chief Engineer and 

he had already initiated specifi c studies for doubling or tripling of the power to be 

generated from Shoshone Dam, all of which was to be sold commercially.20 If he 

was to build a mighty Bureau, as indeed seems to have been his determination, 

he would need to seize control of power profi ts wherever they were not already 

contracted away. It was in this 

environment that the end-game 

of the Shoshone power plant 

negotiations was played out.

 Mead’s was truly a 

move to cut the Gordian knot.

Power policy was ensnarled in 

old laws, arcane theories, and 

complicated interpretations 

of precedent. Reclamation 

offi cials were uncertain how to 

proceed. The superintendent in 

Powell, who had argued from 

the beginning for delaying 

power revenues until all 

construction costs had been 

repaid, nevertheless reminded 

Mead that power generation 

on the Shoshone project 

would have been impossible 

without the dam and reservoir, 

the cost of which the farmers 

were already repaying. That 

common sense consideration 

16.3. Buffalo Bill (Shoshone) Dam and the 

Shoshone Powerplant, Shoshone Project, Wyoming.
413

was brushed aside at higher levels. Chief Engineer Walter recognized the 

importance of capturing the power revenues, but wrote of it as something to be 

considered when entering into further investments in power.21 On the other hand, 

District Counsel Roddis encouraged Mead by referring to the law of trusts. The 

power plant had been built by the Reclamation Fund, which was a trust. Putting 

revenues from power directly into the Fund would result in faster repayment than 

would result from repayment contracts with the farmers, and as trustees of the 

Fund they were obligated “to use the trust estate to the best possible advantage.”22

 The Shoshone water users, however, surprised Washington by their 

determination to contract for power plant construction expenses. They were 

receiving active encouragement from the farmers on the Deaver District, whose 

own interest in the power plant depended upon a satisfactory contract being 

reached with the Shoshone people. The District submitted a contract proposal 

abandoning their stand on repayment on a crop-return basis, accepting the 

Bureau’s insistence on a new, 40-year contract. As they in effect called the 

Bureau’s bluff, Mead’s solution seemed the only way out for a Bureau desperate 

to retain power revenues.

 Late in November Assistant Secretary of the Interior E. C. Finney wrote 

to the District’s attorney, Ernest Goppert of Cody, who had written him to try to 

move negotiations ahead,

It is believed that at the next session of Congress legislation will be 

proposed which would affect the disposal of the unsold interest in 

the Shoshone power plant. Under the circumstances it is considered 

advisable to await the possible action of Congress at the next session 

before defi nite reply is made to your letter.23

In this manner Mead’s sword descended upon the knot. He showed the House 

subcommittee overseeing Interior Department appropriations how power revenues 

could be redirected and they accepted his formulation before the end of 1928.

The change in policy, while not general, affected other projects besides the 

Shoshone.24

 The offi cial Bureau history of these events crystallized within the year 

1929. Ignoring the genuine attempts of the District to negotiate a contract, Bureau 

apologists—notably Elwood Mead himself—put the onus on the water users, 

claiming that they had never been willing to repay construction costs on the power 

system. He never mentioned the terms under which negotiations were terminated. 

The Bureau then treated the Interior Department Appropriation Bill passed 

March 4, 1929, as if it were a Congressional intervention rather than a clear result 

of Bureau policy. It is true that Congressman Cramton had a record of watching 

carefully over the Bureau’s handling of the Fund, and there can be little doubt that 

he genuinely supported the change, but it was obvious then and it is obvious now 

that the Bureau did not negotiate in good faith.
414

 Mead’s candor in the Interior Department appropriation hearing makes this 

perfectly clear. In his introductory presentation he expressed his dismay that the 

Newlands project received $16,000 a year from power while they only paid $8000 

a year in assessments for the power plant. More shocking still, the South Side of 

the Minidoka project received an excess of more than $100,000 a year to apply to 

extension of their system, with no obligation to repay. Later in the hearing, when 

Representative Cramton argued that the Bureau should never have entered into 

the contract they did with Deaver, Mead blurted out, “I am clear that, law or no 

law, we do not want to make any more contracts of that kind.”25 He went on to 

argue forcefully that the increased demand for power due to oil development near 

Powell made it likely that power would bring in more money than irrigation soon, 

and if it were developed in a business-like way it would be very large indeed, 

which he believed ought properly to belong to the Government.26 In light of such 

statements, the letters water users received from Washington during the year after 

the Mead coup were arrogant as well as insulting to those who knew how things 

had gone.27 Nevertheless, agents of the Shoshone Irrigation District continued to 

pursue the matter with the Department of the Interior.

 During 1930 and 1931 the District sent members to Washington to 

talk with Interior Department personnel, and set about preparing an elaborate 

legal appeal to the Solicitor. The success of water users on the North Platte 

Project in securing their own rights to the power plants there, which Mead had 

also attempted to terminate, gave them courage for this effort. Briefs from the 

District and the Bureau were presented and a hearing held before the Solicitor 

in the spring of 1931, and on July 29, 1931, Solicitor E. C. Finney handed 

down a decision supporting the Bureau, denying the District any share in the 

power revenues. The District’s appeal argued that the Act of March 4, 1929, 

was unconstitutional, in that it deprived them of rights guaranteed by the FactFinders’ Act and their contract, but since neither of those instruments specifi cally 

mentioned payment for the costs of power system construction the Bureau’s 

defense was successful. Apparently the District realized they could not get any 

farther by claiming treachery on the part of the Commissioner, so they fell back 

upon this much shakier ground of constitutional argument.28

 While pursuing administrative relief, the water users also turned to their 

Congressional delegation for help. Senator Robert Carey introduced a bill 

December 11, 1930, that would have provided a legislative remedy to the situation 

created by the Act of March 4, 1929, compelling the Department of the Interior to 

follow the provisions of the Fact-Finders’ Act insofar as the Shoshone Project was 

concerned. The Bureau believed that the process of appeal to the Solicitor had in 

fact been undertaken primarily to obtain the Bureau’s brief so they could attempt 

to get favorable legislation passed. Mead’s response to this legislation was swift 

and powerful. He drafted an 8-page memo for Secretary Wilbur to employ in 

response to the House Committee, detailing the write-offs and adjustments that 

had benefi ted the Shoshone settlers already amounting (in the always-suspect 

Bureau calculations) to over $21⁄2 million, and underlining the extent of the 
415

subsidy they would receive if they got power revenues in addition. He developed, 

in December 1930, the strongest argument yet for separating power and irrigation, 

embracing fully the potential of commercial power development. This was the 

fi rst blast of the full-scale legislative initiative that was to occupy the Bureau for 

the next three Congresses.29

 Senator Carey tried to mediate some resolution between Mead and the 

water users toward the end of 1931 but found Mead infl exible.30 Ernest Goppert, 

the District’s attorney, in consultation with a Washington law fi rm, determined 

to fi le a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of the Interior, now Ray Lyman 

Wilbur, hoping to compel him to perform his duty to pay out proportionate 

power revenues to the District annually under the 1924 act. To make this case 

they had to argue that the 1929 act was unconstitutional, a violation of the Fifth 

Amendment provision against taking property without due process. The property 

in question, they alleged, was their right to power plant revenues guaranteed them 

by the 1924 act and the 1926 contract. This was a far stretch, since the Bureau 

could argue in response, ironically, that the very efforts to negotiate for a share of 

the power plant costs that Mead had interrupted showed that the District knew it 

had no vested interest without agreeing to pay for the construction costs. Blandly 

brushing aside the complicated negotiations discussed above, the Bureau simply 

noted that the Congressional intervention of March 4, 1929, made it impossible 

for them to comply with the 1924 act. They did not need to argue that the 1929 

legislation was constitutional.

 The District tried to show, what District Counsel Roddis had seen at the 

outset, that there was no authority for the Bureau to build power plants except as 

part of irrigation projects: the construction charges, therefore, that they had been 

paying for two decades gave them those rights implicitly. They also produced 

considerable evidence that all conversations regarding power plant revenues held 

between the District and the Bureau until late in 1927 had regarded the power 

plant as part of the Shoshone Project upon which they were paying construction 

charges and to which they had clear legal rights. This should have been a strong 

argument, and might have been in another legal process, but not in this one. The 

attempt to enforce a writ of mandamus was a diffi cult legal strategy.31

 The Bureau, perhaps stung by having lost the North Platte case, pulled out 

all stops to defend its position in this suit. Their position here was stronger, of 

course, because of the Act of March 4, 1929, and a slightly different contractual 

history. They bombarded Judge Graves, the solicitor defending the Secretary of 

the Interior, with advice and documents, even offering to send offi ce employees 

who were present at the 1926 contract negotiations to testify that the District had 

not then been interested in purchasing an interest in the plant. The most useful 

of these communications was probably the suggestion by Acting Commissioner 

Porter W. Dent that mandamus cannot be used to enforce a contract right, but 

only a duty imposed by law. The Shoshone case, he suggested, is a contract case, 

by their insistence that Article 31 of their 1926 contract is the ground for their 
416

property right in the power plant. Dent also reminded Graves that the District 

would not be without remedy if their petition were denied, since the Court of 

Claims exists to adjudicate contract disputes. After noting that Congress was 

well within its constitutional rights when they passed the 1929 act, Justice Atkins 

appropriated Dent’s legal argument and rejected the District’s petition for a writ of 

mandamus on June 13, 1933.32

 The District and their lawyers immediately appealed to the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia. They ignored the suggestion of contract 

adjudication in the Court of Claims and persisted in their pursuit of a mandamus 

ruling. This was clearly not a good idea. Justice Atkins had made it clear that he 

thought the merits of their case were worth considering, but not in this way, and 

they chose to ignore him completely. The result should have been predictable. 

The appeal was argued February 5, 1934, and decided April 9, 1934. Associate 

Justice Van Orsdel reaffi rmed every point of the Supreme Court’s decision. He 

dwelt emphatically upon the fact that the Secretary of the Interior has discretion 

to determine the matters at issue, that mandamus does not extend to discretionary 

matters, and he reminded the District that the federal government cannot be 

sued without its own consent.33 Even then the District did not give up the legal 

fi ght. In June they fi led a petition in the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of 

certiorari, but it was quickly denied and they turned instead to Congress.34

 Congress was at that very moment engaged in the fi nal stage of deciding 

the fate of Commissioner Mead’s attempt to achieve a statutory basis for his new 

power policy. When the fi rst attempt by the Wyoming delegation to overturn the 

Act of March 4, 1929, failed, Congressman Cramton introduced a bill, written in 

concert with Mead, to provide that power plant revenues on reclamation projects 

everywhere should be handled as they were after 1929 on the Shoshone Project.

H.R. 16976 was introduced February 9, 1931. It was sent to the Committee 

on Irrigation and Reclamation, from whence it returned two weeks later with a 

favorable report. Mead had drafted not only the bill but also Secretary Wilbur’s 

letter in support of the bill. He argued that changing circumstances required this 

bill’s adoption, noting in passing that the policy developed with respect to the 

Shoshone Project had also been adopted on the Black Canyon Power Plant on 

the Boise Project and the Kennewick Highlands unit in Washington. Mead was 

walking a fi ne line, trying to convince the Congress that power on the projects 

should be developed in a business-like manner while at the same time attempting 

to pacify critics of government entry into the development of commercial power. 

He also needed to reassure his audience that contracts presently in force would be 

honored. Still, his goal was clear; as he told the committee, it was of “the utmost 

importance that a uniform law be adopted.”35

 The effects of the Depression and the continuing problems of Reclamation 

fi nances had combined to drive Mead to search for a solution through power 

income. There was an obvious fi nancial crisis within Reclamation. They had 

been operating on loans from the general fund which stipulated returns to the 
417

Treasury of $1,000,000 per year, they faced demands from Western interests 

for maintaining and even extending construction, and crop values, the basis of 

returns to the Reclamation Fund, had fallen by $3,000,000 in the last year. Power 

revenue offered the possibility of meeting the loan obligations and funding 

continued development as nothing else could do. In fact, it was almost certainly 

the desire to expand power production and sales at the Shoshone plant that forced 

his hand in 1928; he needed to increase revenue but could not do it while the 

disposition of power revenues was uncertain.36 Mead campaigned aggressively 

with members of Congress for his new law, showing them the amounts of 

money now being generated by Reclamation power plants, detailing the losses 

of ordinary Reclamation revenue, and painting Reclamation settlers on projects 

with power plants as undeserving government debtors about to collect unearned 

dividends in perpetuity. It was a good case, and he made it outside Congress to 

such people as the editor of the Saturday Evening Post as well. It failed, however, 

to overcome political opposition in the Congress.37

 The House, as will be seen below, carried a grudge against the Bureau 

for the manner in which earlier legislative maneuvers had been carried out. The 

Senate, it seems, was more circumspect. Senators seem to have been much less 

concerned with the details of Reclamation fi nance than Congressmen. Senator 

Thomas Walsh of Montana, for instance, expressed surprise, in a letter to Mead 

in April 1932 that the Bureau was building power plants to subsidize irrigation 

on some projects. When the Casper-Alcova project was authorized that month, 

Senators removed from the bill a provision that would have enacted Mead’s 

policy of returning power revenues to the Reclamation Fund after construction 

charges had been met. They substituted an article stipulating that future profi ts 

“shall be disposed of as Congress may direct.” Senator C. C. Dill of Washington, 

the author of that amendment, maintained that the Congress was not ready to 

decide Federal policy on this question.38

 When the Roosevelt administration was fully settled in Mead tried again, 

this time in 1934. Administratively, the landscape had changed dramatically, with 

Harold Ickes now running the Department of the Interior. The bill that went to the 

73rd Congress was a much more forthright assertion of a new order than the fi rst 

bill had been, and Ickes clearly had a large role in preparing it. The core of the 

Secretary’s position may be found in his letter to the Senate committee hearing 

the bill:

Now that power development has become a more important feature of 

irrigation and community development, provision should be made for 

the full utilization of the latent and possible power developments created 

by the construction of irrigation projects. The Government should be 

the agency to determine the economic and social benefi ts that may result 

from the full utilization of these power possibilities, and to use these 

latent and possible power developments in the upbuilding of the project 

and surrounding communities. Operations of the past and present enable 

the Government to estimate the economic benefi ts and fi nancial returns.
418

 Absence of some uniform legislation of the kind proposed by 

this bill has prevented the full utilization of possible power development 

at several large reservoirs. Under existing general legislation the 

repayment of this development must be underwritten or guaranteed.

Repayment requirements of irrigation costs are such that agriculture will 

not carry the added burden of power development.39

This bill put power fi rst in a wholly new way. Not only was he proposing to 

separate the power and irrigation functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, he was 

proposing to do it in the pursuit of an aggressive development of public power 

resources that subordinated the traditional irrigation mission of the Bureau. In 

retrospect, Ickes made Mead’s 1931 bill look rather timid, more of a bureaucratic 

defensive ploy than a major policy initiative.

 Not surprisingly, Ickes’s bill met with virtually no resistance from the 

Senate. S. 3375 was introduced April 13. Ickes’s letter to Senator Alva Adams, 

Chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, was sent May 10.

On June 6, S. 3375 was read for the third time and passed by the Senate without 

a nay vote.40 It was a different story entirely in the House. Introduced the same 

day, H.R. 9124 was sent to the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, 

chaired by Representative Dennis Chavez of New Mexico. Where the Senate 

Committee had seen no need for hearings, the House Committee scheduled full 

committee hearings starting in early June. Determined opponents of Elwood 

Mead like Representatives Vincent Carter of Wyoming and Terry Carpenter of 

Nebraska led the charge against the bill, supported frequently by other western 

congressmen. Taking away the actual and potential assistance power revenues 

offered to struggling farmers on Reclamation projects did not set well with them. 

Others were opposed to the idea of the Department of the Interior setting itself up 

in the power business. The spectre of large power companies taking cheap power 

from these projects and selling it back at exorbitant rates haunted the hearings.

Things went so badly that Marshall Dana, president of the National Reclamation 

Association, a hand-picked mouthpiece of Mead’s, offered the suggestion that the 

committee not proceed to a vote on the bill until they had had a chance to talk it 

over with their constituents. When the committee adjourned on June 14 

H.R. 9124 was clearly dead.41

 It could be that the House was more hostile than the Senate because it 

was more closely tied to local interests. It could also be because there was a 

palpable current of hostility to the Bureau of Reclamation among the members 

of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation. At several points in 

the hearings on H.R. 9124, Representative Carter referred with a nasty edge to 

the proceedings by which Mead had got his way on the Shoshone Project power 

plant. Within the fi rst hour he had drawn the Committee’s attention to the actions 

of Representative Cramton back in 1928, slipping the Shoshone provision into the 

Interior Department appropriation bill “the night before Congress adjourned... 

with no committee having had a chance to have a hearing on it.”42 On the fi fth 

day of hearings he interrupted the testimony of the Bureau’s chief accountant 
419

to remind everyone that “the Cramton amendment” had never come before the 

Reclamation Committee, and that if a point of order had been raised against it 

when it was attached to the Appropriations bill the point of order would have been 

sustained. He concluded, “I know that if the question of that policy had come 

before the Reclamation Committee it would never have been adopted.”43 Among 

the many reasons the bill died, this resentment surely bulked large.

 As the Bureau effort ground to a halt, the District resumed its attempt to 

get the 1929 act overturned in Congress. In fact, they had never really abandoned 

this course. Senator John Kendrick took up the cause in 1932, when the Senate 

Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation held hearings on a bill to relieve the 

Shoshone District. In these hearings an alternative vision to that of the Bureau 

regarding the events of 1928-1929 was developed, with Mead and Cramton as 

the villains. J. T. Whitehead, spokesman for the Shoshone Irrigation District, 

testifi ed that Cramton and Mead worked together to produce the language for the 

1930 appropriations bill. “Those hearings under Mr. Cramton were never open 

hearings. Judge Winter was the Congressman from Wyoming at the time. He 

did not know that that provision was in the appropriation bill.”44 The bill went 

through the House in four days and only ten days in the Senate. The provision 

for the Shoshone Project was not germane to the appropriation bill, i.e. there was 

no money being appropriated for power. Mead attempted the same thing with the 

North Platte Project power revenues, but the Nebraska congressman saw it and 

insisted on having it removed. Senator Kendrick learned of it just before it passed 

and notifi ed the Shoshone people, but by the time they got back to him the bill had 

passed the Senate. In testifying to this view of the facts Whitehead was careful 

not to challenge the wisdom of the new policy with respect to power revenues, but 

to focus on the sanctity of contract and the deviousness of Mead and Cramton in 

pursuing the overthrow of valid contracts.45

 These early efforts did not succeed, but they established the ground 

of a continuing attempt to get justice for the Shoshone District. In 1933 

Representative Carter introduced H.R. 17, identical to the Kendrick bill of the 

previous year. The following year was spent defeating the Interior Department 

bill, but 1935 saw a renewed offensive from Wyoming. Representative Paul 

Greever introduced H.R. 6875 in March, and Senator Joseph O’Mahoney 

introduced S. 2286. These bills tried to meet the Bureau half way by providing 

that the power revenues on the project that were properly allocable to the 

unconstructed divisions be handled according to the terms of the 1929 act, but 

that the revenues allocable to the divisions that had contracted with the Bureau 

be handled according to the terms of the contracts. The House committee gave 

Greever’s bill a full hearing in May. The Department of the Interior, in opposing 

the bill, denied that existing contracts in fact gave any rights to the districts.

They also insisted that it was bad policy, contrary to the principles set forth in 

H.R. 9124. Since that bill had failed to pass, it seems strange that the secretary 

would be relying upon it in this way, but it is surely revealing of the mindset of 
420

the administration. They had, after all, been following the principles of Mead’s 

Shoshone policy without legislative approval on other projects since 1930.46

 The argument for the Shoshone District was carried by Ernest Goppert 

again. Their strategy this time was to insist that the 1926 contract was valid 

even without specifi c language regarding the power plant, and the 1929 act 

was an abuse of Congressional procedure and administrative power. Goppert 

repeated arguments developed in the court cases. The water users had actually 

been charged enough to cover the power plant costs in addition to the irrigation 

system, but Bureau accounting procedures had kept the money in a separate 

account. The Bureau had no authority to set up a separate power account. All 

features constructed on the project were covered by the public notices of original 

and supplementary construction costs, and that was the only way the Bureau 

could legally proceed. The District could fi nd no remedy in court only because 

they were prevented from suing the government without its permission. In fact, 

Goppert testifi ed that Justice Atkins stated from the bench “that if this was a suit 

against a private individual, he would have no diffi culty in entering a decree in 

our favor.”47 Since the Department of the Interior had relied upon the 1929 act to 

rule against Shoshone while they ruled in favor of North Platte water users on a 

similar case, Goppert appeared confi dent that removing the 1929 act would result 

in a decision favorable to the District.

 On the second day of these hearings Goppert had the opportunity to 

question R. M. Patrick, of the Bureau legal division. It was a very hard-nosed 

examination, in which Goppert pursued the way the Bureau handled its accounts, 

hoping to show that the 1929 act was part of a change in procedure that was 

unauthorized by Congress and kept secret from the water users. Patrick admitted 

that original construction charges on the Shoshone Project did contemplate 

repaying the cost of the dam and reservoir, but since 1929 they were no longer 

charged against the irrigation districts. More signifi cantly, he stated that the 

Bureau had had no objection to the provision in the Shoshone District contract 

(Section 31) for distribution of surplus power revenues, “because the amount 

was to be determined by the Secretary, and we felt perfectly safe that if a net 

profi t came to the district from the operation of the power plant, no portion of the 

profi t would be allowed to go to the Garland Division.”48 He tried to place all 

the responsibility for the midnight legislation of the 1930 Appropriation bill on 

Representative Cramton, exonerating Mead in particular. And he attempted to 

dodge Goppert’s contention that the District had paid enough to cover expenses 

for the plant by saying that it was only money; if they were not charged for the 

power plant they could not have paid for it. This straightforward exposure of the 

way the Bureau did business did not help their case.49

 The issues on both sides had by this time been fi nely distilled, and 

the questioning brought them out very clearly. The committee, particularly 

Representative Robinson, seemed determined to fi nd the equity of the matter, 

inquiring into just what the water users themselves had been led to believe about 
421

power revenues. Both the Bureau’s goal of using power for development when 

irrigation repayment could not manage it and the District’s goal of re-establishing 

a right they felt was theirs by custom and contract got a full hearing. The 

testimony from both sides showed quite clearly how the Bureau had pursued 

its policy by manipulation of its own cost accounting procedures, and Goppert 

was much more persuasive than Patrick on the matter of the District’s legal 

rights. The simple, eloquent letter from Herman Krueger of Deaver, detailing the 

1928 negotiations and Mead’s public promises in Powell and Deaver that their 

interests would be taken care of carried considerable weight.50 The committee 

unanimously agreed to provide the Shoshone District the relief they sought.

In spite of that, and in spite of its having passed the Senate in June, the bill 

never came to a fi nal vote in the House in that Congress. In the 75th Congress, 

however, Representative Greever and Sen. O’Mahoney brought it back. The 

Bureau seemed resigned to its passage and put up little resistance, and without 

much ado in the way of hearings or debate the bill received President Roosevelt’s 

signature on April 8, 1938.51 After nearly a decade of combat in a variety of 

theaters, it seemed that the water users of the Shoshone Project had won their war.

 Although there was great celebration in Powell in the spring of 1938, 

it soon dissipated. One-fourth of the unit-holders on the Shoshone Irrigation 

District held back the fi rst installment of their 1937 construction payment in 

expectation of some help from the legislation. But the Bureau informed the 

District by telegram only a week after the bill was signed that they would do 

nothing without an opinion from the Interior Department solicitor, and concluded, 

“Believed very doubtful that it will result in any credits to water users at this 

time.” They then passed the matter to the Interior Department.52

 The Bureau asked for a solicitor’s opinion, but Secretary Harold Ickes 

took the matter upon himself to pronounce as a matter of policy, rather than 

simply a legal interpretation. He took a great deal of time to prepare it, while 

the Shoshone District wrote and cabled Commissioner John Page and Ickes 

repeatedly to learn where they stood. Page tried to be polite and helpful, but 

Ickes was not cut from the cloth of those early Interior Secretaries who had 

nurtured government settlements all over the west. He resisted the farmers 

and their political representatives, and it was not until September 1940, more 

than two years after the relief legislation had passed, that he communicated his 

determination to the Bureau and the District.53

 The legislation of 1938 had in effect done away with the infamous 

appropriation bill rider of 1929, authorizing and directing the Secretary to 

apportion power revenues according to the contract of 1926. Commissioner Page 

had warned the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation that this was not likely 

to produce any result: “the bill in effect merely proposes to grant something, 

providing the contracts grant it. But according to the Department the contracts 

do not do so, while the districts contend that they do.”54 Ickes emphatically 

closed the door. No stranger to high-handed administrative action, he endorsed 
422

completely the Mead history of the contract negotiations. Ignoring the fact that 

the water users had understood themselves to be paying for the dam and reservoir 

for twenty years, he denied that they had paid anything for the power system 

and therefore they were not entitled to any of the profi ts. Power was a separate 

element of the Project, he said, conveniently overlooking the fact that there was 

no legislative authority to do that in 1929; the Government alone had taken the 

risk and to them belonged the profi ts. Point by point he rejected the District case, 

and brushed aside the clear intent of Congress.55

 The door so emphatically slammed did not stay shut, but the details of 

negotiations over the next 14 years need not weigh us down here. In the end, 

by Act of Congress dated July 14, 1954, the Shoshone District was awarded a 

credit of $426,000 on their construction charges, an approximation of what they 

might have earned had the 1938 legislation been honored in spirit. Deaver also 

received their proportionate share. For their part, the Bureau cleared their claim 

on Shoshone power revenues and strengthened the fence around them where the 

other districts of the Project were concerned. The Bureau resisted only feebly in 

the end, but the damage had been done long since.56

 What are we left with, then, at the end of what one Interior staffer called 

“this long, bitter controversy?” Looking at the history from the local viewpoint, 

the settlement may be viewed as a testimony to the determination of the Shoshone 

settlers. Certainly, from start to fi nish, they never abandoned their conviction that 

the dam and its attendant power revenues were part of what they had bargained 

for when they took out water rights in that valley. It is interesting to note that 

one of the principal spokesmen in the 1954 hearings was one C. W. Fowler, 

then an attorney in Washington but also the owner of a farm near Powell that 

he homesteaded in 1910; he had been secretary of the water-users association at 

that January 1912 meeting when power revenues were fi rst formally discussed.57

These farmers were more than ordinarily stubborn in defense of right as they saw 

it. They convinced three generations of Senators and Congressmen to carry their 

case in Washington, and ultimately achieved a good part of what they set out for. 

Perhaps we could say they won.

 If they won, however, it was at a terrible cost. Twenty-six years of settled 

hostilities between the settlers and the Bureau left a residue of virulent antifederal sentiment in the Shoshone Valley that is a feature of life there to this day. 

The Shoshone Irrigation District paid off its construction charges to the federal 

government in 1978. The water-users knew they were paying off sooner than 

they would have done without the settlement, but they could not forget that they 

would have paid off even sooner and still be enjoying income from the plant if 

the original contract as they understood it had been honored. There are people on 

the Project today who talk of legal action to restore those rights. It is perhaps no 

surprise that the Shoshone Irrigation District built its own low-head power plant 

on its main canal and subsidizes its irrigation operations today with power plant 

revenues.58
423

 Looked at as a piece of the history of the Bureau of Reclamation, this 

story should be chastening. The staff of the Bureau seems to have groped their 

way through the matter of power plant revenues in general and certainly fumbled 

the Shoshone case. They had to work out the law and policy of power revenues 

more or less by the seat of their pants; theirs was not the arrogance of power but 

the desperate bluff of people who know they are on shaky ground. Elwood Mead 

grasped an essential point about Reclamation fi nance but pursued it with such 

devious arrogance and defended it with such blind passion that he alienated not 

only project settlers but a generation of powerful men in Congress. In terms of 

his drive to bureaucratic dominance, Mead would give nothing away to Floyd 

Dominy.59 There were real obstacles to shifting the basis of Reclamation fi nance, 

but violating law and contract and exposing the underside of Reclamation 

bureaucratic methods in Congress surely made things worse. It is quite possible 

that if he had acted in good faith with the people of the Shoshone Project, and 

with their elected representatives, Mead would have got his power revenue bill 

passed in 1935 or even earlier. The merits of the policy change, after all, were 

recognized by Congress with the passage of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939, 

after they had dealt with the equities of the Shoshone matter.60

 Because Mead and Ickes were in the business of building powerful 

bureaucratic entities to compete in the modern world, and because the issues at 

the center of this story were key to that growth, this story also reveals in passing 

the processes and consequences of developing big government. In 1928 Mead 

and Secretary West went to Powell and Deaver to meet with the people, as 

Secretaries and Commissioners had been doing for two decades. By 1940 no one 

would have thought of such a thing. Mead had been a very popular choice for 

Commissioner in 1925, but there was open enmity between him and Shoshone 

Project leaders from 1929 on. In 1933 S. A. Nelson, President of the First 

National Bank in Powell and a pioneer homesteader, published his own account of 

the negotiations; he had been present at every conversation affecting the Shoshone 

water users since 1909. It is perhaps enough to note the title, “The High-Water 

Mark of Bureaucratic Racketeering,” to catch the fl avor of this pamphlet.61 Both 

the pamphlet and this larger story seem to show that people were moved out 

of the center of Reclamation during the New Deal; power, under a variety of 

descriptions, moved in.

Robert E. Bonner is the Marjorie Crabb Garbisch Professor of History 

& the Liberal Arts, emeritus, at Carleton College, Northfi eld, Minnesota. 

He recently published William F. Cody’s Wyoming Empire: The Buffalo 

Bill Nobody Knows, at the University of Oklahoma Press. In addition to 

his new book, Bonner’s numerous articles have appeared in such journals 

as the Western Historical Quarterly and Montana: The Magazine of 

Western History.
424

Endnotes:

1. Powell, Wyoming, Tribune, January 19, 1912.

2. See for instance, Donald C. Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, 1921-1933 (Berkeley: 

University of California Press, 1963), or Donald Pisani, Water and American Government: The 

Bureau of Reclamation and the American West, 1902-1935 (Berkeley: University of California 

Press, 2002).

3. Act of April 16, 1906, chap. 1631, 34 Stat. 116, cited in Federal Reclamation Laws 

Annotated, Vol. I, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1943), 94-6.

4. William E. Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 89.

5. The Fact-Finders’ Act of 1924, Subsection I. See below.

6. Hearing before the House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, 64th Cong., 2nd 

sess.; Subsection I of the Second Defi ciency Act FY 1924 (Fact Finders’ Act) and notes, Federal

Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. I, 277-9.

7. Shoshone Project History, 1922, Shoshone Irrigation District Archives, Powell, 

Wyoming, cited hereafter as SID Archives. Homesteading on Willwood, the third division of 

the Project, began in 1926, but operated from the beginning on a water rental basis. The farmers 

there, not having formally undertaken to repay construction costs at that time, did not nurse the 

same expectations from the power plant. As they did not have a repayment contract until 1949, 

they remained on the sidelines throughout the controversy with which this paper is concerned.

8. Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. I, 272-83. Brian Cannon has recently 

published a thorough study of the Fact Finders’ Act, “‘We Are Now Entering a New Era’: Federal 

Reclamation and the Fact Finding Commission of 1923-1924,” Pacifi c Historical Review 66 

(May 1997): 185-211.

9. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Contract with the Shoshone 

Irrigation District... ,” November 4, 1926, in SID archives.

10. Shoshone Project History, 1926, SID archives.

11. Mead to Project Superintendent, November 17, 1926, SID archives. Water users on the 

Yuma and Minidoka Projects had contracted to pay for power plants before this negotiation. See 

Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. I, 268, 277-9.

12. Shoshone ID to E. E. Roddis, November 30, 1927; Roddis to Commissioner Elwood 

Mead, December 2, 1927; Mead to Senator Francis E. Warren, December 17, 1927; all in SID 

Archives. It should perhaps be noted here that a reader will search in vain through our only 

biography of Elwood Mead, James Kluger’s Turning on Water with a Shovel (Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 1992), for any mention of hydroelectric power income apart 

from Boulder Dam.

13. Pisani, Water and the American Government, chapter 8.

14. Records of power plant revenues are printed in the annual project histories. R. F. Walter, 

Chief Engineer (Denver), to Commissioner, March 5, 1928; District Counsel E. E. Roddis to 

Commissioner, March 12, 1928, in SID Archives.

15. Acting Commissioner P. W. Dent to Secretary of Interior, March 13, 1928, and Solicitor 

E. O. Patterson to Secretary, March 24, 1928, in National Archives, RG 48, Department of the 

Interior, Offi ce of the Secretary, Central Correspondence File (CCF) 1907-1936, 8-3 Shoshone; 

Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, 318.

16. Commissioner Dent to Chief Engineer, April 2, 1928, SID Archives.

17. Chief Engineer to Superintendent, April 26, 1928, SID Archives.

18. District Counsel to Superintendent, August 21, 1928; Acting Commissioner to 

Superintendent, October 1, 1928; District Counsel to Chief Engineer, October 20, 1928; in SID 

Archives. According to later testimony at a Congressional hearing, Mead assured the water users 

of the Deaver District on this trip who were concerned about their rights to the power plant, “you 

need have no fears in regard to that. Your rights will be fully protected;” Hearings before the 

Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., on 

H.R. 6875, May 2 and 6, 1935 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1935), 26.

19. Hearing before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations for FY 

1930 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1929), November 16, 1928, 387. 
425

See also memo from Project superintendent to Commissioner commenting on the confi dential 

memorandum, October 30, 1928, SID Archives.

20. Chief Engineer to Commissioner, October 27, 1928, marked Confi dential, SID Archives.

21. Superintendent Mitchell to Commissioner, October 30, 1928, SID archives; Chief 

Engineer to Commissioner, October 30, 1928, National Archives, Denver Regional Branch, 

Bureau of Reclamation, RG 115, E. 7, Central Administrative Records, 1919-1929, Box 106, 

folder 140.1.

22. District Counsel Roddis to Commissioner, November 5, 1928 (confi dential), SID 

Archives.

23. Finney to Goppert, November 21, 1928, RG 48, Offi ce of the Secretary, CCF 1907-1936, 

8-3, Shoshone; Goppert to Mead, December 20, 1930, RG 115, E. 7, Project Correspondence File 

1930-1945, Box 1028, folder 201.1.

24. District counsel Roddis to Superintendent Mitchell, December 31, 1928 (confi dential), 

SID archives. Roddis reported to Mitchell the language that would be included in the Act of 

March 4, 1929.

25. Hearing before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, November 

16, 1928, 401.

26. Ibid., 402.

27. See, e.g., Mead to George Hendricks, secretary of the irrigation district, January 15, 1930, 

or Assistant Secretary Joseph Dixon to George Atkins, March 11, 1930, SID archives. Dixon’s 

letter was particularly long and patronizing, frequently (as Atkins pointed out in an angry reply 

March 31) taking isolated statements out of context to make them mean something other than they 

had meant at the time.

28. Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. I, 277-278. Full text copies of the Interior 

Department Solicitor’s decisions in favor of the North Platte water users, no. M. 25908, dated 

October 17, 1930, and against the Shoshone water users, no. M. 26630, are fi led in the SID 

archives.

29. Elwood Mead, Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior, December 29, 1930; 

Ray Lyman Wilbur to Addison Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Irrigation and 

Reclamation, December 30, 1930; RG 115, E. 7, Central Administrative Correspondence 

1930-1945, Box 239, folder 140.1. Mead felt supremely confi dent in late 1930 that the House 

of Representatives would not budge from the position he and Cramton had crafted; Mead to 

Superintendent Mitchell in Powell, 

December 17, 1930, RG 115, E. 7, Project Correspondence File 1930-1945, Box 1028, folder 

201.1.

30. Congressional Record, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess., 549; Acting Commissioner M. A. Schnurr 

to Chief Engineer, April 14, 1931, SID archives; Carey to Mead, December 22, 1931, and Mead to 

Carey, December 24, 1931, RG 115, E. 7, Project Correspondence File 1930-45, Box 1037, Folder 

225.07.

31. Petition of Shoshone Irrigation District vs. Ray Lyman Wilbur, in the Supreme Court of 

the District of Columbia, June 24, 1932; Answer and Response of the Department of the Interior to 

the Rule to show cause, July 14, 1932; both in SID archives.

32. Acting Commissioner Dent memorandum to Judge Graves, July 5, 8 and 11, 1932; 

Commissioner to District Counsel, June 30, 1932; District Counsel to Commissioner, 

July 5, 1932; Acting Superintendent to Commissioner, July 7, 1932; Document and Transcripts 

of court proceedings in Shoshone Irrigation District vs. Harold L. Ickes, in the Supreme Court of 

the District of Columbia, no. 81460, fi led June 24, 1932; all in SID archives. In fact, the Court of 

Claims was not a practical remedy, since the District would have had to apply to the Court each 

year to have its share of the revenues determined.

33. United States ex rel. Shoshone Irrigation District. V. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, no. 

6061, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in Federal Reporter, 2nd series, vol. 70

 (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1934), 771-773. Although Ray Lyman Wilbur was named as 

defendant when the case began, Harold Ickes was substituted as defendant before the initial 

judgment was handed down.
426

34. Secretary of the Interior to Attorney General, July 2, 1934, SID archives; Hearings before 

the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives, 74th Congress, 

1st Session, on H.R. 6875, 2.

35. House of Representatives Report no. 2865, to accompany H.R. 16976, 71st Congress, 

3rd Session; Congressional Record, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess., 549, 5805.

36. Chief Engineer to Commissioner, August 21, 1928, and October 27, 1928, RG 115, E.7, 

Project Correspondence Files, 1919-1929, Box 1011, folder 320.

37. Commissioner to Chief Engineer, January 14, 1931, Mead to Addison Smith, Chair of 

House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, February 24, 1931, Commissioner to Chief 

Engineer, March 21, 1931, (with circular on Reclamation fi nances), Mead to Senator Charles 

McNary, March 21, 1931, and Mead to Senator Hiram Johnson, March 21, 1931, also enclosing 

circular on fi nances; RG 115, 

E. 7, Central Administrative Correspondence 1930-1945, Box 239, folder 140.1.

38. Walsh to Mead, April 9, 1932; Mead to Walsh, April 14, 1932; Extract from the United

States Daily, April 11, 1932; RG 115, E. 7, Central Administrative Files 1930-1945, Box 239, 

folder 140.1. Mead had apparently convinced Casper-Alcova’s chief sponsor, Senator John 

Kendrick of Wyoming, that his new policy should be written into the bill; see Mead to Kendrick, 

March 15, 1932, ibid. Donald Pisani suggests that Congress was wary of Reclamation establishing 

with power revenues a second, independent Reclamation fund; see Water and the American 

Government, chap. 8.

39. Senate Report no. 1057, to accompany S. 3375, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session.

40. Congressional Record, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 6532, 10576.

41. Hearings before the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives,

73rd Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 9124, A Bill to Provide for the Distribution of Power 

Revenues on Federal Reclamation Projects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 

1934).

42. Ibid., 5.

43. Ibid., 60. Of course there were hearings on Mead’s new policy, as noted above. Carter 

seems to have meant that there were no hearings on the specifi c plan to deny power profi ts to the 

Shoshone water users.

44. Library of Congress, Unpublished transcript of hearing of the Senate Committee on 

Irrigation and Reclamation, March 8, 1932, on S. 3390, a bill to provide for the distribution of 

power plant revenues on the Shoshone Project, Wyoming, 28.

45. Ibid.

46. Internal memo (Kubach) for Dr. Mead, August 22, 1932, RG 115, E. 7, Central 

Administrative Correspondence 1930-1945, Box 239, Folder 140.1. Mead actually admitted in his 

1932 annual report that the Bureau was following this policy without specifi c legislative authority; 

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Reclamation... for the fi scal year ended June 30, 1932 

(Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Offi ce, 1932), 14.

47. Hearings before the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives,

74th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 6875, A Bill providing for the allocation of net revenues of the 

Shoshone Power Plant, May 2 and 6, 1935 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 

1935), 7.

48. Ibid., 22.

49. Ibid., 15-24. Mead’s own arrogant estimate of the committee proceedings may be found 

in a letter he wrote to Representative Marion Zionscheck, a member of the committee, in which 

he characterized the repayments by the District as “driblets.” He ended that letter saying, “The 

picture which the attorney for the irrigation district paints of this community of Government 

debtors insisting upon paying a charge to the government although Congress has declared the 

charge not payable [in the 1929 act] is artistically appealing, but wholly lacking in verisimilitude.” 

This is the man who earned a reputation in the twenties as a friend of the Reclamation settlers!

Mead to Zionscheck, July 29, 1935, SID archives.

50. Hearings before the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives,

74th Cong., First Sess., on H.R. 6875, May 6, 1935, 25-27.
427

51. Congressional Record, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 503, 8348, 9003; 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., 

1574, 1620, 3990, 4138, 5227. The Bureau, headed now by John C. Page, had made a serious 

effort to lobby against the bill in 1937, to no avail; Memorandum from Page to Representative 

Greever, July 28, 1937, RG 48, Offi ce of the Secretary CCF, 1937-1953, 8-3, Shoshone. Their 

1938 state of mind is contained in a memo from Page to Ickes, March 7, 1938, RG 115, E. 7, 

Project Correspondence File 1930-1945, Box 1028, folder 201.1.

52. Acting Commissioner Williams to Secretary of the Interior, April 18, 1938, RG 48, Offi ce 

of the Secretary CCF 1937-1953, 8-3, Shoshone.

53. Shoshone Irrigation District to Page, July 20, 1938; same to Ickes, October 20, 1938; 

Page to Harry Barrows, Shoshone Irrigation District, November 1, 1938; Barrows to Page, 

December 5, 1938; Sen. O’Mahoney to Page, February 7, 1939; Congressman Frank Horton to 

Page, February 9, 1939; Barrows to Page, June 7, 1939; Page to Shoshone Irrigation District, July 

8, 1939; all in RG 115, E. 7, Project Correspondence File 1930-1945, Box 1028, folder 201.1.

54. Memorandum from the Secretary to the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 

September 16, 1940, RG 48, Offi ce of the Secretary CCF, 1937-1953, 8-3, Shoshone.

55. Ibid.

56. Richard Pelz, ed., Federal Reclamation and Related Laws Annotated, (Washington, D.C.: 

U. S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1972), vol. II, 985; Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd 

Sess., 20 (H.R. 6893) and 197 (S. 2683); Library of Congress, Unpublished U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee Hearings, 1953-54, January 29, May 17, May 18, 1954; Unpublished 

U. S. Senate Committee Hearings, June 25, June 29, 1954; Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd 

Sess. 12023.

57. See above, p. 1. Fowler testifi ed at the January 27, 1954, meeting of the House 

Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation; unpublished U. S. House of Representatives 

Committee Hearings, 1953-54, H.R. 6893, 2-17.

58. Tudor Engineering Co., Facts on the Construction of the Shoshone Irrigation District’s 

Garland Canal Power Project, n.p., n.d. [1983], in SID Archives.

59. For estimates of Dominy’s conduct as Commissioner of Reclamation in the 1960s and 

70s, see Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert; The American West and its Disappearing Water (New 

York: Penguin Books, 1986) and Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire; Water, Aridity, and the Growth 

of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985).

60. Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated, Vol. I, 588-603.

61. First published in the Powell Tribune, March 2, 1933; subsequently printed and circulated 

separately.
428
429

From Self Suffi ciency to Colony: The Bureau of 

Reclamation and Wasatch County, Utah

By:

Jessie L. Embry

Abstract

 Wasatch County, Utah is the home of three Bureau of Reclamation 

projects, Strawberry, Deer Creek, and Jordanelle reservoirs. All three transfer 

water from the county to Utah’s more populated areas. The dams provide essential 

water for Utah and Salt Lake counties, but they have a negative impact on Wasatch 

County. Residents lost grazing lands and the use of water. Farmers adjusted their 

businesses. Land was buried. Once self-suffi cient farming and ranching towns 

are now bedroom communities for the Wasatch Front. The reservoirs are Utah’s 

playgrounds, increasing the population with day visitors who require services but 

spend little or no money in the county.

 Welcome to Wasatch County, Utah, a series of mountain valleys with 

changing reputations. First, they were the impossible to settle. Then, they were 

the sheepmen’s paradise. According to some records, ranchers shipped more sheep 

from the railroad depot in Heber City than anywhere else in the United States in 

the late nineteenth century. Recreation was always important with fi shing in the 

Strawberry and Provo rivers. But dairy farms and creameries were also important 

industries.

 All that has changed, and the Bureau of Reclamation played an important 

part in that transformation. Heber City, Midway, and Charleston, once known for 

their sheep, horses, and cows, are now bedroom communities for the Wasatch Front.

Settlement of Wasatch County1

 When the Mormons arrived in the Great Basin in 1847, they settled on the 

easily accessible lands. But areas such as the Salt Lake and Utah valleys fi lled 

quickly, and newcomers and a second generation looked elsewhere for land. In 

1857, Provo (Utah Valley) residents working at sawmills in Big Cottonwood 

Canyon, southeast of Salt Lake City, crossed over the mountains to the south and 

examined a valley formed by the Provo River. They were impressed. When they 

announced their fi ndings in Provo, other residents rejoiced and some hoped to 

move.

 The sawyers were not the fi rst to see the valley. Others had considered 

settlement, but there were two major obstacles. First was climate. There were 

rumors of frost every month of the year. Despite these fears, cattlemen took their 

animals to the south side of the valley and started harvesting meadow grasses for 

winter feed. During the spring and summer of 1857 other Utah Valley residents also 

explored the area and considered permanent settlements in the valley.
430

 An even more pressing concern was the diffi cult mountain pass. Provo 

Canyon, formed by the Provo River, was steep and narrow. The fi rst attempt 

to build a road failed in 1852. In 1855 the Utah Territorial Legislature passed 

a bill allowing the Provo men to construct a road. The “Utah War” in 1857, a 

confrontation between the United States army and the Mormon pioneers over the 

attempt to replace Brigham Young as territorial governor, halted all road work. 

But before the “war” was over, a group of Utah County residents proposed the 

road again to Brigham Young. Young met with Provo citizens on June 6, 1858, 

and the next day the group formed the “Provo Kanyon Company.”

 When the road was completed, Provo residents made plans to settle 

at the head of the canyon. They held planning meetings during the winter of 

1858-59, and in that spring eleven adventurers moved. Of the nine men there is 

information on, eight were born in England and one was born in Canada. They 

were between twenty-three and sixty-two years of age. By the end of 1859 

eighteen families lived in the fort that the settlers built to protect themselves from 

the Ute Indians. The next spring there were sixty-two homes in the fort.

 The fi rst settlers named their valley Provo after the river, but then changed 

it to Heber, after a Mormon Church leader Heber C. Kimball, to avoid confusion 

with Provo City in the lower valley. They established communities where they 

could fi nd irrigation water along Center, Daniels, and Snake creeks. Later, others 

established communities such as Lake Creek, Center Creek, Buysville, Daniel, 

and Hailstone, near available water, but even those farmers had to transport water 

to their farmland. Those not close to a stream had to move the water farther. 

Lacking capital, farmers banded together in cooperative efforts to dig irrigation 

canals. The limited water was then shared by all.

Strawberry River and Reservoir

 The settlers were always looking for additional water sources, and more 

were found in the mid-1860s. Then some Utes, led by Black Hawk, responded to 

a smallpox epidemic and a cold winter and started stealing Mormon cattle. While 

most of the raids occurred in central Utah in Sanpete and Sevier counties, there 

were some in Wasatch County. To control the attackers, some residents followed 

the Utes east into the Uinta Basin. There they also saw water and grazing 

opportunities. They started working on a canal in 1872, using territorial and 

federal laws for fi nancial assistance and land ownership. Then in the late 1880s 

farmers engineered and constructed a 1,000 foot tunnel through the crest of the 

Wasatch Mountains, thereby diverting water from the Strawberry River to their 

farms. At the turn of the century, they also converted lakes into reservoirs despite 

concerns from those in the lower valleys that their water supplies would be cut 

off.2

 Water was limited throughout the state, and other farmers were also 

looking for more water sources. At the turn of the century, desperate Utah Valley 

farmers turned their attention to the Strawberry River for water, made possible 
431

after the federal government removed the Ute Indians further east to the Uintah 

Indian Reservation. Seeing the earlier success of the Heber Valley farmers, Henry 

Gardner of Spanish Fork in Utah County envisioned a similar effort to transfer the 

water from the Strawberry River only on a much grander scale.

 Gardner’s project proved to be too expensive and too complex for the 

farmers of Utah Valley. But the passage of the 1902 Newlands Act which 

established a revolving fund as well as the predecessor of the Bureau of 

Reclamation made the project possible. In 1903 the Utah County farmers 

presented their plans to the federal government, and within a year work began on 

the Strawberry Valley Reservoir.

 For the farmers of Utah Valley, the Strawberry Reservoir was a savior; 

they developed new farm land, older farms received additional water, and 

residents returned to the community of Payson which had been withering from 

lack of water. As a result, historian Thomas G. Alexander concluded, “It is 

diffi cult to conclude that the Strawberry Valley Project has been anything but 

successful.”3

 The project, however, cost the people of Wasatch County. Besides the loss 

of water, they also lost grazing rights. For nearly a quarter of a century, ranchers 

and farmers from the valley had leased summer grazing land in Strawberry 

Valley from the Utes. The development of the Strawberry Reservoir limited 

summer grazing opportunities for the livestock of the ranchers and farmers 

of Wasatch County. While the reservoir was under construction, the federal 

17.1. This August 1910 photograph of a peach orchard on the Strawberry Valley Project 

south and east of Utah Lake. The picture is looking toward the Wasatch Mountains.
432

government leased the surrounding lands to sheepmen. John C. Cummings 

from Wasatch County held the lease from 1905 to 1907. During this time Utah 

County sheepmen tried to obtain permission to run sheep on the project, but the 

government told them that there were too many sheep and cattle already on the 

land.

 In 1907 Heber City residents acquired a lease from the Reclamation 

Service which allowed them to be on the land from June 1 to December 31, 1907. 

The Heber men were able to hold on to their leases by outbidding sheepmen 

from Utah and Salt Lake counties as well as other sheep owners from Wasatch 

County. When the group did not exercise its option to renew in 1909, the property 

came open for bid again, and although the same group got the land, the cost went 

from $10,408 to $10,600. In 1911 the highest bid was only $6,126. The project 

engineer claimed that the sheepmen had kept the bids down, and he refused to 

accept any of them. A group from American Fork and Lehi in Utah County fi nally 

bid $9,126, and Wasatch County residents lost the use of the Strawberry lands to 

Utah County ranchers.4

 A further limitation developed when Utah’s U.S. senators, George 

Sutherland and Reed Smoot, pushed through a bill in 1910 to protect the 

Strawberry watershed from overgrazing and to raise additional money to help 

repay the construction costs of the reservoir. Wasatch County stockmen opposed 

the withdrawal of additional acres from grazing. In a pamphlet, “Some Facts 

You People of Wasatch County Should Know,” some county residents claimed 

that Smoot was not being honest. The pamphlet authors encouraged residents 

to vote for men who “by their deeds have demonstrated that they are for you 

good people” and not the “kind that sit idly by while big interests grab up your 

birthrights.”5

 The pamphlet authors’ efforts were unsuccessful. Smoot continued to 

be a senator, and the Strawberry Water Users continued to control the lands 

surrounding the reservoir. The confl ict between the Strawberry Water Users and 

the Wasatch County livestock men, represented by the Heber Horse and Cattle 

Growers Association and the Wallsburg Grazing Association, came to a head in 

1919. The water users from Utah County and the Wasatch County residents both 

appealed to national organizations to resolve their differences.

 Wasatch County people felt that they had rights to the lands based on 

their leases with the Native Americans for the past forty years. They questioned 

whether the government had purchased the lands properly from the Utes. They 

contended that they could not survive fi nancially without grazing rights in the 

area. In a passionate appeal to the director of the Reclamation Service, the 

Wasatch County residents explained, “A grave injustice would be done the people 

of Wasatch County if these lands were again thrown open for competitive bids and 

they were refused these grazing rights which they have so long enjoyed and which 

are essential to the welfare of these entire communities.” The letter continued 
433

that the Utah County water users were mainly farmers, and “these grazing lands 

are not now and never were essential to the prosperity of these farmers and water 

users.”6

 The U.S. Forest Service agreed with the Wasatch County residents. The 

acting forester wrote to the Reclamation Service that the watershed around the 

Strawberry Reservoir was “one of the most important in the State of Utah” and 

needed to be protected. He described the cooperation that he had always received 

from the Wasatch County stockmen, adding that the Forest Service policy was 

to “give preference to small nearby stockmen who are so situated that they are 

dependent upon the use of the range for their livelihood.”

 The Strawberry project manager, however, favored the water users, telling 

the chief engineer, “I cannot see any good reason for considering the desires 

of the Heber people who have no interest in the project.” He complained that 

Wasatch County residents had not bid the highest for the use of the land, resulting 

in “material loss to the water users.” He insisted that the water users were as 

interested in the watershed as the Wasatch County stockmen and would work with 

the Forest Service. The disputes continued, and the Secretary of the Interior, 

F. K. Lane, attempted to resolve them by asking the water users to lease land to 

the small livestock operators from Heber, arguing that there ought to be enough 

range for small operations from both counties.7

 The Utah County water users and the Wasatch County livestock 

organizations held a face-to-face meeting on October 24, 1919. The livestock 

group wanted to see the land divided so that each group had control of an 

area. The water users were willing to lease some property but not to divide the 

land. The debate continued, and in November the two groups met again and 

fi nally came to an agreement. At the end of the current lease, the Bureau of 

Reclamation would give the Strawberry Water Users a fi ve-year lease on the 

land, and the water users would sublease part of the area to Wasatch County 

residents. Water users would be treated as other lessees until the reclamation 

project was completed and turned over to them. Wasatch County residents 

complained because as sublessees, they had to work through the water users. 

The Reclamation Service refused to answer direct questions.8

 The battle continued. Wasatch County residents asked Utah congressman 

 Don B. Colton to introduce a bill to put the grazing lands back into the Unita 

Forest jurisdiction. In 1922 the Strawberry Water Users sent representatives to 

Washington, D.C., to prevent passage of the bill which they felt violated their 

contract with the Reclamation Service. At the meeting George Fisher spoke on 

behalf of the Wasatch County residents. After explaining that the Strawberry 

Reservoir took valuable lands away from stockmen, Fisher concluded, “The 

whole record of the people of Wasatch County is one of infi nite patience and 

forbearance as step by step their public lands were either disposed of or their 

use abridged.” Senator William H. King of Utah countered that the water users 
434

had the right to the private land and it should not be transferred to the federal 

government. With the support of leaders like King, the Wasatch County plan to 

transfer the lands to the Forest Service did not make it out of committee.9

 By 1926 when the sublease with Wasatch County grazers expired, 

the water users wanted to cancel any association with the Wasatch stockmen. 

Pointing out that the Wasatch County people were to have adjusted their grazing 

needs so they didn’t need the land and that the people had “no interest or right 

whatever in the lands,” the water users complained to the project engineer that 

they had suffered because of the sublease. The lease was not renewed, and the 

Wasatch County stockmen lost all use of the land.10

 Wasatch County residents 

not only used Strawberry Valley 

for grazing; they also went there 

for recreation, mainly hunting and 

fi shing. The fi lling of Strawberry 

Reservoir provided additional 

opportunities for county residents 

and people from the Wasatch 

Front to fi sh and boat. Within a 

few years, Strawberry became a 

prime fi shing hole in the state, 

attracting anglers by the thousands. 

In 1926 the Strawberry Water Users Association took over the management 

of the reservoir and began developing its recreational possibilities. With no 

established guidelines, the fi rst fi shing villages sprang up at random along the 

reservoir’s shores. By the late 1970s old house trailers, buses, cabins, and boats 

dotted the landscape in an unsightly clutter. Uncontrolled development along the 

shores threatened to pollute the reservoir. For nearly a decade there was a debate 

between Wasatch County offi cials, the Strawberry Water Users, the state board of 

health, and the Bureau of Reclamation on who was responsible for establishing 

and maintaining cabin regulations.11

 In 1978 an expanded Strawberry Reservoir threatened to fl ood out some 

cabins. Cabin owners had three years to move their homes, but some simply 

abandoned them. The county and water users argued over who should remove the 

buildings. The water users said the county should because it had collected taxes. 

The county offi cials contended that the water users had collected the fees for the 

cabins. In the end, the water users moved them under the direction of the Bureau 

of Reclamation. Because of continued disputes with the water users, the National 

Forest Service now manages the recreational uses at Strawberry.12

 What has been the recreational impact of Strawberry Reservoir on Wasatch 

County? It has brought visitors. In the late 1970s the Bureau of Reclamation 

called it “Utah’s fi nest fi shing hole.” Visitation increased from 168,629 in 1973 

17.2. Rainbow trout caught in Strawberry 

Reservoir in 1918.
435

to 248,338 in 1975. A study showed that it was the sole destination for most of 

the visitors. At fi rst glance it might appear that Strawberry added to the economy 

of Wasatch County, but that was not the case. A Utah State University study 

found that these visitors spent very little money in the county. About 80 percent 

spent fewer than fi ve dollars while they were at the reservoir; 44 percent spent 

nothing at all. Most people came with their own supplies; they did not stop in 

other parts of Wasatch County to buy them. While Wasatch County received very 

little revenue from Strawberry, its expenses were high. The county offi cials were 

responsible for public health and safety, fi re protection, and law enforcement.13

 While the overall effects of the Strawberry Reservoir were negative for 

Wasatch County, Strawberry Valley was not where most county residents lived. 

The reservoir took away water and grazing rights and brought in additional 

tourists, but it did not affect residents’ homes. However, the second Bureau of 

Reclamation project, Deer Creek, had a greater negative impact because it was in 

the Heber Valley.

Deer Creek Reservoir

 Plans for a reservoir on the Provo River developed slowly. After World 

War I, water users from northern Utah and Salt Lake valleys turned their attention 

to Wasatch County in search of additional water for their growing cities and 

expanding farms. One important source they saw was the unused high volume 

spring runoff in the Provo River watershed. If this runoff could be stored, it 

would help solve a water crisis. In 1922 water users from Utah and Salt Lake 

counties looked for a place to build a reservoir. The site they selected was in 

Wasatch County, a short distance downstream from Charleston where Main Creek 

from Round Valley and Deer Creek joined the Provo River. There were, however, 

problems with this site. Much of the community of Charleston would be fl ooded, 

and the Denver and Rio Grande railroad line and the highway from Heber City to 

Provo ran through the center of the proposed reservoir. Wasatch County farmers 

also feared that with the construction of the reservoir they would lose precious 

water rights.

 The Utah Water Storage Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation did 

not consider the Deer Creek project a top priority and delayed plans. However, 

between 1931 and 1935 there was a severe water shortage in Salt Lake and Utah 

valleys. Utah Lake dropped from 850,000 acre feet to 20,000 acre feet. Residents 

again appealed to the federal government for assistance, and in 1933 the Federal 

Emergency Administration of Public Works gave the Provo River Project 

$2,700,000 to build the reservoir and other facilities.14

 In surveying the site, the Provo River Water Users Association, a 

committee formed to represent the newly formed municipal water users, found 

that the dam would cover much of Charleston. Though the committee reported 

that Charleston had some of the most valuable ranching land in the state, it 
436

determined that the people along the Wasatch Front needed the water and that was 

more important than preserving the ranch lands.15

 Allen M. Winterton recalled that the state was purchasing the land for the 

reservoir about the time he got married. “Our farm was one of those affected 

by the backed up water.” When the water users offered to purchase his farm, 

he saw no other option. Max North recalled that the Provo River Water Users 

purchased his father’s farm. His parents “got as much out of it as it was worth.” 

Others were not as happy. The local newspaper, the Wasatch Wave, reported that 

60 percent of the Charleston residents wanted more money for their land. Most 

settled though, and by the end of 1938 the Provo Water Users Association had 

purchased seventy-two tracts of land totaling 4,117.31 acres. The association paid 

$364,462.66 for this land. When the sale was completed, the association sold the 

land to the Bureau of Reclamation.16

 Still some people refused to sell their property unless they received more 

money. The Provo Water Users Association condemned the property and took 

the owners to court. At the end of 1938, the water users’ legal counsel, with 

the help of the Bureau of Reclamation’s attorney, fi led eight cases. During the 

next three years, the Wasatch County District Court recorded thirty-eight cases, 

some dealing with the same people, fi led against the Provo River Water Users 

Association.

 The fi rst case was heard in the Wasatch County District Court in 1938. 

The Arvil Scott trial lasted twelve days, and the jury awarded the defendant 

$24,417 for 102.2 acres and $4,961 for the damages to the remaining 600 acres.

The Bureau of Reclamation complained, “This was greatly in excess of the 

appraised value... and grossly unjust.” The water users appealed eventually to 

the state supreme court, but then settled out of court for 14 percent more than the 

appraised value. Although this was the fi rst case to go to court, it was one of the 

last resolved and was not completed until 1941.

 All the cases tried in Wasatch County resulted in awards higher than the 

appraised value. Because the Bureau and the Provo Water Users Association felt 

that they could not receive a fair trial with Wasatch County juries, they requested 

a change of venue. Their motion was successful in only one case; the courts 

moved that case to the Cache County District Court. There the jury awarded 

$2,000 instead of the $800 appraised value. Because it was less than the Wasatch 

County courts awarded, the Bureau called the settlement “satisfactory.”

 Eventually the Provo River Water Users Association agreed to settle 

most cases out of court. The association, for example, offered John and James 

Ritchie 14 percent more than the appraised amount for their property. They 

justifi ed the increase since they could not win a change of venue and court costs 

were high.17
437

 Some Wasatch County 

residents were bitter about 

Deer Creek. In 1946 when 

the Forest Service asked 

local residents to stop 

overgrazing to protect the 

Deer Creek watershed, L. C. 

Montgomery remembered 

what the construction of Deer 

Creek meant to his family, 

arguing that “not one drop 

of water of the entire Provo 

River watershed is entitled to 

be stored in the Deer Creek 

Reservoir.” He continued that 

his family owned “one-fourth 

of the water of the Daniel 

Creek project and it was necessary to confi scate my property to protect it.” As a 

result, he concluded, “The hundreds of thousands of people [who] would get the 

benefi ts of that confi scation ought to pay me for it.” Moroni Besendorfer’s family 

lived above the dam in Charleston, but he knew all the families whose property 

was taken. He recalled, “Some people just died because they were affected so 

much. It took everything they had. Some of the ranchers had beautiful homes 

down there.... It took big barns. It took livelihoods and wiped them out.”18

 Deer Creek Reservoir changed Wasatch County in many ways. Its 

immediate effect was to cover hundreds of acres of rangeland and inundate twothirds of Charleston. That town’s population dropped from 342 in 1930 to 323 

in 1940, a 5.5 percent drop. Overall the rest of the county grew, partly because 

construction workers moved into the area. As the government continued to 

purchase land, Charleston’s population dropped to 175 in 1943, a decrease of 50 

percent.19

 The Wasatch Front population continued to expand and demanded more 

water. Even though the Wasatch County area already provided 95 percent of the 

water for 84 percent of Utah’s population, the Bureau of Reclamation suggested 

taking more in 1959 with an expansion of the Deer Creek Reservoir. According 

to the Wasatch Wave, while the reservoir had “become a beautiful and permanent 

part of our valley,” the plan to raise the water level had “opened old wounds and 

recalled bitter memories of farms and yards and roads and familiar landmarks 

which went reluctantly under water. It could happen again.” The planned 

enlargement would destroy homes, displace ninety families, and require the 

railroad, the Charleston bridge, two highways, the Charleston community center, 

and the Midway fi sh hatchery to move. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saint meetinghouse in Charleston would be “accessible by rowboat.” The 

editorial concluded, “Wasatch County, wake up and fi ght for your land.” Later 

17.3. This 1940 photograph by Ellis Armstrong, later 

a Commissioner of Reclamation, shows CCC forces 

dismantling the Atwood house in the Deer Creek 

Reservoir area near Charleston on the Provo River 

Project.
438

the newspaper complained, “Deer Creek was just completed a few years ago.

The people did not have the foresight at that time for the enlargement. Why is it 

feasible now at additional costs?”20

 The expansion was not made, but Deer Creek Reservoir continued to 

impact Wasatch County. All valley residents lost water rights. One resident, 

Calvin Giles, recalled that before Deer Creek Dam the residents had free use of 

the water, then “they started to put weirs to measure water.... We were used to 

taking all [the water] we wanted. But as time went on, they regulated the water 

and cut us down severely in the valley.”21

 In addition, the reservoir raised the water table, and since its water went 

directly into the culinary systems in Salt Lake and Utah counties, governments 

along the Wasatch Front encouraged Wasatch County communities to upgrade 

their sewage treatment facilities. In 1953 Salt Lake City threatened to sue if 

Heber did not clean up its sewage system. Heber City residents passed a bond in 

1953, and the system was completed in 1955. The Wasatch Wave boasted that it 

was one of the best in the nation. Within fi fteen years the system was outdated. 

In 1970 the Wave reported that sometimes “manholes. . . [spewed] raw sewage 

out of open ditches and on into canals and then into Deer Creek.”22 Midway also 

needed a sewer system. In 1965 the county commission formed a sewer district 

for Midway, and the town passed a bond in 1966. Alvin Kohler, the mayor of 

Midway at the time, explained, “We had Deer Creek Dam to the south of us 

and that water was being diverted into culinary use. We felt that we weren’t 

contributing to the water quality for people downstream.”23

17.4. Construction at Deer Creek Dam.
439

 Communities also had to improve their water systems. Charleston had 

unique problems because it was so close to Deer Creek Reservoir. Residents 

there had used thirty shallow wells since 1875 to supply culinary water. In 1948 

the state board of health condemned the wells, claiming “hazardous surface 

contamination.” The Salt Lake City Board of Health threatened not to use the 

milk from the town’s sixty-fi ve farms if the water supply was not improved. 

Charleston received grants from the Utah Water and Power Board and developed 

springs east of town. The new pipeline served 270 people and 450 cows.24

 Eventually all of Heber Valley’s cow population disappeared as 

technology changed and small farmers could not afford to upgrade their systems. 

Although the reasons were complex, protecting the water supply in Deer Creek 

Reservoir was one argument. Elmer Kohler remembered that in the early 1930s 

many Midway residents started producing milk for the Salt Lake market. For 

example, Kohler had 25 head. However, in 1970 he explained,

I was crowded out. We were on Salt Lake City’s drinking watershed. 

More of Deer Creek’s water was used for culinary. Salt Lake was quite 

concerned about the drainage from corrals and farms going... into 

Deer Creek. It would pollute their drinking water. They just made the 

requirements tougher until we had to quit.

Kohler continued that the Salt Lake City Board of Health gave him a year to 

upgrade his facilities and recommended he visit a milking parlor in southern Utah. 

He complained, “I was only making about $4,000 a year profi t on the milk. You 

can imagine how many years it would have taken to pay off a $100,000 place just 

to milk the cows.”25

 Unlike Strawberry, initially Deer Creek was not used for recreation. 

According to county planner Robert Mathis, “For the fi rst thirty years or so of its 

existence, Deer Creek Reservoir was ruled off limits. Commissioner [Moroni] 

Besendorfer always says that he wasn’t allowed to go swimming in Deer Creek 

Reservoir because he’d pollute the water.” That policy changed, and as a result, 

tourists came. In 1989 314,532 visitors came. Those numbers dropped with the 

development of other state parks. In 1999 197,547 visitors went to Deer Creek 

State Park, and 73,325 visited between January and July 2000.

 There were some cabin and camping facilities near Deer Creek Reservoir, 

but they were never the problems that they were around Strawberry. Even then 

the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation eventually removed any cabins and 

only allowed camping at Snow’s boat camp.

 However, many visiting Deer Creek are day users, coming up Provo 

Canyon with all their supplies and not going into Heber City or Midway. As 

Robert Mathis explained, “The type of recreation that we’ve had in the county 

has largely been people packing picnic baskets and driving to the county.” He 

compared recreation in Park City and Wasatch County, pointing out, “They are 
440

milking the tourist business. Wasatch County is not. Despite some businessmen 

that would like to encourage it, I still see skepticism.” Then referring to the study 

about the expenses at Strawberry, he continued,

But I think the point that was made in that study is real. In our county 

we get a few dollars from the people that come through. In Salt Lake 

City, they get $75 or $80 from the people who come through. In Park 

City, they get more than $100 from each one. We have an opportunity 

that we have not exploited to this point.26

Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir

 As the communities along the Wasatch Front continued to grow, residents 

demanded more water. The Bureau of Reclamation considered several proposals 

including the Deer Creek Dam enlargement, but none were developed. In 1963 

a dam was proposed for Jordanelle, six miles north of Heber. The idea was not 

new; an engineer had suggested diverting Colorado River water from the south 

side of the Unita Mountains to the Wasatch Front as early as 1905. The Colorado 

River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Basin Compact of 1948 guaranteed Utah 

a share of Colorado River water. To transport this water to the populated area, 

Utah offi cials and Bureau of Reclamation engineers began planning the large 

and complex Central Utah Project in 1956 which included the Bonneville Unit, 

the largest section. The Jordanelle Dam was to be “crown jewel” of the Central 

Utah Project. It would help maintain a full Deer Creek Reservoir and store 

approximately 320,000 acre feet of exchange water which had been stored in Utah 

Lake for the Salt Lake Valley.27

 The Bureau of Reclamation planned to build the Jordanelle Dam near the 

border of Wasatch and Summit counties on land belonging to the Jordan family. 

John Jordan came to Heber in 1859. He bought a ranch east of Heber and moved 

there in 1875. John’s son George and his sons ran cattle and sheep there until 

George retired in 1931. George also built a small resort with a store and cabins. 

The family brand was Jordan L, so they named the resort Jordanelle.28

 Before the dam could be completed, the U.S. Congress needed to approve 

the Central Utah Project and seven counties—Juab, Utah, Summit, Wasatch, Salt 

Lake, Duchesne, and Uintah—had to approve a water conservation district. In 

1962 fi ve of these counties—all except Duchesne and Uintah counties—approved 

the water district. Walter Montgomery, Wasatch County commissioner, told the 

Midway Boosters that the county needed the conservation district to save its 

water interests. “Wasatch County’s area is the birthplace of most of the water 

for the northern part of the state of Utah, and we can’t get a drink,” he lamented. 

Residents could not even drill wells because in 1921 the Provo Water Users 

Association fi led on the underground water and claimed wells in Heber Valley 

affected their water use.29
441

 By 1964 all seven counties approved the conservation district, but 

for the next ten years the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project was a 

political football in the U.S. Congress. In 1975 Clyde Ritchie, Wasatch County’s 

representative on the conservation district, supported plans for a dam at Jordanelle 

because it would increase Heber Valley’s water supply by 20 percent and bring 

recreation to the area.30

 Other residents were not as supportive. In 1978 the Bureau of 

Reclamation conducted a telephone survey of Wasatch County residents. Many 

residents agreed with Ritchie that the dam would help the county: 30 percent 

felt it would bring tourism, 25 percent saw more employment opportunities, and 

21 percent said improved water. On the negative side, 42 percent opposed the 

growth the dam would bring, 15 percent were concerned about safety, and 11 

percent expected an increase in crime.

 The Bureau of Reclamation study that year pointed out other benefi ts. 

Irrigation companies would receive 26 percent more water, which could boost 

farm income by a million dollars a year. It would also bring 100 jobs and 

seasonal housing during construction. Eventually the study pointed out that the 

reservoir would create 1,300 jobs but acknowledged most of the employees would 

probably commute from the Wasatch Front. On the negative side, the study 

explained the reservoir would bury 3,060 acres and required use of another 3,000 

acres.31

 Jordanelle threatened the lifestyles of thirty-eight families, approximately 

100 people. The dam’s water covered three businesses, farms, and a family 

cemetery, and also destroyed wildlife and river habitat. County Commissioner 

Tom Baum complained, “Private land is continually being used here for public 

uses and we are losing out. We have two reservoirs, fi sh and game land, 

mitigating land and with the possibility of the reservoir our private lands are 

slowly diminishing.” Residents of Keetley protested that the relocated Highway 

40 would split their farms. While the environmental impact statement talked 

about the recreational advantages for Wasatch County, some residents complained 

that the focus was all on leisure activities and ignored those who made their 

homes in the area.32

 The citizens had an even greater concern. What would happen if the 

dam did not hold and the stored water dumped on Midway and Heber City? Just 

before construction began, the Teton Dam, a large federally constructed project 

in eastern Idaho broke, fl ooding much of the downstream area. Could the same 

thing happen in Wasatch County? County commissioners were especially 

concerned when some geologists pointed out that a fault line ran through the 

proposed dam site. One geologist, Leon Hansen declared the dam site was 

unsafe and said that if it broke “a minimum of 50,000 lives would be lost.” Four 

geologists from Brigham Young University questioned the safety of the dam 

because of the geological conditions in the area. The Bureau of Reclamation 
442

geologists agreed there was a fault line in the area but argued “lay observers... 

and even experienced geologists are not qualifi ed to comment on whether or not 

engineering can compensate for site problems.”33

 As the groundbreaking date neared, many Wasatch County residents saw 

the disadvantages outweighing the advantages. As Robert Mathis explained, 

“People were really unhappy. They were unhappy about water rights, unhappy 

that the dam was here, and unhappy about the loss of tax base. I thought most 

importantly they were unhappy about being left out of the basic planning.” In 

1975, by a vote of 1,090 to 853, county residents voted against a request by the 

 Central Utah Water Conservancy District to enter a supplemental repayment 

agreement. Along the Wasatch Front voters had agreed to the proposal by a 73 

percent margin.34

 Changes in the Central Utah Project continued, and Wasatch County 

residents became more upset. While the original bill gave $20 million to 

provide pressurized irrigation systems for Heber Valley, in 1990 that was cut to 

a $500,000 feasibility study. Other water projects would transfer water from 

Daniels Creek. In March 1990 the Wave protested:

First Wasatch people lost rights to Strawberry water. Then almost an 

entire community was uprooted from their family farms and homes 

to make room for Deer Creek Reservoir to store downstream water. 

Then the bureau took more homes and farms to store upstream Provo 

River water, and now their eyes are on Daniels water. We’ll share our 

water—reluctantly, yes, but we will share. However, we expect a fair 

deal, including a place in the front of the line for our own water and a 

sprinkling system, free of charge without having to grovel for it.35

 County commissioners Moroni Besendorfer and LeRen Provost went to 

Washington, D.C., to protest the loss of water rights in Wasatch County. They 

claimed, “It would take twenty percent of the county’s irrigation water and 

dry up Daniels Creek in order to increase fl ows in the Upper Strawberry River 

tributaries.” The county offi cials formed an unlikely partnership with state 

environmentalists and presented the argument that adapting the project to meet the 

needs of Wasatch County residents would also preserve the wetlands. Congress 

modifi ed the legislation. In 1996 the county had two representatives on the 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District Board, but “people were still somewhat 

distrustful. They felt that by getting the [ Central Utah Project] Completion Act 

through that a deal had been struck which allowed us to receive some benefi ts 

from the project and prevented further changes in lifestyle.”36

 In 1994 Besendorfer thought people still worried about the location of the 

dam. He said he tried to watch the construction, and “a couple of times they kind 

of ushered me away from the areas because they did not want me to see what was 

there. Hopefully nothing ever happens because if it does, it’s not just going to 

affect our county.”37
443

The construction of 

Jordanelle prompted the 

Bureau of Reclamation 

to look at recreational 

possibilities not only on 

that reservoir but also on 

the Provo River between 

Jordanelle and Deer Creek.

The bureau fi rst asked for 

a fi fty-foot access rightof-way. Property owners 

protested that they did 

not want to deal with the 

trespassers and garbage 

that would come with the public access and that they did not want the area fenced 

off because they wanted their animals to be able to get to the river. According to 

Tom Baum, “We are tired of giving up our land in Wasatch County so that others 

can come in here.... We have already given up hundreds of acres of land here for 

recreational use and it’s our economic loss.” Later the government condemned 

the fi fty-foot access area.38

 The river continued to be an issue. In 1996 the Utah Reclamation and 

Mitigation Conservation Commission made plans to return the Provo River to a 

“meandering, blue-ribbon trout stream.” The environmental impact statement 

talked about the benefi ts to those fi shing along the river and not the effects it 

would have on Wasatch County. According to a Salt Lake newspaper article, 

“The county’s population is subject to dramatic seasonal surges. Counting day 

visitors, the population could grow from 12,000 to over 100,000.” When asked 

what could be done to deal with the impact, locals responded, “Pay an honest 

price for condemned land.... and then cough up a few million to help fi nance 

law enforcement, garbage collection, road maintenance and the other services 

visitors now get for nothing.” The problems only got worse. In 1998 the “series 

of meanders” were enlarged from ten to twelve miles. Wasatch County residents 

again protested. As Bill McNaughtan, who would lose 34 acres explained, “It’s 

an emotional impact, knowing your father and grandfather worked the land.”39

 The Jordanelle Dam was completed in 1993 and the reservoir was fi lled 

by 1996, a year ahead of schedule. Tourists immediately started arriving, fi lling 

the 180-reservation campground each weekend and meeting the 300-boat limit by 

11:00 a.m., with hundreds being turned away.40 In 1999 338,200 people visited 

the park; for the fi rst six months of 2000, the state park recorded 58,938 tourists. 

Boating continued to be popular, so in 2000 the State Parks cut the boats allowed 

on at any one time. But Jordanelle, like the other reservoirs, provides day trips for 

Wasatch Front residents and does not bring a lot of money to the county.

17.5. Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir
444

 There is one difference though between Deer Creek and Jordanelle. 

Jordanelle is in an undeveloped area on the edge of Summit and Wasatch County. 

Park City is only a few miles down the road and has grown rapidly with seasonal 

homes. Developers see great potential for similar subdivisions around Jordanelle. 

Wasatch County approved construction that would create a city larger than any 

other in Wasatch County and double the homes in the county. Wasatch residents 

were concerned about who would provide the services such as building a fi re 

station at Jordanelle and handling sewage. While the county issued bonds to 

cover these expenses, offi cials insisted that those receiving the services would pay 

off the debt. Some Wasatch residents questioned that and were afraid they would 

pay as well.41

Summary

 During the summer of 2000, Deer Creek and Jordanelle were both down, 

and the water users’ association explained that if there is not an above average 

snow fall, water use will have to be restricted along the Wasatch Front. Residents 

of Salt Lake and Utah valleys may no longer have green lawns and all the water 

they want. They dread the loss of water resources.42 They have come to depend 

on the water from these two reservoirs just as residents of southern Utah Valley 

depend on Strawberry Reservoir. Yet, Wasatch County residents have experienced 

the same losses throughout the twentieth century so that the more populated 

Wasatch Front could have water. Over the years the communities in Wasatch 

County have changed from self suffi cient ranching and farming communities to 

bedroom communities and playgrounds for Utah.

Jessie Embry is associate director of the Charles Redd Center for Western 

Studies at Brigham Young University and has written numerous books and 

articles, including A History of Wasatch County (Salt Lake City: Utah State 

Historical Society, 1996).

Endnotes

1. For information on the settlement of Wasatch County, see Jessie L. Embry, A History of 

Wasatch County (Salt Lake City, 1996), 20-62.

2. Ibid., 36-7, 52-3, 84.

3. Thomas G. Alexander, “An Investment in Progress: Utah’s First Federal Reclamation 

Project, The Strawberry Valley Project,” Utah Historical Quarterly, 39(Summer 1971), 289-92, 

304.

4. J. C. Adams to George L. Swenson, June 28, 1906, Box 139, Folder 2; 1907 lease, Box 

139, Folder 3; Box 139, Folder 6; Box 139, Folder 1; Project Manager to A. R. Wilson, April 17, 

1922, Box 139, Folder 9, Strawberry Water Users Collection (Utah State Historical Society, Salt 

Lake City, Utah).

5. “Some Facts You People of Wasatch County Should Know,” Uinta National Forest Files 

(Heber City Offi ce, Heber City, Utah).

6. Letter from Heber Horse and Cattle Growers Association and Wallsburg Livestock 

Association to J. L. Lytel, Project Engineer, March 20, 1920, Box 41, Folder 1; Heber Horse and 

Cattle Association and Wallsburg Grazing Association to A. P. Davis, Director and Chief Engineer, 

United States Reclamation Service, August 1, 1919, box 141, Folder 2, Strawberry Water 

Collection.
445

7. E. A. Sherman, Acting Forester to the Unita Cooperation, Reclamation Service, August 

12, 1919; Project Manager to Director and Chief Engineer, September 17, 1919, Box 241, Folder 

2; F. K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, to A. R. Wilson, Secretary, Water Users Grazing Land 

Committee, September 22, 1919, Box 141, Folder 1, Strawberry Water Collection.

8. Minutes of meeting between the Heber and Wallsburg Stock Association and the grazing 

Lands Committee of the Strawberry Valley Project, October 24, 1919, Box 141, Folder 1; Water 

Users Grazing Land Committee, October 28, 1919, Box 141, Folder 1; Chief of Construction to 

Director of Reclamation Service, Washington D.C., December 10, 1919, Box 141, Folder 1; Memo 

of Minutes, Payson, Utah, March 20, 1920, Box 141, Folder 1, Strawberry Water Collection.

9. Hearing before the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, HR 10861 

adding land to Uinta National Forest, April 5, 7, 1922, 4, 7, 10, 42, 55, Unita National Forest Files, 

Heber City Offi ce.

10. Strawberry Water Users Association to W. L. Whittemore, Project Director, Strawberry 

Water Project, October 11, 1923, Box 142, Folder 18, Strawberry Water Collection.

11. Robert Mathis interview by Jessie Embry, July 19, 28, August 4, 1994, 17, Wasatch 

County Oral History Project (Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, L. Tom Perry Special 

Collections and Manuscripts Division, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, 

Utah).

12. Wasatch Wave, August 31, 1975, 1; Wasatch County Commission minutes, February 17, 

1983, 504-H; August 7, 1984, 565-H (Wasatch County Recorder Offi ce, Heber City, Utah).

13. “Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for the Recreation Master plan, 

Strawberry Reservoir Enlargement, Bonneville Utah, Central Utah Project, Utah,” 1978, 56, 95.

14. Derrick James Thom, “The Geography of Heber Valley” (M.S. Thesis, University of 

Utah, 1965), 16; “Project History,” Provo River Project Utah, Deer Creek Division, Volume 1 

(1937), 8, 6 (Bureau of Reclamation Library, Provo, Utah); Wasatch Wave, September 17, 1937, 1; 

March 29, 1929, 4; Janice M. Hammond, “Historical Background on Utah Water and Power Board 

Predecessor Organizations” (Utah Water and Power Board, 1964), 11, 14 (Utah State Archives, 

Salt Lake City, Utah).

15. Wasatch Wave, February 9, 1934, 4; July 31, 1936; “Project History,” Provo River 

Project, 8, 16.

16. Allen M. Winterton, Life Has Been Good to Me (Glendale, Arizona: Wayne’s Table-Top 

Press, 1987), 74; Max North Oral History Interview by Rebecca Vorimo, February 2, 1994, 2; 

Wasatch Wave, December 24, 1; “Project History,” Provo River Project, Volume 2 (1938), 48-9.

17. “Project History,” Provo River Project, Volume 2 (1938), 48-9; 5 (1941), 67; 3 (1939), 

53; 4 (1940), 66.

18. L. C. Montgomery to W. L. Hansen, March 2, 1946, Heber Cattle Association, Appeal 

Case, F11-1, Unita National Forest Files; Moroni Besendorfer interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 

February 25, 1994, 7.

19. Leslie S. Raty, “Under Wasatch Skies:” A History of Wasatch County (Salt Lake City: 

Deseret News Press, 1954), 25; “Project History,” volume 9 (1945), 150-1; volume 7 (1943), 51; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Offi ce, CD (Washington, 1930, 1940).

20. Wasatch Wave, March 5, 1959, 2; May 14, 1959, 1.

21. Calvin Giles interview by Rebecca Vorimo, January 13, 1994, 7.

22. Wasatch Wave, January 9, 1953, 1; May 1, 1953, 1; July 3, 1953, 1; April 30, 1954, 1; 

January 7, 1955, 1; August 20, 1970, 1.

23. Ibid., December 1, 1966, 1; December 15, 1966, 1; December 30, 1965, 1; Alvin Kohler 

interview by Rebecca Vorimo, October 21, 1993, 5.

24. Wasatch Wave, August 12, 1949, 1; February 6, 1953, 1; State of Utah Report to the Utah 

Water and Power Board to the Governor of Utah for the Period of May 12, 1947, to November 1, 

1948, 35-7; “State of Utah Biennial Report of the Utah Water and Power Board to the Governor of 

Utah for the Period of July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1950,” 19.

25. Elmer Kohler interview by Rebecca Vorimo, October 22, 1993, 3.

26. Deseret News, July 23, 1989, A1; ibid., February 6, 1989, B4; Mathis interview, 20, 28-9, 

Utah State Parks information.

27. Wasatch Wave, November 21, 1985, 1; March 14, 1985, 2-A.
446

28. William James Mortimer, ed., How Beautiful Upon the Mountains (Wasatch County: 

Daughters of the Utah Pioneers, 1963), 406.

29. Wasatch Wave, February 28, 1963, 1; April 19, 1962, 1; July 19, 1962, 1; March 19, 1964, 

1; “State of Utah Biennial Report of the Utah Water and Power Board to the Governor of Utah, 

July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1964.”

30. Wasatch Wave, October 16, 1975, 1.

31. Ibid., March 16, 1978, 1-2.

32. Ibid., April 19, 1979, 1-A; October 9, 1980, 1-A; November 6, 1980, 1-A; May 24, 1979, 

1-A.

33. Ibid., May 24, 1979, 1-A; April 5, 1989, 1; April 18, 1990, 1-A; Mathis interview, 24.

34. Mathis interview, 25; Wasatch Wave, November 21, 1985, 1.

35. Wasatch Wave, August 15, 1990, 1-A; March 7, 1990, A-1.

36. Ibid., August 15, 1990, 1-1; March 7, 1990, 2-1; Mathis interview, 26.

37. Besendorfer interview, 6.

38. Wasatch Wave, September 13, 1979, 1-A; March 14, 1990, 1-A.

39. Deseret News, September 24, 1996, A17; Salt Lake Tribune, February 24, 1998, B1.

40. Deseret News, June 17, 1996, B1.

41. Deseret News, February 20, 1999, B8; Wasatch Wave, March 1, 2000, Web Edition; ibid., 

March 22, 2000, Web Edition.

42. Deseret News, August 19, 2000, A1.
447

Private Power at Boulder Dam: Utilities, 

Government Power, and Political Realism

By:

Sarah S. Elkind

 Several years ago, I toured Hoover Dam.1 I was unprepared for its scale 

and was struck by the bare logistics posed by its construction. The thing that 

stayed with me most, however, was the fact that Southern California Edison and 

several other private fi rms operated turbines in the dam. Indeed, I am not the only 

one who has been surprised by this. The Water Power Act of 1920 specifi es that 

all hydroelectric power developed in association with federal fl ood control and 

irrigation go fi rst to publicly-owned power distributors. Many early supporters of 

the dam assumed it would contribute to the growth of public power in the United 

States. So how did this dam come to symbolize the triumph of public-private 

cooperation instead of public enterprise?

 Boulder Dam, as Hoover Dam was known throughout the 1920s, was 

conceived in the height of the Progressive Era’s public power campaign. The 

most important proponents of the dam did not, however, emphasize the dam as 

a boon to public electrical systems. Boulder Dam forced southwestern leaders 

into heated discussions of water rights and the relations between the states and 

Washington. They conceded use of the dam to private utilities, rather than waging 

two political battles: one for the dam and a second for public hydroelectric 

power development at the dam. Indeed, by itself the battle for the dam raised 

the specters of interstate and international rivalry, and an ever more imperial Los 

Angeles.2

 It is this compromise that I wish to examine here.

 In 1928 Congress fi nally passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act. 

Ostensibly to control fl ooding in Yuma, Arizona, and in the Imperial Valley, 

the dam promised to improve irrigation and urban water supply, curb Mexican 

claims to the Colorado River, and increase hydroelectric power available to local 

mines and, once the problems of long-distance power transmission were solved, 

to distant cities.3

 Because the Water Power Act of 1920 stipulated that all power 

from federal dams go fi rst to public utilities, early backers assumed that federal 

development of the Colorado would bring public power to the Southwest. As the 

largest single water project undertaken in the 1920s, this was an important test 

case for federal dam construction and the politics of public ownership.

 By 1928 proponents of the Boulder Canyon Project Act no longer insisted 

on public hydropower on the Colorado because the private utility industry’s 

opposition threatened to defeat the project altogether. For its part, the utility 

industry regarded a federal dam as direct competition, but also opposed federal 

construction on principle. Any expansion of public enterprise, they argued, 

posed a general threat to private enterprise. The utility industry had some special 

claims on the Colorado River because Southern California Edison had applied 
448

for hydropower permits on the river long before Congressmember Philip Swing 

introduced the fi rst Colorado River bill. In political terms, these private claims 

were most important when they stimulated Arizona’s and Nevada’s protests 

that a federal dam would help Southern California in trying to steal their water, 

power, and revenues. In the end, private utilities won at Boulder Dam, gaining an 

important foothold in their efforts to forestall the wholesale substitution of public 

for private utilities in the United States.

 Boulder Dam stands as a compromise between the Progressives’ desire for 

comprehensive, public development of natural resources, and conservative fears 

of excessive federal power. Federal funds paid for the dam, and the Bureau of 

Reclamation operates it, but private as well as public utilities use its hydropower. 

This arrangement evolved for three reasons: proponents compromised on the 

public power because they viewed other aspects of the dam as more important; 

rhetoric about the dangers of expanding federal authority threatened to scuttle 

the dam; and, fi nally, the need—again political—to limit the outlay of federal 

funds for construction of Boulder Dam made fi nding buyers of hydropower more 

important than protecting public utilities. Boulder Dam, the fi rst cash-register 

dam and a strange amalgam of public and private enterprise, sprouted from the 

intersection of the Progressive Era and the Red Scare.

A River in Great Demand

 A number of overlapping natural resource desires inspired Boulder Dam. 

Farmers in Mexico and California’s Imperial Valley wanted water for irrigation. 

Residents of Yuma, Arizona, and the Imperial Valley also needed protection from 

the Colorado River fl oods and silt that threatened their fi elds, waterworks, and 

homes, but found that development in one part of the valley increased problems 

elsewhere. Mining companies in Arizona and Nevada wanted cheap electricity 

from the river, as did the many Arizona farmers who used electricity to pump 

ground water onto their fi elds. Los Angeles hoped for Colorado River water 

and power. Meanwhile, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming eyed 

developments along the southern section of the river with deep suspicion. They 

feared that these more rapidly growing communities would claim all the water 

rights fi rst, and thus preclude their own development.

 American irrigation along the lower Colorado River began in 1901 when 

Charles R. Rockwood’s California Development Company brought water through 

Mexico into the Imperial Valley.4

 In February 1905 fl oods breached Rockwood’s 

levees, swamping fi elds under silt and mud, tearing up railroad track, and surging 

into Salton Sink. Two years later, the Southern Pacifi c Railroad repaired its 

broken track and some levees, but tensions between the California Development 

Company and offi cials in Mexico impeded efforts to fi x other problems left by 

the fl ood.5

 By the 1910s political unrest in Mexico complicated repairs, and, 

naturally, Mexican irrigators resisted any changes that might reduce the water 
449

reaching their fi elds. By the 1910s these problems inspired proposals for an AllAmerican Canal.

 An All-American Canal would carry Colorado water directly to Imperial 

Valley fi elds, without crossing the Mexico border. This would eliminate many 

of the logistical complications of trying to build and maintain waterworks 

that crossed an international border. Supporters expected the All-American 

Canal to increase the amount of water available to Imperial Valley farms by 

bypassing leaking canal sections south of the Border, and the Mexican farmers 

who had come to rely on the old waterworks.6

 Proponents of the All-American 

Canal also lobbied for their project on purely emotional grounds. In the years 

after Rockwood built the original Imperial County canals, American investors 

developed and leased thousands of acres of irrigated farmland in northern Baja 

California. Wealthy Los Angeles businessmen, including Harry Chandler of 

the Los Angeles Times, routinely rented land to Chinese and Japanese farmers, 

even though Chandler decried the Asian presence in California. Many southern 

Californians loathed Chandler for giving American water to Asians, and for 

supporting what they saw as an incipient, dangerous Asian colony so close to Los 

Angeles.7

 That these wealthy Americans then also used the cloak of America’s 

international responsibilities to ensure their own profi ts reeked of political 

infl uence, profi teering, and cut-throat economics. The legacy of these early 

confl icts over Mexican water rights, race, and the shape of the American economy 

continued to shape Colorado River policy for many years.

 The Colorado also attracted attention from federal reclamation engineers 

and hydroelectric utility corporations. In 1902 Joseph B. Lippincott surveyed 

the lower Colorado River and identifi ed Boulder Canyon as one of the most 

promising sites for federal development.8 Representatives from Southern 

California Edison joined federal surveys of the river in 1902 and 1921, but 

because of the costs of damming a powerful river like the Colorado, and because 

the Mojave mining district had only limited power needs, Southern California 

Edison concluded that it could not expect to make an immediate profi t from 

power sales. Only with effi cient long-distance power transmission technology 

developed in the early 1920s could Southern California Edison, or the Bureau 

of Reclamation for that matter, expect to sell power to a market large enough to 

recoup construction costs.9

 Once long distance transmission was possible, Southern California Edison 

applied to the Federal Power Commission for permits to develop hydropower 

dams at Boulder, Glen, and Pyramid Canyons.10 By 1924 Southern California 

Edison had additional incentives for these permits. A drought reduced their 

hydropower generating capacity in California. Meanwhile, growing resistance 

to Los Angeles’ expanding demand for water and hydropower in California 

promised to make future development for Southern California consumers ever 

more diffi cult. This crisis environment allowed Southern California Edison 
450

to emphasize the public services it provided both in developing new irrigation 

resources and by meeting consumers’ power needs during the crisis.11

 Los Angeles began its own Colorado campaign about the same time as 

Southern California Edison. The Los Angeles city council declared its interest “in 

the building of the dam at Boulder Canyon and allocation of the power privileges 

at that dam.”12 At a public hearing in 1922, Los Angeles representatives called 

for federal dam construction and municipal distribution of hydropower consistent 

with the 1920 Federal Power Act.13 Many other Angelenos, however, considered 

electricity from the Colorado so important, that they were not so picky. They 

agreed that power revenue should subsidize dam construction even if this 

increased the cost of electricity. They claimed to have no opinion about who 

should manage Colorado River fl ood control even though fl ood control could 

affect hydropower operations. Most importantly, they professed not to care who 

else received electricity from the dam even though this, too, could increase power 

prices or reduce available supplies.14 In their ostensible indifference on these 

questions, Angelenos distanced themselves from some of the most contentious 

issues surrounding the Colorado River. They also left open a door for the 

intermingling of public and private development that eventually evolved here.

 Power supplies outweighed other considerations because Los Angeles 

quickly outgrew the Department of Water and Power’s generating capacity. In 

1914 Los Angeles voters approved bonds for a public power system.15 By 1919, 

and over the objections of the Los Angeles Times and utility fi rms, the city of 

Los Angeles had arranged to purchase Southern California Edison’s grid inside 

the city. The Department of Water and Power planned to buy electricity from 

Southern California Edison until it completed the ill-fated hydroelectric plant and 

reservoir in San Francisquito Canyon.16 But even before the Saint Francis Dam 

was fi nished, growing power consumption strained supplies so much that even 

the combined electric capacity of the municipal and private systems could not 

meet the city’ needs. The Department of Water and Power could not guarantee 

power supplies to new “factories, smelters, or refi neries.”17 The projected power 

shortages under public management and the failure of the Saint Francis Dam 

allowed private utilities to paint public power as unsafe and badly managed 

throughout the Colorado River debates.18

 Los Angeles did not turn immediately to the Colorado River for additional 

electricity. First, the Department of Water and Power went “prospecting for other 

power sites.” Because Southern California Edison, Southern Sierras Power, 

and other utilities had long since claimed or developed the best power reservoir 

sites in the region, the city had few options. At one point Los Angeles even 

tried to take a Southern Sierras Power Company facility in the Owens River 

Gorge by eminent domain.19 Detractors criticized Los Angeles for pursuing the 

Colorado River, frequently citing the Owens Valley confl ict as evidence of the 

city’s imperial heartlessness. In fact, its plans for the Colorado did make Los 

Angeles look aggressive and over-confi dent. Few cities, after all, challenged state 
451

governments other than their own. The decision to pursue the Colorado, however, 

decreased political confl ict in the arenas most important to Los Angeles’ future. 

By the 1920s Los Angeles could not expand its water or power networks in 

southern California without creating even greater opposition than they had in the 

Owens Valley. Had the city turned instead to northern California’s streams, Los 

Angeles would likely have created determined enemies in state politics.20 Boulder 

Canyon represented a reasonable alternative because it solved Los Angeles’s 

problems without increasing political confl ict in California.

 Of course, Los Angeles wanted more than electricity from the Colorado 

River. The 1923-1924 drought that threatened the city with power shortages also 

raised the specter of future water famine. In this context, William Mulholland 

informed the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation in 1924 that 

Los Angeles wanted 1000 acre-feet a year of Colorado water to supplement 

its other supplies. The drought prompted Los Angeles voters to approve both 

the aqueduct from the Colorado and the Metropolitan Water District. Other 

cities in southern California also saw the Colorado as a solution to their water 

and power problems. Riverside advocated construction of a dam “in response 

to the necessities of the cities and the people in these southwest states, with 

Government development and Government construction and Government sale, 

providing the waters cheaply at cost and the power to the people.”21 The City of 

Long Beach hoped Colorado River power would reduce electricity costs enough 

to help it compete with Riverside, Los Angeles, and other Southern California 

communities.22 This interest in the Colorado changed the whole question of 

Colorado River development. Los Angeles, Riverside, and Long Beach would 

buy enough electricity to make the dam economically feasible. They had enough 

congressional representation and political pull to get the project built. The city’s 

designs on the river confi rmed Arizona’s and Nevada’s worst suspicions about 

Los Angeles and the real purpose of the dam.23

 Interest in the Colorado, of course, was not limited to Imperial County 

and Los Angeles, but no major development could take place until all the 

seven states along the river reached an agreement on water rights. The federal 

government had jurisdiction over the Colorado River as a navigable river, and 

as a hydroelectric power resource in the public domain. So any community, 

state or private corporation that wished to develop the river needed federal 

approval. In addition, any project would establish water rights on the river by 

prior appropriation that could interfere with subsequent development. Federal 

jurisdiction gave state offi cials the opportunity to lobby against projects in other 

states, but thus blocking development was the only means by which state offi cials 

could protect their constituents’ interests in the Colorado. So no project could get 

through Congress until state offi cials felt reasonably assured that their constituents 

would have access to Colorado River water when they needed it. The Colorado 

River Compact, signed by all the Colorado basin states except Arizona, and 

ratifi ed by Congress in 1928, fi nally resolved this deadlock, by allocating half 

of the water in the river to the so called Upper Basin States of Colorado, New 
452

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and half to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, 

California, and Nevada.24

 The Colorado River Compact did not entirely resolve interstate disputes. 

Because the Compact did not allocate water within each half of the basin, 

the states still had to agree on how to develop their half of the river. Of the 

lower basin communities interested in the Colorado, only Los Angeles was 

actually poised to use waters impounded by a dam in Boulder Canyon. Thus, 

only California had the means and need to establish rights to the lower basin’s 

portion of the river. Arizona’s state offi cials had refused to sign the Colorado 

Compact because they feared that California, and specifi cally Los Angeles, would 

appropriate all of the lower basin’s water, and thus leave Arizona dry. To protect 

its future access to the Colorado, Arizona therefore consistently disputed federal 

jurisdiction over the Colorado and dismissed California’s plans as Los Angeles’ 

illegitimate scheming.

 By the mid-1920s the fate of a dam at Black or Boulder Canyon rested on 

the resolution of several entrenched confl icts. Los Angeles and Imperial County 

hoped for federal construction of a reservoir for hydropower, fl ood control, 

irrigation, and urban water 

supply. Southern California 

Edison expected to build private 

hydroelectric facilities on the 

Colorado. Arizona wanted to 

block any development that 

might establish water rights 

in California. Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, 

secure in the belief that the 

Colorado River Compact 

protected their futures, still had 

to decide whether to side with 

California or with Arizona in 

the dispute over Boulder Dam.

The upper basin states hoped federal construction at Boulder Dam would ease 

the passage of upper basin projects, but they had no assurance that California 

would support funding for these projects or that California would refrain from 

campaigning to limit upper basin use in violation of the Colorado Compact.25

Eastern voters and some residents of the upper Colorado Basin dismissed Boulder 

Dam as a lavish federal expenditure that served special interests in California 

rather than the national good.26 Meanwhile, the United States’ resolution of 

 Mexico’s claims to the Colorado, the Rio Grande, and other border rivers in 

1944 added to the demands for Colorado River water by guaranteeing Mexico 

1,500,000 acre feet of water from the Colorado each year without specifying who 

had to give up their water to meet this obligation.

18.1. Black Canyon during early preparations for 

construction of Boulder Dam.
453

The Limits of Federal Authority: The Hydropower Debate

 Clearly these confl icts complicated Colorado River politics. A closer 

look at just one of the confl icts, hydroelectric power development, demonstrates 

that Boulder Dam was a product of a national debate over political philosophy, 

not a localized dispute over water rights. Even so, the water resource confl icts 

were important. Indeed, the very intractability of inter- and intrastate disputes 

over water made it possible, indeed necessary, for supporters of the dam to 

marginalize the power question. Arizona’s unbending opposition to the Colorado 

River Compact magnifi ed the threat of utility corporation opposition to the dam 

and made the staunchest supporters of the dam all the more eager to compromise 

the Water Power Act of 1920 for the sake of the Colorado River project. But 

public power development was not ancillary, and the evolution of debate over 

hydropower demonstrates how participants in that debate used contemporary 

political philosophy and rhetoric to shape public policy for the twentieth century.

 Although Arizonans’ objections to Boulder Dam emphasized the threat 

that outsiders—including California, federal offi cials and the private utility 

corporations—posed to their state, the hydropower development question must be 

considered in a broader context. Philip Swing proposed a federal dam at a crucial 

moment in the negotiation between federal and local governments and between 

public and private enterprise in America. Public utility advocates nationwide 

sought to strike a balance between the business-centered “normalcy” of Coolidge 

and Harding on the one hand, and public demand for public services on the other. 

This debate revealed deeply-rooted anxieties about federal authority. In nearly 

every commentary on Boulder Dam, this fear of public authority appears in 

warnings of federal intrusion on local autonomy, and of government displacement 

of private enterprise. So, when private utilities mobilized the rhetoric of limited 

federal authority, they bound their interests and the principles of private enterprise 

fi rmly to Americans’ desire to use federal monies to meet local priorities, without 

losing local autonomy. The utilities’ ability to navigate these confl icting impulses 

about public services and private enterprise, and about federal assistance within 

local control ultimately left proponents of federal dam-building with little room to 

maneuver on hydropower development at the great dams.

 Even though westerners focus on the Colorado, debate over power 

development there echoed national discussions of the fate of Wilson Dam at 

Muscle Shoals, Alabama.27 Approved as part of the National Defense Act of 

1916, Wilson Dam was intended to power a cyanamid plant producing nitratebased explosives. After the war, private companies sought control of the 

dam, even though the authorizing bill prohibited the federal government from 

privatizing the facility after the war.28 Alabama utility corporations sought to add 

Wilson Dam to their own power networks. Henry Ford, meanwhile, promised 

to produce 40,000 tons of nitrate fertilizer for sale at only an eight percent profi t, 

if the federal government completed and maintained the dam, and gave him a 

hundred-year lease on the property.29 At the same time, public power advocates 
454

suggested that the Secretary of War complete the dam, build distribution lines, sell 

electricity to public utilities, and use the proceeds to fund research on fertilizers.30

The senate debate on Muscle Shoals turned on two issues: should public agencies 

or private companies operate the dam; and, should the dam power the fertilizer 

production at the cyanamid plant or provide electricity to domestic and industrial 

consumers throughout the region?

 Presidents Coolidge and Hoover vetoed bills for public operation of 

Muscle Shoals in 1928 and 1930, despite the fact that both the Water Power Act of 

1920 and the National Defense Act of 1916 seemed to mandate public operation 

of the hydropower plant at Muscle Shoals.31 These vetoes, like the debate over 

public power at Boulder Dam, refl ected deep divisions over private enterprise 

in America. Americans wanted inexpensive power, but could not agree whether 

private or public power would yield the lowest rates. They also responded to 

political statements about the benefi ts of small government, even as they looked 

to public offi cials to control the political, economic and social infl uence of major 

corporations.

 In Arizona this ambivalence appeared throughout the debate over the 

Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, even though 

Arizonans were more preoccupied with California. California appeared 

frequently in the correspondence that Arizona congressional representative Carl 

Hayden received expressing alarm that the Bureau of Reclamation’s dam would 

only feed Los Angeles’ insatiable demand for water and electricity. Many of 

these letters urged Hayden to push for a federal dam at Glen Canyon to better 

irrigate Arizona farms.32 Senator Henry F. Ashurst also complained that the 

Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project disproportionately 

benefi ted California. He complained that California had negotiated in bad faith 

during the conferences that yielded the Compact, and he cited the creation of the 

 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 1926, three years before the 

Boulder Canyon Project Act passed, as proof.33

 Some Arizonans favored the Colorado River Compact because they saw 

in federal development a means to counter California’s considerable political 

infl uence. Arizona’s delegation to the American Association of Engineers, 

for example, projected that the Compact would promote growth for Arizona 

agriculture, mining, and industry by increasing energy supplies.34 Others 

expected the Compact to bring more federal fl ood control, irrigation, and 

hydropower to Arizona.35 More pessimistic Arizonans resigned themselves to 

California’s use of Colorado River resources for which Arizona had no immediate 

need, but proposed that California at least pay Arizona for the use of Boulder Dam 

electricity.36

 In keeping with the national debate in the late 1920s on the expansion 

of federal authority, the fate of Arizona’s autonomy featured prominently in the 

Colorado River debate. The Phoenix Real Estate Board suggested that the dam 
455

might bolster local control because the federal government could turn the dam 

over to an independent irrigation or power district.37 Other observers cautioned 

that private development would transfer even more resources to California than 

would the federal plan. In this light, Southern California Edison’s application 

for a permit to develop Glen Canyon Dam represented an “attempt to acquire 

control of the Colorado River,”38 because Southern California Edison had 

already declared and justifi ed its intention to sell Colorado River electricity to 

Los Angeles consumers.39 Although Arizona’s relationship with California, not 

private utilities or the growth of federal authority, dominated these discussions, 

the public power debate permeated the way Arizonans defi ned the threats to their 

own autonomy.

 In the national arena, the public power question fi gured more prominently 

and more directly in debates over Boulder Dam. Given their defeat at Muscle 

Shoals, many public power advocates saw Boulder Dam as the last opportunity 

to reverse the policies that had led to enough “larceny of public assets to last 

a century or two.”40 The Los Angeles business community found itself caught 

between desire for Boulder Dam’s water and power, and their commitment to 

private enterprise.41 Meanwhile, the utility industry remained a signifi cant force, 

by funding the publicity campaigns in defense of private enterprise undertaken 

by such groups as the Better American Foundation and the Greater California 

League, and by successfully lobbying against both large federal projects like 

Boulder Dam and the local bond measures that cities needed to purchase or build 

distribution grids.42 Despite this considerable political infl uence, the utilities did 

not block Boulder Dam completely; it is not clear that they wanted to, whatever 

their rhetorical position in defense of private development on the Colorado.

 In 1928 Congress approved the Colorado River Compact and Boulder 

Dam over Arizona’s continuing objections. The Boulder Canyon Project Act did 

not settle the question of hydroelectric power development, however, because 

it did not specify whether the Bureau of Reclamation would wholesale power 

from federally-operated turbines, lease machinery in a federally-constructed 

power plant, or lease the right to generate power in a power plant built and 

operated by lease-holders.43 Congress left this ambiguity in the bill in order to 

pass it. The bill also required the Bureau of Reclamation to get power contracts 

signed to guarantee enough power revenue to underwrite construction before 

any construction began.44 So, regardless of the political expedients behind the 

ambiguities in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the question of who would 

develop and distribute power from Boulder Dam had to be settled quickly. Los 

Angeles offered the only ready market for Boulder Dam electricity. In fact, this 

market was so important that the Bureau of Reclamation based its contracts on 

the cost of steam-generated electricity in Los Angeles.45 This merely confi rmed 

Arizona’s worst fears, but for the rest of the country the Boulder Canyon Project 

Act provided an opportunity to continue the debate over public versus private 

enterprise.
456

 In the late 1920s the notion of the public interest fi gured prominently 

in the public discourse. Periodicals like The Nation and The New Republic 

insisted upon federal involvement because state regulation provided inadequate 

public protection.46 During the presidential campaign of 1928 Al Smith insisted 

that private control of hydropower sites reduced public control of power rates, 

weakened regulatory authority over electric utilities, and exposed the public to 

unnamed future hazards. Given these dangers, he argued, there was “nothing 

socialistic or revolutionary” about regulating utilities or developing public 

power.47 Franklin D. Roosevelt, unsurprisingly, praised Smith’s vision of public 

power.48 Hugo Black, then a senator from Alabama, accused the “power trust” 

of reaping excessive profi ts from the sale of a necessity.49 Gifford Pinchot 

maintained that public generation of power at Boulder Dam would curb the 

growth of the utility monopoly, and vilifi ed the opposition for playing into the 

hands of the utility corporations.50 Even years later, critics raged that private 

corporations “still claim[ed] the right to install their own generators in public 

dams, build transmission lines and retail the power.”51 These arguments all relied 

on Progressive faith in public enterprise as an antidote to the excesses of private 

capital, and a well-established tradition of portraying utilities as greedy, willful 

monopolies that refused to accept public ownership in spite of public opinion.

 Whatever Pinchot thought of them, private utility advocates used the 

rhetoric of the public interest just as readily as did Smith, Roosevelt, and The

Nation, but their defi nition of the public interest differed. A pamphlet by the 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce exemplifi ed the private power advocates’ use 

of “public good” rhetoric. The Chamber objected to Boulder Dam because it 

opened “this wide crack in the door for the entry of state socialism,” and because 

it allowed federal offi cials arbitrary authority. The Chamber warned that the 

Boulder Canyon Project Act gave the Secretary of the Interior authority “at his 

own discretion, to engage the government of the United States in the manufacture 

and sale of electrical power.” They called this a radical concentration of power in 

the hands of one man, and a “typical instance of the increasing centralization of 

authority and expenditures in federal bureaus.” The Chamber went on to protest 

the Boulder Canyon Project Act as a threat to democracy and local control: “This 

is a far cry from the ideas of the founders of this government. If the present 

tendency to center power and administration in Washington for all sorts of power 

is not checked, the states of the Union will be reduced to the position of mere 

counties within the next two or three generations.”52 The implication, of course, 

was that the state governments were far more capable of serving voters than a 

remote Congress or Cabinet offi cer.

 The utility industry likewise warned that public ownership threatened 

democracy. In 1927 American power corporations denounced public development 

at Muscle Shoals and Boulder Dam as “‘socialistic’ and ‘dangerous.’“53 Southern 

Sierras Power Company called federal dam-building defective and costly, 

concluding that “Political engineering, political banking, political railroading, 

and general public utility operating is usually unsound and dangerous.54 The
457

utility insisted that private enterprise retain a role in Boulder Dam.55 Because

they paid taxes and could complete dam or hydropower plants without the “delays 

and excessive costs that are usually incident to the construction and operation of 

public owned works,” 56 Southern Sierras claimed private enterprise participation 

would reduce the overall burden on the national treasury, and thus would benefi t 

the public.

 Public offi cials issued similar warnings. In a 1921 memo to President 

Harding, for example, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall called the City of Los 

Angeles “socialistic” for pursuing a public power system.57 A few years later, 

New Jersey Congressional Representative Charles A. Eaton characterized Boulder 

Dam as “the adoption of a socialistic Russian Scheme of having the Federal 

Government go into the power business in competition with its own citizens in 

private fi elds.”58 Eaton reportedly endorsed only those river development policies 

that kept the federal government out of “the fi eld of private business.”59 Likewise, 

Elmer O. Leatherwood, a member of the House Committee on Irrigation, called 

the Boulder Dam project “inimical to the best interests of the United States and 

the people of the whole country” because it violated the “principle of private 

industry in the country,” and might eventually allow groups to “practically 

federalize the entire development” of western streams.60

 Advocates of public power had a response to the implication that only 

the cooperation of business and government preserved American democracy. 

Drawing parallels to the Teapot Dome scandal, public power advocates alerted 

Americans to the “powerful interests” that exerted pressure on public offi cials. 

The Nation blamed campaign contributions by the nation’s private utilities for 

Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur’s and President Hoover’s willingness 

to undermine the Water Power Act of 1920 by permitting private utilities too 

much access to and control over hydropower facilities at federal dams.61 The New 

Republic cited as evidence a proposed amendment to the Swing-Johnson Bill 

that would have compelled the federal government to lease all power rights at 

Boulder Canyon. Bad enough that this would have turned “over to private profi t 

without adequate compensation, not millions of dollars’ worth of government 

oil, but millions of dollars’ worth of government water power.”62 The real 

danger, however, lay in power of the utilities to create a “system of depriving the 

people... from sharing equally in the public domain resources.”63

 The utilities also wielded infl uence outside the halls of government. The 

United States Chamber of Commerce, a bitter opponent of public power, had 

many ties to power companies. In fact, the president of the Chamber from 1927 

to 1928, Lewis E. Pierson, served on the board of directors of several power 

companies and worked with executives from several powerful utility fi rms on 

the governing board of Nation’s Business.

64 The utilities used media and public 

relations campaigns to promote their positions. These efforts were so pervasive 

that The Nation raged, “There is no other fi eld of public interest in which 

there is so complete, effective, and continuously operating machinery for the 
458

dissemination of misinformation and silencing of opposition as in the domain of 

the public utilities.”65 In 1929 the Federal Trade Commission investigated the 

political activities of the utility industry to see if a power trust truly threatened 

American democracy and public interests.66

 By 1929 it was clear that the Bureau of Reclamation was going to build 

 Boulder Dam. Opponents of federal dam-building had lost, the public interest 

had been defi ned to include an increased federal role in the development and 

distribution of western resources, and the still unresolved matter of power 

development was about to set important precedents for private and public 

enterprise. The utilities adjusted their strategy accordingly. Southern California 

Edison now argued for federal construction because the region would benefi t, not 

“in the emancipation of an oppressed people from the tentacles of an imaginary 

power trust octopus, but in the impetus that will be given the Lower Colorado 

Basin by fl ood protection, irrigation, and the disbursement of hundreds of millions 

of new money for material, labor and supplies in that territory.” 67 In other 

words, Boulder Dam would serve the public by promoting growth; private power 

development was consistent with this program of economic development.68

The utilities’ political fl exibility in the face of shifting policies frustrated 

their opponents. Many public power advocates cited the utilities’ changing 

strategy as a sign that the companies had always intended to profi t from dams 

built with the taxpayers’ dollar. The utilities and their allies did not defeat the 

dam, but only because Congress left the public power question out of the fi nal 

Boulder Canyon Project Act. The fact that many American’s suspected that the 

federal government had exceeded its authority by infringing on states’ rights 

as well as private enterprise clearly 

increased the infl uence of private 

enterprise in Colorado River policy.69

As Al Smith found, Boulder Dam, 

Muscle Shoals, and projects like them, 

went against too many currents in 

American politics. Interstate disputes 

over power rights, and regional 

confl icts over the distribution of 

federal largess, forced advocates of 

both public utilities and federal dams 

to compromise. The justifi cations for 

this compromise were explicit. Philip 

Swing recognized that California 

interests had to remain united 

throughout the fi nal authorization of 

the dam because intramural confl ict 

would likely reduce the water available 

for Imperial County and the power 

available to Los Angeles.70

18.2. The interior of Nevada Powerplant at 

Hoover Dam.
459

John R. Haynes saw private operation of Boulder’s generators as an acceptable 

way to protect Los Angeles and other public agencies from taking on too much 

fi nancial responsibility for the dam.71 Although Boulder Canyon had presented 

an obvious opportunity to implement the Water Power Act of 1920 and to set 

a precedent for publicly-generated and publicly-distributed electricity, the 

diffi culties of so extending federal authority and of implementing the Reclamation 

Act and the Water Power Act made this politically impossible.

Anti-Federalism and Political Realism at Black Canyon

When Southern California Edison and the Bureau of Reclamation signed 

contracts for Boulder Dam power, they all but settled the debate over public power 

in the United States. Public ownership proceeded in the Tennessee Valley and 

parts of the Columbia River, but Boulder Dam did not herald a new age of public 

ownership. Boulder Dam’s hybrid of public and private enterprise came to be 

portrayed as the acme of effective government, subject to far less criticism even 

than the participation of industry leaders in designing industrial regulations. Yet 

this arrangement was at once an accident of politics, and the product of a very 

specifi c campaign by the utility industry to protect their interests in the nation’s 

hydropower resources.

 Philip Swing’s vision of the dam included public power development, 

but he considered the dam itself and the All-American Canal far more important. 

Others grafted their vision onto his, adding water supply for Los Angeles, 

hydroelectric power for Arizona mines and, ultimately, for Los Angeles’ industries. 

In order to justify the dam, early advocates emphasized the need for electricity 

in general, as much as they did the need for public sales of that power. This was, 

perhaps, a crucial mistake for the public power movement because it divorced 

the dam from the question of who should generate power at the dam. But given 

the early participation of Southern California Edison in river surveys, and given 

national resistance to a project of this magnitude in a region of the United States 

that contributed so little to the national economy, this may also have been very 

astute politics.

 So many groups opposed the dam for so many reasons that this 

compromise may have been the only way to get the dam built. The utility industry 

astutely exploited the rifts in American politics. They championed private 

enterprise against creeping socialism. They offered themselves as mediators 

between federal and state authority, and perhaps even more importantly, between 

California and the other states of the Colorado River Basin. National ambivalence 

about federal authority worked for the utility industry in a second way. Many 

Americans feared government growth as much because increased federal activity 

would increase taxes as for any other reason. So, Congress insisted that power 

revenues cover the costs of construction and so reduced the amount of tax funds 

spent on the dam. This, too, made secure hydropower development far more 

important than publicly-owned generation or distribution of that power.
460

 In the end, interstate rivalry, competitive envy of Los Angeles’ commercial 

expansion, and a generalized desire to limit federal authority permitted private 

utilities to retain major claims on natural resources—in spite of the Water Power 

Act and in spite of the fact that no private corporation had the resources to take 

on the Colorado River. But the ambiguities in the Boulder Canyon Project Act 

and the resolution of those ambiguities in favor of the private power corporations 

reveal deeper patterns in American political thought. News coverage of the 

utilities’ lobbying efforts against the Water Power Act, Muscle Shoals, and 

Boulder Dam portrayed the utilities as heavy-handed, greedy, and self-interested. 

Although a consensus had emerged against expanded federal authority, something 

of the Populist and Progressive concern about the tyranny of private enterprise 

remained. This is why the “cooperation” between public and private entities 

met with such approval. At Boulder Dam, the public sector checked the private 

sector, and the private sector checked the public, even as they both supplied the 

Southwest with extremely important public services. This then, would be the 

model for development for many decades to come.

Associate Professor Sarah S. Elkind teaches at San Diego State University in 

the Department of History. She was formerly at the University of Wisconsin–

Stevens Point. She has written numerous articles as well as Bay Cities and 

Water Politics: The Battle for Resources in Boston and Oakland, 1880-1930,

University Press of Kansas, 1998.

Endnotes

1. I have no wish to engage the partisan dispute over the name of this dam. Because most 

documents from the 1920s and 1930s refer to “Boulder Dam,” I have used that name throughout 

this paper.

2. Many documents of this time use ambiguous or confusing terms to refer to utility 

corporations. For example, an editor emphasizing the public services provided by a publiclytraded, for-profi t power supplier, might refer to Southern California Edison as a “public utility.” 

Although I retain original usage in direct quotes, I designate as “public” or “municipal” those 

utilities or power systems funded primarily by taxpayers. I call stockholder-funded utilities such 

as Southern California Edison “private utilities,” “utility corporations,” or occasionally, simply 

“the utilities.”

3. Most histories of the Colorado River emphasize the water rights disputes that pitted 

California against Arizona, and the states of the upper basin against those of the lower basin. 

To a more limited extent, they explore the confl icts between urban and rural water use and 

development, or the relationships between Anglos, Native Americans, and Mexicans. It is hardly 

necessary for me to replicate that work.

4. Norris Hundley, Jr., Water and the West: The Colorado River Compact and the Politics 

of Water in the American West. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975, 

20-2. In less than ten years, the Imperial Valley boasted 400 miles of canals, 160,000 acres of 

cultivated farmland, and a population of 15,000.

5. Hundley, Water in the West, 20-9.

6. For descriptions of the bureaucratic problems, of the increase in costs due to import 

duties levied on materials carried into Mexico for canal maintenance, and the diffi culties of 

maintaining water quality in the canal, see Beverley Bowen Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder 

Dam. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1971, 12-4; and Hundley, 

Water in the West, 30-3.

7. The question of water deliveries to Mexico was used by both sides of the Boulder Dam 

debate. In one congressional hearing, for example, Senator Fred T. Coulter protested that the 
461

Boulder Canyon Project would deliver water to two million acres of land in Mexico “belonging 

to a few powerful and rich Americans” who “are selling these cheap lands to... millions of 

Japanese in Japan” and thus “establishing a Japanese military and industrial base, endangering 

our peace....” (Senator Fred T. Coulter, “Defi nition of Colorado Compact—Its Defeat a Dawn of 

a New Year,” in “Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: Information 

Presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H.R. 2903,” 

Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents vol. 1, 68 Cong., 1 sess. [1924] 

Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation.) On the other hand, proponents of the bill cited the 

same rich American landlords and Japanese farmers to justify building the dam because the dam 

and the All American Canal would reduce the amount of water fl owing into Mexico. (Burdett 

Moody, “The Colorado River Boulder Canyon Project and the All-American Canal,” Boulder 

Dam Association, November 1926, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Collection, Carton 

102, Regional History Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.) Chandler’s 

interest in Mexican lands was widely reported. See for example, Robert L. Dufus, “The Drama 

of the Colorado,” The New Republic, 42 (1 April 1925), 147-9. For more on this subject, see also, 

Hundley, Water in the West, 33-4.

8. Hundley, Water in the West, 12-4. Lippincott was in charge of southwestern Reclamation 

Service activities.

9. William A. Myers, “River of Controversy: A Review of the Involvement of the Southern 

California Edison Co. and Its Predecessors in the Development of the Colorado River, 1902-1942” 

(SoCal Edison, 1982), 4-6.

10. William A. Myers, “River of Controversy: A Review of the Involvement of the Southern 

California Edison Co. and Its Predecessors in the Development of the Colorado river, 1902-1942” 

(SoCal Edison, 1982), 12.

11. Annual Report to the Stockholders of Southern California Edison for the Year 1924

(Los Angeles: Southern California Edison, 1924), 5, from Corporate Communications 

Department, Edison International.

12. Statement of Mr. Ralph L. Criswell, President of the City Council, Los Angeles, 

California, U.S. Congress. House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, “Hearings on H. R. 

11449,” Part III, 22-24 June 1922, 67 cong., 2 sess., 1922, 100-101, in “Development of the 

Colorado River Basin,” Huntington Library pamphlet volume.

13. Testimony of W. T. Matthews, “Problems of the Imperial Valley and Vicinity,” letter from 

the Secretary of the Interior... together with the proceedings of the conference on the construction 

of the Boulder Canyon Dam held at San Diego, Calif.”, Senate Document 142, 

67th cong., 2 sess. (Washington: 1922), 282-3.

14. Statement of Mr. Ralph L. Criswell, representing the City of Los Angeles, “Protection 

and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin,” Hearings before the Federal Power 

Commission and other matters relating to the Development of the Colorado River, Committee 

on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives, 68 cong., 1 sess. (Washington: 1924), 

78-79, 100-101. Not all Angelenos accepted these priorities. John Haynes and his fellow 

Progressives, for example, insisted on public distribution of power from Boulder Dam. See Tom 

Sitton, “The Haynes Foundation and Urban Reform Philanthropy in Los Angeles: A History of the 

John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation,” unpublished manuscript, December 1997, 

p. 18 (Since published as Tom Sitton, The Haynes Foundation and Urban Reform Philanthropy in 

Los Angeles: A History of the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation (Los Angeles: 

Historical Society of Southern California, 1999.)

15. “Power Bonds Carry by Three Thousands,” Los Angeles Times 9 May 1914.

16. “Annual Report to the Shareholders of Southern California Edison for the year 1919,” 

(Los Angeles: 1919), 10-1, Corporate Communications Department, Edison International. 

Southern California Edison even offered to purchase power from the aqueduct to allow the city to 

offset its water system costs without competing with the private utilities. See “Offer to buy Power 

Offi cially Recorded,” Los Angeles Times 6 May 1914. The power bonds paid for construction of 

the Saint Francis Dam, which collapsed in 1928 killing some four hundred people in the Santa 

Clara Valley of Ventura County. For more on the Saint Francis Dam disaster and its implications 

for Los Angeles water and power development and fl ood control, see Donald C. Jackson and 
462

Norris Hundley, Jr., “Privilege and Responsibility: William Mulholland and the St. Francis Dam 

Disaster,” California History 82:3 (2004), 8-47, 72-78.

17. Statement of Mr. Ralph L. Criswell, President of the City Council, Los Angeles, 

California, U.S. Congress. House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, “Hearings on H. R. 

11449,” Part III, 22 -24 June 1922, 67 cong., 2 sess., 1922, 100-101, in “Development of the 

Colorado River Basin,” Huntington Library pamphlet volume.

18. George L. Hoxie, “The Fictitious ‘Surplus’ of the Los Angeles Municipal Electric Power 

Department” November 1930, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Collection, ; “Dam Break 

Reveals New Tactics of Power Trust” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 26 Mar 1928 (editorial), Philip 

Swing Papers, Special Collections, University of California–Los Angeles.

19. Los Angeles tried to condemn the power plant in order to increase municipal power 

supply. In 1922, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to permit Los 

Angeles to condemn the Southern Sierras’ Owens Gorge plant on the grounds that the decision 

would have allowed California’s major cities to “demolish, piece meal, the great hydro-electric 

systems of the state” and to steal water and power away from the communities that relied upon 

private water and power services. “Owens Gorge Case Decision Is Reversed,” Sierras Service 

Bulletin, 2:5 (November 1922), 4; E. B. Criddle, “What the L. A. Litigation Means,” Sierras

Service Bulletin, 1:5 (June-July 1921), 1, Corporate Communications Department, Edison 

International.

20. Statement of Mr. Ralph L. Criswell, President of the City Council, Los Angeles, 

California, U.S. Congress. House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, “Hearings on H. R. 

11449,” Part III, 22 -4 June 1922, 67 cong., 2 sess., 1922, 100-1, in “Development of the Colorado 

River Basin,” Huntington Library pamphlet volume.

21. Testimony of Horace Porter, Mayor of Riverside, “Problems of the Imperial Valley 

and Vicinity,” letter from the Secretary of the Interior... together with the proceedings of the 

conference on the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam held at San Diego, Calif., Senate 

Document 142, 67th cong., 2 sess. (Washington: 1922), 284.

22. Testimony of George L. Hoodentyl, “Problems of the Imperial Valley and Vicinity,” 

letter from the Secretary of the Interior... together with the proceedings of the conference on the 

construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam held at San Diego, Calif., Senate Document 142,

67th cong., 2 sess. (Washington: 1922), 286-7.

23. “Judge Borwon Notes of Interview with Don J. Kinsey,” 2 July 1963, p. 8, Fletcher 

Bowron Papers, “Metropolitan LA History Project: Research Materials,” Box 65, Huntington 

Library.

24. For a complete discussion of the Colorado River Compact, its genesis, results and sources 

of dispute among the states involved, see Norris Hundley’s classic Water in the West. Additional 

information on the Colorado River Compact may be found in Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder 

Dam, 42-7.

25. Hundley, Water in the West, 171-4..

26. Hundley, Water in the West, xvii, 

27. In the northeast, an important confl ict over public power emerged in the early 1920s 

when a utility linked to Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon proposed to build power 

plants at the Saint Lawrence Seaway and Niagara Falls, resources that the New York Water Power 

Commission was charged with protecting and developing in the public interest. Opponents argued 

that the New York Water Power Commission, charged with overseeing these resources, was 

intended to foster public utilities in the state. “Public Power First” New Republic vol 45 

(17 February 1926), 346.

28. Preston J. Hubbard, Origins of the TVA: The Muscle Shoals Controversy, 1920-1932

(New York: W W Norton, 1961), 1-2.

29. Ford offered Washington $5 million and an annual rent of $55,000 for this power 

complex. George Norris, “Shall We Give Muscle Shoals to Henry Ford?” Saturday Evening Post

24 May 1924, 30-1 and passim.

30. On the Muscle Shoals debates, see Preston J. Hubbard, Origins of the TVA.

31. American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 

1776-1976, ed. by Ellis L. Armstrong, (Chicago: American Public Works Association., 1976), 249. 
463

Coolidge was sharply criticized for his defense of private enterprise. In 1926, Nebraska Democrat 

Edgar Howard denounced Coolidge for “murdering every piece of legislation which does not have 

advanced approval of the Morgan Mellon group.” (Edgar Howard to Los Angeles Examiner,

4 June 1926, Philip Swing Papers..

32. R. B. Hovland to Carl Hayden, “Colorado River Development,” 31 March 1924, in 

“Statements by Citizens of Arizona relative to the Colorado River Problem....,” Protection and 

Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: Information presented to the Committee 

on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H. R. 2903, Colorado River Hearings 

and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 Cong., 1 sess. (1924), Committee on Irrigation and 

Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 59. See also Ralph L. Criswell’s testimony for Los Angeles, 

“Protection and Development of Lower Colorado River Basin... Hearings before the Federal 

Power Commission and Other Matters Relating to the Development of the Colorado River,” 

(Washington, 1924), 78-9.

33. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, “Report on Boulder 

Canyon Reclamation Project, 69 Cong., 1 sess., Report 654, pt. 1, in Colorado River Hearings 

and Miscellaneous Documents, 13; Speech of Phil D. Swing of California in the House of 

Representatives,” 11 Mar 1926, Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 

14.

34. “Report of the Colorado River Committee of Arizona State Assembly of the American 

Association of Engineers,” in “Statements by Citizens of Arizona relative to the Colorado River 

Problem...,” Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: Information 

presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H. R. 2903, 

Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 Cong., 1 sess. (1924), 

Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 21.

35. Kiwanis Club of Phoenix, “History of the Ownership of the Power Sites on the Colorado 

River,” 19 January 1923, in “Statements by Citizens of Arizona relative to the Colorado River 

Problem...,” Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: Information 

presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H. R. 2903, 

Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 Cong., 1 sess. (1924), 

Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 39-41.

36. See for example, American Legion of Prescott, Arizona, “The Power Royalty Issue and 

the Colorado River Compact,” 2 August 1923, or Dwight B. Heard, “Statements of Candidates for 

Governor of Arizona regarding the Colorado River Compact,” both in “Statements by Citizens of 

Arizona relative to the Colorado River Problem....,” Protection and Development of the Lower 

Colorado River Basin: Information presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in 

Connection with H. R. 2903, Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 

Cong., 1 sess. (1924), Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 49-50, 58.

37. Phoenix Real Estate Board, “Ultimate Control of Water and Power Resources of the 

Lower Basin of the Colorado River by a Tri-State Irrigation and Power District,” 2 July 1923, 

in Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: Information presented to 

the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H. R. 2903, Colorado River 

Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 Cong., 1 sess. (1924), Committee on Irrigation 

and Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 43. The Board envisioned an interstate district, including 

parts of Arizona, Nevada and California.

38. “Speech of Honorable Charles H. Rutherford on the Colorado River Compact,” delivered 

in the Arizona State Senate, 20 February 1923, in “Statements by Citizens of Arizona relative to 

the Colorado River Problem... ,” Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River Basin: 

Information presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in Connection with H. R. 

2903, Colorado River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, 68 Cong., 

1 sess. (1924), Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, (Washington, 1924), 73-84. 

39. In testimony before Congress, Edison’s general manager declared the utility ready to 

build a hydropower dam on the Colorado independent of federal efforts. Southern California’s 

need for power, and the dearth of undeveloped power sites closer to Los Angeles not only justifi ed 

the expense of developing the Colorado, but made the project quite necessary. See R. H. Ballard, 

in “Boulder Canyon Project: Excerpts from the Hearings before the Committees on Irrigation and 
464

Reclamation... of the 68th, 69th, and 70th Congresses on the Swing-Johnson Bill...,” Colorado

River Hearings and Miscellaneous Documents, vol. 1, (Washington, 1924), 16.

40. William Kent to Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, telegram, 16 February 1924, Philip 

Swing Papers, 144.

41. “Using the Chamber of Commerce for Hocus Pocus Game,” Los Angeles Examiner,

editorial, 10 February 1924, Philip Swing Papers, Box 157, Scrapbook 1A, p. 20.

42. Franklin Hitchborn, “Union Men Forced to Contribute to Better American Federation” 

unlabeled news clipping, Philip Swing Papers, Box 144. See also “Power Fights Boulder Dam Says 

Swing,” Los Angeles Herald, 18 February 1924, Philip Swing Papers, Box 157, Scrapbook 1A, 

p. 20; Franklin Hitchborn to Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, telegram, 16 February 1924, 

Philip Swing Papers, Box 144. One newspaper reported that Southern California Edison ordered its 

employees to send telegrams urging local offi cials and chambers of commerce to oppose the SwingJohnson Bill. See “Furious Charge of the Edison Brigade of Six Hundred Agents,” unidentifi ed 

newspaper, 10 April 1924, Philip Swing Papers, Box 157, Scrapbook 1A, p.45.

43. California. Colorado River Commission. Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project,

(Sacramento: 1930), 116.

44. California. Colorado River Commission. Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project,

160.

45. California. Colorado River Commission. Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project,

159.

46. The Nation condemned state utility regulations because “all those whose purpose it is to 

defeat genuine efforts and adequate regulation” supported oversight by the states rather than the 

federal government. According to The Nation, these interests wanted the states to regulate utilities 

“precisely because they recognize the demonstrated inability of the individual States to cope with 

the problem” of utility power. See Guido H. Marx, “How to Control Public Utilities,” The Nation

132:3430 (1 April 1931), 348; “The Utilities as an Issue,” New Republic 62 (7 May 1930), 311-2.

47. Alfred E. Smith, “Water Power and Its Social Uses,” The Survey, 57:7 (1 Jan 1927), 424.

48. “The Utilities as an Issue,” New Republic 62 (7 May 1930), 311-2.

49. “Black Raps ‘Power Trust’ over Radio,” Washington (DC) Evening Star, 28 February 1930, 

Philip D. Swing Collection, Box 136, UCLA Special Collections

50. Gifford Pinchot, “Who Owns Our Rivers,” The Nation 126:3262 (18 January 1928), 64-6.

51. Judson King, “Uncle Sam and His Water Supply: Some Notes on the Report of the 

President’s Water Resources Policy Commission” National Popular Government League, Bulletin,

No. 241, 27 January 1951, 5, SBM P F 164.

52. Frank B. McMillin, George B. Chandler, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, “Why Ohio is 

Interested” n.d., Swing Papers, Box 144.

53. “Utility Companies United to Oppose U.S. Projects,” transcribed from Washington News,

17 October 1927, Philip Swing Papers, Box 144. For use of red scare rhetoric in the Muscle 

Shoals debate, see also Preston J. Hubbard, Origins of the TVA: The Muscle Shoals Controversy, 

1920-1932 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1961), 288.

54. “Political Engineering,” Sierras Service Bulletin 6:1 (February 1931), 2, in Edison 

International Public Relations Offi ce Collection, Edison International, Rosemead, California.

55. “Southern Sierras Power Company Presents Its Position on Power and Canal Development 

Plans,” Brawley News 21 March 1924, Philip Swing Papers, Box 144. Southern Sierras Power 

endorsed Southern California Edison’s proposal for federal control of Colorado development, 

combined with private construction of power facilities, if not entire dam structures.

56. “Southern Sierras Power Company Presents Its Position on Power and Canal Development 

Plans,” Brawley News 21 March 1924, Philip Swing Papers, Box 144.

57. Albert Fall to Warren G. Harding, 24 September 1921, “3rd Enclosure. Subject: Colorado 

River Power Project and Appointment of Commissioner.” Albert Fall Papers, Box 47, Huntington 

Library.

58. “Congress advised to Leave Power Development to Private Interests,” retyped from Sunday

Dispatch, 4 December 1927, attachment to Harry A. Slattery to Philip D. Swing, 13 December 1927, 

Swing Papers, Box 134. Slattery was careful to point out that Eaton had worked for General Electric 

and edited that company’s newsletter, The Lamp, before running for Congress.
465

59. “Congress advised to Leave Power Development to Private Interests,” retyped from Sunday

Dispatch, 4 December 1927, attachment to Harry A. Slattery to Philip D. Swing, 13 December 1927, 

Swing Papers, Box 134.

60. Elmer O. Leatherwood, “A National Legislator’s Views on Colorado River Development” 

The Tax Digest 3:6 (December 1926), 203-6, Swing Papers, Box 17.

61. E. M. Scofi eld to The Nation, 10 March 1930, Swing Papers, Box 136; untitled editorial, 

The Nation 132:342 (28 January 1931), 94.

62. “Shall We Have A Power Scandal?” The New Republic, 49 (26 January 1927), 264-65. See 

also “Would Lease Muscle Shoals; Hint of Another Oil Scandal,” Labor News 14 May 1926, Urban 

Archives, CSU Northridge.

63. William J. Schaefl e, “The People of the United States Do Not Want Another Tea Pot Dome 

Scandal,” American Globe 25:7 (April 1928) 5-6, Philip D. Swing Collection, Box 43, UCLA 

Special Collections.

64. Judson King, “Who’s Who in the Super-Power Lobby,” National Popular Government 

League Bulletin 115:2, 15, Philip Swing Collection, Box 145, UCLA Special Collections.

65. Guido H. Marx, “How to Control Public Utilities,” The Nation 132:3430 (1 April 1931), 

348. The utilities’ public relations campaign included the dissemination of pamphlets, books, 

and other materials to schools, “for the purpose of infl uencing public opinion in favor of private 

ownership” of power facilities, and attempts to rally other business organizations to oppose the 

Boulder Canyon Bill. See Bruce Gustin, “Bannister Scores Power Trust for Secret Work in 

Schools,” unidentifi ed clipping, 8 June 1928, Swing Papers, Box 145; “Insurance Interests Help 

Defeat Boulder Canyon Dam Legislation,” Western Progressive, 1:3 (Mar 1927), 1-2, Swing Papers, 

Box 17. The effort to rally business organizations apparently included a campaign in the American

Agency Bulletin, an insurance industry publication, that urged agents to “line up” with the power 

industry. The Western Progressive carried reprints of articles from the American Agency Bulletin

provided to them by one insurance agent “who could not be bamboozled by these greedy interests.”

66. Norris Hundley, Water and the West, 273. The Commission found that the private utility 

industry spent over $1 million per year to promote private ownership and to defeat Muscle Shoals 

and Boulder Dams, but concluded that there was no “power trust” per se. The utility companies 

themselves cited this last point to defend themselves against the public power movement. They 

also complained about the “organized propaganda being carried on through a great syndicate of 

newspapers and prominent radicals to make it appear that the power industry is in the tentacles of a 

powerful octopus, which will strangle the people.” See “Power in the Public Eye” Sierras Service 

Bulletin 4:8 (September 1929) 2, in Edison International Public Relations Offi ce Collection, Edison 

International, Rosemead, California.

67. “Boulder Dam Power,” Sierras Service Bulletin, 4:7 (August 1929) 2, from Corporate 

Communications Department, Edison International.

68. Norris Hundley observed in 1975 that the “desire to tap the federal largess without 

incurring federal control” was one of the prominent themes of western development. This applies as 

much to Boulder Dam as it did elsewhere on the Colorado River as well as the Central Valley Project 

and numerous other sites throughout the West. As multipurpose dams built by the Army Corps of 

Engineers tended to have fewer restrictions on power development and irrigation acreage, this desire 

for federal funds without federal regulation gave the Army Corps a boost during its longstanding 

competition with the Bureau of Reclamation for budget, project authorization, and institutional 

status. See Norris Hundley, Water in the West; Lawrence B. Lee, “California Water Politics: 

Depression Genesis of the Central Valley Project, 1933-1944,” Journal of the West 24: 4 (1985), 

63-81, discusses competition between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers 

in the context of acreage limitations.

69. See Norris Hundley, Water in the West, 271-7. See also Elmer O. Leatherwood, “A 

National Legislator’s Views on Colorado River Development” The Tax Digest 3:6 (December 1926), 

203-6.

70. P. D. Swing to Chas. L. Childers 21 Feb 1930, Swing Papers, Box 136.

71. J. R. Haynes, 25 Mar 1930, “While it is a logical deduction from the text of the SwingJohnson Bill...” John R. Haynes Papers, Box 11, Special Collections, University of California, Los

Angeles.
466
467

 Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of 

Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the 

Origins of the National Recreation Area Concept at 

Lake Mead, 1929-1936*

By:

Douglas W. Dodd

 The struggle to keep dams out of the national parks that pitted 

conservationists against the West’s water and power interests has constituted a 

major recurring theme in American environmental history. From the early fi ght 

over the fate of Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley, to the campaigns to keep dams 

out of Dinosaur National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park, historians 

have recounted the continuing effort to keep the National Park System free of 

dams. But what would happen if things were the other way around? What if, 

instead of trying to keep a dam out of a national park, the National Park Service 

(NPS) invented a new type of area—a national recreation area—that would have 

at its center the world’s largest dam, reservoir, and hydroelectric generating plant? 

Between 1929 and 1936 that is exactly what happened, as the U.S. Department 

of the Interior made plans for the lands that would surround Boulder Dam and its 

reservoir, Lake Mead. 

 In October 1936 Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes approved an 

agreement between the National Park Service and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(USBR) to create Boulder Dam Recreation Area—America’s fi rst national 

recreation area. The Boulder Dam Recreation Area agreement concluded 

seven years of work begun during the Hoover administration, and it marked 

the beginning of a decades-long cooperative partnership between the NPS and 

USBR to plan for and develop outdoor recreation at federal reservoirs in the 

West. The mutually benefi cial partnership allowed each of the two agencies to 

further its own interests. For the National Park Service, it meant gaining new 

areas to manage while expanding its role in outdoor recreation. For the Bureau of 

Reclamation, it meant the ability to promote recreation as a benefi t of its projects, 

while avoiding the distraction of managing recreation itself. This achievement 

was all the more remarkable in that it was accomplished without signifi cant 

opposition from private local interests or conservationists. 

 The development of the Boulder Dam Recreation Area has not received 

full treatment in the historical literature of environmental history or the national 

parks.1

 Yet it is a story that is as signifi cant as it has been obscure. First, the 

effort to create the Boulder Dam Recreation Area challenged the National 

Park Service to fi nd a way to reconcile its own ideal of preservation and public 

* This article is reprinted courtesy of the Southern California Quarterly which published a 

slightly different version in its volume 88 (Winter 2006-2007).
468

enjoyment with an enormous utilitarian project, a dam belonging to another 

federal agency. The resulting compromise established the precedent for a new 

type of National Park Service area—a national recreation area—that emphasized 

outdoor recreation while seeking to balance preservation and education with 

other uses—dams, grazing, and mining, for example—that were traditionally 

not allowed in national parks. This compromise would become the central 

principle behind the forty national recreation areas that would follow. Second, 

the NPS-USBR partnership produced important, if unintended, consequences. 

The increasingly cozy relationship between the two agencies that began at Lake 

Mead resulted in the National Park Service’s acquiescence to the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s later proposals to build the Echo Park Dam in Dinosaur National 

Monument and the Bridge Canyon Dam in the lower Grand Canyon—setting the 

stage for two of the pivotal conservation battles of the 1950s and 1960s. 

The development of America’s fi rst national recreation area—conceived 

during the Hoover administration—was a consequence of the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act of 1928. In the act, Congress directed the Bureau of Reclamation to 

construct a major water-resources-development project on the lower Colorado 

River for the purposes of controlling fl oods, storing water for both irrigation 

and domestic use, and generating hydroelectric power.2

 Boulder Dam would 

impound the waters of a mammoth reservoir reaching 115 miles upstream—as 

far as the little community of St. Thomas, Nevada, on the lower Virgin River, and 

Pierce’s Ferry, Arizona, in the Colorado River’s lower Grand Canyon. Although 

recreation was not a purpose specifi ed in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Bureau 

of Reclamation offi cials understood that public recreation would be a signifi cant 

use of the new Boulder Dam Reservoir. Indeed, the bureau had fi rst noticed 

the recreational potential of its reservoirs shortly after the 1906 construction of 

 Theodore Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River Project in Arizona. Swimming and 

boating became popular at the reservoir, and a hotel to accommodate visitors 

soon followed.3

 In 1914 Arizonans even tried—unsuccessfully—to have the 

area surrounding Roosevelt Reservoir designated a national park.4 By the 1920s, 

throughout the arid West, the recreational importance of its reservoirs to local 

residents and to their tourist economy was becoming clear to the bureau. As a 

1928 Bureau of Reclamation pamphlet noted, “They are entering increasingly 

into the life of the people as pleasure resorts and playgrounds, as bird sanctuaries, 

and as excellent fi shing grounds...”5

 The federal government provided little 

in the way of services or facilities at the reservoirs, however, despite their 

growing recreational appeal, other than the issuing of permits for private-sector 

developments and the stocking of fi sh by the Bureau of Fisheries.6

 But the Boulder Canyon Project’s enormous dam and reservoir would be 

the world’s largest—attractions destined to become, in the words of Reclamation 

Commissioner Elwood Mead, “a tourist mecca,” that would draw visitors, not just 

from the Southwest, but from “every part of the world.”7

 Many of these tourists 

would be coming simply to gaze passively upon the dam and reservoir—much 

as tourists gaze upon Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon—and then move on.
469

But tourism and outdoor recreation were changing in the 1920s and 1930s, and 

a growing number of visitors would not be content with such passivity. The 

interwar years saw a revolution in the nature of outdoor recreation. Those tourists 

whom John Muir had once derided as “tender, pulpy people,” who traveled 

in “smooth comfort” to gaze upon scenic spectacles, were now being joined 

by legions of Americans who shared Muir’s love of a more strenuous outdoor 

experience.8

 The outdoor recreation boom was partly the result of increasing 

leisure time, particularly for middle-class Americans. But more importantly, as 

Paul Sutter has argued, it was improved transportation—private automobiles and 

modern highways—that put outdoor recreation venues within the reach of city 

dwellers seeking a weekend outing or a week’s vacation and brought “remote 

natural areas into the recreational orbits of modern Americans.”9 As a result, 

participation in auto-camping, hunting, fi shing, and recreational boating increased 

rapidly.10

 Looking to the future of the Boulder Canyon Project, the U.S. Department 

of the Interior recognized that these new patterns in recreational demand 

would necessitate building not only roads, overlooks, and lodgings but also 

campgrounds, trails, swimming areas, and boating facilities. Furthermore, 

visitors would require interpretive and educational services to provide them 

with “information about the dam and lake, as well as the natural glories of 

the region.”11 But the Bureau of Reclamation, although it acknowledged the 

importance of the reservoir’s recreational potential, had no interest in assuming 

the responsibility of developing and operating recreational programs and 

facilities. Providing high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities, along with the 

other benefi ts associated with its projects, would undoubtedly generate publicrelations dividends for the bureau. But the agency possessed, its leaders readily 

conceded, “neither the necessary experience [n]or personnel to administer the 

area” for recreational use.12 The bureau saw itself strictly as an organization that 

constructed and operated water-resources- development projects, not parks, and it 

did not want to assume additional functions not directly related to its mission.

 While the Bureau of Reclamation lacked the expertise and interest 

to develop the Boulder Canyon Reservoir for recreational purposes, the 

 National Park Service abounded in both. Since its creation in 1916, the NPS 

had administered and promoted recreation in its national parks and national 

monuments. It knew how to plan, design, and construct the necessary facilities 

and developments; it provided educational and interpretive services; and it had 

policies and procedures in place for managing and regulating visitor use. The 

Park Service considered itself the nation’s foremost recreation agency and was 

proud to claim “years of experience and experimentation in handling visitors 

in such manner as to lift them from the place of mere tourist to that of the 

enthusiastic seeker after the fascinating facts of natural history.”13 Management of 

the recreational aspects of the Boulder Canyon Project would fall to the National 

Park Service.
470

National Park Service involvement in developing a recreation area at 

 Boulder Dam began during the Hoover administration. In June 1929, Secretary 

of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur made a trip to inspect the Boulder Canyon 

Project area and recognized the scenic and recreational value of the public lands 

surrounding it. Secretary Wilbur grew up in southern California and as an 

undergraduate at Stanford University had participated in a botanical collecting 

expedition to southern Arizona, which had instilled in him, he later recalled, 

“a real love of the desert and also some understanding of its signifi cance.”14

His visit to the dam site seemed to reawaken his fascination with the desert 

landscape. Upon his return to Washington, Wilbur ordered a report on the 

“national park possibilities in connection with the Boulder Canyon Reclamation 

Project” and directed the 

Bureau of Reclamation and 

the National Park Service to 

consult with one another about 

the future management of the 

area.15 Between 1929 and 1932 

National Park Service staff and 

consultants made a series of 

studies and investigations of the 

area surrounding the planned 

reservoir.16

 One of the fi rst proposals, 

advanced in 1929 by Ernest 

Walker Sawyer, Wilbur’s assistant 

secretary of the Interior, sought to 

preserve the area from “depredation” through the establishment of an enormous 

“national park, recreation area, or outdoor nature shrine” between the Colorado 

River and Zion National Park. Tentatively labeled the “Proposed Virgin National 

Park,” the project would span the lower Virgin River and the Colorado River 

country upstream of the Boulder Dam site. The area would comprise nearly 8,000 

square miles surrounding the dam’s projected reservoir and would be accessed 

through highway entrances at Boulder Dam, Moapa Valley, and Zion, and by 

airplane from Grand Canyon National Park. Sawyer intended the expansive 

boundaries to include numerous outstanding features: the Boulder Dam reservoir; 

archaeological sites such as Salt Cave, Gypsum Cave, and the “Lost City of 

Nevada” pueblo ruins; historic Mormon settlements like Fort Callville and 

Pipe Spring; and numerous scenic natural features such as the Kolob Canyons 

(near Zion), the Valley of Fire, and areas in the western Grand Canyon such as 

Toroweap, Shivwits Plateau, Lava Falls, and Vulcan’s Throne.17 The idea found a 

champion in Secretary Wilbur. 

 At Wilbur’s prompting, NPS Director Horace M. Albright reported that 

the proposed Virgin National Park region had much to recommend it: The canyon 

of the Colorado below Grand Canyon National Park was of “great scientifi c 

19.1. During a tour of Hoover Dam construction 

on November 12, 1932, Ray Lyman Wilbur (third 

from right) accompanied President Herbert 

Hoover (between Mrs. Hoover and Mrs. Wilbur).
471

importance”; the prehistoric Indian ruins along the lower Virgin were of interest 

to archaeologists; and the Kanab and Shivwits Plateaus were excellent examples 

of wild tablelands. The region possessed, in short, “many natural features 

demanded of any area under consideration for national park status.” But the area 

fell short of fully meeting NPS standards of suitability and feasibility. Suitability 

was impaired in two ways. First, although the area was highly scenic, many of 

its best features duplicated those already better represented in Grand Canyon 

National Park, and NPS policy held that duplication was to be avoided within 

the park system. Second, and more signifi cantly, the presence of Boulder Dam 

and its artifi cial reservoir would be “contrary to the well established policy of 

maintaining natural landscape conditions...” With regard to feasibility, Albright 

noted the problems presented by a considerable acreage of private and state 

land intermingled with federal holdings, a longstanding pattern of extensive 

livestock grazing that would be “diffi cult to extinguish,” and the presence of 

Indian reservation and 

national forest lands 

within the boundaries 

of the area, all of which 

would “operate against the 

administration of the area 

within the principles of 

national park protection.”

As a consequence, Albright 

concluded that the area 

should not become a 

national park, although 

he recommended further 

study to identify “certain 

smaller areas” that appeared 

“worthy of preservation” as 

national monuments.18

 Despite Albright’s negative report, Wilbur remained interested in the 

scenic and recreational potential of the region. Perhaps an expansive Virgin 

National Park was not the best way to proceed, but he still believed that some 

action should be taken to protect the area. He told Albright:

Since it is unique in character, the land is largely public land, and 

the lake will provide a new feature both of beauty and for transportation, 

I think that we should devise some method by which it can be held in 

the public interest. Whether it should be classifi ed as a recreation area, 

a national monument, or in some other way, I do not know. I would like 

though to have you seriously consider not letting it leave the National 

Park Service and of originating legislation which will give us a chance to 

retain it in its original beauty. Even if it is not of National Park standard, 

it is of suffi cient national signifi cance to warrant most careful study by us 

as to its ultimate disposition.19

19.2. In 1927 or 1928 Stephen Mather and his ranking 

staff sat for this portrait in Washington, D.C. 

From left to right: Arno B. Cammerer, Arthur E. 

Demaray, Stephen T. Mather, George A. Moskey and 

Horace M. Albright. Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.
472

Committed to his goal of protecting the scenic desert landscapes surrounding the 

 Boulder Dam reservoir, Wilbur urged President Hoover to withdraw the lands 

from entry, guaranteeing that they would remain in public ownership until the 

matter could be resolved.

 In April 1930 President Hoover signed an executive order withdrawing 

from settlement 4,212 square miles of public land upstream from the Boulder 

Dam site, based on Wilbur’s determination that the lands would be “of 

greater public value from a scenic and scientifi c standpoint than for economic 

development” and that the new reservoir would offer “unusual recreation 

opportunities.”20 In particular, the reservoir would improve public access via 

scenic boat tours, according to the Interior Department, that would allow visitors 

to “enjoy a stupendous view of the great gorge of the Colorado River that 

hitherto could be seen only by the most hardy and experienced boatmen, and that 

even for them was fraught with serious danger.” The reservoir at Boulder Dam 

would open new vistas to the touring public “second in signifi cance only to that 

portion of the Grand Canyon within the Grand Canyon National Park.”21 Based 

on the recreational potential identifi ed in NPS studies, Secretary of the Interior 

Wilbur recommended that “at least part” of the area be established as a “national 

monument or some other special preserve to be developed and administered by 

the National Park Service.” 22

 Yet the question of National Park Service involvement with the Boulder 

Canyon Project would be problematic. The National Park Service had been 

created in 1916 in the aftermath of the titanic battle to stop the city of San 

Francisco from damming the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park’s scenic 

 Hetch Hetchy Valley. The fi ght had helped to defi ne what kinds of development 

would be appropriate in a national park. Although San Francisco won the battle, 

the dam at Hetch Hetchy would prove the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, 

park advocates, such as the Sierra Club and the American Civic Association, 

pointed to the loss of Hetch Hetchy—and the urgent need to prevent another park 

from suffering the same fate—as a prime example of the urgent need for Congress 

to establish a national park agency with a strong preservation mandate.23 During 

the 1920s the young National Park Service fought to prevent the Bureau of 

Reclamation and its supporters from building more dams in the national parks. In 

particular, NPS Director Stephen T. Mather and his assistant, Horace M. Albright, 

worked to protect Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park from 

dam proposals that would have benefi ted irrigators in Idaho and Montana.24 But 

now Secretary Wilbur was suggesting that the NPS add to its holdings a new area 

with the world’s largest manmade dam at its center. How could such a thing be 

reconciled with the national park idea? As historian Richard Sellars has noted, 

“Philosophical contradictions” were bound to emerge when “the main feature was 

itself a gigantic impairment to natural conditions.”25 How the agency resolved 

this contradiction would set an important precedent.
473

 Whether the Boulder Canyon Project area met the exacting criteria 

of national park quality and national signifi cance, and whether a dam could 

be allowed in an area under NPS management were questions that demanded 

answers. The National Park Service exerted powerful infl uence over decisions 

to create new parks and monuments, and although the agency was eager to 

expand into new areas, it frequently rejected “inferior” park proposals that fell 

short of its rigorous standards.26 As a result, scrutiny of the project launched a 

round of vigorous and searching discussions within the national park leadership.

M. R. Tillotson, superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, advocated 

for NPS management of the dam and reservoir area due to its superlative size.

As the world’s largest, Tillotson believed that it would make “an attraction of 

considerable tourist interest.” In order to assure its proper development, he said, 

the withdrawn lands around the proposed reservoir “should become a National 

Park or Monument, either as a distinct unit or as an addition to Grand Canyon 

National Park.”27 Assistant Director Conrad Wirth was eager for the NPS to 

begin helping the Bureau of Reclamation to administer the recreational facilities 

of the project, but he had reservations over how the area should be designated 

due to the presence of the dam. “I do not see how this area could be considered 

for a national park, on account of its artifi cial make-up,” he wrote. Although 

national monument status might be warranted because of the dam’s “scientifi c 

qualifi cations” as a “tremendous engineering accomplishment,” as well as the 

area’s potential for “national recreation,” he maintained that the area should be 

“placed in some other classifi cation than a national park or monument.”28 Others 

within the agency concurred with Wirth. Wallace R. Atwood believed that the 

project area would “prove to be a very valuable recreation section,” but he was 

not convinced that it should be part of the national park system. “Maybe we 

can look forward to a classifi cation which will include areas of this nature,” he 

wrote.29 Education and Research Director Harold C. Bryant concurred, writing 

Director Albright that he was “not convinced of the value of the Hoover Dam 

Site as a national monument.” He regarded it as “one of those third class areas 

needing another name.”30 A consensus emerged: First, the area required further 

and more intensive study to determine its suitability. Second, the National Park 

Service needed to devise a new category for areas that were primarily valuable 

for recreation, rather than for their superlative natural or historical signifi cance. 

Such a new category—distinct from parks or monuments—was needed in order to 

ensure that allowing a dam in a recreational area would not become precedent for 

allowing one in a national park. In the absence of such a categorical distinction, 

the NPS could expect opposition to the plan by groups—such as the National 

Parks Association, the American Civic Association, and the Sierra Club—whose 

mission it was to safeguard the parks from despoliation.

 Establishing a primarily recreational area would be a new departure for the 

National Park Service. To be sure, recreation was a key element of the agency’s 

mission. The 1916 Organic Act directed it to “provide for the enjoyment” of park 

resources and make arrangements for the “accommodation of park visitors.”31 A 
474

1918 letter, known as the “Lane Letter,” from Secretary of the Interior Franklin 

Lane to Stephen Mather, spelled out how the agency should implement the 

Organic Act; it specifi ed that outdoor recreation activities would be allowed in 

the parks, so long as they were consistent with the policies intended to safeguard 

the parks and preserve them unimpaired.32 Moreover, during the 1910s and 

1920s, Mather emphasized tourism and recreational development in the parks 

as a means of developing a national constituency that would provide the NPS 

with the political support it needed. As Mather’s successor, Albright was also a 

“dedicated proponent” of outdoor recreation and tourism.33 Yet recreation was 

secondary to the purposes for which the parks had been established: to preserve 

unimpaired for future generations the superlative and nationally signifi cant natural 

and cultural resources they contained. What the NPS now contemplated creating 

at Boulder Dam was something new, something that risked the appearance that it 

was compromising its mission of preservation.

 The National Park Service’s internal concern over whether the Boulder 

Canyon Project area met national park standards was not the only obstacle 

standing in the way of protecting the area. The ranching and mining interests 

of Arizona and Nevada, wary of any further federal encroachment or regulation 

upon their activities, were hostile to the idea of a new national park or monument 

surrounding the reservoir. Rather than calling for preservation, for example, the 

State of Nevada hoped the electrical power and roads associated with the dam 

project would accelerate the development of the area’s mineral resources, and the 

governor called for a thorough survey of the “mining potentialities in the vicinity 

of Boulder Dam.”34 Similarly, the State of Arizona opposed the large executive 

withdrawal of public lands around the project area.35 There was strong sentiment 

in the state against “any more land being included in Federal Reservations,” one 

NPS offi cial noted.36 Even Utah entered the fray. Because the rural ranching 

economy of southern Utah was closely tied to the “Arizona Strip” lying north 

of the Colorado River, the Utah State Legislature memorialized Congress in 

opposition to the monument withdrawal, arguing that the establishment of a 

monument would “retard the development” of the region by banning 75,000 sheep 

and 15,000 cattle from their accustomed range and by preventing homesteaders 

from acquiring property in the area. Any move to make a park or monument 

designation could expect stiff resistance from the affected states.37

 Facing these challenges, in 1932, Secretary Wilbur assigned Louis C. 

Cramton to investigate the withdrawn lands and to make recommendations on 

how best to resolve the knotty problems of recreation and conservation that the 

Boulder Canyon Project posed. Cramton, a former congressman from Michigan 

and a strong advocate of the national parks, had helped the NPS in the fi ght 

to prevent irrigators from tapping the waters of Yellowstone National Park.38

Following Cramton’s re-election defeat in 1930, Wilbur appointed him “Special 

Attorney to the Secretary” and entrusted him with special projects. One of his 

fi rst tasks had been to devise a system of commercial permits for Boulder City 

to ensure orderly development rather than the “boomtown” atmosphere typically 
475

associated with construction camps.39 Cramton’s commitment to the national 

park idea and his practical familiarity with the Boulder Canyon Project made 

him a good choice to lead the recreation investigation. In May 1932 Cramton 

led a study team into the fi eld to assess the withdrawn lands, gauge their scenic 

and recreational potential, and determine how best the area could be protected 

and developed. The study team included Roger W. Toll, superintendent of 

Yellowstone National Park, Minor R. Tillotson, superintendent of Grand Canyon 

National Park, Preston P. Patraw, superintendent of Zion National Park, and W. R. 

F. Wallace, an engineer from the Bureau of Public Roads.40

 Cramton reported that the withdrawn lands upstream of the dam site 

were recreationally valuable, highly scenic, and worth protecting. Yet no single 

solution could be successfully applied to the entire area. Accordingly, he divided 

the withdrawal into two separate sections and proposed different treatment for 

each. The eastern section, encompassing the lower Grand Canyon and bordering 

Grand Canyon National Park, appeared to be of national park quality and 

deserved to be added to the National Park System. Cramton recommended that 

the president establish a Grand Canyon National Monument to protect the area 

until Congress could enact legislation expanding the park’s boundaries to include 

it.41

 But the western section of the withdrawal, including the dam and 

reservoir, required a different approach. The scenery here was attractive but not 

to a superlative degree. More importantly, the presence of the dam, and other 

land uses like mining and grazing, would confl ict with the National Park Service 

mission of preserving its lands unimpaired. In spite of these problems, however, 

the area did present outstanding recreational opportunities. The area ought not 

to become a national park or national monument, yet it should not simply be 

returned to the public domain, undifferentiated from the millions of other acres 

of Nevada and Arizona desert. To resolve the problem, Cramton innovated and 

proposed a new category, one fl exible and expansive enough to accommodate the 

philosophical contradictions the area posed. He recommended that the Boulder 

Dam area be designated a recreational area in which recreation and scenery would 

coexist with regulated utilitarian development.

 In a memo to Secretary Wilbur, Cramton attested to the national 

signifi cance of the area’s recreational potential. The Boulder Canyon Project’s 

spectacular dam and enormous reservoir would stimulate such interest among 

tourists, Cramton wrote, that “every transcontinental traveler” would want to see 

it. Moreover, apart from its appeal as a visual spectacle and engineering marvel, 

Cramton said, the 

recreational use of this area is an important byproduct... which 

should not be neglected. It will meet the desires and confer direct 

benefi ts upon the many thousands of visitors who will annually 

come here from the majority of the states of the Union who 
476

have no direct interest in the fl ood control, irrigation, and power 

possibilities of the project.

For these reasons, the reservoir area was of national importance and deserved 

federal protection and management.42

 Despite its recreational value, however, Cramton recommended that the 

area “ not be given a national park or national monument status.” First, although it 

was remarkable and interesting, the area’s scenery was not “outstanding” enough 

to meet the exacting standards of national park quality. Second, the mission of the 

National Park Service was to protect scenery, natural features, historical objects, 

and wildlife from impairment by development. But the dam would be a “recent 

man-made work” that would be “changed as the necessities of man may from 

time to time require” and thus did not belong in a national park. Third, allowing 

the presence of a dam and reservoir as the “central feature” in a national park or 

monument would undermine the Park Service’s efforts to keep dams out of the 

other parks. “Conservationists have for two generations fought to protect our 

national parks from becoming incidental or subordinate to irrigation and water 

supply uses,” Cramton wrote. “To deliberately bring into the national park chain 

and give national park status to such a dam and reservoir,” he warned, “would 

greatly strengthen the hands of those who seek to establish more or less similar 

reservoirs in existing national parks.” Finally, livestock grazing and mining were 

important established uses of the area, and neither would be appropriate in a 

national park or monument. Cramton concluded that the reservoir area should be 

added to the national park system, but with a name—a “recreation reservation,” 

he called it—that refl ected its primarily recreational purpose.43

 Cramton proposed the creation of a “Boulder Canyon National 

Reservation” that would place the area’s “recreational administration in the 

National Park Service while the primary jurisdiction is left with the Bureau of 

Reclamation.” Although the NPS internally referred to the area as a “recreation 

area,” Cramton’s decision to use the term “reservation” was deliberate. Cramton 

argued that such a designation fi t the NPS mission, which—according to the 

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916—was to “promote and regulate the 

use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations 

hereinafter specifi ed.” He also pointed out that Section 2 of the act referred to 

“such national parks and reservations of like character as may be hereafter created 

by Congress.” Thus, he argued, it would be “entirely consistent with history 

and with principle, as well as with effi ciency, for the National Park Service to 

administer the recreational use of a reservation even though another organization 

might have a primary interest in such an area.”44

 The Hoover administration acted on Cramton’s recommendations. On 

December 22, 1932, President Hoover signed a proclamation creating the 

273,000-acre Grand Canyon National Monument, which provided protection 

for the spectacular Toroweap section of the western Grand Canyon.45 With the 
477

monument established, action was now needed on the recreation area. Cramton 

believed that the project could proceed under Secretary Wilbur’s authority without 

an immediate need for authorizing legislation. At the secretary’s direction, the 

Park Service could advise the Bureau of Reclamation on developing recreation 

policies and drawing up model agreements for concessionaires. Still, Cramton 

recommended that the project be placed on a fi rmer foundation for the long 

term by seeking legislation to formally grant the NPS jurisdiction over the 

recreation area.46 To that end, Cramton provided Secretary Wilbur with a 

draft bill that defi ned the roles and responsibilities of each agency. Within the 

nearly 1.2-million-acre proposed reservation, the Bureau of Reclamation would 

administer the dam and its appurtenant works, while the Park Service would 

manage the recreational use of the reservoir and its surrounding lands. The 

purposes of fl ood control, irrigation, and hydropower, defi ned in the Boulder 

Canyon Project Act, would remain the primary uses of the area under Bureau of 

Reclamation jurisdiction. The Secretary of the Interior would have the power 

to make necessary regulations within the reservation to protect the project’s 

utilitarian values. While these values would be primary, the legislation would 

establish recreation and conservation as secondary uses under National Park 

Service authority. Because they were politically important industries in Arizona 

and Nevada—and because the Interior Department did not want to unnecessarily 

provoke resistance to its plans—

livestock grazing and mining would 

be allowed to continue within the 

reservation, subject to Park Service 

regulation to make certain that such 

activities did not interfere with the 

recreational development of the 

area. Finally, about 1.25 million 

acres of previously withdrawn land, 

not needed for recreation purposes, 

would be restored to entry under the 

public land laws, which would also 

help quiet resistance by the mining 

and livestock industries in the 

affected states.47

 In early 1933, National Park Service Director Horace Albright and 

Reclamation Commissioner Elwood Mead wrote to Secretary Wilbur, concurring 

with Cramton’s recommendations.48 Mead and Albright identifi ed several 

recreational activities that the new reservoir would accommodate, including 

boating, scenic boat tours, wildlife observation, and visiting special points 

of scenic, archaeological, or historical interest. Fishing, too, would be a new 

recreational opportunity, as the reservoir would settle out the Colorado’s thick 

and murky silts, making the reservoir a suitable habitat for the trout and bass that 

sportsmen desired.49 In general, the development of the reservoir’s recreational 

potential would “increase the tourist business” in Nevada and Arizona.50 Such 

19.3. Commissioner Elwood Mead at his desk 

in the Interior offi ce building.
478

benefi ts would help build support for the project and would certainly generate 

good public relations for the NPS, USBR, and the Department of the Interior. 

Secretary Wilbur accepted the recommendations and forwarded the draft 

legislation to Congress. In February 1933, Representative Samuel Arentz of 

Nevada and Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona introduced the Interior Department’s 

Boulder Canyon National Reservation bill in the House and Senate.51

 Although Secretary Wilbur’s days in offi ce were numbered—Franklin 

Roosevelt’s inauguration was only a month away—he lobbied on behalf of the 

legislation. “This largest artifi cial reservoir in the world,” he wrote Congress, 

“possesses great recreational and educational possibilities which should be 

conserved.” Rather than assigning new responsibilities in the fi eld of recreation to 

the Bureau of Reclamation, he argued that the Park Service was the proper agency 

to carry out that conservation. The legislation would avoid the “building up of 

duplicating organizations.” It would also make permanent the areas needed for 

“reclamation, power, and park purposes” while restoring excess withdrawn lands 

to entry. Passage of the bills, Wilbur told the chairmen, was “urgently desirable” 

because it would “replace uncertainty with certainty” regarding NPS authority 

to manage the reservoir.52 The American Civic Association, an organization that 

considered itself a guardian of the parks, approved of the recreation plan and 

submitted a statement to Congress in support of it.53 But the legislation was cause 

for concern among other conservation groups. Walter Huber and William Colby, 

members of the Sierra Club board of directors, wrote to Horace Albright that 

they were “a little fearful” about the area’s potential to “lower the bars” of park 

standards and “endanger the areas of strictly National Park caliber” by involving 

the NPS in “administering considerable areas devoted in part to commercial uses” 

such as mining, grazing, and water resources development. While the Sierra Club 

would not “take any part in opposing” the bills, Huber and Colby told Albright 

that they did not “look with much favor” upon the recreation proposal. Likewise, 

the National Parks Association expressed misgivings about the creation of what 

it called “national recreation reservations without standards,” but weakened 

by the Great Depression, the association found itself too “enfeebled” to offer 

serious opposition.54 Yet it was not these groups but the strong opposition of 

Nevada Senator Tasker Oddie—incensed that the federal government had violated 

Nevada’s sovereignty in its administration of Boulder City—that blocked action 

on the reservation bills over issues unrelated to the concerns of conservation 

groups.55 With the bills stalled in committee, the NPS still had no formal role 

at the Boulder Canyon Project, leaving the Bureau of Reclamation to respond—

grudgingly—to the public’s recreational demands. The issue would remain for 

the incoming Roosevelt administration to resolve.

 The second phase in the development of NPS-USBR cooperation began 

during the New Deal era and resulted in the formalization of their recreation 

partnership through an interagency memorandum of agreement. Taking offi ce 

in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal administration brought renewed 

energy and purpose to the National Park Service. Because the national parks 
479

and monuments were “places for renewing national confi dence,” they became 

“focal points” for New Deal activity.56 FDR and his Secretary of the Interior, 

Harold L. Ickes, strongly supported the expansion of the National Park Service.

In 1933 Roosevelt transferred to the NPS all the national monuments previously 

administered by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of War. The 

administration declared 1934 “A National Park Year,” seeking to stimulate the 

tourist economy by aggressively promoting the park system.57 FDR also backed 

the creation of new national parks, including Olympic and Kings Canyon.

 The New Deal brought not only the territorial expansion of the National 

Park Service but an expansion of its functions as well. In particular, the 

administration responded to the national boom in outdoor recreation demand 

by supporting the expansion of the agency as the nation’s leader in outdoor 

recreation. In 1933 Albright retired, making Arno B. Cammerer the new director. 

Cammerer, who served from 1933 to 1940, moved the agency “further along in 

the direction set by Mather and Albright,” fully embracing the new emphasis on 

recreation and tourism.58 Under Cammerer—and Conrad Wirth, his energetic 

assistant director—the National Park Service increasingly provided planning and 

development assistance to state and local governments. The NPS operated a state 

parks division, which directed the work of 

several Civilian Conservation Corps camps 

in developing state and municipal parks.

The 1936 Park, Parkway, and Recreation 

Area Study Act authorized the NPS to make 

a survey of the nation’s outdoor recreation 

needs and to partner with state and local 

governments to plan for meeting those 

needs. The agency’s recreation mission 

also expanded through the creation of new 

types of National Park System units, which 

emphasized recreation rather than signifi cant 

natural or cultural resources. These new 

areas included the national seashores, 

parkways, recreation demonstration areas, 

and—beginning with Boulder Dam—

national recreation areas.59

 In 1935, the Roosevelt administration reintroduced the Boulder Canyon 

National Reservation bill. The new NPS Director, Arno B. Cammerer, and 

Reclamation Commissioner Mead prepared the legislation, and Secretary of the 

Interior Harold L. Ickes forwarded it to Congress. The new bill contained the 

same division of powers and provisions as the 1933 version. But now, going 

beyond the earlier bill, it authorized the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Reclamation to cooperate in planning and managing recreation at other federal 

reservoirs associated with future reclamation projects to be built around the 

West.60

19.4. Arno B. Cammerer, Director of 

the National Park Service.
480

 Meanwhile, the USBR and its contractor, The Six Companies, Inc., made 

rapid progress on the dam. In February 1935 the diversion tunnels closed, and 

the Colorado River—once derided as “too thick to drink and too thin to plow”—

began pooling behind the dam, forming a reservoir of sparkling, clear water that 

“for a distance of 25 miles or more” was “a dark emerald green in the canyons and 

a deep blue in more open country.”61 In September President Roosevelt visited 

 Boulder Dam and dedicated it to the American people. In his dedication speech, 

he celebrated the area’s recreational potential, describing it as “an immense new 

park” for “the enjoyment of all the people.”62

 Completion of the dam and the fi lling of the reservoir put pressure on 

the Roosevelt administration to resolve the recreation issue. As the number of 

tourists and recreation seekers visiting the dam continued to grow, it may have 

seemed that “all the people” were descending en masse upon their “immense 

new park.” The Union Pacifi c Railroad, now dubbing its route through southern 

Nevada “the Boulder Dam Route,” promoted the dam—“the most thrilling sight 

in America”—as a weekend destination for western tourists and as a side-trip for 

cross-country passengers.63 Even airlines enticed passengers with the promise 

that their plane would circle for a close-up aerial view of the “gigantic dam and 

lake.”64 Most visitors, however, arrived by automobile. In 1935 Commissioner 

Mead noted that tourist travel to Boulder Dam and its reservoir was “greater now 

than ever before,” with 365,000 visitors making the trip that year.65

 Roosevelt had described the area as a “park.” If so, it was one without 

adequate facilities or clearly defi ned administration. The Bureau of Reclamation 

reluctantly found itself having to grapple with managing recreation and tourism.

Much of the early tourism had simply involved watching the dam’s construction 

from cliff-side overlooks. But with the dam completed and the reservoir rising, 

visitors now expected boat tours offering an opportunity to see the dam and 

upstream canyons from water level. The bureau responded by issuing temporary 

permits to “several boat owners of known responsibility,” including those who 

now plied the reservoir in motorboats and sailboats, as well as commercial 

boat operators—such as the Murl Emery Company and Boulder-Grand Canyon 

Navigation Company—which were allowed to operate forty- and fi fty-passenger 

tour boats on the reservoir.66 “Scores” of swimmers also fl ocked to the shoreline 

near Boulder City and at Las Vegas Wash. Walker Young, the bureau’s 

construction engineer in charge of the Boulder Canyon Project, reported, “the 

reservoir has become a very popular attraction for those interested in boating and 

swimming.” “Every afternoon and evening,” he said, “the reservoir is used by a 

large number of swimmers, with a generous portion made up of children.”67

 The USBR struggled to manage the infl ux of recreation seekers. In 

addition to managing the tour boat concessions, the agency now needed to 

provide boating facilities, including docks, marinas, and launching ramps, 

and beach and swimming facilities, such as restrooms, changing rooms, food 

vendors, and lifeguards. The bureau fully expected the National Park Service—
481

eventually—to assume 

these responsibilities, 

constructing needed 

developments,

administering necessary 

concessions, and 

regulating visitor use and 

safety on the reservoir. 

But until Congress 

authorized the Park 

Service to do so, the 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

had to manage the 

problem itself. In the 

meantime, Secretary 

Ickes approved the 

bureau’s request for NPS 

guidance in developing 

its interim recreation policies. Administration fell to the city manager of Boulder 

City, Sims Ely. Ely already had charge of issuing business permits there, and so 

the bureau simply added the responsibility for recreation-related permits at the 

reservoir to his portfolio. Granting concessions and constructing improvements 

at the reservoir would take time, but action on safety issues could not be delayed.

“The conditions at Boulder Dam require immediate attention or loss of life may 

result from lack of proper safeguards for boating and swimming,” Commissioner 

Mead wrote Secretary Ickes. In August 1935 Secretary Ickes approved an 

emergency request from the bureau to hire lifeguards and patrolmen to protect 

recreationists.68

 Although it could not yet step in to manage recreation at the reservoir, 

the National Park Service was eager to begin developing recreational facilities 

at the reservoir site. It was able to do so by establishing Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) camps through its state parks division. NPS Assistant Director 

Conrad Wirth worked with the USBR to bring camps to the Boulder Canyon 

Project Area.69 The fi rst was State Park Camp 1 (SP-1), set up in November 1933 

at Overton, Nevada, on the Virgin River arm of the reservoir. CCC enrollees 

from Camp SP-1 helped develop Nevada’s Valley of Fire State Park, building 

roads, trails, campsites, picnic shelters, and tourist cabins. Enrollees helped 

archaeologists excavate the “Lost City” pueblo ruins and other archaeological 

sites that would be fl ooded when the reservoir fi lled to capacity. They also built 

the park’s Lost City museum, which housed some of the recovered artifacts.70

 Although no state park was projected for the lower end of the reservoir, 

the NPS state parks division established two CCC camps there. In November 

1935 and January 1936 the NPS set up Camp SP-4 and Camp SP-6 at Boulder 

City. The mission of the two camps, known as the “Twin Camps,” was to 

19.5. An excursion boat on Lake Mead before the lake 

rose above the upstream diversion dam.
482

construct “facilities for caring for the tourist travel as well as for local residents” 

and the “eradication of scars, pits, rubbish, etc.,” that were the result of the dam’s 

construction. The camps were needed, the NPS argued, because the USBR and 

its contractors had “done nothing in the way of accommodations for visitors.”71

Twin Camps enrollees made impressive contributions to the development at 

the reservoir. They worked to build a swimming beach at Hemenway Wash 

by clearing and grading the rocky shoreline and spreading truckloads of sand.

They built dressing rooms, restrooms, picnic shelters, and fl oating platforms at 

the beaches. They built docks and launching facilities for the lake’s tour boat 

operators. Enrollees also rebuilt and landscaped the rustic stone observation 

point overlooking the dam, and made improvements to the Boulder City Airport, 

readying it for use by Grand Canyon- Boulder Dam Tours, Inc., which operated 

sightseeing fl ights. Finally, they cleared the lakeshore of brush and driftwood 

logs and also removed logjams and submerged logs—hazardous to boaters—from 

the reservoir itself.72

 Through the CCC, the National Park Service built recreational facilities it 

could not yet operate, while the Bureau of Reclamation, which was responsible 

for managing them, did not want the job. The situation demanded a resolution. 

Again, however, Congress failed to enact the needed legislation. As recreational 

demands mounted, and as the recreation problem became more diffi cult for the 

bureau, the agencies and Secretary Ickes fi nally decided to move ahead, fi nding 

the necessary authority in existing legislation. Citing provisions of the Economy 

Act of 1932, which authorized “interdepartmental procurement by contract,” 

as their basis for authority, the agencies began negotiating an inter-bureau 

cooperative agreement that would grant the NPS control over recreation at the 

reservoir.73

 During the summer of 1936, NPS and USBR offi cials negotiated a 

division of administrative responsibilities at Lake Mead—the new offi cial name 

of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir, which had been renamed in honor of the 

recently deceased commissioner of reclamation. A special committee, consisting 

of representatives from the Interior Department Solicitor’s Offi ce, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and the National Park Service, met to develop a joint memorandum 

of agreement. They recommended that the management authority at Lake Mead 

be divided “territorially rather than functionally,” in order to avoid confl icts. The 

bureau would retain jurisdiction over the administrative and employee community 

of Boulder City, as well as Boulder Dam and its associated engineering works. 

The Park Service would gain control over both the remainder of the reserved 

lands within the Boulder Canyon Project Area and the surface waters of Lake 

Mead.74

 The two agencies would be territorially separate, but the Bureau of 

Reclamation would retain certain rights within the National Park Service area.

While most roads and highways within the area were assigned to the NPS, the 

bureau would retain control of the Lower Portal road, which it needed for access 
483

to construct and operate the dam’s powerhouse. The USBR would likewise retain 

other utilitarian facilities running through the NPS area, including telephone 

lines, water lines, and the railroad line. In the future, the USBR would have 

the authority to construct power transmission lines through the area. The NPS, 

for its part, would gain control of the Boulder City Airport, which would be 

“an important link in the chain of accommodations to travelers desiring to visit 

 Boulder Dam and Grand Canyon National Park.”75

 The committee also made recommendations to guide the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s administration, particularly with regard to visitor services at 

Boulder City. The USBR, the committee suggested, should issue permits for 

construction of additional privately owned accommodations, such as “auto court” 

cabins and a campground or “tourist camp.” At the dam itself, the committee 

recommended that the bureau continue to allow visitors to enter the dam.

Although a private fi rm had requested a permit to operate a guide service at the 

dam, the committee believed that such applications should be denied and that 

the bureau should operate its own tours. The bureau, they believed, should have 

“close control” over public contact at the dam in order to coordinate visitation 

with dam operations. A concessionaire, however, should be allowed to operate a 

souvenir shop at the dam.76

 The committee had few similarly specifi c recommendations for the 

National Park Service. “The National Park Service for years has been engaged 

in the planning, development, and operation of recreational areas,” the report 

declared. “For this committee to make detailed suggestions would not only 

be presumptuous, but... unwise.” But they did propose that the National Park 

Service request a budget appropriation to purchase the surface rights to a group 

of patented mining claims located near the main highway through the recreation 

area. They also recommended that the NPS provide fi shing and sightseeing 

access to the river and canyon below the dam.77

 The cooperative agreement also embraced the key ideas of the Cramton 

Report. First, the agencies agreed that mining and prospecting could continue in 

the recreation area—subject to reasonable NPS regulations—“except where they 

will interfere physically and directly with a legitimate recreational development.” 

Unsurprisingly, given the economic importance of mining in Arizona and Nevada, 

the Bureau of Reclamation had been inundated with protests from residents and 

members of Congress from both states, urging that mining not be banned from 

the area surrounding the reservoir. The committee determined that allowing 

prospecting and mining to continue—which, it believed, would “not result in 

injury to the recreational use of the area”— would not only help defl ect opposition 

to National Park Service management but would also “do much to create good 

will.”78 Second, livestock-grazing received similar treatment. Although the 

National Park Service banned grazing in the parks (or sought to eliminate it where 

it existed as a prior use), the committee recommended that the agency authorize 

 grazing in the new national recreation area. “Grazing should be permitted as a 
484

gesture of good will toward the project on the part of residents of Nevada and 

Arizona,” they concluded, noting that there was not much actual risk to the area’s 

environment, since “the project area is largely arid and affords little opportunity 

for grazing of stock.”79 The Lake Mead grazing and mining policies, responses to 

local environmental and political conditions, would prove to be far-reaching and 

signifi cant, for they established a precedent of recreation-centered multiple-use 

management—rather than strict preservation—for future national recreation areas.

 On October 13, 1936, Secretary Ickes signed the memorandum of 

agreement. Recognizing that “a large number of visitors use the lands and waters 

of the Boulder Canyon Project Area for purposes of recreation,” and further 

noting that the National Park Service had substantial experience in “administering 

areas devoted to recreational uses,” the memorandum established Boulder Dam 

Recreation Area—the nation’s fi rst national recreation area.80

 In the newly created Boulder Dam Recreation Area, the National Park 

Service was charged with planning and building recreational facilities, including 

scenic roads and hiking trails. It also had responsibility for negotiating contracts 

with the concessionaires who would operate boating marinas, lodgings, visitor 

services at swimming beaches, and sightseeing tours. The NPS would also 

regulate mining or grazing in the recreation area.81 Meanwhile, the Bureau of 

Reclamation would operate the dam and its related facilities for the purposes 

specifi ed in the Boulder Canyon Project Act: fl ood control, water storage, and 

hydropower generation. The bureau would continue to manage Boulder City 

and provide space for NPS administrative offi ces there. It would also establish 

regulations governing public access to Boulder Dam and its related works and 

provide for a “skilled guide and lecture service” at the dam.82

 With the cooperative agreement fi nally in place, both agencies set about 

promoting the new Boulder Dam Recreation Area. The Department of the 

Interior issued press releases promoting tourism in the region. The Bureau of 

Reclamation used its publication, The Reclamation Era, to spread the news as 

well. Several articles in the magazine touted Lake Mead’s proximity to other 

national parks in the Colorado Plateau region, including Grand Canyon, Bryce 

Canyon, and Zion, as well as its suitability as a winter resort.83 The magazine also 

ran an article by NPS Director Arno Cammerer that highlighted the recreational 

improvements constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps and described the 

various boat tours and lodging opportunities that were available. He wrote, “The 

great Boulder Dam..., planned originally to provide power, irrigation, and fl ood 

control, has now added recreation as a fi ne bonus for traveling America.”84

 In 1936 Congress appropriated $10,000 for the National Park Service to 

prepare a master plan to guide development of the recreation area. Developed 

by Assistant Director Conrad Wirth, the plan laid out proposed roads, trails, 

overlooks, overnight accommodations, and day-use recreation areas.85 To carry 

out the plan, Congress began making large appropriations to fi nance development, 
485

and funding soon reached $100,000 per year. The Civilian Conservation Corps 

carried out much of the work.86 The work of the Twin Camps—now designated 

NP-4 and NP-6—accelerated with the infl ux of money, and enrollees set about 

developing new facilities.87 They built a hiking trail from Hemenway Wash to the 

summit of Red Mountain, erected and staffed entrance stations to collect statistics 

on visitation, and converted the vacant Six Companies hospital building for use 

as the National Park Service’s Boulder Dam Recreation Area administrative 

headquarters. The new headquarters also included a museum featuring natural 

history and archeological exhibits.88 In 1937 the National Park Service also 

entered into an agreement with the Bureau of Biological Survey, to coordinate 

wildlife management projects (especially to protect bighorn sheep and waterfowl) 

in the recreation area, parts of which had previously been designated the Boulder 

Canyon Wildlife Refuge.89

 In developing the agreement, the National Park Service had sought 

to tailor the recreation project in such as way as to avoid or minimize local 

political opposition. But they soon encountered a powerful challenge, despite 

their best efforts. In 1939 U.S. Senator Key Pittman of Nevada threatened to 

reduce the size of the Boulder Dam Recreation Area. Pittman represented Las 

Vegas interests that had opposed continued federal control over the reservoir. 

They disliked the NPS policy of strictly regulating the business practices—and 

numbers—of concessionaires. The Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal, for 

example, called for a wide-open approach to development at Lake Mead, 

including allowing gambling and liquor sales within recreation area boundaries.

The paper editorialized that the government should “allow as many resorts to be 

built as there are people to build them” and denounced the recreation area plan as 

a federal “take over.”90 The paper and its allies no doubt approved when Pittman 

introduced legislation to grant 8,000 acres of federal land near Lake Mead to the 

State of Nevada for development as a state park. Eighty percent of the land at 

issue was located within the Boulder Dam Recreation Area boundaries, in the 

vicinity of Las Vegas Wash. 

 Secretary Ickes strongly opposed the bill. Ickes detested Nevada’s famous 

vices and did not want to see them extended to Lake Mead. On a 1939 trip to 

 Boulder Dam, he briefl y visited Las Vegas, which he described as “an ugly little 

town where gambling dens and saloons and prostitution run wide open day and 

night.” “Three quarters of an hour was all we needed to get the savor of this 

rotten little town,” he wrote. Ickes was glad to return to Boulder City, which, in 

contrast, he called, “the neatest and most attractive-looking place in Nevada,” 

owing to the federal government’s policy of prohibiting gambling, prostitution, 

and the sale of hard liquor. Boulder City, rather than Las Vegas, was the model 

for what Ickes had in mind for development at the recreation area. Despite 

Pittman’s assurances to the contrary, Ickes believed that the state park proposal 

was a ruse, backed by “gamblers and saloonkeepers” in order to build lakeside 

casinos that would lure Boulder Dam and Lake Mead tourists. When Pittman’s 
486

bill passed both houses of Congress, Ickes interceded with President Roosevelt, 

who vetoed the bill on August 10, 1939.91

 In his veto message, FDR affi rmed the “national interest and value” of the 

 Boulder Dam Recreation Area. “All of the people of the United States,” he stated, 

“have a paramount interest in Boulder Dam and its related facilities for water 

conservation and utilization” as well as “a paramount interest in the outstanding 

recreational and scenic attractions of Lake Mead and the surrounding territory.” 

Because the area was “worthy of consideration as a possible national park or 

monument” and had “attracted thousands of visitors from all parts of the Union,” 

it therefore constituted a recreational area “truly national in character.” Pittman’s 

bill would have opened the door “to uses which might be at variance with the 

national interest in the Boulder Dam–Lake Mead region.” Moreover, to transfer 

federal lands from the Boulder Dam Recreation Area to the state would set an 

“undesirable precedent” for national parks and national forests, FDR declared.92

 Following the veto, the NPS again proved adept at public relations by 

accelerating the development of recreation facilities at Las Vegas Wash, the 

location nearest to the city of Las Vegas—and the area that Pittman had targeted. 

Although the NPS had initially planned to place priority on other areas, such as 

Hemenway Wash, Overton, and Pierce’s Ferry, it now hoped to win goodwill 

from the city by channeling funding and CCC manpower to build a swimming 

beach and campground at Las Vegas Wash.93 By 1941 the National Park Service 

had made considerable progress throughout the Boulder Dam Recreation Area. 

The area now featured swimming beaches, campgrounds, and boating facilities 

at Las Vegas Wash and Hemenway Wash and a new administrative and visitororientation center in Boulder City. The lakeshore was cleared of debris, and trails, 

scenic roads, and overlooks were completed or under construction.

 Although World War II slowed the pace of construction at the recreation 

area, the postwar period brought the promise of both expansion and development. 

In 1947 the National Park Service renamed Boulder Dam Recreation Area. It 

became Lake Mead National Recreation Area after Congress changed the name of 

the dam from Boulder to Hoover.94 Also that year, a new inter-bureau cooperative 

agreement renewed NPS management of the recreation area and extended the 

area’s boundaries southward to encompass the lands withdrawn for the new Davis 

Dam, then under construction downstream. Deeming it to be “in the best interests 

of the Government to provide for unifi ed administration of and jurisdiction over 

this entire area,” Secretary Ickes added the Davis Dam’s Lake Mohave reservoir 

and thousands of acres of surrounding land to Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area.95

 Building upon the success of the 1936 Lake Mead agreement, the two 

agencies coordinated recreational planning for other new reservoirs the bureau 

expected to build in the West.96 Their partnership was cemented in 1941, when 

the bureau agreed to fund a major NPS planning study, which resulted in the 
487

publication of A Survey of the Recreational Resources of the Colorado River 

Basin, a key document that guided development of the National Park System in 

the region. In return, the NPS agreed “in principle” to the future possibility of 

converting Grand Canyon National Monument and Dinosaur National Monument 

into “multiple-use national recreation areas”—modeled after Lake Mead—should 

the bureau decide to proceed with building its proposed Bridge Canyon Dam and 

Echo Park Dam.97 While the National Parks Association and Sierra Club had been 

wary but deferential with regard to the Lake Mead issue, both were roused into 

full-blown opposition by these plans that threatened to impair existing national 

parks and monuments. Joined by the Wilderness Society, conservationists 

ultimately blocked both dams in two of the most bruising preservation battles 

of the 1950s and 1960s.98 Defeated in its attempt to build the Echo Park Dam, 

Reclamation succeeded in building a dam at Glen Canyon, an area outside the 

National Park System. But the USBR-NPS recreation partnership again proved 

useful: its reservoir— Lake Powell—became the centerpiece of the Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, established by interagency agreement in 1958.99

 Between 1945 and 1965 the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Reclamation entered into agreements establishing nine new national recreation 

areas: Millerton Lake (1945) and Shasta Lake (1945) in California; Coulee Dam 

(later renamed Lake Roosevelt) in Washington (1946); Shadow Mountain Lake 

(1952) and Curecanti (1965) in Colorado; Glen Canyon in Utah and Arizona 

(1958); Flaming Gorge in Utah and Wyoming (1963); Arbuckle (later renamed 

Chickasaw) in Oklahoma (1965); and Sanford (later renamed Lake Meredith) 

in Texas (1965).100 When an area’s scenic and recreational opportunities were 

deemed to be of national signifi cance, the National Park Service retained 

management.101 In other cases, however, the NPS later agreed to transfer 

management to another agency. For example, Millerton Lake Recreation Area, 

at the Central Valley Project’s Friant Dam, near Fresno, California, became a 

state park. In other cases, such as Shasta Lake, Flaming Gorge, and Shadow 

Mountain Lake, national recreation area reservoirs adjacent to national forest land 

were eventually transferred to the U.S. Forest Service to promote management 

effi ciency and to avoid duplication of administration. The NPS also cooperated 

with the Bureau of Reclamation at smaller reservoirs that were valuable for 

outdoor recreation but that lacked suffi cient national signifi cance to warrant 

federal management. In these cases, the NPS did not manage the recreation 

facilities but instead provided design and planning assistance to state and local 

agencies. The National Park Service and the CCC developed Lake Guernsey, 

on the Bureau of Reclamation’s North Platte Project, as a Wyoming state park. 

Cachuma Lake on Reclamation’s Cachuma Project in California, developed with 

NPS guidance, became a Santa Barbara County park in 1953.102

 The Kennedy administration brought about another shift in federal 

recreation policy that marked the third—and culminating—phase in the 

development of USBR-NPS cooperation at Lake Mead, which resulted in the 

permanent legislative establishment of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. In 
488

1963 President Kennedy’s Recreation Advisory Council confi rmed the success of 

the national recreation area experiment. Formed to help guide federal outdoorrecreation policy, the council proposed a “system of National Recreation Areas” 

to help solve the problem of meeting the “steeply mounting outdoor recreation 

demands of the American people.” To shape the development of this system, the 

council issued a set of criteria. According to the council, new national recreation 

areas were to be large areas—more than 20,000 acres—and within a day’s drive of 

major population centers. They were to possess “natural endowments” that were 

“well above the ordinary” but still “of lesser signifi cance than the unique scenic 

and historic elements of the National Park System.” The new policy echoed the 

1932 Cramton Report in its endorsement of multiple-use management, directing 

the federal agencies that administered national recreation areas to recognize 

outdoor recreation as the “dominant or primary resource management purpose,” 

while permitting and regulating uses such as grazing, mining, logging, waterresources development, and hunting, so long as they were compatible with—and 

not detrimental to—recreational use. Finally, the council called for future national 

recreation areas to be established legislatively by congressional statute rather than 

administratively through interagency cooperative agreements.103 In honor of its 

role as a model for the national recreation area concept and in recognition of its 

signifi cance as the fi rst area of the national park system set aside for primarily 

recreational purposes, on October 8, 1964, Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

became the fi rst national recreation area established by an act of Congress.104

Comprising nearly 1.5 million acres, Lake Mead National Recreation Area is 

the nation’s largest. It is also the one of the most popular, attracting about eight 

million visitors per year—mostly from Southern California and the Southwest.105

 Lake Mead National Recreation Area, created by interagency agreement 

in 1936 as Boulder Dam Recreation Area, plays an important if unacknowledged 

role in American environmental history. The fi rst of its kind, it pioneered a new 

type of National Park System area. It arose out of confl icting impulses. The 

starkly beautiful desert country surrounding what was then the world’s tallest dam 

and largest reservoir needed resource protection, visitor education services, and 

recreational planning best provided by the National Park Service. Yet because 

of the dam, the area could not be a national park or national monument in the 

traditional sense, where nature was to be preserved without impairment. Instead, 

it would have to be a new type of area, one that could reconcile mass recreational 

development and preservation of outstanding natural and cultural resources 

with mining, grazing, and federal water projects—uses typically considered 

inappropriate in the National Park System. It also represented a marriage of 

convenience, which allowed both federal agencies to serve their own bureaucratic 

interests while garnering wide public support. For the National Park Service, 

the goal was expansion. The agreement at Lake Mead gave the NPS additional 

territory to manage, larger development appropriations from Congress, and an 

expanded role in outdoor recreation. For the Bureau of Reclamation, the goal was 

to delegate recreation management to another agency so that it could focus on its 

water engineering mission without being distracted by other responsibilities that 
489

fell outside its area of expertise. Both goals depended on winning the blessings 

of private interests, conservationists, and the general public. This marriage of 

convenience yielded offspring, too. The fi rst was an eventual system of some 

forty national recreation areas, inspired by the compromises between recreation, 

preservation, and development embodied in the Cramton Report. The second, 

and most signifi cant for American environmental history, was the recreationplanning partnership between the NPS and USBR in the Colorado River Basin, 

which resulted in the Echo Park Dam and Bridge Canyon Dam proposals. The 

roots of those pivotal confl icts—which shaped the course of the environmental 

movement—are embedded in the interagency agreement that established Boulder 

Dam Recreation Area.

Douglas W. Dodd is an assistant professor of history at California State 

University, Bakersfi eld, where he teaches courses on public history and the 

history of the American West. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the

University of California at Santa Barbara.

Endnotes

1. The major standard works on the history of the National Park Service have given little 

attention to the emergence of the national recreation areas. Richard Sellars’ Preserving Nature in the 

National Parks: A History (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1997) and John Ise, Our

National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961) 

offer brief accounts of the national recreation area concept and its origins. Alfred Runte’s National

Parks: The American Experience, 3rd ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997) largely 

ignores the origins of the national recreation areas, focusing instead on the development of the urban 

national recreation areas of the 1970s. Even briefer treatment is offered in Ronald A. Foresta’s The

National Parks and Their Keepers (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1984) and Robert 

Shankland’s Steve Mather of the National Parks, 3rd rev. ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970). The 

issue is completely missing from the biography of Horace Albright, the National Park Service director 

most directly responsible for the national recreation area at Boulder Dam; see Donald C. Swain, 

Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

1970). Furthermore, since these authors write from the perspective (and records) of the National Park 

Service, the equally important role of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in developing the fi rst national 

recreation area has been overlooked.

2. The Boulder Canyon Project would deliver irrigation water to the Imperial and Coachella 

Valleys via the All-American Canal and the Coachella Canal and would supply Southern California’s 

Metropolitan Water District via the Colorado Aqueduct. Southern California claimed 64 percent of 

the project’s hydroelectric power, while Nevada and Arizona each received 18 percent. The name of 

the Boulder Canyon Project’s dam has been the source of much confusion. Although the dam was 

actually constructed in Black Canyon, after geological studies revealed it to be a superior location, 

the project retained the Boulder Dam name. In 1930, Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur 

changed the name to “Hoover Dam” in honor of President Herbert Hoover. Following the election 

of President Franklin Roosevelt, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes insisted that the government revert 

to the original name, “ Boulder Dam.” In 1947, Congress legislatively restored the name Hoover 

Dam, fi nally putting the name controversy to rest. Joseph E. Stevens, Hoover Dam: An American 

Adventure (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), 18-9, 26-7, 32; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, The Story of Hoover Dam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Offi ce, 1971), 15.

3. Charles I. Zinser, Outdoor Recreation: United States National Parks, Forests, and Public 

Lands (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1995), 598.

4. John P. Orme to the Secretary of the Interior, April 3, 1914, “Proposed National Parks, 

Arizona,” File 0-32, Proposed National Parks, box 635, Entry 7, Central Classifi ed Files, 
490

1907-1932, Record Group 79, Records of the National Park Service, National Archives and Records 

Administration, National Archives at College Park, Maryland.

5. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Irrigation Reservoirs as Pleasure Resorts

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1928), II.

6. National Park Service, Recreational Use of Land in the United States: Part XI of the Report 

on Land Planning (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1938), http://www.cr.nps.

gov/history/online_books/recreation_use/chap3-1c.htm.

7. “Mead Portrays Dam’s Benefi ts,” Los Angeles Times, January 28 1931, 11.

8. John Muir, “The Grand Cañon of the Colorado,” in John Muir, Nature Writings: The Story 

of My Boyhood and Youth, My First Summer in the Sierra, The Mountains of California, Stickeen, 

Selected Essays (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 790.

9. Paul S. Sutter, Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern 

Wilderness Movement (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002), 19.

10. Ibid., 40.

11. [Isabelle F. Story,] “Draft of Data Re: the Hoover Dam Recreational Development Project 

for Incorporation in the Secretary’s Article for the Review-Journal,” November 12, 1931, Virgin 

National Park (Proposed) File, box 628, National Recreation Areas, Lake Mead, 1914-1932, Entry 

7, Central Classifi ed Files, 1907-1932, Record Group 79, Records of the National Park Service, 

National Archives at College Park, Md. (hereafter, NRA-LM, 1914-1932, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, 

RG 79, NACP.)

12. Frederic A. Kirgis, Charles A. Moskey, and Mae A. Schnurr, Memorandum to UnderSecretary West, 1 September 1936; Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National Park 

Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, Washington Offi ce, Project Correspondence 

File, 1930-1945; Records of the Bureau of Reclamation, Record Group 115, National Archives and 

Records Administration—Rocky Mountain Region, Denver (hereafter Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, 

NARA-RMR).

13. [Isabelle F. Story,] “Draft of Data Re: the Hoover Dam Recreational Development Project 

for Incorporation in the Secretary’s Article for the Review-Journal,” November 12, 1931; Virgin 

National Park (Proposed) File, box 628, NRA-LM, 1914-1932, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, 

NACP.

14. Ray Lyman Wilbur, The Memoirs of Ray Lyman Wilbur, 1875-1949, Edgar Eugene Robinson 

and Paul Carroll Edwards, eds. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960), 426.

15. J. Lee Brown, Memorandum for Mr. Alexander, “Boulder Canyon National Reservation,” 

September 1, 1934, File: 0-35, Proposed Parks: Boulder Canyon National Reservation, Part 3, box 

2856, NRA-LM, General, Entry 7, CCF 1933-1949, RG 79, NACP.

16. Elwood Mead and Horace M. Albright, Memorandum to the Secretary, February 7, 1933, 

Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National Park Service, through August 1936,” Entry 

7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

17. Ernest Walker Sawyer, Memorandum to Secretary Wilbur, December 7, 1929, File 0-35, 

Boulder Canyon, Special Commission on Operation of Recreational Area, Part 1, June 30, 1914, to 

July 31, 1930, box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP; Ernest Walker Sawyer, 

Memorandum to Secretary Wilbur, March 3, 1931, Virgin National Park (Proposed) File, box 628, 

NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

18. Horace M. Albright, “Tentative Report on the Proposed Virgin National Park. NevadaArizona-Utah,” January 6, 1930, File No. 0-35, Boulder Canyon, Part One—Boulder Canyon: Special 

Commission on Operation of Recreational Area, June 30, 1914, to July 31, 1930, box 628, NRA-LM, 

Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

19. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Memorandum for Mr. Albright, 14 March 1930, 0-35, Boulder Canyon: 

Special Commission on Operation of Recreational Area, June 30, 1914, to July 31, 1930, box 628, 

NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, May 6, 1930, Colorado River, 

File 400.11, “Reservation of Lands, 1930-June 1940,” Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR; Ise, 

369.

21. “Great Lake Would Open New Scenes,” Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1930, E5.
491

22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, May 6, 1930, Colorado River, 

File 400.11, “Reservation of Lands, 1930-June 1940,” Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

23. Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd ed., (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 

University Press, 1982), 180; Sellars, 40.

24. Runte, 108; Robert W. Righter, The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most 

Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 

2005), 196-8.

25. Sellars, 138.

26. H. Duane Hampton, “Opposition to National Parks,” Journal of Forest History 25 (January 

1981): 42.

27. M. R. Tillotson to the Director, December 10, 1931, Virgin National Park (Proposed) File, 

box 628, NRA-LM , Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

28. Conrad Wirth, Memorandum for the Director, October 6, 1931, Virgin National Park 

(Proposed) File, box 628 NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

29. Wallace R. Atwood, Memorandum for Dr. Bryant, October 31, 1931, Virgin National Park 

(Proposed) File, box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

30. Harold C. Bryant to the Director, October 31, 1931; Virgin National Park (Proposed) File, 

box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

31. “An Act to Establish a National Park Service, and for Other Purposes,” August 25, 1916, 

39 Stat. 535, in Lary M. Dilsaver, ed., America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents

(Lanham, Maryland.: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 1994), 46-7.

32. Franklin K. Lane to Stephen T. Mather, May 13, 1918, in Dilsaver, 48.

33. Sellars, 94.

34. “Balzar Charts Nevada’s Path,” Los Angeles Times, January 21, 1931, 6.

35. M. R. Tillotson to the Director, December 10, 1931; Virgin National Park (Proposed) File, 

box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

36. M. R. Tillotson to Roger W. Toll, February 25, 1932, Arizona— Boulder Dam fi le, Entry 20, 

Records of Roger W. Toll, 1928-1936, RG 79, NACP.

37. Legislature of the State of Utah, H.J.M. 1, “Memorial to the Congress of the United States 

Protesting Against the Withdrawal from Entry and Against Preventing Grazing on Public Lands in 

Northwestern Arizona,” March 9, 1931, Virgin National Park (Proposed) File, box 628, NRA-LM, 

Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

38. Horace M. Albright and Robert Cahn, The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding 

Years, 1913-1933 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Howe Brothers, 1985), 117. NPS Director Conrad Wirth 

described Cramton as “perhaps as much a Park Service man as he was a member of Congress.” 

Conrad Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), 30. 

39. Stevens, 146.

40. Louis C. Cramton, Memorandum for the Secretary, “Park and Recreational Treatment of the 

Colorado River Area from the Grand Canyon to the Hoover Dam, including the Hoover Reservoir 

Area,” June 28, 1932, File 0-35, Proposed Parks, Boulder Canyon National Reservation, 1932, box 

628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. In 1975, Congress expanded Grand Canyon National Park to incorporate the 1932 Grand 

Canyon National Monument. National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 2005), 21; David Harmon, Francis P. 

McManamon, and Dwight T. Pitcaithley, eds., The Antiquities Act: A Century of American 

Archaeology, Historic Preservation, and Nature Conservation (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 

2006), 292.

46. Louis C. Cramton, Memorandum for the Secretary, “Park and Recreational Treatment of 

the Colorado River from the Grand Canyon National Park to Hoover Dam, including the Hoover 

Reservoir Area,” November 21, 1932, File 0-35, Proposed Parks, Boulder Canyon National 

Reservation, 1932, box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-1932, RG 79, NACP.
492

47. Louis C. Cramton, Memorandum for the Secretary, November 21, 1932.

48. Elwood Mead and Horace M. Albright, Memorandum to the Secretary, February 7, 1933, 

Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National Park Service, through August 1936,” box 

229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

49. Ibid.

50. Louis C. Cramton, Memorandum for the Secretary, December 22, 1932. File: “H.R. 14662 

(S. 5637) Boulder Dam, 72nd Congress, 2nd Session, 1932,” box 628, NRA-LM, Entry 7, CCF 1907-

1932, RG 79, NACP.

51. “Vast Play Area Sought In Bills,” Los Angeles Times, February 15, 1933, 6; U.S. Congress, 

House of Representatives, 72nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.R. 14662, “A Bill for the establishment, 

development, and administration of the Boulder Canyon National Reservation, and the development 

and administration of the Boulder Canyon Project Federal Reservation, and for other purposes,” 

February 14, 1933. S. 5637 was the Senate companion bill.

52. Ray Lyman Wilbur to Gerald Nye, February 15, 1933, Colorado River, File 400.11, 

“Reservation of Lands, 1930-June 1940,” box 340, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

53. U.S. Congress, Senate, Boulder Canyon National Reservation: Hearing Before a 

Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys on S. 5637, 72nd Cong., 2nd sess., 

February 24, 1933, 42-3.

54. Walter L. Huber to Horace M. Albright, March 8, 1933, File: 0-35, Proposed Parks: Boulder 

Canyon National Reservation, Part 3, box 2856, NRA-LM, General, Entry 7, CCF 1933-1949, RG 

79, NACP; John C. Miles, Guardians of the Parks: A History of the National Parks and Conservation 

Association (Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis in cooperation with the National Parks and 

Conservation Association, 1995), 135-6.

55. The Boulder Canyon National Reservation legislation also contained some administrative 

housekeeping language regarding the Bureau of Reclamation’s federal reservation at Boulder 

City and the construction site. Oddie’s opposition stemmed from an ongoing dispute between the 

Department of the Interior and the State of Nevada over the power to tax property and enforce 

state laws in the area under the bureau’s control. He did not make any particular argument against 

the recreation reservation itself, other than to say the proposed legislation “assembles a number of 

problems, the solutions of which should be made entirely separate and the subjects of separate bills.” 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Boulder Canyon National Reservation: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the 

Committee on Public Lands and Surveys on S. 5637, 72d Cong., 2nd sess., February 24, 1933, 13.

56. Sutter, 136.

57. Ibid.

58. Sellars, 94.

59. Harlan D. Unrau and G. Frank Williss, Administrative History: Expansion of the National 

Park Service in the 1930s (Denver: National Park Service, 1983), 129-60.

60. Elwood Mead and Arno B. Cammerer, Memorandum for the Secretary, January 16, 1935, 

Colorado River, File 400.11, “Reservation of Lands, 1930-June 1940,” box 340, Entry 7, WO-PCF, 

RG 115, NARA-RMR.

61. Wesley R. Nelson, “Boulder Canyon Reservoir,” The Reclamation Era 25 (September 

1935): 180.

62. “Important Dates in the History of Boulder Dam,” The Reclamation Era 26 (April 1936): 

84; Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 4, The

Court Disapproves, 1935 (New York: Russell and Russell, 1969), 399.

63. The UPRR offered excursion fares from Los Angeles to Boulder Dam for $11.62. 

Passengers traveling between Los Angeles and Chicago could add a Boulder Dam side-trip to their 

ticket for 55 cents. Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1935, 10.

64. Western Air Express-United Air Lines advertisements, Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1935, 

A14; Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1936, 12.

65. Elwood Mead to Harold L. Ickes, May 6, 1935, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National 

Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, Washington Offi ce, Project Correspondence 

File, 1930-1945, Colorado River, RG 115, NARA-RMR; “Park Service to Assist at Lake Mead,” The

Reclamation Era 26 (March 1936): 65.
493

66. Ibid.; Harold L. Ickes to Sen. Alva B. Adams, March 6, 1939, File 0-35, Boulder Dam, 

History & Legislation, Part 1, box 2856, National Recreation Areas, Lake Mead, General, Entry 7, 

CCF 1933-1939, RG 79, NACP; Nelson, 180.

67. Nelson, 180; Construction Engineer to Chief Engineer, June 28, 1935, Colorado River, File 

131.24, “Cooperation with National Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, 

RG 115, NARA-RMR. For a description of the tough-minded Ely, see Stevens, 142-58.

68. Elwood Mead to Harold L. Ickes, July 13, 1935, Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation 

with National Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARARMR.

69. John C. Page to Elwood Mead, July 12, 1935, Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation 

with National Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARARMR.

70. Thomas W. Miller, “Narrative Report for the Month of March, 1934,” Boulder Dam State 

Park Camp #1, Overton, Nevada, April 1, 1934, Folder “SP2 Cathedral Gorge Camp, Nevada,” box 

94, Nebraska SP-5 to Nevada SP-4, Entry 41, Reports on CCC Projects in State and Local Parks, 

1933-37, RG 79, NACP; Thomas W. Miller, “Narrative Report for the Months of June & July 1935,” 

Folder “SP1 Boulder Dam—Overton, Nevada,” box 94, Entry 41, RG 79, NACP.

71. C. M. Bailey, “Narrative Report of CCC Accomplishments, Sixth Period,” n.d., Folder 

“SP-6 Nevada—Boulder City Camp,” box 95, Nevada SP-5 to New Jersey SP-4, Entry 41, RG 79, 

NACP.

72. Dennis McBride, Hard Work and Far From Home: The Civilian Conservation Corps at 

Lake Mead, Nevada (Boulder City, Nevada: Boulder Images, 1995), 20, 21, 25. 

73. Unrau and Williss, 154.

74. Frederic L. Kirgis, George A. Moskey, and Mae A. Schnurr, Memorandum for UnderSecretary West, September 1, 1936, Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National Park 

Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid.

80. “Memorandum of Agreement between the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Reclamation, Relating to the Development and Administration of the Boulder Canyon Project Area,” 

October 13, 1936, Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National Park Service, through 

August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. “ Boulder Dam a Tourist Mecca,” The Reclamation Era 26 (August 1936): 184-5; “Park 

Service to Assist at Lake Mead,” The Reclamation Era 26 (March 1936): 65.

84. Arno B. Cammerer, “Building a Playground at Boulder Dam,” The Reclamation Era 28 

(November 1938): 222-4.

85. Conrad L. Wirth, “Report on the Proposed Boulder Dam Project Area, Nevada and Arizona, 

Master Planning Principles and Objectives,” May 1, 1936, Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation 

with National Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARARMR.

86. Ise, 369.

87. John C. Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-1942: 

An Administrative History (Denver: National Park Service, 1985), Appendix C.

88. McBride, 30-3.

89. “Memorandum of Agreement between the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Biological Survey Relating to the Development and Administration of the Boulder Canyon Wildlife 

Refuge,” March 31, 1937, box 2855 National Recreation Areas, Lake Mead, General, Entry 7, CCF 

1933-1939, RG 79, NACP.

90. “Just What is the Plan?” Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal, January 30, 1936; “Vegas 

Group on Record Against New Proposal,” Las Vegas Evening Review-Journal, April 18, 1939.
494

91. Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume II: The Inside Struggle, 

1936-1939 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), 580-1, 588, 693.

92. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Veto Message of August 10, 1939,” File 120–Legislation, 

“Correspondence relating to national parks, national monuments, and national recreation areas, 

1927-1953,” box 81, Southwest Regional Offi ce Subject Files, RG 79, NARA-RMR.

93. Arthur E. Demaray to Guy D. Edwards, March 22, 1939, Colorado River, File 400.11, 

“Reservation of Lands, 1930-June 1940,” box 340, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

94. National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007, 61.

95. “Modifi cation of Memorandum of Agreement Between the National Park Service and the 

 Bureau of Reclamation Relating to the Development and Administration of the Boulder Canyon 

Project Area,” July 18, 1947, fi le 201-15, “Recreation Area Policy,” Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area Subject Files, 1936-1969, box 4, RG 79, NARA-Pacifi c Southwest Region, Laguna Niguel, 

California (hereafter RG 79, NARA-PSWR); National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 

2005-2007, 61.

96. John Page to Arno Cammerer, n.d., Colorado River, File 131.24, “Cooperation with National 

Park Service, through August 1936,” box 229, Entry 7, WO-PCF, RG 115, NARA-RMR.

97. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Survey of the Recreational 

Resources of the Colorado River Basin (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1950); 

Susan Rhoades Neel, “Newton Drury and the Echo Park Dam Controversy,” Journal of Forest and 

Conservation History 38 (April 1994): 58.

98. For the Echo Park/Dinosaur National Monument controversy, see Susan Rhoades Neel, 

“Irreconcilable Differences: Reclamation, Preservation, and the Origins of the Echo Park Dam 

Controversy,” Ph.D. dissertation, (Los Angeles: University of California, 1990) and Mark W. T. 

Harvey, Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation Movement (Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 1994). For the battle over Grand Canyon and the Bridge Canyon 

and Marble Canyon dams, see Byron E. Pearson, Still the Wild River Runs: Congress, the Sierra 

Club, and the Fight to Save Grand Canyon (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2002).

99. National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007, 83.

100. Based on the success of its partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park 

Service also entered into partnerships with other federal water resources agencies. An agreement 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created Lake Texoma Recreation Area (1946-49) on the 

Texas-Oklahoma border. An agreement with the International Boundary and Water Commission 

created Amistad National Recreation Area (1965) on the Rio Grande, in Texas. Barry Mackintosh, 

“Former National Park System Units: An Analysis,” 1995, http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/

NPSHistory/formerparks.htm; National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007, 32, 81, 

83, 90.

101. Shankland, 307.

102. Ise, 468; Barry Mackintosh, “Former National Park System Units: An Analysis,” 1995, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/formerparks.htm; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Cultural Resources, Wyoming, Lake Guernsey, http://www.usbr.gov/cultural/wyoming.html; File 

0-41, “Agreement Re: Cachuma Reservoir,” and “Friant and Shasta Dams,” Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area Subject Files, 1936-1969, box 1, RG 79, NARA-PSWR.

103. Recreation Advisory Council, “Federal Executive Branch Policy Governing the Selection, 

Establishment, and Administration of National Recreation Areas,” Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963, in 

Dilsaver, ed., 263-7.

104. National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007, 61.

105. Total area of Lake Mead NRA is 1,495,664 acres. The unit received 8,103,610 visitors in 

2004. National Park Service, Statistical Abstract 2004, http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/abst2004.

pdf.
495

Hydroelectric Power From Eklutna: Reclamation 

Efforts to Develop Southcentral Alaska During the 

Cold War Era

By:

John W. Heaton 

and Claus-M. Naske

 Congress charged the Bureau of Reclamation in the Newlands Act,1

 of 

1902 with administering a perpetual fund designed to reclaim arid lands for 

western farmers to keep the Jeffersonian dream of an agrarian society alive in the 

twentieth century. By all accounts, the efforts of the Bureau have been largely 

responsible for the development of much of the West’s water resources during 

the twentieth century to provide the foundation not only for agriculture in the 

region but also the infrastructure for a diversifi ed modern economy. Historians 

have examined the role of this government agency in providing irrigation water, 

hydroelectric power, fl ood control, navigation, and recreation for the benefi t of 

the public. More recently, scholars have emphasized either the environmental 

impact of dams or the role the Bureau played in expanding the infl uence of 

the federal government in the West over the last century. The Eklutna Project, 

thirty-four miles north of Anchorage, Alaska, offers an interesting case study 

in Bureau of Reclamation history because it was not implemented as part of a 

water resource management plan, and the federal government never intended 

to maintain permanent control of the facilities. Indeed, there was never a need 

to reclaim arid Alaska lands, and reclamation laws were not extended into the 

territory. Alaskan territorial offi cials, at the height of the Cold War, succeeded in 

convincing the federal government of the need for a cheap and dependable supply 

of electric power to facilitate the development of a remote, but strategically 

important, region of the nation. The Bureau of Reclamation planned and funded 

this technically challenging project and eventually turned it over to local public 

utilities.

 Hydroelectric power is not new in Alaska. In the 1930s, although the state 

was still thinly populated and little changed in some respects since the days of the 

gold rush, larger Alaskan settlements nevertheless enjoyed many of the amenities 

of modern living. They had phone service, water systems, and electricity. 

Most communities generated power from coal or oil, but occasionally small 

hydroelectric power plants were used. One such installation was built by private 

interests in 1929 at the mouth of Eklutna Lake, some 24 miles northeast 

of Anchorage. The seven-mile-long and one-mile-wide Eklutna Lake, 

(elevation 868 feet) lies in a steep-sided, trough-like valley some 23 miles long. 

It is headed by a glacier and a snowfi eld. The lake overfl owed into Eklutna Creek 

below the rock dam, which had been built to provide a water supply for the small 

power plant near Eklutna Village, about 8 miles downstream from the dam.
496

 The initial structure was not overly successful because when the water 

level rose four to fi ve feet above its natural barrier, the slightest leak allowed the 

water to escape. To remedy the situation, wood pilings were driven across the 

mouth of the overfl ow channel, permitting the storage of water to a depth of three 

to four feet above the natural lake level. In the fall of 1934 contractors built an 

earth-and rock-fi ll structure which incorporated portions of the original dam. It 

provided a more stable water supply which ensured more dependable generation 

of electricity. In 1943 the city of Anchorage purchased the dam from the private 

owner, but it grew increasingly clear that the project could not meet the demands 

of a growing region.2

 The crisis in the availability of electric power hampered attempts to 

develop southcentral Alaska and increased in proportion to rising populations 

beginning in the 1930s. World War II, of course, brought an infl ux of people to 

Alaska, particularly to Fairbanks and Anchorage where military construction 

activities offered employment. But even before the outbreak of war, the 

population of southcentral Alaska had been rising mainly due to a federal railroad 

project in the region. Anchorage became the headquarters for these operations 

in 1914. With completion of the railroad in the early 1920s, which included 

numerous maintenance facilities and offi ces in Anchorage, many of the workers 

chose to remain in Alaska. In the 1930s, the widespread economic fallout of 

the Great Depression in “the states” helped to develop the agricultural potential 

of lands north of Anchorage. A government program brought 200 families, 

displaced by drought conditions in the Midwest, to the Matanuska Valley. With 

the outbreak of World War II, as the government increasingly recognized the 

strategic importance of Alaska, men and government resources poured into the 

territory in unprecedented amounts which helped to boost the population of 

Anchorage by 500 percent between 1939 and 1945. Housing, never abundant, 

became extremely diffi cult to fi nd. Moreover, services could not keep up with 

increasing demands during these years of initial growth and development. By 

1945 the demand for power exceeded supply.3

 Anchorage Power and Light urgently searched for additional sources of 

electricity which led it to use diesel generators and even the boiler and generating 

equipment of a wrecked ship (the Sacket’s Harbor). Alaska’s man in Washington, 

territorial delegate E. L. Bartlett, attempted to respond to calls for help from 

many Alaskan towns.4

 The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945, had provided 

for preliminary examination and surveys of Cook Inlet to improve navigation, 

develop hydroelectric power, and provide harbor facilities. A spokesman for 

the Corps of Engineers advised Bartlett to introduce legislation which would 

authorize the construction of a hydroelectric plant at Eklutna.5

 Representative Ben F. Jensen (R, Iowa), chairman of the House Interior 

Department Appropriation Subcommittee, became interested in Alaskan 

development and was largely responsible for making $150,000 available for 

an investigation of the territory’s power resources. An Alaska Investigations 
497

Offi ce was established and under the able leadership of Joseph M. Morgan 

and his colleagues, an exhaustive investigation of Eklutna and other potential 

hydroelectric sites was made. The investigation determined that, as of 1949, 

the utility system serving the Anchorage area and the Matanuska Valley had a 

production capacity of only 8,625 kilowatts—far short of actual needs. Total 

Alaskan generating capacity from private plants amounted to 35,931 kilowatts 

and from public plants amounted to 19,440 kilowatts, for a grand territorial total 

of 55,371 kilowatts, woefully inadequate for Alaskan needs. Delegate Bartlett 

asserted in Congress that federal policy had actively and long supported the 

development of water resources in the West, while not “a thin dime” had been 

put into Alaskan water power development. He argued that a “start should be 

made now” because plentiful power was a prime necessity for “a self-suffi cient 

economy,” which, in turn, “was essential for national defense.”6

20.1. Map of Eklutna Project. Map from the 1961 Reclamation Project Data book.
498

 In 1949, the House Public Lands Committee favorably reported a bill 

which called for the immediate construction of the Eklutna project at a cost of 

$21,500,000. The Bureau of the Budget gave its approval with the reservation 

that Federal Reclamation laws were not to be extended to the territory, nor were 

recreational facilities to be developed along with the project.7

 The proposed Eklutna facility would replace the old earthen log structure 

and consist of a low dam raising the level of the lake by two feet, a four-and-onehalf-mile tunnel leading from the lake through a mountain to the north, a penstock 

of 1,250 feet and, at the base of the mountain, a power plant of 30,000 kilowatt 

capacity. Transmission lines would carry the electricity to the Matanuska Valley 

and to Anchorage. Not until September 22, 1950, did the Bureau of Reclamation 

offi cially announce that initial plans and specifi cations were being expedited 

along with a $1.1 million appropriation to enable construction bids to be received 

as soon as possible.8

 By February of 1951 the drilling contractor was employing shifts of 

workers, seven days a week. In the planning stage were 12 permanent homes 

for employees at the power plant as well as two 10-car garages, a warehouse 

and water works, roads, general utilities and a 115,000 volt transmission line 

to Palmer. Palmer Constructor of Omaha, Nebraska, a three-fi rm organization 

including Peter Kiewit Sons, Coker Construction Co., and Morrison-Knudsen Co. 

had won the bid for building the four-mile long, nine-foot diameter, transmountain 

water diversion tunnel and other facilities at Eklutna for $17,348,865. The bid 

called for completion of the project within 1,050 days. It was soon apparent, 

however, that the cost of the project had been underestimated. Bartlett was 

naturally perturbed when several House Committee members advocated 

the project’s abandonment and he pressed for money to complete Eklutna. 

Certainly, abandonment would have been an extremely effective demonstration 

of Congressional displeasure at the cost overrun, but would have meant that 

the $11,729,000 already expended would have been wasted, as Goodrich W. 

Lineweaver, Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, pointed out.9

 On April 2, 1953, after a year’s delay and much political maneuvering, 

the Territories Subcommittee of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee 

debated the Bartlett bill and made a number of recommendations. These were 

that the cost increase be limited to $30,000,000; that the annual operation and 

maintenance expenditures be restricted to $120,000; that electricity be sold at 

no less that 11.5 mills; and that the Department of the Interior negotiate with the 

city of Anchorage for the purchase of existing hydroelectric facilities and water 

rights at no more than the original costs minus a reasonable depreciation. Until 

these stipulations were met, and the Department of the Interior had negotiated 

with Anchorage, the full House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs would 

not take up the matter. After still more debate and the adoption of a number of 

amendments, among them a cost ceiling of $33,000,000 plus “such sums as may 
499

be necessary for the operation and maintenance of the project,” the full House 

fi nally passed the Bartlett measure on July 30, 1953.10

 At the Alaskan general election of October 6, 1953, Anchorage voters 

approved an agreement between the city and the Department of the Interior that 

stated that as soon as power went on line at Eklutna, Anchorage was to transfer 

the site of its original hydroplant, together with its water rights at Eklutna, to the 

Department. In return, Anchorage was to receive some 16,000,000 kilowatts 

of fi rm power from Eklutna with monthly credits on the city’s electric bill to 

be given until October 12, 1978, the date on which the license from the Federal 

Power Commission expired. Eklutna power for Anchorage became a reality when 

the fi rst 15,000 kilowatt unit went on line in January 1955, and the second in 

March of the same year. The total project had cost $30,521,183, approximately 

$2,500,000 less than the amount Congress had fi nally authorized.11

 Alaska 

offi cially entered 

the union as the 

49th state on 

January 3, 1959, 

and by then it 

had become clear 

that with the 

rapid growth of 

the Anchorage 

metropolitan

area, power 

demand again 

far outstripped 

available

generating

capacity. Bartlett, 

now the senior 

U.S. Senator 

from Alaska, 

introduced a bill which enabled the Bureau of Reclamation to accept from 

Anchorage whatever monies were necessary to raise the dam at Eklutna to convert 

20,000,000 kWh annual dump power to fi rm power. At hearings held in May 

1960 the small rural electric cooperative associations in southcentral Alaska 

opposed the Bartlett measure because it allowed Anchorage to purchase extra 

power at a discount rate at the expense of other consumers of Eklutna power. The 

Bartlett bill subsequently died.12

 On March 27, 1964, at 5:36 p.m., an earthquake, registering 8.5 on the 

Richter scale, shook southcentral Alaska and devastated several communities. 

Eklutna suffered much damage to its power plant. As soon as possible after the 

20.2. Eklutna Powerplant. Photo from the 1961 Reclamation

Project Data book.
500

earthquake, the Bureau of Reclamation performed temporary repairs to restore 

the power plant and pressure tunnel to normal operation and ensure an adequate 

supply of water. On September 16, 1964, Senator Bartlett submitted a measure on 

behalf of Senator Ernest Gruening (D, Alaska) and himself which provided that 

any repair money spent on Eklutna would not be reimbursable from its revenues.

The Senator reintroduced the measure in 1965, and the Department of the Interior 

reported on it favorably in April 1966. But the Bureau of Reclamation had since 

been forced to construct a new dam—for $121,000 more than the estimated repair 

costs of the old one. Bartlett asked that the $121,000 be reimbursable while 

the estimated repair costs be absorbed by the federal government. His measure 

was signed into law on September 26, 1968, saving Eklutna’s power customers 

$2,805,437.13

 The new dam, an earth and rockfi ll structure 815 feet long and 51 feet 

high constructed downstream from the damaged complex, was fi nished well 

ahead of schedule on November 15, 1965. Beginning in 1967 the Alaska Power 

Administration (APA), a federal agency the Department of the Interior had 

created, took over operation and maintenance of the facility, a responsibility it 

maintained until 1995.14

 During these decades APA operated and marketed the power from two 

federal hydro projects in Alaska, including Eklutna and Snettisham (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers), a project in southeast Alaska which served the Juneau 

region. The APA was one of fi ve Power Marketing Administrations through 

which the federal government marketed power from over one hundred hydro 

projects developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers throughout the United States. The government built these structures 

for fl ood control, navigation, irrigation, and recreation. However, the projects 

administered by the APA were different in that they were not designed originally 

as water resource management facilities, nor, according to a recent Department of 

Energy report, were they conceived as projects that the federal government would 

permanently control. Instead, the government built Eklutna (and Snettisham) to 

“encourage and promote economic development and to foster the establishment of 

essential Industries in Alaska.”15

 By the 1980s Alaska’s congressional delegation considered this mission 

fulfi lled and raised the question of divestiture, and the DOE concurred. The APArun Eklutna project by this time provided only about 5 percent—47 megawatts—

of the power for its market area. The proposal garnered widespread support, 

and in 1997 three local public utilities, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, 

Matanuska Electric Association, and Chugach Electric Association assumed 

ownership and control of 53%, 17%, and 30% respectively of the Eklutna 

project. The sale of APA assets in Alaska transferred about $80 million to the 

U.S. Treasury, about 95% of the value in interest and payments the government 

would have received in lieu of the transfer. Although, as critics of the agreement 

charged, the government could have received more in an open-market deal, it did 
501

remove administrative costs of management, operation, and repair at the facilities, 

as well as responsibility for damage by potential earthquakes in the future.

Moreover, it preserved the original mission of Eklutna by preserving low rates 

to the region’s power users because consumers would have borne the costs of a 

market-based divestiture.16

 At the beginning of a new century the Eklutna Project, once held out as 

a Bureau of Reclamation effort to help power the development of an emerging 

territorial economy and key component of the nation’s strategic defense, now 

serves as a small cog in a much larger regional energy system. With the Eklutna 

Project, the Bureau of Reclamation played a key role—one unique in the Bureau’s 

history—in providing the power for the emergence of a modern Alaska. Once 

the local southcentral population and economy reached critical mass, it was 

able to generate funds locally to build on the foundation provided by the federal 

government and to eventually assume control of this source of power.

John W. Heaton is chair of the history department at the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks. He has published The Shoshone-Bannocks: Commerce and 

Culture at Fort Hall, 1870-1940. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 

2005. Claus-M. Naske was a member of the University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Department of History from 1961-2001 and the director of the University of 

Alaska Press, 1988-2004. He has published Ernest Gruening: Alaska’s Greatest 

Governor; Paving Alaska’s Trails; and A History of Alaska Statehood. He 

co-authored, with Herman Slotnick, Alaska: A History of the 49th State; and,

with Edward Lewis “Bob” Bartlett of Alaska: A Life of Politics.

Endnotes

1. “Newlands Act” is a name often used by historians to refer to the Reclamation Act of 

June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388.

2. House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, 1st Session, House Document 187, Alaska:

Reconnaissance Report on the Potential Development of Water Resources in the Territory of 

Alaska, Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, D.C., 1952, p. 156. Also, extracts from 

Rehabilitation of Eklutna Project Following 1964 Earthquake, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, June 1967, in E. L. Bartlett’s Papers, 90th Congress, 

Legislative Bill File, Rehabilitation of Eklutna Project, Box 4 224, 1967-68.

3. Wm. Joe Simonds, “The Eklutna Project,” unpublished manuscript,

 http://borworld.usbr.gov/history/eklutna.htm

4. E. L. Bartlett Papers, 81st Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 2, File H.R. 940, Eklutna 

Hydro Power, 1949-50; E. L. B. to Bob Lindquist, 3 December 1945; Bob Lindquist to E.L.B. 

5 December 1945.

5. Conrad P. Hardy, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, to Charles A. Wilson, Anchorage Public 

Utilities, 16 April 1946, E.L.B. Papers, 81st Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 2, File H.R. 940, 

Eklutna Hydro Power, 1949-50.

6. E. L. B. in support of H.R. 940, Box 2, Eklutna Hydro Power, week of 

11 July 1948.

7. E. L. B. to Robert Atwood, E. L. B. Papers, 81st Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 2 

Eklutna Power Project, 14 June 1949.

8. E. L. B. in support of H.R. 940, E. L. B. Papers, 81st Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 

2, Eklutna Power Project, 11 July 1949.

9. Joseph M. Morgan to E. L. B., 9 February 1951; Bureau of Reclamation News Release, 

E. L. B. Papers, 81st Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 2, Eklutna Power Project, 

20 September 1951.
502

10. E. L. B. to George C. Shannon, 2 April 1953, E. L. B. Papers, 

83rd Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 1, Eklutna Power Project, 1953-54.

11. Bureau of Reclamation News Release, 2 December 1953, E. L. B. Papers, 83rd Congress, 

Legislative Bill File, Box 1, Eklutna Power Project, 1953-54.

12. E. L. B. Papers, 86th Congress, Legislative Bill File, Box 9, S 3222, Eklutna Power 

Project, 1959-60.

13. Rehabilitation of Eklutna Project Following 1964 Earthquake, U.S. Department of the 

Interior.

14. Ibid.

15. Department of Energy, “DOE08: Support the Sale of the Alaska Power Administration,” 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/

16. Ibid.; M.E.A. News, “MEA, other utilities purchase Eklutna power plant,” 

http://matanuska.com/News41.html
503

The Central Valley Project: Controversies 

Surrounding Reclamation’s Largest Project

By:

Eric A. Stene

Abstract

 The Central Valley Project differed from many Bureau of Reclamation 

projects because it began as a state project in an already agriculturally developed 

region of California. The Central Valley Project (CVP) was a multipurpose 

project intended to provide irrigation water to farmland, electrical power for 

large populations, and fl ood control protection for the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta and low-lying areas near the Sacramento River. It was intended for the 

CVP to accomplish these tasks with a combination of dams, pumping and 

pumping-generating plants, off-stream reservoirs, and canals. The successes of 

the CVP came at a cost of controversy about the acreage limitations declared 

in the Reclamation Act of 1902, environmental concerns, and incomplete 

structures. This paper will look at the debates surrounding the acreage 

limitations and the environmental disasters which occurred as a result of CVP 

construction.

 The history of the Central Valley Project is the story of evolution 

from a state water project to a Reclamation project. Politics and competition 

for the project stirred between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps 

of Engineers. Information about the battle over acreage restrictions will be 

gathered from interviews conducted in the late 1940s, at the request of the 

Bureau of Reclamation; Reclamation’s project histories about the Central Valley 

Project; the laws enacted to confront the issue of acreage limitations; and books 

concerning the Central Valley Project. Proponents and opponents of acreage 

limitations argued for and against the policy as Reclamation attempted to resolve 

the controversy surrounding the issue which continued for decades.

 A more recent, but often more emotional issue surrounding the 

CVP, was the project’s effect on the environment. Environmental advocates 

frequently castigated the CVP facilities’ effect on the environment. The 

environmentalist view confl icted with those whose views tended toward the 

improvement of agriculture, fl ood control, and electrical power for the human 

population. As perceptions and priorities changed, so did Reclamation’s policies 

and operations as the Bureau worked to halt damage to the environment while 

continuing operation of the CVP.

 The Central Valley Project was hardly an unqualifi ed success. 

However, the CVP accomplished many of Reclamation’s goals regarding fl ood 

control and agriculture. In the process, the natural environment was severely 

damaged, possibly irreparably so. Politics tended to dictate Reclamation’s 

activities and responses. This had a direct impact on Reclamation’s success or 

lack thereof in its efforts.

 The Central Valley Project began as the crown jewel for the Bureau of 

Reclamation. It became a complex Gargantua of technology and controversy. 

As the project grew in size and scope, the debate expanded as perspectives 
504

and priorities changed. The Central Valley Project became a complex of water 

projects as Reclamation and the state of California assumed the posture of 

campaign managers and attempted to make the project all things to all people.

The Project accomplished many of the goals set forth by Reclamation and 

California, but fell short of others as expectations exceeded abilities. Arguments 

ranging from acreage limitations to environmental damage plagued the project 

from its beginning. Many of those arguments still have not been resolved, and, 

depending on each person’s perspective, the project is everything from a savior 

of the arid agricultural lands of the Central Valley and a fl ood control success to 

corporate welfare and environmental Armageddon for California.

 The Central Valley Project encompasses a large section of California. It 

is approximately 450 miles long and from forty to seventy miles wide. The warm 

climate encourages agriculture, but runoff comes in uneven quantities.1

 The 

 Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern 

California’s precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the 

land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two-thirds to three-quarters 

of northern California’s land, but only collects one-third to one-quarter of the 

precipitation. The Sacramento Valley suffers from fl oods, and fl oods and droughts 

alternately affl ict the San Joaquin Valley.2

 As early as the 1870s plans appeared to transfer excess water from the 

Sacramento River to the often parched tracts in the San Joaquin Valley, but most 

early efforts concentrated on fl ood control along the Sacramento River. After 

years of planning and debate about the proposed project led nowhere, California 

appealed to the Federal government for assistance. The Bureau of Reclamation 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) vied for the opportunity to 

construct the facilities on the colossal project, which came to be called the Central 

Valley Project.3

History and Construction

 California’s history encompasses several hundred years of habitation by 

various groups of Native Americans. European settlement of the state began with 

the Spanish in the seventeenth century. The Spanish established Roman Catholic 

missions and other settlements along the California coast, but they rarely ventured 

to the interior of the territory. Citizens of the United States began immigrating 

into California in the 1840s. Increasing migratory pressure by settlers on many 

north Mexican provinces and political machinations by the United States sparked 

the Mexican-American War in 1846. The United States defeated Mexico in 

1848, and the resulting Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo gave Mexico’s northern 

states, including California, to the United States for $10 million. The acquisition 

of California alone brought the United States riches the country did not know 

existed, and more problems to go along with them.4
505

 The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848 brought a fl ood of 

Americans into the area, and in 1850 California became a state. The fi rst 

California Legislature in 1850, immediately enacted laws to deal with the state’s 

most precious resource, not gold, but water. The California Legislature adopted 

English Common Law’s riparian water rights. According to that law, owners of 

land bordering streams or bodies of water had a right to a reasonable amount of 

that water. Owners, whose land did not border bodies of water, had no rights to 

any of the water.5

 The laws severely restricted the number of landholders who 

had access to California’s water supply.

 The 1850 California Legislature gave the State Surveyor General 

responsibility for water development. In 1878 the California government created 

the offi ce of the State Engineer, which then became responsible for state water 

planning. William Hamilton Hall, the fi rst State Engineer, conducted a broad 

study of California’s water problems, on a $100,000 budget. Hall planned to 

appropriate more money and conduct a more detailed study, but for unspecifi ed 

reasons the legislature abolished the State Engineer position in 1889.6

 The California Legislature passed the Wright Act in 1887, forming 

irrigation districts. One Reclamation offi cial considered the Wright Act a model 

for irrigation legislation in the West.7 Others claimed it was a good idea, but 

badly implemented. The districts encountered problems in selling their bonds, 

fi lling their reservoirs, and allocating water in 

a fair manner. Wyoming State Engineer, and 

future Reclamation Commissioner, Elwood 

Mead declared the Wright Act, “a disgrace 

to any self-governing people.”8 California 

amended the Wright Act in 1897, stopping 

the establishment of irrigation districts until 

the formation of the Irrigation Districts Bond 

Certifi cation Commission.9

 The Federal government also became 

interested in California water during 

the nineteenth century. Lt. Colonel 

B. S. Alexander studied the Sacramento and 

San Joaquin Rivers in 1873. In a report 

to President Ulysses S. Grant, Alexander 

visualized a system of canals to complete 

an exchange of water from the Sacramento 

to the San Joaquin Valley. A report on 

the “Sacramento Project” in 1904, fi rst 

connected the U.S. Reclamation Service 

to water problems in the Central Valley, 

but that connection remained limited.

California created the State Reclamation 

21.1. B. S. Alexander, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Courtesy of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
506

Board in 1911 and authorized it to spend $33 million on a fl ood control project 

in the Central Valley. The Reclamation Service reported on the possibility of 

storing Sacramento River water at Iron Canyon near Red Bluff in the Sacramento 

Valley. In 1920 Homer J. Gault, a Reclamation engineer, and W. F. McClure, the 

California State Engineer, wrote another report on Sacramento River storage in 

Iron Canyon, but Reclamation involvement remained nonexistent.10

 In a 1919 letter to California Governor William Stephens, Colonel Robert 

Bradford Marshal, Chief Geographer for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

proposed a plan to build storage reservoirs along the Sacramento River system, 

and transfer water from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley via 

two large canals lying on both sides of the Sacramento River. The plan earned 

Marshal the nickname, “The Father of the Central Valley Project.”11

 California’s government became interested in a comprehensive water 

plan for the state in 1921. The state legislature directed the State Engineer to 

come up with such a plan. They wanted it to accomplish conservation, fl ood 

control, storage, distribution, and uses for all California water. The legislature 

directed the State Engineer to estimate total costs for the reservoirs, dams, and 

any other facilities needed to institute the state water plan. The legislature then 

appropriated $200,000 to investigate this state water plan and received the report 

in 1923. Further legislation and appropriations raised the bill to one million 

dollars. Between 1920 and 1932, approximately fourteen more reports detailed 

water fl ow, drought conditions, fl ood control, and irrigation issues in California. 

State Engineer Edward Hyatt used the reports to create the California State Water 

Plan.12

 Salinity control, especially in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River 

Delta, became a major concern for northern California water users, and a 

major component of the California State Water Project. The Delta frequently 

experienced salinity intrusion, which caused problems for Antioch and Pittsburg. 

Unless water fl owed past Antioch at a minimum of 3,300 second-feet, salt water 

from San Francisco Bay moved into Suisun Bay and the Delta during high tide, 

making the water unusable for crops and industry. Between 1919 and 1924 the 

salt water in Suisun Bay allowed suffi cient growth of teredo, a woodboring worm, 

to destroy wharves and pilings in the Bay valued at $25 million. In 1924, the 

water reached its lowest recorded stream fl ow. The maximum salt water content 

at Pittsburg reached 65 percent. In 1926 Pittsburg and Antioch stopped using 

water from Suisun Bay for crops and industry. Both communities had used the 

bay water since the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1930 the state water 

plan called for construction of a 420 foot dam at Kennett to maintain a regular 

fl ow to Antioch, keeping salt water out of Suisun Bay. The California Legislature 

authorized the future Central Valley Project as a state project in 1933. The act 

authorized the sale of “revenue” bonds not to exceed $170 million.13
507

 Even with the authorized revenue bonds, California found itself unable 

to fi nance the project. Further hampering revenue collection was the inability 

of the state to get the project approved for loans and grants under the National 

Recovery Act. Reporting to Reclamation on the upper San Joaquin Relief Project, 

Harry W. Bashore said that the State Engineer considered Kennett Reservoir 

the cornerstone for the entire Central Valley Project. California applied to the 

Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (FEA) for grants and loans, 

and created the Water Project Authority. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors 

of the House of Representatives recommended $12 million of Federal money 

for construction of Kennett (later Shasta) Dam because of the national benefi ts 

to navigation and fl ood control on the Sacramento River. After reviewing the 

investigations, the California Joint Federal-State Water Resources Commission, 

the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers approved and recommended the 

plan.14

 California amended its application to the FEA in 1934, and the Water 

Project Authority became effective. On September 10, 1935, President Franklin 

D. Roosevelt issued an executive allocation of $20 million under the Emergency 

Relief Appropriation Act, later reduced to $4.2 million, for construction of the 

Central Valley Project. Apparently offi cials assumed the approval was valid under 

the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, but the Supreme Court case of 

the United States vs. Arizona (295 U.S. 174) briefl y threatened that assumption. 

Before 1935 the government sometimes started irrigation projects using relief 

funds without conforming to the Reclamation Act, but the court’s decision said 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public 

Works did not have the authority to construct Parker Dam, on the Colorado River, 

without the consent of Congress. The Supreme court ruled that such an approach 

violated reclamation laws.15

 Technically, authorization of the Central Valley Project could not take 

place at the time because there were no executive branch fi ndings and approval 

of feasibility. The technical problems, however, did not stop authorization of the 

project. Active participation by 

Reclamation, in matters relating 

to the Central Valley started in 

September 1935 at meetings 

in Sacramento and Berkeley. 

Reclamation Commissioner 

Elwood Mead, Chief Engineer 

Ray Walter, Construction 

Engineer Walker R. Young, 

and State Engineer 

Edward Hyatt attended the 

meetings. Secretary of the 

Interior Harold Ickes sent the 

21.2. Shasta Dam, Powerplant, and Lake at the 

location originally proposed for Kennett Dam.
508

feasibility report to the President on November 26, 1935. Roosevelt approved 

the Central Valley Project, including Kennett (later Shasta), Friant, and Delta 

Divisions, on December 2, 1935.16

 The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 reauthorized the Central Valley 

Project, and authorized $12 million for construction. The Rivers and Harbors act 

listed improvement of navigation, regulation, and fl ood control of the Sacramento 

and San Joaquin Rivers as the fi rst priorities of the Central Valley Project. 

Reclamation’s primary purpose, supplying water for irrigation and domestic use, 

followed these priorities and power generation ended up the last priority on the 

list.17

 The Central Valley Project continued largely unscathed through the late 

1940s and 1950s. The government authorized new divisions of the project, 

with economic feasibility the only necessary criteria. The project became a 

conglomeration of various Federal and state government agencies by the end of 

the 1960s. The Army Corps of Engineers built several dams in California under 

the Flood Control Act of 1944, several of which became integrated into CVP. 

Meanwhile, California continued with its State Water Project.

 The Corps of Engineers (COE) completed Folsom Dam in 1956, turning 

over operation and maintenance to the Bureau of Reclamation after completion.

Congress integrated more COE projects into CVP during the 1960s and 1970s. 

The Corps of Engineers continued to operate and maintain several dams in the 

Central Valley and the Corps often found itself holding surplus water at the dams. 

As a result, Reclamation drew up contracts for releasing the surplus water for 

irrigation because COE specialized in fl ood control, not irrigation water supply.

 The California State Water Plan, published in 1957, proposed immediate 

construction of a project on the Feather River. Development on the Feather River 

marked the inauguration of the California State Water Project, strongly supported 

by California Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown who realized the seriousness of 

California’s water situation. Unlike the CVP, which only compelled repayment 

for its irrigation projects, the State Water Project required water users to pay all 

project costs for the $1.75 billion in bonds. According to the Water Education 

Foundation, although a little more than 50 percent complete in 1994, the State 

Water Project then consisted of twenty-two dams and reservoirs and the North 

Bay, South Bay, and California Aqueducts. Approximately 30 percent of the 

water supplied by the State Water Project irrigated the San Joaquin Valley, while 

the other 70 percent supplied water for residential, municipal, and industrial use, 

most of it in southern California.18

The Acreage Limitation Battle

 One major stumbling block for Reclamation Service involvement in a 

water project in the Central Valley was the 160 acre limitation imposed by the 
509

Reclamation Act of 1902. According to Norris Hundley, Congress intended for 

the Act to promote family farms, reclaim arid land, and prevent speculators and 

large landowners from profi ting at government expense. Because of California’s 

history, much of the land was already held in farms the acreage of which greatly 

exceeded the 160 acre maximum. In 1920, 60% of the land in the Central Valley 

was held in farms of 1,000 or more acres. This increased to 70% of the land by 

1935. Furthermore, much of the land was owned by absentee landlords. Early 

on, the large landowners in the Valley feared imposition of the acreage limitation, 

encouraging them to rebuff Reclamation’s assistance and look for alternative 

solutions to their irrigation woes.19 The acreage limitation controversy only 

provided the fi rst seeds of dissension, soon followed by the debate over public 

versus private power and environmental concerns.

 Construction on the Central Valley Project started in the late 1930s, and 

controversy bloomed toward the end of World War II. The fi rst blow to the large 

landowners came in 1943, when Reclamation ceased its policy of not enforcing 

the acreage limitation. Following the war, advocates of small farmers formed the 

 Central Valley Project Conference (CVPC) to counter the infl uence of the Central 

Valley Project Association (CVPA). George Sehlmeyer, Master of the California 

Grange, led the CVPC, which extolled the virtues of acreage limitations and 

public power. The CVPA viewed the two policies as anathema. One of the 

CVPC’s biggest victories came on September 8, 1945, as 200 delegates gathered 

to attend the Conference’s California Water Conference.20

 The California Water Conference of 1945, with Governor Earl Warren 

presiding, revealed a large amount of support for the CVP among small, working 

farmers; though the year’s Project History reported,

Paid mouthpieces of the vested interests, such as the Pacifi c Gas and 

Electric Company, the Irrigation Districts Association, the California 

Farm Bureau Association, the State Water Project Authority, and others, 

without exception, opposed the Bureau’s program of wide distribution of 

benefi ts resulting from the expenditure of public funds.21

Several issues arose at the conference, including: state vs. federal operation 

and control; public vs. private distribution of power; and COE vs. Reclamation 

construction of multipurpose projects; and controversy over the 160 acre 

limitation in the Reclamation Act of 1902. In “Water, Power, and Politics in the 

Central Valley Project,” Charles E. Coate said, “The Army faced a decidedly 

hostile audience, and the bureau [sic] won the meeting’s endorsement”—

apparently in spite of the “paid mouthpieces.”22

 Not everyone felt the same fondness for the CVP. Robert Franklin 

Schmeiser, elected president of the Associated Farmers of California, Inc., 

in 1947, adamantly opposed Reclamation involvement in the Central Valley. 

Mainly he opposed Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes but aimed his wrath 

at Reclamation. Schmeiser railed against the 160 acre limitation expressed in 
510

the Reclamation Act of 1902. He supported COE construction of the Project, 

believing the Corps would supply irrigation water at a lower rate than the Bureau. 

Schmeiser did not like Reclamation’s “propaganda organization,” and argued 

against “the dictatorial powers they possess over the public.”23 Using the popular 

vernacular of the time to deal with opposition, Schmeiser called Reclamation 

offi cials “Communists” because of the acreage limitations and public power 

policy, always combustible topics in the CVP.24

 Others supported the 160 acre limitation. Joseph Claude Lewis strongly 

supported Reclamation’s policy. Lewis, a pro-labor member of a farmers’ 

cooperative in the 1940s, expressed his support for the acreage limitation and low 

cost public power. He dismissed accusations that Secretary of the Interior Julius 

A. Krug and Reclamation Commissioner Michael Straus were Communists, a 

label often placed on himself.25

 During the mid-1940s, several attempts were made to exempt the CVP 

from the acreage limitation requirements, but these failed. Even irrigation 

water released from dams built by the Corps of Engineers became subject to the 

limitation, but the pendulum soon swung in favor of the large landholders. The 

death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1945, was followed by the resignation 

of Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes. Shortly thereafter Straus curtailed 

enforcement of the acreage limitation when he ran into opposition in Congress 

as farms came to be viewed as businesses. One of the strongest opponents was 

 Sheridan Downey of California, who had been Upton Sinclair’s running mate 

for Lieutenant Governor in 1934. Straus remedied the situation politically by 

defending acreage limitations while creating loopholes for the large landowners—

methodologies of bypassing the limitations collectively labeled “technical 

compliance.”26

 One method open to corporate farms aimed at circumventing the acreage 

limitation was for each stockholder to obtain water for 160 acres of the land.

Often large growers deeded land to children and other relatives while continuing 

to work the acreage and profi t from it. Large landowners also deeded land to 

employees and then leased back the acreage. In still another scheme, wealthy 

landowners made accelerated payments. In this process, they paid back the 

Bureau of Reclamation in a lump sum before the ten-year deadline. This theory 

operated under the premise that Reclamation could not force the landowners to 

sell the land once the Bureau had received repayment.27

 The strategies devised to bypass the acreage limitations placed the issue 

on the back burner where it silently festered until the 1980s. The Reclamation 

Reform Act of 1982 recognized the large landholdings of many California 

farmers. Even though two-thirds of California farms consisted of less than 

100 acres, 80 percent of the farmland existed in holdings of over 1,000 acres.

Furthermore, 75 percent of California’s agricultural production came from 

10 percent of the farms. The Reform Act increased the limitation to 960 acres and 
511

eliminated the residency requirement for farmers, which Reclamation never really 

enforced in the Central Valley because most contracts were with water districts, 

not individual farmers.28

 Even with Congress’ concession on the acreage limitation, those in 

possession of more than 960 acres pressed to resume circumvention of the law. 

The pressure paid off as the Westlands Water District received a waiver from 

the Bureau of Reclamation to continue receiving a subsidized water rate until 

2007. This meant payments of $17 per acre-foot rather than $42 per acre-foot. 

Reclamation went further in 1987, by declaring that farms in excess of 960 acres 

could continue receiving subsidized water as long as they were part of a farm 

management system.29

Environmental Crises

 The 1960s marked the end of the era of large dam building, and caught the 

CVP in a political and economic whirlpool with no apparent end. All divisions of 

the Central Valley Project and the features of the State Water Project supply water 

to the Central Valley, and they all contribute to the environmental problems. One 

high profi le problem which grew out of the CVP was the declining population of 

Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River. Most attention focused on the winterrun Chinook salmon, listed as threatened species by the Federal government and 

an endangered species by California. The estimated population of the winterrun Chinook in 1969, reached 117,000. In 1991, only 191 adults returned to the 

Sacramento River to spawn.30

 The environmental movement entered the mainstream in the early 1970s. 

Soon, along with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, signed by President 

Richard Nixon; the movement created more controversy for the Central Valley 

Project. The Act established criteria for listing endangered species and protecting 

them from harm by federal agencies or private concerns. The Central Valley 

Project felt the consequences of the Endangered Species Act because of project 

features’ impacts on migratory fi sh species. The Shasta Division dams primarily 

affected Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.31 Shasta and Keswick Dams 

blocked a large number of streams, tributary to the Sacramento River, that 

were formerly used for spawning by the migratory fi sh. To solve the problems, 

managers used fi sh traps and hatcheries to move the migrating fi sh upstream 

or artifi cially breed them, but they could not keep pace with the decreasing 

populations. Shasta Dam not only blocked migration upstream, but it blocked the 

fl ow of cool water downstream, keeping water temperature above the maximum 

fi fty-six degrees Fahrenheit necessary for the spawning salmon. Beginning in 

1992, Reclamation bypassed the turbines in Shasta Powerplant, and released 

water directly into the Sacramento River to improve conditions for endangered, 

winter-run Chinook salmon.32
512

 The population of winter-run Chinook salmon peaked in 1969, numbering 

about 118,000 at Red Bluff Diversion Dam. After 1969, populations of salmon 

and steelhead trout at the dam steadily declined. By 1990 the salmon population 

dropped to less than 5 percent of their 1969 total. The situation elicited 

outcries against the Project from environmentalists and commercial fi shermen. 

Reclamation instituted policies to alleviate the impact on the declining salmon 

population.33

 Fish ladders and subsurface openings in the dam alleviated the migration 

problem, but led to another—predatory fi sh. Environmentalists equated salmon 

traveling through the subsurface openings, downstream through the dam, to 

putting the fi sh in a washing machine, disorienting the salmon when they get clear 

into the river. The disoriented fi ngerling salmon became easy prey for squawfi sh, 

which often lined up on the downstream side of Red Bluff Dam to feast on the 

small fi sh.34

 In 1987 Reclamation began opening Red Bluff Dam’s gates yearly, from 

December 1 until April 1, for the winter-run salmon returning to spawn at Shasta 

Dam. Inclusion of the winter-run Chinooks on the listing of threatened species 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), prompted Reclamation to 

take further action. Reclamation completed a $17 million renovation of the 

dam in March 1990. The improvements included a temporary fi sh ladder in the 

center of the dam for passage when the gates remained closed. Renovations 

did not immediately boost the Chinook population. In 1991 the adult, winterrun Chinook count reached a record low of only 191 at Red Bluff Diversion 

Dam. The population gained in 1992 and 1993 with counts of 1,180 and 341 

respectively. The NMFS designated the winter-run Chinook as endangered in 

December 1993.35

 Red Bluff Diversion Dam diverted irrigation water into Tehama-Colusa 

and Corning Canals. The diversion capacity of the fi rst sections of the two canals 

totaled 3,030 cubic feet per second. A drum and fi sh screen structure, constructed 

in the period 1969-1971, prevented fi sh passing through the headworks from 

entering the canals. A bypass system returned the fi sh to the river. In accordance 

with an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation placed 

gravel beds along the upper 3.2 miles of the Tehama-Colusa Canal to simulate 

natural spawning beds. The artifi cial spawning beds failed to work as planned, 

and the canal headworks still trapped young fi sh.36

 Reclamation developed several alternatives to protect salmon at Red Bluff 

Diversion Dam. Alternative 4A (Large Pump) would essentially end usage of the 

dam. The plan called for utilization of a pumping plant to make water diversions, 

and leave the dam’s gates open, to make the river free fl owing again. Alternative 

4B (Small Pump) would close the gates during the peak summer months, midMay to mid-July, keeping them open the rest of the year, and using a small pump 

to assist in diverting water to the canals. Alternative 3A4 (Small Ladder) planned 
513

to increase the fl ow capacity of the left and right fi sh ladders and add a permanent 

fi sh ladder to the center of the dam. Alternative 3C4 (Large Ladder) called for 

modifi cation of the right fi sh ladder for greater fl ow capacity and addition of a 

permanent center fi sh ladder. The plan would replace the left fi sh ladder with a 

“state-of-the-art fi sh ladder.”37 By the end of 1994, Reclamation had not decided 

on which plan to use. Residents of Red Bluff became concerned that some of 

the proposed alternatives for protecting the salmon, would alter the recreation 

potential of Lake Red Bluff, behind Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and discourage 

travelers along I-5 from stopping at the city of Red Bluff, thereby affecting the 

community’s recreational revenue.38

 The powerful pumping plants in the Delta Division had a major, and 

often detrimental effect, on stream fl ow in the Delta and the San Joaquin River 

Basin. During periods of low water fl ow and high quantities of exports, the 

Delta pumps actually reversed the fl ow of the San Joaquin River, taking it back 

upstream. Through the Delta’s transport system, water normally traveling to the 

west, toward San Pablo Bay, instead moves back toward the east and south. The 

“reverse fl ows” disorient migratory fi sh, often luring them to the pumps, and draw 

salty ocean water into the San Joaquin River and other waterways.39

 In 1944 Reclamation offi cials realized the salinity problem in the Delta 

was more pronounced than they previously thought. Charles E. Carey, the 

Region Two Director in 1944, believed Shasta Dam could not entirely control the 

salinity problem, precluding use of the Delta as a reservoir as planned at one time. 

Carey announced some possible alternatives to alleviate the salinity problem: 

build a closed conduit through or around the Delta to carry Sacramento River 

water directly to the other side without letting it mix with Delta water; change 

the Water Exchange Contract to make the water quality requirement less extreme 

(Carey believed this unlikely, but others claimed it was possible); control the 

Sacramento River tributaries to control salinity and assure water quality; build

Folsom Dam.40 The proposed closed conduit foreshadowed later plans for the 

 Peripheral Canal.

 In the course of Delta Division development, though not built, the 

Peripheral Canal became one of the most controversial elements of Division 

planning. Reclamation proposed the Peripheral Canal to the Interagency Delta 

Committee (IDC) in early 1963, as an alternative water transfer system. By early 

1965 the proposed canal had almost universal acceptance in the Delta region.

California wanted Reclamation to design and construct the Peripheral Canal, 

then the state would assume control of the feature. Reclamation did not want 

state control of the canal, but did not have the authority to build it. California’s 

Department of Water Resources (DWR), on the other hand, did have the authority 

to construct the canal.41

 The IDC pointed out that much of the Peripheral Canal route would 

parallel Interstate 5, and material excavated from the canal could be used as 
514

highway fi ll. In January 1968 the California Departments of Water Resources 

and Public Works executed an agreement under which Public Works advanced 

$2 million to purchase rights of way in San Joaquin County for the canal. DWR 

agreed to repay the money when canal construction began, or no later than 

January 1, 1976.42

 Changing attitudes in the United States, toward the environment and a 

myriad of other issues, soon infected perceptions of the Peripheral Canal. Contra 

Costa County opposed the canal because residents viewed it as another way to 

transport fresh water, out of their locale, to southern California. About the same 

time, questions arose about the environmental impact of the Peripheral Canal on 

fi sh populations in the Delta and the Central Valley. Environmentalists believed 

the canal’s outlets would draw fi sh to them. They also believed the nitrogen-rich 

water from agricultural drainage could foster algae growth, stagnating waters and 

suffocating the fi sh.43

 In a December 4, 1969, speech to the Irrigation Districts Association, 

 William Gianelli, Director of DWR, responded to the environmental arguments, 

contending, “Californians must not ‘fall into the quagmire trap of Chicken Little 

emotionalists.”44 The draft environmental impact report of 1974 received such a 

negative response, DWR decided to take some extra time to prepare an acceptable 

fi nal report. Early in 1975, with construction of the Peripheral Canal scheduled 

to commence that summer, Director of DWR John Teerink announced a one year 

delay.45

 The Department of Water Resources “proposed an amalgam of joint statefederal programs and facilities,” including the forty-two mile Peripheral Canal, 

in 1977.46 DWR contended the canal would circumvent the Delta channels and 

carry water more effi ciently from the Sacramento River to the pumping plants 

of the CVP and the State Water Project. The canal could release fresh water 

into the Delta at certain points along its reaches to support irrigation, to benefi t 

fi sh and wildlife, and to combat salt water intrusion. Supporters, including the 

Metropolitan Water District of southern California and various agribusinesses, 

argued the canal would help end the reverse fl ows caused by the south Delta 

pumps. Opponents continued arguing against on the basis of the environmental 

impact of the canal and further exports to southern California. A referendum 

on the entire project went before California voters as Proposition 9 in 1982.

Proposition 9 failed because of cost (an estimated $3.1 billion) and environmental 

concerns. Other alternatives surfaced after the defeat of Proposition 9, but none 

went forward.47

 Studies link several factors to the decline of the Chinook population 

including predation by two species introduced into the Delta, striped bass and 

 Colorado River squawfi sh; lack of water fl ow in the rivers because of upstream 

dams; and disorientation and destruction by the Delta Division pumping plants.

The striped bass population also experienced large declines. Another species 
515

facing declines and possible extinction was the three inch long delta smelt. A 

fi sh found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the smelt faced destruction 

by the same forces as the Chinook salmon. The California Fish and Game 

Commission rejected the smelt for a state listing as a threatened or endangered 

species, but in March 1993 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the smelt as a 

threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act.48

 Reclamation developed the Delta Division in an area ripe for controversy, 

before and after construction of the Central Valley Project. Special interest 

groups competed to use the Delta and its water for their own special interests.

Some groups argued for land use zoning areas strictly for municipal purposes, 

recreational development, fi sh and wildlife enhancement, or maintaining the 

Delta in its “natural” state. Returning the Delta to its natural state seems the least 

likely, and indeed the most farfetched, idea. The Delta’s true natural state began 

disappearing over a century ago as river diversions, hydraulic mining, industrial 

development, agricultural development, and the building of state and Federal 

water projects transformed the region.49

 The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) started 

the CVP in a new direction. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill as part 

of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, over the 

objections of California Governor Pete Wilson and Central Valley legislators. 

Environmentalists considered the act a victory, while California agricultural 

leaders considered it a disaster. The CVPIA reallocated 800,000 acre-feet of CVP 

water (600,000 in dry years) from Valley farmers toward the restoration of Central 

Valley fi sheries. CVPIA limited renewed agricultural water contracts to twentyfi ve years with no long-term renewals. The Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act opened a new political pandora’s box in California.50

 In another area of the Central Valley Project, Friant Dam was blamed 

for the extinction of a large run of Chinook Salmon on the San Joaquin River. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is also faulted for not exercising its responsibility 

to wildlife concerns. In Overtapped Oasis, Marc Reisner argued that several 

amendments were passed concerning fi sh and wildlife, but Reclamation supplied 

less than 100,000 acre-feet of fresh water for state and federal refuges.51

 The most traumatic environmental consequence of the Central Valley 

Project proved to be the Kesterson Reservoir disaster. Reclamation began 

construction of the San Luis Drain in 1968, to transport wastewater to the west 

Delta. The Drain terminated at a series of twelve manmade ponds collectively 

called Kesterson Reservoir. Kesterson was planned as a regulating reservoir to 

hold drainage from lands irrigated by San Luis Dam until the water could be 

fl ushed into the Delta during winter.52

 Kesterson was designated a national wildlife refuge, and in the early 

1980s Californians learned the price wildlife paid for using it. Pollution 
516

entering Kesterson Reservoir in drainage from the San Luis Unit via the San 

Luis Drain was discovered to have caused deaths and deformities in waterfowl 

in the refuge. The pollutants included salts, pesticides, and trace minerals, most 

notably selenium. Reclamation responded by closing the refuge. This action 

brought protests, forcing Reclamation to change its stance. The Bureau then 

announced it would end irrigation supplies to the farmers Reclamation deemed 

most responsible for the runoff. It was then the farmers’ turn to protest. They 

successfully forced Reclamation to rescind its order.53

 In the mid-1980s, California offi cials warned pregnant women and 

children not to eat waterfowl from Kesterson. By the end of the 1980s, sirens 

warned the birds away and fences kept others at bay. Reclamation fi lled the 

reservoir in with dirt in 1988, and the ground was kept level to prevent the 

accumulation of standing water. Later studies showed that the amount of 

selenium present still exceeded safe levels. The pollutants’ effects were not 

limited to the wildlife at Kesterson Reservoir. Farmers affected by the runoff 

sued Reclamation for alleged damages to fi elds that the farmers claimed resulted 

from Kesterson leakage. After closure of the San Luis Drain, the Westlands Water 

District received 38 damage claims from farmers and landowners claiming the 

action diminished property values and resulted in lost crops.54

 The internal battle over water in California evolved with the onset of the 

environmental crises. Early in the twentieth century, battle lines formed between 

northern California (extending north from the borders of Ventura and Los Angeles 

Counties) and southern California. By 1990 the opposing forces realigned into 

agricultural, urban, and environmental interests. Gaining the upper hand came 

through various alliances between the confl icting groups.55

Overview

 The Central Valley Project is a complex operation of interrelated divisions. 

 Shasta Dam, at one time considered the key to the Central Valley Project, acts as 

a fl ood control dam for the Sacramento River. Shasta stores water for controlled 

releases downstream. The Trinity River Division diverts surplus water from the 

Trinity River, in the Klamath River Basin, into the Sacramento River. Water 

from the Trinity River Division enters the Sacramento at Keswick Reservoir in 

the Shasta Division. Downstream from Shasta Division, the Sacramento River 

Division supplies Sacramento River water to Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo 

Counties for irrigation. Releases from Shasta Division help control salinity in the 

Delta Division

 The American River Division provides fl ood control on the American and 

the Sacramento Rivers. The division supplies irrigation water along the Folsom 

South Canal. The American River Division’s Sly Park Unit, essentially operates 

independently from the rest of the Division, irrigating parts of Placer County. 

The Friant Division impounds or diverts the entire fl ow of the San Joaquin River, 
517

except for fl ood control and irrigation releases. Friant Dam sends irrigation 

water south through the Friant-Kern Canal, and north through the Madera 

Canal. The Army Corps of Engineers built New Melones Dam and Powerplant 

on the Stanislaus River from 1966 to 1979. The COE turned the dam over to 

Reclamation in 1979. The dam primarily operates as a fl ood control and power 

facility, but Reclamation has contracts to supply water to two water districts in the 

area.

 The Delta Division is the hub around which the Central Valley Project 

rotates. This Division contains the facilities for transporting water from the 

Sacramento River to the San Joaquin Valley and for controlling salinity in the 

Delta Division. The Delta Cross Channel diverts water from the Sacramento 

River to the Tracy Pumping Plant, the Contra Costa Pumping Plants, and the 

intakes of the Contra Costa and Delta-Mendota Canals, sending the much needed 

water south into the San Joaquin Valley.

 The San Luis Unit provides storage for the Central Valley Project for dry 

seasons. The Unit is a joint venture between Reclamation and the California 

Department of Water Resources. The Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant, one 

of the joint facilities, pumps surplus water from runoff and melting snow from 

the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct into San Luis Reservoir, 

the largest offstream storage reservoir in the United States. When water fl ow 

through the Delta Division becomes too low, water is released from San Luis into 

the Delta Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct. The San Felipe Division 

diverts water from San Luis Reservoir into lands west of the Coastal Mountain 

Range, south of the San Francisco Bay.

 Congress authorized the Allen Camp Unit of the Pit River Division on 

September 28, 1976. The Allen Camp Unit in Lassen and Modoc Counties of 

northeastern California, was to consist of Allen Camp Dam on the Pit River, 

Hillside Canal stretching 25 miles to the east, and Pilot Canal branching off 

Hillside to the southeast. The Concluding Report of 1981 determined the Unit 

was infeasible and the project was canceled.

 The Central Valley Project plans encompassed thirty-fi ve counties in 

an area about 500 miles long and 60 to 100 miles wide, making it the largest 

Reclamation project.56 The CVP contained some of the country’s largest dams, 

Shasta and San Luis among them. Reclamation intended Auburn Dam, on the 

American River, to be the largest on the Central Valley Project, but political 

turmoil left the dam incomplete and in limbo.

 In spite of the social, environmental, and political controversy surrounding 

the Central Valley Project, it remains an impressive accomplishment. The Central 

Valley contains three-quarters of the irrigated land in California, and one-sixth 

of the irrigated land in the United States. The Central Valley’s annual farm 

production exceeds the total value of all the gold mined in California since 1848.
518

The Central Valley Project ranks fi rst among Reclamation projects in value of 

fl ood damage prevented between 1950 and 1991. During that time period the 

Central Valley Project prevented more than $5 billion in fl ood damage.57

Conclusion

 The Bureau of Reclamation received a large amount of criticism over the 

Central Valley Project and indeed the application of the Reclamation Act to the 

Central Valley proved inconsistent with most other Reclamation projects. The 

later environmental impact of the project also created a storm of controversy. So 

much so that in recent years the Central Valley Project became a political and 

environmental bombshell, and a victim of changing times. California politicians 

soon avoided dealing with the CVP and the State water projects, viewing both 

as machines of political suicide. With these thoughts in mind it is important to 

understand the Bureau of Reclamation’s role and position in order to understand 

the Bureau’s actions.

 The Bureau of Reclamation is a Federal Government agency, subject 

to the whims of a parade of politicians who make their way in and out of 

government offi ce. The Bureau depends on the good graces of these politicians 

for funding and for it’s very existence. The Central Valley Project placed the 

Bureau in a position in which, in a highly politicized environment, it struggled to 

balance the wants of politicians with the requirements of the Reclamation Act and 

the environment.

 The initial controversy involved acreage limitations. The Reclamation 

Act required that farms receiving water could not be larger than 160 acres. 

The Central Valley had been settled and the acreages established long before 

Reclamation entered the scene, unlike most other Reclamation projects. The 

large landholders also held considerable political clout in northern California. 

Furthermore, the acreage limitation was viewed by many in the mid to late 1940s 

as un-American and possibly Communist, a grave label to deal with at the time.

Finally changes in the country’s leadership affected how the Interior Department’s 

leadership viewed the acreage limitation, from the time of Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt to George H. W. Bush.

 The other controversy involved the impact of the CVP on the environment. 

In the early decades of the project, the environment was not an overriding concern 

in the country, so it was not a factor in the initial design and construction of the 

CVP. The environmental movement gained momentum with the Endangered 

Species Act. From then on, politicization of the environment impacted operation 

of the CVP and pressed the need for modifi cation of the Project’s facilities.

 Like the acreage limitation controversy, the amount of concern about the 

environment depended on the political concerns in Washington and the political 

necessities of the Interior Department and the Bureau of Reclamation. When 
519

environmental concerns became apparent and paramount, Reclamation moved 

to deal with them, although not as quickly as many would have liked. Whether 

it was Kesterson or Chinook salmon, much of the damage had been done before 

most people became concerned.

 The Bureau of Reclamation is run in accordance with the wishes of 

Congress and the President, and much of its efforts are geared toward remaining 

a viable entity and surviving in a political arena. These variables dictate 

Reclamation’s activities. The Central Valley Project certainly had its drawbacks. 

There is no argument against that. It is also important to realize that the CVP 

achieved many of the goals set for it. Irrigation, electrical power, and fl ood 

control all serve mankind, as was important at the time construction began.

Contemporary values aside, the Project was a success in those terms. Success of 

the Central Valley Project also exacted a terrible price.

Eric A. Stene received his Bachelor of Science in History from Weber State 

College in Ogden, Utah, in 1988 and his Master of Arts in History from 

Utah State University in Logan in 1994, with an emphasis in Western U.S. 

History. Stene’s thesis is “The African American Community of Ogden, Utah: 

1910-1950.” He has worked for the Bureau of Reclamation writing project 

histories as a student, at the Utah State Archives, and he is currently at the 

archives at the City of Austin, Texas.

Endnotes

1. Norris Hundley Jr., The Great Thirst (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 

232.

2.. Robert de Roos, The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project (New York: 

Greenwood Press, 1968), 4-5; To Quench a Thirst: The California Water Crisis, produced by the 

Water Education Foundation, directed by Sue Pearson Atkinson, 55 min., originally aired on San 

Francisco station KQED, August, 1994, videocassette.

3. de Roos, The Thirsty Land, 12.

4. Ibid., 16.

5. Ibid., 16-7.

6. Charles Eugene Coate, “Water, Power, and Politics in the Central Valley Project, 

1933-1967” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969), 7-8; Bureau of 

Reclamation, Annual Project History, Central Valley Project, to 1936, Record Group 115, 13. 

Hereafter Record Group 115 cited as RG 115.

7. Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 14.

8. Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water

 (New York: Viking, 1986), 113-4. 

9. Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 113-114; Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 15.

10. Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 15-18; de Roos, The Thirsty Land, 17.

11. Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 39; Emmett R. Crocker, “The Conception 

and Growth of the Sacramento Valley Canals,” The Reclamation Era, November 1954, 82.

12. Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 40; Memorandum ‘A’,” Colorado River 

Project—Central Valley (California)—Land Acquisition, papers of Harry W. Bashore, box 4, 

American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1; Coate, Water, Power, 

and Politics in the Central Valley Project,” 9; Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide 

to the Central Valley Project (Sacramento: Water Education Foundation, 1994), 6; Emmett R. 

Crocker, The Conception and Growth of the Sacramento Valley Canals,” 82.
520

13. Emmett R. Crocker, The Conception and Growth of the Sacramento Valley Canals,” 82; 

Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 19.

14. Memorandum ‘A’,” 2; Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 20, 40; Harry W. 

Bashore, “Central California Water Resources Investigative Report on Upper San Joaquin Relief 

Project, August, 25, 1933,” Colorado River Project—Central Valley (California), papers of Harry 

W. Bashore, box 4, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 

Vol. II, C.

15. Coate, “Water, Power, and Politics,” 49; “Memorandum ‘A’,” 3-4.

16. “Memorandum ‘A’,” 3-4; Reclamation, Project History, CVP, to 1936, 42.

17. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Reclamation and Related 

Laws Annotated, Volume I: Through 1942 (Washington: GPO, 1972), 583-4.

18. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to California Water (Sacramento: Water 

Education Foundation, 1994), 12.

19. Hundley, The Great Thirst, 238, 255-6.

20. C.E. Coate, “Water, Power, and Politics,” 143-4. Hundley, The Great Thirst, 259.

21. Bureau of Reclamation, Annual Project History, Central Valley Project, 1945, Part I, RG 

115, 5-6.

22. Reclamation, Project History, CVP, 1945, Pt. I, 6; Coate, “Water, Power, and Politics,” 

145.

23. Bureau of Reclamation, They Subdued the Desert, 101-2.

24. Ibid., 102.

25. Ibid., 108.

26. Hundley, The Great Thirst, 261-2, 264-5.

27. Ibid., 265-66.

28. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 18.

Hundley, The Great Thirst, 380.

29. Hundley, The Great Thirst, 382.

30. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Delta, 11.

31. Bureau of Reclamation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program: Factsheet 

02--Federal Endangered Species Act, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacifi c Region, July 1994.

32. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 1, 8; 

Bureau of Reclamation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program, An Update of Red Bluff 

Planning and Public Involvement Activities, Update No. 1, Bureau of Reclamation, July 1994, 4.

33. Bureau of Reclamation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program: An Update of 

Red Bluff Planning and Public Involvement Activities, Update No. 1, Bureau of Reclamation,

 July 1994, 4; Reclamation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program, 4-5.

34. Jim Dyar, “Dam Gates Give Salmon Real Problem,” Redding Record Searchlight,

14 July 1994, in Bureau of Reclamation News Clips.

35. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 10; 

Reclamation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program, 4-5.

36. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 10; 

Bureau of Reclamation, Program Plan of Study: For Planning Studies, Supplemental Data 

Development, and Pilot Pumping Plant Evaluation, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage 

Program (Draft), Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacifi c Region, MP-720, April 1993, 8-9.

37. Bureau of Reclamation, “Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Status Report,” Bureau of 

Reclamation, Mid-Pacifi c Region, Sacramento, July 1993, 23.

38. Reclamation, “Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Status Report,” 29; Reclamation, “Program 

Plan of Study,” 8-9.

39. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Delta, 18.

40. Millard Browne, “Key Delta Unit Worst Headache For Valley Project Engineers,” The

Sacramento Union, 15 March 1944, in “Bureau of Reclamation Project Correspondence File 

1930-1945:” Central Valley, RG 115, file .023: “Clippings: January Thru June 1944,” box 99.

41. Jackson and Paterson, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 93, 121, 147.

42. Ibid., 148.

43. Ibid., 149, 151.
521

44. Ibid., 153.

45. Ibid., 168.

46. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Delta, 18

47. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Delta, 18; Leonard Pitt, 

California Controversies: Major Issues in the History of the State, 2d ed. (Arlington Heights, IL: 

Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1987), 300. More recently, in 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 

of California, endorsed construction of the Peripheral Canal and began to push for bonds for that 

construction. His interest in the project has injected new life into the discussion of this project. 

(ed.)

48. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Delta, 11; Water Education 

Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 17; Betty Brickson, “The 

Endangered Species Act and California Water: Where Projects and Species Meet,” Western Water,

November/December 1990, 9; Jim Dyar, “Dam Gates Give Salmon Real Problem,” Redding

Record Searchlight, 14 July 1994, in Bureau of Reclamation News Clips.

49. Cook, “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Man-Made Environment,” 22.

50. Water Education Foundation, Layperson’s Guide to the Central Valley Project, 19; 

Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Rules and Regulations, August 

1994, Subsection 3404(c), Subsection 3406(b)(2).

51. Marc Reisner and Sarah Bates, Overtapped Oasis-Reform or Revolution for Western 

Water, Washington, Island Press, 1990, 40, 42.

52. Robert Autobee, “The West San Joaquin Division: The San Luis Unit,” Bureau of 

Reclamation History Program, Denver, 1994, 19-20.

53. Autobee, “The West San Joaquin Division: The San Luis Unit,” 20; Hundley, The Great 

Thirst, 366-367.

54. Autobee, “The West San Joaquin Division: The San Luis Unit,” 20-1; Hundley, The Great 

Thirst, 367.

55. Discussion with Rita Schmidt Sudman, Executive Director of the Water Education 

Foundation; Sacramento, California, 30 August 1994.

56. Water and Power Resources Service, Project Data (Denver: GPO, 1981), 165.

57. Gerald W. Haslam, The Other California: The Great Central Valley in Life and Letters 

(Santa Barbara, California: Capra Press, 1990), 15; Bureau of Reclamation, 1991 Summary 

Statistics, Bureau of Reclamation, 1991, 13.
522
523

Bumpy Road For Glen Canyon Dam

By:

 W. L. Rusho

Basic Concept and Purpose

 Probably no dam built in America has been so controversial as Glen 

Canyon Dam. Built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the dam was planned and 

designed to be a contributor in a long dream to subdue and conquer the earth, 

or as was often heard in pioneer days, “to make the desert blossom as the rose.”

Its basic purpose was to allow increased irrigation and other water development 

in the entire Upper Basin of the Colorado River, including Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, and New Mexico.

 My experience with the dam is intensely personal, as I had been 

employed during its construction as Public Affairs Offi cer for the Bureau of 

Reclamation (BR). For over fi ve years I rode the monkeyslides, conducted tours 

for reporters and dignitaries, wrote articles and news releases, drafted speeches, 

conducted ceremonies, produced motion pictures, and directed the guide service 

and all photography. In late 1963, when the dam was virtually fi nished, I was 

transferred to the Salt Lake City BR Regional Offi ce, which had jurisdiction 

over Glen Canyon Dam. From that time on I continued to be regularly involved 

in developments at the dam, both by many personal visits and by reports from 

others. Even after my retirement in 1988, I worked as a contractor producing 

motion pictures concerning operation of the dam.

 Considered as a lineal descendant of the many dams constructed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam was not unusual. Designed to be a 

storage dam—rather than a fl ood control structure—its purposes were to hold as 

much water as possible, release only what was necessary, and fl uctuate releases 

as drastically as required to maximize revenues from hydropower production.

After the last of eight generators came on the line in 1966, virtually the only 

restrictions on its operation derived from the 1922 Colorado River Compact, 

the 1944 Treaty with Mexico, as well as a number of related laws, all of which 

comprised what was loosely termed “The Law of the River.”

Early History of the Glen Canyon Dam Concept

Actually, lower Glen Canyon, near where the dam was built from 1956 to 

1964, had been eyed many decades earlier by hydrologists and engineers, not for 

a water storage dam, but for a fl ood control dam.

 In 1906 and 1907 a tributary fl ood on the Salt River caused the Colorado 

River to break through an irrigation gate south of Yuma, Arizona, and to fl ow 

unchecked for two years into the Salton Sink of California, thus greatly enlarging 

the Salton Sea. After the gap was fi nally closed by dumping huge amounts of 

rock into the breach, the river returned to its original course toward the Gulf of 

California. But the need for a fl ood control dam and reservoir was made apparent 

to all.
524

 In 1921, U.S. Geological Survey engineer Eugene C. LaRue proposed, 

to an obsession that Glen Canyon should be the logical site for the needed fl ood 

control dam. A reservoir there would hold a vast amount of water, and, even 

more important, its upstream location would allow all locations downstream to 

be free of fl oods, allowing river fl ows to be available for irrigation and municipal 

developments.

 While the engineers were looking at possible dam sites, politicians, water 

managers, and lawyers were scheduling meetings with representatives of all 

the states within the Colorado River Basin to divide up the obviously limited 

(except during rare fl oods), fl ows of the river. Agreed upon and signed in 1922, 

the Colorado River Compact substantially divided the fl ows of the river between 

what was termed the Upper and the Lower Basins of the river, to be measured 

at Lee Ferry, Arizona, (a point one mile below the river gauge at Lee’s Ferry). 

Furthermore, as a concession, the Upper Basin agreed to guarantee 75 million 

acre feet delivery to the Lower Basin in any ten year period, amounting to an 

average fl ow of 7.5 million acre feet (m.a.f.) annually.

 E. C. LaRue was frustrated in his campaign to have Glen Canyon made 

the site of the fl ood control dam. During the 1920s, the focus for a fl ood control 

dam shifted instead, fi rst to Boulder Canyon, and then to Black Canyon, both 

within a few dozen miles of the then small town of Las Vegas, Nevada. A dam 

at Black Canyon would be much closer to the major hydropower markets of 

southern California. It would require less concrete for its V-shaped canyon, 

compared to Glen Canyon’s U-shape. Also, a dam in Glen Canyon would be 

in the Upper Basin, which might be administratively diffi cult for Lower Basin 

offi cials to handle. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, passed in 1928, authorized 

the construction of what we now know as Hoover Dam.

 Although the Bureau of Reclamation had offi cially reserved Glen Canyon 

as a possible dam and reservoir site soon after World War I, construction of 

Hoover Dam in the early 1930s seemed to obviate the need for another main 

stem dam. In 1936, therefore, the National Park Service, encouraged by Interior 

Secretary Harold Ickes, proposed an Escalante National Monument, to cover 

6,968 square miles of southeastern Utah—twice the size of Yellowstone National 

Park.1

 The proposed monument would have included all of Glen Canyon as well 

as considerable public land then used for grazing.

 In 1938 combined opposition from ranchers forced the Park Service to 

reduce the size of the proposed monument to 2,450 square miles, eliminating 

most of the grazing areas, but leaving Glen Canyon. Then the State of Utah 

weighed in, undoubtedly with Bureau of Reclamation’s covert urging—favoring 

continued reservation of Glen Canyon as a possible reservoir site rather than part 

of a National Monument. Stalemated, the Escalante National Monument proposal 

slowly died of inaction as the Nation turned its attention to World War II.
525

 For many years after the 1922 Compact was signed, water use in the 

Upper Basin was so small that there was no problem delivering the required 

average of 7.5 m.a.f. yearly to the Lower Basin. In 1944 when the United States 

agreed, by treaty, to deliver 1.5 m.a.f. of Colorado River water annually to 

Mexico, plenty of water still fl owed by Lee’s Ferry for that purpose. But water 

demands were continually growing, not only in the rapidly expanding economy 

of California, but also in the Upper Basin, where farmers and water managers 

envisioned a number of possible projects that would consume available water.

The Colorado River Storage Project Plan (CRSP)

 Soon after World War II, Bureau of Reclamation offi cials printed a report 

entitled The Colorado River—A Natural Menace Becomes a National Resource,

2

in which a large number of potential projects were outlined for both the Upper 

and Lower Basins. Key to enabling several water projects in the Upper Basin 

was to be large storage capacity reservoirs that would help meet the Compact 

commitments to the Lower Basin. For this role, a large dam at Glen Canyon would 

be vitally important, as its potentially huge pool of water would insure that, in case 

of a severe drought, such as occurred in 1933 and 1934, irrigation and municipal 

projects upstream would not be denied their regular allotment of water. Other, 

much smaller, storage reservoirs were also envisioned on tributary rivers upstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam. In 1946, however, this “wish list” of projects was not yet 

a fully developed plan.

 Eight years later, the Bureau of Reclamation published a report, actually 

a proposal for legislation, for what was to be termed the Colorado River Storage 

Project.3

 Essentially, this was a refi nement of the 1946 list of potential projects, 

all integrated into a comprehensive plan incorporating storage dams and 

reservoirs to meet downstream commitments and to produce hydroelectric power. 

“Participating Projects” would then be built to develop water for irrigation and 

for municipal and industrial uses, while revenue from the sale of hydropower 

would fully repay the costs of the storage projects. Although it was not called a 

subsidy, the hydropower revenue would also materially assist the repayment of 

Participating Project costs. Altogether, it appeared to be a neat package—except 

for one particular feature—the proposed Echo Park Unit.

Congressional Authorization

 Along with the Glen Canyon Unit (dam, reservoir, and powerplant), the 

Echo Park Unit was designed as a storage unit. Compared to Glen Canyon’s 

potential storage of 26 million acre feet of water, Echo Park would hold only 

about one-fourth as much, but Echo Park received the major portion of attention 

during Congressional hearings for one reason—the dam and reservoir were to be 

located in Dinosaur National Monument, a segment of the National Park System.
526

 Leading the campaign against Echo Park Dam was David Brower, 

Executive Director of the Sierra Club. By his ability to locate arithmetic errors 

in the Bureau of Reclamation’s estimate of reservoir evaporation and through 

his public interviews, speeches, writings, and advertisements, the dam fell into 

disfavor with Congressmen, and it was eliminated from the CRSP bill. In his 

campaign, however, Brower linked Echo Park Dam with Glen Canyon Dam, 

stating that Echo Park Dam would not be necessary if the height of Glen Canyon 

Dam was built higher to allow more water storage. In the early 1950s, therefore, 

Brower raised no objection to construction of Glen Canyon Dam.

 Many years later, during 1999 and until his death in 2000, Brower 

maintained that if, in the 1950s, he had known how beautiful Glen Canyon was, 

he could have eliminated Glen Canyon Dam from the CRSP proposal by using the 

Congressional backing that he then possessed. Considering the political power 

in Congress then available to Upper Basin interests, fi gures such as Congressman 

Wayne Aspinall of Colorado and Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah, it is doubtful 

that Brower was correct in his half-century latter-day second-guessing. Even 

Lower Basin legislators, such as Representative Stewart Udall and Senator Barry 

Goldwater, both of Arizona, and to their later regret, supported the CRSP.4

 Brower’s verbal association of proposed dams in Echo Park and Glen 

Canyon has led many newspaper reporters, writers, and other casual observers 

to conclude that a dam in the latter was a substitute for the former. Actually, 

nothing could be further from the truth. The Bureau of Reclamation had 

estimated that something over 30 million acre feet of storage would be necessary 

to meet downstream needs should a drought such as that of 1933-1934 recur. 

Since a reservoir at Echo Park would have held only 6.4 m.a.f., compared to 

Glen Canyon’s 26 m.a.f., obviously, a dam in Glen Canyon was the key to the 

feasibility of the entire CRSP plan. Had Brower actually tried to and succeeded in 

eliminating Glen Canyon Dam, the entire CRSP would have been killed.

 Furthermore, Brower’s late-in-life contention that the defeat of Echo Park 

Dam forced the Bureau of Reclamation to raise the height of Glen Canyon Dam 

is incorrect—the 1954 Bureau design shows the dam crest at elevation 3,711 feet 

above sea level—the level of the dam as it was actually built.

 This is not to say that there was no opposition to the building of Glen 

Canyon Dam. Contrary to the later contention of Brower and the Sierra Club, 

Glen Canyon was not the “place no one knew.” While it was not nationally 

famous, it had been visited often, particularly in the 1950s, by Utah Boy Scout 

groups and others who simply enjoyed boating down the calm, scenic river. 

According to the late historian C. Gregory Crampton, Glen Canyon was the most 

accessible, and therefore the most visited—at least by boat—of all the canyons of 

the Colorado River.5

 Although most people who had boated through the canyon 

were opposed to the dam, they were generally unorganized and their opposition 

was no match for the steam roller of proponents pushing for water development.
527

Construction of the Dam

 Many observers, both within and outside the Bureau of Reclamation, have 

marveled at the speed with which construction began on the CRSP. At the time 

there was no need for any detailed economic or environmental studies. Following 

the authorization of the CRSP (Public Law 485–84th Congress; P.L. 84-485) on 

April 11, 1956, engineers and surveyors were rushed to the site by July, and on 

October 15, of that year, the fi rst ceremonial blast was set off on the canyon wall.

 During 1956 and on 

into 1957 design engineers 

in the Denver Offi ce were 

still hard at work producing 

specifi cations for the dam. 

One might wonder then why 

the Bureau was already doing 

site work when the design for 

the dam was not yet fi nished. 

The answer is two-fold. Some 

work on site could be done, 

such as road building and 

planning the city of Page.

Perhaps the main reason for 

the haste, however, was a 

desire to follow a well-known, 

time honored—and usually successful—construction strategy, which states that 

when an agency starts a job that depends on appropriations from a legislative 

body, funding is much more assured if it seeks to continue, rather than start, a 

project.

 According to Glen Canyon Project Construction Engineer, Lemuel F. 

Wylie, the principal dilemma confronting him in 1956 had nothing to do with 

the dam, but rather with the questionable location for the construction town, 

later to be named Page. Since the dam site was in a remote area, in a yet 

unbridged canyon, completely in Arizona, but quite near the Utah-Arizona state 

line, political interests of both states considered it desirable to have the town 

established on their side of the canyon, since economic and transportation ties 

would probably develop early with adjoining cities. Delegations from both states 

repeatedly visited Wylie at his temporary Kanab, Utah, offi ce, all requesting 

favorable consideration.

 Years later, in 1969, former Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona publicly 

stated that Page had been so located because of his request to place it on the 

Arizona side.6

 Considering that in 1956 Hayden was Chairman of the Senate 

Appropriations Committee, it was a foregone conclusion that the Bureau would 

agree. A large spring of good water had been located on the Utah side, leading 

22.1. Glen Canyon Dam. Photograph by the the author in 

1969.
528

some engineers to recommend that location,7

 and a perfunctory examination was 

made there. But considering Senator Hayden’s expressed preference, the only 

real question was precisely where on the sandy Arizona side the town would 

be placed. Wylie reported in an interview that he and Louie Puls, Chief of the 

Concrete Dams Section of the Chief Engineer’s Offi ce, hiked along the sandy 

Arizona side in July 1956, found nothing suitable, then decided to examine a low 

plateau about a mile to the east. After hiking to the top, the two looked around, 

and then Puls said, “Lem. What’s the matter with this?” Wylie replied, “Not a 

thing—not a thing.”8

 So the town of Page was situated on the Arizona side, on Manson Mesa. 

But the selected town site had another diffi culty—it was located on the Navajo 

Indian Reservation. To resolve this, Wylie and Department of the Interior lawyers 

met with tribal offi cials several times without conclusion, until one of the lawyers 

suggested a land trade. This idea met with favorable response, resulting in the 

Government’s obtaining 55,000 acres of land for Page and for the Navajo side of 

the future reservoir in exchange for a like amount of land on McCracken Mesa in 

southeast Utah.9

 When asked about problems encountered while building the dam, Wylie 

could think of nothing major. “It was mostly mechanical”, he said. “The 

contractor knew what to do, I knew how to handle day to day problems, and I had 

a competent staff to insure quality construction.”

 A labor strike shut down construction of the dam for six months, from 

July to December 1959. The dispute arose when the prime contractor, MerrittChapman and Scott, curtailed making extra housing payments, up till then paid to 

employees for the remote location of the job, after determining that housing was 

available in Page and in company dormitories. The strike was fi nally settled near 

Christmas 1959, and by January 1960 the work was again well underway. No 

event delayed construction from that point on, and the dam and powerplant were 

fi nished on schedule.

Archaeology and History Investigations

 Today, with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in effect, 

no project can be undertaken on Federally-owned land without preliminary and 

thorough archaeological and historical investigations (as well as many other 

studies), of the area to be impacted. In 1956, however, no NEPA rules were 

in effect, so Glen Canyon received no studies prior to inundation that would 

be considered as counter to authorization of the dam. What it did receive was 

what was called simply the Glen Canyon Archaeological Salvage Project. In 

compliance with the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Park Service 

obtained funding and let two contracts for the work. The largest was awarded to 

the University of Utah to investigate the right bank of the Colorado, the triangular 

area between the Colorado and the San Juan, and the left bank of the Colorado 
529

above the confl uence with the San Juan. The Museum of Northern Arizona was 

authorized to examine the south side of the Colorado and the San Juan.

 Even before 1956, Glen Canyon and the San Juan River Canyon were 

known to have substantial numbers of archaeologically signifi cant sites, including 

dwelling areas, granaries, trails, petroglyphs, and pictographs. Several private 

or institution-sponsored research expeditions had ventured into the region, 

particularly in the 1930s. Prominent among these was the Rainbow Bridge–

Monument Valley Expedition, (RBMVE), a cooperative effort by the National 

Park Service and several universities, which operated from 1933 to 1938.10

Although the RBMVE only touched on Glen and the San Juan River Canyons, its 

crews found numerous archaeological sites, although few were excavated at that 

time.

 Initiating the Salvage Project in 1957, with the dam already under 

construction, both the University of Utah and the Museum of Northern Arizona 

sent qualifi ed crews, consisting of archaeologists, helpers, students, horse 

wranglers, boatmen, and cooks, into the canyons and onto the surrounding areas.

To obtain base data for regional comparison, they also surveyed archaeological 

sites on highland areas, such as the Kaiparowits Plateau and Cummings Mesa.

 Dr. Jesse D. Jennings, director of the University of Utah effort, devised 

special techniques to help speed the project. For instance, he enjoined crew chiefs 

to “use the coarsest tool that will do the work” i.e., recover the data. A shovel 

can be as useful as a trowel, a road patrol or scraper as useful as a shovel, or a 

dragline as useful as a pick, in the hands of an excavator who is free of ritual 

compulsiveness.11 Of course, there was no way to get a road patrol, scraper, or 

dragline into most of the canyons, but his philosophical approach had the merit of 

accomplishing as much as possible in the time available.

 Every form of transportation was tried as a means to get crews into the 

main and side canyons, from airplanes, to four wheel drive vehicles, to horses 

and mules. But the areas were so rugged and remote that the rivers themselves 

became the main travel and communication lines. Small, outboard powered 

aluminum boats were extensively used, with occasional recourse to rubber rafts.

 According to Jennings, the Survey found and recorded over 2,000 

archaeological sites, of which about 80 or 85 were fully or partially excavated.12

In confi rmation, Don Fowler, one of Jennings’ crew chiefs during the 1957-1963 

survey, estimated that due to lack of time, less than 10 percent of the sites were 

examined in any detail. But both Jennings and Fowler agreed that the survey was 

adequate to determine the population densities at various stages of pre-historic 

cultures. Dispelling earlier rumor, no large ruin, such as at Mesa Verde or Chaco 

Canyon, was found. They did determine that Ancient Puebloans (Anasazi) had 

occupied the canyons during three periods, the earliest starting about 500 A.D. 
530

During the last period, about 1250 A.D. the occupants were probably starving and 

fi ghting among themselves.

 Writing as a professional archaeologist, Jennings could not praise the Glen 

Canyon Salvage Project highly enough, for it fi nally provided adequate funding 

for substantive research, as opposed to the piddling, poorly-funded studies in 

previous years. He wrote that over thirty previous explorations of Glen Canyon 

by problem oriented or pot hunting men resulted in no scientifi c account.13 He 

wrote:

I suggest that in virtually any detail, and certainly in overall results, 

emergency salvage archaeology is superior to most other work done in 

America.14

Jennings, now deceased, therefore did not lament the drowning of over 2,000 

archaeological sites. He proudly pointed to the many volumes of useful and 

accurate scientifi c data that were recorded in monographs and books. And besides 

the data, he and his researchers had accumulated a museum full of small artifacts 

available to future archaeologists.

 On the personal side, Jennings wrote that

... learning the Glen and working in and near it for six or seven summers 

was a rich, emotionally charged period of my life. The vastness, the 

isolation, the stillness, the overwhelming beauty of the land, even 

(especially) the heat, the still starlit nights, the blue or brassy midday 

sky, all combined to make me constantly aware of my good fortune. . . 

. millions of vacationers each year fi sh, swim, water ski, windsurf, and 

camp in the tributaries and some spots on the lake itself see and enjoy 

much of the same natural beauty as I once did. But the intimacy of the 

river and the side streams is gone, and all my hard won knowledge of the 

sandbars, the shoals, and the camping sites is now obsolete, but remain 

bright in memory.15

In the original Glen Canyon Salvage Project plan, no separate provision 

had been made for historical research, as it was assumed that archaeologists 

could record any rare historic site while in the course of their regular tasks. Dr. 

C. Gregory Crampton, historian at the University of Utah took it upon himself to 

address the lack of historical research as a separate dedicated project by writing 

to the National Park Service and convincing them of the omission. Consequently, 

Crampton himself was given $25,000, expected to be enough to do the job. With 

such limited funds, Crampton could hire no one, but had to do all the research 

himself, using only unpaid graduate students (loosely termed ‘slaves’), as 

assistants.

 During the years 1957 to 1963 Crampton tediously fi led through old 

mining records, courthouse documents, diaries and manuscripts, and newspaper 

accounts. Following written leads, he then made eight fl oat trips, each with one 
531

or two graduate students, to stop at specifi c sites mentioned in the written records. 

With his funds nearly exhausted, Crampton, with my urging, persuaded Frank 

Clinton, Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation, to authorize and fund 

boat trips down the San Juan River in 1962 and down Cataract Canyon in 1963.

On these last two trips, I traveled along, acting as offi cial photographer, as we 

stopped and recorded numerous historic sites.

 From 1959 to 1963 Crampton wrote seven detailed monographs, 

complete with maps, photographs and documentation, each published as an 

“Anthropological Paper” by the University of Utah. Following these works, he 

published Standing Up Country: The Canyonlands of Utah and Arizona,

16 in 

which he brought Glen, Cataract, and San Juan Canyon histories into a regional 

perspective. He followed this with Ghosts of Glen Canyon,

17 a series of Glen 

Canyon historical vignettes and photographs arranged by river mile. In these 

books he repeatedly emphasized the point that Glen Canyon, containing hundreds 

of historic sites, was the most historic of all the canyons of the Colorado.

The Rainbow Bridge Problem

 In Public Law 84-485 authorizing the Colorado River Storage Project are 

the words: “That as part of the Glen Canyon Unit, the Secretary of the Interior 

shall take adequate protective measures to preclude impairment of the Rainbow 

Bridge National Monument.” These words were inserted at the insistence of 

environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the 

National Parks Association, with the intention of preserving Rainbow Bridge and 

its surrounding 160-acre enclave set aside as a National Monument in 1909, in its 

natural state.

 Congress also included the following clause:

It is the intention of Congress that no dam or reservoir constructed 

under the authorization of this Act shall be within any National Park or 

Monument.

 This clause was inserted as an affi rmation of Congressional opposition to 

a dam in Dinosaur National Monument (Echo Park), as well as a desire to keep 

Glen Canyon reservoir water out of Rainbow Bridge National Monument.

In regard to Rainbow Bridge, the Bureau of Reclamation faced a delicate 

situation, namely, how to keep reservoir water out of the monument without 

tearing up the surrounding landscape to build a barrier dam quickly enough so 

that the reservoir could be allowed to fi ll without untimely delay.

 By the terms of P.L. 84-485, the Bureau had no choice but to keep water 

from the future Glen Canyon reservoir from entering the boundary of the Rainbow 

Bridge National Monument. Created by Executive Proclamation in 1909, the 

160-acre monument lay about 5.5 winding stream miles southeast of the Colorado 
532

River. As the reservoir rose, it would enter the monument area at elevation 3,606 

feet above mean sea level. and at its planned maximum elevation of 3,700 feet it 

would be 45 feet deep in the channel beneath the bridge, but still 21 feet below 

the lowest abutment of the bridge itself.18 Therefore, to keep reservoir water out 

of the National Monument, as required by law, would necessitate some kind of 

downstream barrier dam.

 It was obvious to those of us who worked for the agency at the time that 

top offi cials of the Bureau would build a barrier dam only after considerable loud 

protesting. And the most effective way to ward off building such a dam was 

to postpone specifi c Congressional appropriations for the endeavor—perhaps 

indefi nitely. One Bureau publication stated:

Much of the earth materials required for construction of any 

possible restraining dams would have to be obtained from 

the top of the high mesa [1,200 vertical feet above the stream 

channel]. Heavy equipment to work the high mesa borrow area 

would have to be lifted to the mesa top by cableways or carried 

in by helicopters it would be impossible to build a road on to the 

high mesa.... borrow operations would necessarily leave certain 

unavoidable and irremovable construction scars.19

One might question why the Bureau would resist building a barrier dam, 

since, after all, the agency was in the business of building dams. At least one 

author, Hank Hassell, in his book Rainbow Bridge—An Illustrated History, felt 

that it was simply pay back to the Sierra Club for having embarrassed the Bureau 

in the Echo Park Congressional hearings.

With the benefi t of hindsight it now seems clear that the motive of both 

Congress and the Bureau was simple one-upmanship. Western states 

congressmen had been stung and stung badly by Dave Brower’s success 

in stopping Echo Park Dam. The Bureau, too, felt that it had been 

publicly humiliated on its own turf, and now both bodies saw a way to 

strike back.20

 Three possible sites were examined for a barrier dam in the deep, narrow 

canyons leading from Rainbow Bridge down to the Colorado River. The middle 

site, Site B, preferred by the Bureau, would have required a small dam upstream 

from the bridge and a tunnel to divert natural runoff to an adjacent canyon.

 Dam site C, further downstream, would not have required the diversion 

structures, but would have required a large dam, 365 feet high, with a crest length 

of 800 feet. It could have been constructed by building a haul road from the 

north, with a bridge over the Colorado River, and much of the construction scars 

would have been inundated by the future reservoir, yet it was never seriously 

considered by the Bureau. The reason was simple, 
533

it would have taken too long to build, and was at too low an elevation.

The site C dam would have had to be in place before the gates at Glen 

Canyon Dam were closed. Such a situation would have set back the 

fi lling schedule for Lake Powell and was considered unacceptable.

 The Bureau, through the Interior Secretary, in 1960, dutifully asked for 

$3.5 million in appropriations (of the projected $25 million fi nal price), to begin 

construction of the structures to protect Rainbow Bridge. But heavy lobbying 

by Senator Frank Moss of Utah, Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado, 

and Floyd Dominy, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, convinced the 

House Appropriations Committee to delete the line item from the budget with the 

words, “No part of the fund herein appropriated shall be available for construction 

or operation of facilities to prevent waters of Lake Powell from entering any 

National Monument.”

 In 1961 Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall, recognizing that building a 

dam at site B would leave disastrous construction scars on the landscape, sought 

a way out by proposing a new National Park that would encompass, not only 

Rainbow Bridge, but also much of the fantastically eroded landscape—all Navajo 

land—in surrounding areas. On April 9 he organized a mass visit to the bridge 

by environmental representatives, news reporters, and governmental offi cials 

to promote what he called Navajo Rainbow National Park, with helicopter 

transportation furnished by the U.S. Air Force and by private air services. 

Although his concept had merit, it would have been a magnifi cent National Park, 

one key provision of his proposal was to put the boundary of such a park at the 

normal high water line of Lake Powell, thus eliminating the need for a barrier 

dam. But Dave Brower and others would not accept it. Also, Udall had failed to 

consult with Navajo Tribal leaders, who were miffed at the slight and also refused 

to go along, thus killing the proposal.

 During the 1960s, Congress each year expressly denied funds for a barrier 

dam, inserting the same prohibitive clause in the Appropriations Bill. In August 

1962 the National Parks Association, the Sierra Club and other conservation 

organizations fi led suit, asking for an injunction to prevent the closing of the 

gates at Glen Canyon Dam until protective works for Rainbow Bridge were at 

least under construction. The judge, however, dismissed the suit, ruling that the 

organizations had no standing in law as they would not suffer harm by the fi lling 

of Lake Powell. Upon that note, the Bureau closed most of the diversion tunnel 

gates on March 13, 1963, and Lake Powell began a rapid rise.

 As lake waters crept up the narrow canyons toward Rainbow Bridge, Dave 

Brower, now head of a new organization called Friends of the Earth, enlisted the 

Wasatch Mountain Club and Ken Sleight, owner of a river running company, to 

join him in a suit to keep Lake Powell away from the bridge. In November 1970 

the suit was fi led, asking only that Lake Powell be limited to elevation 3,606, 

thus keeping it out of the National Monument, in accordance with Section 3 of 
534

Public Law 84-485. On February 27, 1973, Judge Willis Ritter, in Salt Lake City, 

granted the plaintiff’s motion and ordered the Bureau to lower Lake Powell to the 

3,606 level. To the Bureau and to Upper Basin water users, this was a disastrous 

decision, for the top 94 feet, from elevation 3,606 to 3,700, contained almost half 

of the storage volume of the reservoir. Furthermore, the lowered reservoir would 

substantially reduce the hydraulic “head” on the turbines, thereby cutting power 

production and revenue.

 Of course the government appealed and on May 1, 1973, a three-judge 

panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to allow Lake Powell to 

enter Rainbow Bridge National Monument while the case was reviewed. Then, 

just three months later, the Appeals Court issued its decision. Voting 5 to 2, the 

Court held that Congress had indeed repealed Section 3 of Public Law 84-485 by 

repeated acts of denying funds for protective works. Chief Justice David T. Lewis 

strongly dissented, commenting that the decision “was a deep trespass upon the 

prerogatives of Congress and a clear and dangerous violation of the doctrine of 

separation of powers. ... [and] an equally dangerous judicial aggression.”

 Brower and his lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, where the 

conservation case was joined amicus curiae by Attorneys General of 16 states, 

all of which disagreed with the Appeals Court decision. Out of four required, 

however, only three Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the case. Therefore 

on January 21, 1974, the Court announced that it had denied the appeal and that 

it would not review the case. Thus a new legal precedent, repeal of a law by 

implication, and denial of appropriations, had been set. So Lake Powell would 

continue to rise. And it rose, faster than almost anyone had predicted.

The Spillway Crisis, 1983-1984

 Of course, the lake level fl uctuated up and down in accordance with 

seasonal runoffs, and in some years it declined more than it rose. Generally, 

however, the level was higher each year until the lake actually fi lled, to elevation 

3,700 on June 22, 1980, an event that was marked by a public celebration on the 

crest of the dam. As a demonstration, both spillways were slightly opened for a 

short time. Lem Wylie, who had supervised the construction and who was invited 

as a guest for the celebration, expressed amazement at the rapid fi lling. “I never 

expected to see this in my lifetime,” he stated.

 Yet the fi lling in 1980 was only prelude to a much more dramatic event. 

While runoff prediction is an inexact science, predictions are vital for reservoir 

regulation. Any storage reservoir, such as Lake Powell, should be kept as full as 

possible, with accidental spills kept to a minimum. Therefore, runoff predictions 

are necessary early each spring so that suffi cient space—but not too much—can 

be provided in the reservoir.
535

 In 1983 nature dealt predictors a bad hand. Accumulated snowfall in the 

mountains on April 1 was only a bit above average, but the snow kept falling, in 

increasing amounts. By early May it appeared that Lake Powell had insuffi cient 

space for the runoff, so the Bureau opened the wicket gates of the powerplant so 

as to operate at full capacity, night and day. Still the water rose steadily toward 

the full mark of elevation 3,700 feet. The four outlet tubes, capable of a combined 

11,000 cubic feet per second release were also opened.

 Early in June one spillway radial gate (a heavy steel gate that is raised 

to admit fl ow from the bottom), was opened to allow water into the left 

spillway. When this operation is performed, water roars into the spillway, drops 

precipitously through several hundred feet, until it reaches the elbow section, 

then fl ows through the lower end, at that point horizontal, of what had been the 

diversion tunnel. Upon exiting, it strikes a “fl ip bucket” designed to dissipate the 

tremendous energy by throwing the water high into the air, allowing it to fall into 

the Colorado River. In 1983, the operation worked well—except for the insidious 

phenomenon known as cavitation.

 All civil and mechanical engineers are familiar with cavitation, a process 

where a fast moving liquid is thrown upward by some small obstruction, thus 

creating vapor cavities, or small vacuum pockets. These cavities then collapse 

with destructive force, digging holes into the surface on which the liquid is 

fl owing. The holes are rapidly enlarged and deepened. After one hole is formed 

a leapfrog action is initiated, causing further cavitation holes to form on down the 

surface. One might ask why designers specifi ed spillway tunnels that were almost 

certain to suffer cavitation damage when used. The only answer is that a wellmanaged reservoir should almost never spill, and then only for very short periods, 

after which the cavitation damage could be repaired.

 A spillway tunnel had been provided on each side of the canyon, but the 

right, or west, spillway was not used initially at Glen Canyon so as to confi ne the 

cavitation damage to the left one. As the infl ow into Lake Powell topped 

100,000 c.f.s., the gates were gradually opened until 32,000 c.f.s. were roaring 

through the left tunnel. I was one of the witnesses who saw the outfl ow turn 

orange, hurling chucks of concrete and sandstone into the Colorado River. Most 

of the engineers were somewhat worried, although they knew that most of the 

damage would be downward—not laterally into the lake. Yet obviously an 

inspection was in order.

 With the gates temporarily closed, two intrepid engineers, clad in foul 

weather gear, rode a tugger-lowered cart into the dark left spillway. Almost 

600 feet down the 60 degree slope they encountered massive holes cut clear 

through the three-foot thick concrete lining, and into the sandstone, with 

reinforcing bars twisted and broken. Just beyond they could see a series of large 

holes further down. At this point they could go no further and were hoisted back 

to the daylight.
536

 By the end of June, when the infl ow into the lake rose to around 

120,000 c.f.s. the gates of both spillways had to be opened. The biggest worry 

was not that the lake would top the dam, elevation 3,715, but that the water would 

rise above elevation 3700, at which point the water would fl ow over the top of 

the gates, even if they were in closed position. Work crews hurriedly placed 

temporary 4’x 8’ plywood panels upright across the top of the gates so as to 

increase storage. To a non-engineer, it sounds fantastic to hold back a 186 mile 

long lake with plywood panels, but it worked.

 For a more permanent and effective fi x, heavy steel 8-foot high 

fl ashboards were fabricated and trucked to the dam. Even as a large fl ow of water 

was roaring under the gates, workmen on top of the gates starting installing these 

fl ashboards on July 4th, working around the clock, and within two days they were 

in place.

 On July 14, the lake level reached 3,708.4, held at that elevation for almost 

a day, then began a slow, but measurable, decline. The fl ood of 1983 was over. 

By early August all spillway fl ows were curtailed.

 But the measure of the massive job of spillway repair had yet to be 

determined. I was one of a team who, in late July, waded into cold, standing 

water of the left tunnel and proceeded up the dark cavern toward the elbow 

section. It was an eerie spelunking experience to be entering that awesome 

dark underground chamber, not quite sure of what we would fi nd. Pulling a 

raft laden with battery powered fl oodlights, we scrambled and climbed around 

and over an amazing array of rock rubble, at least one piece as large as a good 

sized automobile. In many places the concrete lining was entirely gone, with 

rebar broken off by metal fatigue. Apprehensive of the expected large hole at the 

elbow section, we stopped wading short of having to swim, but from our vantage 

point we could easily see the series of large cavitation holes just above the elbow 

section. Having recorded the damage on fi lm and videotape, we retraced our 

route to the sunshine.

 With the powerplant operating at full tilt, and with all four outlet tubes 

shooting eight-foot wide jets into the Colorado River, emergency repairs began 

on the spillways. Drained of water, adit tunnels were gouged into the lower 

sides of each tunnel, near the outlet portals, to allow access to heavy equipment 

and trucks. A contractor hired hundreds of men and women to remove broken 

concrete, loose sandstone, and to prepare the tunnels for new rebar-fi lled concrete 

lining. When the huge hole at the elbow section of the left tunnel—the most 

severely damaged—was drained, it was measured to be 32 feet deep, 40 feet wide, 

and 150 feet long. It took twenty-fi ve hundred cubic yards of concrete to fi ll the 

hole.

 Meanwhile, in the Denver Engineering Laboratories, engineers were 

giving fi nal touches to the design for air slots to be incorporated in the upper 

portion of the Glen Canyon spillways. Their design called for a four-foot wide, 
537

four-foot deep, circular trench to be cut and lined about 110 feet down from the 

upper portal of each spillway. Tests had shown that when high velocity water 

crossed these air slots, a cushion of air bubbles would be introduced, on which 

the water would ride through the remainder of the spillway. Cavitation would 

therefore be virtually eliminated.

 The general principle of using air slots on tunnel type spillways had been 

conceived by design engineers during the 1970s, had been tested, and had actually 

been retrofi tted into the spillways at Yellowtail Dam in Montana. Whenever 

funds permitted, air slots were planned for all Bureau of Reclamation dams with 

tunnel type spillways. Had the 1983 damage not occurred, the spillways at Glen 

Canyon Dam would probably have been retrofi tted with air slots sometime during 

the 1980s. But with a large contractor on site, it was logical to build in the air 

slots as part of the ongoing spillway repair.

 Also, so as to prevent surprise incidents like the 1983 runoff, it was 

apparent that runoff forecasting had to be improved. Bureau offi cials in Salt Lake 

City, in cooperation with the National Weather Service and the Soil Conservation 

Service, devised an improved forecasting model, and ways to quickly refi ne that 

model as snowfall in the mountains accumulated. It was not accomplished too 

soon.

 As work on the spillways progressed through the fall of 1983 and into the 

new year, large amounts of snow continued to fall in the high country, and the 

1984 forecast showed that the runoff could be even greater than in 1983. With 

the spillways temporarily out of commission, it was obvious that releases of water 

through the dam and powerplant had to be kept at a maximum. Through May and 

June Lake Powell inched upward until it was only a few inches from the top of the 

new fl ashboards on the spillway gates. Then in early July the lake level began to 

recede. The crisis point had been passed.

 On August 12, 1984, the left spillway, completely repaired and 

incorporating an air slot, was tested with a release of 50,000 c.f.s. The event 

was astounding to watch, as huge jets of water arced gracefully from the fl ip 

buckets over 100 feet before plunging violently into the river. Spray fi lled the 

downstream canyon, refracting rainbows from the bright summer sunlight. After 

a few days of testing, the fl ow was curtailed and the spillway pumped dry for an 

inspection. I was fortunate to accompany the team of engineers that went in to 

examine the concrete surface. We could see no damage whatsoever. The air slots 

had been a complete success in preventing cavitation.

 Altogether, the repair of the two spillways had cost around $30 million, 

but the steady full operation of the powerplant to release more water had netted 

around $34 million in extra revenue. Furthermore, as most of the power was sold 

to energy companies in California, it enabled them to save great quantities of oil 

that would have been burned in oil-fi red generating plants.
538

Glen Canyon Power and the Grand Canyon Ecosystem

 Almost simultaneous with the spillway crisis, Glen Canyon Dam hit 

another bump in the road. For many years, even before the dam was completed, 

biologists, geologists, archaeologists, and river runners had been concerned with 

the altered character of the Colorado River fl owing from the dam and through 

the Grand Canyon. What enters Lake Powell as a warm, silt fi lled river emerges 

through the dam cold and clear, similar to a mountain stream. It also fl uctuated 

high and low in accordance with power demands at the Glen Canyon Powerplant, 

sometimes very rapidly. No studies had yet been made, but most scientists 

predicted damage to the Grand Canyon ecosystem.

 What caught the attention of the public, however, was a Bureau of 

Reclamation proposal to increase the power producing capacity by adding 

generators to the outlet tubes. Since peaking power earns considerably more 

revenue than off-peak power, the idea had been to convert the entire powerplant 

into a peaking power operation. Outfl ows during off peak would be practically 

curtailed, while during peak power demand, all eight generators, increased to 

twelve by addition of the four on outlet tubes, would be operated at full capacity. 

And to maintain steady fl ows through the Grand Canyon, a re-regulating dam, 

about 30 feet high, built to contain a fl uctuating reservoir, was planned for the 

canyon a few miles below the dam. To Bureau offi cials intent on fi nding ways 

to increase revenue the plan was a good one, but it struck a very large obstacle—

public opinion.

 In 1981 during public hearings in Page, Flagstaff, and Salt Lake City, the 

proposal aroused the ire of many who simply did not want another dam, even 

a small one, built in Glen Canyon. To them, the hated concrete dam was bad 

enough; they were not going to let the Bureau fl ood the last 15 miles of Glen 

Canyon below the dam. Fishers, in particular, who reveled in those 15 miles 

of good fi shing, cried foul. Even river runners, who might have been expected 

to embrace the idea of a non-fl uctuating river below Lee’s Ferry, were vocal in 

opposition. Many of these opponents wrote newspaper articles, appeared on 

national television, and urged people to write protest letters to their Congressmen. 

 Within a few months, the Bureau surrendered, giving up the proposal, 

but opting instead to rewind each of the eight generators at the dam so as to 

increase the power output, which would not change river fl ow patterns. The 

public protests, however, had called attention to possible damage the clear, cold, 

fl uctuating river was doing to the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Responding to this 

pressure, Under Secretary of Interior Robert Broadbent ordered a thorough study 

of several scientifi c aspects of the riverine environment below the dam. Although 

it was offi cially called the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Studies, (because it 

concerned fl ow releases from the dam), the studies were to be made in the fi fteen 

miles remaining of Glen Canyon, and in the 275 miles of the Grand Canyon.
539

 With the Bureau of Reclamation as prime agency, cooperation and 

assistance was needed and obtained, under contract, from the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, several universities, and many Indian tribes. 

Researchers from all of these agencies and institutions spent over ten years 

investigating every possible change brought about by the fl ow regimen over the 

previous 20 years. For two years, from 1983 to 1985, they were hampered by 

the continual high releases, and virtually no fl uctuations, required by the spillway 

crisis, thus creating an abnormal fl ow pattern. Most substantive investigations 

therefore began after the spillways had been repaired.

 Researchers knew, even before they ventured into the Grand Canyon, 

that the clear water and fl uctuations would be having some effect; the only 

question was how much. All of the sand, silt, and many of the minerals that used 

to fl ow though the canyon, nourishing the beaches and riverine life zones are 

now continually captured by Lake Powell. Furthermore, clear water accelerates 

degradation of the stream bed and shorelines, causing much of the existing sand to 

disappear into the river. High fl ows and rapid and wide fl uctuations in river fl ow 

due to changes in power demand at the Glen Canyon Powerplant add substantially 

to the degradation.

 Before 1963 the temperature of the river in Grand Canyon was 

synchronized with the seasons, warm enough to support a warm water fi shery 

that included pike minnow, formerly known as squawfi sh, razor backed suckers, 

bony tailed chub, and hump backed chub. Researchers suspected that these four 

species, having been impacted by cold water fl ows for over two decades, and all 

now listed as endangered, would have all vanished from the canyon.

 After ten years of research, at a cost of about $100 million, almost all of 

the predicted results were confi rmed; however huge amounts of additional data 

were obtained concerning the downstream ecosystem. Voluminous reports and 

books have been written on the fi ndings.

 Here are a few examples of what was learned. A viable humpback chub 

population was discovered in a relatively small estuary where the warm Little 

Colorado River fl ows into the Colorado River. But all the other endangered 

fi sh species had vanished from the canyon. Rainbow trout, however now live 

in the cold river, in reduced numbers as the distance from the dam increases. 

Surprisingly, bald eagles have begun to frequent the canyon to fi sh in the lower 

mile of Nankoweap Creek, fl owing into the Colorado River, where trout spawning 

occurs.

 Tamarisk, tamarix, ramosissima, a water devouring phreatophyte, was 

found to have greatly spread along the river banks, largely due to the lack of 

high, sand-laden spring runoff fl ows to uproot them and wash them away. Several 

bird species, however, such a Bell’s vireo, summer tanager, hooded oriole, and 
540

great-tailed grackle, have greatly expanded their nesting range throughout the 

dense foliage of the tamarisk and other bushes that now line parts of the river.21

 So that left only the question of how the operation of the dam could be 

altered so as to minimize deleterious effects on the Grand Canyon ecosystem. 

In November 1989 the Secretary directed an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) be prepared on the operation of the dam, with Reclamation again as the lead 

agency. Expressly ruled out was the option of removing the dam. So also was 

drilling a prohibitively expensive tunnel to convey sediment from an upper part of 

Lake Powell around the dam to the canyon. As for the cold water releases from 

the depths of the lake, the Bureau agreed to study ways to raise the temperature by 

modifying the intake structures.

 In early 1991 the Bureau changed the fl ow regime by raising the 

minimum fl ow, by cutting the peak off maximum fl ows, and by slowing down 

the “ramping,” speed where fl ows are altered either up or down. The fi nal EIS, 

completed in March 1995, and the Record of Decision (October 1996) essentially 

recommended perpetual maintenance of this pattern, except in emergencies.

 Congress passed the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, requiring 

some type of continual monitoring of effects on the downstream ecosystem, 

now complied with by formation of a Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work 

Group.

 Ironically, what began in 1981 as the Bureau’s desire to produce more 

peaking power has resulted in turning the dam and powerplant into a near steadystate power producer, with very little peaking power, and certainly less revenue.

 In a separate, but similar incident, Regional Director David Crandall of 

the Bureau once told me that, in the early 1970s, he and his staff had tried to 

obtain agreement from the Navajo and Ute Tribes to construct another backbone 

transmission line through their reservations, parallel to the one built in the early 

1960s. To this leaders of both tribes replied fi rmly, “Absolutely not, but we would 

like you to remove the line that is already there!” No second line was ever built.

Changing Perceptions about Pre-dam Glen Canyon

 From the early 1950s onward, opposition to having a dam in Glen Canyon 

has been a factor to consider. During the Congressional hearings of 1954-1956, 

opponents were vocal but unorganized, and numbered comparatively few. River 

running at that time was not widely popular. Boating parties venturing into 

Glen Canyon were occasional private parties and often Boy Scout groups. And 

of those that did see the main canyon, very few ventured far into the varied and 

fantastically eroded side canyons. As late as 1955, the private party of Katie Lee, 

Tad Nichols, and Frank Wright bestowed names on several previously unnamed 

side canyons.22
541

 Glen Canyon suffered also by the attention given to the Grand Canyon. 

Whereas Grand Canyon was magnifi cently huge, astoundingly deep, and almost 

incomprehensible, “one of the great sights, which every American, if he can 

travel at all, should see . . . ,” (Theodore Roosevelt) Glen Canyon was colorful, 

intimate, and comfortable. The Colorado River in Grand Canyon was lined with 

threatening river rapids; the same river in Glen Canyon had none. A spur rail 

line reached the South Rim in 1901 and the fi rst automobile arrived at that point 

in 1902, but no decent road reached Glen Canyon until 1957. Quite probably, 

had Glen Canyon not been overshadowed by the public attention given to the 

Grand Canyon, it would have been much better known when engineers and water 

managers started talking about a dam.

 How indeed is a geological curiosity transformed into a cultural icon? 

It is not a simple process of “being there.” As author Stephen J. Pyne points 

out, Grand Canyon itself was once just a geological curiosity. Explorer Joseph 

C. Ives, writing in 1858, called it a “profi tless locality”—but the image of the 

canyon was gradually transformed by a cadre of scientists, writers, painters, and 

photographers, including John Wesley Powell, Clarence Dutton, William Henry 

Holmes, Thomas Moran, and publicity men and women of the Santa Fe Railroad.

 In his book How the Grand Canyon Became Grand Stephen Pyne writes:

Among the last of America’s landscapes to be formally explored, the 

Grand Canyon had become among the fi rst of its natural marvels and, 

for a nation that tended to substitute natural monuments for cultural 

ones, entered the pantheon of its sacred places. Its valorization offered 

as much a cross section through American history as of earth history. 

The evolution of that interpretation had, with eerie symmetry, mimicked 

the evolution of the Canyon’s features. The spasmodic tectonism of 

geographic exploration, the varied tributaries that fl owed from the 

main currents of American thought—with breathtaking brevity the two 

processes had merged, and not merely laid down a course of history 

but entrenched it so deeply the Canyon became a permanent feature of 

America’cultural lanscape.23

 Before the dam, Glen Canyon missed similar scrutiny by scientists as well 

as by lyric poets and painters. It had been visited by perhaps hundreds of miners 

and prospectors in the 1890s and again in the 1930s.24 Yet to most of those who 

had heard the name at all, Glen Canyon was simply another in a long series of 

gorges cut by the Colorado River through the Colorado Plateau, probably a good 

place for a dam.

 All of this began to change after construction began on Glen Canyon 

Dam. Realizing that time was running out to see the canyon, private river boating 

parties fl oated through Glen Canyon in increasing numbers from 1956 to 1963, 

when water storage was initiated in Lake Powell.
542

 One of the most infl uential members of these boating groups was David 

Brower, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Brower, who had not objected to 

Glen Canyon Dam so long as Echo Park Dam was eliminated from the Colorado 

River Storage Project in 1956, was astonished by the beauty and variety of 

Glen Canyon. He soon contracted with photographer Eliot Porter to take color 

photographs in the canyon, for eventual publication in a Sierra Club book, entitled 

The Place No One Knew—Glen Canyon of the Colorado.

25 The title of the book, 

which came out in 1963, was of course, a misnomer, since Glen Canyon was 

historically the most visited by boat of all the Colorado River canyons. What 

the title meant, rather, was that writers, painters, and photographers had never 

enshrined Glen Canyon suffi ciently to make it a cultural icon. Understated in the 

title was the belief that had the canyon been a cultural icon, such as the Grand 

Canyon, Glen Canyon Dam would never have been authorized.

 After Lake Powell began to form, most of the publicity centered on the 

beauties of the lake and the novelties of boating into narrow side canyons barely 

wide enough for passage. During the 1960s very little was said about the loss of 

pre-dam Glen Canyon. Gradually, however, more voices were heard decrying 

the loss, particularly among young people. Certainly, the loss of confi dence in 

the Federal government due to the Vietnam War and Watergate had a pronounced 

effect, for it caused many of college age to question what else the government 

had done wrong. Also, with new equipment and money, this younger generation 

was more adventurous than those earlier. Although it would be a mistake to 

categorize an entire generation, many of them wanted to climb mountains, hike 

trails, camp out, surf in the waves, and boat down wilderness rivers. To them it 

was frustrating to learn through books such as Eliot Porter’s and several magazine 

articles, what Glen Canyon used to be. At least some of them felt that older 

generations had denied to them a moving river and much of the scenery in Glen 

Canyon, as well as a great adventure—even perhaps, a soul inspiring mystical 

journey. A slow houseboat trip on Lake Powell—or even on a speedy personal 

water craft—could hardly compensate. By the early 1980s these discontented 

young people were ready to organize against the dam. The vanished Glen Canyon 

was indeed becoming a cultural icon—even posthumously.

The Drain Lake Powell Movement

 A strong and infl uential voice was added in 1968, when Edward Abbey 

burst upon the scene with his book Desert Solitaire—A Season in the Wilderness,26

a robust, well-written collection of Abbey’s stories from southeastern Utah. New

Yorker Magazine called Abbey “a good hater.”27 In describing Lake Powell 

Abbey wrote:

[Where Major John Wesley Powell] and his brave men once lined the 

rapids and glided through silent canyons, two thousand feet deep the 

motorboats now smoke and whine, scumming the water with cigarette 

butts, beer cans and oil, dragging the water skiers on their endless 

rounds, clockwise.28
543

Abbey also quipped, “I’m a humanist: I’d rather kill a man than a snake!”

And one of his visions, supposedly written while Glen Canyon Dam was still 

under construction, was that 

some hero will carry a rucksack full of dynamite into the dam, hide it 

carefully, then attach blasting caps to the offi cial dam wiring system so 

that when the dam is dedicated by the President and Secretary of the 

Interior and Governors from the Four Corner states, a button will be 

pushed, igniting the loveliest explosion ever seen, and the new rapids 

formed will be named ‘Floyd E. Dominy Falls’ in honor of the chief of 

the Reclamation Bureau.

Desert Solitaire was an immediate best seller and has gone through several 

editions and reprinting, and is even today, four decades later, still in print. In 

1975 Abbey followed this up with The Monkey Wrench Gang,

29 a novel about 

a small band of self-righteous, do-gooder eco-terrorists who have the dream of 

destroying Glen Canyon Dam, but who, in the meantime, whet their destructive 

impulses on power lines, road building equipment, and on the train carrying coal 

from Black Mesa to the Navajo Powerplant near Page. Again Abbey displayed 

his writing talent, as well as his iconoclastic view of economic development and 

what he called “industrial tourism”

 These two books by Abbey contributed greatly to the anti-dam movement, 

both by enhancing the status of the pre-dam Glen Canyon as a cultural icon and 

by fanning the fl ames of discontent with the dam and with Lake Powell which 

some referred to as “Lake Foul”, or, at best, “Reservoir Powell.” This said, one 

could hardly dispute the fact that around three million people visit Lake Powell 

each year, spending millions of dollars on boats, lodging, food, and supplies. 

What it does mean rather, is that public perceptions of the lake (or reservoir), were 

becoming more polarized. Undoubtedly the boating portion of the public loves 

the lake—it is, of course, one of the most scenic lakes in the world—while a vocal 

minority now calls for removal of the dam as soon as possible.

 On a warm spring day in 1981 Ed Abbey showed up at the dam, ostensibly 

to act as high priest for a recently organized group calling themselves Earth First! 

A few of its members climbed over a gate leading to the crest of the dam, then 

walked to the center point where they unfurled a tapered sheet of black plastic 

sheeting 300 feet down the downstream face, meant to represent a terrible crack 

in the dam. On the bridge, 350 feet away, Abbey shouted “Earth First! Free the 

Colorado!” and the seventy or so people that had accompanied him joined in.30

 The Earth First! Mission Statement originally boasted of engaging in 

violent tactics, such as ‘cracking’ dams with banners, blockading bulldozers, 

sitting in trees, and disabling Earth-destroying equipment (“monkeywrenching”—

as one word) was introduced to the vocabulary of the modern environmental 

movement.31
544

 Soon after this 1981 incident, the Bureau tightened security at the dam. 

First workmen installed closed-circuit TV cameras at practically all access points. 

Casual visitors, could no longer roam freely on a self-guided basis down the 

elevators and onto the west end of the generator fl oor, the transformer deck and 

the governor gallery. They would now have to fi rst obtain a ticket, have all tote 

bags inspected, and then proceed in small groups accompanied by a Bureau guide. 

Furthermore, accessible areas were reduced by cutting out the sensitive governor 

gallery.

 Near Moab, Utah, a few rebellious men and women actually tried their 

hand at eco-terrorism, monkeywrench style, by chain-sawing down a wooden 

transmission tower, thereby disrupting power service. The loud public reaction 

against this act seemed to alert the perpetrators that it was self-destructive 

behavior, calculated to win no allies. At least three times, studios in Hollywood 

have seriously considered turning The Monkey Wrench Gang into an action fi lled 

movie, but each time they have backed away for fear of inspiring copy-cat acts of 

destruction.

 During the 1980s until 1996, protests against the dam seemed to 

subside, perhaps because of the environmental studies and the preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Study then underway. The National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, had, however, signifi cantly altered the equation by requiring 

extensive studies and producing an Environmental Impact Statement prior to 

authorization. Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who had played such a pivotal role 

in the campaign for CRSP in 1956, was heard to say, in 1981, “We got the CRSP 

approved just in time. Today we could never get it authorized—particularly if it 

included Glen Canyon Dam.”

 Barry Goldwater, set to retire from the Senate in 1986, said that if he could 

recast one vote in his entire Senate career, it would have been his vote to authorize 

Glen Canyon Dam.32

 In 1996 a new group advocating removal of the dam was formed. The 

 Glen Canyon Institute was led by two men: David Wegner, a biologist who had 

served as director of the environmental studies for the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

Richard Ingebretsen, a physician in Salt Lake City. In the GCI mission statement 

is the following:

Although in 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation completed an EIS on 

operations of the dam, decommissioning the dam was not offered 

as an alternative to the public. Public comments, which suggested 

decommissioning of the dam, were simply rejected as falling outside 

the scope of that EIS process. Glen Canyon Institute believes that 

the American public should decide whether or not the long term 

environmental costs of maintaining Glen Canyon Dam outweigh the 

short term benefi ts provided by Powell reservoir.33
545

 Goal of the GCI is to produce a Citizens’ Environmental Impact Statement 

that would clearly show the benefi ts of removing, or at least decommissioning, the 

dam. Now based in Salt Lake City, the organization has reported a membership 

of 1,400 individuals spread throughout the United States. Richard Ingebretsen 

readily admits that draining Lake Powell is a long term objective, probably not 

achievable for at least twenty years, yet he is optimistic that their effort will meet 

with success. While Ingebretsen and his group mention the economic costs of 

lake surface evaporation, what they are really striving for is to raise pre-dam Glen 

Canyon to the status of a cultural icon, just as David Brower had been trying to do 

since 1963.

 Brower, probably the most infl uential environmentalist in the country, 

the man who had almost single-handedly defeated Echo Park Dam, was also a 

member of GCI, and spoke at several of the GCI meetings. On his own initiative 

in 1997 Brower convinced the National Board of the Sierra Club to unanimously 

declare its support for draining Lake Powell, thus making it national policy. 

Subsequently Brower wrote even more articles, gave more speeches, always 

advocating decommissioning of the dam, while admitting apologetically that he 

had tacitly supported the dam during the 1950s. Brower died in 2000, but many 

of his followers in the Sierra Club and elsewhere have vowed to carry on his 

campaign.

 Congressman James Hansen of Utah responded to the movement by 

calling for a hearing before his House Interior Committee in September 1997.

His primary purpose was obviously to squash the drain Lake Powell initiative in 

the bud. At that hearing, Sierra Club president Adam Werbach and GCI’s Dave 

Wegner reportedly “took a beating from politicians and experts who dismissed 

the plan as loony,” “impractical,” and “certifi ably nutty,”34 The hearing somewhat 

backfi red in that it only helped to publicize the concept of draining the lake by 

giving it Congressional and media attention.

 To counter the threat from the GCI and the Sierra Club, a group of Page 

residents, in July 1997, organized what they named Friends of Lake Powell. Its 

avowed purpose was and is to discount negative claims against the dam and 

reservoir and to promulgate the recognized benefi ts.

 Some people considered that the methods employed by the Glen Canyon 

Institute and the Sierra Club were too slow to take effect. A new group was 

therefore organized in January 2000 with more radical tactics in mind. Living 

Rivers, headquartered in Moab, espouses public demonstrations and media 

attention, but not eco-terrorism at the dam or anywhere else. When Living Rivers 

announced that its fi rst rally would be held at the dam on March 14, 2000, the 

Friends of Lake Powell countered that they would hold a demonstration at the 

same time and place—the Bureau feared a possible riot. When the day arrived 

local police were on hand to separate the groups by the width of the canyon, one 

on one side, one on the other. Separate demonstrations and speeches were then 
546

forthcoming, one group promoting draining the lake and one against it. Visitors 

standing on the bridge separating the two demonstrations were watched closely by 

the police. No trouble, other than loud public address systems, was reported.

 In the future we can look forward to sustained opposition to continued 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam, restricted though it has been. And Lake Powell 

will continue to provide a Mecca for fi shers, boaters, and water oriented sports. 

Considering the economic investment in the dam and powerplant, in the city of 

Page, in recreation facilities around Lake Powell, and in the Navajo Generating 

Station, which draws clean cooling water from the lake, it is not likely that the 

drain Lake Powell movement will have success, at least not for several decades.

Emphasizing the need for continued operation of both Glen Canyon Powerplant 

and the Navajo Generating Station is the current, and probably long term, demand 

for additional electrical energy in the western United States.

Sedimentation

 Sediment, of course, continues to settle in the upper parts of the lake, 

diminishing its storage capacity and its ability to meet downstream commitments 

during times of drought. Although never mentioned in promotional literature, 

sediment storage is a vital function of Lake Powell, since it greatly increases the 

useful life of Lake Mead, about 300 miles downstream.

 The San Juan River arm of Lake Powell, which receives a majority of the 

sediment input, is already heavily clogged. The San Juan Marina on that arm had 

to be closed in 1988 due to heavy sedimentation. In the early 1990s a sediment 

bar built up so fi rmly on the San Juan arm that it blocked the infl ow from the 

river, forcing the water to rise up, fl ow across a section of nearby fl at sandstone, 

then drop by a 20-foot waterfall into Lake Powell. Although this silt dam later 

washed out, it was an indication of things to come.

 No one knows when sediment will reach the dam, but it will not be 

soon. Anticipating that eventual day, Bureau engineers are considering using 

the outlet tubes to fl ush some of that sediment around the powerplant.35 A 

study of sedimentation rates by the Bureau showed that it would be 700 years 

before sediment would reach the penstock level, elevation 3,490, where water 

is drawn into the turbines. Although the powerplant could, and probably will, 

generate power up till that time, no offi cial prediction has been made as to when 

the reservoir will be too small to meet downstream commitments—or when 

Lake Powell is so diminished in size that water oriented recreation is no longer 

practical. Perhaps by then the drain Lake Powell movement will have fi nally 

achieved success and the stored sediment will be draining around or through the 

dam, through the Grand Canyon, and fi lling up any remaining capacity in Lake 

Mead.
547

Drought

 Drought is a problem not only to Colorado River water users, but also to 

the entire western U.S. The prime stated reason for building Glen Canyon Dam 

was to sustain required fl ows to the Lower Basin and Mexico during drought 

periods.

 Yet when a severe drought period actually occurred, as in the years 1999 

to 2005, both Lake Powell and Lake Mead were drawn down extensively. In 

fact, releases from Glen Canyon Dam in 2004 were the fi rst in the dam’s 40-

year history in which extra Lake Powell water was released to meet Compact 

commitments. As a Bureau spokesman stated, “ Lake Powell releases kept Lake 

Mead from going dry.”

 Several meteorologists and climatologists are now saying that drought 

should be considered usual, and that it may last for long periods. Therefore, 

water users and Bureau of Reclamation offi cials have undertaken discussions on 

ways to tacitly circumvent the Upper Basin downstream commitment of the 1922 

Compact, and to replace it with criteria to keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead at 

equal levels, percentage wise and to equalize the shortage of water between the 

two basins.

 Because of the new criteria essentially considering Lake Powell and Lake 

Mead as one storage unit, combined with expected drought years and continuing 

increasing withdrawals from Upper Basin users, Lake Powell may never fi ll again.

Conclusions

 The bumpy road that Glen Canyon Dam history has taken in the past 

55 years represents a long encounter with scenic values, with cultural antiquity, 

with natural processes of fl ood and sedimentation, and with preservation of 

two national icons, the Grand Canyon and Rainbow Bridge. The very rust-red 

sandstone landscape that backdrops Lake Powell, making it one of the most 

scenic bodies of water in the world, is the same scenery that causes environmental 

groups to demand that the lake be drained so that the heart of the scenery—the 

canyon fl oor and the river can be seen and accessed. Those opposed to the dam 

will continue to promote pre-dam Glen Canyon as a national and cultural icon 

that should be returned from the depths—the sooner the better. But they will have 

little success so long as investments in the dam and lake remain both widespread 

and profi table. When the day arrives that maintenance of the dam no longer 

makes economic sense—no matter how far in the future that may be—Glen 

Canyon Dam will strike the biggest bump of all. We can only guess what future 

generations will do with the dam at that time.
548

W. L. (Bud) Rusho worked in public affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation 

on-site during construction of Glen Canyon Dam and then transferred to the 

regional offi ce in Salt Lake City. He retired in 1988 and has since been actively 

freelancing as a writer, photographer, and movie maker about western topics.

Endnotes

1. Farmer, Jared, Glen Canyon Dammed—Inventing Lake Powell & the Canyon Country, 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, (1999).

2. The Colorado River—A Natural Menace Becomes a National Resource, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Government Printing Offi ce, March 1946.

3. Letter from Assistant Secretary of the Interior transmitting A Report on the Colorado 

River Storage Project, 83rd Congress, 2d Session, House Document No. 364, April 6, 1954.

4. In later years, both Udall and Goldwater expressed regret for supporting Glen Canyon 

Dam.

5. Personal interview, April 1974.

6. Remarks by Carl Hayden at the Carl Hayden Visitor Center, October 1969.

7. Interview with Clyde Gessel, March 1999.

8. Interview with L. F. Wylie, June 1983.

9. Ibid.

10. Christenson, Andrew L., The Last of the Great Expeditions—The Rainbow Bridge/

Monument Valley Expedition, 1933-1938, Plateau Magazine, Vol. 58, No. 4, Museum of Northern 

Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona, (1987).

11. Jennings, Jesse D., Glen Canyon: A Summary, University of Utah Anthropological 

Papers, No. 81, Salt Lake City, (June 1966), p. 7.

12. Jennings, Jesse D. Accidental Archaeologist—Memoirs of Jesse D. Jennings, University

of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, (1994), p. 215.

13. Jennings, Glen Canyon: A Summary.

14. Ibid.

15. Jennings, Accidental Archaeologist, pp. 216-7.

16. C. Gregory Crampton, Standing Up Country: The Canyonlands of Utah and Arizona, 

Alfred A. Knopf, New York; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in association with the 

Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth.

17. C. Gregory Crampton, Ghosts of Glen Canyon, Tower Productions, Salt Lake City 1986 

and 1994.

18. Bureau of Reclamation, limited publication document, (1959), copy in possession of the 

author.

19. Ibid.

20. Hank Hassell, Rainbow Bridge—An Illustrated History, Logan: Utah State University 

Press, 1999, p. 126.

21. Steven W. Carothers and Bryan T. Brown, The Colorado River Through Grand Canyon, 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1991), p. 149.

22. Katie Lee, All My Rivers Are Gone—A Journey of Discovery Through Glen Canyon, 

Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Books, 1998.

23. Stephen J. Pyne, How The Canyon Became Grand, New York: Penguin Books, 1999, 

p. 114.

24. C. Gregory Crampton, Outline History of the Glen Canyon Region, University of Utah 

Anthropological Papers #42, Salt Lake City (1959).

25. Eliot Porter, The Place No One Knew—Glen Canyon on the Colorado, Sierra Club, San 

Francisco (1963)

26. Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire—A Season in the Wilderness, New York: McGraw-Hill 

Book Co., 1968.

27. New Yorker Magazine, April 6, 1968.

28. Ibid., p. 152.
549

29. Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang, Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Lippincott 

Company, 1975.

30. Russell Martin, A Story That Stands Like A Dam—Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the 

Soul of the West, New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1989.

31. Earth First web site.

32. Jim Stiles, “Why We Should Drain Lake Powell,” Canyon Country Zephyr (April/May 

1997).

33. Glen Canyon Institute, Citizens’ Environmental Assessment (CEA) on the 

Decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam, Interim Report, Glen Canyon Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona 

(Fall 2000).

34. Greg Hanscom, “Reclaiming a Lost Canyon,” High Country News, Paonia, Colorado, 

(November 10, 1997).

35. Randy Peterson, Bureau of Reclamation Adaptive Management Engineer, address to 

Bureau of Reclamation Retirees, 2000.
550
551

The Indian Camp Dam Controversy: The Real 

Beanfi eld War

By:

Marilyn J. Koch

Abstract

This essay explores the controversial history of Indian Camp Dam, a 

Bureau of Reclamation project authorized under the Colorado River 

Storage Project and the San Juan-Chama Diversion Project. The dam 

was proposed, but never built, for predominantly Hispanic farmers in the 

Taos Valley of northern New Mexico. Using interviews with participants 

in the controversy as the basis for her study, the author argues for more 

complete and complex histories of intra- and interethnic cooperation and 

resistance, histories that embrace “untidy ambiguities.”

“When [we] talk about history we don’t mean what actually happened, do we? 

The cosmic chaos of everywhere, all time? We mean the tidying up... into books. 

History unravels; circumstances, following their natural inclination, prefer to 

remain raveled.”

Penelope Lively, Moon Tiger

 As we gather in 2002 for the centennial of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

we have set time aside for many events: for the special tour of Hoover Dam; for 

our host’s celebratory events; and to meet with friends and fellow historians. 

But most importantly, we have set time aside in the most literal meaning of that 

phrase, for we will spend most of our time in the Past, recognizing the history of 

the past 100 years of the Bureau of Reclamation. As we gather to recognize the 

Bureau of Reclamation, we should perhaps ponder that verb: recognize—to look 

over again, literally, “to re-know.”

 To set time aside and to recognize are also most appropriate defi nitions for 

what we do as historians. We are also, though, in the broadest sense, storytellers. 

I do not mean that historians create fi ctions nor fantasies, though some do, but that 

we place very raveled events and circumstances into a narrative framework. We 

unravel and we tidy up. We have to in order to satisfy the necessity for a coherent 

work.

 My contribution to this Symposium, my ‘looking over again’ a piece of the 

history of the Bureau of Reclamation, explores the controversial history of Indian 

Camp Dam, a project that Reclamation never built. Because it offers us insight 

into the oppositional strategies at work against the Bureau of Reclamation, this 

never-built project provides an additional dimension to our re-knowing, perhaps 

one that histories of completed projects cannot give. Because historians tend to 

emphasize what did happen, rather than what did not, they risk overlooking or 
552

missing opportunities to examine the meanings that an event had as it unfolded; 

they risk holding the past “hostage to an as yet undefi ned future.”1

 Indian Camp Dam, a relatively small dam, was to have been built 

near Taos, New Mexico, in the valley about three miles south of Talpa, New 

Mexico, as part of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). The Bureau of 

Reclamation designed Indian Camp Dam to benefi t predominantly Hispanic 

farmers and ranchers who needed an additional and reliable source of water 

for irrigating their lands, many of which were located on Spanish colonial 

land grants. Because my essay is not the fi rst to look at the Indian Camp Dam 

controversy, 2 and because events surrounding the controversy have also been 

satirized in the popular novel by John Nichols, The Milagro Beanfi eld War, I am 

‘looking over again’ the story of Indian Camp Dam in a literal, revisionist, sense 

as well. Beneath any tidied up narrative of the Indian Camp Dam controversy lie 

layers of complex human interactions that comprise the very raveled and very 

untidy historical, political, and cultural past of northern New Mexico. I do not 

presume that my history will do more than add another dimension, but I hope it 

adds a more raveled one.

 Toward that goal, I have incorporated interviews conducted with principal 

participants in the controversy, in particular Andres Martinez and Rudy Pacheco, 

two Hispanic water leaders who ultimately found themselves on opposite sides, 

and John Nichols and Paul Bloom, two Anglos who also opposed each other. I 

have also incorporated the contemporary perspective of Eluid Martinez (no 

relation to Andres Martinez), Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation during 

the Clinton Administration. Eluid Martinez became involved in the Indian 

Camp Dam controversy in 1971 when he was a young hydrographic engineer 

working for the Offi ce of the New Mexico State Engineer. As a native of northern 

New Mexico, an observer of the controversy, and as former Commissioner of 

Reclamation, Eluid Martinez commands a unique vantage point from which to 

comment upon the Indian Camp Dam project. I believe the oral histories of these 

participants reveal that previous versions of the Indian Camp Dam history have 

omitted facts critical to a complete and fair understanding of the controversy.

23.1. Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner of 

Reclamation from 1995-2001, previously 

worked in the State Engineer’s offi ce in 

New Mexico, where he served as State 

Engineer at the end of his career.
553

 This essay also examines the legal framework proposed for the ownership 

and maintenance of the dam, and how this project was infl uenced but ultimately 

hobbled by the tangled institutional structures, cultures, and organizational 

ideologies of the federal and state agencies involved in the controversy, including 

the Bureau of Reclamation. Ultimately, this essay questions stereotypical 

assumptions of how ethnic boundaries were set, maintained, and crossed during 

the controversy–assumptions that have since been further distorted by the success 

of The Milagro Beanfi eld War. This novel, and to some extent the subsequent 

movie, have garnered huge popular appeal. To a surprising degree, the novel 

encompasses the general public’s entire awareness of northern New Mexico’s 

environmental politics. The term “beanfi eld war” has become synonymous with 

any Anglo/Hispanic environmental dispute in New Mexico. The book continues 

to be displayed prominently in hotel and airport gift shops, alongside the iconic 

red chili ristra lights and howling coyotes, as if to announce “This is New 

Mexico.” But “to recognize” the history of Indian Camp Dam is to recognize that 

a stereotypical and romantic description of a cliche struggle—Anglo developers 

and reclamationists versus earth-loving Hispanic farmers, a struggle that has taken 

on the power of legend—can be not only deceptive and unfair, but can also have 

long-lasting effects on how we choose to use and conserve natural resources.

 Finally, by examining the history of this controversial and never-built 

reclamation project using the oral histories of these participants, I hope to show 

the validity of Donald Pisani’s statement in To Reclaim a Divided West, that “The 

story of the West must begin from the ground up, rather than from the top down. 

The parts must be understood before sense can be made of the whole.”3

 If we are 

to use this centennial to recognize the Bureau of Reclamation, it seems fi tting to: 

“look over again” one of these parts.

 Indian Camp Dam was designed to have been built in the forested canyon 

of Rio Grande de los Ranchos, a tributary of the Rio Grande, three miles south of 

 Talpa, New Mexico. Talpa is one of over a dozen small settlements within Taos 

valley lying along eight mountain streams, all making competing demands on the 

valley’s watershed. In addition to the competing demands of these predominantly 

Hispanic settlements, Taos Pueblo Indians claim Winters rights,4 prior and 

paramount rights, to the headwaters of the valley’s tributaries at Blue Lake.

 While it is beyond the scope of this essay to detail the complexities of 

Indian water rights in New Mexico, an awareness of Winters rights is important 

to a theoretical understanding of the context, and perhaps even more importantly, 

the subtext, of the Indian Camp Dam controversy. Although Taos Pueblo was 

not involved in the controversy in an overt or active fashion, because its Winters

rights were still not fully appropriated, nor yet fully put to benefi cial use, and 

still theoretically held in trust by the United States, they remained unquantifi ed. 

In 1970, just as the Indian Camp Dam controversy intensifi ed, Taos Pueblo won 

its long battle with the U.S. government for return of Blue Lake. Against this 

backdrop the increasing demands for the water, and at least two years of drought, 
554

served to heighten awareness and competition for water throughout the Taos 

valley. In many important ways these tensions were not new. As John Baxter 

demonstrates in Dividing New Mexico’s Waters, 1700-1912, confl icts over water 

had tangled the web of human interaction, resistance, and compromise in the Taos 

valley for the past 300 years.5

 Indian Camp Dam was originally conceived as one of the hundreds 

of projects comprising the Colorado River Storage Project, or CRSP. When 

Congress fi nally passed and President Eisenhower signed the CRSP into law in 

1956, the legislation enabled the Bureau of Reclamation to build the network of 

dams necessary to divide up and store Colorado River water among the seven 

western states, including New Mexico, that claim it. The ideological framework 

for the CRSP grew not only out of the federalism of the Reclamation Era, but also 

out of New Deal federalism and its social welfare programs. The CRSP was not 

only a project of environmental engineering, but in social engineering as well.6

Beneath this framework lay the powerful symbolism of the Jeffersonian agrarian 

ideal of the yeoman farmer, which infi ltrated and informed everyone’s approach to 

Indian Camp Dam.

 As originally conceived, the CRSP was one of this country’s largest water 

reclamation projects. Its scope was astounding.7 It encompassed scores of small 

and medium sized reclamation projects–the dams and reservoirs that fi ll the 

modern Western landscape. It included large and very controversial projects, such 

as the infamous and never-built Echo Park Dam, and Glen Canyon Dam, which 

created Lake Powell and stores the equivalent of two years’ fl ow of the Colorado. 

The Bureau of Reclamation called Glen Canyon Dam its “cash register.” 

Money that Glen Canyon Dam generated from electrical power subsidized the 

construction of other CRSP projects. The CRSP was the fi rst reclamation project 

to link the receipt of power revenues from one location to payment for irrigation 

projects in others. This enabled politicians and reclamationists to rationalize 

the construction of irrigation projects in places where, until then, the economics 

of large scale irrigated farming had been considered impossible or, at best, 

marginal—places like Taos, New Mexico.

 The CRSP called for water to be transported from the San Juan River, 

New Mexico’s only source of Colorado River water, into the Azotea Tunnels 

underneath the Continental Divide, and fi nally into the Rio Grande Basin via 

the Chama River. This transfer, initially a part of the CRSP, is called the San 

Juan-Chama Diversion Project (SJCDP). Throughout the 1950s New Mexico’s 

Senator Clinton B. Anderson, himself a strong advocate of reclamation and 

New Deal ideologies, fought for New Mexico’s share of Colorado River water 

and for the SJCDP. As head of the powerful Senate Interior and Insular Affairs 

Committee, he helped direct the course of legislation required to enact the SJCDP 

pursuant to the terms of the Colorado River Compact. Anderson and most 

reclamation advocates believed that in order for New Mexico to use Colorado 

River water most effectively, the water had to end up in the Rio Grande, where 
555

it could then reach and serve the most populated and agriculturally productive 

portions of the state. This transfer subjected the imported waters to further 

complicated political compromises and to the terms of the Rio Grande Compact.

 In 1962 Congress fi nally approved and President Kennedy signed into law 

the SJCDP and construction of the tunnels began. Senator Anderson had seen 

to it that most of the water would go to his constituency in central and southcentral New Mexico, primarily for municipal and industrial use by the city of 

Albuquerque.8

 New Mexico’s other U.S. Senator, Democrat and Hispanic Dennis 

Chavez, supported Anderson’s long battle for the CRSP and the SJCDP. In return, 

Chavez won Anderson’s promise that over one-fourth of the water (30,000 acre 

feet per year) would go to Chavez’s constituency, the predominantly Hispanic 

farmers and ranchers in northern New Mexico.

 Taos was too far north and east of the Chama River to receive the imported 

waters directly. Instead, by constructing dams, Taos and three other northern New 

Mexico communities were to impound waters from their respective Rio Grande 

tributaries in the total designated amount. This same amount would then be 

substituted with San Juan water fl owing into the Rio Grande in order to replenish 

the Rio Grande and meet the downstream requirements called for under the Rio 

Grande Compact.

 Under the terms of the Rio Grande Compact, New Mexico had to meet 

certain downstream delivery obligations, both intrastate and interstate. The Rio 

Grande Compact divided the New Mexico portion of the Rio Grande above the 

Elephant Butte Reservoir and designated the amounts that had to be delivered into 

the Reservoir from the upstream section of the river. Similarly, New Mexico also 

had delivery requirements and obligations to Texas. The most serious opposition 

to the SJCDP had come from Texas and from the Elephant Butte Irrigation 

District (EBID) in southern New Mexico. Texas and the EBID jointly questioned 

how their rights would be protected, especially in times of drought when they 

feared that the additional upstream projects proposed by SJCDP would consume 

too much water at the expense of those below Elephant Butte Dam. In return for 

dropping their opposition to the diversion, EBID and Texas demanded and were 

guaranteed strict compliance with the Rio Grande Compact.

 The state of California, through the Colorado River Board of California, 

had also mounted vigorous opposition to SJCDP by attacking the feasibility of 

the New Mexico projects and questioning how they conformed to the Colorado 

River Compact and the pattern of protecting the Colorado River Basin as a whole. 

California wanted assurance that none of the Colorado River water would be 

made available for consumptive use, “whether by exchange or substitution or use 

of return fl ow, to any state not a party of the Colorado River Compact,”9

 that is, 

Texas. Thus, under the Rio Grande Compact New Mexico was left to assume 

responsibility to the EBID and Texas to limit the use of the water upstream to 

the amounts imported and simultaneously, under the provisions of the Colorado 
556

River Compact, New Mexico was to keep Colorado River water out of Texas by 

consumptively using the total diverted volume.

 It is critical to an understanding of the Indian Camp Dam controversy 

to appreciate the complexity of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers’ water 

regimes and their requirements and demands upon the state and federal regulatory 

agencies. It is also critical to appreciate the signifi cance of the Hispanic water 

users’ role in fi ghting for northern New Mexico’s portion of Colorado River 

water. Of the 30,000 acre feet per year allocated to northern New Mexico, almost 

half (12,000 acre feet per year) was to benefi t a few hundred farmers living on 

a few thousand acres of marginal lands high in the Sangre de Cristo mountains 

around Taos. These farmers were not passive or unwilling recipients. Indeed, it 

is doubtful that this water would have been allocated to Taos, sought as it was by 

so many competitors both within and outside of New Mexico, without strong and 

collective support of the Taos farmers. Initially, they played not only an active 

role in fi ghting for the water, but in justifying its use as a way of preserving, 

perpetuating, and enhancing their pastoral lifestyles.10

 In 1954 and again in 1958 Taos water users sent their spokesperson, dairy 

farmer Andres Martinez, to Washington to testify before Senator Anderson’s 

Interior Committee. He spoke in favor of the CRSP and funding for the San JuanChama Diversion. Martinez delivered a lengthy statement advocating passage 

of the CRSP.11 He and the other eight signatories, six of whom were Hispanics, 

outlined the history of their county and its people. Martinez testifi ed that 50 

percent of the heads of household in Taos left their homes and families each year 

to fi nd work “. . . in the beet fi elds and mining camps of Colorado or running the 

sheep camps of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. There [were] no jobs in Taos 

County.”12

 Martinez told the senators that 100 years earlier Taos had been a 

prosperous farming community, “called the granary of that part of the world,” 

with “great fl ocks of sheep and great herds of cattle.” But that was before the Rio 

Grande Compact required them to send “many thousands of acre-feet of water per 

year to Texas.”13 It was also before the creation of the Forest Service, which the 

farmers claimed had sharply curtailed or denied grazing permits on what had been 

their ancestral and communal lands, and before the Taos Pueblo Indians had come 

to have more water rights, including the rights to the best streams in Taos.

 In her seminal essay on the history of patterns of ethnic stratifi cation in 

Taos, anthropologist and Taos native, Sylvia Rodriguez, shows that “appropriation 

of community common lands was probably the single most devastating blow 

dealt the native agro-pastoral subsistence economy,”14 and that “around the time 

of statehood [1912], Taos seems to have gone from a valley of golden promise 

to an economically stagnant backwater, awaiting touristic discovery.”15 While 

the touristic discovery of Taos is beyond the scope of this essay, its pervasive 

economic infl uence, as well as that of the luxury home real estate market (nascent 
557

in Hispanic villages near the Taos Ski Valley at the time of the Indian Camp Dam 

controversy), cannot be overlooked as factors contributing to tensions in the 

valley and confl icts over land and water use.

 Andres Martinez’s 1954 Congressional statement advocated a dam to 

impound excess runoff waters. The farmers argued that a dam would allow 

a more stable water source and prevent the injudicious over-use of the spring 

season’s waters, a practice that had grown out of the farmers’ desire to capture as 

much water as possible, when possible, from Taos’s highly ephemeral streams. 

The extra water would also make possible the irrigation of new lands and local 

market gardening would increase, increasing the saleable output from their 

farms. In their fi nal plea, the farmers proclaimed that the San Juan River waters 

and a dam in Taos “would change an area of potential tragedy into one of great 

productivity and prosperity.”16 This plea meshed perfectly with the social goals 

of reclamation and was exactly the kind that the altruistic rationalizations of the 

CRSP were designed to address.

 After passage of the CRSP and the SJCDP, the Bureau of Reclamation 

determined that two of the four water storage projects planned for the Taos area 

could not be built due to geological obstacles. Then, in 1969, Indian Camp Dam 

itself appeared endangered as well. Even though Taos was eligible for the huge 

power revenues that would pay 96.6 percent of the construction costs of the dam, 

Reclamation questioned whether the dam, even with the heavy subsidies, could 

meet the government’s cost-benefi t ratios. Because the lands to be benefi tted 

were so marginally productive, Reclamation announced that the project was not 

feasible “as a purely agricultural irrigation unit.”17 Farmers mounted a campaign 

to fi ght for the dam. They organized a full scale “Save the Water” effort to lobby 

for the water, to endorse the dam, and to “recommend that the ground rules for 

water use or even design be changed to make [the dam] feasible.”18 By November 

1969 Hispanic ditch commissioners and mayordomos19 from thirty-fi ve ditch 

systems and other members of ditch associations from Arroyo Hondo to Llano 

Quemado united to fi ght for the dam.20

 Needing to put the water to benefi cial use and fearing political 

repercussions if three of the four projects proposed for northern New Mexico 

failed to be built, the Bureau of Reclamation did change the ground rules. It 

added on a “recreational use” provision, which allowed the Forest Service to 

step in to maintain and operate the small lake created by the dam. This use 

required the Forest Service to contribute signifi cantly to the costs of the dam. But 

ironically, this plan, tacked on to help pay for the dam, later became one of the 

opponents’ most forceful arguments against it. Hispanics long resented the Forest 

Service as the agency that held and controlled much of what had been land grant 

common lands during the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods, and they linked 

Forest Service development projects to debt and dispossession.21 The Forest 

Service had become a powerful symbol of their “stolen” homeland.22
558

 Another such powerful symbol was the quiet title suit. Such suits were 

seen as the means by which Hispanics had lost over 80 percent of their grant lands 

by the turn of the twentieth century.23 Because both the Rio Grande and Colorado 

River Compacts required stringent accounting of existing Rio Grande waters, the 

New Mexico State Engineer believed that these waters had to be measured prior 

to the addition of the imported Colorado River waters. The only legal mechanism 

for this accounting was stream adjudication, or quieting title to the water. In 

1969 New Mexico State Engineer Steve Reynolds, through his Special Attorney 

General, Paul Bloom, fi led stream adjudication suits along the entire northern 

stretch of the Rio Grande, including the Taos tributaries, to determine the nature, 

amount, location, and priority of all existing water rights.24

At the initiation of the stream adjudication suits, at least two 

interpretations of the Winters reserved rights for Indians prevailed. Water law 

historian Ira G. Clark provides a helpful discussion that serves to distill these 

two interpretations, one propounded by William Veeder and the other by Paul 

Bloom. These two views, both supported by the Winters decision, illustrate the 

ambiguity in the law and the confl icted position of the federal government’s 

reclamation policies viĞ à viĞ Indian reserved rights. Veeder, a veteran offi cial 

in the Department of Justice during the Nixon administration, voiced a tenacious 

defense of Indian water rights pursuant to Winters, holding that

. . . in signing treaties with the United States the Indians... retained 

everything they did not cede including their water rights... Their 

rights were therefore ‘immemorial’ in origin and prior in time to 

all counterclaims. Development by the Bureau of Reclamation and 

other interior department agencies of “surplus” waters originating 

on or fl owing through Indian reservations was limited in time to the 

period during which Indians were unable to use them. Nor could 

any appropriator assert rights based on state law because the federal 

government had exclusive control over Indian resources.25

Furthermore, Veeder placed Indian reservations in a position “to assert 

superior claims to all additional waters as the needs develop.”26 As Clark states, 

this interpretation imposed “drastic limitations on the power of state water control 

agencies” and threatened non-Indian water users in the vicinity of reservations, 

especially Hispanic water users in places like Taos, since their lands and acequias

usually have the oldest appropriated rights in these vicinities. The Indians’ 

claim of prior and paramount rights could conceivably not only halt further 

development within the state, but these claims would “jeopardize the rights of 

junior appropriators who were already using the water benefi cially.”27

Clark describes Paul Bloom as “a most vocal exponent” of the counterposition to Veeder’s. Bloom interpreted Winters as holding that

...the United States impliedly reserved waters for Indian use at the 

time the reservations were created, based on the constitutional power 
559

of Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 

respecting property belonging to the United States. It did not therefore, 

differ materially from the implied reservation of water at other federal 

enclaves.28

 Clark charges that of the federal agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation was 

“the worst offender” in its “purposeful ‘reclaiming’ of Indian waters for use on 

federal projects”29 since it and other federal agencies were supposed to protect 

Indian water rights rather than preempt and develop them.

 The stream adjudication suits exposed the uncertainty of the extent of the 

Indians’ Winters claims to Taos valley’s water and thus opened a Pandora’s box 

of distrust, competition, and greed, and exacerbated centuries’ old tensions and 

ambiguities over unresolved water claims within the communities. Although he 

believed it was New Mexico’s duty to initiate the adjudication suits, the State 

Engineer underestimated the effect the suits would have on the communities, 

and on Taos valley’s response to the dam.30 The State Engineer may have also 

miscalculated the extent to which mistrust of the state’s motives in initiating 

the suits led to a deeper apprehension and questioning of other legally required 

components of the dam.

Both New Mexico law and reclamation law required the water users 

to form an entity capable of issuing bonds to contract with the government to 

construct the dam, but New Mexico law limited the proponents’ choices for 

such an entity to either a conservancy district or an irrigation district.31 Initially 

Andres Martinez, as head of the Taos Unit Coordinating Council’s executive 

committee, recommended the water users form a conservancy district. The 

Council argued that under irrigation district laws, irrigators would bear the full 

burden of the dam’s remaining costs, even though others in Taos would benefi t 

indirectly from the added water. By sharing costs of the dam with non-irrigators 

under a conservancy district, the cost per farmer, in the form of ad valorem taxes, 

would be halved.32 Yet as tension and misapprehension grew, irrigators began to 

suspect that while conservancy district laws favored irrigators in this respect, in 

other, more important, respects they did not. Under conservancy district statutes, 

members of the conservancy district’s board of commissioners, at that time a 

three-person appointed board, did not have to be farmers or irrigators. Hispanic 

ditch commissioners and mayordomos, the leaders who oversaw operation of the 

traditional existing irrigation system, began to realize they would lose immediate 

control over water allocation and management.33 In the summer of 1971 sixteen 

mayordomos, led by Andres Martinez, very publicly resigned from the local water 

users’ association that had formed to promote the dam, basing their change of 

heart on opposition to formation of the conservancy district.34

Conservancy district case law in New Mexico refl ects that users in 

the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, New Mexico’s fi rst and largest 

conservancy district, litigated over most of the very issues that Taos users 
560

feared, citing many of the same reasons. Yet a look at the fi rst case deciding the 

constitutionality of New Mexico’s fi rst conservancy act shows that mistrust and 

antipathy toward conservancy districts were not unique to New Mexico. In citing 

precedents for its decisions, the New Mexico Supreme Court quoted the Ohio 

court: “Rarely has a law been found which has been assailed with such frequency 

or from so many angles.”35

 Conservancy district laws in New Mexico have evolved into an odd hybrid 

that refl ect simultaneously the goals of fl ood control—the original ostensible 

purpose of the act—as well as reclamation, drainage, and irrigation. There is no 

doubt that promoters of the original act sought protection from fl oods. In fact, 

the original act forbade the creation of conservancy districts north of Santa Fe 

County, since that section of the River with its deep gorges was not fl ood prone. 

When the act was challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional by reason 

of being special or class legislation, the court ruled that the differences in natural 

conditions along the northern portion of the river justifi ed the special classifi cation 

that forbade fl ood control districts where they were not needed.36

Proponents of the fi rst act also convinced the legislature that drainage of 

the middle Rio Grande valley was imperative, as aggradation of the river had 

waterlogged the entire middle valley and the City of Albuquerque was “hemmed 

in by unhealthy marshes and swamps.”37 But in addition to fl ood control and 

drainage, boosters of a conservancy district for the middle Rio Grande valley also 

clearly wanted the economic development that reclamation promised to bring. An 

Albuquerque editorial on June 4, 1922, proclaimed:

It is diffi cult to imagine an investment of effort that would yield such 

enormous and such certain returns. Nor is it diffi cult to bring this 

development about.... There is not a business in Albuquerque that can 

fail of doubled volume from reclamation of the Middle Rio Grande 

Valley, because that reclamation will double the tributary population not 

once but several times over and add enormously to the fl ow of wealth to 

and through this city.... Why not get up and hustle—while the hustling is 

good?38

Most importantly, conservancy district proponents needed the ability 

to increase the tax base by bringing municipalities, principally the City of 

Albuquerque, and railroads into the district to share in the costs. Conservancy 

district laws allowed lands to be classed and assessed according to benefi ts 

received and, unlike irrigation districts that were limited to agricultural lands, 

conservancy district laws allowed the inclusion of non-agricultural lands.

 In 1923 New Mexico modeled its fi rst conservancy act on both the 

Ohio act, passed in 1914, and the Colorado act, passed in 1922. Those states 

designed their laws solely for purposes of fl ood control, in response to disastrous 

fl oods in Dayton and Pueblo, respectively. In its opening remarks determining 

the constitutionality of this fi rst New Mexico conservancy act, the court In Re 
561

Proposed Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District “made a careful comparison” 

of the New Mexico conservancy act with those of Ohio and Colorado and found 

that

. . . in the main the provisions of all three acts are the same. The 

Colorado act followed the Ohio act, making such changes as seemed 

suitable for the conditions prevailing in the Western states, and the New 

Mexico act closely followed the Colorado act, occasionally including a 

provision which was in the Ohio act and omitted from Colorado law.39

 Yet the appellants questioned the title of the act, arguing that it indicated 

that the New Mexico legislature had in mind different purposes from those 

declared in the Ohio and Colorado conservancy acts, namely irrigation. They 

argued that because the title of the New Mexico act included the subject of 

cooperation with the federal government in its reclamation policy, “the indications 

are that the purposes of our Conservancy Act look to the improvement of the 

agricultural conditions of the Rio Grande Valley, and that alone.”40 Appellants 

argued that the Ohio and Colorado acts were adopted “solely and exclusively for 

the protection of life and property, and not in any sense calculated to interfere 

with the industrial pursuits of their people.”41

 The New Mexico Supreme Court appeared oblivious to the appellants’ 

suggestion that the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District would interfere 

with agricultural pursuits or engage in reclamation. Replying that “it did not 

appear” that the legislature, in passing the conservancy act, “had in mind alone or 

principally the reclamation of lands,” the court noted there were already statutes 

existing authorizing the formation of irrigation and drainage districts, and these 

had been approved on the same day as the conservancy act.42 In closing, the court 

noted that if “an attempt should hereafter fraudulently be made to accomplish 

a purpose not within the purview of this act, the courts would doubtless give 

protection to the complaining parties.”43

 But backers of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District appear to 

have intentionally “recast and enlarged” their proposed language for the original 

act, specifi cally to add a provision for reclamation. Notes kept by the membership 

committee of the Middle Rio Grande Association, the booster organization formed 

to work with the legislature for passage of the conservancy district law, refl ect that 

“changing from drainage to reclamation ha[d] been more or less confusing,” but 

“when the people [were] correctly informed,... [the] committee... met with hearty 

response from people... ready and anxious for reclamation, some of whom were 

opposed to drainage.”44

In 1927, apparently anticipating that the Supreme Court would hold 

that under the original act reclamation alone was insuffi cient to warrant the 

organization of a conservancy district, the legislature amended and broadened 

the act to allow unambiguously “for irrigation of lands, though they are not 

menaced by fl oods.”45 This amendment led to another challenge to the act’s 
562

constitutionality in 1929 when plaintiffs in Gutierrez et al. v. Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District argued that as petitioners for the conservancy district they 

had been “moved by a desire only for fl ood control but that a corporation resulted 

with power to make irrigation its principal object.”46 The Supreme Court ruled 

that the new conservancy act did not change the character of the Middle Rio 

Grande Conservancy District as a district organized for “the main purpose of fl ood 

control with irrigation and drainage incident thereto.47 By 1940 the Supreme 

Court, again noting that New Mexico conservancy district laws closely followed 

the Colorado and Ohio statutes, acknowledged fi nally that “The provision for 

the irrigation system, included with fl ood control and reclamation, is, however, 

peculiar to the New Mexico Act.”48

More importantly though to the discussion and context of the Indian 

Camp Dam controversy, the Supreme Court in 1940 for the fi rst time examined 

the management and control of existing community acequias by the conservancy 

district. Noting that the old community ditch laws were not repealed by the 

conservancy act, and that water rights were not affected by the act, the court 

nevertheless dodged the question of what duties, if any, remained to ditch 

commissioners who continued to be elected and operate under the old regime, 

independently of the conservancy district. The court termed this question 

“intriguing.”49 Ultimately, the court ruled against dual control of the ditches, 

stating that “the administration of these [water] rights, so far as the impounding, 

diversion, carrying and delivering of... water for irrigation... has now been 

placed in the hands of this new and superior authority, plaintiff [conservancy] 

District.”50

 Taos water users questioned virtually all of the same provisions that 

water users in the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District did in appealing 

the constitutionality of that district, including their inability to appeal 

assessments made by the county treasurer; the appointment rather than election 

of the conservancy board; the impingement upon their power to manage and 

control their own affairs; and the lack of a requirement that a majority of the 

landowners in the district sign the petition for organization of the district.51 All 

of these provisions seemed “undemocratic” and “un-American” to opponents 

of the district in Taos.52 But most of all, the Hispanics who turned against the 

conservancy district feared “this new and superior authority.”

 Originally, the proposed conservancy district in Taos included 774 acres 

of land lying within the San Cristobal de la Serna Grant. Granted by the King of 

Spain in 1710, the La Serna Grant was the oldest non-Indian Spanish land grant 

in Taos County (and one of the oldest in New Mexico).53 Having held onto most 

of these ancestral lands through the intervening decades of rapid Anglo land 

expropriation after New Mexico became a territory, the Hispanic residents of 

La Serna were deeply suspicious of the taxes that the conservancy district could 

impose.54 To irrigators who owned small plots it “seemed ‘wrong’ to have to start 

paying $5.75 an acre for the same water” they had been using for generations.55
563

Land tenure patterns in La Serna further compounded the problem for 

the La Serna farmers.56 Because of the Hispanic tradition of dividing land 

equally among multiple heirs, each tract with access to the river, or acequia,

acreage in the La Serna Grant included many long, extremely narrow plots (in 

some cases only a few feet wide and several miles long). Many farmers owned 

several narrow but non-contiguous plots, often with rights to different acequias.

The Bureau of Reclamation recognized that farms under ten acres were not 

considered economically feasible and recommended that owners of such narrow 

tracts consolidate their lands by forming land pools or co-ops. The Bureau of 

Reclamation also recommended a change in cropping patterns, away from forage 

crops to more cash intensive crops. Not only did the La Serna landowners fear 

the loss of their lands if conservancy district taxes for the dam could not be 

repaid, they also resented and resisted the pressure to change their traditional 

ownership and cropping patterns.57 In the fall of 1971 the La Serna irrigators 

petitioned for the removal of their lands from the conservancy district.

 State statute required the district court to approve the petition for the 

conservancy district, an approval now complicated by the petition for removal 

of the La Serna lands. After months of delays (including the self-excusal of an 

Anglo judge), District Court Judge Santiago Campos ruled in October 1972 that 

the La Serna land grantees’ opposition to the conservancy district constituted an 

“insurmountable obstacle to any reasonable fi nding of benefi t from irrigation to 

all the lands within the proposed district.”58 Moreover, he ruled that the exclusion 

of La Serna left the costs of the project higher than the resulting benefi t, and thus 

the necessary statutory justifi cation for the formation of the conservancy district 

was absent. However, Judge Campos noted the “intense and pressing interest 

in the Taos community,”59 as well as the obvious need for the water. He warned 

that opposition to the conservancy district could well mean loss of the water that 

everyone needed and he warned the opponents of the character in Othello whose 

hand threw away a pearl richer than all his tribe. The judge told the remaining 

proponents that he would not totally dismiss the petition if they could alter their 

plans and substitute other lands for the La Serna lands.60

 Judge Campos’s decision proved fatal for the conservancy district, 

though that was not his apparent intent. The petitioners, not wanting to lose the 

fabled pearl, took Campos’s suggestion and redefi ned the conservancy district 

boundaries. If anything, this move only increased the controversy, since the 

newly incorporated lands included large tracts belonging to several prominent 

Anglos, including an Anglo developer and his sister, owners of the largest land 

holdings in Taos valley. Unlike the neighboring La Serna lands, much of the 

newly added lands had not been irrigated previously. This fueled rumors that the 

water would not be used for irrigation, but would be converted to commercial 

uses and development purposes.61

 In April 1973 Judge Campos granted the formation of the revised 

conservancy district. The dam’s opponents, now allied under Andres Martinez 
564

as the “Tres Rios Association,” appealed Judge Campos’s decision. On May 14, 

1975, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Campos’s compromise decision 

to allow a reformed district was illegal. The Supreme Court agreed that Judge 

Campos had properly excluded the La Serna lands from the district because such 

lands would not benefi t from the conservancy district. But the higher court ruled 

that Campos had exceeded his authority in allowing the petitioners to “amend the 

petition so as to create a new and different district, since signers of the original 

petition contemplated and intended a different district from the one resulting, 

and where the ultimate tax burden upon those remaining in the district would be 

defi nitely affected.”62

 After the 1975 New Mexico Supreme Court decision nullifi ed the Rancho 

del Rio Grande Conservancy District, no one in Taos pursued the project further; 

 Indian Camp Dam never got off the drawing board. That same year John Nichols 

published The Milagro Beanfi eld War, and the story of the dam’s demise took on 

the aura of legend: local nativos and a few concerned, earth-loving Anglos versus 

the callous government in cahoots with land-grabbing, usually Anglo, capitalist 

developers.

 By the time he left New York for New Mexico in 1969, John Nichols 

described himself as “strung out, on edge, going down fast.”63 The son of 

privilege and wealth, a graduate of private prep schools and Hamilton College 

(the setting of his fi rst successful novel, The Sterile Cuckoo), he became active in 

the anti-war movement in New York City in the late 1960s. But he found New 

York relentless and wanted out. Because he found himself “looking at the world 

from a much more Marxist or even socialist perspective,” he wanted to come to 

New Mexico, which he saw as fertile ground for his political activism.64 Because 

New Mexico “approximated a colonial country,” Nichols believed it would be 

like “moving to the third world,” and that interested him.65 He also sought “an 

environment where [he] could be startled constantly by natural phenomen[a]... 

having roots in a special landscape not yet destroyed by progressive human 

endeavors.”66 Instead, what confronted Nichols in Taos valley was a community 

on the brink of building Indian Camp Dam, a project many would have proudly 

labeled a “progressive human endeavor.”

 Like other refuge seekers, Nichols saw life in northern New Mexico as 

“an antidote to modern mechanization, and land of exotic primitivism and simple 

truths.”67 In his memoir, If Mountains Die, Nichols wrote that he was “destined” 

to “wind up in northern New Mexico as the semi-Marxist-Leninist propaganda 

arm for a group of quixotic Spanish-speaking septuagenarians locked in mortal 

combat with the U. S. government over preservation of their water rights, their 

land, their culture, their very historical roots.”68

 During our interview, Nichols downplayed his own role in the controversy, 

calling it a “minor but vocal one.”69 He recalled “speaking out” at meetings 

and holding heated exchanges with Paul Bloom, the attorney from the State 
565

Engineer’s offi ce. And although Nichols wrote many articles opposing the dam in 

the local weekly independent newspaper, The New Mexico Review, he denied that 

he played a signifi cant role in changing public opinion.70 This denial is probably 

more accurate than his more romanticized written memoirs. The articles Nichols 

wrote in 1971 in The New Mexico Review did not receive wide distribution among 

Hispanics and, having arrived in Taos only recently, he was not well known 

within the community then.

 There is also evidence to support attorney Paul Bloom’s observation that 

Nichols’ overtly politicized speeches at public meetings offended many Hispanics 

“who identifi ed him either with the Hippies or the crazy environmentalists... 

they didn’t like... being told they were barefoot, serape-wearing peasants... [who 

needed] to be protected by this political agitator who view[ed] Hispanic culture as 

being on a museum shelf for 300 years...”71

 Since the publication of Milagro Beanfi eld War it has become diffi cult for 

even the participants to unravel how much infl uence Nichols had on actual events 

at the time of the Indian Camp Dam controversy, and how much he has been 

credited with, or blamed for, because of the book. In everyone’s attempt to give 

coherence, and perhaps meaning, to these events, Nichols’s fi ctional and satirical 

version has somehow become the standard that other versions must meet.

 Nichols described to me one heated public meeting about the conservancy 

district that he attended, saying it was “just like a fi lm set.” He said that the 

room was “split in two,” with “100 percent Chicano farmers on one side, and 

bankers, lawyers, real estate people, Anglo business people from town and the 

developers in the valley on the other side.”72 Nichols claimed that the controversy 

“seemed to pretty much break up into what most battles around here do, between 

essentially smaller farmers, impoverished people, and the developers of the valley, 

which is a cliché struggle all over the world.”73

 But neither the historical record of Indian Camp Dam nor the recollections 

of the other interviewees reveals a simple two-sided dichotomy, nor do they 

reveal a “cliché struggle.” Nichols’s description did seem like something off a 

movie set—indeed, it seemed to be right out of the movie version of The Milagro 

Beanfi eld War. A far more intriguing, more ambiguous, more complicated, but 

less coherent scenario emerges not only from the legal and political web of the 

dam’s history, but from other participants’ memories.

 Born in 1898, Andres Martinez grew up poor but relatively well educated 

at a Presbyterian mission school in Taos. He lived his entire life in Taos, except 

for the many months each year during his youth when he traveled the circuit as 

a shearer on the sheep ranching circuit throughout the West. Martinez’s father 

had been a shepherd who never owned irrigated land, just a small vegetable plot 

and house in Ranchos de Taos. As a child, Martinez supplemented the family’s 

income by picking onions from his mother’s garden, loading them onto burros, 
566

hiking to Elizabeth Town, and selling the onions to the miners who paid him 

with little bottles of gold dust.74 Martinez’s depiction of his childhood and early 

adulthood mirrors that of the majority of Hispanics in northern New Mexican 

villages during the fi rst quarter of the twentieth century, as described by Sarah 

Deutsch in No Separate Refuge:

Faced with an increasingly intrusive conquering economy and culture, 

the Hispanics could not retreat. They had to formulate new strategies 

in order to maintain the viability of their villages... among the options, 

seasonal labor proved the most attractive...through the strategy of 

work and migration patterns, they retained their control over their own 

enclaves, retained for themselves a homeland—both a refuge and a base 

for expansion without loss of cultural identity.... The migrants [were] 

‘living links’ to the goods, services, and cash of the Anglo economy.75

 Martinez managed to save enough money to leave the seasonal labor 

system, though it appears he never forgot the lessons of that strategy. In 1950, 

he and his wife bought eight cows and a forty-acre dairy farm in Taos. By 

the time he sold his dairy and retired, he was on the board of directors of the 

local savings and loan and one of its largest shareholders. He was not an 

“impoverished farmer”; arguably, he had become a “rico.” Rumors had it that he 

had also become a Mormon and had sought appointment to the Interstate Stream 

Commission.

 Even though he ultimately opposed construction of the dam, Martinez 

remained, at age 92 when I interviewed him, fi ercely proud of the role he and 

other Hispanics played in getting New Mexico its share of Colorado water. 

Fighting for the water remained a core and defi ning memory. He described 

himself as “fi ghting for twenty years to get it.”76 Martinez admitted that in the 

beginning he and the other Hispanic water users “were all for the dam.”77 That 

is, until they learned more about the conservancy district. Martinez claimed that 

the conservancy district would have resulted in loss of lands due to its power to 

impose property liens and, if necessary, foreclose and sell the property to pay back 

taxes.78

 Perhaps because of the varied experiences of his youth as a migratory 

worker, Martinez became adept at crossing ethnic boundaries. While 

maintaining his strong ties and identifi cation within the Hispanic community 

as a respected leader, he also negotiated and cooperated with Anglo power 

brokers when he believed it would benefi t Hispanics. His status within the 

Hispanic community enabled him to travel out of this ethnic enclave while 

simultaneously strengthening it by establishing his own presence and identity 

within the predominantly Anglo arena of reclamation politics and interstate water 

management.

 The most ambiguously positioned participant in this controversy may 

have been Paul Bloom, who was, in 1969, a 30-year-old Special Attorney General 
567

working for State Engineer Reynolds and the Interstate Stream Commission. In 

this position, Bloom came to be the point man and spokesperson not only for the 

state in its efforts to explain Indian Camp Dam but also for the Interstate Stream 

Commission in its efforts to promote the dam—sometimes the latter role was at 

odds with his private opinions about the dam.

 Bloom denies he ever tried to “sell” the dam, but as the state attorney who 

initiated the stream adjudication suits, he was assigned to hold town meetings to 

explain why the dam triggered the adjudication suits. Bloom was keenly aware 

that the Interstate Stream Commission was “clearly a booster of record [for the 

dam].”79 He also understood the “complicated calculus of log-rolling,” and 

“jealous intrastate and interstate jurisdictions, communities, and political power 

bases... that had constantly traded off and fought each other to get their key 

interests taken care of...” and he realized when he was assigned to go to Taos that 

“all of these compromises were expressed in years of impatience to get [the dam] 

going.”80

 Because Bloom was the voice of government, he became heavily involved 

in the controversy and was often the focal point of the community’s re-ignited 

distrust of the government. While this distrust was historical for the Hispanics, 

for Anglos like Nichols who opposed the dam, this distrust was contemporary, 

tied to the emerging environmental activism of the late 1960s, and perhaps even 

more signifi cantly, to anti-Viet Nam War sentiments. John Nichols often confl ated 

his opposition to the dam with militarized rhetoric directed personally against 

Bloom. In July 1972 Nichols described Bloom in The New Mexico Review:

Bloom... has been a pivotal fi gure in the attempt to erect Indian Camp 

Dam over the dead bodies of the poor people in Taos for whom the Dam 

is allegedly being built.... And perhaps Bloom, petulant, frowning, 

doomsayer here and culture savior there, is wondering why nobody 

believes anymore in the magic of his Indian Camp baubles, bangles, and 

bright shiny promises.

Well: maybe it’s because some grizzled old brujo was staring through 

the smoke of his pinon fi re one day, gazing up towards the soft green 

hills at the eastern edge of the Little Grande Valley, and on the crest of 

one little mountain he saw a strange fi gure from the State Engineer’s 

offi ce with his left hand thrust Napoleonically between the breast button 

in his Brooks Brothers tunic, standing proudly beside his Indian Camp 

howitzer, grandiosely proclaiming—as it has been the habit of certain 

other United States Government landscapers et al. to proclaim: “It was 

necessary to destroy the people of Little Rio Grande Valley in order to 

save them...”81

 Like others, Bloom believed that the issue of the conservancy district 

was “the kiss of death” for the dam, not because of the dangers of conservancy 

districts but because “it allowed it to be demagogued to death.”82 Bloom claimed 

he never saw “a more effective case of demagoguery, of romantic nostalgia, of 
568

playing on all the nineteenth century fears and agendas.”83 Yet Bloom maintained 

that in 1971 he privately believed the dam came 100 years too late. He thought 

it was a “somewhat utopian... rather touching... unreal political thing to do.”84

But by the mid-twentieth century the lands the project was intended to benefi t 

had been divided up into such small tracts that land pooling would have been a 

daunting if not impossible task. This, combined with the short growing season, 

fl ood risks, high elevation, and distance from markets, seemed to Bloom to be 

problems the Bureau of Reclamation’s optimistic forecasts could not overcome. 

But he did not see it as his place to make this judgment because, he said, the 

local water users wanted this project. “It had been negotiated by them and for 

[them] by their elected representatives, over many years, justifi ed by their federal 

government on certain assumptions, including the benefi ts from irrigation.”85 He 

believed that “[people] couldn’t simply let comparative economics dominate 

what [they] do with natural resources or the rich and the big cities would have 

everything.”86

 Bloom also saw clearly that once Andres Martinez and his group went 

into open opposition, the dam “was doomed... at least doomed to an endlessly 

long and painful and divisive dispute.”87 Bloom warned State Engineer Reynolds 

and the Interstate Stream Commissioners that even if all the hurdles could be 

overcome, it would be done at a great price in community discord and division.

Bloom recalled that the Stream Commissioners looked at him “as if they’d heard 

Santa Claus had been shot.” 88

 In 1971 Rudy Pacheco was a 41-year old cattle rancher and school 

administrator and owner of one of the larger tracts of lands in the proposed 

conservancy district. Pacheco wanted the conservancy district and the dam. 

After Andres Martinez’s resignation as leader of the water users’ organization, 

Pacheco led the proponents. Pacheco never wavered in his support of the dam 

and remained bitter that it was never built, believing that its loss forced him to 

move his ranching operation to Colorado. He believes that now, without the 

dam, it is virtually inevitable that each of the eight Taos streams’ fl ow will have 

to be commercialized and domesticated because “they killed agriculture in Taos 

County.”89

 Pacheco recalled that before the opposition to the dam became overt, 

Hispanic farmers discussed the possibility of producing grain for Coors Brewing 

Company and raising beans for the Campbell Soup Company because bean crops 

had been very cost effective in the Taos area. Campbell’s ultimately located its 

operation in Bayfi eld, Colorado, using irrigated lands from another CRSP project. 

“Campbell’s had guaranteed a contract for 6,000 acres of beans for a twenty-year 

period. That was a cash crop that La Serna people could have used,” Pacheco 

claimed.90 Interestingly, Pacheco blamed John Nichols, rather than Andres 

Martinez and the other Hispanics who withdrew their support, for loss of the 

water. “Through his ignorance [Nichols] did the valley an injustice by sacrifi cing 
569

that amount of water that could have been used forever in the future... and that’s 

something you lose culturally and historically and it will never come back.”91

 Perhaps because of his relative wealth, but more likely because of his 

relative youth, Pacheco was unable to maintain a coalition of water users in 

1971 with the same strength as the coalition Andres Martinez previously formed. 

Martinez and the other elder mayordomos who defected symbolized Hispanic 

tradition melded to American agrarian ideals. Ultimately, this symbol proved too 

powerful for younger Hispanic farmers to overcome.

 In 1971 one year out of college, Eluid Martinez joined the offi ce of the 

State Engineer as the fi rst Hispanic engineer in the history of that offi ce. In 

conjunction with the stream adjudication suits, he began learning to conduct 

the hydrographic studies that the suits required. While he did not witness the 

confrontations between Bloom and Nichols, Eluid Martinez did attend meetings 

of local water users as part of his duties to explain the stream adjudication 

suits. He perceived that the attention, but not the controversy, had shifted to the 

adjudication suits. At his fi rst such meeting at a local elementary school, he was 

told not to enter the room unless he spoke Spanish. He did not perceive this as 

an attempt on the part of the Hispanics to keep Anglos away, but rather a concern 

that any explanations of the adjudications be given in Spanish, since many of the 

older participants did not speak English.92

Yet Eluid Martinez acknowledged that at the time of the controversy 

there was an increased animosity in Taos valley against “outsiders,” primarily the 

Hippies, who had fl ocked to the area in what Rodriguez terms “The Great Hippie 

Invasion.”93 As Rodriguez points out, this infl ux of thousands of people into Taos 

between 1968 and 1971 also placed increased pressures on the valley’s resources 

since the Hippies, although seeking the “same romantic utopia their bohemian 

predecessors had sought,” also came with dreams of “going back to the land.”94

According to Rodriguez, Hippies were:

able to buy up parcels of irrigated land rather cheaply from Hispanos, 

who needed the cash and had little inkling of the transformation about to 

occur.... within another decade the average price of an irrigated acre had 

increased by as much as forty times.95

Signifi cantly though, Eluid Martinez did not perceive that there “was 

much controversy” in Taos at the time over the matter of the stream adjudications 

themselves. “Most of the surveys were completed and brought to closure fairly 

quickly in terms of water right offers that were signed and accepted... except for 

those lands that had been offered no water rights because of non-use.”96 Here 

again the water and land use patterns of Hispanics in northern New Mexico 

came into play and worked against them under New Mexico law. According 

to Eluid Martinez, “in the traditional way of managing acequias in northern 

New Mexico, the land owners would consider that their water rights would be 
570

protected as long as they paid their ditch dues and ditch assessments.”97 Because 

so many Hispanics left northern New Mexico in the decades following World 

War II, primarily for economic reasons and in a continuing pattern of outmigration similar to that described by Deutsch above, their lands went fallow 

and unirrigated although they continued to pay their ditch dues. When the 

hydrographic surveys picked up lands as being non-irrigated, the lands were 

deemed to be without water rights. However, by the time of Indian Camp Dam, 

New Mexico’s water rights forfeiture laws had been amended to allow for 

notice by the State Engineer and a four-year opportunity for the user to cure the 

non-use and place the lands back under irrigation. While this change in the law 

rectifi ed the situation somewhat, it could not ultimately alleviate the problem 

many absentee Hispanic landowners confronted: how to put their lands back into 

production from afar. Similarly, many older Hispanics who stayed on their lands 

were unable to irrigate them without the assistance from younger family members 

who no longer lived nearby.

 Upon the death of State Engineer Steve Reynolds, who had held that 

offi ce for thirty-fi ve years and become one of the most powerful men in the state’s 

history, Eluid Martinez stepped into the position in November 1990. He went on 

to serve as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation under President Clinton. 

With the perspective he gained throughout those years of state and federal water 

administration, Eluid Martinez now believes that opponents of Indian Camp 

Dam “might have made a mistake, in terms of water supply.” Because of the still 

unresolved Winters claims of the Indians, “[holders of] the existing irrigated lands 

that would have been supplemented by the San Juan-Chama replacement waters 

are today fi ghting for their very existence in the adjudication that’s taking place.... 

In hindsight, if that project would have been constructed, in my opinion it would 

have provided the water supply necessary to address all these concerns.”98

Yet despite this opinion Eluid Martinez, like Bloom, also conceded that as an 

irrigation project Indian Camp “even if proposed today, would probably not be 

economically feasible,” primarily due to the obstacles of the land tenure system.99

 According to Eluid Martinez, the Bureau of Reclamation was accustomed 

to building projects for farms of 160-960 acres. Moreover, Indian Camp Dam 

was not a project that Reclamation could build, as it usually did, from the ground 

up on lands to be newly irrigated, at least not primarily. The project was hobbled 

by ineffective attempts, from all sides, to make it fi t into an existing and foreign 

irrigation framework. “It was something new to them,” Eluid Martinez said, 

referring to the existing acequia irrigation system in Taos and the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 100 But this “foreign-ness” was not one-sided. The complicated 

history of Indian Camp Dam illustrates profoundly the collisions that can occur at 

cultural intersections, where indeed, in hindsight, it can be said of the actions of 

almost all the resisting participants, “it was something new to them.”

 Other researchers tend to rely on Nichols’s nonfi ctional accounts of the 

Indian Camp Dam controversy as the basis for their fi ndings that Indian Camp 
571

Dam and the related SJCDP projects exemplify “top down planning,” and they 

conclude this reveals that “Hispanic participation, at least at the grass roots level, 

was not effective.”101 These interpretations overlook or downplay the importance 

of the Hispanic water users’ very active and effective participation in obtaining 

the allocation of the SJCDP water. In Water and Poverty in the Southwest, Brown 

and Ingram outline the complex problems facing rural Hispanics in northern New 

Mexico and examine Hispanics’ attitudes about water rights and their preferences 

for water use and economic alternatives. But ultimately, and ironically, Brown 

and Ingram see the “lack of water storage as a continuing problem,”102 and they 

end up recommending some of the same changes that were proposed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation for the Indian Camp Dam project, namely a change in 

cropping patterns, land pooling (in the form of cooperative grazing programs), 

reservoirs (“water storage capacity”), and permanent diversion structures.103 In 

Acequia Culture: Water, Land, and Community in the Southwest, Rivera extols 

traditional acequia culture and examines the stream adjudication suits, but he fails 

to place the suits in the context of the Hispanics’ fi ght for SJCDP, in fact he never 

mentions SJCDP. By consistently stressing the acequias’ “traditional” culture, 

he misses the opportunity to view acequia users as dynamic agents of change 

themselves.

 Sylvia Rodriguez argues that in Taos the “ongoing process of 

expropriation [of Hispanic land and water bases] and the recent acceleration 

[of this process] has... intensifi ed Hispano resistance to further usurpation and 

displacement...”104 These resistant reactions represent, she says, “strategies of 

ethnic boundary maintenance.”105 Rodriguez believes that whereas specifi c ethnic 

cultural content can change more or less continuously, “boundary maintenance 

through time is the essential feature of ethnic persistence.”106

 While I agree with Rodriguez that boundary maintenance through time 

is an essential, if not the essential feature of ethnic persistence, I believe that 

the entire history of Indian Camp Dam controversy reveals that the boundaries 

themselves are not constant or predictable. In northern New Mexico, I see a kind 

of ever-changing shoreline where ethnic boundaries shift with the tides of certain 

events. Cultures selectively borrow from one another, in complex processes of 

cooperation, negotiation, accommodation, assimilation, and acceptance, even 

amidst processes of resistance and rejection.

 Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Indian Camp Dam history is the 

extent to which it exposes not only obvious inter-ethnic strategies for boundary 

maintenance and accompanying tensions and confl icts, but also the intra-ethnic 

contradictions and confl icts, such as those between Anglos John Nichols and 

Paul Bloom and between Hispanics Andres Martinez and Rudy Pacheco. The 

controversy blurred ethnic boundaries even as it revealed and defi ned them.107

Beneath these blurred boundaries lies the deep irony that everyone involved—

from the politicians, to the Bureau of Reclamation, to Anglos John Nichols and 

Paul Bloom, to Hispanics Andres Martinez and Rudy Pacheco—everyone claimed 
572

to be fi ghting to save, each in his own way, the dying Hispanic agro-pastoral 

lifestyle in Taos.

 We all struggle to defi ne ourselves in the world and to give our lives, 

our stories, meaning and emotional satisfaction. In telling our stories and our 

histories we too often resist or omit the confusion of untidy ambiguities, even 

though experientially we fi nd them commonplace. In an attempt to order and 

explain the past, too often we simplify it. I would argue that our histories should 

be layered, multifaceted, and multi-voiced. They need complexity, perhaps even 

confusion and cacophony. They should embrace rather than shun the untidy 

ambiguities.

 The more we learn of Indian Camp Dam “from the ground up,” these 

“parts before the whole,” the more we grasp the incredible inclination of these 

events to remain untidy and raveled. Yet we also recognize the incredible 

obligation we have to respect the right of these events to be properly represented, 

especially when the past, raveled though it may be, can give us not only 

meaningful insights into how we interact and negotiate with one another for the 

use of our natural resources, but also give us informed ways to choose our own 

local futures.

Marilyn J. Koch is an independent scholar who lives in Bernalillo, New Mexico.

A version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the American 

Society of Environmental Historians in April 1999. Ms. Koch is grateful for 

the comments, suggestions, and advice from Dr. Donald Pisani following that 

presentation, all of which have informed and benefi tted this essay. She is also 

grateful to her father for suggesting that she interview the participants in this 

controversy and she is especially grateful to those interviewed.

Endnotes

1. Paul A. Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth (New

York, 1997), 62.

2. F. Lee Brown and Helen M. Ingram, Water and Poverty in the Southwest (Tucson, 1987), 

58-62; John Nichols, If Mountains Die, A New Mexico Memoir (New York, 1987) and “Land and 

Water Problems in Northern New Mexico: New Mexico Conservancy Districts,” Speech given 

October 16, 1975, University of New Mexico School of Law; C. Lynn Reynolds, “Decision 

Making and Cultural Change: The Status of Spanish American Small Farms in Northern New 

Mexico,” Ph.D. diss. Southern Methodist University, 1975, and “Economic Decision-Making: 

The Infl uence of Traditional Hispanic Land Use Attitudes on Acceptance of Innovation,” The

Social Science Journal, Volume 13, No. 3, October, 1976; Jose A. Rivera, Acequia Culture: Water, 

Land and Community in the Southwest (Albuquerque, 1998),155-158; Sylvia Rodriguez, “Land, 

Water and Ethnic Identity in Taos,” Land, Water, and Culture: New Perspectives of Hispanic Land 

Grants, ed. Charles L. Briggs and John R. Van Ness (Albuquerque, 1987), 353-354.

3. Donald J. Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy 1848-1902

(Albuquerque, 1992), 332.

4. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).

5. John O. Baxter, Dividing New Mexico’s Waters, 1700-1912 (Albuquerque, 1997). Baxter 

gives a comprehensive history and analysis of water confl icts in the colonial period, including 

numerous references to confl icts in Taos valley. See also Rodriguez, “Land, Water, and Ethnic 

Identity in Taos.”
573

6. Paul L. Bloom, “Law of the River: A Critique of an Extraordinary Legal System,” New 

Courses for the Colorado River: Major Issues for the Next Century,” Ed. Gary D. Weatherford and 

Lee Brown (Albuquerque, 1986); Norris Hundley, Jr., Water and the West: The Colorado River 

Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West (Berkeley, 1975); John Uptown Terrell, 

Water for the Colorado River (Glendale: 1965); and Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, 

Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York, 1985). Bloom states that the laws 

governing the Colorado “cannot be found in any single set of statutes, codes or compilations... 

[They are] an odd composite of state, federal, and international laws and decisions.” (p. 139)

7. See Worster, Rivers of Empire.

8. Ira G. Clark, Water in New Mexico, A History of Its Management and Use.

(Albuquerque, 1971), 509.

9. Ibid, 511.

10. United States Congress, Senate, Andres A. Martinez and Senator Clinton P. Anderson’s 

testimony regarding S. 3648, 85th Congress, Second Session, July 9-10, 1958, Congressional 

Record.

11. Middle Rio Grande Flood Control Association and J. Benito Vigil, Vigillio Trujillo, 

Andres A. Martinez, O. G. Martinez, Gil B. Gallegos, Emett Ellis, E. C. Cabot, Joe D. Austin, 

Abad Martinez, Statements on Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects and 

Particularly the San Juan-Chama Project in New Mexico (Albuquerque: Middle Rio Grande Flood 

Control Association, 1954), cover letter.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Rodriguez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity in Taos,” 338. This essay gives the fullest 

and most nuanced analysis of these issues.

15. Ibid, 339.

16. Middle Rio Grande Flood Control Association, et al., Statements, 13.

17. Taos News, January 23, 1969.

18. Ibid.

19 In New Mexico, community acequia systems or associations are recognized as political 

subdivisions of the state. Each community acequia association is under the general control 

and supervision of three commissioners and a mayordomo, who are elected for a one-year term 

by those persons who have rights on the acequia. The commissioners organize and elect from 

among themselves a chairman, secretary, and treasurer. The mayordomo, under the direction of 

the commissioners, is the chief executive offi cer of the acequia, and is usually an elder and highly 

respected member of the community. Phil Lovato, Las Acequias del Norte, Technical Report 

Number 1 (Taos: Four Corners Regional Commission, New Mexico State Planning Offi ce, Kit 

Carson Memorial Foundation, Inc., 1974) 15, 24-28.

20. Rudy Pacheco, “Indian Camp Dam: The Positive View,” Taos News, August 11, 1971.

21. Sarah Deutsch, No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic 

Frontier in the American Southwest, 1880-1940 (New York, 1987) 184.

22. C. Lynn Reynolds, “Decision Making and Cultural Change: The Status of Spanish 

American Small Farms in Northern New Mexico,” Ph.D. dissertation Southern Methodist 

University, 1975, p. 251.

23. Rodriguez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity,” 338.

24.. Interview of Paul Bloom by Marilyn Koch, April 3, 1989, audiotape (in Marilyn Koch’s 

possession), side 2, tape 2. See also Lovato, Las Acequias del Norte, 51-53. The Taos tributaries’ 

adjudication is State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer, et al. v. Eduardo Abeyta and Celso 

Arellano, et al., U.S. District Court Nos. 69CV7896 BB and 69CV7939 BB (Consolidated) (the 

Abeyta adjudication). The still-pending northern Rio Grande stream adjudication suits fi led by 

Paul Bloom as special attorney general under State Engineer Steve Reynolds were stayed until 

the judicial resolution of issues central and common to all, namely the amount and extent of the 

Indian water rights, in State of New Mexico ex rel. Reynolds v. Aamodt, et al., U.S. District Court 

No. 6639 (fi led April 20, 1966) (the Aamodt adjudication). The Aamodt adjudication covers 

Rio Grande tributaries south of Taos (the Nambé, Pojoaque, and Tesuque valley tributaries) and 

involves non-Indian claimants (including the City and County of Santa Fe) and Indian claimants of 
574

those three pueblos, as well as the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. Settlement negotiations began in 1989 

in the Abeyta adjudication between Taos Pueblo and the Taos Valley Acequia Association, a group 

of 55 community ditch associations.

 [Author’s note: In 2003, after presentation of this paper at the Reclamation centennial 

symposium, the parties negotiating settlement, which then included Taos Pueblo and the Taos 

Valley Acequia Association as well as the State of New Mexico, the Town of Taos, El Prado Water 

and Sanitation District, and twelve Taos area mutual domestic water consumer associations, began 

working closely with a mediator. On March 31, 2006, these parties released their Draft Settlement 

Agreement (DSA). However, the United States was not a party to this phase of the negotiations, 

nor to the DSA, although it did participate in the local phase of the negotiations. Thereafter the 

federal phase of negotiations began, whereby the local parties, who collectively represent the vast 

majority of the surface and ground water appropriators in the Taos Valley, and the United States 

have sought to resolve the related federal issues and develop congressional legislation with the 

goal of approval and funding for a fi nal agreement. A major impediment to fi nal resolution of the 

adjudication suits is the procurement of substantial federal funding at a time when current federal 

budgets cannot accommodate the settlements.

 On June 18, 2007, New Mexico’s senior Republican senator, Peter Domenici, the 

ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced U.S. Senate 

Bill 1643, the “Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007” authorizing a settlement 

fund to fulfi ll New Mexico’s Indian Water rights settlements, including the Abeyta and Aamodt

suits. The bill would raise $1.37 billion for implementation, specifi cally the construction of the 

infrastructure contemplated under the terms of the DSA, with approximately 30 percent of the 

monies to be generated over the next ten years by the State of New Mexico from its federal oil 

and gas royalty payments. (See “Bill Would Shore Up the Funds for Settlement,” Taos News,

June 21, 2007.) In June 2007, Taos Pueblo also signed an agreement with the Aamodt pueblos 

(Pojoaque, Tesuque, Nambé, and San Ildefonso) to share a portion of its originally allocated San 

Juan-Chama Diversion Project water in an effort to move the Abeyta and Aamodt adjudication 

settlements to Congress. (See “Taos Pueblo to Share Water Rights,” Taos News, June 21, 2007.)

Under the terms of the DSA, the total water right for Taos Pueblo is 12,152.51 acre feet per year 

(depletion)(DSA, Article 5.1.1.1) of which its San Juan-Chama Diversion Project surface water 

right is 2,440 acre feet per year (DSA, Article 5.4). The DSA contemplates that several nonPueblo parties will acquire water rights through the San Juan-Chama Diversion Project and also 

provides for the Town of Taos to convert its San Juan-Chama Diversion Project service contract 

for 400 acre feet per year to a repayment contract allocating the Town 500 acre feet per year 

(DSA, Articles 6.2.10,11). The DSA, an overview of the DSA, and the press release issued by the 

parties to the DSA, can be found, respectively, at: http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Settlements/

Taos/AbeytaSettlementAgreement-2006-03-31.pdf; http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Settlements/

Taos/TaosOverview-2006-04-11.pdf; and http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/2006/pr.2006-03-31-

TaosSettlement.pdf ]

25. Clark, Water in New Mexico, 625.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid, 626.

28. Ibid, 625.

29. Ibid, 624.

30. Bloom Interview, side 2, tape 1.

31. New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Chapter 73, Article 9, Sections 73-9-1 through 

73-13-47, Pamphlet 117, Irrigation Districts, NMSA 1978 (1978 Supp.) and Chapter 73, Article 

14, Sections 73-14-1 through 73-19-5, Pamphlet 118, Conservancy Districts, NMSA 2000 (1996 

Supp.)

32. Ibid. Clark, Water in New Mexico, 204-212; “Indian Camp Taxes, Costs Explained,” 

Taos News, September 1, 1971.

33. Interview of Andres A. Martinez by Marilyn Koch, 7 April, 1990, audiotape (in Marilyn 

Koch’s possession), side 1, tape 1; Bloom Interview, side 1, tape 1. See also C. Lynn Reynolds 

“Economic Decision Making and the Infl uence of Traditional Hispanic Land Use Attitudes on 

Acceptance of Innovation,” The Social Science Journal, Volume 13, No. 3, October 1976, 29-30; 
575

and Lovato, Las Acequias del Norte, 36-38. New Mexico law recognized acequias as public and 

political subdivisions of the state beginning in 1965. Additionally, acequias have managed their 

affairs with a great deal of autonomy by local customs and traditions.

34. Taos News, “Unfair and Malicious Representation Cited,” August 4, 1971.

35. In re Proposed Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 31 N.M. 188, 196 (1925).

36. Clark, Water in New Mexico, 212. See also Cater v. Sunshine Valley Conservancy 

District, 33 N.M. 583 (1928). At the time of the Indian Camp Dam controversy, this conservancy 

district law was amended to allow for formation of a conservancy district north of Santa Fe 

County.

37. C. T. DuMars and S. C. Nunn, Eds., Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Water 

Policies Plan, Working Document (Albuquerque: Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 

1993), 5.

38. “Certainties of Growth Before Albuquerque—If Albuquerque Wills To Be a City,” 

Editorial [clipped from unknown newspaper but probably The Albuquerque Journal],

June 4, 1922. Middle Rio Grande Association Manuscripts, No. MSS 62 SC, Center for 

Southwest Research, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

39. In re Proposed Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 31 N.M. 188, 195 (1925).

40. Ibid, 217.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid, 218.

43. Ibid, 220.

44. Report of the Membership Committee, Middle Rio Grande Association, undated. 

Middle Rio Grande Association Manuscripts, No. MSS 62 SC, Center for Southwest Research, 

Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

45. Cater v. Sunshine Valley Conservancy District, 33 N.M. 583 (1928).

46. Gutierrez et al v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, et al, 34 N.M. 346, 363 

(1929).

47. Ibid, 364. But, for an example of the maxim ‘the law is made for the times, and will 

be made or modifi ed by them,’ see In re Sandia Conservancy District; City of Albuquerque, et 

al v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, et al., 57 N.M. 413, 259 P.2d 577 (S. Ct. 1953), 

416-417, wherein the Supreme Court, in 1953, appeared to have re-ordered what it saw as the 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District’s functions. It wrote that the district was “organized, 

primarily, for irrigation, reclamation and to afford protection from fl oods....”

48. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Chavez, 44 N.M. 240, 245 (1940).

49. Ibid, 247.

50. Ibid.

51. In re Proposed Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 31 N.M. 188, 198 (1925).

52. Interview of Eugene Weisfeld by Marilyn Koch, April 6, 1990, audiotape (in Marilyn 

Koch’s possession), side 1, tape 1. At the time of the Indian Camp Dam controversy Eugene 

Weisfeld was a VISTA volunteer and Rural Legal Aid attorney who represented the Tres Rios 

Association in its appeal of the formation of the Rancho del Rio Grande Conservancy District. In 

1990, he was Taos Town Attorney.

53. Rodriguez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity,” 334. Jerry L. Williams, editor, New

Mexico in Maps (Albuquerque, 1986) 105-107.

54. Bloom, side 2, tape 1; Interview of Rudy Pacheco by Marilyn Koch, 7 April 1990, 

audiotape (in Marilyn Koch’s possession), side 2, tape 1; Reynolds, “Economic Decision 

Making...,” 22.

55. Taos News, June 2, 1971.

56. John R. Van Ness, “Spanish American vs. Anglo American Land Tenure and the Study of 

Economic Change in New Mexico,” The Social Science Journal, Volume 13, No. 3, October 1976.

57. Reynolds, “Economic Decision Making...,” 24.

58. Taos News, October 4, 1972.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.
576

61. John Nichols (without byline), “Indian Camp Dam: The Mystery Welded to Reality,” 

New Mexico Review, Vol. 4, No. 4-5 (April-May, 1972), 5-7.

62. Rancho del Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Tres Rios Association, 87 N.M. 482, 

353P.2d 1333 (1975).

63. John Nichols, If Mountains Die, back cover.

64. Interview of John Nichols by Marilyn J. Koch, April 8, 1990, audiotape (in Marilyn 

Koch’s possession), side 2, tape 1.

65. Ibid.

66. Nichols, If Mountains Die, 60.

67. Sarah Deutsch, No Separate Refuge, 191. See also David Whisnant, All That is Native 

and Fine, The Politics of Culture in an American Region (Chapel Hill, 1983), and James Byrkit, 

“Land, Sky, and People: The Southwest Defi ned,” Journal of the Southwest.

68. Nichols, If Mountains Die, 13.

69. Nichols Interview, side 1, tape 1.

70. Ibid.

71. Bloom Interview, side 2, tape 2. Interview of Rudy Pacheco by Marilyn Koch, 

April 7, 1990, audiotape (in Marilyn Koch’s possession), side 1, tape 1.

72. Nichols Interview, side 2, tape 2.

73. Ibid.

74. Interview of Andres Martinez by Marilyn J. Koch, April 7, 1990, audiotape (in possession 

of Marilyn Koch), side 1, tape 1.

75. Deutsch, No Separate Refuge, 23, 30, 39.

76. Andres Martinez Interview, side 2, tape 1.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid. See also Reynolds, “Economic Decision Making...” 22-3.

79. Bloom Interview, side 1, tape 2.

80. Ibid.

81. John Nichols, “No Comment from Bloom,” The New Mexico Review, Vol. 4, No. 6-7 

(July 1972), 10-11.

82. Bloom Interview, side 2, tape 2.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Pacheco Interview, side 2, tape 1.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Interview of Eluid Martinez by Marilyn J. Koch, June 16, 2001, audiotape (in Marilyn 

Koch’s possession), side 1, tape 1.

93. Rodriguez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity in Taos,” 350.

94. Ibid.

95. Ibid.

96. Eluid Martinez Interview, side 1, tape 1.

97. Ibid.

98. Eluid Martinez Interview, side 2, tape 1.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid.

101. Brown and Ingram, Water and Poverty in the Southwest, 61-62; Rivera, Acequia Culture,

156, footnote 31; 157, the quoted section is attributed to the Tres Rios Association, but was, 

according to John Nichols [Nichols Interview, side 2, tape 2], written by him for the Tres Rios 

Association; 158.

102. Brown and Ingram, Water and Poverty in the Southwest, 87.

103. Ibid, 89-93, 101.
577

104. Rodriguez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity in Taos,” 314.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid, 315.

107. This is an on-going and evolving process. Another ironic example of the cooperation 

between opponents and proponents of the Indian Camp Dam, and perhaps the meshing of ethnic 

boundaries as well, can be found in the cooperation between Las Acequias del Norte, a coalition of 

community ditch systems of northern New Mexico, and Paul Bloom. In 1974, Bloom helped Las 

Acequias del Norte compile information on New Mexico’s water laws for use in public education 

literature that Las Acequias del Norte distributed to its members. One such member was the Tres 

Rios Association, the alliance of acequias formed by Andres Martinez to fi ght the conservancy 

district, having itself evolved into an activist organization. See Lovato, Las Acequias del Norte,

Technical Report Number 1, acknowledgment page.
578
579

Hydropolitics in the Far Southwest: Carl Hayden, 

Arizona, and the Fight for the Central Arizona 

Project

By:

Jack L. August, Jr.

 According to former U.S. Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, we are 

now approaching the last phase of a productive century of federally sponsored 

reclamation in the American West. With the development of a few remaining 

authorized dams and delivery systems, the era of the construction of the great 

reclamation projects will come to an end. A major contributor to the process 

of water resource development in the American West was longtime senator 

 Carl Hayden of Arizona (1877-1972). A native of Arizona’s Salt River Valley, 

Hayden, in his earliest years, experienced the often-cruel vicissitudes of fl ood and 

drought in the arid Southwest. He saw Arizona grow from a raw territory of a few 

thousand hardy pioneers to a desert oasis of millions. Central to his efforts in the 

service of his Arizona constituents was the development and use of the Colorado 

River, the controversial interstate stream that serves the needs of the seven 

basin states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, California, and 

Arizona). And, while he devoted his public career to the residents of his state, the 

man who became known as the “Silent Senator” had an impact and signifi cance 

far beyond the borders of the Grand Canyon state.1

 The most striking feature of Hayden’s political career was its longevity. 

He spent sixty-seven of his ninety-four years of life in public offi ce. Between 

1900 and 1912 he learned the art of politics by serving in a variety of local 

and county offi ces; Tempe town councilman, Maricopa County treasurer; and 

Maricopa County sheriff. When statehood was achieved in the latter year, voters 

elected their native son to the House of Representatives, kept him there for seven 

terms, and in 1926 promoted him to the U.S. Senate where he remained until his 

retirement in 1969. During his fi fty-seven years in the federal government, he 

served with ten presidents, beginning with William Howard Taft and ending with 

Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

 As Secretary Babbitt, a former Arizona governor, and other elected 

offi cials from the Grand Canyon State quickly learned upon the outset of their 

government service, Hayden’s lengthy tenure in offi ce benefi ted Arizona in a 

multitude of ways, and to catalogue his accomplishments would require volumes. 

In 1912, when he fi rst stepped into the House of Representatives, Arizona was one 

of the most sparsely settled states in the union. When he retired from the Senate 

in 1969, Hayden returned to one of the fastest growing states in the country. 

Today, dams and reservoirs, thousands of acres of reclaimed farmland, powertransmission lines, highways that helped create Arizona’s important tourist trade, 

a healthy commercial and industrial economy, Indian and veterans’ hospitals, and 

aircraft and military bases stand as testaments to the public career of Carl Hayden.
580

 Fellow lawmakers who spent time with and around Hayden commented 

on his kindness, humility, and modesty. Indeed, in what became a biennial ritual 

for senate newcomers, Hayden evinced amazement among newly elected senators 

for never sitting in the front row of the Democratic side of the Senate, as he was 

entitled. Instead, he maintained the seat he took in March 1927, on the aisle, 

one row removed from the back. Another well-known Hayden quality that cut 

against the grain of conventional political wisdom was the Arizonan’s propensity 

for silence. Especially in the Senate, a political body notable for its oratory, 

Hayden stood out as the soul of brevity. His remarks in the Congressional Record 

consumed less space, perhaps, than any other senator in recent history. Yet, as any 

careful observer of western politics knows, the absence of Hayden verbiage gave 

no hint of his power, knowledge, or effectiveness. Upon his fi ftieth anniversary 

in Congress, the New York Times declared, “few individuals in the history of 

Congress have done so much with so little talk.” Furthermore, when Hayden 

chose to appear before a committee with a project or a request, most members 

were certain it was justifi able. If Hayden wanted something, it needed little 

persuasion or rhetorical advancement. In a great political incongruity, Hayden 

fashioned silence into a form of legislative power.2

 At the same time, Senator Hayden, arguably, was one of the most powerful 

senators in U.S. history. As Marc Reisner suggested in his critical volume, 

Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water, “Senator Carl 

Hayden of Arizona [was] the most powerful man in legislative government” in 

the 1960s. Besides emerging as a ranking member of the Senate Appropriations 

Committee in the late 1920s and early 1930s and chairing this powerful 

committee from 1954 to 1969, he served as president pro tempore of the Senate 

and was third in line for the presidency. Although he held vast political power, 

one of the Arizonan’s most useful attributes, according to President Johnson, was 

the high degree of affection in which his colleagues held him. Moreover, Hayden 

chose most often to use his infl uence behind the doors of committee rooms or in 

persuasive conversations in the cloakrooms of Congress. At the same time he 

did his homework with consummate care until he knew, as one of his Republican 

senate colleagues recalled, “the front, back, and middle of everything.” Perhaps 

fellow Arizona senator Barry Goldwater said it best shortly after his return to the 

Senate after his run for the presidency: “Let me put it this simple way, whenever 

my service in the Senate is terminated I hope that my service to my country and 

my state equals a small fraction of what Carl Hayden has provided in both areas.”3

 While Hayden developed a renowned legislative expertise in the area of 

federal reclamation, he could also boast of several other areas of profi ciency that 

added to the growth and development as well as the conservation and preservation 

of the American West. Hayden, for example, was one of the great leaders in 

federal highway legislation, coauthoring the New Deal measure, the HaydenCartwright Act of 1934, which established the formula for distribution of federal 

aid for highways to the states on the basis of area rather than population. This 

legislation helped tremendously in providing transportation links between the 
581

West’s far fl ung cities. Hayden introduced and supported measures that advanced 

mining operations throughout the country. His efforts provided for fair prices, 

protection against unfair imports, and subsidies for strategic metals. 

 Notably, he was the sponsor, in 1919 of the Nineteenth Amendment to 

the Constitution, extending the right of suffrage, and he sponsored and managed 

the House bill to establish Grand Canyon National Park. He worked for social 

security legislation and in 1950 fostered an amendment to that law that allowed 

American Indians to be included within its framework. Other broad areas of 

federal legislation attracted his attention: forest conservation, national parks, 

labor, public lands, agriculture, and veterans’ affairs, to name a few. 

 Water, however, and its use and distribution, more than any other issue, 

lay at the heart of Hayden’s public career. He became most famous as a statesman 

who helped bring water and life to a vast region of the country. Unquestionably, 

the fortunes of his Arizona pioneer family were tied to water, or more specifi cally, 

to its diversion onto land. As a local politician he lobbied for one of the fi rst, and 

most successful, federal reclamation projects, the Salt River Project. During his 

fi rst term in the House he further displayed his understanding of the importance 

of water to his home state by obtaining authorization of an engineering study that 

led to the construction of Coolidge Dam on the Gila River and the San Carlos 

Reclamation Project. He also helped shape federal reclamation policy in its early 

years by writing and securing passage of the provision that allows local wateruser associations throughout the country to take over the care, maintenance, and 

operation of federal reclamation projects. In nearly six decades in Congress, 

reclamation issues occupied more of his attention than any other legislative 

subject, and Colorado River development took up a signifi cant portion of that 

time.

 On February 14, 1962, the fi ftieth anniversary of statehood, Hayden, in 

an exceedingly rare instance of public self-evaluation, commented on his most 

important contribution to Arizona—bringing federal reclamation to the Grand 

Canyon State. “The basic factor in making Arizona’s spectacular agricultural 

and industrial development was the Reclamation Act of 1902 sponsored by that 

great and energetic president, Theodore Roosevelt,” he told the Arizona Republic.

That law made possible the use of federal funds to develop water for irrigation 

and hydroelectric power, both of which were essential to the state’s prosperity. 

“Needless to say,” Hayden added, “I have helped that basic program move 

forward.” The then-eighty-four year-old senator concluded his comments, not 

dwelling on the past but rather by urging Arizonans to look toward their future. 

“I hope to see the day when central Arizona and other important areas of the state 

have the water required to continue the pattern of growth and progress attained in 

the fi rst half-century,” he challenged his constituents.

 Hayden alluded to Arizona’s decades-old obsession, the Central Arizona 

Project (CAP), which today channels Arizona’s hard-won share of Colorado 
582

River water to the central portions of the state, including the rapidly growing 

metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson. The recently completed project not 

only will shape the nature of federal reclamation in the American Southwest in 

the twenty-fi rst century, but also will impact the delicate desert environment in 

countless ways. Today Arizonans take for granted CAP, yet know little of its 

historical and legislative origins, many of which reach deep into the early history 

of the far Southwest. Indeed, Hayden, who had tried unsuccessfully to fashion 

some sort of central Arizona diversion project since the 1920s, persisted in his 

efforts through years of jousting with California and the other basin states and 

won his fi nal and most gratifying legislative battle between 1963 and 1968 when 

CAP was authorized through passage of the Colorado River Basin Project Act. 

Signifi cantly, this last, successful phase of the process began in the U.S. Supreme 

Court, where it took nearly eleven years to resolve a host of complex issues 

surrounding the use and distribution of Colorado River system water.4

 At 1:30 P.M. on August 13, 1952, Senator Carl Hayden welcomed a small 

group of somber-faced Arizonans to his offi ce on Capitol Hill. After a brief 

exchange of pleasantries he stuck a battered white straw hat on his bald head, 

strode to the door and beckoned, “Come on boys, let’s get this done.” Together 

the group walked to the U.S. Supreme Court building. Among them was 

J. H. “Hub” Moeur, chief counsel for the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission 

(AISC), who fi led a bill of complaint against California, asking for a judicial 

apportionment of the waters of the lower Colorado River basin. After witnessing 

the fi ling the seventy-four-year-old senator issued a short statement to the 

press. “I believe this action,” he told those gathered on the steps of the Supreme 

Court, “will make possible the settlement of a most serious controversy which is 

delaying the development of the Colorado River basin.” “If the Californians are 

sincere in their oft-repeated demands for court action,” he added, “then they will 

welcome the opportunity to present their side of the case.” With that, Arizona 

launched the monumental Arizona v. California Supreme Court case.5

 As several students of the case have noted, it was one of the most complex 

and fi ercely contested in the history of the Court. Before its completion, 

340 witnesses and fi fty lawyers had produced 25,000 pages of testimony before 

a special master. The case took nearly eleven years and cost nearly $5 million. 

And, when a sharply divided Court announced its opinion on June 3, 1963, 

followed by the decree on March 9, 1964, the river possessed a greatly modifi ed 

legal framework governing its apportionment and use among the lower basin 

states.6

 Arizona’s contentions had changed little since the late teens and early 

twenties, when the basin states focused their attentions on Colorado River 

development. She asserted that California had made contracts for delivery of over 

5.3 million acre feet of water annually in spite of laws limiting it to 

4.4 million acre feet. The limitation notwithstanding, Arizona’s attorneys argued 

that California had constructed reclamation works capable of diverting 8 million 
583

acre feet of water annually thereby posing a threat to Arizona and other basin 

states. According to Arizona’s attorneys, for the state to sustain its existing 

economy it required 3.8 million acre feet of Colorado system water per year. 

Furthermore Arizona relied on and asserted its rights to water under a variety 

of federal and state actions including the Colorado River Compact; the Boulder 

Canyon Project Act, the California Limitation Act of 1929, and, additionally, the 

state had entered into a water delivery contract with the federal government.7

 California registered no objection to Arizona’s motion. Her substantial 

team of attorneys, led by the brilliant and indefatigable Northcutt “Mike” Ely, 

agreed with the U.S. Solicitor General, who advised the Supreme Court that 

the federal government had an interest in the case and would move to intervene 

if Arizona’s motions were granted. On January 19, 1953, the Court granted 

Arizona’s original motion and the bill of complaint was fi led. Hayden hoped for 

prompt action because he knew that no further progress could be made on CAP, or 

any other lower-basin project, until the Court reached its decision.8

 On May 20, 1953, California responded to Arizona’s bill of complaint. 

In nearly 500 pages of narrative and supporting documentation, California’s 

attorneys contended that it had a right to the benefi cial and consumptive use of 

5,362,000 acre feet of Colorado River system water per year under the terms of 

the Boulder Canyon Project Act and her contracts with the Secretary of Interior. 

Moreover, she claimed prior appropriative rights to the use of that amount of 

water and that these rights were senior to Arizona’s and therefore superior. 

Finally, California argued that Arizona, by failing to ratify the Colorado River 

Compact within the specifi ed six months when the other six states had done so in 

1923, as well as her subsequent attempts to have the agreement declared invalid 

and the Boulder Canyon Act declared unconstitutional, precluded her right from 

interpreting this statute.9

 For the next four years California conducted a campaign of judicial delay. 

A blizzard of motions and fi lings delayed the start of proceedings, while the 

number and complexity of issues raised prompted the Court to appoint a special 

master to hear arguments. On January 1, 1954, George I. Haight assumed the 

position. After ruling on several preliminary motions, Haight died suddenly 

before formal hearings began. Judge Simon Rifkind, a sharp-witted federal jurist 

from the southern district of New York, replaced him. Finally, on January 14, 

1956, hearings on Arizona v. California began.10

 In the meantime, Hayden, on September 14, 1955, and nearing the end 

of his fi fth term in the Senate, announced at a Phoenix Press Club forum that he 

intended to seek reelection in 1956. The election, however, posed new challenges 

for the seventy-eight-year-old senior solon. Besides the election taking place 

against the backdrop of the Supreme Court case, Arizona, during the 1950s, was 

undergoing an unprecedented spurt of population growth, industrial development, 

and overall economic expansion. Indeed Arizona boomed during the post-war 
584

years, attracting people, industry, and capital. Much of this new money fi nanced 

urban and agricultural expansion in the state’s heartland embracing fast growing 

Phoenix and Tucson. Moreover, the distinctive technological, commercial, and 

urban dimension of this growth brought forth heightened expectations from an 

increasingly affl uent electorate. Longtime politicians like Hayden took careful 

notice when the youthful conservative Republican upstart, Barry Goldwater, won 

a stunning upset victory over the well-entrenched Democratic incumbent Ernest 

McFarland in the race for the U.S. Senate in 1952. The conservative victory not 

only shattered the Democratic party’s domination of state politics-which dated 

from the territorial period-but also signaled the onset of a new era of conservative 

hegemony in Arizona. Furthermore, Arizonans old and new expected the 

economic boom to continue and the key to sustaining this growth was the 

continued expansion of water supplies and affordable power.11

 By the mid-1950’s, however, the rivers of Arizona were fully developed 

and irrigators had turned increasingly to groundwater supplies. In their efforts 

to keep pace with the boom, they pumped with such intensity that water tables 

dropped and aquifers were exhausted. Thus the stakes were high in 1956, with 

Arizona v. California and the apparent pressing need for expanded water and 

power supplies. Much like his election campaigns for the U.S. Senate in 1926, 

 Hayden’s efforts at reelection in 1956 centered on water resource development 

generally, and the use and distribution of waters of the Colorado River system 

specifi cally.12

 Hayden’s 1956 election campaign was noteworthy for other reasons as 

well. His advancing age, questions about his health, and rumors of incipient 

senility emerged during the course of the primary campaign and carried over in 

the general election. His Democratic primary opponent, Robert “Doc” Miller, a 

forty-eight-year-old Phoenix-area druggist, suggested that “youth must be served 

and age must be retired,” adding that Hayden, at age seventy-nine and with 

fi fty-two years on the public payroll was desperately seeking another six years 

in offi ce. To these charges, Hayden and his staff responded to the anticipated 

criticism with resolve and innovation. Hayden’s administrative aide, Roy Elson, 

assessed the claims: “A lot of people, particularly as he got older and his hearing 

got bad, thought he was senile. There was nothing senile about Carl Hayden. 

You’d think he was up there asleep, and then he’d ask the most penetrating 

questions. He’d cut all the shit out and get to the heart of the matter. He was 

superb at doing that. I mean people would marvel.”l3

 After careful deliberation, Hayden agreed to make his fi rst television fi lm 

for use in a political campaign. His appearance on “Personalities in Government” 

featured the veteran senator’s views of various presidents and congressional 

leaders with whom he had served during his forty-four years in Congress. The 

show, and subsequent radio and television appearances, not only helped Hayden 

dispel rumors about his poor health and failing mental abilities, but also raised 

public awareness of his considerable accomplishments. Moreover, during the 
585

course of the campaign Hayden convinced voters that McCarthy-era VicePresident Richard Nixon’s charges that he was a dangerous left-leaning ideologue 

out of touch with modern American values were ridiculous and unfounded. 

Additionally, the new technology reached the growing numbers of new Arizona 

voters who were made aware that Hayden, in December 1955, had advanced to 

head the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee thereby giving the Grand 

Canyon State unprecedented infl uence in federal affairs.14

 Hayden’s infl uence and stature in Congress were emphasized in the 

1956 campaign as well as in his fi nal campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1962. An 

especially fl attering portrayal by former U.S. Senator and Assistant Secretary of 

State William Benton, published in the New York Times Magazine on July 24, 

1955, was adapted and utilized by Hayden campaign strategists in a variety of 

ways. Benton sought to praise the unsung or unappreciated heroes on Capitol 

Hill who rarely received “a stick of news type for their pains.” Chief among 

them were those senators and representatives who were committee specialists.

They mastered the detailed and complex problems of legislation, worked long 

hours in solitary study, and attended faithfully often-tedious committee sessions 

that lay behind the construction of appropriation bills, tax measures, and major 

substantive legislation in all fi elds. This was the non-glamorous drudgery, 

which was the heart of effective work in Congress and without injustice to 

anyone, Benton, ventured, Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona was the person who 

symbolized those in Congress who had “performed magnifi cent services for years 

on end while remaining virtually unknown to the general public.”l5

 Benton continued that, although Hayden spoke seldom and never with a 

tinge of rhetoric or passion, his infl uence within the Senate was enormous. He 

marveled also that his advice was sought and heeded by members of both parties 

and was trusted by everyone. Indeed Hayden’s handlers used this and other 

laudatory pieces to full advantage, effectively countering political attacks from 

the right and questions about Hayden’s age and mental acuity. On election night, 

November 6, 1956, Hayden, as usual, won every county in the state, defeating his 

Republican opponent, Ross F. Jones, 170,816 to 107,447.16

 The central issue of Hayden’s fi nal election campaign-the election of 

1962-remained CAP and the Colorado River. Despite the senator’s age, state 

leaders convinced him to run for a seventh term. A Phoenix Gazette editorial 

of September 21, 1962, put Hayden’s reelection in perspective for its readers: 

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s impending decision on a master’s report favorable 

to Arizona in the Colorado River controversy puts CAP just around the corner. 

Every ounce of California’s political clout will be brought into play. It will take a 

unique combination of power to beat the project’s enemies. Such a combination 

rests in the hands of Carl Hayden.” On the same day, the Arizona Republic

elaborated upon these themes: “Arizona’s congressional delegation is vastly 

outnumbered by California which wants the Colorado River for itself. Only 

the parliamentary skill of Senator Hayden supported by the universal esteem 
586

in which he is held in Congress will secure passage of CAP.... Senator Hayden 

stands above party politics. He should be reelected by overwhelming non-partisan 

support.... Senator Hayden deserves the vote of every citizen who wants Arizona 

to prosper.” Clearly, Arizonans saw their hopes tied to Hayden and his seniority 

in the Senate.17

 In spite of his distinguished record, his acknowledged leadership in 

Arizona’s water struggle, and support from newspaper editors throughout the 

state—including conservative publishing mogul Eugene Pulliam—Hayden 

faced several serious challenges in his 1962 campaign for reelection. His bright, 

aggressive, thirty-two-year-old assistant Roy Elson, who managed the campaign, 

acknowledged that the Arizona electorate had grown and changed since 1956, 

adding that “there must have been a fi fty percent increase in voting population” 

during the six-year period. Moreover, Hayden’s aide later recalled that in 1962 

“forty percent of the people in Arizona didn’t even know who Carl Hayden 

was because he didn’t put out press releases.” Elson, described by Capitol 

Hill colleagues and newspapermen as Hayden’s “Rasputin or Machiavelli,” 

knew that most of these newcomers had never heard of Hayden and still others 

questioned the wisdom of voting for an eighty-four-year-old man. Moreover, 

in the fall of 1961 his wife of fi fty-three years, Nan, passed away, leaving many 

wondering whether the elderly senator would not have the strength, emotionally 

or physically, to conduct his public responsibilities effectively. Meanwhile, 

the Republican Party continued its unremitting growth in the state, building a 

powerful and well-fi nanced organization. Indeed, Hayden’s staff knew the senator 

was politically vulnerable in 1962.18

 Elson took decisive action in early 1961, preparing a fi fteen-page 

confi dential memorandum for Hayden that detailed the diffi culty ahead if the 

senator chose to run for reelection. As the administrative aide put it, “I wrote 

to the senator on what we had to do if he was going to win, because this whole 

change in the demographics of the population.... We couldn’t rely anymore on his 

old organization, we had to do more press, get things into the can, do television 

spots.” Throughout the year Elson, who for the fi rst time in Hayden’s electoral 

career hired a press secretary, executed a well-organized and effective campaign 

strategy.19

 He convinced the new Democratic administration to visit Arizona to 

honor Carl Hayden. Indeed, one of the highlights of the campaign occurred on 

November 17, 1961, when President John Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon 

Johnson attended a $100-per-plate fundraising dinner in Phoenix. Billed as a 

bipartisan tribute to the aging senator, it garnered intensive media coverage. 

Newspaper, radio, and television reporters competed aggressively for the best 

photo or an interview with visiting political luminaries. President Kennedy told 

the dinner audience at the Hotel Westward Ho, “Every federal program which 

has contributed to the development of the West, irrigation, power, reclamation, 

bears his mark. And the great federal highway program which binds this country 
587

together, which permits this state to be competitive east and west, north and south, 

this in large measure is his creation. In one well-orchestrated stroke of political 

handiwork, Elson had accomplished his goal of reintroducing and redefi ning 

Senator Hayden, under the most favorable of circumstances, to a rapidly growing 

electorate.20

 In addition to the November gala, during the fall of that year the Hayden 

campaign traveled throughout Arizona shooting newsreel footage of the senator at 

Glen Canyon Dam and at various military bases—fi lm that proved crucial to the 

success of the campaign.21

 Beginning in early 1962, however, Hayden experienced a series of 

nagging bouts with fl u, and infections which threatened to derail the reelection 

effort. First the senator contracted a stubborn fl u, and then a urinary tract 

infection struck. Elson recalled that Hayden convalesced in his apartment at the 

Methodist building across from the capital, and “for a long time we had some 

people sitting in our offi ce, some John Birchers, demanding to see the senator.” 

As a result of these pesky ailments, during the fall of 1962 rumor spread that the 

senator had actually died; prompting a somewhat feeble Hayden to assert publicly 

that news of his death was simply not true.22

 It was during this critical period that Elson’s earlier campaign strategy 

came into play. The newsreel footage shot the previous year, along with help 

from local television station executives willing to air the footage, aided the 

faltering campaign. Also on the Saturday before the 1962 general election, Elson 

orchestrated a media event that put to rest rumors surrounding Hayden’s mortality. 

Vice-President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Richard Russell of Georgia arrived 

at Bethesda Naval Hospital—where Hayden spent the fi nal thirteen days of 

the campaign—to brief the ailing senator on the Cuban Missile Crisis. While 

photographers shot pictures, Hayden got out of his bed and three veteran 

Democrats held a press conference. The newsmen quickly drafted stories that 

although Hayden was not well, he was nevertheless alive and alert.23

 On the night of the election, Hayden, still at Bethesda, asked Elson 

what he thought was going to happen. The senator expressed concern that the 

Republicans nominated the mercurial and oddly charismatic Glendale car dealer 

and prominent conservative, Evan Mecham, to run against him. Elson told his 

mentor that although the future governor of Arizona had run a vigorous campaign, 

“I think you’re going to win by twenty-six or twenty-seven thousand votes.”

Elson’s prediction was on the mark as Hayden won the election by a count of 

199,217 to 163,388—a small margin for him. Then that night, before the polls 

closed, Hayden phoned all his key campaign workers in Arizona and personally 

thanked them for their help. Many were in tears over the emotional victory as 

Hayden had been elected for an unprecedented seventh term to the U.S. Senate.24
588

 Senator Hayden took little time to celebrate as he quickly refocused 

his energies on the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California. When 

the opinion was fi nally announced on June 3, 1963, Hayden considered it a 

tremendous victory for Arizona while local newspapers considered it “a personal 

triumph for Carl Hayden.” The Court, Hayden was pleased to note, centered 

its opinion on the Boulder Canyon Project Act rather than the Colorado River 

Compact. Moreover Congress, the justices reasoned, in passing the legislation 

“intended to and did create its own comprehensive scheme for... apportionment.” 

In addition Congress had authorized the Secretary of Interior to utilize his contract 

power to implement a lower-basin agreement. Importantly for Arizona, each state 

retained exclusive rights to its tributaries, which meant exclusive rights to the 

Gila. Concerning mainstream apportionment, the Court gave Arizona what it and 

Hayden had argued for since the 1922 negotiations over the compact: “4,400,000 

acre feet to California, 2,800,000 acre feet to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada.” 

“That formula,” wrote Ben Cole of the Arizona Republic’s Washington Bureau, 

was “a personal triumph for Carl Hayden because the decision referred back 

twenty-fi ve years to the December 12, 1928, debate in which Hayden pointed out 

that the Boulder Canyon bill and its allocation formula settled the dispute over 

lower basin waters.” After reading the ninety-fi ve pages of opinion and dissent, 

Hayden informed newsman Cole, 

naturally I am pleased that the Supreme Court has in general followed 

the Special Master’s recommendations with reference to the division of 

the waters of the Colorado River. This is especially gratifying because it 

makes possible at last for us to put our rightful share of our waters to use 

in the Colorado River Basin.25

 Underlying the decision favorable to Arizona was a deeply divided 

Supreme Court. The fi ve justices upholding the recommendation of Special 

Master Simon Rifkind were Hugo Black, author of the opinion, Byron R. White, 

Arthur J. Goldberg, Tom C. Clark, and William Brennan, Jr., Justice William 0. 

Douglas wrote a tart dissent, and Justice John Harlan drafted a separate dissent 

which had the concurrence of Justice Potter Stewart. Chief Justice Earl Warren, 

who was governor of California at the time the suit was fi led, did not participate 

in the decision. Douglas, whose dissent was extremely sharp, wrote in part: 

Much is written these days about judicial lawmaking, and every 

scholar knows that judges who construe statutes must of necessity 

legislate interstitially... the present case is different. It will, I think, be 

marked as the baldest attempt by judges in modern times to spin their 

own philosophy into the fabric of law in derogation to the will of the 

legislature. The present decision, as Mr. Justice Harlan shows, grants 

the federal bureaucracy a power and command over water rights in the 

seventeen western states that it has never had, that it always wanted, that 

it could never persuade Congress to grant, and that this court up to now 

has consistently refused to recognize.26
589

 Understandably, Californians reacted with anger and apprehension to the 

decision. They charged the Court with misreading the intent of Congress, eroding 

the rights of the states, and argued that the ruling represented the fi rst time that the 

Court had interpreted an act of Congress as apportioning water rights to interstate 

streams. Previously, rights had been determined only by interstate compact or 

by the Supreme Court itself. Thus this untoward judicial innovation threatened 

California, and Hayden and his senate staff quickly concluded that Golden State 

leaders would try to regain in the political arena what they had lost in the judicial 

decision. Elson described the situation on the heels of the ruling, “We knew 

that California and Northcutt Ely would try some way to stop this through the 

legislative process, even though they had lost... What they couldn’t accomplish in 

court they would try to do in the fi eld of politics.”27

 Other aspects of the decision refl ected a departure from previous judicial 

renderings. The Secretary of the Interior would allocate future surpluses and 

shortages among and within states. The later feature marked, as one expert on 

the Colorado has written, “an especially sharp break with tradition.” Moreover, 

the Court ruled that Congress could invoke the navigation clause of the U.S. 

Constitution as well as the “general welfare” clause to divide the waters of 

non-navigable and navigable streams. This dimension of the ruling, as Justice 

Douglas wrote in his scathing dissent, increased drastically federal control over 

the nation’s rivers. For Hayden and Arizona, nevertheless, the ruling appeared to 

clear the way for legislative action on CAP.28

 Besides the positive implications for CAP, Arizona v. California proved 

a victory for American Indians as well. As noted earlier, when Arizona fi led 

suit in 1952, the federal government intervened not only to protect its interests 

on the river, but also to defend the rights of the Native Americans living on the 

twenty-fi ve reservations within the lower basin. U.S. attorneys petitioned for 

adequate water for all irrigable lands on Indian reservations as well as national 

parks, forests, recreation areas, and other federal lands. In their decision the 

justices ruled in favor of the government although limiting their decision to fi ve 

reservations abutting the mainstream of the river—Fort Mohave, Chemehuevi, 

Cocopah, Yuma, and Colorado River. Basing its reasoning on Winters v. United 

States (1908) the Court held that the fi ve reservations were limited not just to 

their land but their rights also extended to water. The justices concluded that 

“It is impossible to believe that when Congress created the... Colorado Indian 

Reservation and the Executive Department of this Nation created the other 

reservations they were unaware that most of the lands were desert... and that 

water from the river would be essential to the life of the Indian people.”29

 Especially noteworthy was the fact that in determining the amount of 

water the Indians were to receive, the Court adopted the government’s position. 

Thus the Indians were awarded water based upon irrigable acreage. And in a 

supplemental decree, the Court added that the Indians were not restricted in 

the uses to which they could put their water. As one scholar wryly observed, 
590

“Reason, rather than agriculture, seemed to emerge as the ultimate test.” 

Although he agreed in principle with the Court’s ruling pertaining to the affected 

tribes, Hayden expressed concern that Indian uses were to be charged against the 

state in which the reservation was located. Arizona, where most of the Indian 

land under the ruling was located, therefore, bore the majority of the burden of 

this “Indian water.” Moreover, the justices ruled that these rights dated from 

the establishment of the reservation and were superior to later non-Indian rights, 

including those rights based on uses initiated before the Indians had begun 

diverting water from the Colorado or its tributaries. The Court thus reaffi rmed 

Winters asserting that American Indian rights existed whether or not they were 

actually using the water and continued unimpaired even if they should cease their 

uses. Some of the lands along the lower reaches of the Colorado had been set 

aside as early as 1865 and none later than 1917. Clearly, Arizona v. California

left the tribes in a much stronger legal position than they previously maintained.30

 Upon the announcement of the Supreme Court decision Hayden phoned 

Don Smith, a reporter for U.S. News and World Report, to issue a rare public 

statement. “The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the division of Colorado 

River water,” he told Smith, “is the most signifi cant federal action in history 

affecting the state of Arizona. This adjudication must now be followed by the 

construction of the long-awaited CAP.” During his recent reelection effort, 

Hayden made authorization of CAP the centerpiece of his campaign, promising 

to work for the project’s prompt authorization after the Supreme Court’s decision. 

Toward this end, the aging dean of the Senate sought and won a seat on the Senate 

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee as a very “junior” member. In addition to 

this parliamentary positioning, Hayden, in April 1963, prepared and sent a draft 

bill and strategy memo to the Arizona delegation in order to foster unity in the 

state’s approach to Congress. He wrote: “I feel that our bill should be as simple 

as possible, and as similar as practicable to the bill considered by Congress in the 

late 1940s and early 1950s and twice passed by the Senate.” And on June 4, 1963, 

one day after the Court’s ruling, Arizona senators Hayden and Goldwater and the 

three House members of Arizona’s delegation introduced legislation 

(S. 1658; H.R. 6796, H.R. 6797, and H.R. 6798) to authorize CAP, one of the 

largest water project proposals ever to come before Congress.31

 Hayden’s bill authorized a diversion of 1.2 million acre feet of water 

annually out of the Colorado River to provide supplemental irrigation and 

municipal water to central and southern Arizona. To do this, it provided for the 

construction of fi ve dams and reservoirs, two power plants, and transmission and 

distribution facilities on the Colorado and its tributaries in Arizona and western 

New Mexico. A key feature of this fi rst bill was a 740-foot-high-dam at Bridge 

Canyon on the Colorado River at the headwaters of Lake Mead. If built, Bridge 

Canyon Dam promised to be the highest dam in the western hemisphere. The 

Bridge Canyon power plant would have an installed capacity of 1.5 million 

kilowatts, and one-third of its capacity would be transmitted south to pump water 
591

over a canal and aqueduct system from the existing Parker Dam on the Colorado 

219 miles to the Phoenix area and 341 miles to Tucson.32

 Shortly before introduction of S. 1658, the Bureau of Reclamation 

completed a supplemental feasibility report on CAP in January 1962. It estimated 

that CAP would provide additional water to irrigate 880,000 acres of land in 

Arizona and would provide 303,000 acre feet of municipal and industrial use 

water for 1.1 million people, primarily in the Phoenix-Tucson areas. In the 

fi fteen-year period that elapsed between the two bureau reports on CAP, Arizona’s 

population had grown from 700,000 to approximately 1.4 million, and lands under 

irrigation in central Arizona from 566,000 to about 1 million acres. In addition, 

U.S. Geological Survey data indicated that Arizona had “mined its groundwater 

basins in the state at an alarming rate. According to the survey, the groundwater 

level was dropping at a rate of ten feet per year in the Phoenix area and twenty 

feet per year in Pinal County, south of Phoenix. In some areas wells were going 

dry or saline water was seeping into them, making them unusable, and the ground 

was subsiding from over-pumping. C. A. Pugh, area engineer for the Bureau of 

Reclamation at Phoenix, estimated that the overdraft of groundwater basins in the 

state totaled 2.2 million acre feet annually. The net delivery of water from CAP 

would amount to only 1,070,000 per year, so it could not possibly replenish more 

than half the water defi cit in the state at that rate of use. If these statistics were 

accurate, Hayden reasoned that Arizona appeared to be heading into a water crisis 

that could be only partly addressed by CAP.33

 Hayden knew well that in spite of Arizona’s obvious need for additional 

water, Congress historically delayed fi nal action on reclamation projects until 

leaders and all sections of the state and region were unifi ed or had arrived at a 

general consensus. Thus looking for the broad support necessary for his bill 

he made known past support for several big packages of upper-basin projects 

including the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, which led to the 

construction of Glen Canyon Dam. He also played a prominent role in backing 

numerous individual state proposals such as New Mexico’s San Juan-Chama 

Project, which passed Congress in 1962. In light of these and other previous 

efforts in support of regional water resource development, Senator Hayden 

believed he deserved the same kind of consideration for CAP within his state 

and throughout the region. Beyond these arguments, the extent of Arizona’s 

legislative effort for CAP was commensurate with the perceptions within the state 

of the benefi ts to be gained from the proposed project. This was based partly on 

the felt need for additional water in some parts of Arizona, but in large part, the 

belief in CAP was, as political scientist Helen Ingram aptly put it, “emotional and 

symbolic.”34

 Yet between 1960 and 1963 the anticipation of a Supreme Court decision 

favorable to Arizona prompted federal administrators and representatives in the 

basin states to begin formulating a regional plan acceptable to the entire basin—

not just Arizona. In January 1962, for example, Secretary of the Interior Stewart 
592

Udall, an Arizonan and former congressman, encouraged Congressman Wayne 

Aspinall (D -Colorado), Chairman of the infl uential House Interior and Insular 

affairs committee, to request the Interior Department to conduct a comprehensive 

study on water development in the Colorado River in preparation for the expected 

pressure for authorization of individual state projects—including CAP—as soon 

as the decision in Arizona v. California was handed down.35

 Indeed several studies were already underway and in November 1962 

Aspinall asked Udall for an outline of the Interior Department’s plans for a 

regional approach to water development in the basin. In an effort to practice 

“constructive water statesmanship,” Secretary Udall, and his undersecretary 

James Carr of California, adopted this regional approach and by January 1963 

he revealed a huge $8 billion plan which included projects in fi ve western 

states. In announcing his regional program—the Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan

(PSWP)—Udall hoped to “erase the outmoded concept limited by state lines, 

and concentrate on meeting the total water needs of a region.” In addition to this 

lofty goal, he also sought to reconcile diverse interests and several multiple use 

water projects into one harmonious and comprehensive plan. In August 1963, 

after Hayden had introduced his CAP bill, the PSWP was sent to the seven basin 

states and to fi ve federal departments for review and comment. No state with 

water entitlements below Lee’s Ferry was left out of the scheme and seven of 

the proposed seventeen projects benefi ted Arizona, California, Nevada, New 

Mexico, and Utah. PSWP, moreover, sought to unify the interests of Arizona and 

southern California, with several programs aimed at easing California’s concern 

over mainstream withdrawals by CAP. Water transfer from northern to southern 

California, water salvage projects, and several new reclamation programs were 

included in the plan to mitigate other California concerns. Beyond this, Udall 

tried to exploit common interests in PSWP by proposing two huge hydroelectric 

dams, Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon, to be located near the Grand Canyon 

National Park. Revenues derived from these cash register dams would underwrite 

the cost of the entire plan, and guarantee the future growth and development of 

the Southwest.36

 To Hayden PSWP and the comparatively simple CAP bill were competing 

legislative initiatives, and the senator and Arizona’s political leadership were 

particularly incensed with the Kennedy administration in general and Secretary 

Udall in particular. During 1963 and 1964, in several exchanges of letters and 

memos between Hayden’s offi ce and Interior, an agitated Hayden let it be known 

in vivid and uncompromising language that he considered the overdrawn PSWP a 

method for delaying consideration of CAP that played into the hands of California 

and upper basin opponents of CAP, particularly Colorado. Then-governor of 

Arizona Paul Fannin added that he considered PSWP “a plot against Arizona 

born in California and formalized in the Interior Department by California’s 

undersecretary.” Fannin advocated the Senator’s approach: “We must and will 

go it alone with the CAP as proposed by Hayden in S. 1658.” In numerous 

correspondences through the next two years, Udall suggested to Hayden and other 
593

state leaders that the CAP fi t into his broader regional program. To one of these 

missives, dated December 19, 1963, in which Udall alerted the senator that he 

could not fi le a favorable report on a separate CAP bill, Hayden shot back, 

24.1. August 1963 Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan Report cover.

United States 

Department of the Interior 

Stewart l. Udall, Secretary 

Pacific Southwest 

WATER PLAN~ 

!~~ ~ ~~ \ ':) A 

~ ...... - .... <li:.r.l' 

REPORT 

August1963 

Prepared by Departmental Task Force 

William I. Palmer, Chairman 
594

I vigorously protest your failure to keep your commitment to me and 

to other offi cials of this state. I insist that language be included in the 

PSWP which will be a clear endorsement of the CAP as embodied in 

S. 1658 and/or as a separate fi rst segment in any regional program. 

According to Elson, “it irritated the hell out of Carl Hayden because there was 

nothing incompatible with a simple CAP to any regional plan.”37

 Several CAP supporters offered other, more politically-sinister 

explanations, for the legislative standoff in 1963-1964. Although not discussed 

openly, several Capitol Hill insiders suspected that an understanding had been 

struck with President John F. Kennedy and Secretary Udall. As Hayden aide 

Elson described the unwritten agreement: “Let’s not rock the boat with anything 

that’s going to cause a big problem with California, particularly southern 

California, at least until after the 1964 elections.” The Yuma Daily Sun of June 

16, 1963, seconded Elson’s musings concerning the politics of PSWP. “There 

is also the task of getting the approval of the Kennedy administration. Which 

will be ardently courting California’s 40 electoral votes in 1964, an election 

year.” California was now the largest state in the nation; it counted thirty-seven 

more electoral votes than increasingly Republican Arizona and was doubtlessly 

a prize in the 1964 presidential sweepstakes. Many CAP proponents realized 

that Kennedy, as leader of the entire nation—and a practical and politically savvy 

person as well—would not simply brush aside the arguments of Democratic 

Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown or the forty-member congressional delegation. 

Whether valid or not, the notion that Kennedy did not want Udall appearing to 

take sides with his state of Arizona and its small electoral vote as opposed to 

California and its substantial electoral vote was a topic of discussion during the 

early phase of CAP’s legislative journey.38

 Not surprisingly, Stewart Udall took a great deal of editorial abuse within 

Arizona over his “federalized regional project” that “placed all water and power 

of the Colorado under control of his department.” One highly charged and 

exaggerated editorial in the Arizona Republic of August 18, 1963, asked “Udall, 

Where Are You?” suggesting that the grandiose plan (PSWP) meant that he 

had written off Arizona for his political future and that he had come under the 

infl uence of the California water lobby headed by Undersecretary of the Interior 

James Carr. Younger brother and Arizona congressman Morris Udall was the 

focus of similar harsh and unfair criticism. Observers questioned whether he 

supported CAP or the “empire-building plan” unveiled by his brother. As the 

infl uential Arizona Republic editorialized, 

Voters know where Stewart Udall stands-he’s against the Central Arizona 

Project.... Will Morris Udall align himself with the rest of the Arizona 

delegation, which unanimously supports the project? Or, will he, in 

deference to his brother, sit on the sidelines and refuse to help Arizona?39
595

 To an unsympathetic Hayden, Secretary Udall confi ded that “he had taken 

his daily horsewhipping from the Phoenix newspapers,” but he resented what he 

termed a personal attack by Senator Goldwater and the unwarranted attacks on his 

younger brother by powerful publisher Eugene Pulliam. He explained: 

From this point on I intend to give Goldwater and Pulliam blow for blow 

if that is what they want. I may be 1000% wrong but on the basis of my 

knowledge of the art of the possible in the House and my conversations 

with Chairman Aspinall and others, it has been my best judgment that 

some kind of regional approach will be absolutely essential if a Central 

Arizona Project is to pass in the House.

Furthermore, the Secretary told Hayden,

Governor Fannin and the Arizona water people have made a grievous 

mistake in failing to have any consultation whatsoever with the members 

of the House concerning basic strategy. The Pulliam-Goldwater tactics 

of attempting to bludgeon my brother and Representative [George] 

Senner (D-Arizona) into line with their strategy is outrageous and 

indefensible.

 Clearly, the administration’s preference for a regional approach to 

Colorado River development in the form of PSWP posed unforeseen challenges to 

Hayden and his staff. In spite of the uncharacteristically harsh rhetoric between 

the two distinguished Arizonans and among state interests, Hayden agreed with 

Udall’s notion that “It is largely up to the two of us to hold the whole thing 

together.” As a result of the need to make progress on CAP both camps made a 

frosty pledge to confer at any time on strategy matters.40

 Nevertheless, as Arizona’s quest for CAP shifted to Congress, and as 

several proposals and counterproposals made their way through the maze of 

subcommittee and committee hearings, Hayden knew that his accumulated power 

and infl uence in the Senate bode well for the legislation. In 1966, moreover, an 

Arizona “Task Force” arrived in Washington to lend support to the legislative 

effort, drawing staff and expertise from the state’s water establishment: Arizona 

Interstate Stream Commission, Arizona Public Service, the Central Arizona 

Project Association, and the Salt River Project. Additionally, Hayden chaired the 

Senate Appropriations Committee, and he could, if he wanted, hold up every other 

water project in the country.41

 As usual he appeared before a variety of congressional committees adding 

to his already considerable record of testimony in behalf of the project. Typical 

of his statements between 1963 and 1968 was his testimony in support of his 

bill, S. 1658, before the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of 

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on August 27, 1963. “Arizona’s 

efforts to obtain her full share of Colorado River water have been frustrated by 

the deliberate delaying tactics of California,” he told the subcommittee, and “after 
596

fi fteen years of separate consideration by Congress, the effort is being made to 

absorb the simple and readily understood Central Arizona Project into one of the 

most controversial, complex, and confusing water resource development plans 

ever presented to Congress.” Hayden told this and other groups of legislators 

in subsequent testimony that he believed in a regional concept of water resource 

development, that he could support any features of a regional plan which were 

sound, but that he was opposed to anything that would complicate and delay 

authorization of CAP. The senator expressed serious concern for Secretary 

Udall’s PSWP because if the plan was never constructed, the benefi ts to California 

would be greater than if the plan were constructed. Hayden posited that in the 

end it would be cheaper for California to use Arizona’s water than it would be to 

participate in any comprehensive plan.42

 The Arizona senator did not want the urgently needed and completely 

feasible CAP to be stalled because of controversy over a master plan. Nor did 

he want other worthy projects, like Utah’s Dixie Project or California’s AuburnFolsom South Project, hindered because they would have to be included in the 

collection of separate projects, which Secretary Udall called PSWP. Hayden 

correctly predicted that senators and representatives would hear testimony that 

there would be insuffi cient water in the Colorado River to sustain CAP. In 

anticipating these arguments he pointed to previous statements by Commissioner 

of the Bureau of Reclamation Floyd Dominy, who stated that despite rumors to 

the contrary “there is certainly enough water in the river for the CAP of 

1.2 million acre feet” under the Arizona v. California ruling. 

 Hayden also criticized the portion of the PSWP proposal to import 

1.2 million acre feet of water from northern California to southern California at a 

cost of billions of dollars while ignoring an equal amount of water that could be 

developed at a minimum cost through adequate conservation practices within the 

area. “This committee,” he inveighed, “is being requested to provide funds for 

the import of water from northern California at a great cost to protect the right of 

southern California to waste water.”

 What especially irked Hayden about PSWP or other “regional” initiatives 

that emerged over the four-and-one-half years of legislative wrangling in 

what became the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, was the obvious 

efforts of certain interests within California to delay CAP or nullify Arizona v. 

California. Later he recalled that “it appeared a lifetime of labor was approaching 

fruition.” The Court decision, combined with solemn assurances of California’s 

former governor Earl Warren who in 1948 told Hayden, “whenever it is fi nally 

determined that water belongs to Arizona, it should be permitted to use that water 

in any manner or by any method considered best by Arizona,” seemed to clear 

the way for authorization of CAP. Moreover, shortly after the opinion, Governor 

Edmund G. “Pat” Brown announced that California, having lost the Supreme 

Court case, would not try to accomplish by obstructionism what she had failed 

to accomplish by litigation. As Hayden stated on August 4, 1963, and reiterated 
597

on several occasions thereafter: “For forty years I have witnessed the thwarting 

of Arizona’s effort to put to use its share of Colorado River water. At every turn 

Arizona has encountered the deliberate delaying tactics of California and there 

is every reason to believe that his plan of obstructionism will continue.” To his 

dismay, he found that “a small group of Californians, notwithstanding previous 

commitments, continued to nullify, by delay, the Supreme Court’s decision.” 

Although California employed the politics of delay throughout the process of 

legislative consideration of the bill, Hayden fi rmly believed that the concept of 

equity would prevail in the end. Indeed, California had its water, Nevada had its 

water, the upper basin was developing its water, and Arizona had nothing. Thus 

as he told lawmakers at the outset of legislative consideration of CAP, “I think all 

of you know that I have always attempted to help in any way possible with every 

project of our western resources—even when I was being fought on my own 

project—but quite frankly my patience has been exhausted.”43

 In spite of California’s continued opposition, Hayden had powerful 

allies in the Senate. His close and respected friend, Senator Henry Jackson 

(D-Washington), chaired the Senate Interior Committee. Jackson, whose state 

owed much of its post-war prosperity to Hayden-supported federal reclamation 

programs, monitored carefully natural resource development and federal 

reclamation. Moreover, Jackson’s valued relationship with Senator Hayden 

and fi rm alliance with President Kennedy served Arizona well throughout 

CAP’S various journeys through the Senate between 1963 and 1968. During 

the course of arriving at a measure suitable to all contending and confl icting 

interests, however, California and the upper basin looked to the Northwest and 

the Columbia River system to import and augment Colorado River water supplies 

in an effort to avoid water shortages made worse by CAP. At one point during 

the process, several senators and congressmen contemplated the importation 

of 8 million acre feet of water per year from the Columbia River Basin and 

even as far north as Canada. Naturally, Jackson saw fi t to protect the interests 

of his region and took actions to eliminate transbasin transfers of water during 

fi nal consideration of the CAP bill. In its fi nal form the legislation contained a 

provision that provided for a ten-year ban on interbasin feasibility studies.44

 Hayden also counted on support from Senator Clinton Anderson (D-New 

Mexico) who served as chairman of the Power and Reclamation Subcommittee of 

the Interior Committee. Anderson held considerable stature in the Senate as well 

as with groups concerned with water resource development and, besides, he had a 

stake in the bill as it pertained to protecting and extending water entitlements for 

his state. Moreover, his especially close relationship with Senator Jackson made 

Anderson an important ally in the CAP fi ght. Indeed, throughout his last term in 

offi ce, Hayden relied on these two powerful senators to counter the opposition 

arguments of California’s two senators, Thomas Kuchel (R-California), the 

ranking Republican member of the Senate Interior Committee, and Claire Engle 

(R-California), who helped engineer the 1951 defeat of CAP in the House of 

Representatives.45
598

 Thankful for the support he maintained in the Senate, Hayden and his 

staff nevertheless knew the real fi ght for passage remained in the House of 

Representatives. Between 1963 and 1968 Arizona, fortunately, had capable 

and bipartisan representation in the House. John Rhodes, a Republican, was 

a respected and infl uential leader among House Republicans who served on 

the House appropriations subcommittee which would ultimately provide 

money to build the project. George Senner, a northern Arizona Democrat from 

Arizona’s then-newly created third district, was untested and soon lost his seat 

to the inimitable Sam Steiger of Prescott, a Republican. And Morris Udall, a 

member of the key Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, maintained special 

responsibilities over the bill. Importantly for Arizona, her three-man team in the 

House worked well together during the fi nal four and one-half year legislative 

history of the bill.

 Although Arizona’s House delegation introduced CAP bills identical to 

Hayden’s the day after the Supreme Court’s decision, passage was another issue. 

Indeed nine out of ten bills introduced and referred to committee never saw a 

fl oor vote. The power of congressional committees in the House, moreover, 

could not be overstated and of special importance were the committee chairmen.

Bills opposed by the chairman rarely emerged from committee for a fl oor vote. 

The chairman controlled the schedule of hearings on legislation, and undecided 

members often followed the chairman’s lead. Since the principal obstacle to 

passage of CAP was in the House, the House Interior Committee-and its Irrigation 

and Reclamation Subcommittee where the CAP bill was referred-held vital 

importance for CAP proponents.46

 For Hayden this meant CAP passing through the gauntlet of the House 

Interior Committee, chaired by Wayne N. Aspinall. According to most observers 

of Colorado River Basin affairs, Aspinall, the former schoolteacher with a testy 

disposition who had climbed from a small western Colorado town to chairman of 

this all-important committee, distrusted expansionist California and felt similarly 

about Arizona. In fact, the river ran under the window of his home on Aspinall 

Drive in Palisade, Colorado, and he sought to conserve every acre foot of water 

before the lower basin states would take it and never give it back. Mo Udall 

considered the sixty-seven-year-old chairman who had served in Congress since 

1948 “a superb legislative tactician.” Of utmost concern to Aspinall was the 

obvious fact that although entitled to 2.8 million acre feet of water, Arizona’s use 

of this amount through CAP might cut sharply into water destined for upper-basin 

use but not yet developed. During one crucial phase of CAP’s consideration in 

the House Interior Committee in 1967, Hayden, in an uncharacteristic display 

of power, threatened to eliminate funding for construction of the Frying PanArkansas Project in Colorado and allowed that he would hold up other projects 

important to the House Interior chairman if Aspinall did not move the bill 

forward. Therefore, as Hayden knew from the outset of legislative consideration 

of his bill, if CAP was going to get past Aspinall and his committee, Colorado 

must be satisfi ed.47
599

 In addition to Aspinall, John Saylor of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican 

on the House Interior Committee, continued to frustrate Arizona as he had in the 

1950s. Described by one colleague as a “dynamic, hard- hitting protagonist,” 

who had earned respect in the House, Saylor was an ardent conservationist who 

supported the growth and expansion of the National Park system and advocated 

programs for outdoor recreation. Saylor, moreover, backed a strong wilderness 

bill, the “integrity of the national parks,” and complained vigorously about the 

Bridge Canyon Dam provision of CAP because it threatened to back water into 

Grand Canyon National Park. While not opposed to sound reclamation projects 

he opposed increasing public power development and spotty fi nancing and poor 

planning in “marginal reclamation projects.” He voted against the upper Colorado 

project in 1956 thereby gaining recognition and support among environmentalists 

for his efforts.48

 Indeed in 1966 and 1967 environmentalists’ opposition to the construction 

of dams in and around Grand Canyon brought nationwide attention to CAP 

and threatened to derail the entire project. Environmentalists waged a spirited 

campaign against the dams reminiscent of the great battle over Echo Park. By 

1966 virtually everyone involved in the legislation—through hearings, meetings, 

and “confi dential” parlays—knew that the river was over-allocated and most 

wanted to see augmentation from the Northwest, so they generally favored the 

Grand Canyon dams. As expressed in his fi rst Supreme Court CAP bill, Hayden 

still advocated construction of Bridge Canyon Dam, as he had since 1947, and 

indicated that he also supported Marble Gorge Dam if indeed revenues were 

needed to fi nance augmentation and other development. Yet the previously 

fragmented environmentalist movement, representing diverse interests and a 

wide array of organizations, brought signifi cant pressure to bear on Congress and 

the Johnson administration. They contended that the dams would fl ood scenic 

areas and inundate portions of Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon 

National Monument. A few groups, including the Sierra Club, the National Parks 

Association, and the Arboretum, saw a great deal to lose with the inclusion of 

hydroelectric power dams in the bill.

 The California-based Sierra Club, with a national membership of about 

40,000 at the time of the battle, was the most prominent and well organized 

of the anti-dam environmental groups. Led by its energetic and controversial 

director, David Brower, the Sierra Club spearheaded a broadly gauged effort to 

fi ght construction of dams in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. An impressive 

letter writing campaign and an effective public-relations program, underscored 

by the strong emotional and symbolic appeal of “saving” the Grand Canyon from 

profi t-mongering developers, accomplished much for their cause. Brower wrote 

President Johnson, Secretary Udall, and other members of the administration 

directly, protesting the dams. Soon Johnson administration offi cials, members 

of congress, and Arizona’s leaders began receiving thousands of letters daily 

from individuals and groups as diverse as the social science faculty at Dartmouth 
600

College in Hanover, New Hampshire, to fi rst grade public school classes in 

Sandusky, Ohio.49

 In the course of the advocacy campaign, a series of highly publicized wellattended addresses brought further attention to the issue. In Denver, for example, 

Brower, speaking before an anti-Grand Canyon dams audience, quipped that he 

did not oppose dams in the Grand Canyon as long as the Bureau of Reclamation 

built a comparable canyon somewhere else. As one chronicler put it, “Never 

before had conservationists challenged the collective will of seven states.”50

 By early 1966 the public was suitably convinced that the most 

controversial aspect of the legislation involved the two proposed dams. And in 

the spring of that year, after Reader’s Digest, Life, and even My Weekly Reader

ran stories attacking the Grand Canyon dams, Hayden realized they posed 

insurmountable political obstacles. By early 1967 Hayden, as he met with 

senate leaders in efforts to further revise CAP, knew that an alternative source of 

energy would be required to pump CAP water to central Arizona. In a July 1967 

memorandum to President Johnson advising him that the Senate Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs had overwhelmingly recommended passage of 

S. 1004, the CAP bill-for the fourth time-he added that this legislation contained 

“no new Colorado River dams.” As Elson interpreted the outcome of the antidam fi ght: “Most people in the East and other places were for CAP, but they were 

against the dams because they had been informed by Brower and his operatives 

that within the region there existed adequate amounts of alternative energy 

sources, notably low-grade coal.” As a result Hayden and Arizona were forced 

to accept an alternative to hydroelectric power. Yet, as historian Donald Worster 

explained in his analysis of this environmentalist victory, they lost something as 

well. In exchange for Grand Canyon dams, energy required for CAP was derived 

instead from coal strip-mined on Hopi lands at Black Mesa and burned in the 

 Navajo Generating Station near Page “polluting crystalline desert air with ash and 

poison gas.” As one Reclamation offi cial explained the paradox, “it didn’t solve a 

damn thing except it gave us power to pump water to central Arizona.”51

 If acquiescing on the dam issue, incorporating aspects of Secretary Udall’s 

regional plan, and jousting with Congressman Aspinall’s upper basin demands in 

the House proved diffi cult but tolerable, Hayden had great diffi culty with another 

necessary compromise. From the start of congressional negotiations California’s 

senators made it clear that its central demand for dropping opposition to CAP 

would be a fi rst priority of 4.4 million acre feet awarded it in the CAP legislative 

battle, Roy Elson recalled: “For California...it all became an argument about what 

to do about the shortages in the river... we got into these early diffi culties mainly 

over that issue.” Hayden knew immediately the implications of the demand; 

California wanted Arizona to regulate their mainstream diversions so that 

California would never receive less than 4.4 million acre feet out of the 

7.5 million acre feet lower-basin allocation. At fi rst an intransigent Hayden 

refused to negotiate the issue with California senator Kuchel. By 1965, however, 
601

as time seemed to get shorter and the issue more complex, the bill in the Eightyeighth and Eighty-ninth congresses carried provisions for twenty-fi ve-and twentyseven- year guarantees for California’s 4.4 priority. In the fi nal version of the bill, 

however, Arizona promised California that CAP diversions “shall be so limited as 

to assure the availability” of 4.4 million acre feet annually in perpetuity.52

 As Hayden neared the last year of his fi nal term in offi ce and CAP 

remained stalled in the House Interior Committee in spite of the numerous 

concessions already made, a frustrated and impatient state leadership triggered 

another minor complication for the senator. Rumor of an Arizona “Go-It-Alone” 

CAP, promoted by the state conservatives and elements within the Arizona Power 

Authority (APA) fi rst surfaced in 1963. A prominent feature of the state-fi nanced 

and operated plan included the successful application of the Arizona Power 

Authority to the Federal Power Commission to fi nance, construct, and manage a 

hydroelectric power dam on the Colorado River. Hayden quickly thwarted this 

untimely effort by shepherding through Congress a bill (S. 502) that preserved 

the jurisdiction of Congress over the construction of hydroelectric power works 

below Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. With the passage of S. 502 on 

June 23, 1964, those Arizonans calling for a state-owned and operated CAP were 

effectively prohibited from taking action though they lobbied the senator and 

threatened continuously to take action as late as 1967. While the state “Go-ItAlone” plan refl ected the lack of consensus within Arizona over CAP strategy, it 

was more accurately an illustration of the high degree of frustration over repeated 

legislative delays in the CAP bi1l.53

 By the end of 1967, after seemingly endless negotiations among and 

within states, implementing selected provisions from over thirty Department 

of Interior studies and discarding others, crafting suitable and appropriate legal 

language, and including the time-honored pork barrel benefi ts for those politicians 

who needed to “bring home the bacon,” CAP was fi nally ready to move. Key 

in breaking the political logjam in California was newly-elected Republican 

governor Ronald Reagan, who began direct and productive negotiations 

with Arizona’s Republican governor Jack Williams. Reagan informed his 

administrators that he had “become increasingly concerned over the serious 

impasse... relative to the Colorado River legislation and with the adverse impact 

this stalemate is having on other programs in California and on reclamation 

throughout the West.” Another crucial element in prompting fi nal action was 

Hayden’s pressure on House Interior chairman Aspinall, who in the fall returned 

from a “vacation” in Colorado and was virtually forced to hold fi nal hearings 

on the bill and report it out of committee. The legislation, depending on one’s 

perspective, was either light enough or heavy enough to move. During the spring 

of 1968, as Hayden and his staff participated in fashioning the fi nal compromises 

and details in conference committee, most of the key players who participated in 

creating the measure that emerged from Congress—even opponents of CAP like 

California’s Thomas Kuchel—could not disguise their profound pleasure that 

Senator Hayden came away from the momentous struggle with one last political 
602

victory. On September 12, 1968, when the Senate agreed to the House version 

of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, the ninety year-old Hayden received 

glowing tributes for his persistent efforts. The senator quietly acknowledged the 

accolades with nods of appreciation. On September 30, 1968, President Johnson, 

at a ceremony attended by Senator Hayden and other Arizona dignitaries, signed 

CAP into law.54

 Besides CAP, the legislation included authorization of several other 

controversial reclamation projects as well, including Hooker Dam in New 

Mexico, an aqueduct from Lake Mead to Las Vegas, the Dixie Project in Utah, 

and the Uintah Unit of the Central Utah Project. The Act also authorized the 

 San Miguel, Dallas Creek, West Divide, Dolores, and Animas La-Plata projects 

in Aspinall’s state of Colorado. Additionally, it authorized the establishment of 

a Lower Colorado River Development Fund to build a still-yet-to-be-defi ned 

augmentation project. Finally, the bill made delivery of Mexico’s 1.5 million acre 

feet of water a national, not regional, responsibility. This legislation, signed into 

law two days before Hayden’s ninety-fi rst birthday, was—at the time—the most 

expensive single congressional authorization in history, containing $1.3 billion for 

implementation of the program.55

 On May 6, 1968, shortly before the fi nal touches were being completed 

on CAP, Hayden was led into the Appropriations Committee chamber jammed 

with senators, friends from Arizona, and a few representatives from the media. 

President Johnson arrived bearing a pair of walnut bookends and issued a short, 

grandiloquent tribute. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, Hayden’s best friend 

24.2. President Lyndon Baines Johnson hands the pen with which he signed the 

Colorado River Basin Projects Act on September 30, 1968, to Senator Carl Hayden.
603

in the Senate, then chaired a brief ceremony and introduced Hayden. The Arizona 

senator walked slowly to the dais and announced, 

Among other things that fi fty-six years in Congress have taught me 

is that contemporary events need contemporary men. Time actually 

makes specialists of us all. When a house is built there is a moment 

for the foundation, another for the roof, the walls, and so on. Arizona’s 

foundation includes fast highways, adequate electric power, and 

abundant water, and these foundations have been laid. It is time for a 

new building crew to report, so I have decided to retire from offi ce at the 

close of my term this year.

 Then, as cameras clicked, Hayden burst into tears, as did nearly everyone else in 

the crowded room. With the typically brief announcement, Hayden signaled the 

end of his congressional service.56

 Most accounts of the political and legal history of CAP dutifully 

acknowledge Hayden’s preeminent role in bringing water to central Arizona. Yet 

the veteran senator’s infl uence has been obscured by the length of the process, the 

legendary Arizona v California Supreme Court case, and the thousands of pages 

of mind-numbing technical and fi scal testimony in the Congressional Record. 

Hayden, more than any other CAP proponent, fashioned the legislative strategies 

that shaped CAP’s confi guration in the public mind. His actions and statements 

before innumerable congressional committees not only provide an important 

perspective for assessing CAP’s broader economic, social, and environmental 

signifi cance, but also reveal Arizona’s profound role in fashioning solutions to 

vexing regional and national issues. Indeed, the hundreds of miles of canals, 

pumping stations, and water-delivery systems that today wind their way through 

miles of desert stand as a testament, for better or worse, to Hayden’s towering 

public career.57

 The realization of Carl Hayden’s dream—the CAP—at the end of the 

twentieth century raises some fundamental questions. Will the desert bloom in the 

twenty-fi rst century with renewed agricultural activity and urban expansion? Or, 

is this water-based civilization in a fragile ecosystem doomed to fl ourish briefl y—

then disappear? Will Las Vegas and southern California, both pressing against 

their environmental limits and desperately seeking a greater share of lower-basin 

water, succeed in forcing Arizona back to the federal bargaining table? Certainly 

Hayden foresaw these questions and sensed their implications even as he fought 

mightily for the benefi cial implementation of federal reclamation in the arid West.

 Put another way, Hayden focused much of his considerable energy on 

the single, most important factor confronting his arid constituents—the search 

for large quantities of fresh water. Throughout his congressional career he 

represented the “heart of the West,” which was to historian Walter Prescott Webb 

“a desert unqualifi ed and absolute... a gigantic fi re” that defi ed human settlement 

and economic development, yet vividly defi ned the region as a unique place on 
604

the American landscape. From Hayden’s perspective, Arizona and the Southwest 

were defi cient in comparison with other parts of the country, and the most notable 

defi ciency was water. Much of his public career, as exemplifi ed in the legislative 

fi ght for CAP, was devoted to rectifying that defi ciency. 

 Underlying the mad scramble for Colorado River water was the peculiarly 

western obsession with economic growth and development. This almost myopic 

quest in the environmentally sensitive central Arizona desert has come under close 

scrutiny in recent years. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have revisited the 

era of the western water wars and orgy of dam building, and have come away with 

profound questions regarding the long-term effects of environmental manipulation 

and the ultimate fate of the Colorado River, which one interpreter describes as “A 

River No More.” As scholars and politicians reassess and revise their economic 

and environmental interpretations of federal reclamation, Carl Hayden will stand 

out as one public fi gure that in many ways symbolized this critical movement 

in the American West. Without question water has been among the region’s 

most critical concerns in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. No doubt the 

environment will continue to infl uence the direction of public policy in the region 

in the twenty-fi rst century as well.58

Jack L. August, Jr., Ph.D., has worked at Northern Arizona UniversityYavapai and the Arizona Offi ce of the Attorney General. He is currently 

working at Arizona State University in Tempe, and is the author of Vision 

in the Desert: Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest 

(Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1999).

Endnotes

1. Bruce Babbitt, “The Future of the Colorado River,” in Gary D. Weatherford and 

F. Lee Brown, eds., New Courses for the Colorado River (Albuquerque: University of New 

Mexico Press, 1986), x-xvi; Bruce Babbitt, “Introduction,” in Jack L. August, Jr., Vision in the 

Desert: Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest (Fort Worth: Texas Christian 

University Press, 1999) 1-8. 

2. Sen. Doc. 76, 87 Cong. 2 Sess., 29-33; Jack L. August, Jr., “Carl Hayden: Born a 

Politician,” Journal of Arizona History 26 (Summer 1985), 117-24; Jack L. August, Jr., “A Sterling 

Young Democrat: Carl Hayden’s Road to Congress, 1900-1912,” Journal of Arizona History 28

(Autumn 1987), 217-42; Jack L. August, Jr., “Carl Hayden’s Indian Card: Environmental Politics 

and the San Carlos Reclamation Project,” Journal of Arizona History 33 (Winter 1992), 397-442; 

Jack L. August, Jr., “A Vision in the Desert: Charles Trumbull Hayden: Salt River Pioneer,” 

Journal of Arizona History 36 (Summer 1995), 109-134; Jack L. August, Jr., “Carl Hayden, 

Arizona, and the Politics of Water Development in the Southwest, 1923-1928,” Pacifi c Historical 

Review 58 (May 1989), 195-216. 

3. According to Marc Reisner, a critic of Bureau of Reclamation activities in the American 

West, Hayden exercised “near-despotic rule” over the Bureau’s authorizing committees by World 

War II. Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (New

York: Viking Press, 1993), 256. 

4. See August, Vision in the Desert, passim.

5. Arizona Daily Star, August 14, 1952; Arizona Republic, August 14, 1952; Wayne Aiken 

interview with Jack L. August, Jr., September 18, 1982, Oral History Collection, Department of 

Archives and Manuscripts (DAM), Arizona State University (ASU); Norris Hundley, Jr., “The 
605

West Against Itself,” in Weatherford and Brown, eds. New Courses for the Colorado River, 30;

Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New

York: Pantheon, 1985). 

6. The Supreme Court voted 5-3 in favor of Arizona in Arizona v. California et al. 373 U.S. 

564,565 (1963); Hundley, “The West Against Itself” New Courses for the Colorado River, 275;

Washington Post, June 4, 1963; Arizona Republic, June 4, 1963.

7. Arizona’s 3.8 million acre feet included the 1 million acre feet of Gila River water put to 

benefi cial use under the San Carlos Irrigation Project. T. Richmond Johnson, The Central Arizona 

Project (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1968), 84, 94-5. See also the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act [45 Stat. 1057] and the California Limitation Act [Laws of California, 1929, ch. 16], 

38-39; John G. Will, “Law and Water,” Project Rescue: A Seminar on the Central Arizona Project 

(Tempe, Arizona State University, 1964), 19-23. 

8. The solicitor general advised the Court on October 17, 1952, that the federal government 

would move to intervene in the case. T. Richmond Johnson interview with Jack L. August, Jr., 

March 20, 1985, Phoenix, Arizona, OHC, ASU, New York Times, June 4, 1963, Hundley, “The 

West Against Itself,” 32.

9. Arizona v. California et al. 373 U.S. 564,565 (1 963); Johnson, Central Arizona Project, 

88-97.

10. Simon Rifkind interview with Jack L. August, Jr., October 12, 1986, Ruidoso, New 

Mexico, author’s fi les.

11. See Norris Hundley, Jr., The Great Thirst: California and Water, 1770-1990 (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1992) 300-1; Arizona Republic, August 15, 1955.

12. Hundley, The Great Thirst, 30 1; August, Vision in the Desert, 178.

13. Roy L. Elson, Administrative Assistant to Senator Carl Hayden and Candidate for the 

United States Senate, 1955- 1969, “Oral History Interviews April 27 to August 21, 1990,” Senate 

Historical Offi ce, Washington, D.C., 103; Paul M. Butler to Carl Hayden, May 30, 1955, Box 

716, Folder 9; Paul Eaton to Renz Jennings, February 14, 1956; Paul Eaton to Steven Shadegg, 

February 24, 1956, Carl Hayden Papers Collection (CHPC), DAM, ASU.

l4. Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), October 27, 1956; Phoenix Gazette, October 3, 1956, 

January 11, 1956; Arizona Republic, November 22, 1956; Newsweek, November 12, 1956, 68; 

Stephen Shadegg to Paul Eaton, April 19, 1956, Box 716, Folder 11 ;Lyndon Johnson to Hayden, 

January 15,1955, Box 716, Folder 3; Democratic Policy Committee, “News Release,” January 16, 

1955, Box 716, Folder 2, CHPC, DAM, ASU.

15. William Benton, “For Distinguished Service in Congress,” New York Times Magazine, 

July 24, 1955.

l6. Secretary of State, “Offi cial Canvass: General Election, November 6, 1956,” Department 

of Library and Archives, Phoenix, Arizona; Benton, New York Times Magazine, July 24, 1955; 

Lewis Douglas, “Statement by Lewis Douglas, Sr.,” October 1, 1956; Hayden, “Election Night 

Speech,” n.d., Box 716, Folder 8, CHPC, DAM, ASU.

17. “Arizona Republic, “Arizona Days and Ways Fiftieth Anniversary Issue,” February 14, 

1962, 536; Sen. Doc. 76, 87 Cong. 2 Sess., “Tributes to Honorable Carl Hayden, Senator from 

Arizona, To Commemorate the Occasion of his Fiftieth Anniversary of Congressional Service,” 

February 19, 1962 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1962), 29, 42-3; Phoenix

Gazette, September 21, 1962; Arizona Republic, September 21, 1962. 

18. For an analysis of Hayden’s last U.S. Senate campaign see Jack L. August, Jr., “Old 

Arizona and the New Conservative Agenda: The Hayden versus Mecham U.S. Senate Campaign 

of 1962,” Journal of Arizona History 41 (Winter 2000), 385-412; Elson asserted that during his 

service to Hayden (1952-1969) “there wasn’t a thing I did... that wasn’t with the approval of the 

senator, or he didn’t know about. I was the hatchet man, I was the negotiator, and caught a lot 

of hell for it because they didn’t think [my actions] were what the senator wanted.” Elson, “Oral 

History Interviews, April 27 to August 21, 1990,” 122-3, 198; Cervi’s Rocky Mountain Journal

(Denver), July 27, 1967.

l9. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 124. Hayden initialed the memorandum and 

Elson took it as permission to do “everything that was in there, whether he agreed to it or not.”
606

Meanwhile, Elson had commissioned a poll that showed the senator in serious trouble throughout 

the state. 

20. August, “Old Arizona and the New Conservative Agenda,” Journal of American History 

(JAH), 389-90; Arizona Republic, November 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1961. 

21. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 125-6. 

22. Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1969; Elson “Oral History Interviews,” 125-7; James 

Minotto interview with Barbara Van Norman, July 5, 1973, Tempe, Arizona, Carl Hayden Oral 

History Project, DAM, ASU. 7

23. Ross Rice interview with James Minotto, July 5, 1973; Ross Rice interview with Morris 

Udall, December 30, 1972; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with William S. Gookin, July 20, 1985; 

Jack L. August, Jr., interview with Barry Goldwater, September 15, 1985, Oral History Collection, 

DAM, ASU; Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1969; Arizona Republic, November 4, 1962. Three 

years after the 1962 election, a political science textbook witten by Marvin H. Bernstein and 

Wallace Murphy of Princeton University, in a footnote on page 312, reported that Hayden had 

died. Hayden took time to write the Princeton professors, informing them that their textbook, 

American Democracy in Theory and Practice, was not in accord with the latest edition of the 

Congressional Directory, which indicated that “I had been reelected in 1962 for a term of six 

years.” Hayden included a wry postscript to the letter: “I have not determined whether I will be 

a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate for a term beginning in 1969.” See also, 

Washington Post, May 6, 1965. 

24. August, “Old Arizona and the New Conservative Agenda,” Journal of American History, 

406; Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 128; Arizona Republic, November 8, 1962; Los Angeles 

Times, January 5, 1969; Offi cial Canvass, General Election, November 6, 1962, compiled and 

issued by Wesley Bolin, Secretary of State, November 26, 1962, Offi ce of the Secretary of State, 

Phoenix, Arizona.

25. August, Vision in the Desert, 259; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with Wesley Steiner, 

February 18, 1985, Phoenix, Arizona; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with Wayne Akin, Phoenix, 

Arizona, September 18, 1985; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with John J. Rhodes, Tempe, Arizona, 

November 4, 1985, OHC, DAM, ASU; Arizona Republic, June 4, 1963.

26. Arizona v. California et al. 373 U.S. 587 (1963).

27. Arizona Republic, June 4, 1963; August, Vision in the Desert, 184.

28. Norris Hundley, Jr., “Clio Nods: Arizona v California and the Boulder Canyon Act: 

A Reassessment,” Western Historical Quarterly 3 (January 1972), 17-51. Hundley, “The West 

Against Itself,” 32; Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 186.

29. Arizona’s team of attorneys was jubilant over the decision. Two who laid the 

groundwork and who subsequently died during the hearings were Charles Carson and J. H. “Hub” 

Moeur, who actually fi led the lawsuit and served as chief Arizona counsel in its early stages. 

Arizona leaders close to the proceedings, however, credited attorneys Charles “Charley” Reed of 

Coolidge and Mark Wilmer of Phoenix, along with their backup staff of attorneys and engineers, 

for orchestrating the judicial victory. According to distinguished water historian Norris Hundley, 

Jr., the Court now held that Congress had empowered the Secretary of Interior to determine the 

water rights of citizens within states and thus eroded the state’s rights at the expense of the federal 

government. Hundley, “The West Against Itself,” 32; Arizona Republic, June 4, 1963. 

30. August interview with Simon Rifkind, October 12, 1986, Ruidoso, New Mexico, 

author’s fi les. Indeed the majority decision upheld Special Master Rifkind’s apportionment of 

waters to Indian reservations as “present perfected rights” established prior to 1929. Arizona had 

argued against this part of the master’s proposed decree and was therefore opposed to the federal 

government on this issue. See Hundley, “The West Against Itself,” 32-3; Norris Hundley, Jr., “The 

Winters Decision and Indian Water Rights: A Mystery Reexamined,” Western Historical Quarterly 

13 (January 1982), 17-42; Norris Hundley, Jr., “The Dark and Bloody Ground of Indian Water 

Rights: Confusion Elevated to Principle,” Western Historical Quarterly 9 (October 1978), 455-82; 

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908); Arizona v. California et al., 439 U.S. 422 (1979). 

31. Hayden, “Memorandum,” April 10, 1963; Hayden, “Memorandum,” May 10, 1963, Box 

2, Folder 4, CHPC, DAM, ASU; “Arizona Seeks Billion Dollar Water Project,” Congressional 

Quarterly Fact Sheet, June 5,1963. 
607

32. New York Times, June 13, 1963; Edward C. Johnson to Hayden, June 14, 1963; Hubert 

Humphrey to Hayden, June 4, 1963; Clay Simer to Hayden, n.d., Box 2, Folder 1, CHPC, DAM, 

ASU, Morris Udall, “Arizona’s Water Fight Shifts to Congress,” Congressmen’s Report, June 21, 

1963. See also S. 1658. 

33. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 185-7; C. A. Pugh to Hayden, January 15,1963; Roy 

Elson to Paul Fannin, June 3, 1963; Memorandum to Files, “Statement Made by Secretary Udall 

to Senator Hayden,” July 11, 1963, Box 2, Folder 15, CHPC, DAM, ASU: “Arizona Seeks Billion 

Dollar Water Project,” Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet, June 5, 1963. The technical reports 

further convinced Arizona leaders of the need for CAP and, for the most part, they were unifi ed 

in their approach to Congress. The Arizona congressional delegation worked together on the bill, 

and the three House members, representing both political parties, often issued joint press releases. 

Both Democratic and Republican governors endorsed the bill. Moreover, early in 1966, a task 

force of Arizonans who maintained various areas of expertise gathered in Washington to assist the 

efforts of the congressional delegation. The members and staff were from the Arizona Interstate 

Stream Commission, Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, and the Central Arizona Project 

Association.

34. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 185-6; Helen Ingram, Water Politics: Continuity and 

Change (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990) 46-7. 

35. John Rhodes to Hayden, January 25, 1963, Box 3, Folder 8; Wayne Aspinall to Stewart 

Udall, November 27, 1962, Box 3, Folder 10, CHPC, DAM, ASU; New York Times, January 22, 

1963; United States Secretary of Interior, “News Release: Secretary Udall Announces Study for 

Regional Solution of Water and Power for Problems of the Pacifi c Southwest,” January 22, 1963; 

Ingram, Water Politics, 48.

36. Udall also noted that the long-range Lower Colorado River Basin Plan (PSWP) was 

patterned in part on the successful Colorado River Storage Project in the upper basin. In addition, 

he said, “A critical period is at hand, a more critical period lies ahead for millions of people who 

are fl ocking to the Pacifi c Southwest to establish permanent homes. This burgeoning population 

will require vast quantities of additional water for industrial and municipal use; greater quantities 

of electricity and other basic services; and more irrigated lands. Piecemeal development cannot 

do the job. Only regional planning and action will enable us to meet the growth of this area.” See 

U.S. Department of Interior, “News Release,” January 22, 1963; Ingram, Water Politics, 48; Ernest 

A. Englebert, Policy Issues of the Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan (Boulder: University of Colorado 

Press, 1965) 130-5; Hayden, “Fact Sheet on Interior’s Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan,” n.d., Box 2, 

Folder 14, CHPC, DAM, ASU, Hayden to Stewart Udall, February 20, 1964, White House Central 

Files, (WHCF), NR 7, UT 4 (1963-64), Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library (LBJ), 

Austin, Texas. 

37. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 186-7. Elson recalled that Hayden wanted a simple 

CAP bill, but he noted, “Stewart Udall became Secretary of Interior... in ‘61, during the Kennedy 

administration. As the thing proceeded from ‘62 to ‘63 we heard these rumbles that everyone was 

complaining that there was not enough water in the river, and immediately we got into a numbers 

game, and hydrology, what was coming down... through Glen Canyon, and the runoffs of the 

Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and the Mexican Water Treaty obligations. You had everything 

involved in this, international, interstate, the West.” See also Stewart Udall to Hayden, December 

19, 1963, Box 2, Folder 14; Hayden to Udall, n.d., Box 3, Folder 14, Paul Fannin, “News 

Release,” December 27, 1963, all in CHPC, DAM, ASU. Then-governor Fannin also wrote that 

“it is already apparent that the report is cleverly written by someone in the Department of Interior 

to give California a logical excuse for delaying any and all favorable action on either a practical 

regional water plan or the CAP which is now before Congress.” He worried that “in spite of the 

favorable Court decision... California can and will continue to use our share of the river until we 

obtain congressional authorization of CAP.”

38. Elson, Oral History Interviews,” 187; Yuma Daily Sun, June 16, 1963. 

39. Arizona Republic, August 14, 1963; August, Vision in the Desert, 185-7,262. 

40. Stewart Udall to Hayden, “Personal,” August 20, 1963, Box 2, Folder 14; Hayden to 

Udall, December 5, 1963, Box 2, Folder 1, CHPC, DAM, ASU; New York Times, June 13, 1963; 

Arizona Republic, August 14, 1963.
608

41. Hayden, “Statement Upon Resumption of Hearings on S 1658,” n.d., Box 3, Folder 9, 

CHPC, DAM, ASU; Morris Udall, “Arizona’s Water Fight Shifts to Congress,” Congressman’s 

Report, June 21, 1963; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 272-3. According to Reisner, in his critique of 

the Bureau of Reclamation, “politics demanded that CAP be built, and in the 1960s, Arizona had 

power. Barry Goldwater was the presidential candidate of the Republican Party; Carl Hayden was 

the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.”

42. Hayden also reminded the committee that before any water could be conveyed through 

proposed PSWP facilities, the federal government had to construct the Auburn-Folsom South Unit 

($400 million), the East Side Division of the Central Valley Project ($1 billion), and the state of 

California needed to complete the aqueduct system under the California State Water Plan. Hayden 

stated that he opposed “any proposals that would permit consideration to be given to these two 

California projects in preference to consideration of CAP, which has been waiting before Congress 

for fi fteen years.” Hayden, “Statement Upon Resumption of Hearings on S 1658,” n.d., Box 3, 

Folder 9, CHPC, DAM, ASU.

43. August, Vision in the Desert, 263; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 273; Hayden to Henry 

Jackson, February 18, 1964; Hayden, “California and the Central Arizona Project,” August 4, 

1963, Box 2, Folder 15, CHPC, DAM, ASU. Hayden detailed ten methods in which California 

obstructed Arizona from putting water to benefi cial use from the Colorado River between 1924 

and 1963. He included California’s refusal to accept the division of water recommended by the 

Colorado River Basin Governors in 1924 and their insistence on endless negotiations among the 

lower-basin States. Hayden also pointed to California’s strenuous resistance to ratifying the 1944 

Mexican Treaty which settled Mexican rights to Colorado River water and the state’s consumption 

of eleven months instead of ninety days required by law in commenting on Interior’s Central 

Arizona Project Report of 1947. 

44. See Morris Udall to John Rhodes and Sam Steiger, February 2, 1967, Box 5, Folder 12; 

Henry Jackson to Hayden, August 15, 1963; Hayden to Henry Jackson, February 18, 1964, Box 

2, Folder 15, CHPC, DAM, ASU. Udall wrote his fellow Arizona representatives that “there 

will be no House bill passed this year (1967) without Arizona, California, and Colorado working 

together.” By early 1967 Arizona’s House delegation believed that the “Colorado-California” 

partnership had been thoroughly sealed. The partnership was based upon seeing a CAP bill that 

provided for a Northwest study of some kind. Because of this alliance, Arizona’s representatives 

correctly predicted that their bill at the time (H.R. 4671) would be opposed by the three Northwest 

Republicans and two Northwest Democrats sitting on the subcommittee and full committee. See 

also Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3d ed. (New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1982) 209-35; Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet (November 1, 1969), 3019-31 ; Ingram, 

Water Politics, 52; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 281-91; Hundley, “The West Against Itself,” 36; 

Morris Udall, “Congressman’s Report,” June 21, 1963.

45. Ingram, Water Politics, 52-3; M. Udall, “Congressman’s Report,” June 21, 1963.

46. The House Interior Committee was burdened with the heaviest workload in Congress. 

In fact, nearly 30 percent of all bills in the House were referred to this committee. At the time of 

CAP consideration, the committee was generally favorable to reclamation as many of its members 

had seen its benefi ts in their own districts. In recent years, however, reclamation projects had 

met increasing resistance both in committee and in the House itself due to the marginal quality of 

some projects and to the reluctance of eastern and urban congressmen to put water to additional 

lands because of farm product surplus. Moreover, CAP was not the only reclamation bill before 

the Subcommittee of Irrigation and Reclamation. Since January 1963, no less than fi fteen other 

projects had been proposed and these bills awaited action. The backlog was a critical problem. 

M. Udall, “Congressman’s Report,” June 21, 1963; Ingram, Water Politics, 48-50; August, Vision 

in the Desert, 194-5, 264. 

47. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 184-90; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 290-1; Ingram, Water 

Politics, 50. Ingram describes Aspinall’s role, interests, and motivations in CAP consideration 

as “mixed and complex.” Besides serving as champion of Colorado’s interests and especially 

the spokesman for the Western Slope in water matters, Ingram argues that Aspinall maintained 

“a general paternity of the whole Colorado River basin and felt a responsibility for peaceful and 

harmonious development of water resources.”
609

48. The Colorado River Storage Project of April 11, 1956, ch. 203, 70 Stat. 105. August 

interview with John Rhodes, OHC, ASU; Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 193-4; M. Udall, 

“Congressman’s Report,” June 21, 1963.

49. David Brower to President Lyndon Johnson, to Stewart Udall, to Henry Jackson, January 

30, 1967, Box 19, Folder NR 7-1, WHCF; Members of the Dartmouth Faculty to Lyndon Johnson, 

July 25, 1966, Box 145, Folder LE/NR 7-15, WHCF, LBJ Presidential Library. Democratic 

Governor Sam Goddard and former Arizona senator, governor, and colleague of President 

Johnson, Ernest McFarland, made attempts to diminish the environmentalist arguments in personal 

letters to the President. See Sam Goddard to Lyndon Johnson, August 5, 1966, Box 145, Folder 

LE NR 7-1; Ernest McFarland to Lyndon Johnson, August 5, 1966, Box 19, Folder EX NR&-1/U 

WHCF, LBJ Presidential Library.

50. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 193-4; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 285; Ingram, Water 

Politics, 55. According to Reisner, Brower and the Sierra Club led the highly-publicized fi ght. 

He recruited Luna Leopold, one of the country’s best-known hydrologists and the son of Aldo 

Leopold, to criticize the Bureau’s fl ow calculations, and Brower deserves the most credit for 

eliminating Grand Canyon dams from CAP.

51. Hayden wrote a friend who supported the Grand Canyon dams: “I was aware of this 

future need [hydroelectric power] when Grand Canyon National Park was created by Act of 

Congress in 1919 when I was a young congressman from Arizona and for that reason made 

certain that the reservation for future reclamation development was clearly understood. The same 

question arose when Grand Canyon National Monument was created by Executive Order in 1932, 

and a letter exists in the Department of Interior fi les from then-director Horace M. Albright to the 

Commissioner of Reclamation Elwood Mead, stating positively that creation of the monument 

would not interfere with construction of Boulder Dam or other dams. Hayden to Oakes, n.d., 

Box 5, Folder 9, CHPC, DAM, ASU; Hayden to Lyndon Johnson, “Statement of Carl Hayden of 

Arizona, July 26, 1967, Accompanying the fi ling of the Majority Report of the Senate Committee 

on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 1004 authorizing the Central Arizona Project,” Box 1967, 

NR 7-1/6 FG 145, WHCF, LBJ Presidential Library; August interview with John Rhodes, OHC, 

ASU; August interview with Barry Goldwater, OHC, ASU; Elson, Oral History Interviews, 194-5; 

Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 287,290; Weatherford and Brown, New Courses for the Colorado River, 

36, 37; Ingram, Water Politics, 55-6; Worster, Rivers of Empire, 276.

52. Elson, “Oral History Interviews,” 185-6; Hundley, “The West Against Itself,” 35-6;

Ingram, Water Politics, 60-5; August, Vision in the Desert, 198-9.

53. August interview with John Rhodes; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with Rod McMullin, 

Scottsdale, Arizona, August 24, 1984; Jack L. August, Jr., interview with Roger Ernst, Paradise 

Valley, Arizona, March 23,1983, OHC, ASU; Hayden to Lawrence Mehren, August 14,1964, Box 

4 Folder 10, CHPC, DAM, ASU; Hayden to Lyndon Johnson, August 4, 1964, Box 145, LE/NR 

7-1, WHCF, LBJ Presidential Library. 

54. Ronald Reagan to Raymond R. Rummonds, November 28,1967, Box 600, Folder 6, 

CHPC, DAM, ASU; Barefoot Sanders to Lyndon Johnson, August 1,1968; James R. Jones to 

Hayden, August 19,1968, CWH File, LBJ Presidential Library. See also House Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearings on Colorado River Basin Project, H R. 4671 and Similar 

Bills, 89 Cong. (1965- 1966); Hearings on Colorado River Basin Project, 90 Cong. 1 Sess. (1967); 

Hearings on Colorado River Basin Project, Part 11, 90 Cong. 2 Sess. (1968); Arizona Republic, 

September 13, 1968. For a narrative chronological history of the Central Arizona Project see T. 

Richmond Johnson, The Central Arizona Project, 1918-1968 (Tucson: University of Arizona 

Press, 1977).

55. For the best analysis of the intraregional bargaining process involved in the Colorado 

River Basin Project Act see Ingram, Water Politics, chapter 4; Helen M. Ingram, Patterns of 

Politics in Water Resource Development: a Case Study of New Mexico’s Role in the Colorado 

River Basin Bill (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1969). See also Hundley, “The 

West against Itself,” 36-7; Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 294-5.

56. On several occasions Hayden told close friends, “Dick Russell was my best friend in the 

Senate. We served together for 36 years. Coming from the South kept him from being President 

of the United States.” Hayden to James Chilton, February 24, 1971, James Chilton Papers, 
610

Los Angeles, California; U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Press Release, Monday, May 

6, 1968”; Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1969; Arizona Republic, May 7, 1969. 

57. August, Vision in the Desert, 203; Hayden, “Arizona Report,” 1968, Carl Hayden Letters, 

Folder 7, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona; “In Memoriam: Senator Carl Hayden, 

1877-1972,” Hayden Biographical File, CHPC, DAM, ASU.

58. Walter Prescott Webb, “The American West: Perpetual Mirage,” Harper’s Magazine, 256

(May 1957) 214; Michael McGerr, “Is There a Twentieth Century West?” in William Cronin et al. 

eds., Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992) 

249,251-6; Philip Fradkin, A River No More: The Colorado River and the American West (New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 198 1) 248; August, “Water, Politics, and the Arizona Dream,” Journal of 

American History, 410-1.
611

Federal Reclamation in the Twentieth Century:

A Centennial Retrospective

By:

Donald J. Pisani

Abstract

 The Reclamation Act of 1902 dedicated proceeds from the sale 

of public lands in the western half of the United States to the construction 

of irrigation works. Proponents of the legislation promised on the fl oor of 

Congress, that “worthless” lives trapped in the tenements of eastern cities could 

be reclaimed along with “worthless” desert land in the West. Congress required 

the farmers who benefi ted to repay the cost of irrigation works over ten years, 

so the program was expected to be self-supporting. By the time Theodore 

Roosevelt left offi ce in 1909, two dozen projects had been launched, at least 

one in every state and territory, but none had been completed. With notable 

exceptions, those projects did not live up to expectations. Federal reclamation 

never became self-supporting, and some projects came to resemble rural slums.

Not until the 1930s, when the “High Dam Era” gave the bureau responsibilities 

for providing water and power to cities as well as farms, did it become the most 

important federal agency in the West. From 1930 to 1970 the water and power 

provided by the bureau transformed the region, but since 1970 the bureau has 

been but a shadow of the robust agency that once dammed the West.

 This paper focuses mainly on two periods of bureau history, its fi rst 

decade and the quarter-century from the end of World War II to about 1970. I 

make three basic arguments: fi rst, that in 1902 the Reclamation Bureau and its 

leaders were motivated more by nineteenth than by twentieth-century values; 

second, that the Reclamation Bureau did as much to decentralize power over 

water as to consolidate it in Washington; and, third, that federal reclamation died 

as much because it failed to sustain its original ideals as because it ran out of 

places to build dams, suffered from the constraints of economic retrenchment, or 

fell prey to the environmental movement.

 When Congress adopted the Reclamation Act in June 1902 it launched 

potentially the biggest public works program in American history. Harper’s 

Weekly proclaimed that 

the bill aims at substantial and enduring effects upon the broader 

economic development of the nation. There was and still is in some 

quarters an ill-judged disposition to regard it as of merely sectional 

interest: but in the true analysis its signifi cance is national not local. ... A 

hundred million [irrigated] acres will give homes for a million families, 

and afford sustenance for many times that number.

New York City’s Christian Work applauded the new national program as 

one of the stupendous tasks of the opening century.... The fi rst year of 

the Roosevelt administration has been rendered not more notable by the 
612

determination to build the Isthmian Canal than by the passage of the bill 

to water the dry lands of the great American West. 

 Philadelphia’s Inquirer lamented that “the only ultimate regret will be 

that so benefi cent a work was not sooner undertaken,” and the New York Times

applauded the bold new legislation as the last phase in the conquest of a continent: 

The irrigation plan is but adding to the general resources of the nation 

in furtherance of the impulse which has carried our vigorous race from 

the little fringe along the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacifi c and far into 

Asian waters. 1

 To be sure, the opponents of the legislation quickly reined in the bureau’s 

grand ambitions. Eastern and Midwestern farm organizations feared that the rapid 

expansion of irrigated land in the West would return the nation to the agricultural 

depression of the 1890s. Inevitably, they argued, adding 100,000,000 acres to the 

nation’s farmland—an area roughly the size of California—would depress crop 

and land values. Why not reclaim abandoned land in the East, they asked, land 

closer to the nation=s major cities? Why should prospective farm families have 

to pay the cost of moving two or three thousand miles to deserts far removed 

from agricultural markets? Farm organizations such as the National Grange 

found a strong ally in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which consistently 

opposed the national reclamation program. And many easterners within Congress 

feared that even though the Reclamation Act promised that reclamation would 

be paid for from sales of public land, and from reimbursement of the cost of the 

hydraulic works by the farmers who benefi ted, the day would come when the 

West demanded money from the general treasury, following the precedent of 

nineteenth century river and harbor bills. Another concern was that the program 

would benefi t established farmers and private landowners in the West more 

than those who settled on “virgin land.” Few large tracts of arable public land 

remained, even within the deserts of the West, so the bureau would have to make 

accommodations with private landowners. In short, even in 1902 support for 

federal reclamation was thin and brittle.2

 The misconceptions of the bureau itself compounded the lack of 

widespread support for the new program. At fi rst, Reclamation Service engineers 

assumed that all desert land was fertile, given enough water. So strong was 

this conviction that on many projects the soil was not tested until years after the 

project had opened. Much of that soil—20 or 30 percent on some projects—had 

to be abandoned, at great cost to individual farmers as well as to the nation. Then, 

too, Reclamation Service offi cials assumed that most desert land would require 

only one acre-foot of water a year—a supply of water suffi cient to cover the land 

irrigated a foot deep—while most land required three to fi ve times that amount. 

On many projects, farmers complained that the government could not deliver the 

water they needed. Another misconception was that the appetite for land within 

government projects would remain strong for decades to come. After all, the 

nation had absorbed over 400,000,000 acres of new farm land in the decades after 
613

the Civil War as the Great Plains were opened to agriculture. The Reclamation 

Service could not anticipate changes in technology, agriculture, and the sheer cost 

of farming that would make virgin land far less attractive in the twentieth century 

than it had been in the nineteenth. Nor could it foresee how the standard of living 

of those who lived in America=s large cities would increase. Federal reclamation 

had been launched with the expectation that it would provide a subsistence to 

small farmers. But by the 1920s, the new consumer economy had redefi ned the 

“good life” in the United States, and farm families began to emulate the living 

standards of urbanites.

 Let me begin by challenging the idea that, as part of the Progressive Era’s 

conservation movement, the Reclamation Act represented the ethics of “science,” 

or helped to create the “modern” American state. These are important arguments, 

foundation blocks of the “organizational synthesis” popularized by historians 

such as Samuel Hays and Robert Wiebe in the 1960s, and an interpretation that 

still has considerable appeal to historians of the United States. “The modern 

American conservation movement grew out of the fi rsthand experience of 

federal administrators and political leaders with problems of Western economic 

growth,” Hays wrote in Conservation and the Gospel of Effi ciency, “and more 

precisely with Western water development.”3

 Like silviculture, hydrology was a 

new science that promised the rational, orderly use of natural resources. It also 

promised to promote bureaucratic planning by experts and reorder a constellation 

of political institutions around the executive branch of government.

 Yet this interpretation fails to recognize the strong links between the 

 Reclamation Act and nineteenth century laws and values, particularly the 

Homestead Act (1862). In 1800, Congress had permitted settlers and speculators 

to purchase public land on credit, with up to four years to pay. That law proved 

to be a disaster. Those who purchased the land quickly fell in arrears on their 

payments. Congress granted many extensions before it excused their debt 

completely. A century later, in the four years that preceded adoption of the 

Reclamation Act, most westerners favored using river and harbor appropriations, 

or proceeds from the sale of grazing permits or timber on the public lands, to pay 

for the construction of dams and canals. Using proceeds from public lands, and 

requiring farmers to repay construction costs, was a compromise. In a 1914 letter 

to Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, George H. Maxwell, the publicist 

most responsible for pushing the Reclamation Act through Congress, admitted: 

“We accepted... repayment from the land because it enabled us to get our bill 

through. Those who understood political conditions never believed the money 

would be paid back.” From the beginning, federal reclamation was regarded 

by many westerners as what we would today call an “entitlement program.”

Government farmers, and the many private landowners who owned land within 

government projects, resisted repaying their debt to the government long before 

the hard times of the 1920s and 1930s hit the West.4
614

 Federal reclamation looked to the 

past in many other ways as well. The 

most fateful early decision made by the 

 Reclamation Service was to launch too 

many projects too soon. This typifi ed 

distributional politics: no public works 

program could be launched that did not 

distribute benefi ts as widely as possible. 

The Reclamation Act required that 

51 percent of the proceeds of public land 

sales be spent within the state or territory 

in which that land had been sold. Yet 

the Reclamation Act did not require that 

so many projects be launched so soon.

That was a political decision made by 

President Theodore Roosevelt. Late 

in 1901 or early in 1902, Roosevelt 

warned against undertaking too many 

government projects at once: 

It would be unwise to begin by doing too much, for a great deal will 

doubtless be learned, both as to what can and what can not be safely 

attempted, by the early efforts, which must of necessity be partly 

experimental in character. At the very beginning the Government should 

make clear, beyond [any] shadow of doubt, its intention to pursue this 

policy on lines of the broadest public interest. No reservoir or canal 

should ever be built to satisfy selfi sh personal or local interests.5

Yet Roosevelt soon changed his mind. When the Reclamation Act passed 

Congress in June, 1902, Democrats as well as Republicans took credit for the 

legislation. Indeed, it was Francis G. Newlands, a maverick Congressman 

from Nevada but nominally a Democrat, who sponsored the bill in the House 

of Representatives. The Republican Party was dominant in most parts of the 

West, but Roosevelt expected that Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma would 

soon join the union, and he wanted to maintain the West as a stronghold of his 

party. Therefore, two weeks after passage of the Reclamation Act, TR advised 

the Secretary of the Interior that “instead of starting on a few large [model] 

enterprises, I should think it would be best to divide up the work among the 

different States as fairly [that is, widely] as possible.” Smaller projects could be 

completed more rapidly, insuring that the benefi ts of federal reclamation would 

be felt before TR left the White House. The greatest public works program 

undertaken in the history of the United States would be indelibly associated with 

Theodore Roosevelt and his party.6

 Perhaps the strongest link to the past was in the attitudes Reclamation 

Service offi cials exhibited toward the farmers they served. The fi rst director 

of the Reclamation Service, Frederick Haynes Newell, had never designed an 

25.1. Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. 

Lane.
615

irrigation system when he assumed that 

job. The ethics of science and effi ciency 

did not dominate Newell’s thinking, 

and he regarded federal reclamation 

as an experiment in social Darwinism.

Some had to fail so that others could 

succeed. Newell’s chief rival to head 

the reclamation program, Elwood Mead, 

deeply believed in social planning, 

but Newell did not. Few of the fi rst 

settlers on government projects lasted 

a decade, but Newell denied that 

the Reclamation Bureau had any 

responsibility for their failure and 

lack of success. The fault lay with 

the settlers. “The characteristics of 

present settlers are in many respects 

entirely different from those of the 

older pioneer communities,” he 

complained in 1912. “[T]here is 

not the spirit of cooperation which 

ruled the early pioneers.” In his 1916 

textbook on irrigation, written just after he left the Reclamation Service, Newell 

noted that more than 75 percent of the fi rst settlers on federal irrigation projects 

had fl ed the land within a few years of entry. He concluded:

The irrigators as a body are not only inexperienced, but many of them 

are disappointed in that they have expected easier things. Thus they do 

not always appreciate the efforts made in their behalf. There has been 

attracted to the locality [the arid West] a considerable number of men 

who have never made a success elsewhere; these attribute their failure 

to make good under the new conditions not to their own inability, but 

largely to the faults of the country or system.... He is attracted usually 

by glowing accounts of the relative ease of acquiring wealth in the West, 

and with erroneous ideas concerning the conditions to be met... There 

has thus arisen a class which has been called the “professional pioneer,” 

always seeking for something a little better or for conditions where life 

will be easier; staying in any locality only a few months and then again 

seeking El Dorado.

25.2. President Theodore Roosevelt.

25.3. Francis G. Newlands while senator 

representing Nevada.
616

And in 1922 Newell proclaimed that “The reasons for success or failure lie not 

so much in climate, soil, or markets, but rather in the character of the landowner, 

his experience, strength, health, and especially the ‘will to win,’ or possession 

of qualities which distinguish the pioneer.” The biggest problem with federal 

reclamation, in Newell=s mind, was that the virile rural population had gone 

soft. Newell’s ideas—and they were shared by many of his lieutenants—were 

anachronistic in an age when the cost of setting up a new farm had soared and 

when city life looked increasingly attractive to the nation=s rural residents.7

 Another part of the organizational synthesis is the argument that 

conservation and federal reclamation helped to centralize power in Washington. 

In 1906, the publication Forestry and Irrigation, which largely spoke for the 

bureau, editorialized that “There is probably no law on the statute books which 

puts in the hands of a single offi cial of government such unlimited powers of 

expenditure as the [Reclamation Act.]”8 The Reclamation Act gave the secretary 

of the interior power to select projects, determine the size of farms, withdraw 

from entry the public lands needed for farms or towns, purchase or condemn 

existing dams and canals, approve construction contracts, and set the amount 

each farmer owed the government as well as operation and maintenance charges. 

During the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, however, most important 

decisions were made by the president or in the offi ces of the Reclamation Service. 

Neither the secretary of the interior nor the director of the U.S. Geological Survey, 

of which the service was a part until 1907, ever vetoed a project proposed by the 

Reclamation Service.

 Most historians look at confl icts between Congress, the secretaries of 

the interior, and settlers on government projects as dominant themes in the 

Reclamation Bureau’s history over the fi rst three decades of this century. The 

bureau’s relationship with the states has been largely ignored, in part because 

that relationship does not square with the pervasive view that the bureau simply 

imposed its will on the West. Yet after 1910 or 1911 the Reclamation Service’s 

chronic lack of funds persuaded it to seek assistance from the states, and more 

often than not resistance to cooperation came from the states rather than from 

offi cials within the Reclamation Service. One of the most important amendments 

to the original Reclamation Act, the Warren Act of 1911, allowed the Reclamation 

Service to sell surplus water to owners of land outside the government projects, 

blurring the lines between federal and private water projects. Proponents of the 

legislation argued that the West=s major rivers contained few ideal reservoir sites 

and that the Reclamation Service could often build a dam that would serve twice 

as much land as could be irrigated within a government project for little more 

money. Therefore, the Warren Act permitted the Reclamation Service to contract 

with private companies, water user associations, or irrigation districts to pay 

either for part of the dam, or part of the water stored behind the dam. In either 

case, since the money would be paid into the reclamation fund, providing water 

to private irrigation projects would produce another source of income. This law 

proved enormously important to the Reclamation Bureau, and by the 1950s the 
617

federal government watered nearly as much land outside its projects as within.

In the Snake River Valley, for example, the Jackson Lake Dam at the head of the 

river provided water to privately irrigated land as far west as Twin Falls, as well 

as to the government’s Minidoka Project near Rupert.9

 As early as 1904 William Ellsworth Smythe, Francis G. Newlands, 

and other friends of federal reclamation proposed using irrigation districts to 

supplement the funds available to the Reclamation Service, particularly in states 

like California, which offered few opportunities to construct government projects 

on the public domain. Irrigation districts, which were institutions created by the 

state with the power to tax the land within their boundaries and issue bonds to 

pay for hydraulic works, would turn the Reclamation Service into a construction 

agency responsible for reducing the cost of construction and ensuring the quality 

of dams and canals—or so Smythe hoped. However, the Reclamation Act of 

1902 gave the Interior Department no authority to build such hybrid projects, and 

within Congress easterners and midwesterners balked at expanding the scope of 

the law. Moreover, many westerners feared that federal reclamation meant federal 

control over their surplus water.10

 In 1915 a Reclamation Service offi cial drafted a plan to create a second 

reclamation fund exclusively to construct dams and canals within private

irrigation projects, but nothing came of it.11 World War I offered the best 

opportunity for cooperation. At the end of the war, in anticipation of post-war 

unemployment, Secretary of the Interior Lane proposed a massive program to 

put 50,000 returning veterans to work clearing stumps, leveling land, laying out 

townsites, and building houses, barns, and roads. His bill proposed a partnership 

between the states and central government. The states could donate unimproved 

land to the federal government, leaving reclamation and settlement to the 

Reclamation Bureau, or they could pay at least one-fourth of the entire cost, 

from purchasing the land to building houses, barns and roads. The legislation 

required the states to create soldier settlement boards to screen applicants and 

to administer the completed projects. The states would also provide returning 

soldiers with agricultural training, sharing that cost with the federal government.

Particularly after crop and land prices began to fall in 1919, the Lane legislation 

fell victim to the post-war economic slump and the absence of grassroots support 

for reclamation or planned settlements.12

 Throughout the 1920s, the Reclamation Bureau encouraged the western 

states to play a larger role in federal reclamation, but the states refused. State 

politicians argued that providing irrigated land was a national responsibility, that 

there was no demand for more irrigated land, that hybrid projects would threaten 

state control over water rights, and that constitutional debt limitations prevented 

the states from buying land, preparing it for cultivation, or constructing irrigation 

and drainage works. Oddly enough, hybrid projects had the greatest appeal in the 

state’s rights South, not the West. Since the early years of federal reclamation, 

the Reclamation Bureau had wanted to extend its operations to include swamp 
618

and cutover, as well as arid lands. In 1918 Secretary of the Interior Franklin 

K. Lane, with the encouragement of the Reclamation Service, persuaded 

Congress to appropriate $100,000 to study the reclamation of wastelands in 

the South. President Woodrow Wilson heartily endorsed the plan. Additional 

expenditures followed in 1926, 1927, and 1928. In 1926 a committee consisting 

of representatives from the federal and state governments, along with private 

interests, selected four potential project sites. Congress, however, balked at 

opening new farmland during a time of agricultural depression.13

 Congressional appropriations for public works increased dramatically 

during the 1930s, and as the bureau’s budget soared its appeals for state aid 

all but disappeared. Power did increase in Washington as a result of the high 

dam projects undertaken in the 1930s, but state and local institutions of water 

management also proliferated. Boulder Dam is a case in point. The Metropolitan 

Water District (MWD), formed to carry water and power to Los Angeles from 

the Colorado River, used the irrigation district—a state and local institution—as 

a model. Even though the Reclamation Bureau operated Parker Dam—the origin 

of the aqueduct from the Colorado River to Los Angeles—it used funds provided 

by the MWD. The MWD was also a bridge between the federal government and 

private utility companies. Apparently, the bureau got the idea of using power 

revenue to fi nance Boulder Dam from William Mulholland and E. F. Scattergood, 

the latter of whom had designed and supervised the water and power systems of 

Los Angeles. Homer Hamlin, who served as Los Angeles City Engineer during 

the 1920s, was one of the fi rst to conceive of a multiple-purpose dam in Boulder 

or Black Canyon, and in 1929 F. E. Weymouth, who had been chief engineer 

of the Reclamation Bureau under A. P. Davis, was chosen to head the MWD. 

Weymouth hired many former employees of the Reclamation Bureau who had left 

government service during the Harding scandals of the 1920s. Here again, the 

line between federal, state, and private institutions is very blurry.14

 Thus far I’ve focused on federal reclamation in the fi rst few decades of 

the twentieth century. The conventional wisdom among professional historians 

is that Boulder Dam and the other great dam projects conceived during the 

1930s, including Grand Coulee and Shasta, resurrected the bureau’s reputation 

at the expense of the family farm and the rural West. During the 1930s, this 

interpretation runs, the bureau turned its attention to western cities, and World 

War II increased the importance of the urban West. But that interpretation is at 

best misleading. The bureau did much more than build high dams during the 

1930s. By 1941 there were forty-six Bureau of Reclamation irrigation projects 

in the West and another twenty-seven under construction. That was more 

than double the number of projects in 1920, and preliminary surveys had been 

completed on an additional forty-eight projects. There was a surprising growth in 

irrigated land after 1935. From 1920 to 1935 the amount of land irrigated by the 

bureau increased only modestly—from 1.2 million acres to 1.6 million. By the 

end of World War II, however, the bureau irrigated twice as much land within the 

government projects as in 1920.15
619

 The Reclamation Bureau had good reason to publicize the glamorous 

high dams more than its irrigation projects because the chronic and intractable 

problems it had encountered during the Progressive Era remained. Farmers 

everywhere suffered from the depression of the 1930s, but nowhere were times 

harder than on most of the government projects. There were big differences 

between such successful projects as the Yakima and Salt River and those in 

Montana. But a 1940 survey of the projects settled between 1931 and 1940 

revealed desperate poverty. Sixty percent of the original settlers on the ValeOwyhee Project in eastern Oregon had left their farms, or leased their land to 

others. Seventy-fi ve percent of the homes on that project cost less than $350, and 

half had two rooms or less—even though the average-size farm family numbered 

fi ve. Forty percent of those Oregon families could not afford to dig a well, so 

they carried their drinking water fi ve miles or more, and many common diseases, 

including typhoid fever, went untreated because the settlers were too poor to hire 

a doctor. On the other hand, many conditions remained beyond the Reclamation 

 Bureau’s control. A 1936 study of 136 farmers who had settled on the Klamath 

Project along the California-Oregon border in 1927 revealed that most who left 

their farms had homesteaded for speculative reasons, fully expecting to sell out, or 

they were lured away by the city, or pushed away by old age, illness, or divorce. 

Not all farmers who abandoned government projects did so because they had 

“failed,” or because they lacked experience or capital.16

 Nevertheless, for all its problems, the dream of the family farm remained 

strong in the years following World War II. Most historians who have written 

about the bureau after the war have failed to recognize the idealism that animated 

its leaders, at least from 1945 to 1953. In those years, the Interior Department 

was fi lled with New Dealers who wanted to build a better world, including Harold 

Ickes, Abe Fortas, Oscar Chapman, Michael Straus, Arthur Goldschmidt, and 

Stephen Rauschenbush. Many smaller irrigation projects were designed as much 

to provide supplemental water outside government projects—to farmers who 

irrigated but suffered from inadequate water supplies—as to open new land to 

cultivation. However, the Interior Department hoped to settle 45,000 returning 

veterans and their families on the government projects—the biggest of which 

would irrigate one million acres of Avirgin land@ within the Columbia Basin—

opening nearly as many new farms as had been settled from 1902 to 1945.17

 But the bureau’s objectives were not always consistent, and jobs, power, 

and water for cities often worked at cross purposes with the homestead ideal.

At the end of the war, as during the 1930s, the paramount concern was jobs. 

Offi cials in the Interior Department concluded that a permanent increase in public 

works spending would not just prevent the United States from lapsing back 

into the depression as the nation converted to a peacetime economy, but would 

provide sustained economic growth and serve as an antidote to the boom and bust 

cycles inherent in capitalism. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes predicted 

that 14,500,000 would lose their jobs at the end of the war. Such agencies as the 

Reclamation Bureau, Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and Soil Conservation 
620

Service had plans for plenty of worthy projects that they could begin within 

three months of the war’s end. In April 1945 the bureau proposed to Congress 

415 irrigation and multiple-purpose water projects in seventeen western states.

State-by-state the number varied, from a modest fi ve projects in Washington to 

ninety-six in Montana, and from 101,000 acres in Utah to 2.2 million acres in 

California. These projects were expected to add 11,000,000 acres of new land to 

cultivation and provide supplemental water to nearly as many acres of old land.

That was twice the amount of land irrigated in 1945. Secretary of the Interior 

Harold Ickes—who had headed the Public Works Administration during the New 

Deal—estimated that the post-war work would provide one year’s employment 

for at least 1.5 million returning veterans.18 The bureau’s budget went from 50 

million in 1946, to 120 million in 

1947, to 200 million in 1948, to over 

300 million in 1950. Gone was the 

idea that dams and canals should be 

built using the proceeds from land 

sales or oil leases. Reclamation had 

become a symbol of national economic 

growth, and a method to avoid future 

depressions.19

 But federal reclamation 

meant much more than jobs. Interior 

Department offi cials argued that 

federal reclamation could help win the 

Cold War, just as the power it produced 

had helped to win World War II. 

Nevertheless, Secretary of the Interior 

Oscar Chapman feared, in his words, 

that the United States ran 

a grave danger of saddling ourselves with a straight military economy. 

If that happens we shall fi nd that the old economic freedoms which give 

American life so much of its richness have disappeared. We shall be 

supporting an enormous budget, with a huge proportion for defense, and 

yet fi nd ourselves poor as church mice where our great basic programs 

are involved. Yet those programs—irrigation and land development 

projects, proper care for our national park system, intelligent 

development of our river systems, and so on—are the things which make 

the difference between the rich cultural society we are used to and a 

pinched, Spartan existence which is inevitable under a straight military 

economy. For instance, we are nearing the ceiling on the growth and 

stability that can be achieved by our Western States without increased, 

broad-scale irrigation and related water resources development.20

 Since 1920 a dramatic demographic change had occurred within the West. 

Parts of the region lost population during the 1930s, but overall the eleven states 

25.4. Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. 

Chapman.
621

of the Far West gained 60 percent as compared to a 24 percent increase in the 

entire population of the United States. During World War II, the difference was 

even more pronounced. The population of the Far West increased by nearly 

18 percent while that of the nation as a whole increased less than 1 percent. Much 

of that increase occurred within California, Oregon, and Washington, and those 

states continued to grow at a rapid rate after the war. From 1940 to 1950, their 

population increased at a rate three times faster than the nation as a whole.21

 The West’s population boom promised to prevent the Reclamation 

Bureau from returning to the dark years of the 1920s. But most of the region’s 

population growth during World War II was due to war industries, and offi cials 

within Interior feared that as those industries disappeared the West would return 

to an extractive economy, one that attracted raw material producing companies 

that could profi t the cheap power no longer used in such defense industries 

as ship or plane building. Arthur Goldschmidt, who headed the Interior 

Department’s Division of Power at the end of the war, thought that the region 

held a disproportionate number of “rural, low income groups.” People who 

lived at or near the subsistence level, in his judgment, “do not contribute to the 

national welfare or to a healthy economy in any region.” He wanted to use cheap 

hydroelectric power to decentralize industry in the United States so that every 

part of the nation, in his words, contained a “balanced economy, a combination 

of agriculture and industry based upon the natural resources of the region itself....

Colonies are out-of-date as mere sources of raw materials and as markets. They 

are economic anachronisms.” During World War II, many British economists 

and sociologists traveled to the United States to inspect the Tennessee Valley 

Authority. One visitor, Julian Huxley, likened the American South and West to 

the colonial problem of the British in Nigeria.22

 Arthur Goldschmidt called for large-scale planning in the West. At the end 

of the war, however, powerful opposition surfaced within the West to expanding 

the “TVA-idea” or river basin planning. While the Reclamation Bureau often sold 

large water projects as part of the defense effort during the Cold War, they also 

deepened suspicions about planning and “big government.” The 1948 Republican 

platform called for sharp reductions in foreign and domestic spending, and it 

opposed the creation of “all-powerful Federal socialistic valley authorities.” By 

1952 the New Deal had become “creeping Socialism” to conservatives within 

the Republican Party, and planning had become associated with Communism. 

In September 1950 on the fl oor of the United States Senate, Senator William 

Knowland of California charged that Secretary of the Interior Oscar Chapman, 

Commissioner of Reclamation Michael Straus, and Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior William Warne, “have a scarlet left-of-left record that extends back many 

years, even to the early years of the New Deal.” As early as 1938 Knowland 

charged, Chapman belonged to the American League Against War and Fascism. 

“This outfi t,” the senator proclaimed, “has been offi cially branded as a simon-pure 

and unchallenged transmission belt of the Communist Party in America.” Another 
622

employee of the Interior Department, H. Stephen Rauschenbush, was, according 

to Knowland, “probably the chief prophet of modern American Marxism.”23

 Senator Knowland notwithstanding, no federal bureau had greater 

prominence in the West during the 1950s than the Reclamation Bureau, and it 

is interesting to consider why such a powerful agency faded from the limelight 

so rapidly during the last few decades. Several explanations have been offered, 

each of which has merit. The environmental movement certainly played a part. 

In the post-war years, many members of the Sierra Club, Audubon, and other 

environmental groups considered themselves conservationists. Their battle was 

over where dams should be located, not the construction of dams per se. Dams 

should not fl ood land in national parks or national monuments, nor should they 

imperil the West’s scenic wonders. Some historians think that the battle against 

dams in Echo Park, the Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon and other parts of the West 

played a large part in creating the modern environmental movement.24

 Later, in the 1960s and after, environmentalists began to oppose all

dams. On some rivers, particularly the Columbia and Snake, massive numbers 

of fi sh perished because dams depleted oxygen, reduced water temperatures 

upstream in reservoirs, increased temperatures in the sluggish water downstream, 

and limited the ability of rivers to dilute sewage and other contaminants in the 

water. At the least, dams contributed to the prolifi c growth of algae, at the most 

to eutrophication. Water projects also had a profound effect on the habitat of 

terrestrial animals, contributed to the buildup of alkali, salts and other dangerous 

elements in the soil (including selenium) and to groundwater depletion. Yet 

the environmental movement did not kill dam-building in the West. More 

signifi cant than opposition to water projects from groups outside government was 

opposition to new dams and canals from federal agencies concerned with water 

quality and wildlife habitat. In the 1970s, R. L. Coughlin of the Federal Water 

Quality Administration publicly charged that the Bureau of Reclamation was the 

prime source of water pollution in the Far West. While the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and the Corps of Engineers had been strong critics of the Reclamation 

Bureau during the early decades of the twentieth century, by the 1970s many 

other agencies opposed the bureau, notably the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. In the battle over the Garrison Diversion Unit 

in North Dakota, they were joined by the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality, the State Department, the Offi ce of Management and Budget, and the 

General Accounting Offi ce.25

 Marc Reisner has provided another answer to the question of what 

happened to federal reclamation. To Reisner, the collapse of the Teton Dam 

in 1976, built on a tributary of the Snake River in 1975 despite warnings from 

U.S. Geological Survey engineers of unstable rock and earthquake hazards 

in the region, symbolized the end of the dam-building era. When sections of 

that structure dissolved and washed away, eleven people died, 15,000 were left 

homeless, 13,000 cattle drowned, the fl ood stripped topsoil from 100,000 acres 
623

of prime farmland, and property damages reached one billion dollars. The 

Reclamation Bureau had built 240 earth fi ll dams west of the Mississippi, and 

this one was the fi rst to fail. A commission of nine engineers spent six months 

investigating the causes of the disaster and concluded that the bureau had been 

at fault for using a highly erodible soil for the dam’s core and for failing to 

seal the structure to the rock at either end properly. The wisdom and justice of 

building dams had been questioned many times before 1976, but seldom had 

the engineering skills and judgment of the Reclamation Bureau been called into 

question.26

 The Teton Dam rested on an earthquake fault, which meant that bedrock 

was far below the surface debris and sediment. Dam safety was a serious matter 

because many streams had been plugged so many times that the collapse of one 

dam would take out a series of structures, producing massive fl oods, extensive 

damage, and thousands of deaths. The entire Columbia River had been dammed, 

except for a fi fty-mile stretch near the Hanford nuclear power plant, and in 

California every major stream save one had been dammed at least once. If Glen 

Canyon Dam gave way, for example, the resulting fl ood would destroy Boulder 

and Davis dams as well—with devastating results to southern California. To be 

sure, the Teton Dam collapse did not persuade Congress to reexamine wasteful 

expenditures on public works. If it had, President Jimmy Carter would not have 

compiled his famous “hit list” of water projects in 1977. Yet this episode did 

demonstrate a fundamental hydrologic truth: since the deep canyons of the West 

had all been dammed, new projects had to be constructed at far less desirable 

sites. And safety was not the only issue. Once the deep canyons were gone, new 

dams threatened to fl ood as much farmland as they irrigated. Reisner concluded:

As Fontenelle [on the Green River in southwestern Wyoming] was an 

inferior site compared with Flaming Gorge, as Glen Canyon was inferior 

to Hoover, as Auburn was vastly inferior to Shasta (but six times more 

expensive, even allowing for infl ation) the Bureau was now being 

forced to build on sites it had rejected forty, fi fty, or sixty years earlier. 

It was building on them because while the ideal damsites had rapidly 

disappeared, the demand for new projects had not.

The Teton Dam failure raised questions and doubts about many of the projects 

the Bureau had on the drawing boards, particularly Auburn Dam, which had been 

authorized for the North and Middle forks of the American River thirty miles 

north of Sacramento. Less than a year before the collapse of Teton Dam, a 

5.9 earthquake hit near Oroville on a seismic fault thought to be dormant. Bureau 

of Reclamation studies required by the State of California estimated that complete 

failure of a dam at the Auburn site would fl ood 750,000 people, inundate the state 

capital, and close fi ve military bases. Even though more than 200 million dollars 

had been spent on the project, work was stopped and President Carter added the 

Auburn Dam to his list of rejected projects.27
624

 It is wrong to suggest that all, or even many, of the dams built by the 

Bureau of Reclamation in the 1960s and 1970s were unsafe. It is not wrong, 

however, to suggest that the cost of those dams greatly exceeded their economic 

benefi ts and that bureau personnel consciously doctored the fi gures to make each 

dam look as attractive as possible. The Teton Dam was not just built in a bad 

place. Its cost far outweighed its benefi ts, and like many projects built during the 

1960s and 1970s, it benefi ted relatively few water users. When the bureau fi rst 

proposed the project, it used an interest rate of 31⁄4 percent in calculating benefi ts 

even though the rate that prevailed when work began was 5Ǫ percent. Yet even at 

the lower rate, the benefi t to cost ratio was less than one—meaning that taxpayers 

spent more money building the project than it could return to water users.28

 The Reclamation Bureau manipulated fi gures in many ways, as did 

the Corps of Engineers. Not surprisingly, most projects cost far more than 

original estimates. To reduce construction costs on paper, the bureau used 

prices that had prevailed fi ve or ten years earlier. It also added “write off” 

benefi ts not recognized during the pre-World War II years, such as recreation, 

habitat improvement, or pollution abatement. Then, too, the bureau often stated 

power revenue from dams as constant, even though revenue from that source 

generally declined over the life of the dam. In 1964 Senator William Proxmire 

of Wisconsin examined 380 pending water projects in the United States, some 

of them Corps of Engineers projects. He found that more than half had benefi t 

to cost ratios of less than two, and he noted that “I have consistently found that 

projects with an alleged benefi t-cost ratio of less than 2 to 1 provide returns less 

than their cost. Costs of public works are invariably much greater than originally 

estimated because of poor estimates and infl ationary pressures.”29

 The most common method of padding benefi ts, however, was to use an 

artifi cially low interest rate. For most of the 1960s the bureau used 3ǩ percent, 

which Congress had set as a benchmark in 1962. However, the actual rate at 

which the government borrowed money in the middle to late 1960s was closer 

to fi ve percent than three, and the difference between the two fi gures became 

enormous when a project was amortized over fi fty or sixty years. As Richard 

Berkman and Kip Viscusi noted in the infl uential Ralph Nader study of the 

bureau, by 1969 the cost of all the projects constructed by the bureau ran nearly 

three times the original estimates.30 Nevertheless, despite creative accounting 

techniques, by the 1960s many large projects still had a cost to benefi t ratio of 

less than one. The Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota and the Central 

Arizona Project were glaring examples.31

 One reason that damage to the environment did not play a larger role in 

bringing the high dam age to an end was that environmental groups attracted more 

public support by attacking waste and subsidies than by trying to protect nature.

The economist Paul Taylor estimated that within the Central Valley Project the 

federal subsidy amounted to $92,320 for a farm 160 acres in size, and in parts 

of the San Joaquin Valley many farms were 2,000 to 3,000 acres in size. The 
625

Westlands Water District was formed in 1952. The San Luis Dam, part of the 

Central Valley Project, was authorized by Congress in 1960 and completed in 

1968, but the Westlands project served almost exclusively corporate landowners, 

including the Southern Pacifi c Railroad and Standard Oil Company. According to 

Marc Reisner, district farmers paid only one tenth of the actual cost of the water 

they used, and 70 percent of the profi t they received from crops came from federal 

water subsidies.32

 Federal subsidies to land served by the Bureau of Reclamation increased 

dramatically from 1902 to 1968, tipping the scale of benefi ts from national water 

projects away from the East and upper Midwest. Federal reclamation had been 

sold to Congress partly as compensation to the West for river and harbor bills that 

mainly benefi ted states around the Great Lakes and along the eastern seaboard. 

But the historian Tim Palmer estimates that from 1950 to 1976, the Northeast 

received only six percent of the money spent on water projects by the Corps of 

Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation while the South received 28 percent and 

the West about half. In effect, residents of the East and Midwest subsidized the 

growth of cities in the West at the expense of those in the northeast, as crops 

grown in California and Arizona received greater per acre subsidies than crops 

raised in other parts of the nation.33

 Yet the waste of bureau projects, the cost overruns, the environmental 

damage, the disproportionate benefi ts to the West and South, and the bureau’s 

arrogance in responding to criticism do not alone explain why the era of dambuilding came to an end in the 1970s. To some extent, of course, the Reclamation 

Bureau suffered from the deep public cynicism produced by the Vietnam War and 

Watergate. Few institutions of government escaped the crisis in moral authority. 

Still, the bureau’s fall from grace was more signifi cant because it had been built 

on such high ideals. The Corps of Engineers had never promised to transform 

society, but the Reclamation Bureau had inspired grand dreams—not just the 

dream of conquering forbidding deserts but of building a new society there. Often 

lost in the day-by-day operations of the bureau, these ideals remained the soul of 

federal reclamation.

 Homemaking was the bureau=s only mission that appealed to citizens 

outside the West. As long as the bureau paid homage to the family farm ideal, 

many of its blunders and failures were forgiven. In many parts of the West, farm 

size had increased dramatically during the agricultural depression that extended 

from 1920 to 1940. In Montana the average leaped from 480 acres to 821 acres, 

and in Wyoming from 749 to 1,866 acres. Tenancy also increased. In 1946, 

Commissioner of Reclamation Michael Straus promised that within fi ve years 

the bureau would have opened more than 45,000 family-sized farms on 

4,000,000 acres.34 The bureau’s magazine, Reclamation Era, promised that the 

bureau would provide as many homes to returning veterans and their families as it 

had created on all its projects during the four decades prior to World War II. The 

fi rst farms would be on the Klamath, Yakima, Minidoka, and Shoshone projects, 
626

but the single largest project would be in the Columbia River Basin, where the 

bureau hoped to have at least 400,000 acres ready for settlement by 1950 or 1951. 

“The ultimate objective of the Bureau of Reclamation and its staff,” Reclamation

Era reported, “is to develop the West through the creation of permanent family 

farms on Federal Reclamation projects.”35

 By the end of the 1950s, however, it was clear that the Columbia Basin 

Project would not resurrect the bureau’s mission to create rural homes in the 

West. At the end of World War II, the Reclamation Bureau had hoped to create 

10,000 to 20,000 new farms in the Columbia Basin, but only 2,300 had been 

opened by 1958. Nor was that land settled by young men looking for a fresh 

start; the median age of those who took up farms in the Columbia Basin Project 

was 40. Nor did it provide homes for those who had abandoned farms on the 

Great Plains; most settlers came from Washington or Utah. These were not rural 

poor. Over half had family assets of $20,000 or more, and one-third did not live 

on their farms. In 1968 the Reclamation Bureau turned the project over to three 

irrigation districts. According to the historian Paul Pitzer, had the bureau fi nished 

the project, the results would have been even worse. “It would be a collection 

of family farms ranging from forty to eighty acres, none of them capable of 

supplying their owners with a satisfactory living. The area would be a rural slum. 

It is for the best that this aspect of the project failed.”36

 It was not just that the bureau failed to create new family farms; it also 

failed to enforce older restrictions on farm size. By the 1970s the hallowed 

160- acre limitation on the cheap water each farmer could secure from the bureau 

became a mockery. From the beginning of its life, the Reclamation Bureau 

had little choice but to accommodate to large private landowners within the 

boundaries of its projects. Those landowners consistently opposed bureau efforts 

to control the sale of their surplus or “excess” land, and the bureau lacked both the 

staff and the inclination to monitor the sale or title transfers to private lands within 

projects. The Interior Department gave private landowners plenty of warning 

before it acted, and sometimes it did not act at all. A married couple could acquire 

water for 320 acres, and by signing a contract with the Secretary of the Interior 

to dispose of surplus land, any person who owned more than 160 acres was given 

cheap water to irrigate all the land for a decade or more before he was required to 

sell it. Moreover, if landowners paid all the construction charges imposed on the 

excess lands in advance, the Interior Department usually permitted them to sell 

that land at any price they wished.37

 The 160-acre limitation had never been enforced, but before the 1930s the 

vast majority of farms within the reclamation projects—well over 90 percent—

were that size or smaller. Nevertheless, new projects undertaken by the bureau 

in the 1930s and after catered more and more to large landowners, particularly 

in California, and they were the projects that captured the public imagination.

During the 1930s the bureau, with congressional approval, waived the 160-acre 

restriction on several large projects, including the Central Valley Project (CVP), 
627

Imperial Valley Project, and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. The CVP was 

the biggest battleground, in part because the Corps of Engineers was ready to 

build some of the reservoirs within that project as fl ood control structures that 

did not require repayment, and that was an attractive option to large farmers. In 

the south San Joaquin Valley, 700,000 acres were divided into 600 farms and 

800,000 acres were divided into 12,300 small holdings. But that pattern of land 

distribution changed dramatically after World War II. By the time Congress raised 

the 160-acre limitation to 960 acres in 1982, and waived many other restrictions 

on large landowners, the family farm seemed more and more of an anachronism. 

Even more of an anachronism was the notion that federal reclamation should 

attempt to reform American society and distribute wealth as widely as possible. 

As Donald Worster has noted, the 1982 law tacitly acknowledged that the 

economic marketplace should decide the size of farms and the distribution of 

wealth, not government.38

 Although the Reclamation Bureau continued to serve many small farms, 

particularly outside California, the 1982 law convinced many critics of the 

bureau that it had abandoned its original mission and sold out to agribusiness.

Even more serious, by the 1980s the Reclamation Bureau had lost its reputation 

as the exemplar of new technology. During the 1930s Boulder Dam stood as 

a monument to human ingenuity, and the dams the bureau built were seen as 

thoroughly modern—the latest in the technology of managing nature. Boulder 

Dam was more than a piece of concrete. Among other things it symbolized a 

powerful idea that had been around since the Progressive Era, the concept of 

“multiple use.” The biggest dams built by the bureau, including Boulder, Shasta, 

and Grand Coulee all provided fl ood control and power, as well as irrigation and 

water for towns and cities. But those were exceptional, not typical dams. The 

West contained few places to build such dams, which is why small dams were 

so much more common than large ones. Not only were the sites for large dams 

limited, but most dams were constructed to serve a particular purpose. It was 

not easy to use a dam designed mainly to generate power for fl ood control or 

irrigation as well.

 During the 1930s part of the appeal of high dams was that they would last 

as long as the pyramids. But after World War II that very “permanence” became 

a liability. One of the strongest arguments against building dams had always been 

that it made more sense to move people to water than water to people. Far more 

water was lost in transit, through seepage and evaporation, than was delivered 

at the end of the pipeline or ditch. The Cold War raised new concerns. Dams 

contributed to the concentration of people in large cities, making those cities more 

attractive targets, and while high dams were very strong, they could not resist 

a direct hit from a thermonuclear bomb. Many of the West’s cities could be as 

easily paralyzed by disrupting their water and power systems, or by the fl oods that 

would result from bringing down one of these dams, as from the detonation of a 

thermonuclear bomb within the city itself. Even more important was the promise 

of nuclear power. As a writer in the Sierra Club Bulletin observed in 1948,
628

we may live to see the regulated use of atomic power a few years from 

now. If we learn to use it properly... we won’t need to harness all the 

rivers of the land.... At least we might wait a little while and see what 

happens before we drown our greatest canyons and destroy forever so 

much natural beauty.

 David Brower suggested that atomic energy might make high dams 

obsolete long before they fi lled with silt. “Is it not time to reverse the trend of 

centralization—of concentrating tremendously remunerative strategic targets: of 

building larger projects to enable more people to live in less space[?]”39 Silt was 

not just something that clogged dams; it was a symptom of bad land management. 

“[T]he real management of rivers begins in the headwaters and on the hilltops...

through good land management,” a writer observed in 1950 in the Sierra Club 

Bulletin. Yet neither the Corps of Engineers nor the Bureau of Reclamation 

cooperated with the Soil Conservation Service or the Forest Service in their 

attempts to fi ght soil erosion. In the middle of the 1960s, during debate over the 

proposed Rampart Dam in Alaska, a Corps of Engineers structure that would have 

created a reservoir larger than Lake Erie, a writer in Living Wilderness pointed out 

that any one of fi ve atomic generators produced by the General Electric Company 

could produce as much power as the proposed hydroelectric plants at Rampart 

Dam at half the installation cost. And, she estimated, the price of the power to 

consumers would be no higher.40

 But most important was that hydroelectric power no longer seemed as 

attractive after World War II as it had during the 1920s or 1930s. California was a 

prime example. In 1910 falling water produced most of the electricity used in the 

state. Steam power was used mainly to meet peak demands. But the increasing 

effi ciency of steam generators, the falling prices of petroleum and natural gas, and 

the fact that such plants could be located near large cities, made steam turbines 

increasingly attractive. In 1920 hydroelectric power constituted 37 percent of the 

power generated within the United States. That fi gure fell to 33 percent in 1940, 

and despite the large hydroelectric plants opened during World War II, only 

36 percent of the nation’s power came from falling water in 1945.41

 New technology also reduced the need to expand the supply of water for 

irrigation. Insecticides, pesticides, and sophisticated farm machinery permitted 

farmers to raise much more food and fi ber on the same land, irrigated or not. 

Leveling land with lasers, lining canals with concrete, delivering water directly to 

the roots of plants through underground pipes, utilizing computers to determine 

exactly the amount of water needed when it was needed in different soils, 

and raising plants that required less water were just a few of the changes that 

permitted farmers to stretch their water supplies. Conservation promised to free 

up a large part of the West=s water. And as the cost of irrigating land rose, it made 

little sense to build new dams and canals.42

 In retrospect, President Jimmy Carter=s famous “hit list” of water projects 

seems far less signifi cant than it did at the time. Dams had been under fi re 
629

throughout the 1970s, and many critics of western water policy argued that there 

was no need to open any additional land to irrigation. On February 21, 1977, 

Carter released a revised version of the 1977-1978 budget prepared by Gerald 

Ford’s staff. At a time of growing budget defi cits and infl ation, Carter wanted to 

balance the budget, and eliminating wasteful spending would help. He deleted 

nineteen water projects that he deemed improvident, unnecessary, or damaging to 

the environment. He also launched a review of 320 projects already authorized 

by Congress. Even such staunch environmentalists as representatives Moe 

Udall of Arizona and Gary Hart of Colorado came out against the cuts. Initially, 

environmental organizations strongly supported the president in the hope that 

Carter would abandon such projects as the Auburn Dam in California and the 

Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota, but that support dissipated when—

under strong pressure from Congress—Carter compromised so that only nine 

projects were eliminated. His support for raising the 160-acre limitation to 

1,260 acres and for continuing the subsidies to the Westlands Irrigation District 

also dismayed environmental groups.43

 The cuts in spending on water projects were more apparent than real. In 

1980 Carter approved four billion dollars for water projects, though relatively 

few of those projects were located within the West. On the advice of his chief 

economic adviser, David Stockman, and with the support of such disparate 

groups as the American Tax Reduction Movement, the National Taxpayers 

Union, Common Cause, the Americans for Democratic Action, and the League 

of Women Voters, President Ronald Reagan went considerably beyond Carter. 

Reagan reduced spending on water projects and signed the fi rst bill in American 

history to “deauthorize” water projects—eight projects that would have cost 

2.5 billion dollars. Even more important, Reagan added the requirement that 

those who benefi ted from new water projects share in paying for them. Since 

few water users were willing to use their own money to help pay for water 

projects, this—and the Astagfl ation@ and defi cits that characterized the Carter and 

Reagan years—did more to end the dam-building era than anything else. No 

new major Bureau of Reclamation projects were authorized during the 1980s 

or 1990s. In the 1970s and after, the greatest expansion of irrigation was on the 

Great Plains, where farmers mined underground water far faster than it could be 

returned by nature to the aquifers. Nebraska irrigated less than one million acres 

in 1959, but seven million acres in 1980.44

 By way of conclusion, what has the experiment in reclamation meant 

to the West and the nation? Most professional historians have regarded 

federal reclamation as a disaster, and there is plenty of evidence to support 

that conclusion. During its fi rst few decades of life, the Reclamation Bureau 

did not succeed in placing “surplus” human beings on surplus land, it did not 

succeed in reforming rural institutions in the West, it did not succeed in curbing 

land speculation, and it did not succeed in producing a more virtuous society. 

By the 1930s only two or three million acres had been irrigated by the federal 

government, a far cry from the 30 to 100 million acres promised by various 
630

proponents of federal reclamation in 1902. The bureau became a much more 

popular institution within the West after World War II, but by the 1960s it would 

be blamed for encouraging rampant urban growth, for squandering tax dollars, for 

deceiving the public, and for being the region’s biggest polluter.

 That said, the contribution of the bureau to the West depends on one’s 

perspective. Until the last two decades, most appraisals of federal reclamation 

focused on economic benefi ts. In 1919, encouraged by the agricultural boom 

of World War I, Arthur Powell Davis, then director of the Reclamation Bureau, 

stated fl atly that “national reclamation has amply justifi ed all [that] its exponents 

declared for it [in 1902].” He estimated that the 122 million dollars spent on 

federal reclamation had generated 550 million in new wealth. Within the federal 

projects land that had sold for fi ve or ten dollars an acre in 1902 fetched as much 

as $200 an acre, and 600,000 westerners lived on or near a government project.

In fi scal year 1920 the crops raised on the Salt River Project returned more than 

twice the cost of constructing that project. To be sure, the poorest states in the 

West, such as Nevada and Arizona, benefi ted more than the wealthiest. For 

example, the population of Phoenix increased more than 400 percent from 1905 to 

1917, and much of that growth derived from the Salt River Project. In 1920 as in 

1980, the farms and cities of the West were much more closely related than most 

historians have recognized.45

 Historians have rarely considered what federal reclamation can teach us 

about government.46 Yet there are powerful lessons in the bureau’s story. First, 

the bureau suffered from a split personality from the beginning of its life. It 

could not reconcile the dream of the autonomous family farm with the goal 

of promoting regional economic development, as Boulder Dam demonstrates.

Repeatedly, it was forced to choose between the two and in the end it did far more 

to shore up the status quo than to reform western society. Second, as a recent 

study by the political scientist Daniel Carpenter reminds us, the personalities and 

vision—or lack of vision—of bureau chiefs matters for as much or more than 

“bureaucratic culture.”47 The fi rst head of the Reclamation Service, Frederick 

Haynes Newell, may have been a fi ne engineer, but he was also blinded by a 

nineteenth century vision of agriculture that was anachronistic by 1902. Elwood 

Mead, Newell’s chief rival to head the new program, had blind spots of his own, 

but there is little doubt that from 1902 to 1924 the bureau would have pushed a 

very different agenda in Congress had Mead been responsible for the program. 

Third, federal reclamation exemplifi es federalism more than the expanding 

power of the central government. In the United States, power can fl ow two 

ways simultaneously. The powers of state and local institutions often increase 

as federal agencies become more powerful in Washington. As one political 

scientist has put it, our system of government is more a marble cake than a layer 

cake. It has to be considered in its entirely. From the beginning of its life, the 

Reclamation Bureau was forced to accommodate itself to local interests and 

local institutions. We need to pay as much attention to how the bureau deferred 

and cooperated with state and local institutions of government, and attempted 
631

to fashion new institutions of government, as with how it tried to compete and 

dominate. Finally, federal reclamation demonstrates the power of sectionalism—

within the West as well as the United States. The leaders of the Reclamation 

Bureau attempted to avoid the pitfalls of public works in the nineteenth century, 

but Americans have always expected the benefi ts of government to be spread as 

widely as possible. In 1902 that meant that 51 percent of the proceeds from the 

sale of public lands should remain within the state or territory where that land was 

located, and that decision had dire consequences for federal reclamation. And 

it is interesting to note that when Jimmy Carter issued his “hit list,” he received 

the strongest opposition from Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona, whose 

political representatives thought that California had received far more than its fair 

share of federal water appropriations. Whether the water projects they voted for 

were wasteful or ineffi cient was beside the point. They wanted to catch up with 

California by capturing a share of the Colorado River for upstream interests.

 It is important to note that the Bureau of Reclamation is still a very 

important federal agency. The masthead of its website announces that the 

bureau=s mission is “Managing Water in the American West,” not constructing 

water projects. The brief history tells us that the bureau has created “more than 

600 dams and reservoirs including Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand 

Coulee on the Columbia River.” Today the bureau supervises or oversees the 

distribution of water to more than 31,000,000 urban and rural residents in the 

West, including one-fi fth of the region=s irrigation farmers, and, we are told, that 

land produces 60 percent of the nation=s vegetables. It is the “Largest wholesaler 

of water in the country,” and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power 

in the West, after the Corps of Engineers. How times have changed is refl ected in 

the concluding paragraph in the “What We Do” section of the website:

Today, Reclamation is a contemporary water management agency with a 

Strategic Plan outlining numerous programs, initiatives and activities that 

will help the Western States, Native American Tribes and others meet 

new water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water 

in the West. Our mission is to assist in meeting the increasing water 

demands of the West while protecting the environment and the public’s 

investment in these structures. We place great emphasis on fulfi lling 

our water delivery obligations, water conservation, water recycling and 

reuse, and developing partnerships with our customers, states, and Indian 

Tribes, and in fi nding ways to bring together the variety of interests to 

address the competing needs for our limited water resources.

The historian can only smile at those words, both because the mission of the 

bureau has changed so dramatically over the last few decades, and because the 

bureau has come back from its deathbed before, particularly during the 1930s.

If an agency that generated so much confl ict over water in the past is now the 

region=s negotiator and peacemaker, this surely is a brave new world.48
632

Donald J. Pisani is professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and 

holds the Merrick Chair of Western American History there. He has published 

numerous books and articles, many of which are closely related to the history 

of Reclamation, e.g.: “Confl ict Over Conservation: The Reclamation Service 

and the Tahoe Contract,” The Western Historical Quarterly 10 (April 1979), 

167-90; “Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the 

Nineteenth Century,” The Western Historical Quarterly, Volume 18, Number 1 

(January 1987), pp. 15-38; “Federal Reclamation and Water Rights in Nevada,” 

Agricultural History 51 (July 1977), 540-58; “Forests and Reclamation, 

1891-1911,” Forest and Conservation History 37 (April 1993), 68; From the 

Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California and the 

West, 1850-1931 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California 

Press, 1984); “George Maxwell, the Railroads, and American Land Policy, 

1899-1904,” Pacifi c Historical Review 63 (May 1994), 177-202; To Reclaim 

a Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy, 1848-1902 (Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press, 1992); Water and American Government: The 

Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West, 1902-1935 (Berkeley 

and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002); Water, Land, and Law in 

the West (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1996). A version of this paper 

was presented at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians 

in April 2002.

Endnotes

1. The quotes are as reprinted in Donald J. Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided West: Water, Law, 

and Public Policy, 1848-1902 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992): 319-20.

2. On the arguments for and against federal reclamation see Pisani, To Reclaim a Divided 

West, 298-319.

3. Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Effi ciency: The Progressive 

Conservation Movement, 1890-1920 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959): 5. Among 

other notable contributions to the organizational synthesis, see Robert Wiebe, The Search for 

Order (New York: Hill & Wang, 1967) and James Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal 

State, 1900-1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968).

4. George H. Maxwell to Franklin K. Lane, March 23, 1914, Francis G. Newlands 

Collection, Box 45, Folder 467, Sterling Library, Yale University.

5. The Roosevelt quote is as reprinted in The U.S. Reclamation Service: Its History, 

Activities, and Organization (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1919), 19.

6. Theodore Roosevelt to Ethan Allan Hitchcock, July 2, 1902, Theodore Roosevelt Papers, 

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Also see Hitchcock to Charles D. Walcott, June 18, 1902, 

and Hitchcock to Roosevelt, July 9, 1902, Records Group 48, Records of the Department of the 

Interior, Entry 195, Hitchcock Letterbooks, National Archives, College Park, Maryland.

7. Eleventh Annual Report of the Reclamation Service, 1911-1912 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Offi ce, 1912), 5-6; F. H. Newell, Irrigation Management: The Operation, 

Maintenance and Betterment of Works for Bringing Water to Agricultural Lands (New York: 

Appleton, 1916), 3; and F. H. Newell, “Federal Land Reclamation: An National Problem,” 

Engineering News-Record 91 (November 15, 1923), 803.

8. Forestry and Irrigation 12 (March 1906), 110.

9. Congressional Record, 61 Cong., 2 sess., Senate, March 25, April 5, April 6, April 14, 

1910, 3740-48, 4259-60, 4314-24, and 4662-69, and 61 Cong., 3 sess., House, February 17, 1911, 

4662-69.

10. W. E. Smythe, “A Success of Two Centuries,” Out West 22 (January 1905), 72-6; 

W. E. Smythe, Constructive Democracy: The Economics of the Square Deal (New York: 

Macmillan, 1905), 381-5; “The Reclamation Service,” Forestry and Irrigation 11 (June 1905), 

280; F. G. Newlands to Secretary of the Interior, January 26, 1905, and Charles Walcott (Director, 
633

USGS) to Secretary of the Interior, June 3, 1905, in Records Group 48, Records of the Department 

of the Interior, 1420-1904, “Miscellaneous Projects: State Irrigation under National Control, 

F. G. Newlands.”

11. E. B. Hoffman, “Cooperative Plan,” dated May 5, 1915, Records Group 115, Records 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, General Files, 1902-1919, Box 85, “Legislation-Corres. Re 

Legislation and Laws Affecting the Reclamation Act thru 1915,” Federal Records Center, Denver, 

Colorado. Also see B. E. Stoutmeyer to Elwood Mead, December 6, 1924, in RG 115, General 

Administrative Files, 1919-1929, Box 367, “(522): General Corres. Re Cooperation by States with 

the Bureau in Colonizing and Settling Lands thru 1929” and Reclamation Record 5 

(December 1914), 455-56.

12. National Soldier Settlement Act, H. Rep. 216, 66 Cong., 1 sess., serial 7592 (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1919), 15-17. Also see the extensive correspondence on the 

Lane bill in RG 115, General File, 1902-1919, Box 92, “(110-F): Corres. Re National Legislation 

[Soldier Settlement Act], Jan. and Feb. 1919)” and Box 111, “(144): General Corres. Re Soldier 

Settlement Legislation (Federal) through 1929.”

13. Elwood Mead, “Community Small Farms,” New Reclamation Era 20 (July, 1929), 99; 

Mead, “Plan for the Creation of Organized Rural Communities in the South,” speech delivered 

December 12, 1927, RG 48, Central Classifi ed Files, 1907-1936, Box 1714, “Reclamation Bureau: 

Southern Reclamation and Rural Development, November 8, 1926-July 9, 1930”; Creation of 

Organized Rural Communities, H. Rep. 1217, 70 Cong., 1 sess., serial 8837 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Offi ce, 1928).

14. Vincent Ostrom, Water and Politics: A Study of Water Policies and Administration in the 

Development of Los Angeles (Los Angeles: Haynes Foundation, 1953), 181, 207-8, 217.

15. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1944

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1944), 5, 8.

16. Alfred Golzé, Reclamation in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 

1952), 363-66, 380-81.

17. On plans for the Columbia Basin Project see Paul C. Pitzer, Grand Coulee: Harnessing 

A Dream (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1994). On plans to provide homes for 

returning veterans see Goodrich W. Lineweaver, “The Human Side,” Reclamation Era, 32 

(May 1946), 109-10 and John R. Murdock, “Veterans-Here’s Your Farm,” Reclamation Era, 32 

(May 1946), 95-6.

18. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1945

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1945), XII-XIII; Harold Ickes, “Department of 

the Interior: Budget for Postwar Construction Programs,” dated September 1943, and “Beyond 

Victory’s Horizon,” memo dated December 19, 1944, no author, in Records Group 48, Records of 

the Department of the Interior, Entry 779, Michael W. Straus Papers, 1943-1945, Box 13.

19. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1944

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1944), 5, IX-X.

20. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1951), VI.

21. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1944

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1944), 5, 8; Annual Report of the Secretary of the 

Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1945 (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 

1945), 14; Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951

(Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1951), XV.

22. Arthur Goldschmidt, “Progress is Indivisible,” paper presented at the Post-War Resources 

Institute Conference held in Washington, D.C., November 5-9, 1945, in RG 48, Records of 

the Department of the Interior-Records of Interior Department Offi cials, Entry 779, Michael 

W. Straus Papers, 1943-45, Box 14. In the same box see Barclay J. Sickler, Bonneville Power 

Administration, “Infl uence of Low-Cost Hydroelectric Power on Regional Development,” a paper 

delivered at the same conference, and Harold Ickes to Bernard Baruch (War Mobilization Board), 

January 15, 1944.

23. Elmo Richardson, Dams, Parks & Politics: Resource Development and Preservation in 

the Truman-Eisenhower Era (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1973), 73, 
634

114, 119; Congressional Record, 81 Cong., 2d sess., Senate, Sept. 5, 1950, 14217; Congressional 

Record, 84 Cong., 2d sess., Senate, Jan. 27, 1956, 1443 and 1444. For other examples of 

opposition to Reclamation Bureau activities overseas see the Congressional Record, 82 Cong., 

1 sess., House, May 1, 1951, 4638; 83 Cong., 2d sess., Senate, May 18, 1954, 6757-63; and 86 

Cong., 2d sess., House, June 14, 1960, 12589 and House, August 31, 1960, 18901-02.

24. See, for example, Mark W. T. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the 

American Conservation Movement (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994).

25. Richard L. Berkman and W. Kip Viscusi, Damming the West (New York: Grossman 

Publishers, 1973), 29, 31, 38; Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth 

of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 317-26; Dennis Hanson, “Pumping 

Billions into the Desert: The Case against the Central Arizona Project,” Audubon, 79 (May 1977), 

134; “Garrison Diversion,” Audubon, 77 (November 1975), 126.

26. “A Torrent of Litigation over Teton Dam,” Business Week, January 24, 1977, 21-2.

27. On the collapse of Teton Dam see Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West 

and Its Disappearing Water (New York: Viking, 1986), 393-425. The quote is from pp. 396-7. 

Also see Tim Palmer, Endangered Rivers and the Conservation Movement (Berkeley: University 

of California Press, 1986), 93, 116; Dorothy Gallagher, “The Collapse of the Great Teton Dam,” 

New York Times Magazine, September 19, 1976, 16, 95-103; George Laycock, “A Dam is Not 

Diffi cult to Build Unless It Is in the Wrong Place,” Audubon Magazine, 78 (November 1976), 

132-5.

28. “Intractable Pork,” Audubon, 78 (September 1976), 138.

29. As quoted in Laycock, “The High Cost of Destruction,” 108.

30. Berkman and Viscusi, Damming the West, 79.

31. On the Garrison Diversion Project see Peter Carrels, Uphill Against Water: The Great 

Dakota Water War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999); Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., “Dr. 

Strangelove Builds a Canal,” Audubon Magazine, 77 (March 1975), 77-111; and James Nathan 

Miller, “Half a Billion Dollars Down the Drain,” Reader’s Digest, 109 (November 1976), 143-8.

On the Central Arizona Project see Rich Johnson, The Central Arizona Project, 1918-1968

(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1977); Berkman and Viscusi, Damming the West, 105-30; 

Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 300-16; and Dennis Hanson, “Pumping Billions into the Desert,” 

Audubon Magazine, 79 (May 1977), 133-45.

32. Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 501-502; Paul S. Taylor, “Reclamation & Exploitation,” Sierra

Club Bulletin, 59 (Feb. 1974), 7-10; Steve Whitney, “Pay As You Enter, Pay As You Go: The 

Economics of Water Projects,” Sierra Club Bulletin, 58 (July-August 1973), 18, 39.

33. Palmer, Endangered Rivers, 182-3.

34. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1946

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, 1946), 57.

35. Lineweaver, “The Human Side,” 110; Murdock, “Veterans-Here’s Your Farm,” 95-6; 

“Return of the Homesteader,” Reclamation Era 32 (July 1946), 149-50.

36. Pitzer, Grand Coulee, 176-87, 287-8, 298-9, 315, 327, 329, 365-7. The quote is from 

p. 367.

37. Alfred Golzé, Reclamation in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 

1952), 347-8.

38. “Irrigation Warfare Renewed,” Business Week, November 17, 1945, 19-20; Peter 

Barnes, “Water, Water for the Wealthy,” New Republic, 164 (May 8, 1971), 9-13; Worster, Rivers

of Empire, 292-4, 300-3; John Opie, The Law of the Land: Two Hundred Years of American 

Farmland Policy (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987), 118. 

39. “Dams,” Sierra Club Bulletin, 33 (June 1948), 3-5; David Brower, “To Dam or Not to 

Dam,” Sierra Club Bulletin, 33 (September-October 1948), 3-4.

40. Ginny Wood Hill, “Rampart-Foolish Dam,” Living Wilderness, 29 (Spring 1965), 3-7.

Also see “Rampart Project Study,” Living Wilderness 29 (Winter 1965-1966), 42, which noted that 

not only would the Rampart Dam take 30 years to reach its maximum power production, but it 

would not be as effi cient as gas-fi red generating plants, which could produce electricity at a lower 

cost.
635

41. Recent studies of electricity in the West include Jay Brigham, Empowering the West: 

Electrical Politics before FDR (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998) and James C. 

Williams, Energy and the Making of Modern California (Akron: University of Akron Press, 1997). 

Also see Louis C. Hunter and Lynwood Bryant, A History of Industrial Power in the United 

States, 1780-1930, v. 3 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991), 353, 360, 364, and Thomas H. Gammack, 

“Hydroelectric Myths,” World’s Work 58 (May 1929), 120.

42. See, for example, George Alexander, “Making Do With Less,” National Wildlife, 22 

(February-March 1984), 11-3.

43. Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 317-43; Palmer, Endangered Rivers and the Conservation 

Movement, 100-2, 198-206; Brock Evans, “Washington, D.C.: Defending the Dam Back HomeCongress and the Politics of Waste,” Sierra Club Bulletin, 62 (May 1977), 24.

44. On the expansion of irrigation on the High Plains see John Opie, Oglalla: Water For a 

Dry Land (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993). Also see Donald E. Green, Land of the 

Underground Rain: Irrigation on the Texas High Plains, 1910-1970 (Austin: University of Texas 

Press, 1973).

45. Arthur P. Davis, “Results of National Irrigation,” Reclamation Record 12 (December 

1919): 546-7; Davis, “The Results of National Irrigation,” Literary Digest 64 (January 17, 1920): 

100-3; Congressional Record, 70 Cong., 2 sess., House, February 22, 1929, pp. 4077-84.

46. Notable exceptions include Worster, Rivers of Empire, 13, 51, 64, 131, and 279, and 

Richard White, “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 58-9, 182, 204. White characterizes the West 

as “the kindergarten of the American state. In governing and developing the American West, the 

state itself grew in power and infl uence.” (p. 58)

47. Daniel P. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, 

and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 

2001).

48. The Bureau of Reclamation’s website is www.usbr.gov. It was accessed on 

March 11, 2002.
636
637

A Tale of Two Commissioners: Frederick Newell 

and Floyd Dominy

By:

Donald J. Pisani

 Tonight1 I’d like to survey some highlights of the history of the Bureau of 

Reclamation by looking at the lives and times of two of the agency’s most notable 

directors, Frederick Newell and Floyd Dominy. A principal architect of the 

Reclamation Act of 1902, Newell directed the federal reclamation program from 

1902 to 1914, supervising the construction of 28 irrigation projects—one or more 

in every state and territory within the American West. Dominy was commissioner 

of the Reclamation Bureau from 1959 to 1969, during what Marc Reisner has 

called “the Go-Go years.” By that time the high dam symbolized the bureau more 

than the family farm, and it paid as much attention to the urban as to the rural 

West. In any one year of the 1960s, the bureau’s construction budget exceeded 

all the expenditures by the Bureau of Reclamation from 1902 to 1933. Yet for all 

its wealth, I would argue that by the 1960s time had passed the bureau by: it was 

an agency without a rudder. For reasons largely beyond its control, it had lost the 

ideals that sustained it through the fi rst six decades of the twentieth century. By 

the 1970s two fundamental changes had occurred in the West: the family farm had 

declined dramatically in importance, and the region could no longer claim to be 

an economically backward province of the East. It could no longer contend that it 

had a special right to federal aid, a right that transcended the claims of other parts 

of the nation.

Frederick H. Newell

 Frederick Haynes Newell was born on March 5, 1862, in Bradford, 

Pennsylvania, a small lumber and mining town in the northwest part of the state, 

just south of the New York border—a town far-removed from major cities, the 

closest of which was Erie, 100 miles to the West. “The people [in Bradford] were 

what might be called typical mountaineers and laborers in the lumber camps, 

rough, illiterate and with many queer old country habits and superstitions,” 

Newell recalled in his unpublished memoirs, written in 1927. Newell’s mother 

died in childbirth the year after he was born, and so did the child she carried.

So young Frederick grew up without siblings, and for most of his youth lived 

with relatives. As he put it, “I attended many public schools in different 

parts of the country not staying very long at any one as I moved from place 

to place.” Nevertheless, Newell was a good student, and after attending high 

school in Newton, Massachusetts, where he lived with an uncle, he entered the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1880, in part so that he could live at his 

grandfather’s house in Brookline, Massachusetts.
638

 Not surprisingly, Frederick Newell 

would exhibit a curious distance and 

detachment when he wrote about his 

father, who at various times tried the feed 

and grain business in Chicago—and got 

“skinned,” as Frederick put it—then sold 

boilers, machinery, and safes in Detroit; 

then made furniture; until in mid-life he 

returned to Bradford, where he found oil 

and fi nancial success after many failures. 

Frederick described his father as “always 

sanguine, full of entrancing schemes.... 

He was surveyor, engineer and general 

all around man.... He bought and sold 

coal and timber lands and went into 

various ventures, characteristic of the time 

and place.” In short, his father was an 

American type: wanderer, dreamer and 

speculator—the kind you fi nd in so many 

American novels, including Mark Twain 

and Charles Dudley Warner’s The Gilded Age. The life of Frederick’s father 

drove home to the boy a Darwinian lesson he would carry with him through life: 

for many success did not come easily. It comes only to those who are persistent 

and tenacious, and how people bear hardship is as important as whether or not 

they achieved success.

 In addition, Newell’s upbringing produced in the young man a versatility, 

resourcefulness, and a strong sense of independence. On vacations from high 

school, Newell became deeply involved in his father’s business ventures, and after 

graduation he returned to Bradford from Massachusetts and plunged

again into a wide variety of occupations including surveying, printing, 

bookkeeping... generally for my father. The experience I now appreciate 

was valuable as it was necessary for me to take the initiative and use 

my own judgment continually as my father was never a man who 

would bother with details but who wanted results immediately and 

economically. There was nothing that I would not undertake... whether 

laying gas lines, plumbing, designing houses or straightening out the 

books of some company and discovering blunders or worse on the part of 

people with whom he [that is, his father] was doing business.

Newell fi rst went west during the summer of 1881, after his father and a few other 

residents of Bradford invested in mineral land in southern Colorado. Frederick 

helped organize the Columbia Gold Mining Company, and he became secretary 

and treasurer—a formidable job for a boy just out of high school. 

26.1. Frederick H. Newell while Director 

of Reclamation.
639

 After Newell graduated from MIT in 1885, with a B.A. in mining 

engineering, he fi rst returned to Bradford and worked for his father—who hadn’t 

wanted him to go to college in the fi rst place—then caught on with the Ohio 

Geological Survey studying oil-bearing rocks. At the time geology was in its 

infancy, and those who knew the most about the subject were more likely to work 

for the federal or state governments than teach at a university. So Newell’s big 

break came in 1888 when he met John Wesley Powell, the head of the United 

States Geological Survey in Boston, and later in that year, in Washington, he 

met two other prominent fi gures in the USGS, G. K. Gilbert and Henry Gannett. 

At the time, Powell was organizing the Irrigation Survey within the USGS to 

investigate and map potential dams and canals in the West, and Powell asked 

Newell to take charge of a crew of 14 recent engineering graduates from Harvard, 

Yale, and Troy to study the characteristics and volume of streams in the West. 

This was far-removed from petroleum geology, but Newell jumped at the chance.

 The training camp at remote and isolated Embudo, New Mexico, on the 

Rio Grande, changed Newell’s life. However, Congress cancelled the Irrigation 

Survey in 1890, and it cut the USGS appropriation by half in 1892. Powell 

resigned as director of the Survey in 1894, and Newell learned another valuable 

lesson: western politicians cared little about science but everything about 

economic development. It was a lesson he would long remember.

 Frederick Newell was not a hydraulic engineer, and he never designed an 

irrigation project—either before or after 1902. He knew a lot about the nature 

of rivers, and he also prepared the census of irrigation for the United States in 

1890 and 1900, but he had little experience with desert agriculture. More than his 

adaptability, and more than his raw intelligence, what Newell had was the right 

political and scientifi c connections. In 1890 he joined the Cosmos Club, which 

until he found a house in Washington, served, he recalled in his memoirs, as his 

“main refuge.” Within a year he became a regular member of the “Great Basin 

Lunch Mess,” which included G. K. Gilbert, Henry Gannett, W. J. McGee, and 

Gifford Pinchot. The group met over lunch to discuss the critical natural resource 

issues facing the nation in the 1890s. In the next few years he became active in 

the National Geographic Society, the American Geographical Society, and the 

American Forestry Association, and he gave frequent lectures before scientifi c 

and engineering societies—more often on forestry than hydrology. Newell and 

Gifford Pinchot frequently discussed the need to improve the administration of the 

national forests, in part to protect the fl ow of the many streams that originated on 

the public domain. Through Pinchot, Newell met the then governor of New York 

in 1900, Theodore Roosevelt. Newell and Pinchot became Roosevelt’s closest 

advisors on natural resources, and it was only natural that when the Reclamation 

Act passed Congress in 1902, the United States Geological Survey would 

administer the new program and Frederick Haynes Newell would take charge.

 Federal reclamation was such a bold program that it was almost inevitable 

that those who designed and administered it would make mistakes. In 1800 the 
640

Harrison Land Act had sold land on credit. Farmers quickly fell into arrears on 

their payments—and fi nally, after attempting to use the United States Army to 

evict those who refused to pay, Congress excused those payments entirely. Those 

who settled the land thought that they were entitled to it for nothing. It was they 

who gave the land value, they reasoned, not the federal government. As you 

know, the same thing happened to federal reclamation. By the 1920s, and in some 

parts of the West long before that, farmers considered the program an entitlement, 

and so did many of its sponsors. After all, easterners got river and harbor 

improvements for nothing, why shouldn’t farmers who had the courage to try to 

settle the desert wilderness get their land and water free? Equally important was 

the massive depression of the 1890s. Congress passed the Reclamation Act with 

the expectation of jump-starting the western economy. Federal reclamation, it was 

hoped, would encourage private capital to invest in the region— which it had not 

done since the early 1890s. Then, too, in 1902, there were three states expected to 

join the Union before Theodore Roosevelt stepped down as President: Oklahoma, 

Arizona, and New Mexico. TR wanted to maintain the Republican support he 

already enjoyed in states like Wyoming and Montana. Therefore, in consultation 

with Charles D. Walcott, the director of the USGS and the Reclamation Service, 

and Chief Engineer Newell, Roosevelt made a fateful decision: the Reclamation 

Service would not build one or two model irrigation projects so that it could 

learn from experience. Nor would it build the large projects beyond the means of 

private enterprise that A. P. Davis, J. D. Lippincott and others had favored for the 

Colorado and Sacramento rivers. Instead, within a few years of 1902 it launched 

smaller irrigation projects in every western state and territory to spread the wealth 

of the reclamation fund as evenly as possible. To be sure, Congress required in 

the Reclamation Act that 51 percent of the money raised from public land sales be 

spent on reclamation within the state or territory in which that land was located.

But that did not mean that the Reclamation Service had to launch 28 projects 

within a few years. So fast did the Service undertake these dams and canals that 

it could not profi t from mistakes and misconceptions. And by 1915, when Newell 

left the Reclamation Service, the mistakes were all too obvious: the soils—which 

had not been tested prior to opening the original projects—were uneven and often 

of poor quality, inadequate attention had been paid to fi nding transportation and 

markets for the crops raised, and those crops were likely to be low value alfalfa 

rather than the high value citrus fruits or vegetables that promoters of government 

irrigation had hoped would be raised on the projects in 1902.

 By 1909 the Reclamation Service was bombarded with complaints from 

the projects and from Congress, and Newell had become defensive and evasive.

He tried to hide the seriousness of the problems on the projects from the president, 

from the secretaries of the interior, and from Congress. A. P. Davis remembered 

a meeting in 1914 with Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane and the socalled “father of the Reclamation Act,” Francis G. Newlands, then a United 

States senator from Nevada. Newlands had long been a friend and supporter of 

Newell, but at this meeting, according to Davis, even Newlands lost his patience.

Davis was a team player and he had gone out of his way to defend Newell. But 
641

Newlands—who was generally mild-mannered—asked “almost savagely,” or so 

Davis later remembered, what Newell’s faults were.

I told the Senator that Mr. Newell’s principle weakness was his inability 

to say “No,” and that his principal mistake was in taking up too much 

work which was the result of his yielding to pressure in various regions, 

for the sake of avoiding antagonism and criticism, but that it had had 

the reverse effect. I told him I had often protested against taking up 

so many projects beyond the capacity of funds to properly push, and 

that I could prevent this when in the Washington offi ce, but when I was 

absent in the fi eld... commitments were made to new work which had 

tied up the funds and made it necessary to ask Congress for additional 

appropriations. It had also led to delay of the work on all of the projects, 

so that settlers were exposed to great hardships in waiting for water....

 Newell accomplished a great deal. By 1906 twenty-eight government 

projects had been selected. When completed, they were expected to irrigate as 

few as 8,000 acres on the Garden City project in Kansas to as many as 200,000 

acres on the Salt River Project in Arizona and the Truckee-Carson Project 

in Nevada. In all, more than 3,000,000 acres would be reclaimed from the 

desert and 62,000 farms created. As head of the Reclamation Service, Newell 

supervised the construction of 100 dams, twenty-fi ve miles of tunnels and some 

1,300 miles of canals and ditches that supplied water to 20,000 farmers. At 328 

feet, the Shoshone Dam in northeastern Wyoming, completed in 1910, was the 

highest dam in the world, and Roosevelt Dam, built on the Salt River between 

1906 and 1911, was the largest masonry dam in the world. By 1916 Arrowrock 

Dam, which was 385 feet high, had eclipsed the Shoshone Dam.

 Nevertheless, Newell had many blind spots, and for a partial explanation 

we can go back to his childhood and the decades he was growing up. Newell 

shared the same faith in Social Darwinism that many Progressives held, and the 

experience of his father must have suggested to him that the natural order of 

human existence included failure and uncertainty. What most hampered Newell’s 

judgment is that he refused to recognize how vastly different agriculture was in 

the United States in 1900 or 1910 than in 1860 or 1880. In one of his annual 

reports, when he was under heavy fi re from Congress, Newell acknowledged 

some of the “fallacies” that had retarded federal reclamation. The most important, 

he said, was that “it was not anticipated how diffi cult it would be to secure the 

right kind of farmers to handle the reclaimed land, and utilize it to advantage.”

 Newell was right. Many penniless and inexperienced farmers fl ooded 

onto the government projects before water was available, and they were doomed 

to fail. Nevertheless, those settlers had been encouraged to take up land on 

the projects by the Reclamation Bureau, and one wonders whether Newell’s 

own versatility—remember that he was neither a hydraulic engineer nor a soil 

scientist—played some part in the decision to open the projects to all comers. Of 

course, when those settlers proved less resourceful than he had hoped, Newell 
642

quickly lost faith in them. In 1912 he suggested that the problems on the federal 

reclamation projects were due mainly to character faults in those who settled the 

government projects, not in the administration of the Reclamation Service or even 

in limitations imposed by Congress. “The characteristics of present settlers are 

in many respects entirely different from those of the older pioneer communities,” 

he wrote. “[T]here is not the spirit of cooperation which ruled the early pioneers; 

the class of people now attracted to the lands are not as capable of adapting 

themselves to existing conditions and initiating the building of distributing 

works.” Disgruntled farmers, Newell believed, had blamed the Reclamation 

Service for their own weaknesses. If anything, the Reclamation service had done 

too much. In a 1913 letter to Gifford Pinchot, Newell observed that the more the 

federal government did, the more dependent on government assistance farmers 

became. “On the whole,” he concluded, “we have done too much in taking the 

initiative and in trying to expedite development.” Newell drew a sharp distinction 

between the self-reliant pioneer farmer of the nineteenth century and the twentieth 

century farmer who refused to work as hard.

He [the would-be twentieth century farmer] is attracted usually by 

glowing accounts of the relative ease of acquiring wealth in the West, 

and with erroneous ideas concerning the conditions to be met.... There 

has thus arisen a class which has been called the “professional pioneer,” 

always seeking for something a little better or for conditions where life 

will be easier; staying in any locality only a few months and then again 

seeking El Dorado.

Newell admitted that more than 75 percent of those who fi rst settled an irrigation 

project were gone within three or four years. “This is naturally to be expected,” 

he observed, “as the fi rst-comers were usually the more restless members of a 

community, men who were always on the lookout for something new and when 

they discovered it were anxious to dispose of their acquisitions and move on to 

a still better opportunity.” In a 1919 address Newell called for a return to the 

old values: “Let us try to get back to more of the real spirit of democracy, of 

Americanism, of self reliance, of doing those things for ourselves and for the 

public which we can best do, not waiting for some governmental bureau, which in 

turn waits on Congress....”

 Newell was forced to resign from the Reclamation Bureau in 1915 by 

Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, and soon thereafter he became head of 

the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Illinois. He remained very 

active in national engineering societies, but in the years that followed showed 

little interest in science or conservation, and he was not in demand as a consultant. 

He enjoyed academic life but riding herd over nine academic engineers provided 

little challenge. As he wrote after he left the University of Illinois in 1920: 

“everything seemed too easy in the sense that there was not enough stimulus to 

keep an active man from becoming a typical college professor emersed [sic] in 

petty routine.” In 1918 the American Geographical Society, of which Newell had 

been a prominent member, awarded him its Cullum Gold Medal. One side of the 
643

medallion bore the inscription: “He carried water from a mountain wilderness 

to turn the waste places of the desert into homes for freemen.” Yet, ironically, 

 Newell died in 1931 convinced that federal reclamation had been unnecessary 

and unwise. Congress, Newell argued at the end of his life, had paid too much 

attention to the arid West; the farms of the humid United States were more than 

adequate to feed the entire nation. The crops produced on government projects 

represented less than 1 percent of the value of all farm products raised in the 

United States and only 6 percent of the value of the arid region’s output. There 

was no demand for new homes and—given farm mechanization, the labor-saving 

value of electricity, and the continuing migration to cities—the family farm had 

no future in the West. Newell died an embittered man.

Floyd Dominy

 Floyd Dominy has gotten a bad rap from historians. Those of you 

who have read Marc Reisner’s Cadillac Desert: The American West and its 

Disappearing Water (1986) know what I mean. In that book, Reisner likened 

Dominy to “a Mafi a shakedown artist running a recalcitrant store owner out of the 

neighborhood,”

“A terrorist” who “ended his term [as commissioner] as a zealot, blind 

to injustice, locked in a mad-dog campaign against the environmental 

movement and the whole country over a pair of Grand Canyon dams 

[Bridge and Marble Canyon].”

Dominy spent many hours talking with Reisner, and one would expect that 

Reisner would have developed some respect for the former commissioner’s 

honesty and accessibility, if not his policies and values. But Cadillac Desert

is fi lled with asides like the following: “At eleven o’clock one morning in the 

spring of 1980, Dominy, fl oating on three gin and juices and powered by two 

cigars, was in a mood to talk....” Historians are no less given to the love of 

salacious details than the public at large—perhaps because we are so immersed in 

the “petty details” that Newell found distasteful as chair of the civil engineering 

department at the University of Illinois. In any case, Reisner knew that sex sells 

and that Floyd Dominy had huge sexual appetites. And, in fairness to Reisner, he 

thought that Dominy’s sexual exploits had a bearing on the policies he followed 

as commissioner. “In the end, it wasn’t any of this that did Dominy in,” Reisner 

wrote.

It was his innate self-destructiveness, which manifested itself most 

blatantly in an undisguised preoccupation with lust. His sexual exploits 

were legendary. They were also true. Whenever and wherever he 

traveled, he wanted a woman for the night. He had no shame about 

propositioning anyone. He would tell a Bureau employee with a bad 

marriage that his wife was a hell of a good lay, and the employee 

wouldn’t know whether he was joking or not.
644

 Well, my purpose is not to deny these charges, only to say that while 

historians have the obligation to look at the seamy side of people, they also have 

the obligation to look at them whole. Tempting as it is to turn people into cartoon 

fi gures, and history into a series of simple morality plays, the past is much more 

complicated than that. So let me show you another side of Floyd Dominy, a 

part of his life that infl uenced the decisions he made just as much as Frederick 

Newell’s childhood turned him into a man who couldn’t say no and led him to 

treat farmers on government irrigation projects with disdain and contempt. 

 Unlike Newell, Dominy was born on a farm near Hastings, Nebraska. In 

1958 in hearings before Congress on the 160-acre limitation, Dominy talked about 

what it was like to grow up on such a farm.

I want you to know that... it took [my grandfather] from 1876 to 1919 

to pay off the $2,000 that he borrowed to make the trek to [Nebraska 

from Illinois] to provide his home on a public land homestead.... [W]hen 

my own father reached maturity he took a homestead in the same area, 

160 acres. On that farm 6 of us children were born and 6 of us reached 

maturity on the subsistence of that 160-acre homestead. We had outside 

plumbing. We did not have deep freezers, automobiles, [or] school 

buses coming by the door. We walked to school in the mud. We had... 

one decent set of clothes to wear to town on Saturday. Otherwise we 

wore overalls. We didn’t have the modern things that a farm today must 

provide.

26.2. Floyd E. Dominy at Hoover Dam in 1963 during his term as Commissioner of 

Reclamation.
645

 Dominy attended the University of Wyoming, but unlike Newell he 

majored in agricultural economics, not engineering. He graduated in 1933, not a 

good year to begin a career, and after a brief stint at teaching school he became 

a county agricultural extension agent in Campbell County, Wyoming, which was 

grazing country.

I saw there the [bitter] fruits of the 640-acre Homestead Act....I want 

everyone in this room and I want this committee to know that most 

of those 640 acres could not sustain a family under any reasonable 

economic conditions that have prevailed then or now.

In short, by the time he became commissioner, Dominy’s experience growing up 

in Hastings, Nebraska, and his later experience in Wyoming suggested that the 

small farm was a thing of the past, given the standard of living of most Americans 

in the 1950s and 1960s. (Ironically, he ran a family farm himself in Virginia, 

twenty miles from the capitol, after he came to Washington in 1938. He started 

with 32 acres and eventually secured 380 acres, but thought that even that was 

inadequate to make a living.) Soon before he left offi ce in 1969, he observed in a 

speech that

The general trend now is... the abandonment of family-sized farms and 

the deterioration of small communities into ghost towns. In our modern 

mechanized and high-speed civilization, I see no major changes likely in 

this trend.

 Floyd Dominy was the fi rst commissioner to make this admission, at least 

publicly. Contrary to what some historians have suggested, the Reclamation 

Bureau did not abandon the family farm in the 1930s and 1940s. To be sure, the 

agricultural depression of the 1930s, the growth of cities like Los Angeles, and 

World War II contributed to the decline of the rural West. But the bureau built 

many small water projects during the 1930s and 1940s, and at the end of World 

War II the twin goals of federal reclamation—promoting the family farm and 

encouraging economic growth—remained intact.

 In 1946 Commissioner of Reclamation Michael Straus predicted that 

within fi ve years the bureau would open more than 45,000 family-sized farms on 

4,000,000 acres. This was no small undertaking. The bureau promised to provide 

as many homes to returning veterans and their families as it had created on all 

its projects during the four decades prior to World War II. The fi rst farms would 

be on the Klamath, Yakima, Minidoka, and Shoshone projects, but the single 

largest project would be in the Columbia River Basin, where the bureau hoped to 

have at least 400,000 acres ready for settlement by 1950 or 1951. “The ultimate 

objective of the Bureau of Reclamation and its staff,” Reclamation Era reported, 

“is to develop the West through the creation of permanent family farms on Federal 

Reclamation projects.”
646

 The Columbia Basin Project had many objectives, perhaps too many. It 

was designed both to provide new land for farmers driven off the Great Plains by 

the dust storms of the 1930s and to prevent a post-war drain of population away 

from the Pacifi c Northwest during the reconversion to a peacetime economy. 

Not only would the construction of dams and canals in central Washington state 

provide jobs, but the farms might provide homes to displaced workers. By the 

end of the 1950s, however, it was clear that the Columbia Basin Project would 

not resurrect the bureau’s mission to create small farms in the West. At the end 

of World War II, the Reclamation Bureau had hoped to create 10,000 to 20,000 

new homesteads in the Columbia Basin, but only 2,300 had been opened by 1958. 

Nor was that land settled by young men looking for a fresh start; the median 

age of those who took up farms in the Columbia Basin Project was 40. Nor did 

it provide homes for those who had abandoned farms on the Great Plains; most 

settlers came from Washington or Utah. And these were not poor people. Over 

half had family assets of $20,000 or more, and one-third did not live on their 

farms. In 1968, the Reclamation Bureau washed its hands of the project, turning 

it over to three irrigation districts. According to the historian Paul Pitzer, had the 

bureau fi nished the project, the results would have been even worse. “It would 

be a collection of family farms ranging from forty to eighty acres, none of them 

capable of supplying their owners with a satisfactory living. The area would be a 

rural slum. It is for the best that this aspect of the project failed.”

 Little wonder, given his background, that Floyd Dominy showed scant 

interest either in the family farm or in maintaining the 160-acre limitation on 

cheap water. When federal reclamation began in 1902, Dominy recognized, it 

was a subsistence program, but by the 1960s, the rural standard of living had 

changed dramatically. “[In 1902] Those guys didn’t think a farmer should have 

indoor plumbing or electric lights, for heavens sakes,” Dominy observed in his 

oral history. “They didn’t think their kids should go to college or to the dentist. 

They were subsistence farmers. That’s all a farmer was supposed to do in 1902 

was live, exist. Not prosper, but exist. That’s the origin of the 160-acre limit and 

all that crap.”

 There were, of course, other forces working to end the era of dam-building 

besides the decline or erosion of the traditional family farm ideal. Those who 

have studied Dominy’s reign as commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation have 

focused on the debate over the construction of Glen Canyon, Bridge, and Marble 

dams and the Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan. They have regarded the Reclamation 

Bureau as far more powerful, and certainly far more autonomous, than it really 

was. Like all institutions of government, the bureau was subject to historical 

trends over which it had little or no control.

 To begin with, big dams looked far less attractive to Americans—and 

even to many Americans living in the West—by the 1960s. Traditionally, one of 

the strongest arguments against such dams had been that it made more sense to 

move people to water than water to people. Far more water was lost in transit, 
647

through seepage and evaporation, than was delivered at the end of the pipeline 

or ditch. Now many critics of dams began to question whether they represented 

conservation at all. The Sierra Club regarded silt as more than something that 

clogged dams; it was also a symptom of the Reclamation Bureau’s refusal 

to cooperate with those agencies that tried to protect the land. “[T]he real 

management of rivers begins in the headwaters and on the hilltops...through good 

land management,” a writer observed in 1950 in the Sierra Club Bulletin. For 

example, both the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation refused to 

cooperate with the efforts of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service 

to fi ght soil erosion.

 In the 1950s and 1960s, environmental organizations did not simply argue 

that dams were bad for the environment, they also argued that dams represented 

an outmoded, expensive technology. In the 1930s, part of the appeal of high 

dams was that they would last as long as the pyramids. But that changed during 

the Cold War, when the very dams that provided the power to run many of the 

nation’s defense industries became potential targets for Russian missiles and 

bombs. Many of the West’s cities could be as easily paralyzed by disrupting their 

water and power systems, or by the fl oods that would result from bringing down 

one of these gigantic structures, as from the detonation of a bomb over the city 

itself. And even more important than the danger from the destruction of dams was 

the promise of nuclear power. As a writer in the Sierra Club Bulletin observed in 

1948,

we may live to see the regulated use of atomic power a few years from 

now. If we learn to use it properly... we won’t need to harness all the 

rivers of the land....At least we might wait a little while and see what 

happens before we drown our greatest canyons and destroy forever so 

much natural beauty.

 David Brower suggested that atomic energy might make high dams 

obsolete long before they fi lled with silt. He asked, “Is it not time to reverse the 

trend of centralization—of concentrating tremendously remunerative strategic 

targets: of building larger projects to enable more people to live in less space[?]” 

In the middle of the 1960s, during debate over the proposed Rampart Dam in 

Alaska, a Corps of Engineers structure that would have created a reservoir larger 

than Lake Erie, a writer in Living Wilderness pointed out that any one of fi ve 

atomic generators produced by the General Electric Company could produce 

as much power as the proposed hydroelectric plants at Rampart at half the 

installation cost. And, she estimated, the price of the power to consumers would 

be just as cheap. 

 By the 1960s and 1970s, hydroelectric power no longer seemed as 

attractive as it did during the 1920s or 1930s. California was a prime example.

In 1910 falling water produced most of the electricity used in the state. Steam 

power was used mainly to meet peak demands. But the increasing effi ciency of 

steam generators, the falling prices of petroleum and natural gas, and the fact that 
648

such plants could be located near large cities, made steam turbines increasingly 

attractive. In 1920 hydroelectric power constituted 37 percent of the power 

generated within the United States. That fi gure fell to 33 percent in 1940, and 

despite the large hydroelectric plants opened during World War II, even in 1945 

only 36 percent of the nation’s power came from hydroelectric plants.

 Neither waste nor the growing cost of water projects explain the end of 

the dam-building era any more than the declining number of good dam sites.

After all, water projects had always been wasteful, and nineteenth century river 

and harbor improvements had been a method to distribute surplus federal money 

as much as a way to improve transportation. Nor did this change. Many of the 

water projects undertaken during the 1930s were “wasteful” by nature because 

their primary purpose was to provide jobs. Nor were agricultural subsidies new. 

But after World War II the West and South benefi tted more from water projects 

than other parts of the country. In 1902 federal reclamation had been sold to 

Congress partly as compensation to the West for river and harbor bills that mainly 

benefi tted states around the Great Lakes and along the eastern seaboard. But the 

historian Tim Palmer estimates that from 1950 to 1976, the Northeast received 

only 6 percent of the money spent on water projects by the Corps of Engineers 

and Bureau of Reclamation, while the South received 28 percent and the West 

about half. In effect, residents of the East and Midwest subsidized the growth 

of cities in the West at the expense of those in the northeast, as crops grown in 

California and Arizona received greater per acre subsidies than crops raised in 

other parts of the nation.

 By the late 1960s, it was very diffi cult to argue that the West 

needed or deserved more federal aid than other parts of the country. The region’s 

economy may not have been as diversifi ed as that of the East, but the importance 

of grazing, mining, lumbering and other extractive industries had declined as the 

West urbanized. Moreover, the Vietnam War cut into the budgets of virtually all 

domestic programs, and the lessening of tensions between the United States and 

Soviet Union reduced the appeal of building dams to power the defense industries 

of the West.

 During the 1960s Dominy 

was extremely effective in squeezing 

money out of Congress. But he was 

successful not just because western 

politicians were effective at winning 

the pork, but also because Dominy 

used a wide variety of effective 

arguments when he testifi ed before 

Congressional committees. Federal 

reclamation projects, Dominy argued, 

produced many of the nation’s 

vegetables, particularly during 26.3. Loading cantaloupes in a fi eld on the 

Yuma Project in 1958.
649

the winter months when crops could be grown only in the warm and sunny 

Southwest. In 1965 he pointed out that 95 percent of the lettuce, 70 percent of the 

cantaloupes, 52 percent of the sweet corn, 50 percent of the carrots, and 

44 percent of the caulifl ower came from land watered by the Reclamation Bureau. 

After the war, nutritionists argued that Americans should diversify their diet, 

and by providing fruits and vegetables grown in the winter, federal reclamation 

improved the health of all Americans. Moreover, in testimony before Congress 

 Dominy repeatedly pointed out that reclamation ministered to the health of the 

soul as well as the body. The ten most-visited bureau reservoirs attracted more 

vacationers per year than the ten most heavily used national parks and thus took 

much of the pressure off the parks. In 1967 he observed that in the previous 

year more than four million “visitor days” had been spent on Lake Mead and 

only two and one-half million at the most heavily visited National Park, Grand 

Teton. Dominy also claimed that irrigating land drove up its value, along with 

crop values. Increasing wealth expanded the tax base of communities and the 

quality of their schools and other public services. “[T]he income tax increases 

as a result of our project growth is greater each year than the total investment in 

reclamation,” he noted.

 Above all, Dominy warned that the nation had to prepare to feed a 

much larger population. The nation’s population increased by 15 percent in 

the 1940s and another 20 percent in the 1950s, and the number of people in the 

West increased even faster than that. Meanwhile, millions of acres of marginal 

farmland in the South and Midwest were retired from production after World War 

II, and Dominy estimated that half the nation’s farms were “marginal.” In any 

case, at the end of his term as commissioner Dominy predicted that

by 1980, the Bureau of Reclamation will be able to go it alone, 

continuing the program solely out of income. But as in any business 

venture, it is necessary to spend money to make money. And to get 

back on schedule, it will be important... to step up the program as the 

committee has indicated just as soon as the present budget emergency is 

over.

 From 1903 to 1950 the Bureau of Reclamation spent two billion dollars 

on its projects. It spent another two billion from 1951 to 1961, and the bureau’s 

construction appropriations peaked at $300 million in 1964. In fi scal year 1965, 

the budget began to shrink and when Dominy stepped down as commissioner 

in 1969 he observed that “water development is being slighted.... I think our 

national priorities are not being assessed properly, and that we are spending far 

too much on space and other elements. If we need to cut back, we should not cut 

back on the one thing that keeps America strong, its development of resources.”

 The last major project authorization came in 1968, a year before Dominy 

left offi ce. That was for the Central Arizona Project, the aqueduct that stretches 

from the Colorado River to Tucson, via Phoenix. For a man who grew up on 

the plains of Nebraska, a man who knew rural poverty fi rst-hand, the American 
650

West of 1969 was a far better place to live because of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Dominy genuinely believed that the dams and canals built by the bureau had 

improved the living standards of the region’s rural and urban residents. Many of 

us would argue that that economic growth came at a high, even an intolerable, 

price to the environment, Native Americans, and to other groups that did not 

share in the wealth produced by the projects. But that story has been well-told.

What I’ve tried to suggest is that while the personalities and values of individual 

commissioners certainly helped shape the policies they followed, neither Newell 

nor Dominy had the power or autonomy attributed to them by many historians.

Sometimes the bureau responded effectively to change, as it did in building the 

high dams in the 1930s and 1940s, but much was beyond its control, from the 

emergence of a consumer economy and increasing living standards in the 1920s 

to the Vietnam War and the stagnant American economy of the 1970s. Just as 

Newell and Dominy were men of a particular time and place, so was the dambuilding impulse that drove the bureau during the fi rst seven decades of its life.

Donald J. Pisani is professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and 

holds the Merrick Chair of Western American History there. He has published 

numerous books and articles, many of which are closely related to the history 

of Reclamation, e.g.: “Confl ict Over Conservation: The Reclamation Service 

and the Tahoe Contract,” The Western Historical Quarterly 10 (April 1979), 

167-90; “Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the 

Nineteenth Century,” The Western Historical Quarterly, Volume 18, Number 1 

(January 1987), pp. 15-38; “Federal Reclamation and Water Rights in Nevada,” 

Agricultural History 51 (July 1977), 540-58; “Forests and Reclamation, 

1891-1911,” Forest and Conservation History 37 (April 1993), 68; From the 

Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California and the 

West, 1850-1931 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California 

Press, 1984); “George Maxwell, the Railroads, and American Land Policy, 

1899-1904,” Pacifi c Historical Review 63 (May 1994), 177-202; To Reclaim 

a Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy, 1848-1902 (Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press, 1992); Water and American Government: The 

Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West, 1902-1935 (Berkeley 

and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002); Water, Land, and Law in 

the West (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1996).

Endnotes

1. Dr. Pisani gave this talk to a plenary dinner session of the history symposium at the 

University of Nevada—Las Vegas.
651

One Hundred Years of the Bureau of Reclamation:

Looking from the Outside In

By:

Patricia Nelson Limerick

 The Bureau of Reclamation is a federal agency very much identifi ed with 

the American West, thanks to its focus on water management in arid lands. This 

situation offers wonderful opportunities to historians. A review of the agency’s 

annual reports over the last century offers its own fi ne microcosm of changes in 

Western life, economy, and ideology. The offi cials who have written the Bureau’s 

offi cial reports have been something close to seismic monitors for changes in the 

settlement patterns of the West, as well as in American attitudes toward the West. 

As many others have observed, the rise of urban and suburban populations in the 

West registers clearly in the changing mandate of the Bureau, as hydroelectric 

power and municipal and industrial water supply have steadily pushed irrigation 

to the side. Similarly, shifts in popular attitudes toward nature are expertly 

mirrored in the Bureau’s reports, even if they are not always as well refl ected in 

the Bureau’s practice.

 If we look at the most recent report, for the year 2000, the words “water 

conservation” are used repeatedly. Quite a number of passages discuss the 

Bureau’s efforts to aid wildlife and preserve or restore its habitat. The Bureau 

reaffi rms its commitment to act in support of the goal of “no net loss of wetlands” 

(though this might be considered by some to be a textbook case of closing 

the barn door after departure of the horses). It declares an enthusiasm for the 

“watershed approach,” incorporating “the ecology and interests of an entire basin 

rather than using a piecemeal approach.” The phrase “environmentally and 

economically sound” is also a popular one.1

 I suppose one could say that we could and should see the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s rhetorical streak of born-again environmentalism as proof that 

“even the Devil can quote Scripture” (a proposition that hardly needed any more 

proof). Still, I would rephrase the proposition slightly, to refl ect the constraints 

under which federal agencies have operated and still operate: “The Devil had 

better quote Scripture, and quote it often, if He doesn’t want any more litigation, 

or any more trouble with Congress, the electorate, and environmental groups than 

He already has.”

 And yet the change in the Bureau’s operations has been as enormous 

as the change in its offi cial rhetoric. As the 1979 Report said, “the Service’s 

[the Bureau had been briefl y renamed the Water and Power Resources Service] 

mission has evolved from a single-purpose irrigation function to a multipurpose 

water resource development program.” The 1989 Report declared that “emphasis 

is now shifting to activities that respond to the West’s current water needs—

such as environmental protection, water quality and salinity control, wetlands 
652

management, water conservation, groundwater management, drought relief, 

system optimization, and related research work.” As the 1997 Report said, the 

Bureau’s mission has “moved from development to management” of water. All 

of these remarks can be read as coded ways of saying, “We don’t build big dams 

anymore, though we still have responsibility for quite a few of them.” Bureau 

employees have taken up the use of the term “mission creep,” a phrase that 

could produce many amusing guesses as to its meaning among those who do not 

frequent agency circles (images of Father Serra on a stealth approach might come 

to mind), to summarize the proliferation and spread of their activities: the dambuilding and irrigation-water-supplying agency has “evolved” into furnishing 

cities and suburbs with water, providing hydroelectric power, managing recreation 

sites, designing techniques to restore water quality, trying to accommodate the 

needs of wildlife, and monitoring and shoring up old dams. In fact, rather than 

the creeping approach of new missions, the bigger story of change for Bureau 

staff has involved the mission that crept away from them: the building of big 

dams.2

 The shift from construction to maintenance is, itself, one of the most 

poignant dimensions of the Bureau’s “change over time” (and yes, I do think that 

federal agencies have poignant dimensions—plenty of them). Offi cial discussion 

of dam safety accelerated after the 1976 collapse of the Teton Dam, and the 

passage of the 1978 Dam Safety Act. In many recent reports, this observation 

has appeared: “More than half of Reclamation’s facilities are now more than 50 

years old.” As the 2000 Report summed this up, “Reclamation has 457 dams and 

dikes. Of these 358 would endanger lives if a failure occurred.” In the agency’s 

early years, Reclamation Service offi cials liked to use the adjective “permanent” 

and the adverb “permanently.” “The works to be built by the Government,” the 

Third Annual Report declared, “should be permanent in character,” and thus “in 

striking contrast with those built by private enterprise, since the latter are largely 

temporary in character.” But earth shifts; concrete wears away; silt accumulates; 

ditches and canals leak and seep; hydroelectric production facilities become 

obsolete. The fact that reclamation structures come with such constrained life 

spans makes one wonder exactly what meaning the word “permanence” held for 

Reclamation engineers a century ago. But the fact that the structures that Newell 

and his immediate successors built now need regular examination and restoration 

is its own poignant testimony that, even if the founders of the Bureau of 

Reclamation did not do much to reckon with the passage of time, the passage of 

time has been pretty merciless in its reckoning with them. (One striking historical 

irony involves some dams that are now in need of repair and reconfi guration, but, 

since they are now on the Historic Registry, they can only be rehabilitated in ways 

that visually match their appearance at the time of construction.)3

 When it comes to a reckoning with time, centennials, sesquicentennials, 

quincentenaries, and all the other “metric moments,” to use Greg Dening’s 

phrase, do provide a distinctive opportunity. Given the ways in which the history 

of the Bureau of Reclamation echoes and mirrors the history of the American 
653

West, this particular centennial offers a particularly rich opportunity for metric 

refl ection. Richard White’s famous phrase, describing the American West as “the 

kindergarten of the state” (the place where historians can watch the process as 

the federal government invented and deployed its domestic powers) provides a 

useful framework for considering the origins of this particular agency. While I 

have a few reservations about the use of the human life cycle as a metaphor for 

federal agencies, its value and applicability are also unmistakable. The phase we 

call “adolescence,” for instance, is as wild a ride for federal agencies and their 

associates as it is for young people and their associates. And even people who are 

not fond of metaphors and analogies would have to admit that the Reclamation 

Service had something that seems well-characterized as a “rough childhood.”

 For the last decade or so, I have watched federal resource management 

agencies the way other people watch sports teams. Watching a federal institution 

maneuver through time and changing contexts has a fascination that may escape 

others, but it still captivates and enchants those who are susceptible to it. On a 

number of occasions, I have had the opportunity to speak to employees of federal 

agencies, refl ecting on the relationship between their organization’s history and 

their own, poignant contemporary dilemmas. To prepare for these occasions, I 

have read offi cial newsletters and reports, and thus I have come to believe that 

you can learn a lot about an organization by reading, with critical intensity, its 

offi cial publications. What to others may seem boilerplate often provides a very 

useful and revealing orientation for a speaker or presenter who wants to invite an 

audience into an exploration of the connections between an organization’s past 

and present. At the least, offi cial publications display what the agency’s offi cials 

were willing to put on public record. While there is always some chance that 

this material will consist of fl uff and self-promotion, there is also the fact that 

federal agencies are in the business of courting public approval, and thus these 

texts reveal the leadership’s assessment of public mood and preference. So, at the 

very least, these offi cial publications tell us about the organization’s perception 

of changing constituent or electorate tastes; when, for instance, mantras of 

environmental sensitivity move into publications of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

you know that an offi cial bow toward preserving the earth and its resources has 

become very mainstream indeed.

 Now it is also true that I rarely have other historians in the room when I 

am engaged in these exercises in the “applied humanities,” and so the occasion 

today is a somewhat unnerving one. And yet it is also a valuable occasion; as 

Don Pisani and I anticipate the Reclamation Centennial Conference in Las Vegas 

this June, this OAH session offers itself as a useful strategy session, or maybe a 

dress rehearsal or trial run. Most important for me, it provides an occasion for 

appraising the “social utility” of looking at the past, in this case at an agency’s 

origins, as a foundation for thinking productively and freshly about our current 

dilemmas in Western resource use. At the core of what I have been trying to 

do, when speaking to professionals in various federal resource management 

agencies, is to try to come up with a “better quality of hindsight,” to see if there is 
654

a way to bring the past to bear on the present in a way that suggests possibilities 

and encourages fl exibility. Our discussion today should provide me with an 

illuminating consideration of the question of whether this idea of “a better quality 

of hindsight” is more (or less) than a pipedream.

 Reading annual reports from the Bureau of Reclamation may not strike 

everyone as the most promising way to explore possibilities or encourage 

fl exibility, but I found the experience often engaging, and sometimes hypnotizing 

and entrancing. It is true that people’s literary tastes can change over time; I 

used to read a lot more novels, or at least want to read a lot more novels, until I 

had to face up to the fact that what we call “nonfi ction” is entirely oversupplied 

with improbable characters and wild plot twists. Is there any reason why I would 

need to rely on a novelist’s efforts at creativity and originality, when I can simply 

compare and contrast the “change over time” represented, for instance, in the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s late twentieth century desires to increase “diversity” in 

its work force in contrast to its Mongolian–excluding origins?4

 The success of the Reclamation Service, its founding Chief Engineer 

Frederick Newell said, required men—specifi cally, “an excellent class of welleducated, effi cient, and energetic young men,” and the word “white” was the 

understood and implicit additional adjective in that phrase. While it is true that 

one would not welcome the assignment of explaining to Newell or any other time 

traveler what a turn-of-this-century federal agency really means by its desire for 

“diversity,” nonetheless, early twentieth century Reclamation records are their 

own exemplary case studies in “white maleness” as the unmarked category, the 

category entirely conceived of as the norm. The 1902 Act banned the use of 

“Mongolian labor”; three Reclamation projects were suffi ciently short of settlers 

that they were made into Japanese American relocation camps during World War 

Two; and Indian tribal resources sometimes fi gured in Reclamation projects, but 

otherwise race and ethnicity did not register in the reports, because the category of 

“human beings of signifi cance to Reclamation’s mission” so clearly came with an 

exclusive racial defi nition.5

 Review the reports of the early Reclamation Service, and no reason 

presents itself to doubt the racial exclusivity of the newly founded agency and its 

intended benefi ciaries. But the reports do lead one to question an equally wellestablished assumption: the assumption that the agency’s founders were men of 

arrogance, over-confi dence, and swaggering self-congratulation.

 “The engineers who staffed the Reclamation Service tended to view 

themselves as a godlike class performing hydrologic miracles for grateful 

simpletons who were content to sit in the desert and raise fruit”: that is Marc 

Reisner’s characterization of the agency in his famed 1986 book, Cadillac Desert.

Here is Donald Worster’s portrait in 1985 of the Bureau’s powers: “In its fi rst few 

embryonic [a word that offers an interesting variation on the life-style metaphor] 
655

years, when thanks to Congressman Newlands’ efforts it was free to use the 

money from western land sales as it saw fi t, the Service was a power unto itself.”6

 To read these characterizations and then to turn to the fi rst reports of 

the Service is to engage in an episode of general puzzlement. “Godlike class 

performing hydrologic miracles”? OK, maybe this was a very, very clever 

godlike class, cleverer than most of the sort, who made a strategic choice to write 

offi cial reports that would throw readers, past and present, off their trail. Too 

much swaggering and boasting might confi rm hostile judgments and unmask 

excesses of power; would not an intelligent and foresighted godlike class choose, 

instead, to put on a show of manifestly unfelt modesty and humility? Well, 

maybe, but the tone, style, and content of the 

fi rst decade or two of Annual Reports simply 

do not bring the words “godlike” or “power 

unto itself” to mind.

 Anyone who has ever founded an 

organization, and tried to report positively on 

its beginnings, must surrender to empathy on 

the very fi rst page of the First Annual Report.

The Newlands Act passed on June 17, 1902; a 

few days later, some men who worked for the 

Hydrographic Branch of the U.S. Geological 

Survey became the Reclamation Service; a 

few months passed, and it was time to report 

to Congress. Here is what Secretary of the 

Interior E. A. Hitchcock said in his letter of 

transmittal for the report:

In view of the short time that has elapsed since the passage of said 

act, it is impossible to show in this report “the quantity and location 

of the lands which can be irrigated” from the various projects under 

consideration, or “the cost of works in process of construction, as well as 

those which have been completed,” for the reason that no works are now 

in process of construction or have been completed.

 I like this passage for a couple of reasons: it is honest; no one could call 

it arrogant; it has the kind of Lewis Carroll quality that sometimes characterizes 

federal communications (“we are writing to report that we have nothing to 

report”); and anyone, with responsibility for an institution or organization, who 

has received a grant and almost immediately received instructions to report on the 

outcomes and results of the grant, simply has to know how Secretary Hitchcock 

and Chief Engineer Newell felt. Under these circumstances, “hitting the ground 

running” can easily feel like the equivalent of “hitting the ground tottering.”7

 And so the report for 1902 is fi lled with descriptions of fi eld work 

undertaken, surveys under way, and investigations of prospective projects, as well 

27.1. Offi cial Portrait of Secretrary 

of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock.
656

as apologetic statements on the order of this one: “The fact that it is impossible to 

state in advance the plans which ultimately may be recommended for reclamation 

will result in great disappointment to many persons.” When it came to the 

selection of sites for projects, the Reclamation Service and land-and-profi toriented members of the western public were engaged in a great competitive 

guessing game, with the one certain outcome that a lot of people were going to 

be angry at the agency. There was, for example, the problem of people who were 

trying to anticipate rising land values from reclamation:

The fact that lands have been temporarily set aside is, in the eyes 

of many, an indication that these lands will be reclaimed; and 

although every attempt has been made to warn individuals of the 

futility of fi ling upon these lands under the homestead law, yet they 

persist in taking up the land on the bare possibility that the surveys 

and examinations will show their lands to be reclaimable...It is 

an unfortunate condition which apparently cannot be corrected at 

present.

What this passage, along with many others in the First Report, makes clear is that 

from the time of its creation, from before the time of its creation, the Reclamation 

Service was ensnarled and entangled in history, tied up in the consequences 

of actions that preceded any effort on its part to take control of western water 

development.8

 The Service began as a unit within the U.S. Geological Survey, which had 

already had twenty years of complicated institutional life itself, and its fi rst Chief 

Engineer, Frederick Newell, had been a career employee of the USGS himself. 

As Newell put it, 

The operations were greatly facilitated by the fact that the work 

was not new to the men in charge, and that they were able to 

follow the methods and precedents established by the Geological 

Survey during twenty years of fi eld work.

“The plan,” Newell said further, was “to gradually enlarge and increase the 

number of parties in the fi eld without otherwise disturbing the current operations.” 

[“To gradually enlarge” is totally par for the course; it is a plain and simple 

historical fact that the Reclamation Service has, throughout its century of 

existence, led in the national campaign to eliminate active verbs and to fearlessly 

and shamelessly split infi nitives, though I do not believe that this mission was 

spelled out in its enabling act.]9

 Maybe I romanticize the charms of the true “fresh start” or “blank slate,” 

but the Reclamation Service never had such a thing. If the Reclamation Service 

was an “infant” bureaucracy, its cradle was another bureaucracy. From the 
657

beginning it was living with its in-laws, operating within existing protocols, never 

having a clear moment of launching itself into the stream of time.

 In a similar way, the Reclamation Service was going to inherit a burden 

from history in the form of a tangle of land and water claims already imposed 

on the West’s resources. As Newell said in the fi rst report, many western lands 

had “passed, in whole or in part, into the hands of private owners.” Grants to 

railroads, as well as Spanish land grants, divided up the land; “homesteads and 

other entries” had been made “along banks of rivers or around springs or other 

sources of water supply.” “The problem of reclamation,” as Newell summed it 

up, “is therefore not simply one of dealing with public land, but is complicated by 

private ownership.” “Complicated” puts it mildly.10

 Here we get to the territory of greatest interest in this First Report, 

and perhaps in the whole history of Reclamation. The results of irrigation, as 

conducted by private enterprise, Newell said, were “not wholly satisfactory, as far 

as the larger interests of the country are concerned”; “the larger public interests 

have not been guarded, and the making of homes has not been carried on to the 

extent which the wisest statesmanship requires.” Here is the very interesting 

dynamic present from the start: at the foundation of federal reclamation was a 

stern critique of private enterprise, and especially of the speculative element of 

American capitalistic practice. And yet federal reclamation was itself supposed 

to run like a business (the repayment provision was the keystone of that idea), 

and it was, moreover, supposed to serve the mission of creating and sustaining 

entrepreneurial family farms. If you took the leash off and let Newell’s line of 

thought proceed, he was on his way to a very forceful statement that private 

enterprise had made a mess of land and water development in the West. 

Reclamation would, in the words of the Report, have to “accommodate earlier 

private developments,” but in the muddle these developments had created, even 

such seemingly simple matters as distinguishing, in order to allocate water rights, 

“between bona fi de and fi ctitious landowners” was “extremely diffi cult.”11

 So take the restraints off Frederick Newell, and you’d have a recruit for 

socialism, or at the least, for Henry George’s Single Tax campaign against the 

“unearned increment”? Maybe. But there is no question that the fi rst Chief 

Engineer of the Reclamation Service had good reason for ambivalence about the 

workings of American private enterprise. And yet his agency and its staff would 

be judged by the success with which they served, supported, and won the approval 

of practitioners of the very economic system that had created the problems they 

were trying to rectify. This was a tension that would persist through the agency’s 

history; during the Clinton years, for instance, the reports are well-supplied with 

declarations that the Bureau must be more “business-like” in its operations, and 

provide “customer” satisfaction to the American people, and the big question, 

of the trustworthiness and effi ciency of private enterprise in water usage and 

management, remained securely stored under the carpet.
658

The crypto-critique of private enterprise in the early reports catches the 

attention, but what strikes the reader most intensely is how poorly Newell’s stance 

in his ten years of reporting fi ts the word arrogant or even the word confi dent. Of 

course, six months after the passage of the Reclamation Act, having to report that 

there was nothing yet to report would hardly provide the occasion for a display of 

pride and institutional self-congratulations. Still, over the next ten years, the annual 

reports retained a quality of modesty and even humility, culminating in the Eleventh

Annual Report summing up the Reclamation Service’s fi rst decade and setting some 

sort of record for frank admission of mistakes and misconceptions in a governmental 

statement.

 In the Second Report, Newell described, with considerable frankness, 

the very big difference between passing a law and creating an agency: “In an 

undertaking of this kind there must be encountered many unforeseen contingencies 

and complications when the general law is applied to actual conditions.” In the 

Third Report, Newell took his admission of these diffi culties a step further: “Nearly 

all the projects under consideration here are relatively large and involve engineering 

diffi culties or have complications arising from private or vested interests. Nowhere 

is it possible to go forward untrammeled.” It is possible to read this as merely a 

statement of frustration, rather than one of modesty and honest admission of 

limitation, and it is also possible to read it as the quintessential bureaucratic defense: 

“Don’t blame us; we’re trying hard; we may not have accomplished much; but 

our circumstances have been very diffi cult.” Still, it would be hard to describe the 

statement as arrogant, over-confi dent, self-congratulatory, or “godlike.”12

 In the Third Report, a substantial list of decisions made by the Secretary of 

the Interior involving the interpretation of the 1902 law indicated that, just three 

years into the agency’s operations, the complexity of managing human beings was 

entering into the picture as the equivalent in challenge to managing rivers. Within 

another year or two, the annual report had added a section called “Litigation,” listing 

all the lawsuits fi led against the Reclamation Service, giving another indication that 

the complications of dealing with human beings were adding signifi cantly to the 

challenge of dealing with rivers. “The engineering side,” Newell acknowledged 

in the Third Report, “does not offer usually as great causes of delay as the legal or 

human element. There are almost everywhere land titles to be adjusted, rights of way 

to be secured, and claims to water to be considered.”13

 By the time of the Eleventh Annual Report, summarizing the fi rst ten years of 

the Service’s experience, perplexity over how best to deal with “the human element” 

produced a remarkably frank report, cataloguing the misapprehensions that had 

characterized the beginnings of Reclamation. “The most diffi cult of the problems are 

not those of engineering nor of construction,” the opening of the report said clearly, 

“but those having to do with the human side—namely, the attracting or securing of 

the type of farmer who can and will make a success by intensive agriculture.” As 

many others have noted, Newell was mad at the project settlers, and indeed held them 

responsible for most of his agency’s problems.14
659

 But not solely responsible—here, again, the frankness of a section of 

the Report called “Fallacies Entertained” gives one a new respect for the underutilized possibilities of federal reporting. “The fi rst, and perhaps the most 

striking” fallacy embraced by the Service at its founding, Newell reported, was 

the under-estimating of the cost of reclamation, basing estimates on low-budget 

and unreliable pioneer enterprises. “Another of the fallacies,” he said, “was in 

the assumption that as soon as water was provided this [would be the] end of 

necessary expenditures.” On the contrary, once the water was available, there 

was still “the large cost of leveling, subduing, and cultivating the soil.” “It was 

assumed,” moreover, “that the soil was necessarily fertile, not appreciating the 

fact that it frequently lacks the essential elements common in humid regions.”

And “another oversight...was the neglect of full consideration of drainage and 

the importance of providing this to prevent much of the more valuable land from 

being destroyed by swamping or alkali.” And then there was a complex of underrecognized factors involving the production and marketing of crops: 

It was not appreciated also that markets could not be had immediately 

for the crops raised and that much time must be required in developing 

good markets and in discovering those crops or varieties which are 

most profi table under the existing conditions of soil, climate, and 

transportation facilities.

Altogether, the Eleventh Report offers quite a prolonged and searching admission 

of error, and I do not think it has many counterparts in federal reports. In a 

number of ways, it anticipates the critical appraisals offered by historians like 

Donald Worster and Mark Fiege.15

 The admitting of error does shift, at the end, to Newell’s anger at the 

“human element.” “Perhaps most important of all, it was not anticipated how 

diffi cult it would be to secure the right kind of farmers to handle this reclaimed 

land, and to utilize it to advantage.” It was not simply a problem of recruiting, 

though it was certainly that, too. “When the act was discussed in 1901 and 

1902, it was generally assumed that the principal operations would be those of 

constructing the larger reservoirs and main-line canals, leaving to the farmers the 

business of building the distribution system. . . .” Well, no such luck, and Newell 

resorted to pioneer nostalgia to explain what had gone wrong. Earlier pioneers 

had been capable of making their own arrangements to get the water to their 

fi elds, but 

the characteristics of present settlers are in many respects entirely 

different from those of the older pioneer communities; there is not the 

cooperation which ruled the early pioneers; the class of people now 

attracted to the lands are not as capable of adapting themselves to the 

existing conditions and initiating the building of distribution works.

Submitting to this post-frontier failure of vigor and enterprise, the Bureau had 

to “dig canals and laterals aggregating thousands of miles in length,” and to 
660

face the fact that “a great number of structures must be provided which were not 

anticipated—for example, bridges and road crossings.”16

 Like many others, Frederick Newell had learned that the agrarian dream 

was tough on its believers. In many ways, his complaints anticipated the question 

Richard Hofstader would raise: why would we think of American farmers as 

people driven by the intrinsic moral virtue of laboring in the earth, when so 

much of their actual behavior revealed them to be a variety of petty bourgeoisie, 

considerably more committed to market values and “unearned increments” in land 

values, than to moral virtue?

 In his peevishness over the project settlers’ default on pioneer virtue, 

Newell offered his own version of a lament that would become a familiar one 

for many engineers in the twentieth century, whose training had left them illprepared to deal with the human dimensions of the systems they designed. “The 

problem is largely one of human nature,” Newell said in an archetypal version of 

the Engineer’s Lament. “The problem, as now presented, is not so much one of 

engineering, or of soil or climate, as it is of purely human elements.”17

 One could say that the Eleventh Annual Report was its own exercise 

in justifying and rationalizing the expenditure of public resources to produce 

underwhelming results. But the Eleventh Annual Report is still a remarkable 

document for an agency to reckon with in its heritage. In this report, 

Reclamation’s leadership acknowledged and admitted a lot of problems, and 

thereby got the jump on their latter-day critics. Cost over-runs, problems of 

drainage, market uncertainties, diffi culties in crop selection, wasteful applications 

of water, tensions with settlers: all these matters got their “public record” 

exposure barely ten years after the agency’s creation. If you return to the “roots” 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, you fi nd quite an unusual offi cial act of admission 

of error and misconception. The tone of the Eleventh Report was so entirely the 

opposite of bluff and bravado that one almost wishes it could be made available 

as a kind of example, template, or role model for organizations today, both 

governmental agencies and non-profi ts. Rather than a demonstration of excesses 

of confi dence, the Eleventh Report recorded an awareness, not of problems 

foreseen, but problems already manifested and acknowledged.

 “Better quality hindsight” could remind both Reclamation’s employees 

and its critics of this component of the agency’s heritage. The swaggering 

and boasting came later—beginning with the Hoover and Grand Coulee 

dams, and continuing through Floyd Dominy’s time as commissioner. By a 

certain interpretation of chronology, the era of arrogance was the anomaly—

though, heaven knows, an enormously consequential anomaly for the Western 

environment. By that interpretation, when the Bureau shifted in the last decade 

and a half to a more modest agenda, making a degree of peace with the end of 

the era of big dam building, it actually returned to its roots, repossessed its 
661

pre-imperial heritage, and recaptured an older willingness to face up to its 

limitations.

 Of course, this was not the preference of many of its career employees. 

These changes have been matters of political expediency, responses to changing 

moods among voters and members of Congress. In fact, the hundred years of 

the Bureau of Reclamation offer their own focused case study in the American 

West’s awkward relationship with the engineering profession. Engineers—mining 

engineers, dam engineers, electrical engineers, highway engineers, construction 

engineers, civil engineers, automotive engineers, chemical engineers, foresters 

(for some reason not called “forest engineers”)—have played an enormously 

important role in setting up the material circumstances of our comfortable and 

complacent lives. From the point of the view of the engineers themselves, the last 

century of history could be summed up in these terms: for several decades, society 

said to the engineering profession, “Create an infrastructure that will supply us 

abundantly with food, water, electricity, fossil fuels, and roads,” and, when that 

product was delivered, a growing segment of society declared, not its appreciation 

and gratitude, but its disgust with the injuries done to ecosystems, landscapes, 

and environments. Engineers, with their minds on technical matters, have been 

understandably “challenged” when it comes to fi guring out society’s mandate. 

It is easy to understand their frustration with the stance of many of the West’s 

contemporary water and power users, a stance that seems to add up to “Make it 

possible for us to live in comfort, but keep any ugly impacts out of our sight.”

The terms of an honest and fruitful relationship between a democratic society 

and the engineering profession remain, in 2002, very much on the drawing board. 

Lessons drawn from the fi rst hundred years of the Bureau of Reclamation should 

surely play a part in the redesign of that relationship.

Patricia Nelson Limerick heads the Center of the American West at the 

University of Colorado in Boulder. She has co-edited several western history 

volumes; written an infl uential book Legacy of Conquest, and many articles; and 

she is a sought-after speaker both at professional history meetings and outside 

history circles. This paper was originally presented at the annual meeting of the 

Organization of American Historians in April of 2002.

Endnotes

1. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2000 Annual Report, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 

14, and 20. Hereafter cited simply as the year and Annual Report.

2. Letter of Transmittal, 1979 Annual Report, iii; 1989 Annual Report, i; 1997 Annual 

Report, 1.

3. 2000 Annual Report, 12, 29, and 30; Third Annual Report, 1903-1904, Second Edition, 

43.

4. 2000 Annual Report, 119-21.

5. First Annual Report, 1903-1904, 16. References to work with tribes become very central 

indeed in the most recent reports.

6. Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (London: 

Secker & Warburg, 1990), 119; Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth 

of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 170-1.
662

7. First Annual Report for 1902-1903, 11.

8. First Annual Report for 1902-1903, 14.

9. First Annual Report for 1902-1903, 15, 16.

10. First Annual Report for 1902-1903, 17, 18.

11. First Annual Report for 1902-1903, 31-2, 44, 70.

12. Second Annual Report for 1903-1904, 21; Third Report for 1904, 5.

13. Seventh Annual Report for 1907-1908, 11; Third Report for 1904, 44.

14. Eleventh Annual Report, 1911-1912, 2.

15. Eleventh Annual Report, 1911-1912, 2, 3.

16. Eleventh Annual Report, 1911-1912, 3, 5.

17. Eleventh Annual Report, 1911-1912, 16.
663

From the Colorado River to the Nile and Beyond:

A Century of Reclamation’s International Activities

By:

Richard H. Ives

and Robert M. Bochar

 Since the earliest days of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

there has been an international component to what essentially has been a 

domestic program. The development and management of the water resources 

in the western states have been the primary mission of Reclamation since 1902, 

although we have routinely ventured outside our borders to learn from and assist 

other countries. 

 Just as the map of the world has changed dramatically over the course 

of Reclamation’s lifetime, so has the nature of Reclamation’s international 

involvement. Reclamation employees have worked in more than eighty countries, 

either on short-term temporary assignments or as part of longer-term resident 

teams.

 Most of Reclamation’s international activity has been in the semi-arid 

or arid regions of the world, primarily in developing countries. Reclamation’s 

overseas presence has also mirrored America’s international experience, with 

the bulk of the activities occurring since World War II (War). Following the 

War, many large-scale foreign assistance programs emerged for both post-War 

reconstruction and Cold War efforts to combat the spread of communism. 

 Like the domestic program, Reclamation’s international activities have 

evolved to meet changing economic, environmental, and political realities.

Sometimes dramatic or day-to-day changes have occurred in the International 

Program due to sudden shifts in U.S. foreign policy, the vagaries of funding, 

and rapidly changed political conditions in host countries. While we refer to an 

International Program (Program), this may conjure up an image of an orderly 

package of interrelated international activities, however, for the most part, that 

is not the case. The Program comprises an ever-changing array of unrelated 

international activities and projects which are quite diverse in their nature and 

objectives.

 This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive list of Reclamation’s 

international activities; rather, its focus is to highlight some of the important 

trends, key initiatives or projects, and a few of the noteworthy people who have 

been involved with the Program. Although Reclamation has been involved in 

many hundreds of international activities, a list of some of the larger ones is 

available at http://www.usbr.gov/international. Finally, Reclamation’s activities 

related to the international rivers shared with Canada and Mexico are largely 

components of the domestic program and will not be included here.
664

International Water Resources—Why and How Reclamation is 

Involved

 The primary goal of Reclamation’s current Program is designed to provide 

reimbursable technical assistance and training to assist other nations to better 

manage their water resources, while supporting U.S. foreign policy objectives, 

help in the acquisition of new or improved technologies from other countries, and 

assist American private sector fi rms in competing internationally.

 The Program consists of three main parts: technical assistance, technical 

cooperation and exchange, and training and visitor programs.

• Technical assistance activities are designed to address specifi c needs 

 that have been identifi ed by the requesting country. Funds for these 

 activities are generally provided by either the U.S. Agency for 

 International Development (USAID), the World Bank, or the requesting 

 country. Reclamation’s technical assistance activities have comprised the 

 largest share of the Program, but they almost always include an important 

 training component which has been designed to upgrade the technical 

 skills of foreign counterparts.

• Through technical cooperation and technology exchange, Reclamation 

seeks to improve its own capabilities through the exchange of technical 

staff and joint cooperative projects with international counterparts. 

Technology exchange activities benefi t both partners and each side 

normally pays for its share of the activities.

• Reclamation also assists water resource agencies from other countries by 

providing training and visitor programs for their staff. Training programs 

are tailored to fi t specifi c needs, and all costs are fully reimbursable to 

Reclamation. Additionally, Reclamation facilities are visited by more than 

800 international water resource counterparts on an annual basis, and there 

is no charge for these short term visitor programs.

 Individual activities comprising the current Program cover a wide range of 

topics, including dam safety, desalination, river basin management, construction 

supervision (for irrigation projects), water conservation, sedimentation, 

transboundary water resources cooperation, and integrated water resources 

management.

The Early Years

 A movement to secure Federal funding for the development of irrigated 

lands in the West emerged at the close of the nineteenth century. It was 

recognized that some countries were signifi cantly farther along in this arena, and 

efforts were made to learn from their experience. An engineer named 
665

 Herbert M. Wilson from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), traveled to Egypt 

and India in 1889 to inspect large-scale irrigation development and to obtain basic 

information that would be useful for establishment of an irrigation service in the 

U.S. This appears to be the fi rst recorded international activity associated with the 

Reclamation program. Wilson, who had considerable experience conducting land 

surveys in the West, assessed the vast and sophisticated Indian irrigation works, 

with some 25 million acres (10 million hectares) of irrigated lands. He recorded 

the construction, operation, and maintenance costs for these projects, and noted 

the increased agricultural returns and opportunities for settlement provided by 

these vast projects. He also studied problems of drainage, salinity, silt, as well as 

transboundary water resources issues. With the passage of the Reclamation Act 

of 1902, Congress created the Reclamation Service which the Secretary of the 

Interior placed within the USGS, virtually assuring that Wilson’s fi ndings would 

be incorporated into the Reclamation program in the West. 

 In the fi rst few years of the Reclamation Service, some twenty-fi ve water 

projects were authorized for construction. Consumed by its own ambitious 

domestic program agenda, and lacking authority to venture into the international 

arena, Reclamation was involved in minimal international activity during its 

fi rst few decades. As a side note, however, most of Reclamation’s earliest 

Commissioners were extremely active internationally, before, during, and after, 

their tenures as Commissioner. However, absent legal authority, Reclamation 

employees were required to secure a leave of absence to undertake foreign 

consulting work.

 Frederick Newell, who directed Reclamation from 1907 to 1914, traveled 

to the Isthmus of Panama in 1908 to assist in the engineering details of the 

Panama Canal. The large earthfi ll dams being planned by the Isthmian Canal 

Commission were very similar to those being constructed by Reclamation. His 

deputy, Arthur Powell Davis, who later became Commissioner of Reclamation 

(1914–23), had been involved in the Panama Canal investigations prior to his 

arrival at Reclamation in 1902, and he continued to serve on a board reviewing 

the feasibility of building the canal. In 1911, at the request of the Russian 

Government, Davis took a leave of absence to inspect a proposed irrigation 

project on the Amudarya River in Turkestan. Elwood Mead, Reclamation’s 

Commissioner from 1923-36, spent eight years in Australia (1908-15) where he 

inaugurated a comprehensive water conservation and reclamation plan. During 

Mead’s tenure as Commissioner, he took several extensive leaves of absence in 

order to provide assistance to other countries (i.e., Haiti, Cuba, and Palestine) on 

irrigation-related matters.

 Several other Reclamation employees, including Chief Design Engineer 

John L. Savage, who became world renowned and highly sought, would also 

take leaves of absence to travel overseas to consult with foreign governments on 

various water projects.
666

 While Reclamation was only minimally involved in providing direct 

assistance to others, the early exploits of Reclamation did not go unnoticed.

A stream of foreign visitors came to the West to see Reclamation projects. 

Reclamation’s 1911 Annual Report indicated:

There have been an almost continual series of investigations of the work 

and its results by men both from this country and abroad. Nearly every 

foreign country having large areas of arid lands has been represented by 

visitors who have studied the works on the ground, and particularly the 

methods and analyses of cost. Offi cial and unoffi cial representatives 

from Great Britain and its colonial possessions...from various portions 

of the German Empire, from Austria, Russia, Spain, and other European 

countries, and from Mexico and South America. These men have been 

interested not only in irrigation but in the control and conservation of 

fl ood waters.

And from Reclamation’s 1920 Annual Report:

Irrigation development of hitherto largely unused lands is becoming 

more and more prominent in Australia, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, 

Argentine [sic.], Russia, and other countries, and the works of the 

Reclamation Service have for many years attracted engineers and 

economists from all over the world. There can be no doubt that much of 

the stimulus for extended reclamation development of the arid regions of 

the world has been the direct result of fi rst-hand study of the irrigation 

problem in the United States, and particularly that as exemplifi ed by the 

work of the Federal Government.

 The construction of Boulder (Hoover) Dam gave impetus to increased 

worldwide recognition for the skill and resourcefulness of Reclamation engineers. 

The year 1930 saw the fi rst signifi cant indication that engineering experts were 

looking to the United States for leadership in matters pertaining to water resource 

development. Some Reclamation engineers published technical articles that were 

picked up by newspapers abroad and Reclamation was overwhelmed by requests 

for additional information. Many who wrote were not content with simply 

reading about our dams and requested the opportunity to see these structures for 

themselves. This resulted in a steady stream of visitors who came to marvel at 

 Hoover Dam and other Reclamation facilities. Between 1935 and 1941, more 

than 500 foreign engineers visited Reclamation projects. Visitors from India, 

England, France, Egypt, Germany, The Philippines, Thailand, and South Africa, 

came for varying lengths of time to learn Reclamation practices and procedures.

 Reclamation’s domestic program was continually evolving through 

the advancement of large dam design and construction, as well as establishing 

sustainable rural economies based upon irrigation. Its string of accomplishments 

in water resources development had encouraged others to want to follow in its 

footsteps, but the War would intervene and plans would be delayed.
667

World War II—A Catalyst for Change

 The War resulted in restrictions on travel and strict security regulations, 

effectively curtailing virtually all of Reclamation’s international activities. 

Reclamation’s wartime effort focused on work conducted at the Denver 

laboratories where scientists, engineers, and technicians, who were ordinarily 

engaged in work on dams and canals, were called upon to design new ordinance 

and equipment, expedite production and delivery of war materials, and uncover 

evidence of sabotage in support of the U.S. war effort.

 World War II, however, would also serve as a milestone for Reclamation 

in several important ways. It had diverted attention and funding away from 

Reclamation’s water development activities in the West. The War had also left 

much of Europe, as well as other parts of the world, in need of reconstruction.

The U.S. was moving forward to assume a leadership role in the international 

arena, a dramatically different position from its pre-War days of isolationism.

 In another part of the world, Reclamation’s international work began 

with assistance to China on the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Long 

discussed by the Chinese, Reclamation agreed to assist the Chinese Government 

with the project, and sent John Savage to China in early 1944. During his 

six-month stay in China, Savage studied the hydroelectric and fl ood control 

possibilities for the Yangtze River and its tributaries. At the end of the War, a 

large number of Chinese engineers traveled to Denver to begin working with 

Reclamation staff on the design of the Three Gorges Dam. However, as a result 

of the ongoing Chinese civil war, the engineers were required to return to China in 

1947, and work by Reclamation personnel on the Three Gorges Dam stopped.

Post-War Emergence of International Activities

 The movement of Reclamation into the international arena was largely 

facilitated by broad changes in America’s thinking about its international role. To 

a great extent, the changes were driven in the late 1940s by the Truman Doctrine 

and the Marshall Plan, which outlined America’s strategy to fi ght the spread 

of communism and a plan for the reconstruction of Europe, respectively. Of 

particular importance was the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 

1948 (Smith-Mundt Act), which authorized reimbursable technical assistance and 

training.

 President Truman articulated his Doctrine in the Point IV Program, as 

an affi rmative assistance program to help under-developed countries develop 

their natural resources as a means to resist threats to their freedom. Point IV, 

implemented in June 1950 by P.L. 535, was largely the beginning of today’s 

foreign technical assistance program. P.L. 535 required Federal agencies to 

establish offi ces for the purposes of directing international activities. It also 
668

marked the establishment of the administering agency, a predecessor agency to 

USAID.

 These instruments not only provided the legal authority for Reclamation 

to assist others, but provided goals and funding as well. Given this new mandate, 

it was apparent that guidelines would be needed for increasing Reclamation’s 

international involvement. Thus, several key decisions were made, including the 

creation of a Division of Foreign Activities in March 1951, which would shape 

the Program in a form that has endured to this day. 

 Reclamation’s domestic program would always have priority over 

international activities, unless the 

State Department (State) had indicated 

that a particular international activity 

would be in the national interest as 

part of the U.S. foreign policy. If 

that were the case, then consideration 

would be given to engaging in such 

activity, even though an adverse effect 

on the domestic program might occur. 

Reclamation continues to acknowledge 

the importance of meeting U.S. foreign 

policy objectives.

 Reclamation was required to receive reimbursement for costs associated 

with undertaking international technical assistance and training since, lacking 

authorization, no funds could be sought from Congress.

 While Reclamation strongly supported the notion of assistance to other 

countries, it determined that it would be inappropriate to initiate such activities, 

largely because it would raise concerns about private sector competition. In 

addition to requests for assistance from foreign governments, Reclamation has 

the wherewithal to respond affi rmatively to requests from the Department of 

State (State), USAID, the United Nations, or an international fi nancial institution 

such as the World Bank. (Note: In the late 1980s passage of various laws to 

permit technology transfer between United States Government (USG) agencies 

and the private sector authorized Reclamation to assist U.S. fi rms in competing 

for international work. However, in spite of numerous partnership attempts with 

American fi rms, Reclamation has seen only limited success here.)

The Flood Gates Opened—Dramatic Post-War Expansion

 In the years immediately after the War, State received dozens of requests 

from other countries for assistance in irrigation and water resources development. 

While State would typically turn to Reclamation for assistance, it retained the 

lead role. Thus, Reclamation employees served as members of State-led teams 

28.1. John L. Savage on the Yangtze River.
669

addressing irrigation and power-related needs. By the late 1940s, a handful of 

Reclamation personnel were on long-term assignments in Afghanistan, Ceylon 

(Sri Lanka), Venezuela, Costa Rica, and El Salvador.

 A full-fl edged Reclamation-wide Program, with a budget of nearly $2 

million (roughly equivalent to $13.5 million in today’s dollars) emerged in 1952, 

after substantial amounts of Point IV funding had materialized. For the next few 

decades, Reclamation, with its characteristic zeal, contributed to the cause of 

providing for more food security for the free world. Commissioner Michael W. 

Straus (1945-53) stated, “wherever it can, Reclamation will continue to cooperate 

and contribute knowledge to the free world’s warfare against want.” 

(See Reclamation’s Golden Jubilee in the bibliography at the end of the paper.)

 By 1952 Reclamation was working on planning studies involving projects 

in twenty-one countries, covering some seventeen million acres (6.8 million 

hectares) of irrigated land, and hydropower of more than 4,200 megawatts of 

installed capacity. The growth of the Program was so dramatic that the quantity 

of Reclamation’s international work in 1952 exceeded the sum total of all that had 

occurred in the past. (Reclamation’s Golden Jubilee)

 Reclamation’s early Post-War international work was characterized 

by some of the same basic features that are present in today’s program. 

Reclamation’s international activities always responded to the needs that were 

refl ected in the incoming requests for assistance. The work covered a wide range 

of topics related to water resources development and management, including 

project planning, design and construction; irrigation management; drainage 

and land classifi cation; sedimentation; and other topics. In addition, there was 

a tremendous difference in the level of effort between the individual projects 

involved, ranging from a temporary assignment of one employee for several 

days to Reclamation teams assigned overseas for a year or more. In some cases 

Reclamation would provide advisory assistance and merely assist counterparts in 

executing an activity, while, at other times, Reclamation personnel would perform 

specifi c tasks such as preparing a project appraisal report.

 For the next two decades much of the focus of the Program was on 

planning studies in numerous countries, for entire river basins as well as 

individual water projects. Some of the larger or better known planning efforts 

focused on the Litani River Basin in Lebanon (1954-1958), Blue Nile River Basin 

in Ethiopia (1958-1964), Helmand Valley in Afghanistan (1960-1971), Han River 

Basin in Korea (1966-1971), Sao Francisco River Basin in Brazil (1964-1973), 

and the Mekong River Basin and the Pa Mong Project in Thailand and Laos 

(1964-1974). In Australia, Reclamation participated in the planning, design 

and construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme (1951-1961). Each of these 

activities entailed the assignment of teams of Reclamation technical specialists 

overseas for several years. 
670

 Reclamation’s involvement with the Nile River goes back to the early 

learning years when we sought information on Egyptian irrigation systems. In the 

intervening century, Reclamation has provided technical assistance and training 

at varying times in the Nile River Basin to Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sudan.

Reclamation’s Nile River experiences exemplify the nature of our international 

work, in that we have expended enormous effort over many years in assisting 

others, but we have had little control over the outcome. Ethiopia and the Sudan 

both experienced devastating civil wars and enormous political change after we 

had completed our technical assistance and training programs, thereby largely 

negating our efforts.

 Reclamation has 

contributed to a wide array of 

project planning studies, however, 

many countries have undertaken 

only a limited amount of water 

infrastructure development due, 

in part, to the lack of funding, 

political changes, and changing 

environmental values. In addition, 

the inability of many countries 

to secure agreement with their 

neighbors on the use of water 

in shared international river 

basins has also greatly hindered 

development.

Winds of Change—Foreign Policy Shifts and New Paradigm

 By the mid-1970s the focus on broad-scale river basin planning efforts 

and large projects had waned in the Program. USAID’s movement away from 

infrastructure development in the 1970s was probably the major cause of this 

shift in Reclamation’s international activities, since USAID had been a major 

source of funding. Emphasis on water project development was being replaced 

28.2. Report covers from Resident Team Programs.

28.3. Ethiopia land classifi cation work in Blue 

Nile. (Old Ways Meet the New)
671

by greater diversity in the types of 

international projects and activities 

undertaken by Reclamation.

 U.S. foreign policy shifts 

have also had direct impacts on 

the Program. The oil embargo of 

1973 led to the establishment of a 

joint economic commission with 

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 

1974, with multiple USG agencies 

participating. Reclamation was 

soon engaged in a substantial 

technical assistance effort there 

with a resident team in the Kingdom. The focus was initially upon irrigation but 

it ultimately moved into the fi eld of seawater desalination.

 With the signing of the Camp David Peace Accord in 1979, foreign policy 

emphasis shifted to the Middle East, and Reclamation was soon engaged in 

several substantial efforts in Egypt. The massive American foreign aid program 

in Egypt resulted in a return to infrastructure development projects. Reclamation 

was asked to spearhead a twelve-year, $140 million effort funded by USAID to 

replace the Soviet-built turbines and electrical equipment at the power station of 

the Aswan High Dam on the Nile.

 Following resumption 

of normal relations and 

scientifi c protocols between 

China and the U.S. in the late 

1970s, the Chinese would 

again request assistance from 

Reclamation with the design of 

the Three Gorges Dam. Due 

to changes in the U.S. policy, 

Reclamation in 1984 agreed to 

provide only limited reviews of 

some project studies and designs. Work continued off and on until late 1993 when 

other changes in domestic policies and priorities (i.e., environmental concerns) 

resulted in Reclamation deciding to cease its assistance to China on the Three 

Gorges Dam.

Imparting Knowledge—International Training Activities

 Reclamation’s international training has likely had the most lasting impact 

upon those who have received our assistance. Training began in 1920, when 

Reclamation opened its doors for formal training opportunities. The fi rst offi cial 

28.5. Aswan High Dam in Egypt.

28.4. Reclamation advisors assist Pakistani 

counterparts in drainage work.
672

trainee was a South African engineer who spent one year with Reclamation before 

returning to a senior position in his irrigation department. When Mexico was 

embarking upon an extensive program of water development in the mid-1920s, it 

turned to Reclamation for technical assistance and training. One of the Mexican 

trainees would become head of the Ministry of Hydraulic Resources in 1946 

and send many trainees to Reclamation after the War (Pratt, p. 3). Similarly, a 

young engineer from Afghanistan, M. K. Ludin, was a trainee for one year with 

Reclamation in the late 1930s. When he returned home and created the Afghani 

Bureau of Reclamation, he adopted many of Reclamation’s policies with regard 

to repayment, acreage limitation, and multipurpose projects. He later became the 

Minister of Public Works and was instrumental in securing Reclamation’s PostWar involvement in Afghanistan.

 The phenomenon of young engineers who trained with Reclamation and 

later rose to senior positions back home was to become commonplace. This 

greatly contributed to the forging of close long-term relationships between 

Reclamation and other water agencies. While it is not always readily discernible, 

there are tangible foreign policy benefi ts to these relationships. The State 

Department, particularly during the Cold War, strongly endorsed the building of 

these bridges between nations and, even today, State continues to fund modest 

technical exchange programs for foreign visitors.

 Reclamation’s early involvement with Turkey was notable largely because 

a young trainee, Suleyman Demirel, who came to Denver in the late 1940s, 

was destined for greater things. He returned to become head of the Turkish 

Directorate for Hydraulic Works in the early 1950s, and he was soon instrumental 

in securing a resident team from Reclamation that assisted him in moving forward 

with an ambitious water development program. However, Demirel did not stop 

there, and later became Prime Minister on seven occasions, starting in 1965, 

and later he became President of Turkey (1993). Undoubtedly our most famous 

trainee, a Reclamation delegation in 1996 visited Turkey at his behest to witness 

his country’s water-related accomplishment.

 Our formal training programs, 

which focus upon on-the-job 

instruction, have played a critical role 

in imparting Reclamation experience 

to others. Training programs have 

also been changing in recent years 

due to the high costs associated with 

providing long-term training. Thus, 

Reclamation has been transitioning 

to technical seminars and workshops, 

which have proven to be a costeffective means of providing programs 

to a large number of trainees. 

28.6. Suleyman Demirel (middle row–

center) with Reclamation Resident Team 

(kneeling in front).
673

Reclamation has been offering international workshops and seminars related 

to specifi c technical topics, including dam safety operations, integrated water 

resources management, and canal automation techniques.

Technical Cooperation and Exchange

 While assisting others has largely held the spotlight in the Program, 

especially through long-term technical assistance and training programs, 

Reclamation has also sought to broaden its own horizons through contact with 

others since Wilson traveled in 1889. There are numerous documented instances 

where Reclamation has acquired improved technical capabilities for application 

in the domestic program through international cooperation. For example, several 

Reclamation engineers recently traveled to Sweden to review new power-related 

technologies and to South Africa to observe Israeli-made evaporative devices for 

potential application in the Salton Sea Restoration Project.

 While Reclamation has been involved in several formal technical 

cooperation and technology exchange programs (e.g., Israel and Spain), in most 

cases these activities are carried on informally. Formal programs usually entail 

an agreement between Reclamation and a counterpart water agency setting 

forth mutually-agreed-upon activities and goals. Even in the arena of technical 

cooperation, where Reclamation usually seeks partners on an equal technical 

footing, foreign policy objectives can play a dominant role. Reclamation’s 

involvement was solicited by State some years back in technical exchange 

programs involving the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. 

These programs were designed by State in order to keep lines of communication 

open and facilitate cooperation between the participants.

 The U.S.-South African Binational Commission (BNC) is another, more 

recent example of a technical cooperation program with strong foreign policy 

overtones. The BNC was initiated in 1995 by State to bolster the fl edgling 

South African Post-Apartheid Government. Water quickly emerged as an area 

of interest for the South Africans, and Reclamation was tapped to coordinate 

the USG effort. There have been a series of exchanges between Reclamation 

and the Ministry of Water Affairs and Forestry focusing upon a variety of water 

management topics, many of which have been funded by State.

A New Game Plan—Water as a Means to Promote Cooperation

 At the fi rst meeting of the Working Group on Water Resources (WGWR) 

in the Middle East Peace Process in April 1992, State and its USG water agency 

partners, including Reclamation, became involved in an interesting and uncharted 

odyssey that is now almost a decade old. From the outset, State chaired the 

WGWR and requested Reclamation’s assistance to help move technical activities 

forward. The well-established relationships between Reclamation and water 

agencies in other key countries involved in the WGWR, and Reclamation’s 
674

credibility, were useful to State. Reclamation was tasked by State, in 1995, with 

taking the lead to support an Arab (Omani) WGWR initiative in desalination. For 

several years, Reclamation technical experts played a pivotal role in virtually 

every phase of the establishment of the Middle East Desalination Research Center 

(MEDRC).

 The success of water-related activities in the Middle East Peace 

Process led State to the conclusion that water can be an effective catalyst to 

promote cooperation between nations. State recently embarked on a program 

to reduce potential international transboundary confl icts in selected river 

basins. Reclamation was asked to take the lead in three State-funded initiatives, 

including ones focused on: the Okavango River Basin in Southern Africa; the 

Senegal and Niger River Basins in West Africa; and Lake Malawi in East Africa. 

Reclamation has also been requested to assist in several other activities relating to 

international water resources-related cooperation involving several countries. In 

each case Reclamation will offer short-term programs designed to demonstrate 

the principles of water-related cooperation and integrated water resources 

management.

The Future—New Challenges

 Will there be a need for Reclamation in the international arena in the 

future? The data regarding water, that is, water scarcity, water for population 

growth and food security needs, water quality degradation, and others, are bleak.

Water is a resource that is in extremely short supply in many regions of the 

world. Readily available and affordable new water supplies are simply absent. 

Reclamation continues to be a world leader in a variety of areas related to water 

resources development and management, and we have a broad array of skills and 

experience to share that could help make a difference.

 So what will the future Reclamation International Program look like? It 

is likely to look both similar to and nothing like the past! It will be similar to the 

past in that there will be wide variety of ever-changing external inputs impacting 

the nature and size of the program. Foreign policy shifts are likely to continue 

whereby foes can become friends and vice versa. A few years ago we were 

prohibited from cooperating with the Government of South Africa. Thus, it is 

diffi cult to predict the Program’s future landscape because dramatic geopolitical 

changes occur overnight and with these changes, new needs and opportunities 

emerge. As an example, drought-stricken Afghanistan, where Reclamation had a 

resident team (1960-1974), is in desperate need of reconstruction and water issues 

are of major concern. With our broad range of expertise and previous experience 

there, Reclamation would be well-suited to assist, if funds were to become 

available.

 Certainly Reclamation will continue to provide technical assistance and 

training to those in need, and to cooperate with others to address our needs.
675

We can say with certainty that we will fulfi ll the obligations set forth in our 

current agreements and commitments with our international counterparts, and 

we will move forward with activities already planned. We will need to continue 

to develop programs that are responsive to the needs of our international 

counterparts and consistent with the requirements and direction of Reclamation’s 

domestic program and U.S. foreign policy.

 While the horrifi c events of September 11, 2001, have caused considerable 

disruption in the Program, it is likely that it is only a temporary situation. Clearly, 

we must now address new topics such as security and heightened travel concerns 

that had not previously been considered, along with the continuing need for 

funding. History shows that we have adjusted and adapted to new ways of doing 

business that did not compromise the Program. We will need to be innovative, 

alert to the winds of change, and responsive to help meet some of the world’s 

water resources challenges in the future.

Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Brit Storey, 

Reclamation’s Senior Historian, for his contributions to this paper. His sizeable 

efforts to locate materials and undertake earlier writings about the history of the 

International Program has made our job that much easier. 

 In addition, we would like to acknowledge the efforts of the many 

Reclamation employees who have contributed so much to the International 

Program over the years. While many romanticize about foreign travel, there are 

routinely many challenges and obstacles to surmount in living, working, and 

traveling overseas. That so many employees have repeatedly contributed to the 

International Program in several different countries is testimony to their desire to 

make a difference.

Richard Ives is Director of the Native American and International Affairs 

Offi ce of Reclamation in the Commissioner’s Offi ce in Washington, 

D.C. Robert M. Bochar was an International Affairs Specialist in the 

International Affairs Offi ce at the time of the history symposium, and 

he has since become a Program Analyst in the Offi ce of Program and 

Budget in the Commissioner’s Offi ce in Washington, D.C.

Sources Consulted:

Annual Reports of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to the Secretary of the Interior, 

 Various Years, Washington, D.C.

“Foreign Activities—Commitments, Opportunities, and Problems: Statement by Pratt,” 

Reclamation’s Golden Jubilee (1902 -1952) Conference: A Summary of the Proceedings of 

 Reclamation’s 1952 Annual Meeting, Cody, Wyoming. Files from Reclamation’s Offi ce 

 of International Affairs.

“Memoirs of Deceased Members: Arthur Powell Davis,” 1935, pages 1582-91, Volume 100, 

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
676

“Memoirs of Deceased Members: Frederick Haynes Newell,” 1933, pages 1597-1600, Volume 98, 

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The Reclamation Era, 1908 to 1983, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.

Davis, Arthur Powell, “Irrigation in Turkestan,” January 1932, pages 1-5, Volume 1, Number 1, 

Civil Engineering.

Gressley, Gene M., Twentieth-Century American West: a Potpourri, 1977, University of Missouri 

 Press.

Ives, Richard H., “International Activities of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,” 2001, Water 

 Resources Impact, American Water Resources Association, Volume 3, Number 4, pages 

 9-11.

Kluger, James R., Turning on Water with a Shovel: The Career of Elwood Mead, 1992, University 

 of New Mexico Press.

Pratt, George O., “Foreign Activities of the Bureau of Reclamation, 1953, for Administrative Use.” 

 Files from Reclamation’s Offi ce of International Affairs.

Rabbitt, Mary C., The United States Geological Survey: 1879—1989, 1989, U.S. Geological 

 Survey Circular 1050.

Rhodes, Benjamin D., “From Cooksville to Chungking: The Dam Design Career of John L. 

 Savage,” 1989, pages 243-72, Wisconsin Magazine of History.

Storey, Brit Allan, “The Bureau of Reclamation and International Water Development,” 1999, 

 University of Wales Symposium on Water History. Unpublished paper on fi le in 

 Reclamation’s Offi ce of International Affairs.

Worster, Donald. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. 1985, 

 Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Herbert M., “Irrigation in India,” Twelfth Annual Report of the U.S. Geological Survey to 

 the Secretary of the Interior, 1891, page 375-89.
677

Farms for Veterans: Reclamation Settlement 

Policies and Results Following the World Wars

By:

Brian Q. Cannon

Abstract

 Between 1946 and 1964 the Bureau of Reclamation opened over 

2,800 farms on federal reclamation projects in Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, 

Oregon, California, and Arizona. In 1944 Congress had granted veterans a 

90-day preference right in applying for homesteads on reclamation projects.

Thus, most who fi led on these lands had served in the armed forces. In an effort 

to maximize the veterans’ prospects for success as homesteaders, the Bureau 

drew upon over four decades of experience in creating irrigated homesteads in 

the West. Particularly the lessons learned by the Bureau in offering farms to 

veterans following World War I provided a springboard for the Bureau’s postWorld War II efforts.

 Barely sixty percent of the 1,311 settlers who homesteaded on 

reclamation projects following World War I obtained title to their farms. Of 

those who did prove up, 75 percent (or about 45 percent of all 1,311 original 

claimants) retained their farms until 1944—an impressive rate considering the 

economic volatility of the 1920s and 1930s. However, nearly half (46 percent) 

of those who had gained title to their homesteads no longer farmed the land 

themselves in 1944. Persistence rates were greater on the highly productive 

Klamath Project, where 65 percent of the homesteaders who had proved up 

continued to farm their land in 1944, than on the North Platte Project in western 

Nebraska and eastern Wyoming, where only 19 percent still farmed their land.

 Bureau employees identifi ed a lack of capital, defects in the farms 

themselves, inexperience or lack of commitment on the part of the homesteaders 

and poor health as key reasons for the high attrition rates among post-World 

War I homesteaders. In an attempt to surmount these obstacles Congress in 

1924 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to screen applicants for homesteads 

on the basis of industry, experience, character, and capital. It also required 

the Bureau to conduct more careful surveys of the land itself before projects 

were approved. Both in the 1920s and the 1940s Congress rejected proposals 

from the Bureau for greater technical assistance and monetary assistance to 

homesteaders.

 Working within the limitations imposed by Congress, the Bureau 

endeavored to improve economic opportunities and increase residential stability 

on lands that it opened to homesteading following World War II. In many cases, 

local examining boards undercut the effectiveness of the screening process for 

prospective settlers, opting to award homesteads to veterans who possessed 

very little capital. The screening process did insure that most homesteaders 

possessed some agricultural experience. Thanks to more careful preliminary 

studies, veterans generally enjoyed superior farming opportunities on the 

Bureau’s projects in the 1940s and 1950s than their counterparts had received in 

the 1920s.
678

 Notwithstanding the Bureau’s more careful preliminary investigations, 

enough poor units were included in the post-1945 projects that Congress enacted 

Public Law 258 in 1953, providing for exchange of submarginal homesteads on 

reclamation projects. The law was largely inspired by the Bureau’s most glaring 

postwar failure, extensions of the Riverton Project, where seepage and alkaline 

soils made it impossible for over one-third of the postwar settlers to support 

themselves.

 Despite the Bureau’s intent to award farms to individuals who planned 

to spend their lives on the farm, many who obtained land actually regarded it as 

a speculative investment. Others who may have intended to reside permanently 

on the farm became discouraged by the rigors of homesteading or were enticed 

to leave by the prospect of higher wages or a higher standard of living off the 

farm. For a variety of reasons, then, many post-World War II homesteaders 

quickly moved away from their farms.

 The percentage of homesteaders who retained their lands roughly two 

decades after they had been homesteaded was actually higher for the post-World 

War I cohort on the Klamath and North Platte projects than for the post-World 

War II group on the Minidoka, Klamath, or Yuma projects. Absentee ownership, 

however, was less common among the post-1945 cohort than among the 1920s 

homesteaders. Whereas only 15 percent of all the veteran homesteaders at 

North Platte and 37 percent of the veterans who homesteaded in the 1920s on 

the Klamath Project continued to occupy their lands 20 years later, 44 percent 

of the post-1945 homesteaders on the Klamath Project and 30 percent of the 

post-1945 homesteaders on the Yuma Project still resided on their farms 20 years 

after they had fi led upon their lands. In this sense at least, the Bureau’s efforts to 

reduce speculation and tenancy by screening settlers and improving the quality 

of opportunities on its projects had succeeded.

 Shortly after World War II ended, 1,305 veterans applied for 86 irrigated 

homesteads on a federal reclamation project in northern California. One 

applicant, a Japanese American who had sustained 105 shrapnel wounds on the 

battlefi eld in Italy, aptly articulated the allure of a homestead for many veterans. 

“My entire life up to this moment has been spent on a ranch and it is my wish 

to keep on being a bona fi de farmer,” he wrote. “Farming is all that I know....

With a ranch of my own I would have complete freedom of doing as I please...I 

have much to work for, and the will to succeed is urging me ahead. Obtaining a 

homestead site will greatly reduce the strain on me. Let me assure you that my 

utmost desire is to make this project a success and to be one of the many who are 

planning to make this home community one to be proud of.”1

 This young veteran hoped to win the opportunity to participate in a 

belated, little-known fl urry of homesteading; between 1946 and 1964, an era 

when homesteading was generally no longer permitted, the Bureau of 

Reclamation opened over 2,800 farms on federal reclamation projects to veterans 

in Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona. In an effort to 

maximize the veterans’ prospects for success as homesteaders, the Bureau drew 

upon over four decades of experience in creating irrigated homesteads in the 

West. Particularly the lessons learned by the Bureau in offering farms to veterans 

following World War I provided a springboard for the Bureau’s post-World 
679

War II efforts. This paper examines the Bureau’s efforts to improve its 

homesteading program from the 1920s to the 1940s and to counteract or surmount 

obstacles that had plagued veterans homesteading on its projects following the 

First World War. It surveys key differences between the Bureau’s post-World War 

I homesteading program and its counterpart following the Second World War and 

traces some of the reasons for those differences.

 Following World War I the Department of the Interior received 

196,000 inquiries regarding settlement opportunities on western reclamation 

projects. In February 1920, responding belatedly to the demand for farms, 

Congress through Public Resolution 29 granted a 60-day preference right 

to veterans in applying for homesteads on public lands, including federal 

reclamation projects. The preference period was later increased to 90 days. 

Although most veterans who had written to the Department of the Interior were 

no longer interested by the time that Congress belatedly acted, 10,875 wouldbe homesteaders applied for 1,311 farms that were opened to settlement on 

reclamation projects over the next 20 years. Particularly from 1920 to 1922 lands 

opened to entry were awarded almost exclusively to veterans. Most of these 

new farms were located on the Klamath Project in California and Oregon and the 

 Shoshone and North Platte projects in Wyoming. The farms were awarded by 

lottery.2

 The post-World War I homesteading frontier had its share of impressive 

success stories. Take the case of Frank Vancluira, one of eighty veterans who 

took up homesteads on the North Platte Project’s Fort Laramie Division early 

in 1920. A Bohemian immigrant who had moved to the United States in 1911, 

Vancluira farmed in New York and Nevada and worked in a sausage factory 

before joining the Army in 1917. One of his legs was severely injured during the 

war. With $2,000 in capital and a monthly pension from the Veterans Bureau as a 

result of his wartime injury, Vancluira managed to develop his farm and construct 

a home without having to borrow money. His knowledge of irrigation as a result 

of his previous farm work in Nevada, combined with his industriousness and good 

fortune in receiving an exceptionally fertile homestead, allowed him to prosper. 

Within four years his farm was valued at $10,000—far beyond the amount of 

money he had invested in the place.3

 Despite the success stories, barely sixty percent of the 1,311 homesteaders 

on reclamation projects during the inter-war years obtained title to their farms. 

Of those who did prove up, 75 percent (or about 45 percent of all 1,311 original 

claimants) retained their farms until 1944—an impressive rate considering the 

economic volatility of the 1920s and 1930s. However, nearly half (46 percent) 

of those who had gained title to their homesteads no longer farmed the land 

themselves in 1944. Persistence rates were greater on the highly productive 

Klamath Project, where 65 percent of the homesteaders who had proved up 

continued to farm their land in 1944, than on the North Platte Project, where only 

19 percent still cultivated their land.4
680

 The high percentage of homesteaders who departed without proving up, 

coupled with the failure of many veterans to farm the land after they gained title 

to it, concerned the Bureau of Reclamation. Andrew Weiss, superintendent of the 

North Platte Project, was assigned by Commissioner Elwood Mead to investigate 

the reasons for the homesteaders’ diffi culties, focusing upon the Shoshone and 

North Platte projects. Weiss found that most veterans had arrived on the projects 

with insuffi cient funds. For instance, Sam Monaco, an industrious immigrant 

and World War I veteran, had come to the North Platte Project in 1920 with 

practically no capital. Monaco “made a very courageous trial for three years, 

being obliged to undergo every privation to get along.” Unable to afford lumber 

for a pig pen or a hen house, he had sheltered the hens in his own shack and had 

dug a clay pit for the hogs. Despite his pluck, Monaco was eventually “forced 

to quit.” No amount of ingenuity or hard work could compensate for his penury. 

Many homesteaders had rented out their farms after proving up, Weiss reported, 

because they needed more money than their farms could furnish. For instance, 

E. G. Phelps, a homesteader in southeastern Wyoming, who was described by 

the project manager as “a very fi ne type farmer” and a “splendid type of man” 

who was “intelligent and anxious to learn” had tried to farm and work part-time 

elsewhere but he had found he “could not make it” fi nancially. Finally he opted to 

rent his farm and work full time as a power house operator in order to support his 

family. Weiss estimated that over half (53 percent) of the veterans, like Monaco 

and Phelps, who homesteaded on the Fort Laramie division in 1920 were poorly 

prepared fi nancially for homesteading. Only about one in four had arrived with 

suffi cient money for “the necessary fi xed improvements” and the “necessary farm 

equipment and livestock.”5

 On the Frannie Division of the Shoshone Project in northern Wyoming, 

Weiss discovered that in 1924 only fi ve of the 57 veterans who had taken up lands 

there in 1920 remained. Even on better farms that had been opened to settlement 

the following year, only one in fi ve homesteaders remained. Weiss identifi ed their 

principal impediment as “the lack of capital.”6

 In addition to insuffi cient capital, defects in the land itself such as poor 

soil, drainage problems, or unrealistically small farms handicapped some veterans. 

Hundreds of veterans took up lands in the Goshen Irrigation District in southern 

Wyoming between 1921 and 1927, and roughly one-fi fth “had very little chance 

of success” because of “poor or submarginal” farms, project superintendent Frank 

Roush estimated in hindsight. Farming conditions were worst on the Frannie 

Division of the Shoshone Project, where 95 farms were opened in 1920 and 1921. 

In 1924 the president of the local water users’ association reported that nearly 

two-thirds of the lands on the division were “practically valueless” because of 

seepage, alkaline soil and other problems. Draining the lands adequately would 

cost an estimated $30 per acre, but the land itself was valued at not more than 

$25 per acre. A commission appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to study 

reclamation concluded in 1924 that “the lands on the Frannie Division are of 

such low agricultural value as to make it impossible for them to pay the cost 
681

of operation and maintenance of the irrigation works much less to return the 

construction costs.”7

 Weiss reported that inexperience, coupled with underestimation of the 

rigors of farm life, had driven others from their farms. Roughly one in three 

 veterans who homesteaded on the North Platte Project in 1920 had never lived or 

worked on a farm. “Too few of us knew much about irrigated farming when we 

started here,” observed homesteader George “Doc” Haas, one of only nineteen 

remaining homesteaders in 1947 out of 130 who had come to the Goshen 

Irrigation District in 1921. “We had every kind of ex-soldier, from piano tuners to 

paper hangers....We did not realize that there was no let-up in work, season after 

season.”8

 Other veterans quickly sold or rented out their farms after proving up 

because they had always regarded their homesteads as speculative property. 

Weiss’s report showed that 35 percent of those who homesteaded on the Fort 

Laramie Division of the North Platte Project in 1920 had no interest in farming, 

preferred some other occupation, or disliked the country and therefore never 

intended to remain there. For instance, Paul J. Hall, a 30 year old veteran, was 

characterized by the project superintendent as “not hav[ing] much energy.” He 

lacked capital, farming experience and had “no desire to farm.” Moreover, his 

wife disliked farm life. Willard Wertman, a 35 year old homesteader who had 

grown up on a farm in Milford, Nebraska, only farmed his unit for one season.

He “always seemed to dislike the country and was dissatisfi ed with nearly every 

thing in connection with his farm, the community and the government.” F. W. 

Bosse, had been raised on a farm and was a “good worker” but by disposition 

“not a farmer.” Similarly, T. J. Burchell, a railroad engineer and a druggist, “had 

no desire or qualifi cations as [a] farmer.” Some had homesteaded largely for 

speculative reasons. A. R. Baker, who had constructed a 10x12 shack on his 

homestead, had come from a wealthy family but invested little if any capital on 

the place and engaged only in “poor and nondescript farming.” A graduate of 

the Washington School of Finance, he worked as a fi nancial expert and had only 

resided on the land long enough to acquire title. He had retained the land, though, 

“with hopes of higher values and oil boom.”9

 Poor health dogged other homesteaders like L. C. Anstine, a veteran with 

a fair education, farming experience, and a “good personality,” who suffered from 

a wartime injury. The project manager gauged his prospects for success in 1924 

as “poor” because of his “physical handicap” although he noted that Anstine had 

“made a creditable effort.” Likewise, Bruce Morton, a 40-year-old veteran with 

farming experience, had made only “fair” progress as a farmer although he knew 

how to farm, was “industrious,” and possessed a “good personality.” Having 

been “gassed” while fi ghting in the trenches, he labored under a “severe physical 

handicap.” The project manager believed Morton would “no doubt make a 

success if he were able-bodied and had suffi cient capital.”10
682

 In Weiss’s view, then, insuffi cient capital, defects in the land itself, 

inexperience, lack of commitment, and poor health largely explained the lackluster 

performance of most veterans who homesteaded following World War I. Twenty 

years after Weiss fi led his report, his successor as project manager, Fred Roush, 

identifi ed fi ve reasons postwar homesteaders had abandoned their units on the 

North Platte Project. Roush believed the most important factor to be “poor and 

submarginal units,” followed by “lack of fi nancial aid” to the homesteaders during 

the farm development phase, the agricultural depression of the 1920s and 1930s, 

lack of managerial ability or ambition on the part of the veterans, and insuffi cient 

instruction of the settlers in irrigation and farming techniques by county agents or 

other qualifi ed personnel.11

 Shortly before Weiss completed his investigations of veteran homesteading 

and two decades before Roush offered his evaluation, the Fact Finders’, a blue 

ribbon commission appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, had identifi ed many 

of the same problems with homesteading in general on reclamation projects. In 

their report they had recommended that “new projects or extensions of existing 

projects should be authorized only after full information has been secured 

concerning the water supply, engineering features, soil, climate, transportation, 

markets, land prices, probable cost of development and other factors upon which 

the success of the project must depend.” They had also advocated screening 

applicants for homesteads on the basis of their “industry, experience, character, 

and possession of a part of the capital needed in improving their farms.”

Additionally, they had recommended that the government provide agricultural 

and economic advisors and short-term, low-interest loans to settlers for livestock, 

equipment, and farm development.12

 A conservative Congress in 1924 rejected the Fact Finders’ calls for loans 

and agricultural advisors for settlers. In what became known as the Fact Finders’ 

Act, Congress did stipulate that “no new project or new division of a project 

shall be approved for construction...until information in detail shall be secured...

concerning the water supply, the engineering features, the cost of construction, 

land prices, and the probable cost of development.” After gathering the requisite 

data, Congress instructed, the Secretary of the Interior must “ma[k]e a fi nding 

in writing that it is feasible, that it is adaptable for actual settlement and farm 

homes, and that it will probably return the cost thereof to the United States” 

before construction could proceed. Congress also authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to appoint examining boards to review the qualifi cations of prospective 

homesteaders and to establish minimum qualifi cations for homesteaders on 

reclamation projects in terms of “industry, experience, character, and capital.” 

After touring reclamation projects the following year, the Secretary, Hubert Work, 

concluded that “settlers should have enough capital to enable them to improve and 

equip their farms.”13

 Following passage of the Fact Finders’ Act, the veterans’ preference law 

remained in force through 1940, but the Fact Finders’ Act now required all 
683

would-be homesteaders, including veterans, to meet minimum standards 

regarding industry, farming experience, character and capital. Examining boards 

consisting initially of the superintendent of the project, the county extension 

agent, and a prominent farmer or businessman residing in the area were appointed 

by the Bureau to review each applicant’s qualifi cations. The Bureau required 

applicants to have at least two years of farming experience and to possess $2,000 

in capital or assets such as livestock or farming equipment that would be as useful 

as cash on a farm. Examining boards were required to rate each applicant on the 

basis of character and industry, and the boards could require applicants to submit 

medical evidence of good health.14

 From 1925 to 1937 the four variables—industry, character, farm 

experience, and capital—were weighted equally. After 1937, though, farm 

experience was weighted most heavily, followed by capital and then industry 

and character. While veterans continued to enjoy preference rights in all land 

openings, as veterans of the World War grew older and became better established, 

they no longer applied for all available lands. Extensive homesteading almost 

exclusively by veterans would not again occur until after another World War.15

 Soon after the veterans preference legislation expired in 1940, western 

Congressmen including James Scrugham of Nevada and John R. Murdock of 

Arizona discussed the possibility of extending these benefi ts for veterans over 

another two decades. In 1944, with national interest in the returning veterans 

crescendoing rapidly, Murdock believed the time had come to publicize the 

desirability of reclamation for veterans. As the House Committee on World War 

Veterans’ Legislation held hearings in the Spring of 1944 on Senate bill 1767, the 

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act ( G.I. Bill of Rights), Murdock capitalized upon 

Congress’s interest in the future of America’s soldiers and scheduled a meeting 

with the committee. He reminded them that “after every war our veterans have 

been taken care of in the public domain, lying in the West.” Murdock proposed 

an amendment to the GI Bill which would entitle veterans to preference over all 

other applicants for homesteads on reclamation projects. The amendment also 

sought to enhance the veterans’ chances for success by waiving over half of each 

homesteader’s share of the Bureau’s cost of constructing the irrigation system. 

After discussing Murdock’s amendment to the GI Bill, the committee discarded 

it. Some felt that Murdock’s amendment had merit but should be considered as a 

separate bill because it dealt only with the West; others believed the proposal was 

“too generous.”16

 Three months after Murdock’s abortive attempt to amend the GI Bill, J. 

Hardin Peterson, a representative from Florida who chaired the House Committee 

on Public Lands, introduced H.R. 5025 in June of 1944, granting preference to 

veterans in applying for public lands “under the homestead or desert land laws” or 

under a 1938 law which permitted citizens to fi le on 5-acre parcels of land. Partly 

because it made no mention of either the Bureau of Reclamation or the West 

but applied, in theory at least, to any public lands across the nation that might 
684

be opened to settlement, the measure attracted little attention or controversy. 

One day after H.R. 5025 had been referred to the Committee on Public Lands, 

Murdock as a member of that committee referred the bill without amendment 

to the House, recommending its passage and noting that a representative from 

the Department of the Interior had appeared before the committee to endorse it.

Four days later the House approved the bill and submitted it to the Senate. Later 

that summer the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys recommended 

passage of the bill and on August 13 the Senate acquiesced. On September 27 

President Roosevelt signed the bill into law.17

 With veterans preference for homesteading on public lands in place, the 

Bureau of Reclamation and its friends in Congress pushed for more. From their 

perspective based upon the experiences of post-World War I homesteaders, the 

veterans’ preference law was defective. One defect was that it failed to provide 

for fi nancial or technical assistance for the veterans. Warned one representative 

from the Bureau, “We feel that a man should be assisted suffi ciently to increase 

to the optimum point his chances of success on the land....I think we have had 

some failures on our projects that could have been avoided if we had given a little 

additional attention to getting the farm into production quickly and seeing that the 

farmer was properly coached in the methods of using his water.”

 In tandem with John Murdock, offi cials in the Bureau worked to draft 

H.R. 520. Murdock introduced the bill in the Spring of 1945. Among other 

things, the bill authorized the Bureau to extend technical assistance to farmers 

on reclamation projects, permitted the Bureau to contract with settlers or with 

29.1. Alfred Fincher and his family arrived on their veteran’s homestead on the Vale 

Project nine days before this picture was taken in September 1936.
685

water users’ associations for clearing and leveling land to prepare it for irrigation, 

and authorized “necessary” appropriations for these activities. The bill proposed 

other mechanisms for assisting the veterans fi nancially: it permitted governmental 

agencies “authorized to make provision for the reestablishment of veterans 

in civil life” to become involved “to the fullest extent” that was legally and 

administratively feasible in extending “fi nancial assistance” to the veterans “for 

the acquisition or erection of housing, farm buildings and adjuncts, improvements, 

equipment, chattels, and operating capital, and for transportation to the project.”18

 Referred to the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, with 

Murdock as the chair, the bill was made the committee’s fi rst item of business. 

Through the committee’s hearings, stretching from April 12 to May 22, Congress 

probed the relationship of veterans to federal reclamation.

 Ultimately representatives of the Department of Agriculture expressed the 

most infl uential opposition to the bill. Praising the idea of veterans’ preference, 

Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard sharply criticized the second section of 

the bill. That section authorized the Secretary of the Interior to purchase and sell 

lands within or near projects, to predevelop project lands including clearing and 

leveling them, and to provide technical and agricultural guidance and advice to 

settlers. Such provisions, warned Wickard, would “duplicate machinery already 

set up for the whole of agriculture in the Department of Agriculture” and would 

therefore be a “wasteful” use of governmental resources. As Representative J. 

Will Robinson put it, section 2 appeared to be “setting up some super-agency to 

take care of the veterans.”19

 As a result of these objections, the committee, in concert with 

representatives from the Bureau, altered the bill somewhat. The amended bill 

differed from the original in the sense that it extended veterans preference to 

those who had served during the First as well as the Second World War and 

specifi ed the Veterans Administration as the government agency authorized to 

loan funds to the homesteaders. In response to concerns from the Department of 

Agriculture, the amended bill authorized the Secretary of the Interior to “obtain 

through or in cooperation with the State colleges and appropriate agencies of 

the Government guidance and advice for settlers on lands within the projects 

in matters of irrigation farming; and to disseminate information by appropriate 

means and methods,” whereas the original bill had authorized the Secretary “to 

extend guidance and advice to settlers...and to disseminate information,” without 

any reference to cooperation with other government agencies.20

 Three months after receiving the committee’s report, the House turned its 

attention to H.R. 520. President Truman had urged Congress to approve the bill 

in order to give “outstanding opportunities for returning veterans.” As had been 

the case in the committee hearings, no one voiced opposition to the concept of 

veterans’ preference. For instance, John W. Flannagan of Virginia, chair of the 
686

House Committee on Agriculture, claimed, “We are all in accord that the veterans 

should be given preference in the purchase of this reclaimed land.”21

 Although rewarding the veterans seemed to be desirable to all, 

representatives voiced several arguments against other features of the bill. The 

foremost argument was that the bill, even as amended, authorized the Secretary 

of the Interior to become involved in agricultural training and technical assistance 

although the Department of Agriculture already had similar programs in place. 

The House Committee on Agriculture, which had met to review the bill that 

morning, had drafted an amendment eliminating all key provisions of the bill 

aside from the granting of preferential rights to veterans and the provision of 

information and fi nancial assistance by the Veterans Administration. Irrigation 

and Reclamation Committee member Robert Rockwell noted that the committee 

had not even consulted with the new secretary of Agriculture, Clinton Anderson, 

who had opposed the bill in writing on the same grounds as his predecessor. 

Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois charged the bill unduly broadened the activities 

of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior, duplicating 

services which were already being furnished by the Department of Agriculture. 

Similarly, Clarence Cannon of Missouri opposed the duplication of services of 

two bureaus.22

 Others objected to the bill’s focus upon western lands, arguing that few 

genuine opportunities awaited the veterans on reclamation projects in the rural 

West. The bill would play “a dirty trick on the veterans,” claimed Jessie Sumner 

of Illinois, forcing them into unwinnable pioneering situations rather than 

loaning them funds so that they could buy improved farms. Chester Gross of 

Pennsylvania questioned the wisdom of veterans’ homesteading in the West.

It induces them now to go out into the West on new lands, where 

rattlesnakes might bite their children and coyotes and wolves endanger 

the lives of their wives, and where their greatest asset is sunshine, which 

never pays mortgages or educates their children and where foxes will kill 

their chickens and crows pick the eyes out of any livestock that is born 

outside,

he claimed, concluding, “It is just not right.” Rising to the challenge William 

Lemke of North Dakota retorted that “in many places east of the Mississippi River 

nothing worthwhile grows even if they have water.”23

 Committee members who favored the bill attempted to refute the 

criticism of their colleagues. The new Secretary of Agriculture clearly had 

not taken occasion to compare the former bill with the newly amended one, 

some insisted; he had merely repeated the objections of the former secretary, 

which had been addressed and resolved by the committee in redrafting the bill.

Strenuously opposing the proposed amendment which would excise most of 

the bill, committee members argued that it would reduce veterans’ preference 

to a meaningless gesture. Antonio Fernandez of New Mexico maintained 
687

that a veterans’ preference law which contained no provisions for fi nancial or 

educational assistance to homesteaders would be “nothing but an empty shell,” 

similar to the preference right that veterans received after the First World War. 

John Murdock called the amended bill “a mockery” and Will Robinson of Utah 

warned that those who wanted to strike most of the bill and claimed to be “so 

strong for the veterans” were actually “leav[ing] a hollow shell for the veterans,...

helping them with one hand but...taking everything away [with the other] that 

was given them by a committee that studied this bill for 3 or 4 weeks.” Murdock 

agreed that “the powers of the Bureau of Reclamation are somewhat extended 

by the terms of this bill,” but he maintained that this was necessary because 

the projects to be developed were “more diffi cult” ones with more “diffi cult 

engineering problems” than the fi rst projects that had been developed.24

 At length, opponents of the bill carried the day, although the vote was 

close. The House voted 76 to 68 to approve the fi rst section of the bill, with its 

provision for veterans preference, but to jettison most of the other provisions, 

including any expansion of the Interior Department’s jurisdiction. The amended 

bill was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Committee on Irrigation 

and Reclamation, but the amended bill had no strong supporters in the House; 

after all the lip service that had been paid to the veterans, no one, it seemed, 

was very interested in this watered down bill’s fate in the Senate. Certainly 

Murdock and his associates on the Irrigation Committee, along with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, saw no charm in such a limited bill. Perhaps their disinterest 

stemmed from their belief that the amended bill offered nothing substantial to 

veterans, although it still did confer preference rights and instructed the Veterans 

Administration to assist the homesteaders fi nancially. Certainly the bill did 

nothing for the Bureau or for development of western lands. Preoccupied with 

other matters, the Senate committee never held hearings on the bill and never 

referred it back to the full Senate, and so the bill died.25

 Despite the fate of H.R. 520, the principle of veterans preference still 

applied to public lands being opened for homesteading, including reclamation 

projects, due to H.R. 5025, the measure that had been approved without debate 

in the preceding year. Although Congress had refused to furnish the types of 

economic and educational assistance advocated by Murdock and the Bureau in the 

1940s and the Fact Finders’ Commission in the 1920s, strides had been made in 

terms of screening applicants for homesteads and requiring more rigorous reviews 

of the agricultural potential of proposed projects. Would these factors improve 

the quality of economic opportunities for World War II veterans on reclamation 

projects? Would a higher percentage of homesteaders gain title to their lands and 

personally cultivate them than had been the case following World War I?

 The demand for farms following the Second World War was not as great 

as pundits during the war had forecast it would be. Nevertheless, the demand for 

farms, as refl ected in applications, remained far greater than the Bureau could 

satisfy. Despite the fact that the general trend in American society involved 
688

leaving the farm behind, farm life, even on raw lands with the risks that it 

entailed, remained attractive to many veterans. On all projects excluding the 

mammoth Columbia Basin Project where most of the lands were offered for sale 

rather than as homesteads, the Bureau received a total of 66,296 applications 

(many veterans applied for a farm on several projects) for 1,422 farms between 

1946 when the fi rst postwar drawing was held and 1957 when 145 farms were 

awarded on the Northside Pumping Division of the Minidoka Project in Idaho.

The ratio of farms to applicants in these drawings was nearly 47 to 1. The ratio 

of applicants to farms ranged from 8.5 applicants per farm in a drawing on the 

Riverton Project in Wyoming in 1947 to a high of nearly 309 applicants per farm 

on a block of land with 11 farms in the Columbia Basin in 1952. Desire for lands 

actually increased with the passage of time. Whereas the ratio of applicants to 

farms never topped 100 in the immediate postwar era, beginning in 1951 ratios of 

over 150 applicants to each farm were commonplace.26

 With such high numbers of applicants, the Bureau seemingly possessed 

an ideal opportunity to weed out candidates who possessed insuffi cient capital 

or insuffi cient farming experience. Shortly after the war ended, however, local 

examining boards were given greater leeway in determining the amount of capital 

and degree of farming experience that would be required for those applying 

for homesteads on individual projects. Inasmuch as letters of recommendation 

submitted by the applicants regarding their character and industry were 

“invariably... favorable in tone” and “overworked such words and phrases as 

honest, reliable, morally above reproach, etc.” capital and farm experience were 

the most objective and reliable criteria for determining the fi tness of applicants 

for homesteading. While the policy of allowing local boards to adjust minimum 

requirements made the process more decentralized and democratic, it also 

imperiled the original purpose of the somewhat elitist and exclusionary standards: 

selecting homesteaders with the suffi cient capital and experience to virtually 

insure their success.27

 On the Klamath Project, site of the fi rst land opening following World 

War II, representatives of local civic, veterans’, and agricultural organizations met 

with Bureau offi cials to determine the prerequisites for would-be homesteaders. 

Under a system implemented by the Bureau in 1936, applicants for homesteads 

were rated on a scale of 100 points. Those with more than $2,000 in assets could 

receive as many as 10 points more than those who possessed only the minimum 

amount. Representing the interests of young, predominantly poor, land-hungry 

veterans the members of a nearby American Legion post protested, “The whole 

deal stinks, especially the ten thousand dollar clause.” F. D. Rockbice, a World 

War I veteran who had homesteaded on the Klamath Project in the 1920s, 

expressed the prevailing sentiment. Rockbice argued that the capital requirements 

were “not...fair.” “Because a man has 10 or 50 thousand does not make him a 

better farmer, a better man, or a better citizen than the little fellow who wants 

a home for himself and family and a chance to better himself,” he maintained.

Rockbice conceded that someone with lots of money would have “very little 
689

chance” of “fail[ing] to make good.” But he believed the government should 

be more concerned with preserving the homestead law’s intent, which was “to 

give the man that did not have a home a chance to make one.” Ultimately those 

responsible for fi xing standards for the 1946 applicants on the Klamath Project 

voted to scrap the fl exible points system for capital requirements, although they 

decided by a margin of only one vote that it was “not only fair but necessary 

in order to assure the success to the entrymen” to require at least $2,000. By 

refusing to boost capital requirements beyond the level that had prevailed for two 

decades, though, the examining board increased the likelihood that homesteaders 

would fail; $2,000 in 1946 would buy far less than it could have bought ten years 

earlier. In 1948 on the Klamath Project, the examining board went even further, 

voting by a margin of 26 to 3 that applicants be permitted to substitute a credit 

rating for capital.28

 The examining board on the Klamath Project nearly decided to scrap 

the farm experience requirement as well as the requirement for capital. At a 

meeting prior to a 1948 land opening on the project, a group of veterans who had 

constituted a local Veterans’ Independent Action Committee opposed any attempt 

to exclude applicants on the basis of farm experience. Those with appropriate 

“intention, willingness and ability to learn” should not be penalized for their lack 

of actual farming experience, their spokesman maintained. Others attending the 

meeting agreed in principle but wondered how one could gauge intent accurately. 

One member of the examining board, Nelson Reed, believed that someone who 

had previously farmed and applied for a homestead would be more likely to 

“stick on the homestead,” knowing in advance what they were getting into. “If 

he farmed before” and chose to apply for a homestead it was a good sign that he 

29.2. In December 1946 Frederick Lehman congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Robert Metz on 

winning a drawing for a homestead on the Klamath Project.
690

“ha[d] intentions of remaining on the farm.” On the other hand, “if he ha[d] no 

previous farming experience,” he would not be able to anticipate the rigors of 

farm life. How could the board “tell if he [was] sincere” enough to persist in the 

face of adversity? In “tough years,” those without experience might not even 

“be able to stick it out” without the requisite agricultural skills, a representative 

from a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars suggested. At length, those 

attending the meeting chose by a slim majority to retain the requirement of at least 

two years of farming experience.29

 Examining boards on other projects followed similar procedures in 

establishing minimum qualifi cations for applicants. The result was that the capital 

requirements varied considerably. On the Yuma Project, the examining board 

insisted upon $1,000 in cash and $1,000 in operating capital or assets. Applicants 

for farms on the Shoshone Project were only required to possess $1,000 in cash or 

assets and two years of farming experience, but those who possessed more capital 

(up to $2,500) or more experience (up to fi ve years) were given priority over 

others. The examining board for the Boise Project required applicants to possess 

$3,500 in cash or assets that could readily be converted into cash, and stipulated 

that an applicant’s automobiles and household goods could count for no more than 

$1,000 of that amount. Applicants for lands in the Columbia Basin near Pasco 

were required to have a net worth of at least $3,700.30

 Although Congress had rejected calls for the Bureau of Reclamation 

to provide technical assistance to homesteaders, the Bureau did furnish some 

assistance and coordinated other assistance with other local, state, and federal 

agencies through its project land use or settlement specialists. The Bureau 

cooperated with Washington State College in producing a Farmer’s Handbook

for settlers in the Columbia Basin. The booklet contained information on a 

variety of topics including farm life, housing, climate, erosion, irrigation, weed 

control, and pest control. On the Shoshone Project, the Bureau arranged for 

settlers to use its machines, hand tools, and concrete forms free of charge in a 

laboratory to pour their concrete drops for irrigation ditches, with supervision 

from Bureau employees. Under development contracts, the Bureau also furnished 

prefabricated irrigation structures. Settlers could also borrow equipment such as 

portable sprayers from the Bureau for tasks such as eradicating weeds. In 1948 

Bureau personnel on the project assisted forty-eight homesteaders on their farms 

with irrigating, surveyed and staked farm ditches on sixty farms, contracted with 

sixty-eight farmers for farm development work such as land leveling and land 

clearing, located fence lines on thirteen farms and worked up farm development 

plans for all 111 farms. Most settlers felt the technical assistance they received 

was suffi cient. In a systematic sampling of 208 settlers on the Columbia Basin 

late in 1954, only 4 percent identifi ed lack of advice or incorrect advice from 

public agencies as a major problem they had encountered, and only 6 percent 

perceived inexperience or uncertainty regarding the proper course to pursue as a 

major handicap.31
691

 Whereas the Bureau succeeded in furnishing technical assistance and 

disseminating information it was unable to proffer settlers on its projects the 

capital they desired, although many settlers did obtain loans from the Farmers 

Home Administration. The level of capital needed by farmers had never been 

higher. On the Northside Division of the Minidoka Project the cost of clearing 

land, leveling it, constructing farm ditches, drops and other irrigation works and 

applying fertilizer averaged $57 per acre. Additionally the government estimated 

the cost of a modern home; farm buildings; machinery such as tractors, disks, 

grain drills, checkers, hay mowers and rakes; and domestic water supply at 

$17,500.32

 With the exception of settlers on the unusually productive Klamath 

Project, most veterans found it diffi cult to secure fi nancing from local banks. In 

a survey of farmers in the Columbia Basin, over one-fi fth cited inadequate credit 

or capital as a key problem. The experiences of individual veterans illustrate their 

problems with insuffi cient capital. In their fi rst year of farming in the Coachella 

Valley, Pearl and Wayne Mayfi eld “needed fertilizer bad[ly]” but could not obtain 

a loan for it because they “didn’t own the land” and therefore could not use their 

farm as collateral. A banker in Moses Lake, Washington, told one veteran that he 

expected “the fi rst three farmers on these farm units were gonna go broke before 

one made it...so they weren’t gonna have anything to do with [the] farmers at 

all.” The fact that many homesteaders were young and had no credit rating also 

made bankers suspicious of them. When Jake Colvin applied for a loan from a 

bank in Yuma, the banker inquired about his credit rating. “I said, ‘Best in the 

world; I’ve paid cash for everything I ever bought in my life.’ ‘Well that’s not 

credit. You’ve got no credit,’ they said. ‘We just can’t loan money to somebody 

that doesn’t have a credit rating.’” To establish a credit rating Elliott Waits 

borrowed a small amount from one bank in Yuma, deposited it in another, drew 

some interest, paid the remaining interest on the loan and then repaid the bank in 

six months.33

 Alongside settler selection and provision of credit and technical assistance, 

critics of the Bureau’s post-World War I homesteading program had pointed to the 

need for more rigorous evaluation of actual farming opportunities on the projects 

including water supply, soil quality, climate, and accessibility to markets. As 

evidence of the Bureau’s more careful preparatory work, settlers in the 1940s 

and 1950s received contour maps for their farm units showing optimal locations 

for irrigation structures and detailed classifi cations of their soils. Reclamation 

Commissioner Michael W. Straus boasted in 1949 that “almost 100 percent of the 

new settlers make good.” Straus was exaggerating, but veterans did generally 

enjoy superior farming opportunities on the Bureau’s projects in the 1940s and 

1950s than their counterparts had received in the 1920s.34

 Notwithstanding the Bureau’s more careful preliminary investigations, 

enough poor units were included in the post-1945 projects that Congress enacted 

 Public Law 258 in 1953, providing for exchange of submarginal homesteads on 
692

reclamation projects. The law was largely inspired by the Bureau’s most glaring 

postwar failure, extensions of the Riverton Project where seepage and alkaline 

soils made it impossible for over one-third of the postwar homesteaders to 

support themselves. Assistant Commissioner H. F. McPhail admitted in 1953, 

“The facts clearly show that large amounts of money have been expended for 

construction of irrigation facilities on the newer portions of the project without 

reasonable certainty that the soils were irrigable.” Reporter Morton Margolin 

quoted an anonymous Bureau employee as saying that offi cials in the Bureau 

had disregarded warning signs and rushed ahead because “Congress and the 

Administration were alike in their desire to provide new farm lands as soon 

as possible” following the Second World War. “Political pressures dictated an 

expediting of construction, which prevented as thorough an investigation as the 

Bureau usually makes.”35

 Despite the desire of the Bureau and of local examining boards to award 

farms to those who intended to spend their lives on the farm, many homesteaders 

actually regarded their homestead as a speculative investment. Others who may 

have originally planned to make the farm their home became discouraged by 

the hardships of homesteading or were enticed by the prospect of higher wages 

or a higher standard of living off the farm. Turnover rates were lowest on the 

Klamath Project where the soil was richest. Ninety percent of the homesteaders 

there remained on their farms at the end of the fi rst four years, and 43.5 percent 

remained in 1968, 20-22 years after the homesteaders had arrived. On other 

projects fewer settlers stayed. On the Minidoka Project by the end of 1960, seven 

years after the fi rst settlers had arrived on the project, 72 percent of a cluster 

sample of 83 veterans who had acquired a farm prior to 1959 retained their land. 

Within 20-22 years of the veterans’ arrival, 31 percent still owned the land. At 

Yuma Mesa, where the summertime heat was nearly unbearable, 75 percent of the 

fi rst group of 54 homesteaders remained on their farms after two years. Ten years 

after the fi rst settlers had arrived, 44 percent of them were still there, and after 

twenty years one-third of them remained.36

 Looking back upon outcomes of homesteading by veterans following the 

First and Second World Wars, how do they compare? Of all the areas opened to 

homesteading following 1945, only the Riverton Project witnessed an extensive 

exodus of homesteaders during the fi rst decade of settlement comparable to 

veterans’ abandonment of the Shoshone Project in the 1920s. However, the 

percentage of homesteaders who retained their lands roughly two decades 

after they had been homesteaded was actually higher for the post-World War I 

cohort on the Klamath and North Platte projects than for the post-World War 

II group on the Minidoka, Klamath, or Yuma projects. Absentee ownership, 

however, was less common among the post-1945 cohort than among the 1920s 

homesteaders. Whereas only 15 percent of all the veteran homesteaders at 

North Platte and 37 percent of the veterans who homesteaded in the 1920s on 

the Klamath Project continued to occupy their lands 20 years later, 44 percent 

of the post-1945 homesteaders on the Klamath Project and 30 percent of the 
693

post-1945 homesteaders on the Yuma Project still resided on their farms 20 years 

after they had fi led upon their lands. In this sense at least, the Bureau’s efforts to 

reduce speculation and tenancy by screening settlers and improving the quality of 

opportunities on its projects had apparently succeeded.

Brian Q. Cannon is an associate professor on the history faculty of Brigham 

Young University and director of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies. 

He has written numerous articles such as “‘We Are Now Entering a New Era’: 

Federal Reclamation and the Fact Finding Commission of 1923-1924,” Pacifi c 

Historical Review 66 (May 1997): 185-211; “Homesteading the Promised Land: 

Reclamation in the Northwest, 1902-1924” (Paper for the Annual Meeting of 

the Pacifi c Coast Branch of the AHA, 1997); and, “Quite a Wrestling Match: 

Adaptation of Dryland Farmers to Irrigation,” Agricultural History 66 (Spring 

1992): 120-136. He also wrote Remaking the Agrarian Dream: New Deal Rural 

Resettlement in the Mountain West (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 

Press, 1996).

Endnotes

1. Ten Broek Williamson, “History of the 1946 Land Opening on the Tule Lake Division 

of the Klamath Project,” typescript, 1947, pp. 62-3, File 732, Historical Files, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

2. Congress, House, Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Settlement of Returning 

Veterans on Farms in Reclamation Projects, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 12 April 1945, 90-2, 97; 

Congress, Senate, Federal Reclamation by Irrigation, 68th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 92, (1924), 97.

3. Andrew Weiss, “Special Report on 80 Soldier Entries of March 5, 1920, Fort Laramie 

Division, North Platte Project,” unpublished typescript, 1924, 151-2, Box 846, General 

Administrative and Project Records, 1919-1945, Record Group [RG] 115, National Archives–

Rocky Mountain Region, [NA], Denver.

4. Congress, Settlement of Returning Veterans, 92. Persistence rates on reclamation 

homesteads comparable to the rates that Richard Bremer found in Nebraska from 1935 to 1945.

Only 54 percent of the Nebraska farmers in Bremer’s sample for 1935 remained on the same farms 

fi ve years later, and by 1945 the fi gure had dropped to 35.9 percent. See Richard G. Bremer, 

Agricultural Change in an Urban Age: The Loup Country of Nebraska, 1910-1970, University of 

Nebraska Studies New Series No. 51 (Lincoln, 1976), 129.

5. Weiss, “Special Report,” 3, 34, 68-89, 74-75.

6. Andrew Weiss to Elwood Mead, 28 July 1924, Folder: 500 North Platte Colonization and 

Settlement– General, thru 1929,” Box 846, RG 115, NA.

7. Congress, Settlement of Returning Veterans, 93; Congress, Federal Reclamation by 

Irrigation, 98, 202; Robert White, Frannie-Deaver Proposition: A Chronicle of Optimism–and 

Alkali (Cheyenne: Frontier Printing Co., 1990), 159, 184-5.

8. Weiss, “Special Report,” 33-4, 126-7; Vaughn Mechau, “Veteran, Wyoming,” 

Reclamation Era 33 (May 1947):119.

9. Weiss, “Special Report,” 62-3, 70-3, 126-7.

10. Weiss, “Special Report,” 99-100, 161-2.

11. Congress, Settlement of Returning Veterans, 93.

12. Congress, Federal Reclamation by Irrigation, 47, 97-102, 123.

13. Richard K. Pelz, ed., Federal Reclamation Laws and Related Laws Annotated, 4 vols. 

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Offi ce, 1972), 1:316-27.

14. John B. Holt, An Analysis of Methods and Criteria Used In Selecting Families for 

Colonization Projects, Social Science Research report no.1 (Washington, D.C.: Farm Security 

Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1937), 24, 33-6; John C. Page to Carl 

Hayden, 23 December 1937, Folder 503: General Correspondence re: Selection of Settlers, 

1936-37, Box 835, General Correspondence File, 1930-45, RG 115, NA; Department of the 
694

Interior, “Information for Homeseekers,” handbill dated 30 June 1927, Folder: 510.2 North Platte 

Publicity Methods thru 1929, Box 847, General Administrative and Project Records, 1919-1945, 

RG 115, NA.

15. Holt, Analysis of Methods, 34-5.

16. Congress, House, Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Preference to ExServicemen for Entry to Public Lands on Reclamation Projects, 78th Cong., 2d sess., 

25 May 1944, 5; 78th Cong., 2d sess. CR (15 May 1944):4508-9.

17. Statutes at Large 58, part 1, 747 (1945); Congress, House, Report no. 1646, 78th Cong., 

2d sess. (1944); Congress, Senate, Report no. 1084, 78th Cong., 2d sess. (1944); 78th Cong., 

2d sess. CR 5:5933, 6011, 6200, 6247; 6:7608, 7721, 7907, 8042, 8162. 

18. Congress, Preference to Ex-Servicemen, 21; Congress, Settlement of Returning Veterans,

1-4, 336.

19. Ibid., 232, 320.

20. Congress, House, Report No. 688, 79th Cong. 1st sess. (1945):1-6.

21. 79th Cong., 1st sess. Congressional Record (CR) (19 September 1945):8774.

22. Ibid., 8774-5, 8779-80, 8788. 

23. Ibid., 8778, 8785.

24. Ibid., 8776, 8780, 8783.

25. Ibid.,8789; 79th Cong., 1st sess., CR, 8802.

26. Caldwell [Idaho] News-Tribune, 23 March 1950; Bureau of Reclamation, “Report to the 

Commissioner on Land Opening of Part I, Heart Mountain Division, Shoshone Project,” 

27 October 1947, mimeograph, p. 14, copy in fi les of Shoshone Irrigation District, Powell, 

Wyoming; Bureau of Reclamation, “Report to the Commissioner on Land Opening of Part II, 

Heart Mountain Division, Shoshone Project,” 15 December 1947, mimeograph, p. 7, copy in Ibid.; 

Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual Project History for Shoshone Project, 1949,” typescript, p. 68; 

Bureau of Reclamation, “Narrative Report: Yuma Project Land Opening under Public Notice no. 

59” (mimeograph, 1950), 1, copy in Bureau of Reclamation Regional Library and Offi ce, Boulder 

City, Nevada; Yuma Daily Sun, 7 January 1954; Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual Project History 

for Gila Project, 1956,” typescript, p. 17; Yuma Daily Sun, 29 June 1948; “Yuma Mesa Farms Go 

to 27 Lucky Vets,” Reclamation Era, 38 (August 1952):199; Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual 

Project History for Vale Project, 1947,” typescript, viii; Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual Project 

History for Riverton Project, 1947,” typescript, p. 64; Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual Project 

History for Riverton Project, 1949,” typescript, 103; Bureau of Reclamation, “Annual Project 

History for Riverton Project, 1950,” typescript, p. 98; Minidoka County News, 19 May 1955, 

26 April 1956, 5 July 1957; Twin Falls Times-News, 5 August 1953; Indio News [California],

28 September 1954; Seattle Times, 30 March 1949; Ten Broeck Williamson, “History of the 

1946 Land Opening on the Tule Lake Division of the Klamath Project,” typescript, 1947, v-vi, 

Historical File 732, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls; Bureau of Reclamation, “Narrative 

History Report of the Klamath Project Land Opening under Public Notice no. 47,” typescript, 

1948, p. 1, in Ibid; Stan Turner, The Years of Harvest: A History of the Tule Lake Basin (Eugene, 

Oregon: 49th Avenue Press, 1987), 307-8; Paul Curtis Pitzer, “Visions, Plans and Realities: A 

History of the Columbia Basin Project” (doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1990), 157.

27. “Minutes of public meeting held March 30, 1948 at Klamath Falls, Oregon,” 1-2, 6; File 

730: Klamath Economics Reports: Applicants for Homestead Drawing, 1948-1949, Historical 

Files, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

28. Ibid., 6; F. D. Rockbice to Harold L. Ickes, 15 January 1945, File 730: Inquiries 

Regarding Opportunities, Historical Files, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon; 

Williamson, “History of the 1946 Land Opening,”10, 43-44, 76. 

29. “Minutes of public meeting held March 30, 1948 at Klamath Falls, Oregon,” 6-11.

30. Yuma Project Public Notice No. 59, 22 August 1947, in “Narrative Report: Yuma Project 

Land Opening under Public Notice No. 59,” typescript, 1950, copy in Regional Offi ce, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; “Project History: Boise Project, 1949,” typescript, 1949, 112, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Boise; Exhibit IV-1 in “Report to the Commissioner on Land Openings, 

Parts I and II, Heart Mountain Division, Shoshone Project,” typescript, 1949, Shoshone Irrigation 

District Offi ce, Powell, Wyoming; Columbia Basin Project Public Notice No. 1.1, 20 July 1948, 

Box 13, Frank A. Banks Papers, Special Collections and Archives, Washington State University, 
695

Pullman.

31. Important [Notice] to Applicants for Homesteads on Gooding Division, Hunt Unit, 

Minidoka Project,” [ca. March 1947], Minidoka Project–Milner Gooding File, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Burley, Idaho; Washington State College and Bureau of Reclamation, Farmers’ 

Handbook for the Columbia Basin Project (n.p., n.d. [ca 1954]), Archives and Special Collections, 

Washington State University, Pullman; “Report to the Commissioner on Land Openings, Parts 

I and II, Heart Mountain Division, Shoshone Project,”36, 69; Murray Strauss, The Columbia 

Basin Settler: A Study of Social and Economic Resources in New Land Settlement, Washington 

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 566 (Pullman: State College of Washington, 1956), 36.

32. Strauss, Columbia Basin Settler, 36..

33. Minidoka County News, 26 May 1955; 7 May 7 1957; Pearl Mayfi eld, Interview by Brian 

Cannon, 20 May 1997; David Hunt, Interview by Brian Cannon, 18 August 1996; Carlos “Jake” 

Colvin, Interview by Brian Cannon, 24 May 1997; Elliott Waits, Interview by Brian Cannon, 

23 May 1997, transcripts in author’s possession.

34. Riverton Review, 4 December 1947, 29 September 1949.

35. H. F. McPhail to Regional Director, 17 December 1953, Folder Riverton 740, Box 402, 

Accession 115-66-AU0447, Federal Records Center, Denver; “Annual Project History: Riverton 

Project, 1953,” vol. 36, mimeograph, 10, 75-7; Denver Rocky Mountain News, 8 August 1953.

36. Persistence rates on the Northside Pumping Division of the Minidoka Project were 

calculated using county real estate records for a cluster sample. This cluster sample includes all 

settlers whose patents were dated 1956 or 1957 and offi cially recorded in the Minidoka County 

Recorder’s Offi ce by July 15, 1959. Additionally, it includes patents dated 1958 for settlers with 

surnames beginning with the letters A-L that were recorded through page 71 of Minidoka County 

Patent Book 6. Persistence rates for the Yuma Project were calculated using Yuma city and county 

directories located in the Yuma public library. Persistence rates on the Klamath Project through 

1952 are based upon a survey conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1952 and reported in 

“Report on Progress of Settlers on Farm Units in Reclamation Projects Opened to Settlement, 

1945-1952,” Folder 730: “Lands Settlement and Land Entries, August 27, 1948-February 9, 1958,” 

Historical Records, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon. Information regarding settler 

persistence through 1968 was calculated from a list of the settlers attached to Reunion Committee 

to Mr. Lawrence, 11 July 1968, Folder 730: “Klamath Settlement (Homestead Reunion),” Bureau 

of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
696
697

From Water to Water and Power: The Changing 

Charge of the Bureau of Reclamation

By:

Jay Brigham

 The United States Congress did two signifi cant things in 1902, which at 

the time must have seemed completely isolated from one another. After great 

debate, Congress passed landmark legislation that established what we now know 

as the Bureau of Reclamation. Much less fanfare accompanied congressional 

authorization that instructed the United States Census Bureau to conduct the fi rst, 

rudimentary, electrical census of the United States. It seems unlikely that many of 

those in Congress in 1902 who voted on these two authorizations foresaw the day 

when the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and electrical generation would become 

closely intertwined.

Undoubtedly, establishment of the Bureau of Reclamation was the more 

important of these two congressional acts. For the next 100 years the Bureau 

brought water to many parts of the otherwise arid West. When the formation 

of the BR and the 1902 electrical census are considered together, however, they 

present an interesting interplay. Arguably, in 1902 irrigation and reclamation 

represented the nation’s pastoral ideal and the Jeffersonian notion of the yeoman 

farmer. Irrigation would open new farmland for Americans to own and cultivate 

thus giving them a stake in society. Electricity, on the other hand, to many people 

represented modernity, if not urbanization, at the dawn of the twentieth century. 

Although some believed that electrical energy would result in decentralization, 

most people clearly associated electricity with cities and towns and such images 

as streetcars and great white ways. Electricity generated from water power 

became the source of much hope and debate in the fi rst decades of the twentieth 

century leading to passage of the Federal Water Power Act in 1920 after years of 

intense political debate. The growing dichotomy between urban and rural after 

the beginning of the twentieth century resulted, in part, because of the growing 

use of electricity and the images associated with such use. This fi rst occurred 

in public places with developments such as electric streetcars and street lighting 

systems and then in private settings through household lighting, heating, and 

appliance usage.

30.1. Grand Coulee, Hoover, and Glen Canyon Dams and their powerhouses.
698

 The 1902 electrical census revealed that the total generating capacity of 

commercially- and municipally-owned central electrical stations hardly exceeded 

1.2 million kilowatts for the entire United States. Five years later, the same 

generation capacity had increased nearly 125 percent to more than 2.7 million 

kilowatts.1

 By comparison, in the year 2000 the total capacity of BR dams in the 

seventeen western states that the Bureau serves surpassed 14.7 million kilowatts.

That generation capacity included electricity from the federal government’s 

largest hydroelectric dam, Grand Coulee (6.8 million kilowatts), from perhaps the 

most famous federal dam, Hoover Dam (2.1 million kilowatts), and from one of 

the most controversial federal dams Glen Canyon (almost 1.3 million kilowatts). 

Not all BR dams have such tremendous output. The power plant in the Bureau’s 

project at Lewiston, Idaho, has a listed capacity of 350 kilowatts.2

 Originally charged with watering the arid West, the Bureau of Reclamation 

has become one of the country’s largest generators of electricity. While water 

certainly remains the BR’s primary objective, electrical generation provides 

considerable revenue. Examining the fi rst three decades of the Bureau’s history, 

from its formation through the passage of the Boulder Dam Act reveals how the 

Bureau’s mission changed from water to water and power. The Bureau’s concern 

with generation resulted not only from the need to have electricity to pump water, 

but also out of the emerging belief that the public should retain control of at least 

some of the nation’s hydroelectric development. It also soon became apparent 

to Bureau offi cials that electrical generation could result in signifi cant revenue. 

The Bureau’s role in the construction of Hoover and later Grand Coulee Dams 

also fi t well with the emerging view that the federal government should infl uence 

the development of the nation’s development of electrical resources through the 

ownership of at least some large federal projects. Federal infl uence in this regard 

was exerted in other parts of the country through the Tennessee Valley Authority 

and later the hydroelectric development of the Saint Lawrence River. Only 

in the West, however, did reclamation and hydroelectricity become so closely 

intertwined.

 Viewing the early history of BR electrical generation as fi ve concentric 

circles drawn around a project provides an analytical model for understanding 

the growing role that electricity played in Bureau projects. Each new circle 

incorporates the existing circles, plus signifi cant new functions. The innermost 

circle represents power projects built to facilitate dam construction. In those 

instances, electricity might have been used to power shovels, drills, and cement 

mixers. Such generation might have been water or steam power. The next circle 

represents electricity used for pumping water. Using electrically powered pumps 

resulted in a signifi cant increase in the distance that the Bureau could move water. 

Electrical pumps meant that the Bureau was no longer dependent on gravity 

to irrigate land. The next circle, the third, represents electrical sales to parties 

that lived close to the dams. Although many of these sales involved relatively 

small amounts of electricity, they are important because the Bureau was selling 
699

surplus electricity. Dams were generating more power than projects required for 

operation.

 By the fi rst decade of the twentieth century, electrical engineers had 

solved the impediments to the long distance transmission of electricity by using 

transformers and alternating current. Such breakthroughs were especially 

signifi cant in the West where great distances often separated hydroelectric sites 

from population centers. These technological advances gave the Bureau the 

capability to transmit power beyond the immediate vicinity of dams. The ability 

to transmit power more than several miles, often over rugged terrain, resulted in 

the sale of Bureau power to municipalities and private power companies. Such 

sales represent the fourth concentric circle. By the mid-1910s, the Bureau’s 

power sales had surpassed $500,000 per year. The fi fth circle represents power 

generation and sales to larger cities with electrical generation being nearly 

as much of a factor in the political debates regarding project authorization as 

irrigation. Hoover Dam best represents the fi fth concentric circle. Although 

an irrigation and fl ood control project, signifi cant and divisive political debate 

concerning electrical generation, transmission, and distribution preceded 

Congressional authorization of the project. It is noteworthy that Pelton water 

wheels generate electricity for use at Hoover Dam, while the Bureau transmits 

electricity generated from the banks of turbines on each side of the river to distant 

cities. Although it is beyond the scope of this work to examine the Bureau’s 

activities during World War II, during the war Bureau of Reclamation power 

developed a sixth circle, the interconnection of Bureau generated power into the 

developing western power grid.3

 Congress passed legislation creating what became the Bureau of 

Reclamation on June 17, 1902.4

 The provisions of the law are well known and 

hardly need repeating. In ten relatively brief sections, Congress laid out the basis 

to provide water to the arid west. The act gave the Secretary of the Interior broad 

power to withdraw land and to authorize projects. The reclamation fund would 

fi nance projects. Landownership could not exceed 160 acres, and residency 

was required. Issues associated with electrical generation, transmission, and 

distribution do not appear in the law. The word electricity does not even appear in 

the statute. That all began to change within a few years.

 The Salt River Project in Arizona was among the fi rst reclamation projects 

that the Secretary of the Interior authorized on March 14, 1903.5

 The First Annual 

Report of the Reclamation Service, which covered the period from passage of the 

law to December 1, 1902, recognized the nascent power potential of the proposed 

project. The report stated, “[i]n the construction of a great dam one of the most 

important elements is power.” Further discussion followed that included a brief 

description of the proposed power plant. This represents the fi rst concentric 

circle. The writer reported that the power house would have a generating capacity 

of 1,200 horsepower with a fourth of that amount devoted to the cement mill.

Bureau offi cials estimated the total cost of the power house at $215,260.6
700

 The following year electricity appeared even more prominently in the 

Bureau’s annual report. In discussing the Minidoka Project, another of the 

Bureau’s original endeavors, on the upper Snake River in Idaho the report stated 

that the site presented an “unusually favorable” location for power development.

The Bureau was considering three different plans for the project. The fi rst had an 

estimated generation capacity of 9,545 horsepower, the second plan’s estimated 

capacity was 11,820 horsepower, and the third plan could generate up to 

17,500 horsepower (more than 13,000 kilowatts). The report stated that the 

Bureau could use electricity to pump water “above the gravity line” south of 

the river. If the Bureau did not electrically pump water, offi cials thought that 

a gravity system could only irrigate about 66,000 acres. Electricity greatly 

increased that potential. The Bureau estimated that under the fi rst plan, it could 

irrigate 116,000 acres, while under the second plan an additional 10,000 acres 

could be irrigated. Finally, under the third, 17,500 horsepower plan, upwards of 

172,200 acres would receive river water.7

 The Bureau’s second annual report also contained a section describing the 

proposed Shoshone Project on the North Fork of the Shoshone River in northwest 

Wyoming. Jeremiah Ahern, who conducted the project investigation, estimated 

that at two sites 9,000 horsepower might be generated.8

 The next several Bureau 

of Reclamation Annual Reports continued to discuss hydroelectric potential. The 

third and fourth annual reports reviewed the power potential on the following 

projects: Salt River, Klamath, Minidoka, Crow Reservation, Sun River, and Priest 

Rapids.9

 During these early years of the Bureau of Reclamation some prominent 

national fi gures began to express concern over what they considered a waterpower 

monopoly. Gifford Pinchot, James Garfi eld, Franklin Lane, and others believed 

that the nation’s waterways should be publicly developed to serve the greatest 

good. These individuals, usually considered as part of the growing progressiveconservationist movement, expressed alarm over what they thought was the 

30.2. Theodore Roosevelt Dam and 

Powerhouse. 30.3. A 1911 view of the Minidoka 

Powerplant.
701

purchasing and holding of water power sites for speculative purposes. In 1904 the 

Bureau of Reclamation addressed the problem in this statement:

One of the diffi culties encountered in putting the reclamation law into 

effect is the fact that speculative interests have fi led upon, or are seeking 

to fi le upon, all possible sites for developing power.... The fact that 

the persons who fi le upon these water power sites are not compelled 

to utilize them or expend any considerable amount of money in their 

development enables a monopoly of this kind to be created at a small 

expense.10

At issue for the Bureau was the possibility that private power interests would 

monopolize the best dam sites, thereby securing water rights and effectively 

preventing new reclamation projects.

The same report contained a section titled “Power Development and 

Pumping,” that discussed both hydropower and steam generated electricity for 

pumping purposes. An electrical engineer in Denver was responsible for making 

the studies of power possibilities of each project. The report then gave a stateby-state breakdown of the pumping and power possibilities thus far investigated, 

which included projects in Arizona (Salt River); California (Owens Valley, Yuma, 

and King River); Colorado (Uncompahgre Valley); Idaho (Minidoka); Nebraska 

(North Platte); Nevada (Truckee-Carson); New Mexico (Rio Grande); North 

Dakota (steam generated power); South Dakota (Belle Fourche); Utah (Utah Lake 

and Bear Lake); Washington (Priest Rapids); and Wyoming (Shoshone).11

 These early annual reports indicate that a new reality was setting in at 

the Bureau of Reclamation that recognized electricity as an integral part of any 

proposed project. A circular letter dated February 2, 1904, discussed the changing 

situation. The letter stated that 

[t]he feasibility of a project may depend upon the possibilities regarding 

power development and use, and as much time should be allowed for 

studying this phase of the undertaking as for the investigation of other 

engineering questions.

The letter instructed consulting engineers to state in their reports if power 

development was possible, and if so, how much and for what uses. By issuing 

these engineering instructions, the Bureau had put electricity on the same 

engineering level as irrigation and fl ood control. A circular letter in May of 1904 

addressed the concern about speculative withdraws of water power sites. The 

letter gave the Bureau’s approval for withdrawal of potential hydroelectric dam 

sites if any “reasonable prospect” existed that the Bureau may use the site.12

Effectively, the Bureau decided to make preemptive claims to protect potential 

project sites from speculative claims.
702

 Numerous factors caused 

the Bureau of Reclamation to 

reassess the importance of electricity. 

Independent of the Bureau, electricity 

was becoming a political, social, and 

technological issue in America. As 

increasing numbers of people used 

electricity, the need for additional 

generation became paramount.

This, in part, led to the speculative 

purchases of potential water power 

locations. Water power itself seemed 

to represent an energy panacea since 

it did not require the transportation 

of fuel and once a dam was built supply seemed unlimited. Internally, the Bureau 

realized that electricity would allow it to irrigate more land then envisioned only a 

few years earlier. Technology would thus help promote the Jeffersonian yeoman 

farmer ideal. Bureau projects, especially Salt River and Minidoka, would soon 

generate electricity in excess of the requirements for pumping water. Surplus 

electricity meant dollars for the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress addressed 

the changing circumstances when it amended the reclamation law in April 1906. 

Section fi ve of the 1906 law gave the Secretary of the Interior the right to lease 

surplus power for not more than ten years with a preference given to leases for 

municipal purposes. The government would place revenue from such leases 

in the reclamation fund and credit the money to the project that generated the 

electricity. Irrigation remained paramount, however, as a power lease could not 

“impair the effi ciency of the irrigation project.”13 Fourteen years later, when 

Congress passed the Federal Water Power Act, it also contained a clause giving 

preference to municipal power systems.14

 For the remainder of the fi rst decade of the twentieth century electricity 

continued to increase in importance at Bureau projects. During these years, the 

Bureau also authorized construction of steam generating plants for pumping 

purposes at several projects. In May 1906, for example, the Bureau started 

receiving bids for construction of two steam turbines with a total capacity of 600 

horsepower to pump water at the ably named Garden City Project in western 

Kansas.15 Steam-driven generators later pumped water on the Williston Project in 

North Dakota.

 Electrical power proved indispensable in the construction of another 

early project that featured a hydroelectric dam. After several years of study, the 

Secretary of the Interior authorized the Strawberry Valley Project in December 

1905. Located southeast of Salt Lake City, the Strawberry Valley Project evolved 

out of the agitation of people in the area for irrigation water. Besides water, 

the project eventually supplied power to several small Utah towns. The project 

diverted water from the Colorado River watershed into the Great Basin through an 

30.4. Bell type 116” turbine runner (Unit 1)

at the Siphon Drop Powerplant on the Yuma 

Project in 1926.
703

18,500-foot tunnel that carried 

water from the Strawberry 

River to the Spanish Fork 

River.16

The project involved 

two dams: a retention dam on 

the Strawberry River with a 

capacity of 250,000 acre feet 

and then a diversion dam on 

the Spanish Fork River. The 

Spanish Fork River dam 

diverted water into a threemile long power canal before 

the water fi nally entered the 

irrigation works. Electrical energy proved crucial in construction of the tunnel. 

Initially workers used electric drills powered by gasoline burning generators to 

tunnel through the limestone rock. After workers had excavated 1,565 feet of the 

tunnel, work stopped to await installation of a more sophisticated electrical plant. 

Work resumed in December 1908 and workers used compressed air drills driven 

by electrically powered air compressors. Electricity lit the tunnel and helped with 

ventilation. The project’s machine shop was equipped with electrically powered 

tools and equipment, and an electrically powered locomotive helped clear debris.

A power line transmitted excess power to the town of Spanish Forks, which used 

it for electric lighting. The Bureau planned to move another transmission line 

built during the construction phase into the valley upon completion of the project 

and to use the line to carry power to pumping stations. The electrical system went 

online in January 1909 with a capacity of 3,000 horsepower.17

 The year 1909 also was eventful in an electrical sense on other Bureau 

projects. During construction of the Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River Project, the 

Bureau had installed a temporary power plant that could generate 

1,300 horsepower of electricity. Even before the temporary generator began 

generating electricity, engineers had made plans to install six 900-kilowatt 

generators in the permanent power house. The fi rst three units began generating 

electricity in 1909 (unit one in June, units two and three in August). Although 

designed to power pumps, municipal and industrial customers bought Roosevelt 

Dam power most notably the privately owned Pacifi c Gas and Electric 

Company.18

 While the permanent generators began producing power at Strawberry 

Valley and on the Salt River Project, the Minidoka Project on the Upper Snake 

River in Idaho also began generating electricity in 1909. Power possibilities were 

among the considerations when the Bureau conducted initial project studies in 

1903. The Bureau later sold excess power for lighting, commercial, and industrial 

uses. In 1909 the Bureau had developed 6,000 horsepower of electricity on 

30.5. In 1906 Reclamation had the exciters in place 

and ready for operation in the powerhouse on the 

Strawberry Valley Project.
704

the Minidoka Project with another 4,000 horsepower under consideration. The 

power plant began operation in May 1909, generating power for the project’s fi rst 

pumping station. Water from electrically powered pumps irrigated 3,600 acres on 

the project in 1909.19

 The Salt River, Strawberry Valley, and the Minidoka Projects all reveal 

the changing charge of the Bureau of Reclamation within the fi rst ten years of its 

existence. Although on all three projects irrigation remained supreme, electricity 

has assumed an important position. The Bureau and Congress recognized this 

through new regulation and statute. On all three projects electricity allowed for 

the pumping of water in greater amounts and over greater distances. Electricity 

was especially crucial in the construction of the Strawberry Valley Project and 

to a slightly lesser degree the Salt River Project. In subsequent years, the sale 

of electricity, especially on the Salt River Project, would result in substantial 

revenue. In varying degrees, the fi rst three concentric circles had developed 

around these projects: electricity for construction, electricity for pumping, and 

electrical sales to individuals and small municipalities. The foundation for the 

fourth circle, sale to municipalities had clearly been laid with installation of the 

permanent generating facilities at Salt River, Minidoka, and Strawberry Valley.

 As the Bureau entered its second decade of existence, it continued 

to expand as it constructed more projects, some of which could generate 

hydroelectricity. The thirteenth annual report, which covered fi scal year 

1913-1914, refl ected a degree of contradiction in how the Bureau viewed 

power development. The report noted that projects on large rivers often had 

hydroelectric capability. Pumping underground water or surface water above 

the gravity line remained the Bureau’s primary reason for power development. 

Beyond pumping water, the Bureau’s interests in electricity, in order of 

importance, were dam construction, transportation of construction material, and 

then commercial sales of power. Having stated the Bureau’s interest, the report 

then discussed the rates charged for commercial sales from the Minidoka Project, 

which were less per kilowatt hour than the rates charged for Niagara Falls power. 

This statement is of interest because, during the long debate over ownership of 

electrical systems, public power advocates often used rates at the governmentowned plant at Niagara Falls as a yardstick to measure the rates of privately 

owned utilities in the United States. The report contained the Minidoka Project’s 

rate schedule and noted the Bureau usually sold power nearly at cost.20

 Data contained in the Sixteenth Annual Report shows the extent of the 

Bureau’s electrical development. The Bureau operated thirteen power plants on 

nine projects. As shown in Table 30.1, those plants generated in excess of 

100 million kilowatt hours of electricity. Power sold to customers approached 

80 million kilowatt hours and resulted in revenue exceeding $623,000.
705

Table 30.1. Bureau of Reclamation Power Plants Operated during fi scal year 1916-1917.

Project Plant Capacity Kilowatt

Hours Kilowatt Power Sales Kilowatt

Kilowatts Generated Hours Sold Revenue Hour Cost.

Salt River Roosevelt 10,000 48,112,800

“ Cross Cut 5,000 9,612,000

“ South

Consolidated 2,000 6,148,400 60,964,565 $495,049.56 $0.01

Boise Boise 1,875 4,228,720

Minidoka Minidoka 7,000 40,762,730

“ Arizona Falls 1,000 2,745,660 17,009,555 $41,529.57 $0.00

Truckee-Carson Lahontan 1,875 4,758,320 1,023 $16,331.86 $15.96

Rio Grande Power plant 150 59,100 1,200 $52.21 $0.04

Strawberry Valley Spanish Fork 850 1,043,661 939,365 $9,756.10 $0.01

Okanogan Power Plant 

No. 1 187 6,870 6,870 $140.00 $0.02

“ Power Plant 

No. 2 187 11,310 11,310 $440.00 $0.04

Yakima-Sunnyside Rocky Ford 187

North Dakota 

Pumping Williston 1,150 1,222,310 943,050 $60,561.00 $0.06

Total 31,461 118,711,881 79,876,938 $623,860.30 $0.01

Source: Bureau of Reclamation, Thirteenth Annual Report, 1916-1917 (Government

Printing Offi ce, 1917), 23.

Notes: For Salt River and Minidoka generation totals and revenue are project wide.

Salt River units one, two, and three were not in service during fi scal year 1916-1917 

according to the report. All plants were hydroelectric except Williston, which was steam.

Although the size of many of the plants listed in Table 30.1 is small by 

contemporary standards, many towns had similar size plants during the 

1910s. The Bureau continued to look for additional sources of electricity. The 

information in Table 30.2 is also drawn from the Sixteenth Annual Report.
706

Table 30.2. Undeveloped power on Bureau Projects during fi scal year 1916-1917.

State(s) Project Kilowatts Kilowatt

Minimum Maximum

ArizonaCalifornia Yuma Drop in CA Canal 895 895

Araz 6,714 6,714

Laguna 2,984 2,984

California Iron Canyon Iron Canyon 26,110 26,110

Orland Drop, highline to South Canal 506 506

“ Hat Creek 6,714 8,952

“ Fall River 5,222 29,840

“ Big Bend 111,900 111,900

Colorado Grand Valley* Main Canal 2,238 2,238

Uncompahgre* Various Sites 29,840 29,840

Idaho Boise Arrowrock Dam 7,460 14,920

“* Various Sites 1,417 1,417

Minidoka Minidoka Dam 7,460 7,460

“ Head of Walcott Lake 22,380 22,380

Montana Flathead No. 1 Newell Tunnel 96,980 96,980

“ No. 2 Buffalo Dam 28,348 28,348

“ No. 3 14,174 14,174

“ No. 4 52,220 52,220

“ No. 5 11,190 11,190

Huntley Second Drop, Main Canal 205 205

Montana-North

Dakota Lower Yellowstone* Lateral K.K. drop 234 234

Nebraska North Platte* Pathfi nder Dam 12,682 44,760

Nevada Truckee-Carson Lahontan 3,730 3,730

“ 26-foot drop 2,163 2,163

New MexicoTexas Elephant Butte Elephant Butte Dam 8,952 8,952

Oregon Columbia River Celilo Falls 373,000 596,800

Deschutes 4 sites 67,140 74,600

Silver Lake Silver Creek 2,163 2,163

Umatilla Drainage Outfall 108 108

Warner Valley Deep Creek 1,492 1,492

Willamette Valley Santiam River and Marion Lake 10,444 10,444

“ McKenzie River, 2 plants 22,753 22,753
707

“ Middle Fork Willamette and 

Waldo Lake Storage 48,490 48,490

OregonCalifornia Klamath Various Sites 7,460 7,460

Utah Strawberry Valley Spanish Fork 1,119 1,119

Washington Columbia River Priest Rapids 149,200 149,200

Okanogan Salmon Creek No. 1 1,492 1,492

“ Salmon Creek No. 2 1,902 1,902

Yakima-Sunnyside Mabton 98 98

“ Main Canal 206 206

Yakima-Tieton Lateral E 2,544 2,544

Yakima-Wapato Drop 0 2,186 2,186

“ Drop 1 3,046 3,046

“ Drop 2 1,822 1,822

“ Drop 3 1,110 1,110

Wyoming Shoshone Shoshone 29,840 29,840

Total 1,190,335 1,487,989

Source: Bureau of Reclamation, Thirteenth Annual Report, 1916-1917 (Government

Printing Offi ce, 1917), 28. Notes: Asterisk indicates generation from irrigation fl ow only.

 Several things are notable about the data in Table 30.2. Perhaps most 

signifi cantly is the number of projects, twenty-eight, and the number of possible 

power plants, at least forty-six. The maximum capacity the Bureau thought 

these plants could generate (1,487,989 kilowatts) dwarfed the capacity of those 

plants already generating electricity (Table 30.1: 31,461 kilowatts). The Bureau 

was certainly thinking big, and that thinking was nowhere more evident then on 

the Columbia River. Estimates of a dam at Celilo Falls ranged from 1,190,335 

to 1,487,989 kilowatts and the estimate for Priest Rapids was almost 150,000 

kilowatt hours. The Bureau never did build dams at either of those Columbia 

River sites. The Grand County, Washington Public Utility District, with fi nancial 

backing from public and private utilities, built a dam at Priest Rapids in the 1950s. 

The Army Corps of Engineers built The Dallas Dam fl ooding Celilo Falls, also 

in the 1950s. The Bonneville Power Administration transmits power from both 

projects on its lines.21 A notable omission from the Bureau’s list of potential 

waterpower sites was the lower Colorado River near Black and Boulder Canyons. 

That would soon change, leading to ever further expansion of the Bureau’s 

hydroelectric capacity.

 Calls for a dam on the lower Colorado River began shortly after the turn 

of the century from residents of California’s Imperial Valley. People in the valley, 

who wanted a dam for irrigation and to help control the Colorado’s devastating 

fl oods, began calling for a dam. In time, their demands coincided with the Bureau 
708

of Reclamation’s plan to establish a comprehensive development program for the 

Colorado River Basin. Initial discussions usually centered on fl ood protection 

and irrigation as the primary reasons for such an undertaking.22 Yet, many people 

were beginning to focus more attention on the river’s hydroelectric potential.

 In 1916 the Department of the Interior through the United States 

Geological Survey released Water-Supply Paper 395 titled, “ Colorado River 

and Its Utilization.” The report was a comprehensive study of the entire river 

and its watershed. The report contained extensive discussions concerning water 

supply, irrigation, river control, and water power. Overall, the river’s short fall 

on many parts made much of it unfavorable for generating cheap energy. In some 

canyons, however, the river fell as much as fi fteen feet per mile making those 

areas suitable for hydroelectric production. The report’s author estimated that 

dams could generate nearly 1.5 million kilowatts of electricity without interfering 

with irrigation. An elevation profi le of the Grand, Green, and Colorado Rivers 

in the study included a notation that read “Boulder Canyon power site.”23 Within 

a few years, interest in the river’s power potential had spread beyond the federal 

government.

 City offi cials in Los Angeles announced in 1921 their intention to secure 

future water and power supplies from the Colorado River, even if it the city had 

to build a dam on the river. Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern 

Sierra Power joined the battle when they agreed that SCE would sell power to 

Southern Sierra from proposed SCE dams. Southern California Edison fi led four 

applications with federal and state offi cials to build dams on the river.24 E. F. 

Scattergood, the chief electrical engineer of the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and 

Light, later wrote public power stalwart Senator George Norris that a dam was 

“necessary to the continued growth of the southwest.”25

 In the early 1920s the Bureau of Reclamation again entered the picture. 

Congress had directed the Bureau to examine “possible irrigation development of 

the Imperial Valley in California.”26 The Bureau had done previous investigative 

work over the years regarding the Colorado River and Bureau Director Arthur 

Powell Davis used that material in writing his report. A map that followed Davis’ 

transmittal letter to the Secretary of the Interior listed thirteen undeveloped power 

sites on the river, including the Boulder Canyon site. Also listed were twenty-fi ve 

dams already built in the Colorado’s watershed. In his proposed development 

program, Davis called for a high dam to generate electricity in addition to fl ood 

control and irrigation. Davis thought that the federal government should build the 

dam and then sell power for compensation. If that proved unfeasible, he thought 

the government should solicit public or private groups about constructing the 

dam. Davis’ call for a high dam was important since irrigation and fl ood control 

did not require a high dam, such as the dam ultimately built.27

 The river’s hydroelectric potential received nationwide attention 
709

throughout the 1920s. William Randolph Hearst, for example, repeatedly used 

his nationwide newspaper chain to blame private power companies for blocking 

passage of Colorado River legislation. In 1924, during congressional debate 

over the second Swing-Johnson bill, the Hearst press claimed that a dam in 

Boulder Canyon could generate 600,000 horsepower of electricity.28 The Hearst 

newspaper chain, with papers in eighteen major cities, recognized fl ood control 

and irrigation as the principal reasons for building the dam, but said that electrical 

production remained the major point of contention.29 In 1928, when Congress 

fi nally passed the fourth Swing-Johnson legislation, the Hearst press called 

Boulder Dam the “billion dollar dam site”–and one of the biggest congressional 

prizes since Congress allocated railroad land tracts in the nineteenth century. If 

private power companies had won the prize, the Hearst papers said, they would 

have dictated the industrial development of the entire southwest.30

 The discussions regarding potential Colorado River electricity must have 

been especially pleasing to businessmen in Los Angeles. By the 1920s electricity 

had become a focal point of the city’s business community. Beginning in 1922 

the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce began publishing Southern California 

Business. Throughout the decade, magazine articles associated the continued 

growth of Los Angeles and the entire Southwest to the construction of a Colorado 

River dam. Commenting on the Colorado River Compact signed in 1922, one 

article said “few of us hoped for agreement between these seven great states 

whose future growth and expansion are intimately connected with and totally 

dependent upon the development of the Colorado river, both in hydro-electric 

power and waters for irrigation.” An accompanying map showed nine potential 

power markets in Nevada, Arizona, and California.31

 In the fall of 1925, Southern California Business featured articles that 

discussed the proposed dam site. “The truly important fact is this...Boulder 

Dam will guarantee adequate water and cheap power to the cites of Los Angeles, 

Pasadena, Glendale, and Riverside-and to the entire Colorado River Basin.”32 The 

Chamber of Commerce’s president issued a statement presenting the Chamber’s 

views on the proposed dam. The organization favored a high dam to prevent 

fl ooding, provide water, and to “make available a large volume of hydroelectric 

energy, an important necessity for agricultural, industrial and community 

development in the Southwest.”33

 During the years preceding authorization of Hoover Dam, the Bureau 

continued to develop hydroelectricity on other projects. In 1925 the Bureau 

operated twenty-two power houses on thirteen projects, as compared to thirteen 

power houses on nine projects in 1917. In addition to those projects and plants 

listed in Table 30.1, the Bureau operated the Lingle Plant on the North Platte 

Project, the Pilot Butte Plant on the Riverton Project, the Shoshone Plant on 

the Shoshone Project, and the Tieton Number One Plant on the Yakima Storage 

Project. These plants had a combined capacity of 4,020 kilowatts.34 For 

the remainder of the decade only one more project, Yuma, began generating 
710

electricity. The Bureau did build several more plants on projects with existing 

hydropower generation that included the Guernsey Plant on the North Platte 

Project and the Mormon Flats, Horse Mesa, and Stewart Mountain Plants, all on 

the Salt River Project.35

 Power sales remained profi table for the Bureau in the 1920s. In 1926 

the Bureau placed the total amount spent on reclamation power development at 

$46,077,649. Gross earning in 1925 equaled $1,067,135 and net earning were 

$442,619. The Bureau said that the real benefi t, however, was not fi nancial, but 

the advantages that resulted from electrically driven pumps and draglines that 

improved irrigation. Home use of cheap Bureau power was another benefi t to the 

projects.36 The larger projects provided considerable income. On the Minidoka 

Project in 1928 revenue from electrical sales surpassed $150,000. For the same 

year, electrical sales on the North Platte Project exceeded $220,000.37

 The Bureau’s 1925 annual report listed the “principal” power contracts as 

of June 25, 1925. On some projects, power went to a single customer such as the 

Boise Project, which sold power to the Idaho Power Company, and the Newlands 

Project, which sold electricity to the Canyon Power Company. Power from the 

Minidoka Project, however, went to at least seventy-three customers that included 

the cities of Burley and Rupert, and the villages of Albion, Declo, Heyburn, and 

Minidoka. Minidoka power also went to several power companies and fi ftynine “small contracts” with revenue less than $1,000 a year. The Utah towns of 

Spanish Fork, Payson, Salem, and Springville bought electricity from another of 

the Bureau’s original power projects, Strawberry Valley.38

 Returning to the analytical idea of concentric circles focuses attention on 

the degree of electrical development on Bureau of Reclamation projects by the 

mid to late 1920s. Electricity was an integral part of dam construction and used 

for pumping water throughout the West; the fi rst and second circles. The third 

and fourth circles, electrical sales to parties close to dams and to towns and cities 

some distance from power plants also had occurred. These sales provided the 

Bureau with substantial revenue by the mid 1920s.

 People fought over issues that the fi fth circle represents, sales to large 

cities with electricity a major part of dam authorization and construction, through 

much of the 1920s. The United States Geological Survey report in 1916 and 

the Bureau’s report in 1921 both identifi ed enormous hydroelectric potential in 

the areas around Black and Boulder Canyons on the lower Colorado River. The 

transmission of large amounts of Hoover Dam electricity to Southern California 

upon completion of the project clearly represents the fi fth concentric circle. The 

change in the Bureau of Reclamation’s mission from water to water and power 

is evident in the fourth Swing-Johnson legislation that became law in December 

1928.

 Whereas “electricity” did not appear in the 1902 law establishing the 
711

forerunner to the Bureau of Reclamation, “electricity” was prominent in the 

“Boulder Canyon Project Act” as it is offi cially titled.39 The fi rst sentence of the 

act read, in part, “and for the generation of electrical energy as a means of making 

the project herein authorized a self-supporting and solvent undertaking . . .”

Another part of the fi rst section required construction of a power plant at or near 

the dam “suitable for the fullest economic development of electrical energy from 

the water discharged from said reservoir . . .” Electricity was clearly an important 

aspect of the entire project. Electrical generation was not only a legally mandated 

part of the project, it was the means to pay for the project. This represented a 

dramatic departure from the Bureau’s organic law and from the 1906 amendment 

allowing electrical sales and contracts. Instead of revenues from land sales 

fi nancing project construction, electricity was the fi nancial agent for the dam’s 

construction and completion. Section 5(d) of the act refl ected the realization that 

the power plant would generate great amounts of electricity for transmission to 

distant cities. In part, the subsection gave any agency with a contract for 

25,000 “fi rm horsepower” or less the legal right to use the transmission lines 

of any agency with a minimum contract of 100,000 “fi rm horsepower,” the 

equivalent of 74,600 kilowatts.40 Essentially, the law said that smaller power 

users could use the transmission lines of the larger power users. This avoided 

duplicate power lines and saved money. More revealing is the anticipated size 

of the contracts, more than 74,000 kilowatts. By comparison, the Bureau’s four 

original hydroelectric plants on the Salt River Project had a rated capacity of 

18,000 kilowatts.41

 In the years following congressional authorization of Hoover Dam the 

Bureau has built numerous other projects with tremendous hydroelectric capacity, 

most notably Grand Coulee and Glen Canyon Dams. Those are just a few, today 

the Bureau operates fi fty-eight power plants in eleven states making it the second 

largest generator of electricity in the United States, second only to the Army 

Corps of Engineers. Those numbers do not include dams on projects such as 

Salt River that the Bureau no longer operates. Authorization and construction 

of Hoover Dam represented the completion of the Bureau’s transformation 

from water to water and power. The intellectual and legal foundations of that 

change date back to the very fi rst years of the Bureau’s existence. By 1909 those 

foundations were well in place when the Salt River, Minidoka, and Strawberry 

Valley Projects all began to generate electricity in excess of what was needed for 

pumping purposes. While irrigation will always remain the central feature of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s fi rst 100 years, electricity has been a part of that history 

for nearly as long.

Jay Brigham, Ph.D., works as a research associate for the Washington, D.C., 

consulting fi rm Morgan Angel & Associates, L.L.C., public policy consultants, and 

he has written Empowering the West: Electrical Politics before FDR (Lawrence: 

University Press of Kansas, 1998).
712

1. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census, Special Reports, Central

Electric Light and Power Stations, 1907 (Government Printing Offi ce [GPO], 1910), 16.

2. This data is from the Bureau of Reclamation’s website: http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/

faclcap.htm.

3. For more on the Bureau and World War II see, H. W. Bashore, “Irrigation and Power, 

Partners on the Home Front,” Rural Electrifi cation News, August 1943.

4. 32 Stat., 388. The name of the Bureau was changed from the Reclamation Service to the 

Bureau of Reclamation in June 1923.

5. For the early history of the Salt River Project see, Karen L. Smith, The Magnifi cent 

Experiment, Building the Salt River Reclamation Project, 1890-1917 (Tucson: University of 

Arizona Press, 1986).

6. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, First Annual Report of 

the Reclamation Service from June 17 to December 1, 1902 (GPO, 1903), 96. Hereafter annual 

reports will be referred to as “annual report” with the appropriate year and number.

Bureau of Reclamation, Second Annual Report, 1902-3 (GPO, 1904), 258-65.

8. Ibid., 507, 510.

9. Bureau of Reclamation, Third Annual Report, 1903-4 (GPO, 1905), 151, 210, 236, and 

329; and Bureau of Reclamation, Fourth Annual Report, 1904-5 (GPO, 1906), 220 and 344.

10. Bureau of Reclamation, Third Annual Report, 49.

11. Ibid., 118-21.

12. Both letters were reprinted in, Bureau of Reclamation, Third Annual Report, 121-22.

13. 34 Stat., 116.

14. 41 Stat., 1063.

15. Bureau of Reclamation, Sixth Annual Report, 1906-1907 (GPO, 1907), 98-99.

16. Bureau of Reclamation, Ninth Annual Report, 1909-1910 (GPO, 1911), 267-76.

17. Ibid. Also see, La Rue, Eugene Clyde, Colorado River and its Utilization (Washington, 

D.C., 1916), 145-6.

18, Donald C. Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Historic American Engineering Record 

(Loveland, Colorado, 1992), 87-88. The Pacifi c Gas and Electric Company later became the 

Central Arizona Light and Power Company.

19, Bureau of Reclamation, Ninth Annual Report, 1909-1910 (GPO, 1911), 116-27.

20. Bureau of Reclamation, Thirteenth Annual Report, 1913-1914 (GPO, 1915), 34-39.

21. Gene Tollefson, BPA & The Struggle for Power at Cost (Portland, 1987), 307-08, 318.

22. Norris Hundley, Jr. Water and The West, The Colorado River Compact and the Politics of 

Water in the American West (Los Angeles, 1975), 51-53, 103.

23 La Rue, Colorado River and its Utilization, 169-70. The report stated potential 

generation in terms of horsepower, over two million could be generated. If translated into 

megawatts the 1916 report would have stated about 1,492 megawatts, today the nameplate 

capacity of Hoover Dam is 2,080 megawatts. The profi le of the three rivers is between pages 170 

and 171.

24. Hundley, Water and the West, 116-17. Hundley notes two of the dams would have been 

above the Grand Canyon and two below, including one in Boulder Canyon. A holding Company, 

the California-Nevada Corporation, controlled Southern Sierras Power.

25. E. F. Scattergood to George Norris, January 26, 1925, Norris Papers, box 236, folder 

“Muscle Shoals and Muscle Shoals Commission (Hoover),” Library of Congress.

26. 41 Stat., 600. Passed May 18, 1920.

27. Arthur Powell Davis, Report on Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity, submitted to 

the Secretary of the Interior on February 4, 1922. Also Hundley, Water and The West, 13-4. The 

lack of fall through a low dam’s penstocks would not create enough pressure to drive hydroelectric 

turbines.

28. The equivalent of about 447,600 kilowatts.

29. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 22, 1924. See Jay Brigham, Empowering the West, 

Electrical Politics Before FDR (Lawrence, Kansas, 1998), Appendix 3.1 for a partial listing of 

Hearst Newspapers in existence in the 1920s.
713

30. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 7, 1928.

31. George P. Clements, “Parceling Out the Colorado River,” Southern California Business,

January 1923, 13. Clements served as the manager of the Chamber of Commerce’s agricultural 

department.

32. John Lewis Brock, “Ten Minutes At Boulder Dam Site,” ibid., October 1925, 15.

33. Lucius K. Chase, “The C. of C. Plan For Colorado River,” ibid., November 1925, 13. 

See also “The Chamber’s Stand on Colorado River Project,” ibid., February 1928. A high dam 

would not have been necessary for only fl ood control or irrigation.

34. Bureau of Reclamation, Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1924-1925 (GPO, 1925), 152-53. 

Also see Entry 7, Records of the Bureau of Reclamation, RG 115, NA-Rocky Mountain Region, 

Box 172, File 223.03, General Correspondence, Re: Power through 1929,” hereafter BR Papers.

35. Bureau of Reclamation, Twenty-Ninth Annual Report, 1929-1930 (GPO, 1930), 71.

Stewart Mountain began operation in March 1930.

36. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, May 16, 1926, copy in BR 

Papers, Box 172, File 223.02 General Correspondence Re: Power through 1929.

37. Elwood Mead to George Norris, December 27, 1929, BR Papers, Box 172, File 223.03, 

General Correspondences re. Power through 1929.

38. Bureau of Reclamation, Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1924-1925, 71.

39. 45 Stat., 1057.

40. “Firm” energy means energy that is always available, regardless of generating conditions. 

Because of fl uctuating water levels, a hydroelectric dam rarely ever generates at its full capacity. 

Firm power therefore is for power that plant managers believe always will be available and it 

represents less than 100 percent of the dam’s rated capacity.

41. L. N. McClellen, Power Development on Government Projects, Present Practice and 

Proposed New Polices, extracted from proceedings of Denver Conference, March 13-15, 1929, 

copy in BR Papers, Box 281, File 320, General Correspondences, re. Power Development, through 

1929.
714
715

Just Add Water: Reclamation Projects and 

Development Fantasies in the Upper Basin of the 

Colorado River

Stephen C. Sturgeon 

Abstract

The history of the development of the American West is full of countless 

examples of promoters seeking to encourage outside investors to buy land, invest 

in mines, and build railroads. The history of water projects in the region is no 

different. Residents of communities such as Grand Junction, Colorado, recognized 

early on the two-fold dilemma that they faced: irrigation and reclamation projects 

would be critical to the economic growth of the area, and the funding for these 

projects would have to be obtained from sources outside the region. The promoters 

of such projects relied upon booster literature in order to entice investors with 

alluring (and often false) descriptions of the potential wealth to be had in these 

“irrigated Edens.”

 While some parts of the American West quickly developed into largescale irrigation areas, other regions, such as the Upper Basin of the Colorado River, 

languished. The small population, remote location, and marginal land in this 

area sharply limited its political and economic clout. These limitations, however, 

became less problematic following passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, when 

the federal government became the funding source of last (or increasingly fi rst) 

resort for water projects in the American West. Since the federal government had 

access to larger fi nancial and construction resources than other entities, and federal 

projects merely had to break even rather than turn a profi t, it was now much easier 

for Upper Basin projects to secure funding.

 The advent of federal funding, however, did not eliminate the role of local 

promoters and booster literature. In fact, their role became even more important 

because now instead of simply trying to impress a single investor, or even a 

handful of investors, it was necessary to convince a whole federal bureaucracy 

as well as Congress about the merits that a particular water project had to offer. 

Gradually, over time, the scale and nature of these projects began to change. 

Instead of simple stand-alone irrigation projects, local and regional boosters, with 

the active support of the Bureau of Reclamation, began to promote massive, multiphased projects that covered entire river basins.

 This essay will examine the booster literature that was used to promote 

the largest such plan—the Colorado River Storage Project. This six state project 

received congressional approval in 1956, and the arguments made on its behalf 

by supporters indicate how much the scope and nature of reclamation projects 

changed over time. Rather than simply serving irrigation needs, the Colorado 

River Storage Project was intended to promote rapid and massive industrial 

development in the Upper Basin region. Instead of touting the benefi ts this project 

would have for agriculture, which would have been the norm for promoters in the 

past, the booster literature also touted the potential for industry, as well as other 

diverse goals such as increased recreational opportunities and even improved 

national defense.
716

 Just as promoters in the past often over-hyped the projects they were 

supporting, the booster literature for the Colorado River Storage Project also raised 

unrealistically high expectations. Instead of becoming the new industrial heartland 

of America, the Upper Basin today still remains a rural, agricultural region. In 

some instances, such as oil shale, industrial development actually backfi red, 

leading to an economic setback for the region. Thus large-scale water development 

in the Upper Basin did not ultimately turn out to be the total panacea that local 

residents had desired.

 In the northwest corner of the state of Colorado, straddling the border with 

Utah, is a 325 square mile federal preserve called Dinosaur National Monument.

Although the monument encompasses the scenic canyons of the Green and Yampa 

Rivers, most tourists visit Dinosaur to see the preserved remains of the prehistoric 

creatures that give the area its name. The main dinosaur exhibit is located at the 

visitors’ center on the Utah side of the monument, where a modern glass and steel 

building encloses the uplifted remnant of a prehistoric riverbed that contains the 

fossils of various ancient reptiles.

 Most tourists never journey past the visitor center, but the road does continue 

on for several more miles. After crossing over the Green River, drivers reach the 

end of the asphalt pavement and continue on a narrower dirt track. Just to the left of 

the road are carved petroglyphs, which serve as reminders of the fi rst settlers in this 

area. Around the next bend in the road is a site that preserves the memory of a more 

recent one.

 A woman by the name of Josie Morris settled here about 1914. Like 

many things about Morris (her exact age, how many husbands she had—legal or 

otherwise) this date is open to question. Park historians do know that she lived here 

until her death in 1964, most of the time on her own, leading a fairly self-suffi cient 

life which she occasionally subsidized through poaching or producing moonshine.

The site that Morris chose to homestead was a particularly good one because a 

natural spring bubbled up out of the ground near her cabin, which provided plenty of 

water for her own use as well as for irrigating her orchard and garden. She also used 

nearby Cub Creek for watering her livestock.

 Not long after Morris settled at this site a neighbor challenged her use 

of the water in Cub Creek. He did so, not in the stereotypical Western way of a 

gunfi ght, but by taking her to court. Under the legal doctrine of prior appropriation, 

the downstream neighbor claimed he had fi rst rights to use any water in the 

creek. Citing this doctrine the judge ruled that Morris could not continue to draw 

water from Cub Creek. However he then went a step further by ruling that if any 

water from the spring on her property drained into the creek, the spring could be 

considered a tributary of Cub Creek; and therefore the neighbor would be entitled 

to claim that water as well. In order to comply with the court’s decision and still 

preserve her option to use the spring, Morris built several small ponds to catch the 

water and even fl ooded some of her own pastures to prevent any spring water from 

washing into the creek. Only by impounding the water (and in the case of her fi elds, 

wasting it) was she able to preserve her right to use it.1
717

 Morris’s struggle to maintain control of her water supply offers an example 

in microcosm of the larger struggle over the control and development of water in the 

American West. In a region that is in large part defi ned by the absence of high levels 

of precipitation, this struggle is not just limited to feuds between neighbors but also 

involves confl ict between cities, states, and whole river basins. The effort to control 

water has typically focused on two issues: determining who has the legal right to use 

the water, and determining how best to put that water to use. It was this second goal 

that led to the passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902—legislation which allowed 

the federal government to assist (as well as subsidize) directly in the development of 

water resources in the West.

 As the title of the legislation might suggest, the primary focus of early 

federal reclamation projects was on irrigating new crop land. Over time, however, 

the scope of these federal projects grew and shifted away from being primarily 

agricultural. Instead they began to include such diverse elements as hydroelectricity, 

mining, recreation, industrial development, and regional planning. This shift away 

from agriculture to industry was particularly noticeable in the Upper Basin of the 

Colorado River over the course of the twentieth century. The Upper Basin also 

provides a clear example of how this shift, made with the best of intentions, could 

end up having unintended (or even disastrous) consequences.

31.1. Federal and state representatives at a meeting of the Colorado River Compact 

Commission, north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, at Bishop’s Lodge. Left to right: W. S. 

Norviel, Commissioner for Arizona; Arthur P. Davis, Director, Reclamation Service; 

Ottamar Hamele, Chief Counsel, Reclamation Service; Herbert Hoover, Secretary of 

Commerce and Chairman of Commission; Clarence C. Stetson, Executive Secretary of 

Commission; L. Ward Bannister, Attorney, of Colorado; Richard E. Sloan, Attorney, of 

Arizona; Edward Clarke, Commissioner for Nevada; C. P. Squires, Commissioner for 

Nevada; James R. Scrugham, Commissioner for Nevada; William F. Mills, former Mayor 

of Denver; R. E. Caldwell, Commissioner for Utah; W. F. McClure, Commissioner for 

California; R. F. McKisick, Deputy Attorney General of California; Delph E. Carpenter, 

Commissioner for Colorado; R. J. Meeker, Assistant State Engineer of Colorado; Stephen 

B. Davis, Jr., Commissioner for New Mexico; J. S. Nickerson, President, Imperial 

Irrigation District of California; Frank C. Emerson, Commissioner for Wyoming; Charles 

May, State Engineer of New Mexico; Merritt C. Mechem, Governor of New Mexico; T. C. 

Yeager, Attorney for Coachella Valley Irrigation District of California. November 24, 1922.
718

 Like many facets of western water law, the Upper Basin of the Colorado 

River is a legal fi ction. Created during negotiations over the Colorado River 

Compact of 1922, the basin is defi ned as that portion of the drainage area for the 

Colorado River which is located upstream from Lee Ferry.2

 The basin includes 

portions of fi ve states: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. The 

legal concept of the Upper Basin and Lower Basin was created in part to help divide 

the fl ow of water in the river between the various competing states, and especially to 

give the other river basin states protection from California’s steadily growing water 

consumption and political power. Despite assurances and visions that the Lower 

and Upper Basins would be developed at the same pace, the Lower Basin quickly 

absorbed the majority of federal reclamation spending. As a result, it would be more 

than thirty years after the compact was signed before the Upper Basin would see the 

construction of larger-scale federal reclamation projects.

 Reclamation development in the Upper Basin, both public and private, 

has long suffered from a series of limitations: limited arable land, limited funding 

sources, and limited local skill and equipment. What the region did not suffer from 

was a limited desire for reclamation. An examination of the history of reclamation 

development in the area around Grand Junction, Colorado, shows that almost as 

soon as the fi rst outside settlers arrived, they identifi ed reclamation development as 

crucial to the economic potential of the area. The stages of reclamation development 

in Grand Junction followed a pattern similar to what took place in other parts of the 

West: small, locally-controlled projects gave way to larger-scale efforts that required 

outside funding. In the early 1880s farmers near Grand Junction began developing 

a series of irrigation projects on the banks of the Colorado River (then known as the 

 Grand River). These projects soon proved to be unviable on their own and were 

consolidated into a larger valley-wide canal project (known as the Grand Valley 

Canal) designed not only to irrigate land on the banks of the river, but also further 

away. This more ambitious project exceeded the fi nancial resources available in the 

Grand Junction area, so a series of outside investors ended up funding construction 

of the canal. The process eventually culminated in the canal company being owned 

in 1885 by the Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut.3

 Even outside, private-sector fi nancial resources, however, were not enough 

to construct and maintain a viable canal project, and in 1894, following a series of 

reorganizations, foreclosure auctions, and court challenges, the Grand Valley Canal 

switched from being a for-profi t corporation to a not-for-profi t mutual company. 

This, of course, left project supporters with the same problem as before: how to 

secure fi nancing for further irrigation development in the valley when such projects 

appeared unlikely to turn a quick profi t. At this point the federal government and the 

Reclamation Act of 1902 played a key role in changing the direction of development 

in the West. By merely requiring that projects eventually had to repay their costs 

(with a liberal defi nition of repayment), rather than generate immediate profi ts, the 

Reclamation Act transformed hundreds of previously uneconomic projects into 

potentially viable ones.4
719

 In the fi rst two decades 

of the twentieth century, the 

federal Reclamation Service 

undertook to build a series of 

projects in the region around 

Grand Junction. The most 

ambitious of these was the 

 Gunnison Tunnel (1909), 

which diverted water from 

the Gunnison River through 

a six-mile tunnel into the 

Uncompahgre Valley. While 

federal involvement did allow 

for the construction of largerscale projects, it did not always 

improve the fi nancial success of these ventures. The Grand Valley Project (not to 

be confused with the Grand Valley Canal), located on the Colorado River upstream 

from Grand Junction, was approved by the federal government in 1911 with a 

projected three-year repayment period once the project was fi nished. Although 

it was completed in 1917, repayment did not start until 1928, and only after the 

government changed the repayment period to 40 years, wrote off $812,000 in 

construction costs, and instituted a reduced payment plan for the fi rst fi ve years. 

Similarly, the Uncompahgre Project (of which the Gunnison Tunnel was part) 

originally had a repayment period of 10 years, which the government then extended 

to 20 and later 40 years. Despite the extensions, however, local farmers proved 

unable to meet the revised repayment schedules, so in the early 1950s Congress 

approved an extension for the project that spread the repayment period out over 106 

years, and wrote off $1 million of the original $10 million cost.5

 While these federal projects were much larger in scope than the previous 

private-sector ones, they remained much smaller than the development occurring in 

the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. Early projects there included Laguna Dam, 

 Roosevelt Dam, and Coolidge Dam. Additional projects, such as the All–American 

Canal and Imperial Dam, followed the completion of the Colorado River Compact in 

1922. Despite the seeming success of the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency 

actually had severe fi nancial diffi culties during its fi rst thirty years of existence, 

owing in large part to the chronic cost overruns on projects and the inability of 

farmers to pay back construction costs in a timely manner. The turning point for the 

Bureau was Hoover Dam.6

 Standing 726 feet high, Hoover Dam at the time of its construction in 

1935 was the largest reclamation project in the world. The dam, however, not 

only represented a physically larger project for the Bureau of Reclamation, it also 

represented a new kind of project. Whereas past efforts had typically focused on 

irrigation and fl ood control benefi ts for the immediate surrounding area, Hoover 

Dam offered little to the sparse populations of southern Nevada and northern 

31.2. The east portal of the Gunnison Tunnel during 

construction.
720

Arizona. Instead the bulk of the benefi ts literally fl owed down the river to Southern 

California in the form of improved fl ood control for the Imperial Valley, and, more 

importantly, hydroelectricity for Los Angeles.7

 The advent of hydroelectricity had a two-fold impact on the Bureau: one, 

it transformed the agency from a fi nancially-troubled program into an economic 

powerhouse; and two, it encouraged the Bureau to start planning more, and larger, 

integrated regional projects rather than continuing to concentrate on traditional, 

stand-alone initiatives. In particular, the fi nancial boom from hydroelectricity led 

Reclamation offi cials to start planning for so-called “cash register” dams, which 

sometimes had no merit other than generating electricity. The profi ts from these 

dams were used to offset the losses typically incurred by irrigation projects.8

 Hoover Dam was the beginning of the so-called “golden age of reclamation,” 

which lasted for the next forty years. The Boulder Canyon Act of 1928, which 

authorized construction of Hoover Dam, ushered in this era by also authorizing the 

Bureau of Reclamation to investigate feasible projects in the Upper Basin of the 

Colorado. In 1946 the Bureau issued its preliminary plan for the region, a wish 

list of over one hundred proposed dams—one for virtually every river in the Upper 

Basin. There were so many proposed projects in the plan that to build all of them 

would have required more water than existed in the basin. The Bureau demonstrated 

the high level of political power it now had by announcing that it would not consider 

any projects in the Upper Basin until the states in the area had reached a formal 

agreement on dividing the Colorado River’s water among themselves. The states 

quickly complied, and the Upper Basin Compact was formally signed in 1948.9

 Following ratifi cation of the compact by Congress a year later, the Bureau 

of Reclamation released a revised plan in 1950 entitled the Colorado River Storage 

Project (CRSP). The CRSP called for the construction of ten major dams and 

reservoirs on the Colorado and its tributaries. These reservoirs, however, would not 

serve any irrigation or fl ood control purpose. Instead they would regulate the fl ow 

of the river in order to help maximize the production of hydroelectricity. In turn, the 

profi ts from the sale of this electricity would help offset the cost of building a dozen 

smaller regional irrigation projects.10

 While the stated core goals of the Colorado River Storage Project may 

have been water and light, the Bureau and its boosters actually had a much larger 

agenda in mind: to transform the Upper Basin of the Colorado River from a desert 

wasteland into a new industrial and recreational center for the United States. Clearly 

infl uenced by the model of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which during the New 

Deal had helped to promote the development of one of the most impoverished 

regions of the South, the promotional literature supporting the CRSP stressed the 

broad cornucopia of benefi ts that would fl ow from the project—not only for the 

Upper Basin but the entire nation.11
721

 Perhaps not surprisingly, one of the major potential benefi ts the promotional 

literature touted about the Colorado River Storage Project was that it would unleash 

the vast untapped wealth of natural resources in the Upper Basin. Pamphlets 

31.3. Signed into law in 1956, the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) authorized a 

broad range of projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

t 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT 

STORAGE UNITS AND PARTICIPATING PROJECTS 

Q CRSP STORAGE UNI T 

* CRSP PART ICI PATING PROJECT 
722

featuring maps of the region speckled with various resource symbols described 

the region as the “treasure chest of the nation.” Others called it a “yawning 

giant.” Estimates varied about how many valuable minerals were located in the 

area (ranging between 42 and 200), but among those mentioned were lead, copper, 

iron, zinc, phosphates, gold, silver, oil, natural gas, gilsonite, gypsum, tungsten, 

molybdenum, and vanadium. Promoters were quick to emphasize that the Upper 

Basin was the chief domestic source for such strategic minerals as uranium, and 

contained the world’s largest reserves of oil shale. All that was needed to unleash 

these potential riches was power and water. Failing to do so, warned a pamphlet 

produced by the mining industry, “can hurt our entire national economy and our 

national defense program.”12

 Another benefi t that the literature promoted was the potential for industrial 

development from the CRSP. This industrial growth was directly linked to the 

expanded use of natural resources. Regional boosters expressed frustration over the 

fact that while mining took place in the Upper Basin, the extracted raw materials 

were shipped elsewhere for processing and manufacturing. With power and water 

from the Colorado River Storage Project, plants could potentially be built within 

the area to use these materials instead. This in turn would help to diversify the local 

economy. These same boosters, however, stressed that industrial growth would 

require “fabulous amounts of water,” not just for the manufacturing process but also 

for the workers who would relocate to the area seeking employment.13

 Boosters did not just expect 

growth in rural areas; they also 

anticipated that there would be 

growth in the cities of the Upper 

Basin as well. Arguments in support 

of the need for more urban water 

took two contradictory forms. Much 

of the promotion literature claimed 

that due to “the continued shift of 

population from East to West,” 

western cities such as Salt Lake 

City and Albuquerque had reached 

the limits of their growth owing 

to a lack of new water supplies.

Denver in particular was held 

up as a dire warning because it 

had instituted water rationing.

(This, however, was a somewhat 

31.4. Glen Canyon Dam and 

Powerhouse.

31.5. The scroll case in unit 5 of the Glen Canyon 

Powerhouse during installation in 1963.
723

misleading example since the rationing was due to a severe, multi-year drought 

which hit Colorado in the early 1950s—a fact that the literature did not mention.)

In contrast to the literature that claimed more water was needed to catch up with 

existing growth, others argued that the water was needed to spur on additional 

growth. These promoters freely admitted that their population growth estimates 

were “based on the assumption that additional water can be secured,” and that “if 

no additional water is to be obtained only a relative small increase in population can 

logically be expected.”14

 When examined together these two arguments reveal a clear fl aw: if urban 

growth in the region had reached a limit due to the lack of additional water, then the 

Colorado River Storage Project, which would introduce a larger but ultimately fi nite 

amount of water, could at best only delay this problem but not solve it. The day of 

reckoning would be merely deferred, not eliminated. The promotional literature also 

ignored the fact that the CRSP was not designed to serve urban water needs. The 

cities cited as examples, in fact, are located outside the Upper Basin watershed. The 

only way for the CRSP to serve these cities was to provide new sources of water 

for agriculture so that existing water supplies could be diverted out of the basin.

The literature also never addressed the question of whether additional growth was 

necessary or even desirable. (Such a question would undoubtedly have struck the 

promoters as completely irrational.) Instead promoters argued that the CRSP was 

necessary so the West “can keep pace with the rest of the nation.”15

 Supporters of the Colorado River Storage Project were quick to point to how 

the economic benefi ts of all this anticipated growth would ripple through the region, 

particularly in the form of increased tax revenue. One promotional publication 

argued, “[t]he claiming of arable land areas out of desert wastes would add millions 

to taxable land values in Utah and the Upper Basin. And the adding of supplemental 

water in areas restricted to early maturing crops would further expand the tax base.” 

Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, a strong proponent of the CRSP, stressed 

how the project would lead to the development of new industry and “the money that 

those industries pour into our State in tax revenues will help to support our schools. 

. . .” These rosy tax scenarios, however, failed to mention the fact that the infl ux 

of a larger population to provide the work force for these new industries would 

necessarily lead to increased public expenditures for more roads and schools, thus 

raising the question of whether or not the increased revenue would even be suffi cient 

to cover the new expenses. As if to defl ect this question, one promoter argued that if 

the CRSP was not approved “the property values adjacent to the Colorado River in 

the Upper Basin will diminish in value and waste down the river with the water.”16

 While many of the potential benefi ts predicted for the Colorado River 

Storage Project, such as an enhanced agricultural infrastructure and an improved 

tax base, were similar to those that nineteenth century reclamation boosters had 

touted, some of the benefi ts were distinctly new. One such new potential benefi t 

was increased recreational opportunities. Promoters were quick to point out the 

fact that the bulk of the proposed reclamation projects would be located between 
724

“two transcontinental 

highways and much nearer 

to the eastern populations 

desiring” recreational 

opportunities. The CRSP, it 

was promised, will “greatly 

expand the nation’s existing 

facilities for fi shing, 

boating, camping, waterskiing, swimming and other 

recreational activities. It 

will open up new scenic 

areas, now inaccessible.

Colorful natural bridges, 

spectacular canyons and historic sites will be made available to the people of the 

nation.”17

 However, promoters were also quick to stress that the full recreational 

potential of this region would only be realized if all the proposed projects in the 

CRSP were built, because it was these individual projects that would allow for 

access to recreational areas. The construction of Glen Canyon Dam would create 

Lake Powell, which in turn would allow people to reach Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument

by means of a scenic short boat trip. In its current isolated status, Rainbow 

Bridge is accessible only by an arduous pack trip by horseback or by a long 

river trip and a 10-mile hike. As a result, comparatively few people have 

seen this wonder of the world.

Flaming Gorge Dam promised to “make accessible the awesome scenery of the 

deep gorge of the Green River....” The Echo Park Dam promised to open the 

Lodore Canyon, which currently is “dangerous for boat trips, even with experienced 

guides,” “to people who love true beauty.” Additionally promoters claimed that 

these projects even had scientifi c value because they would enable “[s]cientists and 

naturalists [to] have new access to the primitive area.”18

Clearly much of this rhetoric was aimed at countering the attacks being made 

on the Colorado River Storage Project by environmentalists (or as they were called 

then, conservationists). Promoters of the project sought to combat these attacks 

in a variety of ways, one of which was by labeling environmentalists as elitists.

The rhetoric proponents used suggested that reclamation projects had the potential 

to make nature more democratic. A few examples are enlightening. “Without 

the projects, there will be no development, and only a few men with means and 

with physical stamina and courage to endure dangers will ever be able to see and 

appreciate the grandeur of these Rocky Mountain canyons.” “[T]he Colorado River 

Storage Project will provide full enjoyment of areas that are now open only to a 

few––the people who can afford expensive river trips and the people who care to 

31.6. Flaming Gorge Dam and Powerplant in 1984.
725

risk these trips.” “It will make available this area to the people instead of restricting 

it to a few.”19

Another angle of attack was to claim that development would make nature 

more family friendly. “The projects will open new vistas for conservationists, 

tourists, fi shermen, nature lovers and the American family.” “With development of 

the dams, many of these areas will be accessible. A few roaring rapids will be turned 

into placid lakes where a man can take his family for a boating or fi shing outing.” 

However, lest promoters be accused of taming too much of the wilderness they were 

quick to add, “[a]nd there are still a hundred miles of river rapids in the same general 

area, for those who like this sport.”20

Promoters even went so far as to claim that the Colorado River Storage 

Project had the potential to improve nature. CRSP reservoirs promised to “provide 

numerous havens for ducks and other migratory birds.” These havens were “not 

now present but vitally needed.” Additionally, 

the project will turn silt-laden rivers into clear streams. The Green and 

Yampa rivers now are muddy most of the time because of heavy deposits 

of silt. Dams to be constructed will hold this silt in check, turning brown 

rivers into clear and sparkling streams.

“ Navajo Dam will turn the muddy, sluggish San Juan River into a clear reservoir.” 

These clear streams in turn would offer new recreational opportunities. “Flaming 

Gorge Dam will make a clear water fi sherman’s stream out of the lower Green River 

now too clouded with mineral deposits to be a game stream.” What promoters did 

not know was that the process by which these rivers became clear would destroy the 

local river ecology and drive out the native fi sh. The new fi shing holes would be 

world famous and strictly artifi cial.21

 Another group for whom the Colorado River Storage Project would offer a 

mixed legacy was the Navajo. Promoters, however, promised that the CRSP would 

be a supreme blessing for the tribe. In order to make this promise, promoters had 

to take the unusual gambit of attacking the past actions of the federal government 

and the white settlers in the region. Pro-CRSP literature argued that the Navajo 

“often go hungry because they have been shunted aside onto marginal lands with 

inadequate water supplies. They also lack clothing and shelter.” The newspaper in 

Farmington, New Mexico, which published a special supplement in support of the 

CRSP featuring the plight of the Navajo on the cover, claimed that the reason “30 

per cent of the tribe” lived at subsistence levels was because “we Americans have 

broken so many solemn treaties.”22

 In contrast to this history of past abuse, supporters of the Colorado River 

Storage Project maintained that reclamation was the key to helping the Navajo.

One source of help would be the construction of Navajo Dam on the San Juan River 

in New Mexico, which promoters claimed would lead to industrial development 

in the area and therefore provide jobs to tribal members. The second source of 

help was the proposed Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, which aimed to irrigate 
726

up to 125,000 acres of land on the reservation. A third source of help, though one 

with no obvious link to the CRSP, was the promise that “this project will help 

provide educational opportunities for the children of the Tribe,” by leading to the 

construction of schools for sixteen thousand Navajo. More broadly, promoters 

stressed that the CRSP would help in the “rehabilitation of this long-neglected 

segment of the original American society,” and offer “partial fulfi llment of promises 

made to the Navajo people in the treaty of 1868 and never lived up to.” Project 

supporters also offered a more tangible reason than honor for non-Navajos to 

support these initiatives.

This project will help the Indians help themselves. In the long run, it 

will save the government money because it helps the Navajos to become 

self-supporting, instead of having to be supported by government 

expenditures.23

Promoters, however, seemed to have set a low threshold for success. One 

document claimed that the construction of Navajo Dam “would give a decent 

standard of living to one–fi fth of [the tribe]. . . .” Unfortunately these lowered 

expectations proved correct. The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) ultimately 

turned into a political boondoggle. Unlike other component projects of the Colorado 

River Storage Project, which were developed and administered by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the NIIP was quickly turned over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

where it became a fi nancial black hole, “which yielded few benefi ts to the tribe 

and provided far less employment of tribal members than originally negotiated.”

Perhaps it was this unproductive experience that led the Navajo to oppose further 

federal reclamation projects on the Colorado River when they were proposed in the 

1960s.24

Just as the promoters of the Colorado River Storage Project pointed out the 

ways that the Navajo had suffered injustice, project supporters also pointed out the 

ways that they perceived themselves to have also been treated unfairly. Ironically, 

even though promoters argued that the CRSP would create new recreational 

opportunities and help Indians, they also complained that these two factors had 

hindered development in the region.

In the four Upper Basin states, and particularly in Utah, there are expansive 

areas taken up by Monuments, Parks, Forest Service, Grazing Service, 

Indian Reservations, and other reserves of various kinds, all tax free. And 

now some would deprive the common people of this area of one of the few 

resources which is available for development and use.

Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah expressed jealousy about the economic growth 

occurring in other parts of the country. “Our Detroits and our Pittsburghs seem 

to grow ever larger, while the industrial have-not areas content themselves with a 

few industrial handouts.” He later expanded his complaint to include foreign aid 

projects.
727

We have spent 300 millions to help Italians build reclamation projects, yet 

the Italians are under no obligation whatsoever to repay any of the costs of 

those projects. We are willing to repay in dollars and cents for the capital 

on irrigation, and dollars and cents, with interest, for municipal uses and for 

power.

Senator Frank Barrett of Wyoming took a different tack, borrowing from 

the states-rights rhetoric of southern politicians. “Overpowering and vital 

interest [sic]of these Western States are involved, and after all, people of 

the West ought to have the major right to make the decisions affecting their 

welfare.”25

 While some promoters argued that “justice” required that the 

Colorado River Storage Project be built, others warned of the regional 

devastation that would ensue if the CRSP did not receive congressional 

approval. George Clyde, the Commissioner of Interstate Streams for Utah, 

offered a legal doomsday scenario. “If the project is not authorized, the 

rights of the Upper Basin states to their share of the Colorado River will 

be effectively destroyed.” He continued, “Failure of Congress to authorize 

this project will be the equivalent of their confi scating these rights in the 

Colorado and making them available to the Lower Basin and Mexico.”

Others warned that this was the “last watering hole” for the Interior West. 

“The Colorado River is the last water resource available in many parts of 

the area to supply additional water for municipal and industrial purposes.”

“Testimony given . . . left no doubt that the future of [these] states is 

dependent upon the plan.” Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado 

offered an even direr scenario.

[S]tand on a canal bank as it winds its way over the land. On the uphill 

side, you have virtually a barren desert with but scrub growth and little 

green. On the downhill side you have green and growing crops, houses, 

cities and life. That is the choice in the West, irrigation or desolation; 

abundance or scarcity.

Sometimes the apocalyptic predictions promoters used would end up undermining 

the very argument they were trying to make. “When [the Colorado River’s] waters 

have been used, there is no other substantial supply on tap. The future of the 

Southwest will have dropped back with its past.” Thus, it seems, whether or not the 

CRSP was built the West was doomed to economic collapse.26

An unusual variation on this doomsday theme was the plea by promoters 

to build the Colorado River Storage Project not for their sake but for the sake of 

“our best crop, our children.” Senator Arthur Watkins in a letter to Secretary of 

the Interior Oscar Chapman complained, “For many years the young people of 

my state have been migrating in large numbers to other states where there would 

be opportunities for homes and livelihoods. The limiting factor in Utah has been 

lack of water and power.” Utah’s other Senator, Wallace Bennett, echoed these 
728

sentiments but conjured up images of the old orphan trains when he predicted, “We 

shall have to continue to export our children to other states because opportunity for 

them is lacking.” George Clyde complained, “Utah has long been a feeder state. Its 

raw materials have been shipped to other centers for processing. Its children have 

had to seek employment elsewhere.” One promoter cited the plight of the children 

in his attack on efforts by environmentalists to block the CRSP.

Natural scenery is a beautiful thing, but economic security can also be very 

attractive. Approximately 30% of the native born population of Utah must 

seek employment outside the state, after the state has educated and trained 

them in the art of making a living. Power and water for irrigation would 

unlock many of Utah’s natural resources and enable more [of] the people of 

the state to remain home.

The Republican Party of Utah endorsed this focus on the future when it passed a 

resolution supporting the Colorado River Storage Project and claiming that among 

its many benefi ts the project “will provide new homes and opportunities for our 

children and their children. . . .” As another promoter put it, with the CRSP “[o]ur 

young men and women can build their destiny here.”27

While much of the promotional rhetoric surrounding the debate over the 

Colorado River Storage Project focused on local concerns, supporters also were 

quick to claim that the nation as a whole would benefi t in a variety of ways. One 

area of emphasis was how the national economy would grow as a result of the 

CRSP. Promoters claimed that the industrial development of the Upper Basin 

would lead to a higher standard of living in the region. As a result of this, “[t]he 

people of this reclamation area...will want and need new products—cars, tractors, 

stoves, refrigerators, household items and equipment. Thus new markets will be 

created for products manufactured in other parts of the country.” Even during the 

construction phase for the CRSP the country as a whole would benefi t “because an 

estimated 81 per cent of the construction costs will be spent in markets outside the 

Upper Colorado River Basin.” The project was even touted as a fi nancial boon for 

the federal government due to the increased income tax that would be generated in 

the newly prosperous region, not to mention the revenue the government would gain 

from the sale of hydroelectricity generated by the CRSP dams.28

While many of the supposed benefi ts that promoters claimed would 

come from the Colorado River Storage Project seemed fairly straightforward and 

conventional, there was one set of benefi ts that was quite different. Supporters 

claimed that in addition to all the various economic rewards from the CRSP, this 

project was vitally necessary in order to increase the security of the United States 

from the Cold War threat of the Soviet Union. Some promoters emphasized the 

untapped reserves of strategic minerals, such as uranium, oil shale, gilsonite, and 

bentonite, among others, located in the region—minerals that could only be fully 

developed with water and power from the CRSP. Others claimed that the country 

needed to develop all of its potentially irrigable land. Senator Wallace Bennett 
729

warned that recent history had shown that the United States could not rely on foreign 

supplies during wartime, and that we must develop domestic sources.29

Supporters of the Colorado River Storage Project also argued that the 

project would strengthen the nation’s industrial capacity in the event of an atomic 

war. There were two aspects of this argument that promoters set forth. One was 

that the CRSP would allow for industrial dispersion into the interior of the United 

States. Senator Bennett warned how “[t]he overwhelming bulk of our productive 

capacity could be obliterated by a few well–placed bombs or missiles, for our 

key industries are concentrated in just a few areas.” A group lobbying on behalf 

of the CRSP produced an entire brochure quoting the testimony of national Civil 

Defense Administrator Val Peterson on why the project was necessary for national 

security. In it, he expressed concern about the “[t]he potentially fatal vulnerability 

of concentrations of industry . . . .” Peterson went on to call “attention to the work 

that Russia is reported to have done in developing a second line of industry behind 

the Ural Mountains.” Senator Arthur Watkins took this idea a step further when 

he suggested that “the United States, too, should build its own industrial defense 

bastion behind the protective peaks of our own ‘Urals,’ the great Rocky Mountain 

Range.” Local promoters in Utah further suggested that not only was Utah “made 

up of many valleys, each protected by high and rugged mountains on all sides giving 

industries the best form of strategic protection,” but also that “Utah’s geographical 

position is such that it is a distributing point and has excellent transportation 

facilities to all the West Coast’s harbors, the nation’s railroad systems, and/or air 

bases.” Promoters, however, were careful to not present themselves as a threat to 

the industrial welfare of other parts of the country by clarifying that “[n]o one is 

advocating that our industries be relocated,” rather that they simply be duplicated in 

the interior.30

The second argument concerning industrial security that supporters of the 

Colorado River Storage Project made was that the Upper Basin not only offered 

geographic security, but geologic security as well. In comments that seemed to 

foreshadow the dialogue from Dr. Strangelove concerning “a mine shaft gap,” Civil 

Defense Administrator Peterson warned that “the balance of victory between two 

military powers may well rest with the nation whose civilian population can best 

minimize the effect of an atomic attack and get up off the ground organized and 

ready.” To help facilitate this, Peterson pointed to the examples of “underground 

defense plants and military installations in Scandinavia,” which he said were cheaper 

to build “under the rock” than on the surface. Project supporters, seizing on these 

comments, were quick to point out that “[d]eep gorges abound in the project area. 

Power plants and industrial plants could be tunneled into the sheer rock walls at 

canyon fl oor level, providing protection from atomic blast.” Senator Watkins went a 

step further, envisioning a whole network of underground installations.

[T]he Mountain West has thousands of feet of solid rock in mountain 

and canyon walls which can be utilized to protect vital industries and 

government installations from atomic attack. These natural bomb shelters 

can be located in the ribs of the aptly named Rocky Mountains. Tunnels 
730

and caves could be developed in these mountains at widely separated 

locations to give this nation an impregnable industrial bastion that would 

be secure even against the awesome weapons of the atomic and hydrogen 

bombs.

All of this could be possible, CRSP promoters promised, just by developing water 

and power in the region.31

Supporters of the Colorado River Storage Project did not simply worry about 

the impact of an atomic war upon American industry; they also stressed how the 

project would benefi t civilian evacuations. Senator Bennett pointed out that “[i]f we 

don’t have water for our present needs in some areas, it will obviously restrict our 

ability to meet our civil defense responsibilities. . . .” Civil Defense Administrator 

Peterson warned what those responsibilities might be. “In this nuclear age, if 

an attack is made . . ., it will be necessary, fi rst, to get our people away from our 

critical target areas, . . . and if a city is hit by a hydrogen bomb, we will not be able 

to re-enter for some time, and possibly never....” “It would be fortunate if we had 

areas with water and power facilities far removed from our vulnerable and heavily 

populated urban centers to which these people could go.” “The Upper Colorado 

Development, by providing water and power, would pave the way for taking care of 

those who by necessity may be forced to evacuate our West Coast cities.” The chief 

thrust of all these various defense arguments was that an opponent of the CRSP was 

an opponent of national security.32

Despite the “un-American” taint, opponents of the Colorado River Storage 

Project did manage to get some aspects of the project changed. Chief among 

them was deletion of the proposed Echo Park Dam that was scheduled to be built 

inside Dinosaur National Monument. When Congress agreed to drop the dam, 

environmentalists agreed to drop their opposition to the overall project. (A decision 

that many of them later came to regret when Glen Canyon was subsequently fl ooded 

as part of the project.) As a result of this compromise, the Colorado River Storage 

Project fi nally received congressional approval in 1956. Passage of the project, 

however, did not mean that booster efforts in support of the CRSP came to a halt. 

Although Congress had agreed to the project in principle, federal reclamation 

offi cials still had to obtain annual fi nancial appropriations from Congress in order 

for the project to continue.

To help secure this on-going funding, project promoters continued their 

publicity campaign on behalf of the Colorado River Storage Project. Just as 

the promotional literature in the 1950s had tried to demonstrate how the CRSP 

addressed various local and national concerns, the new literature evolved over time 

to refl ect changes in those national concerns. By the 1970s the communist threat 

had been replaced by the energy crisis. Instead of talking about strategic minerals, 

promoters now focused on the potential fuel sources located in the Upper Basin.

Developing these sources would help the United States to meet “our national goal 

of freedom from reliance on foreign oil.” Among the resources waiting to be fully 

developed in the area were coal and oil shale. As in the past, however, promoters 
731

stressed that water was the key component to developing this material. Now, 

however, they went even further with their water pitch by announcing that 

“[s]ince the natural supply of the Colorado River will someday be inadequate, 

ways of augmenting the fl ow of the river are being investigated.” Thus promoters 

continued to dream about even bigger and more grandiose reclamation projects for 

the Upper Basin.33

When examining the literature that promoters used in support of the 

Colorado River Storage Project it is clear that the size, scope, and ambition of 

the CRSP exceeded anything ever envisioned by local boosters in the nineteenth 

century. One question that comes to mind, however, is whether the boosters in the 

1950s were any more accurate in their predictions than the boosters had been in the 

1880s? Did the development they foresaw come to fruition with the construction of 

the CRSP? The quick answer would be “no,” but a more complete answer would 

suggest that the outcome of the CRSP stands as a model for the law of unintended 

consequences.

Charles Wilkinson, in his book Fire on the Plateau, discusses the “Big 

Buildup” on the Colorado Plateau (a region that substantially overlaps with the 

Upper Basin) between 1955 and 1975. While there is no doubt that massive 

development took place in the region during this time period, it was not the type 

of development that Colorado River Storage Project supporters had envisioned.

Instead of extracting and processing natural resources on-site, companies continued 

the practice of hauling materials away to be processed elsewhere. Virtually no 

large-scale industrial development took place in the region—even after the CRSP 

was completed—nor did substantial urban growth occur in the area either. While 

cities such as Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Denver, located outside the Upper Basin, 

have grown exponentially, there continues to be no major urban presence within the 

region. The Upper Basin instead remains a “plundered province” providing raw 

materials to other parts of the country.34

Ironically, the economically most promising natural resource in the area 

proved to be the most fi nancially devastating one. Oil shale had long been touted as 

an energy source that would potentially make the Upper Basin one of the wealthiest 

regions of the country. The process required to extract the oil from the rock, 

however, is an expensive and ineffi cient one, which requires large amounts of water 

and produces large amounts of spent shale. Promoters of the CRSP proclaimed that 

the reclamation project was vital to ensure that suffi cient water would be available 

to allow the oil shale industry to grow. When the sharp rise in oil prices took place 

in the 1970s it appeared that these predictions would, indeed, come true. Major oil 

companies began buying up property in the area around Grand Junction, Colorado, 

in anticipation of this new boom. Instead, things suddenly went bust. In May 

1982 Exxon, the dominant company in the oil shale business, suddenly shut down 

its operation, triggering a regional economic depression that lasted for nearly a 

decade.35
732

The demise of the oil shale industry should not, however, be taken as an 

indication that the Colorado River Storage Project failed all the objectives that 

promoters proclaimed for it. The CRSP did result in the Bureau of Reclamation 

becoming a major hydroelectric producer in the region (although the chief 

benefi ciary has been the Lower Basin rather than the Upper). Perhaps the one 

area where the CRSP has had the greatest success, however, has been in creating 

a massive recreation industry in the Upper Basin. The tourist revenue generated 

in 1997 at Lake Powell alone was $455 million, derived from approximately 2.5 

million visitors. While environmentalists have never forgiven the building of 

Glen Canyon Dam, it is obvious that its construction has had a sizable, long-term 

economic impact on the region. This is clearly another instance of unintended 

consequence because, while the promoters did talk about the recreational 

enhancements that the CRSP would produce, recreation was clearly not the primary 

benefi t they were looking for from the project. Promoters, however, are nothing if 

not ingenious when it comes to reinventing themselves and their claims. A recent 

tourist slogan for the man-made Lake Powell is a prime example of this, “Lake 

Powell: America’s Natural Playground.”36

Stephen C. Sturgeon, Ph.D., is Manuscript Curator and associate librarian in 

Special Collections & Archives at Utah State University, as well as an adjunct 

associate professor of history. He is the author of The Politics of Western Water: 

The Congressional Career of Wayne Aspinall (Tucson: University of Arizona Press 

2002).

Endnotes

1. Information on Josie Morris from a park brochure entitled “Josie Bassett Morris.” Information 

about her water struggle comes from a plaque at the Josie Morris Cabin site. Copies of this information 

were obtained from David Whitman, Chief Interpreter, Dinosaur National Monument, 4545 East 

Highway 40, Dinosaur, Colorado 81610–9724.

2. “Lee Ferry” is not a typographic error. This is a different location than, and downstream 

from, historic Lee’s Ferry, Arizona, and is defi ned in Article II.e. of the Colorado River Compact as 

“a point in the main stream of the Colorado River one mile below the mouth of the Paria River.”

3. While I am not trying to claim that the Upper Basin is simply Grand Junction writ large, 

I am initially focusing on this particular area for three reasons: Grand Junction became the largest 

commercial/industrial hub within the Upper Basin, the development patterns in Grand Junction mirror 

those that took place throughout the basin, and a larger body of historical literature and analysis is 

available for this area than other parts of the Upper Basin. See William Wyckoff, Creating Colorado: 

The Making of a Western American Landscape, 1860-1940 (New Haven, 1999), 226, 231; Lawrence 

J. MacDonnell, From Reclamation to Sustainability: Water, Agriculture, and the Environment in the 

American West (Niwot, Colorado, 1999), 93–95; and Brad F. Raley, “Private Irrigation in Colorado’s 

Grand Valley,” Chapter 9 in Fluid Arguments: Five Centuries of Western Water Confl ict, ed. Char 

Miller (Tucson, 2000).

4. MacDonnell, From Reclamation to Sustainability, 95.

5. Wyckoff, Creating Colorado, 233; MacDonnell, From Reclamation to Sustainability, 98-99, 

316; Wayne Aspinall, Speech, “Irrigation and Federal Participation in Colorado,” July 18, 1977, 8–9, 

Folder 19, Box 39, Wayne Aspinall Papers (University of Colorado Archives, Boulder, Colorado).

6. Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water (New York, 

1986), 118-124; Donald Worster, Under Western Skies: Nature and History in the American West (New 

York, 1992), 72.

7. Worster, Under Western Skies, 66; Richard Lowitt, The New Deal and the West (Norman, 

Oklahoma), 82.
733

8. Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 140–2.

9. The formal name of this report, nicknamed the “Blue Book,” was The Colorado River: A 

Comprehensive Report on the Development of Water Resources. The government citation for this 

report is House Doc. 419, 80th Cong., 1st sess.; Russell Martin, A Story that Stands Like a Dam: Glen 

Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul of the West (New York, 1989), 48.

10. George Sibley, “A Tale of Two Rivers: The Desert Empire and the Mountain,” in Water in the 

West, ed. Char Miller (Corvallis, Oregon, 2000) 134-5.

11. Mark W. T. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation 

Movement (Albuquerque, 1994) 43, 73.

12. Utah Committee for the Development of the Colorado River, Colorado River News Report,

booklet, January 1958, item 36, Book Collection 38 (Special Collections & Archives, Utah State 

University, Logan); B. H. Stringham, “The Echo Park Dam Problem,” radio editorial script, June 

1954, p. 9, folder 5, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers (Special Collections & Archives, Utah State 

University, Logan); Upper Colorado River Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, 

[1956?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; Rocky Mountain mining industry, Water and Power needed 

for development of Nation’s Rich Treasure Chest of Minerals and Metals, pamphlet, [1952?], item 28, 

Book Collection 38.

13. Arthur V. Watkins, “The Upper Colorado River and National Defense,” typescript, 1954, p. 5, 

folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline 

of the many benefi ts to be derived from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 

1, Book Collection 38; Utah Colorado River Development Committee of Twenty–One Counties, Letter 

to Oscar L. Chapman, 1950, folder 6, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; “The Colorado River Story,” 

typescript, [1954?], p. 14, folder 5, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers. 

14. Trade Promotion Committee of the Vernal Junior Chamber of Commerce, “Principal Statistics 

Re: Echo Park Dam,” typescript, [1952?], folder 5, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Farmington

Daily Times, “The Colorado River Story: The Factual Background,” booklet, [1954?], folder 1, Book 

Collection 38; “The Colorado River Story,” typescript, [1954?], folder 5, box 13, B. H. Stringham 

Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived 

from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; I. Dale 

Despain, “In the matter of the authorization of the Split Mountain and Echo Park dams, in connection 

with the Upper Colorado River Storage project,” typescript, 1950, folder 6, box 14, B. H. Stringham 

Papers.

15. Utah Committee for the Development of the Colorado River, The Colorado River Project: 

Here’s What It Means, pamphlet, [1955?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

16. Utah Committee for the Development of the Colorado River, Colorado River News Report,

booklet, January 1958, item 36, Book Collection 38; Transcript of radio broadcast by Senator Clinton 

Anderson, May 22, 1955, p. 6, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Memo of telephone conversation 

between Lee and Beauregard, March 1, 1950, folder 7, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers.

17. Utah Colorado River Development Committee of Twenty–One Counties, Letter to Oscar 

Chapman, 1950, p. 2, folder 6, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado River Commission, 

The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

18. Upper Colorado River Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], 

folder 1, Book Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many 

benefi ts to be derived from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book 

Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., The Colorado River Storage Project: A project 

to benefi t ALL Americans!, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

19. “To Mr. President [Truman?],” letter, July, 1951, p. 9, folder 3, box 14, B. H. Stringham 

Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived 

from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38 (emphasis 

in the original).

20. Upper Colorado River Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], 

folder 1, Book Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., The Colorado River Storage 

Project: A project to benefi t ALL Americans!, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

21. Upper Colorado River Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], 

folder 1, Book Collection 38; Utah Colorado River Development Committee of Twenty–One Counties, 
734

Letter to Oscar Chapman, 1950, p. 2, folder 6, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado 

River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived from the Colorado River 

Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; The Colorado River Storage Project,

booklet; Utah Committee for the Development of the Colorado River, Colorado River News Report,

booklet, January 1958, item 36, Book Collection 38; Charles Wilkinson, Fire on the Plateau: Confl ict 

and Endurance in the American Southwest (Washington, D.C., 1999) 188, 203.

22. Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived 

from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; Farmington

Daily Times, “The Colorado River Story: The Factual Background,” booklet, [1954?], folder 1, Book 

Collection 38.

23. Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., The Colorado River Storage Project: A project 

to benefi t ALL Americans!, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; Upper Colorado River 

Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; 

Farmington Daily Times, “The Colorado River Story: The Factual Background,” booklet, [1954?], folder 

1, Book Collection 38; The Colorado River Storage Project: A project to benefi t ALL Americans!

24. “The Colorado River Story,” typescript, [1954?], p. 14, folder 5, box 13, B. H. Stringham 

Papers (emphasis added); Charles Wilkinson, Fire on the Plateau: Confl ict and Endurance in the 

American Southwest (Washington, D.C., 1999), 202-3.

25. B. H. Stringham, “The Echo Park Dam Problem,” radio editorial script, June 1954, p. 9, 

folder 5, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Arthur V. Watkins, “The Upper Colorado River and National 

Defense,” typescript, 1954, p. 2, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado River 

Grass Roots Inc., The Colorado River Storage Project: A project to benefi t ALL Americans!, pamphlet, 

[1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

26. George D. Clyde, “The Case of the Upper Colorado River Storage Project and its Participating 

Projects,” typescript, September 1954, item 41, Book Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass 

Roots Inc., Summary of H.R. 3383, pamphlet, 1955, folder 1, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Wayne 

Aspinall, Letter to John Dingell, June 6, 1955, “Echo Park Project–1955,” Box 69, Wayne N. Aspinall 

Papers, University of Denver Special Collections; “Story of the Colorado River Storage Project,” 

[1955?], folder 5, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers.

27. B. H. Stringham, “The Echo Park Dam Problem,” radio editorial script, June 1954, folder 5, box 

14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Arthur Watkins, Letter to Oscar Chapman, January 26, 1950, p. 3, folder 6, 

box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Wallace F. Bennett, “Statement on the Upper Colorado River Project 

before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,” typescript, March 1, 1955, p. 3, folder 7, 

box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; George D. Clyde, “Statement presented at the Congressional Hearings 

on H.R. 4449 in support of the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects,” January 

1954, Exhibit “B” p. 1, item 41w, Book Collection 38; G. E. Untermann, “Factual Data,” typescript, 

[1954?], p. 3, folder 5, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; “Resolution by Utah State Republican Party,” 

typescript, [1954?], folder 5, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Utah Committee for the Development of 

the Colorado River, The Colorado River Project: Here’s What It Means, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, 

Book Collection 38.

28. Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived 

from the Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; Upper 

Colorado River Commission, The Colorado River Storage Project, booklet, [1956?], folder 1, Book 

Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., The Colorado River Storage Project: A project 

to benefi t ALL Americans!, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

29. Utah Colorado River Development Committee of Twenty–One Counties, Letter to Oscar L. 

Chapman, 1950, folder 6, box 14, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., 

Our National Defense Demands the Upper Colorado River Storage Project, pamphlet, 1955, item 33, 

Book Collection 38; Wallace F. Bennett, “Statement on the Upper Colorado River Project before the 

Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,” typescript, March 1, 1955, p. 3, folder 7, box 13, B. H. 

Stringham Papers.

30. Wallace F. Bennett, “Statement on the Upper Colorado River Project before the Senate Interior 

and Insular Affairs Committee,” typescript, March 1, 1955, p. 3, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham 

Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Our National Defense Demands the Upper Colorado 

River Storage Project, pamphlet, 1955, item 33, Book Collection 38; Arthur V. Watkins, “The Upper 
735

Colorado River and National Defense,” typescript, 1954, p. 4, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham 

Papers; Directors of Greater Utah Valley, Inc., “Petition to the Joint Congress of the United States of 

America,” typescript, January 7, 1954, p. 1, folder 2, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers; Upper Colorado 

River Grass Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived from the Colorado River 

Storage Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38.

31. Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Our National Defense Demands the Upper Colorado 

River Storage Project, pamphlet, 1955, item 33, Book Collection 38; Upper Colorado River Grass 

Roots Inc., Impact: An outline of the many benefi ts to be derived from the Colorado River Storage 

Project, pamphlet, [1954?], folder 1, Book Collection 38; Arthur V. Watkins, “The Upper Colorado 

River and National Defense,” typescript, 1954, p. 4, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham Papers.

32. Wallace F. Bennett, “Statement on the Upper Colorado River Project before the Senate Interior 

and Insular Affairs Committee,” typescript, March 1, 1955, p. 3, folder 7, box 13, B. H. Stringham 

Papers; Upper Colorado River Grass Roots Inc., Our National Defense Demands the Upper Colorado 

River Storage Project, pamphlet, 1955, item 33, Book Collection 38 (emphasis in the original).

33. Colorado River Water Users Association, The Role of the Colorado River, pamphlet, 1976, 

item 22, Book Collection 38.

34. Charles Wilkinson, Fire on the Plateau: Confl ict and Endurance in the American Southwest

(Washington, D.C., 1999), 182-5. 

35. Andrew Gulliford, Boomtown Blues, Colorado Oil Shale, 1885-1985 (Niwot, Colorado, 

1989), 151-7.

36. Jared Farmer, Glen Canyon Dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the Canyon Country

(Tucson, 1999), 185–7; American Automobile Association, Tour Book: Arizona & New Mexico, 2001 

Edition (Heathrow, Florida, 2001), 51.
736
737

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Civilian 

Conservation Corps: A Legacy Revealed

By:

Christine Pfaff

Abstract

 Between 1934 and 1942 the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) played 

a vital role within the Bureau of Reclamation. From one initial CCC camp 

assigned to Reclamation in 1934, the program expanded to a peak of forty-six 

camps at the height of the CCC program during the summer of 1935. From then 

on the number of Reclamation camps operating fl uctuated between thirty-four 

and forty-four up until May 1941. Thereafter camps were closed in response 

to national defense needs. By June 30, 1942, only seven camps remained on 

Reclamation projects, and they were discontinued shortly thereafter.

 The contributions of the CCC to Reclamation are not well known. 

Though the number of CCC camps operating on Reclamation projects was 

small in comparison to other agencies, the program had a signifi cant impact 

and assisted in furthering the goals of Reclamation during the devastating years 

of the Great Depression. At a time when fi nancially stricken farmers were 

unable to adequately maintain older Reclamation irrigation facilities, CCC 

enrollees were instrumental in rehabilitating them. The enrollees also provided 

the necessary labor to develop supplemental water supplies and construct new 

irrigation projects. Lastly, CCC assistance afforded Reclamation the opportunity 

to expand on its primary mission of irrigation to develop recreational amenities 

at a number of its reservoirs.

 This paper explores the contributions and role of the CCC within 

Reclamation and within the larger context of the national CCC program. 

Origins of Reclamation’s camps, the project work accomplished, the public 

perception of the camps, the impact on enrollees, and the success of the program 

are addressed.

Introduction1

 As dry winds and dust storms blew across the western High Plains in 

the early 1930s leaving devastated farms in their wake, newly elected President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt was formulating sweeping plans in the nation’s capital 

for emergency disaster relief. The entire country was in the grips of the Great 

Depression and jobless men everywhere struggled to earn enough money to 

buy food for their families. For the country’s youth, the situation was equally 

desperate. Hundreds of thousands of young men from economically stricken 

households were unable to fi nd work. Against this backdrop, Roosevelt outlined 

his concept for a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) during his inaugural address 

on March 4, 1933. He proposed creating a new program aimed at conserving the 

nation’s depleted natural resources and putting unemployed youth to work. The 

president told the American people: 

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable 
738

problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished 

in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as 

we would treat the emergency of war, but at the same time, through this 

employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and 

reorganize the use of our natural resources.2

 Within a short time, CCC camps had been established across the country 

and young men were recruited to work on a myriad of conservation projects 

overseen by various federal agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation). At the height of CCC enrollment in the summer of 1935, 

over a half-million men were scattered in 2,652 camps. Of all the New Deal 

programs instituted by Roosevelt to combat the economic hardships of the Great 

Depression, probably none was as popular and successful as the CCC.

 Those familiar with the accomplishments of the CCC inevitably think 

of handsomely crafted rustic stone and log structures, walls, picnic shelters 

and other facilities within National Forests or National Parks. Indeed roughly 

75 percent of all CCC camp enrollees worked on projects administered by the 

Department of Agriculture, the majority of them being on U.S. Forest Service 

lands. Almost all of the remaining camps were allotted to the Department of the 

Interior with the National Park Service (NPS) being the greatest benefi ciary. 

 The association between the CCC and Reclamation, also within Interior, 

is far less well known. As the Federal agency responsible for designing and 

building large-scale irrigation projects in the western United States, Reclamation 

was vitally involved in the allocation and use of two natural resources, namely 

water and soils. Even though the number of Reclamation CCC camps was much 

smaller than that of other agencies, the program had a signifi cant impact and 

assisted in furthering the goals of the agency during the devastating drought 

years of the 1930s. CCC assistance also afforded Reclamation the opportunity to 

expand on its primary mission of irrigation to develop recreational amenities at a 

number of its reservoirs. 

Creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps

 By the close of Roosevelt’s fi rst month in offi ce, Congress had acted upon 

the President’s ambitious jobs-creation proposal and passed “An Act for the relief 

of unemployment through the performance of useful public works and other 

purposes.” On March 31, 1933, the President signed the bill into law (Public 

No. 5, 73rd Congress) thus creating the CCC (initially called the Emergency 

Conservation Works or ECW).

 With legislation in place, Roosevelt wasted no time in transposing his 

vision into action. In April 1933 he appointed Robert Fechner director of the 

CCC and established an advisory council comprised of representatives from 

the Departments of Labor, War, Interior and Agriculture. The purpose of the 
739

council was to coordinate oversight 

of the program and create a forum 

for discussing policy issues. The 

Department of Labor was assigned 

responsibility for recruiting youths 

and the War Department (Army) was 

in charge of enrollee administration, 

transportation, housing, food, clothing, 

supplies, medical care, education, 

discipline, and physical conditioning.

The Departments of Agriculture 

and Interior had the task of locating 

the conservation work camps and 

supervising the actual work.

 At the president’s urging, the CCC enrolled its fi rst 25,000 young men by 

April 6, 1933. The initial camp, appropriately called Roosevelt, was established 

on April 17 on George Washington National Forest near Luray, Virginia. 

Less than three months after the program=s inauguration, about 300,000 men 

from throughout the country were settled in almost 1,500 camps. Each CCC 

installation typically housed about 200 men. According to Fechner, Ait was the 

most rapid large scale mobilization of men the country had ever witnessed.3

Initial enrollment in the CCC was limited to unemployed single men between the 

ages of eighteen and twenty-fi ve who were U.S. citizens. For the most part these 

were discouraged men, unsuccessful in securing jobs because they had no work 

experience. They were described as “a weaponless army whose recruits came 

from broken homes, highway trails and relief shelters ... ”4 American Indians 

were at fi rst not eligible but this restriction was soon lifted because of the dire 

conditions on many of the reservations.

 Enrollment was also expanded to include “local experienced men” who 

served as technical foremen on work projects, and a limited number of World War 

I veterans. The latter were selected by the Veterans Administration and assigned 

to special camps operated less stringently than regular ones. Although racial 

discrimination was offi cially forbidden in accordance with the CCC legislation, 

blacks and other minorities did not escape prejudice within the program.5

 The 

number of blacks enrolled was limited, and they were for the most part restricted 

to segregated camps.

Reclamation’s CCC Program

 Due to its role in planning and constructing irrigation projects throughout 

the arid and semi-arid West, Reclamation was vitally concerned with farmers’ 

welfare during the Depression. Beginning in 1902 the Federal government had 

invested heavily in construction of dams and water conveyance facilities to 

32.1. ECW winter camp at Belle Fourche 

Dam in 1934.
740

provide farmers with essential water. Irrigators who benefi tted from Reclamation 

facilities were required to repay their construction costs over a period of years.

Operation and maintenance of irrigation systems were also supported by fees paid 

by the water users. By the mid-1930s, Reclamation had constructed a network of 

some fi fty small and large projects across the West. 

 The combined effect of drought and poor agricultural practices exacted 

a terrible toll on Western farmers during the Depression. Crop prices were 

low, water supplies had dwindled, and valuable topsoil was swept off of fi elds 

in blinding dust storms. The fi nancial hardships faced by farmers meant that 

irrigation systems were not adequately maintained. Many aging water control 

structures had deteriorated beyond repair; canals were silted and clogged with 

vegetation; weeds and gophers infested canal banks; and crop yields dropped 

drastically with the decrease in water supplies. By 1934 it had become critical for 

the Federal government to address the plight of western farmers and to safeguard 

its hefty investment in irrigation projects. The CCC program provided a perfect 

mechanism for doing both while meeting its objectives of protecting natural 

resources and aiding unemployment. 

 The fi rst CCC camp to open on a Reclamation project was established in 

May 1934 at Lake Guernsey, a reservoir of the North Platte Project, in Wyoming. 

Designated originally as RS-1 (Reclamation Service No. 1), the camp became 

known as BR-9. It was obtained under a cooperative agreement with the NPS 

and along with BR-10, established in July 1934, was responsible for transforming 

the reservoir shores into a showplace of recreational development. Sturdy log and 

stone picnic shelters, trails, and a handsome rustic-style museum complete with 

interpretive displays were built by CCC enrollees. The outstanding signifi cance 

of their contributions at Lake Guernsey resulted in the designation of Lake 

Guernsey State Park as a National Historic Landmark on September 25, 1997. 

 In early September 1934 a second camp was established on a cooperative 

basis with the NPS at Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande Project in 

New Mexico. Designated BR-8, the camp enrollees, along with those from 

BR-54 occupied in August 1935, greatly improved the recreational facilities at the 

reservoir. They also transformed the landscape by building a variety of structures, 

terracing the hillsides, and planting hundreds of trees. The CCC component is a 

major feature of the Elephant Butte National Register Historic District, listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places in February 1997.

 In July 1934 six drought-relief camps were also assigned to Reclamation. 

These were essentially the same as regular CCC camps but were restricted to 

states suffering severely under the drought and were authorized for one year, 

rather than the normal six months. Additionally, they were fi nanced under 

different appropriations.6

 Assigned numbers beginning with DBR (Drought 

Relief Bureau of Reclamation), the six camps were DBR-1 at Lake Minatare, 

Nebraska, on the North Platte Project; DBR-2 at Fruitdale, South Dakota, on the 
741

Belle Fourche Project; DBR-3 at Carlsbad, New Mexico, on the Carlsbad Project; 

DBR-4 at Ysleta, Texas, on the Rio Grande Project; DBR-5 at Heber, Utah, on 

the Strawberry Valley Project; and DBR-6 at Ephraim, Utah, on the Sanpete 

Project. The improvements completed on Reclamation irrigation projects by the 

drought-relief camps were of tremendous value in combating the acute water 

shortages plaguing farmers. The camp at Lake Minatare can also be credited with 

construction of a unique Reclamation CCC edifi ce that still exists: on a point of 

land extending into the lake, the enrollees built a fi fty-fi ve-foot-high native rock 

Alighthouse@ containing a circular staircase. From the observation deck at the top 

can be seen Scotts Bluff and Chimney Rock, both landmarks of the Oregon Trail. 

 Initially, work accomplished at Reclamation CCC camps focused on 

rehabilitating the storage, distribution, and drainage systems of older projects that 

had been seriously affected by the combination of drought and depressed farm 

prices. Efforts consisted of returning weed- and silt-fi lled canals and laterals to 

a proper cross section; replacing decaying wood structures with concrete; adding 

new water control structures; building bridges over canals; eradicating weeds 

and rodents; reconditioning operating roads; placing riprap on canal and lateral 

banks, and sealing porous canals with earth or concrete linings. Much of the work 

accomplished was of a seemingly mundane and unspectacular nature but it had 

far-reaching benefi ts.

 As Reclamation’s CCC program expanded from its small beginnings in 

1934, the types of project work undertaken by the enrollees grew more varied and 

broadened to include developing supplemental water supplies and constructing 

new irrigation projects. The acute water defi ciencies experienced during the 

Depression indicated that a few of the project storage facilities, though adequate 

under ordinary conditions, were insuffi cient during drought periods. To remedy 

this situation, CCC forces were used to build supplemental storage facilities.

Examples are Midview Dam and dike on the Moon Lake Project in Utah (BR-11) 

and Anita Dam on the Huntley Project in Montana (BR-57). Clearing reservoir 

areas of timber and debris in preparation for new dam construction was another 

labor intensive task assigned to the enrollees at various camps. The physically 

demanding work involved felling trees, piling, and then burning them. Utilizing 

heavy equipment such as tractors and bulldozers provided the enrollees an 

opportunity to learn new skills. The most prominent of this type of work was 

accomplished at the Shasta Dam site on the Central Valley Project in California. 

Enrollees of BR-84 and BR-85 cleared 2,597 acres in the reservoir area during 

the camps’ existence. Similar work was undertaken at Wickiup Reservoir on 

the Deschutes Project (BR-75, -76, and -77), Deer Creek Reservoir on the Provo 

River Project (BR-91), Pine View Reservoir on the Ogden River Project (BR-12), 

Island Park Reservoir on the Upper Snake River Project (BR-28) and Parker Dam 

Reservoir on the Parker Dam Project (BR-17 and BR-18).

 Building new feeder canals to bring additional water to existing reservoirs 

was another effort to increase water supplies. Examples include the Duchesne 
742

Feeder Canal on the Moon Lake Project (BR-11) and the Strawberry Reservoir 

Feeder Canal on the Strawberry Valley Project (BR-5). Enrollees cleared the 

canal right-of-ways, excavated the trenches, trimmed the canal slopes, and, in 

some cases, poured concrete linings. The CCC also completed improvements to 

numerous existing storage facilities such as Orman Dam on the Belle Fourche 

Project (BR-2), Clear Lake Dam on the Klamath Project (BR-41), Moon Lake 

Dam on the Moon Lake Project 

(BR-11), and the South Diversion 

Dam on the Orland Project 

(BR-78).

 Another type of work 

undertaken by the CCC was 

fl ood control. Many areas of the 

West under Reclamation projects 

were subject to intense localized 

rainfalls of short duration that had 

caused severe damage to irrigation 

systems. The CCC built a number 

of fl ood control structures such as 

Apache and Box Canyon Dams on 

the Rio Grande Project (BR-39).

 As noted earlier, among the most visible contributions of the CCC 

enrollees assigned to Reclamation projects were the recreational improvements 

completed. Several of the projects had lands adjacent to rivers, reservoirs, or 

lakes, which were ideally suited for use as parks, campgrounds, or picnic areas.

Some of these lands were developed by the CCC through construction of tables, 

benches, stoves, fi replaces, water systems, latrines, sewage disposal plants, and 

landscaping. Swimming, boating, and fi shing facilities, and hiking trails built by 

the CCC provided park visitors 

with additional amenities. The 

improvements greatly enhanced 

public appreciation for the 

CCC and made Reclamation 

projects more accessible. The 

prime examples of recreational 

development occurred at 

Elephant Butte Dam on the 

Rio Grande Project (BR-8 and 

BR-54), at Guernsey Lake on the 

North Platte Project (BR-9 and 

BR-10), and at Lake Walcott on 

the Minidoka Project (BR-27).

32.2. CCC crew placing and fi nishing concrete 

at a new Kingman check on the Owyhee Project 

in 1940.

32.3. CCC forces lined small community ditches 

in Las Cruces, New Mexico, on the Rio Grande 

Project in 1937.
743

 Auxiliary to these main classes of work, the CCC enrollees were engaged 

in improvements to wildlife refuges at reservoirs, rodent control operations, 

weed eradication experiments, and emergency work. In cooperation with the 

Bureau of Biological Survey (now the Fish and Wildlife Service), Reclamation’s 

CCC enrollees developed wildlife refuges at the Deer Flat Reservoir in western 

Idaho (BR-24), Tulelake Wildlife Refuge in northern California (BR-20), at Lake 

Walcott, in southern Idaho (BR-27), and at the Pishkun Reservoir in Montana 

(BR-33). At Elephant Butte Reservoir, CCC forces constructed a 12-pond fi sh 

hatchery (BR-8 and BR-54).

 The elimination of troublesome rodents along canal banks and in 

farm fi elds was an ongoing endeavor at many camps and was viewed as an 

“undertaking of major importance to many Reclamation projects.”7

 Damage 

caused by rodents was twofold: in canal banks their burrowing resulted in canal 

collapses and in fi elds their activities resulted in substantial crop loss. Pocket 

gophers and ground squirrels were the primary targets and, in cooperation 

with the Biological Survey, eradication was accomplished either by trapping 

or poisoning or both. The work was well suited to the CCC program because 

it was labor intensive. Small crews performed the task as an adjunct to larger 

construction projects. By June 1941 CCC enrollees treated 2,510,100 acres for 

rodent control.

 Weed eradication was another activity performed at many Reclamation 

CCC camps. The presence of noxious weeds, such as Canada thistle, bindweed, 

and Johnson grass, was increasing on Reclamation projects, and the available 

labor of CCC recruits was applied towards eliminating this menace. Canals 

provided easy transportation routes for seeds to all parts of the irrigated lands, 

and controlling and eradicating weeds was a complex problem. Enrollees did not 

enter on private property to conduct weed control, but the farmers were shown, 

by demonstration on government tracts, the methods of attacking various kinds of 

invasive plants. Sample demonstrations were also performed on the Government 

canals and laterals for the benefi t of the operating personnel. Experiments with 

different types of grasses that could crowd out weeds on canal banks and that 

might be useful as a pasture crop were undertaken.8

 On the Belle Fourche Project 

(BR-2), CCC enrollees demonstrated to farmers the use and methods of growing 

strawberry clover and brome grass as valuable pasture. Experiments to eradicate 

noxious weeds using blades and chemicals were carried on at test plots. On the 

Rio Grande Project (BR-4), considerable effort was expended on that objective. 

Different methods tried for the control of bindweed included chopping plants out 

by hand, spraying them with oil, and then burning them.

 While the CCC program received a lot of attention for its role in fi ghting 

forest fi res and assisting in fl ood disasters, emergency work conducted by CCC 

enrollees on Reclamation projects attracted little recognition in spite of its great 

value. The most common emergencies were canal breaks usually resulting from 

the tunneling activities of rodents. Such breaks, if not repaired promptly, had 
744

the potential to cause serious 

damage by fl ooding some 

fi elds and drying up others. A 

1937 Reclamation Era article 

described various emergencies 

that had been attended to by 

 CCC enrollees. On the Klamath 

Project in California and Oregon 

(BR-20 and BR-41), ten recent 

breaks in canal banks had been 

repaired. On the Salt River 

Project in Arizona (BR-14 and 

BR-19), a serious break in the 

South Canal occurred in April 

1937 and was tended to by enrollees. Early in May 1937 CCC men from the 

Deaver Camp on the Shoshone Project (BR-7) were called out to help reconstruct 

300 feet of the inclined drop below the Ralston Reservoir.

 The hazards of winter created numerous emergencies where the help of the 

CCC was invaluable. The snow season of 1936-1937 was particularly severe in 

parts of Utah and Nevada, and the CCC youths effectively carried out emergency 

work to save human lives and livestock. In January 1937 about 50,000 head of 

sheep were marooned by heavy snows in Pleasant Valley in the Uintah Basin of 

eastern Utah. A CCC tractor, with a bulldozer attachment, was loaned to the Utah 

State Road Commission to open a 26-mile road on which to lead the animals out.

CCC enrollees from BR-11 on the Moon Lake Project accompanied the tractor to 

perform any unexpected repairs. Mining and farming districts in western Nevada 

were particularly hard hit by snowstorms in early February 1937. CCC men and 

equipment were made available for rescue work. In cooperation with the county, 

they cleared 380 miles of road, dug out ten towns and outlying ranchers and 

miners, and permitted feed to be hauled to many isolated cattle herds. 

 All CCC men at Carlsbad, New Mexico, (BR-3) were called out in early 

June 1937 to perform emergency fl ood protection work at McMillan Dam brought 

about by extreme fl ood conditions of the Pecos River. A leak caused by the high 

waters was discovered at the dam on May 31, and for the next six days CCC 

crews placed sandbags on the reservoir face of the dam to hold back water from 

any leaks that might occur. The superb efforts of the CCC enrollees were praised. 

When a small dam failed on June 13, 1937, near Austin, Colorado, and partially 

fl ooded the town, CCC forces from the camp in Montrose (BR-23) were brought 

in to help restore sanitation facilities and repair damaged irrigation ditches.

 At the height of the CCC program in the summer of 1935, there were 

forty-six camps operating on Reclamation projects throughout the West. In 

addition to and in association with the main camps, side camps also known 

as spike camps, were sometimes established. These were usually smaller and 

32.4. CCC forces placing steel reinforcement on 

the Stinkingwater Siphon, Belle Fourche Project, 

in 1938.
745

made up of tents that could easily be 

dismantled. Typically, camp structures 

were standard plan, simple frame 

buildings. Side camps were created 

when a job was at such a distance 

from the main camp that it made 

sense to station a work force in closer 

proximity. Examples of side camps on 

Reclamation CCC projects were the 

ones at Alamagordo Dam (BR-3, main 

camp) where enrollees constructed 

improvements for recreational use of 

the reservoir; on the Hyrum Project 

(BR-12, main camp) where enrollees constructed a diversion dam on the Little 

Bear River and built a parapet and curb walls on the Hyrum Dam; and at the river 

portal to the Gunnison Tunnel (BR-23, main camp) where enrollees worked on 

widening and reconstructing the old road leading from the top of the canyon down 

to the East Portal. 

 Some CCC camps established on Reclamation projects were seasonal for 

climatic reasons. Those at high elevations, such as BR-5 on the Strawberry Valley 

Project, were summer camps and enrollees were relocated to lower elevations in 

the winter (BR-11). BR-50 on the Yakima Project was only occupied during the 

summer because of heavy winter snows and severe weather. Due to the intense 

summer heat in Yuma, Arizona, enrollees of BR-13 and BR-74 did not occupy 

the camps during that season for the fi rst few years. The two Salt River Project 

camps in the Phoenix area, BR-14 and BR-19, operated similarly.

Job Training in Reclamation CCC Camps

 When CCC camps were assigned to Reclamation, the agency assumed 

responsibility for supervising and training the enrollees while they were engaged 

in project work. The latter was scheduled for fi ve days a week, eight hours a 

day except in the event of emergencies. Oversight of work activities was carried 

out by Reclamation fi eld engineers and by project superintendents in charge of 

the Reclamation projects on which the camps were located. The fi eld engineers 

directed surveys, inspections, and other fi eld engineering work. They also 

supervised and approved the construction of the various physical features. The 

CCC project superintendents, also designated by Reclamation as CCC Regional 

Directors, had immediate charge of the work activities and directed the CCC 

supervisory, facilitating, and enrolled personnel in carrying out the work.

 During the lifespan of the CCC, Reclamation dedicated an increasing 

amount of attention to the job-training aspects of the CCC program. Even before 

a national requirement for ten hours of weekly general education or vocational 

training was instituted in June 1937 by CCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., 

32.5. CCC men working on McMillan 

Spillway No. 2, Carlsbad Project, New 

Mexico, in 1938.
746

Reclamation recognized the valuable 

skills that enrollees were developing 

on the job. Constructing canals, roads, 

dams, and water control features as 

well as building recreational facilities 

afforded enrollees a perfect opportunity 

to gain practical experience. Building 

concrete structures involved teaching 

the young men the fundamentals 

of earth excavation, form building, 

reinforcement, concrete mixing, concrete 

fi nishing, and curing concrete. Other 

training included working with rock, 

both in quarrying and the construction 

of masonry walls; the use of burners and chemicals for weed control; and the 

shaping of lumber for timber structures. Enrollees became expert at operating all 

types of heavy equipment such as tractors, trucks, and draglines. In addition to 

acquiring construction skills, enrollees at Reclamation camps participated in the 

cooking and clerical operations of the camps.9

 The opportunity to attend classes in the evening was another component 

of the educational experience offered at CCC camps. Some of the young men 

enrolled in nearby schools to further their knowledge. With the increased 

emphasis on education, starting in June 1937 Reclamation expanded its own 

classroom programs. During the day, foremen were assigned to supervise and 

explain to enrollees the proper method to do their assigned tasks. One or two 

evenings a week, the foremen held classes in camp to supplement the practical 

work with related training. For example, an enrollee whose duty it was to refuel 

tractors with diesel fuel might learn the essential difference between diesel fuel 

and gasoline. A standard CCC truck driver’s course taught truck drivers how to 

reduce the cost of vehicle maintenance, to be more effi cient operators, and to be 

safety conscious. Visual aids such as miniature models and motion pictures were 

often used to enhance the classroom instruction. Foremen attended leadership 

courses to learn effective teaching methods. Regular Reclamation employees 

assisted by teaching technical subjects and clerical skills such as property 

accountability and cost-keeping. Courses mentioned in some of the camp reports 

include spelling, blueprint reading, bee culture, warehousing, and shorthand.10

 All sorts of training materials were also available through the CCC 

education offi ce in Washington. Handbooks containing lists of available fi lms 

and manuals were sent out to the camps. Manuals ranged in subject from “Brick 

and Stone Work” to “Common Range Plants” to “Signs and Markers” to “Job 

Training is a Business Proposition.” All camps had libraries supplied with 

textbooks, reference works, and a selection of daily newspapers. Books useful for 

on-the-job training as well as for advancing personal skills were available. Titles 

32.6. Yuma Project. CCC enrollee offthe-job-training class in blacksmithing on 

the Yuma Project in 1939.
747

ran the gamut from “Accountancy as a Career” to “Electricity in the Home and on 

the Farm” to “Elements of Forestry” to “Amateur Machinist.”

 Towards the end of the CCC program, Reclamation directed all of 

its camps to furnish new enrollees with a series of publications intended to 

familiarize them with the agency and its role in conserving resources. The list 

included Reclamation Home Creating—Wealth Producing—Self Sustaining,

Grand Coulee Dam, Boulder Dam, and the Central Valley Project. Reclamation 

had plans to prepare its own pamphlet on the agency’s CCC program, but it is 

unknown whether this ever occurred.

 The training and education paid off for Reclamation’s CCC enrollees. In 

February 1937 it was reported that CCC men from Reclamation camps had been 

successful in securing a range of jobs upon leaving the Corps. These included 

farmer, farm hand, ranch hand, miner, railroad worker, skilled labor helper, 

lumberjack, highway worker, factory worker, and painter among others. Much of 

the success of the enrollees was attributed to the experience gained while in the 

CCC camps. Records indicated that enrollees who served at least a year or longer 

in the CCC ended up with higher paying jobs than those who served for just six 

months. Enrollees who were offered positions while in the Corps were honorably 

discharged to start their employment. It was found that the young men leaving 

the CCC to accept jobs usually returned to their home state or region. Eastern 

boys assigned to western camps nearly all returned to the East and western youths 

preferred to stay in the West. Even before leaving the CCC, individuals who 

performed outstanding work had opportunities for advancement. They could be 

promoted to responsible positions as foremen on the technical supervisory staff at 

camps when vacancies occurred.

 From information included in Reclamation’s CCC regular camp reports 

and in journal articles, it appears that the training offered to enrollees was wellreceived by them. In fact, with few exceptions the morale of the enrollees was 

noted as good. For example, at BR-5 on the Strawberry Valley Project, the 

“enrollees exhibited a fi ne cooperative spirit and high morale” despite the remote 

locality of the camp. At BR-20 on the Klamath Project, the enrollees were praised 

for their hard work in the camp’s fi rst annual report: 

The manner in which the men in both camps (BR-41 as well) 

applied their efforts was truly remarkable, and it was not long before the 

camps became well established and the work program began to show 

signs of progress ... The men wanted to work, to prove their worth and 

better themselves, when given the opportunity. Moreover, they proved 

this when offered the facilities of the buildings and teaching personnel at 

the Merrill and Tulelake high schools for evenings.

 In addition to the emphasis on developing “strong minds,” CCC camps 

also promoted building “strong, healthy bodies.” Physical conditioning, 
748

in addition to educational training, was considered important for character 

improvement and for maintaining good camp morale. Planned athletic and 

recreational activities were part of all camp schedules. Enrollees participated in 

sports such as baseball, basketball, swimming, ping pong, or tennis. Many camps 

also offered regular recreational outings to nearby towns and attractions.

 A number of the camps produced their own newsletters in which 

upcoming activities were announced or the results of sports competitions were 

reported. The newsletters provide a more personal view of daily life at the camps. 

A column in the October 1937 “Stanfi eld Echo” (BR-44) advised new enrollees 

on proper behavior. Among the twenty items listed were the following: “Be 

careful of the type of language you use around camp and in public;” “Do not 

smoke or fl ip cigarettes, or talk after the lights are out;” “The wasting of food is 

considered serious misconduct and will be punished accordingly;” and “Watch 

your actions while you are in town, you will be judged accordingly.”

 Although Reclamation’s CCC program was not without its critics, overall 

it appears to have been viewed as very benefi cial by the public. Their initial 

concerns about having unemployed youths living nearby dissipated over time.

Annual open houses at the camps gave outsiders a perfect opportunity to learn 

of the accomplishments of the enrollees and to better understand the program.

Camps participated in numerous local events such as parades and county fairs.

Reclamation even produced a fi lm in 1937 entitled Reclamation and the CCC

which showed enrollees engaged at work on a number of projects. Unfortunately, 

no copy of the fi lm has been located. 

 Strong community support is evidenced in newspaper articles published 

in early 1938 when President Roosevelt contemplated closing all Reclamation 

camps in response to the criticism that they benefi tted private irrigators rather than 

the interests of the public. In Wyoming, the Powell Tribune wrote:

As to the CCC in reclamation work, we have regarded the camp at 

Deaver as of great benefi t to the general farming community there ... We 

need more CCC camps and fewer jails; we need more CCC camps and 

less unemployment; we need more CCC camps for the improvement in 

mind, morals and body of the boys themselves—that is more important 

and more of value to us all than the work they do.11

In February 1938, to counter the accusations lodged against it, Reclamation 

restricted CCC activities to Federally owned lands, and the government had to 

have a direct fi nancial interest in all work performed, or it had to be developing 

recreational facilities for public benefi t.

Termination of Reclamation CCC Camps

 The outbreak of World War II brought an end to the CCC. As the United 

States geared up the production of arms and ammunition, the unemployment 
749

problem dissolved. The number of CCC camps nationwide dwindled from a peak 

of 2,652 in the summer of 1935 to 1,500 by April 1939.

 With the attack on Pearl Harbor, the country’s attention was riveted on a 

new front. Some six weeks after the bombing, on January 27, 1942, CCC director 

James L. McEntee announced the immediate reorganization of the CCC on a war 

basis. He directed the termination of all CCC camps as quickly as possible unless 

they were involved in war-related construction activities or in the protection of 

war-related natural resources.

 Reclamation justifi ed its continued need for CCC camps during the war on 

the basis of the urgent need for a reliable and adequate food supply. The effect of 

the war on Reclamation=s CCC program was thus described: 

 The defense program and later the all-out war program 

emphasized the responsibility of the Nation’s food growers, and a 

portion of that responsibility was thus imparted to the camps helping 

in this work. Meeting the needs of the armed services and industry, 

the bureau’s camps provided one of the sources of supply for trained 

construction equipment operators. All phases of the training program 

were emphasized and especially those skills which could augment the 

supply of needed trained workers.12

 During the last full fi scal year of the CCC program, 1942, there was a 

reduction in the number of camps assigned to Reclamation from forty-three 

camps on July 1, 1941, to seven camps on June 30, 1942. In general, the CCC 

work activities previously initiated were continued through fi scal year 1942, 

with impetus added by the war. In planning for the annual CCC “open house” 

celebrations in 1941, a memo was sent out from Reclamation Commissioner John 

Page to all CCC fi eld offi ces urging them to highlight activities contributing the 

most to the national defense program. Page quoted from a letter that the Director 

of the CCC had sent out: 

It should be emphasized that the entire pattern of camp life—the daily 

routine, the training and educational programs, the work projects—all 

contribute to national security by developing in youth character, 

discipline, good work habits, health, love of country and the ability to 

achieve economic independence.13

Eight new camps were assigned to Reclamation at the beginning of Fiscal 

Year 1942. They were established for the purpose of constructing small water 

conservation and utilization projects (BR-93, -94, -95, -96, -97, -99, -101, -102).

Sometimes referred to as Wheeler-Case Projects, they were confi ned to the Great 

Plains and other western areas subject to drought and water shortages. As one of 

several agencies participating in the program, Reclamation’s role was to construct 

irrigation facilities to help meet local water needs. By the end of the year, 

considerable progress had been made. 
750

 Although President Roosevelt urged continuation of the CCC as a 

means of accomplishing critical defense work, Congress sealed the fate of the 

program on June 30, 1942, when it voted to liquidate the CCC and allocated 

$8 million to help cover closing costs. Steps were immediately taken to 

release the remaining 60,000 enrollees and to discontinue all work programs.

Reclamation’s remaining camps were shut down the following month. Some 

of Reclamation’s terminated camps were transferred to the Army or Navy for 

military use. In a number of cases, closed CCC camps were used to house 

conscientious objectors (BR-75, -76, -77, -93, -95, -97, -99), war prisoners 

(BR-39) or Japanese evacuees (BR-42). Where no future uses could be 

contemplated, camp structures were relocated or demolished.

Conclusion

 During the life of the CCC program, Reclamation operated camps at 

eighty-three separate locations on forty-fi ve Reclamation projects in fi fteen 

western states. Even though the agency was but a minor recipient of CCC 

benefi ts (in April 1937 Reclamation was assigned thrity-four camps which 

represented only 1.7 percent of the total number), Reclamation continually touted 

the positive results attained by the enrollees. The assignment of CCC camps to 

Reclamation occurred at a time when western agriculture was in critical straits.

Work completed by the enrollees helped revitalize an array of existing irrigation 

projects and brought new water to other areas.

 A few fi gures illustrate the impressive volume of accomplishments of 

 CCC forces on Reclamation facilities: over 60,000,000 square yards of canals and 

drainage ditches were cleaned or cleared; 1,800,000 square yards of canal were 

lined with impervious material and 2,800,000 square yards were riprapped for 

protection against erosion; 3,000 miles of operating roads had been constructed 

along canal banks; 39,000 acres of reservoir sites were cleared of brush and trees; 

and 15,800 water control structures had been built. The contributions of the CCC 

were summarized in Reclamation’s fi nal report on the program as follows: 

 The fi ne work of the Civilian Conservation Corps by 1942 had 

brought the Federal irrigation projects back to a high standard of physical 

excellence. The irrigation systems are now in generally good condition, 

able to deliver required amounts of water and by the permanency of their 

rehabilitation they are insured against interruptions of consequence.14

 For the enrollees at Reclamation camps, the experience provided 

invaluable skills, training, and opened new doors for a more promising future.

The CCC offered an opportunity “To learn in the great outdoorsChow to work, 

how to live, and how to get ahead.”15

Christine Pfaff is a Bureau of Reclamation historian who formerly 

worked in Reclamation’s Technical Service Center and has since moved 

to the historic preservation program of Reclamation where she uses her 
751

skills as an architectural historian. She has published several articles on 

the history of Reclamation, a book on Reclamation’s historic buildings, 

and a book on the CCC at Reclamation.

Endnotes

1. Portions of this paper are excerpted from “‘Happy Days’ of the Depression: The Civilian 

Conservation Corps in Colorado” an article I wrote that appeared in Colorado Heritage in Spring 

2001.

2. Objectives and Results of the Civilian Conservation Corps Program by Robert Fechner, 

1938, National Archives, Denver (RG 115, Entry 22, Box 35, fi le 035).

3. Objectives and Results of the Civilian Conservation Corps Program, p. 7.

4. Frederic Haskin, “Praises Record of C.C.C. Camp,” The Sunday Washington Star, August 

11, 1940.

5. Of three amendments to the bill signed by Roosevelt on March 31, 1933, one was 

submitted by Representative Oscar De Priest, Republican of Illinois, and the only black 

Congressman. It prohibited discrimination on account of race, color, or creed. (John Salmond, 

p. 23).

6. Dr. H. T. Cory, “Civilian Conservation Corps Work on Reclamation Projects,” 

Reclamation Era, January 1936, p.22.

7. Alfred Golzé, “CCC Accomplishments on Reclamation Projects,” Reclamation Era,

January 1937, p. 26.

8. Alfred Golzé, “Civilian Conservation Corps Accomplishments on Federal Reclamation 

Projects,” Reclamation Era, September 1938, p. 192.

9. Alfred Golzé, “Reclamation Work Trains CCC Men,” Reclamation Era, February 1937, 

pp. 38-9.

10. Alfred Golzé, “CCC Accomplishments on Federal Reclamation Projects, Fiscal Year 

1940,” Reclamation Era, November 1940, p. 318.

11. “Write Congressmen About This.” Powell Tribune. January 20, 1938. A copy of this 

newspaper article as well as the other ones mentioned are located at the National Archives, Denver 

(RG 115, Entry 22, Box 34).

12. Federal Security Agency. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation 

Corps. Fiscal Year Ended June 30 1942, p. 40. 

13. Memo from Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation to All CCC Field Offi ces, February 

24, 1941. National Archives, Denver, (RG 115 Entry 22, Box 1).

14. “Final Report, Civilian Conservation Corps Activities, Bureau of Reclamation.”

15. Article from Congressional Record. February 2, 1939, National Archives, Denver (RG 

115, Entry 28, Box 1).

Bibliography

Congressional Record. February 2, 1939, article located at National Archives, Denver (RG 115,

 Entry 28, Box 1).

Cory, Dr. H. T. “Civilian Conservation Corps Work on Reclamation Projects,” Reclamation Era,

 January 1935, p. 22.

Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service and the Civilian 

 Conservation Corps: 1933-42. By Alison T. Otis, et al. August 1986.

Department of Interior. National Park Service. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National 

 Park Service, 1933-42, An Administrative History. By John C. Paige. 1985.

Emergency Conservation Work. “Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work 

 Embracing Activities from April 5, 1933 Through June 30, 1935.”

Federal Security Agency. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps.

 Fiscal Year Ended June 30 1942. National Archives, Denver (RG 115, Entry 22, Box 47).

Golzé, Alfred. “C.C.C. and Emergency Work,” Reclamation Era, August 1937, pp. 188-90.
752

__________. “CCC Accomplishments on Federal Reclamation Projects, Fiscal Year 1940,” 

Reclamation Era, November 1940, p. 318.

__________. “CCC Accomplishments on Reclamation Projects,” Reclamation Era, January 1937, 

 p. 26.

__________. “CCC Work to Continue on Reclamation Projects,” Reclamation Era, April 1938, p. 

 74.

__________. “Civilian Conservation Corps Accomplishments on Federal Reclamation Projects,” 

Reclamation Era, September 1938, p. 192.

__________. “Operation and Maintenance of CCC Equipment on Reclamation Projects-Its 

 Relation to National Defense,” Reclamation Era, April 1941, p. 118.

__________. “Reclamation Trains the CCC Enrollee,” Reclamation Era, March 1939, pp. 62-4. 

__________. “Reclamation Work Trains CCC Men,” Reclamation Era, February 1937, pp. 38-9.

Haskin, Frederic. “Praises Record of C.C.C. Camp,” The Sunday Washington Star.

 August 11, 1940.

Memo from Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation to All CCC Field Offi ces, February 24, 1941. 

 National Archives, Denver, (RG 115, Entry 22, Box 1). 

Objectives and Results of the Civilian Conservation Corps Program by Robert Fechner, 1938, 

 National Archives, Denver (RG 115, Entry 22, Box 35, fi le 035).

Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942. Durham, North Carolina: Duke 

 University Press, 1967.

Sullivan, Ralph. “Job Training in the Reclamation CCC Camps,” Reclamation Era, July 1939, 

 pp. 184-6.

“Write Congressmen About This,” Powell Tribune, January 20, 1938. A copy of this newspaper 

 article is located at the National Archives, Denver (RG 115, Entry 22, Box 34).

In addition to the articles in Reclamation Era, the best source of information on Reclamation=s

 CCC camps are the records located at the National Archives, Rocky Mountain Region, 

 in Denver. Reclamation=s CCC records can be found in RG 115 under Entries 7, 21, 

 and 22. Information can also be found in Reclamation=s project histories located at the 

 National Archives in RG 115, Entry 10. 
753

Lee’s Ferry, the Colorado River, and the 

Development of the Bureau of Reclamation

By:

Douglas E. Kupel

Abstract

The 100-year anniversary of the Newlands Act, which created the U.S. 

Reclamation Service, now known as the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 

celebrated in the year 2002. This occasion marks an appropriate time to refl ect 

on the development of the Bureau over time. As the prime focus of Federal 

activities on the Colorado River, events at Lee’s Ferry have made a decided 

impact on the direction of the Bureau. This paper examines the role of Lee’s 

Ferry as a concrete location and spiritual center for the reclamation movement in 

a paper prepared for the Bureau’s Centennial Symposium.

Established as a refuge from Federal authorities for exile John D. Lee, Lee’s 

Ferry is now the physical and spiritual center of the Federal contribution to 

Western water history. As scholars look back on the centennial of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, an examination of the history of Lee’s Ferry and the turf battle 

between the Bureau and the USGS over the future development of the Colorado 

River provides needed insight. It adds a valuable perspective for westerners 

concerned with the next hundred years of water history. Known today primarily 

as the departure point for thousands of white-water rafting thrill-seekers and 

world-class trout anglers, the future of Lee’s Ferry will be every bit as signifi cant 

as its past.

Introduction

 Lee’s Ferry is both the physical and spiritual heart of water history in the 

arid West. As a physical place, Lee’s Ferry is the crucial dividing point between 

the Upper and Lower Basin states as defi ned by the Colorado River Compact of 

1922. Measurements taken at Lee’s Ferry govern the amount of water credited to 

each of the basins, as well as allocations between states within each basin.

 As a symbol, Lee’s Ferry represents the pivotal position of the Colorado 

River in the development of the Bureau of Reclamation. First settled as a 

remote place of exile for fugitive Mormon leader John D. Lee as he sought to 

escape Federal authorities, Lee’s Ferry is now the true “ground zero” for Federal 

infl uence on the West. As the focus of Federal activities on the Colorado River, 

events at Lee’s Ferry have made a decided impact on the direction of the Bureau.

 Despite its key role in history, the history of Lee’s Ferry itself had been 

left relatively unexamined. Recent work by historian P. T. Reilly and others have 

only now added new chapters to the complex saga of Lee’s Ferry. This new 

research provides support for the contention that Lee’s Ferry is one of the most 

signifi cant locales in the landscape of Federal water policy.1
754

 Lee’s Ferry is located between the two largest dams on the Colorado 

River. Just upstream of Lee’s Ferry is the massive Glen Canyon Dam, which 

creates Lake Powell. Downstream from Lee’s Ferry and on the west side of the 

Grand Canyon is Hoover Dam, which backs up the waters of the Colorado to form 

Lake Mead. Glen Canyon was constructed in the 1950-1960s and represents the 

last of the giant concrete dams completed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Hoover 

Dam, completed in the depression decade of the 1930s, represented the beginning 

of a new era for Reclamation.

 What few people realize today is that there was considerable debate about 

the relative merits of the two dam locations in the twenties. This vigorous debate 

pitted representatives of two Federal agencies against each other: the venerable 

U.S. Geological Survey, tracing its heritage back to the nineteenth century ideals 

of John Wesley Powell, and the upstart U.S. Reclamation Service, representing a 

twentieth century conception of water use. Reclamation Service offi cials lobbied 

hard for construction of a dam on the lower Colorado to provide needed fl ood 

control for Southern California and Arizona while producing hydroelectric power 

for ready customers in Los Angeles. USGS offi cials, notably hydrologist E. C. 

LaRue, argued for the construction of a dam at Glen Canyon to regulate the fl ow 

of water between the Upper and Lower basins.

 The Bureau won this skirmish between the two agencies, and construction 

of Hoover Dam sent Reclamation on a path of growth and achievement 

unparalleled in modern history. Eventually, the Bureau would return to the site 

of its earlier triumph. Construction of Glen Canyon Dam capped a long era of 

achievements.

 The location of Lee’s Ferry carries with it a touch of irony. John D. 

Lee was sent there by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon 

Church) as an exile to build and operate a ferry. He built the Lonely Dell Ranch 

for Emma Lee, his seventeenth wife, a few miles below Glen Canyon Dam. By 

1873 Lee had built a ferryboat named the Colorado and established the fi rst ferry 

service across the river. Lee was captured by Federal authorities and executed in 

1877 for his part in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The ferry ran continuously 

until 1928. It was replaced by Navajo Bridge, which was completed across 

Marble Canyon in 1929.

Geology

 The spectacular landscape dominating the canyon country of Northern 

Arizona is the product of eons of geologic activity: shifting of continents, 

global rising and falling of sea levels, and creation of highlands now worn and 

redeposited. At times, deserts dominated the landscape; sometimes freshwater or 

saltwater seas invaded, leaving rivers to erode the most recently deposited layers. 

Prevailing winds abetted the process. Periods of erosion account for missing rock 

strata, layers appearing elsewhere in sequence. Two geologic processes are most 
755

responsible for the canyon of the Colorado Plateau: 1) an uplift of the ground 

itself, and 2) erosion of the rock by many years of constant water fl ow.

 The last uplift of the Colorado Plateau began about sixty million years 

ago. Uplift made the land rise. The meandering streams of the Colorado River 

ran faster and faster. As the land rose, the constant erosion of the water cut the 

canyons that today dominate the Colorado River. This erosion sliced through 

many geologic layers, which are now visible. Navajo sandstone, the dominant 

formation, is made of sand dunes hardened by pressure from deposits above 

them. The deposits eventually wore away and exposed today’s sandstone. Other 

layers contain sea- deposited sediments; still others hold fossils of land or marine 

organisms that lived millions of years ago. Petrifi ed wood and fossils of dinosaur 

bones, seashells, and small sea creatures are found in several rock strata in this 

area.

 The deep canyons left by uplift of the Colorado Plateau and the downward 

force of erosion made access across the vast chasm of the Colorado River very 

diffi cult. Only at a few locations from its confl uence with the Green River in 

Central Utah to the lower valley near Topock, California, does the Colorado open 

its banks to easy access. For hundreds of miles the canyon of the Colorado is an 

insurmountable barrier, isolating the lands of the Arizona strip north of the river 

and placing them with easier access to Utah than to the state capitol at Phoenix.

 One of the few places along the canyon where the Colorado River can 

be reached with relative ease is at its confl uence with the Paria River. Here, 

between the depths of Glen Canyon on the upstream side and Marble Canyon on 

the downstream side, is a break in the canyon walls for a stretch of two miles that 

allows a diffi cult and dangerous crossing of the river. Now Anglicized, the word 

Paria derives from the Indian name Pahreah, meaning a stream of water having 

willows growing along its banks.2

European Discovery

 Early Spanish explorers traveled the northern frontier of New Spain 

(today’s Mexico) looking for an overland route to California. Some of these 

explorers left us detailed accounts of their expeditions. In 1776 two Spanish 

priests began an expedition that provided the fi rst written record of Lee’s Ferry. 

Father Francisco Atanasio Dominguez and Father Silvestre Velez de Escalante 

set out from Santa Fe in July to pioneer an overland route from New Mexico 

to Monterey on the California coast. After three months, the party reached the 

vicinity of today’s Cedar City in Utah, where they encountered an early snow. 

The inclement weather infl uenced a decision to turn back to Santa Fe before the 

full onset of winter. Following the advice of Paiute Indians, Dominguez and 

Escalante searched for a shallow ford of the Colorado.
756

 Inadvertently turning too far south, the two priests reached what is today 

known as Lee’s Ferry. On October 26 the party reached the Colorado River 

at the mouth of the Paria River. Here, the river proved too deep to ford on 

horseback, and too swift to swim across. The men christened their camp Sal si 

Puedes (get out while you can) and they did just that by moving upstream along 

the Paria River canyon until they reached the Colorado Plateau. The explorers 

climbed out of the river bottom and made camp near what is today’s Wahweap 

Marina on Lake Powell. They spent four more days searching for a way across 

the river. Finally, on November 7, they chopped steps in the sandstone wall at a 

location now called Padre Creek and safely led their pack stock to the banks of 

the Colorado. Here the crossing was wide but shallow. The site known as the 

“Crossing of the Fathers” today lies beneath the waters of Padre Bay in Lake 

Powell.3

Mormon Crossing Era

 The early development of Lee’s Ferry is closely associated with the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons or LDS). The river 

crossing is named for Mormon pioneer John Doyle Lee. The crossing was a key 

location on the major transportation route for Mormon immigrants to Arizona and, 

after 1877, for travelers returning to Utah along the “Honeymoon Trail” to the 

LDS Temple at Saint George to solemnize their unions.

 The establishment of the Mormon Church dates to an event in American 

history known as the “Second Great Awakening,” a period of religious revival and 

evangelicalism in the late 1820s and early 1830s. This revival was national in 

scope, but had two centers: in the south and in western New York state. In 1830 

Joseph Smith received a revelation and a new type of Christian church began.

Because of some unusual tenets of the religion, its practitioners were subject 

to opposition and distrust from more traditional, established religions. One of 

these early tenets of the LDS Church was polygamy, the practice of men taking 

more than one wife. From its original location in New York, members of the 

LDS church moved to Ohio, then to Illinois, and fi nally on the long trek to the 

Great Salt Lake in what would become the Territory and later the State of Utah. 

Members arrived at the present-day location of Salt Lake City on July 24, 1847.

John D. and Emma Lee, 1871-1879

 John D. Lee was born in Kaskasia, Illinois, on September 12, 1812, 

and converted to Mormonism at the age of twenty-six. Lee joined Joseph 

Smith in western Missouri in 1838, then moved with other church members to 

Nauvoo, Illinois, after violence forced them to relocate. Lee was a leader in the 

community and constructed a substantial house in Nauvoo. After further violence, 

including the murder of Joseph Smith, Lee and the rest of the Mormon faithful 

began a westward trek. During the move Lee was a leader and able assistant to 
757

Brigham Young on the trip to Utah. After establishing a home in Salt Lake City, 

Lee heeded his church’s call to settle in the southern portion of Utah. Lee and his 

wives settled and built houses at Parowan, Harmony, and Panguitch in southern 

Utah.4

 While living near Harmony, Lee participated in a massacre of immigrants 

en route to the Pacifi c Coast. In the summer of 1857 a wagon train under the 

command of Captain Charles Fancher set up camp at Mountain Meadows, a 

popular resting spot on the trip west. At the time, leaders of the LDS Church were 

in a bitter struggle with the Federal government over control of the Utah Territory 

and were anticipating armed intervention at any moment. The immigrants, 

many of them from Missouri, taunted the Mormon settlers with tales of how 

Smith’s followers had been driven from the state. On September 11, 1857, local 

Mormon leaders and Ute Indians joined forces in an attack on the wagon train.

Viewed ostensibly as a military campaign against a hostile force, the attack was 

a massacre from which only seventeen children escaped death. While in many 

ways a payback for tremendous mistreatment over the years, the Mountain 

Meadows Massacre of 1857 forever marked its antagonists with the taint of 

bloodshed and violence.5

 The massacre opened southern Utah to additional Mormon settlement. 

Called Utah’s “Dixie,” because of its comparatively warm climate and southern 

location, this portion of the territory included the communities of Saint George, 

Harmony, Panguitch, and Cedar City. This process of colonization was an integral 

part of church expansion. In addition to southern Utah, church leaders began to 

look southward into Arizona. Of particular interest for Mormon proselytizers 

were the sedentary and urban Hopi Indians.

 In 1858, 1859, and 1860, Mormon leaders sent expeditions to the Hopi. 

Led by pioneer Jacob Hamblin, the missionary parties crossed at what would 

later become Lee’s Ferry. These early efforts toward converting the Hopi to the 

Mormon religion proved disappointing. In time, Mormon leaders directed their 

attention to the neighboring Navajo. In contrast to the Hopi, who received the 

Mormon missionaries with indifference, the Navajo were openly hostile to those 

they considered intruders in their land. By 1860 the Navajo were in a state of 

open confl ict with the U.S. Government, a situation which ended only with the 

Navajo’s defeat at the hands of Kit Carson. While many Navajo lost their lives 

during the confl ict, many more died during the infamous “long walk” to the 

Bosque Redondo reservation in New Mexico.

 The relationship between the Mormons, the Navajo, and the Hopi took on 

the form of an uneasy truce after 1865. Mormon missionaries remained anxious 

to convert additional souls, but they also coveted the few well-watered locations 

in Arizona for settlements. Resident American Indians looked to protect their 

lands.
758

 As one of the few locations where the Colorado could be crossed, the 

Paria River confl uence served an important military purpose to the Mormons. 

Control of the crossing prevented incursions by Native Americans north of the 

river while providing a base of operations for Mormon colonizing to the south. In 

October of 1869 Hamblin posted guards at the river crossing to control access at 

this strategic point. Hamblin christened the post “Fort Meeks” in honor of camp 

leader William Meeks. By 1870 Hamblin had cleared a patch of land along the 

Paria and planted wheat. As historian A. Gary Anderson has noted, “this crossing 

on the Colorado River was not unknown when John D. Lee arrived, nor was the 

idea of a ferry new.”6

 Although U.S. President James Buchanan had issued a general pardon 

for acts of rebellion arising from the Utah War in 1858, for John D. Lee and 

other Mormon leaders associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre the 

passage of time could not wash the stain clean. In 1870 LDS church offi cials 

excommunicated Lee and others for their participation in the event. While 

church offi cials were outwardly preparing to fi x the entire blame for the 

affair on Lee, inwardly they still considered Lee as one of their own. Despite 

the excommunication, for Lee, a faithful member of the fl ock since 1838, 

relinquishment of his loyalty to the church would come slowly if at all.

 To Lee and the Mormon leadership, the confl uence of Paria Creek with the 

Colorado River served two important purposes. For Lee, it provided a remote and 

isolated area free from the watchful eyes of Federal authorities. For the church, it 

was an important link in the Mormon colonization of Arizona.

 Lee and two of his families set out for the remote location, arriving shortly 

before Christmas in 1871. Mormon historian Juanita Brooks credits Emma 

Lee with naming the locale “Lonely Dell” based on the pioneer wife’s initial 

observations. Wives Emma and Rachel took up residence, one in a dugout and 

one in a rock structure. In May of 1872 Rachel moved to a location today known 

as “Jacob’s Pools,” leaving Emma Batchelder Lee as the woman in charge of 

Lee’s Ferry. Emma was indeed the driving force behind the ferry and the Lonely 

Dell Ranch, as Lee himself was often absent.7

 The arrival of Lee created two centers of activity at the confl uence of 

the Paria and Colorado Rivers. The ferry across the Colorado operated from the 

water’s edge, downstream from the juncture of the two rivers. The residential 

area, starting with some rough cabins and corrals, was upstream along the Paria.

This sheltered location back from the Colorado gave the residents some protection 

from storms that frequently passed through the canyon.

 During December of 1871 Lee constructed crude shelters for his two 

wives and their children. Based on accounts from Lee’s diaries, Mormon 

historian Juanita Brooks described these early structures:
759

By January 12 they had fi nished building two small rooms. One was a 

dugout with its back and two sides set into the hillside. It had a fl agstone 

fl oor, and a willow and sod roof. Later, this would be a cellar, and a 

place where the children could sleep during the scorching midday hours.

The larger room was of rock laid up with mud and lime mortar, and had a 

dirt fl oor and roof, but two small windows and a solid door.8

 These fi rst dwellings were mere shelters from the elements. As time went 

on, Lee constructed a more presentable cabin of driftwood for Emma. He had the 

assistance of Tommy Smith who arrived in 1872 with lumber for a new ferryboat 

and considerable carpentry skills. Professor Harvey C. DeMotte, a member of 

John Wesley Powell’s 1871-72 expedition down the Colorado, left us with a 

description of the building as it appeared in 1872:

The house of logs and innocent of fl oor, whose foundations were not laid 

with square and compass, stood with gable pointing toward the south of 

east; along one side a shade, composed of leafy boughs, served well the 

purpose of verandah, from the outer edge of which suspended blankets 

hid the sun’s rays from the evening meal.9

 John Wesley Powell’s trips down the Colorado have received well-justifi ed 

attention by historians through the years. While Powell and his men achieved 

a signifi cant accomplishment by being the fi rst to travel downstream on the 

Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, the records of Powell’s exploits also 

give us some insight into conditions at Lee’s Ferry. Powell took two trips through 

the Colorado, one in 1869 and a second in 1871 and 1872. The second trip was 

actually undertaken in two parts, with a break at Lee’s Ferry.10

 Powell fi rst visited Lee’s Ferry on August 4, 1869. His crew spent the 

night there, noting the remains of Indian and Mormon campfi res. Powell returned 

on September 30, 1870, during a reconnaissance trip in preparation for his second 

voyage. Accompanied by Jacob Hamblin, Powell and his men constructed a fl at 

boat called the Cañon Maid to use as a ferryboat to cross the river. Recognizing 

that Lee’s Ferry was an important access point on the river, Powell used it as a 

location to split his second trip down the Colorado. In 1871 the party left Green 

River, Wyoming in May and arrived at Lee’s Ferry in October. The men cached 

one boat on each side of the river and disembarked. The Powell party returned to 

33.1. This 1871 image of John 

Wesley Powell’s second expedition 

down the Colorado River was captured 

at the jumping off point in Green River, 

Wyoming.
760

Lee’s Ferry in the summer of 1872 to resume their trip.11

 The main difference between the two trips was that John Doyle Lee 

had arrived at the mouth of the Paria to establish his residence. Frederick S. 

Dellenbaugh, a member of Powell’s party, noted that in addition to constructing 

a cabin, “Lee had worked hard since his arrival early in the year and now had his 

farm in fairly good order with crops growing, well irrigated by the water he took 

out of the Paria. He called the place Lonely Dell, and it was not a misnomer.”12

 With a good knowledge of Lee’s predicament, members of the Powell 

expedition were not above having some fun with Lee. Dellenbaugh describes one 

incident:

Our camp was across the Paria down by the Colorado, and when Brother 

Lee came back the following Sunday he called to give us a lengthy 

dissertation on the faith of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), while 

Andy, always up to mischief, in his quiet way, delighted to get behind 

him and cock a rifl e. At the sound of the ominous click Lee would wheel 

like a fl ash to see what was up. We had no intention of capturing him, 

of course, but it amused Andy to act in a way that kept Lee on the qui 

vive.13

 In addition to constructing lodging, Lee quickly turned his attention to the 

establishment of a garden patch. One of his fi rst tasks was to complete a dam on 

the Paria River to impound water for irrigation. Thus began a continual battle 

to maintain the dam in the face of frequent fl oods and to keep the crops watered 

during times of drought.14

 In 1872 church authorities desired to open Arizona to colonization and 

assigned Lee to operate a ferry. A boat was completed by January of 1873. In 

April of 1873 church offi cials sent Joseph W. Young, James Jackson, and twentyfi ve others to improve roads to and from the ferry site. Jackson assisted Mrs. Lee 

during the frequent absences of John D. Lee from the site.

 In 1874 confl ict between Mormons and the Navajo led church offi cials to 

fund construction of a “Fort” on the banks of the Colorado River. In January of 

1874 three Navajo men were killed by settlers in Grass Valley, Utah. Although 

the protagonists were not Mormons, the incident escalated tensions between 

Mormon settlers and the Navajo. In May of 1874 Jacob Hamblin suggested that 

the Mormons construct a Fort at Lee’s Ferry to protect the river crossing.

 Marshall William Stokes captured Lee in Panguitch on November 7, 1874. 

It took two trials for Federal authorities to convict Lee of participation in the 

Mountain Meadows Massacre. Lee was executed at the site of the massacre on 

March 23, 1877.

 Following Lee’s capture and execution, his wife Emma operated the ferry. 

Warren M. Johnson took over operation of the Ferry from Emma on November 
761

30, 1879. Johnson operated the ferry for sixteen years, until 1896. James S. 

Emett then took over. One of Emett’s improvements was the introduction of a 

cable-ferry in 1899 and the construction of a new access road. Emett continued to 

operate the ferry until it was purchased by Coconino County in 1910. Custodians 

for Coconino County ran the ferry until the construction of Navajo Bridge made it 

obsolete. The last ferry run was in 1928. Navajo Bridge opened in 1929.

Lee’s Ferry and Charles H. Spencer, 1909-1912

 These three years were ones of rapid change at Lee’s Ferry. The Grand 

Canyon Cattle Company purchased the Lonely Dell Ranch from James S. 

Emett in 1909, and Coconino County owned the ferry location after 1910. But 

the greatest change originated from former teamster, bullwhacker, and expert 

yarn-spinner Charles H. Spencer. Spencer had convinced himself, and soon 

proved very adept at convincing others, that small amounts of very fi ne gold 

could be found in the depths of the geologic strata uncovered by centuries of the 

Colorado’s relentless erosion. The only problem, for Spencer and others, was 

how to recover it. The Spencer mining operation endured for only a short time, 

until February of 1912, but it left a lasting mark on Lee’s Ferry.15

 Spencer arrived at Lee’s Ferry in May of 1909. He listened carefully as 

Jerry Johnson, Warren Johnson’s son, related the exploits of Robert B. Stanton’s 

early attempts at gold mining along the Colorado. Spencer developed enthusiasm 

for his project and sent a member of his party to Flagstaff to record several mining 

claims. He lured fi nancial backers in Chicago to join the operation, incorporated 

as the Black Sand Gold Recovery Company. By June Spencer and his crew 

had established a camp on the left bank of the Colorado, near the location of the 

original ferry and across the river from the Fort.

 After several unsuccessful attempts to recover gold from the sands 

along the left bank of the river in August and early September of 1910, Spencer 

decided to move his operations to the more developed and spacious right bank.

On September 10 and 11, 1910, Spencer and his crew moved to the right bank, 

making over the old Fort as a mess hall and erecting two tents nearby to serve as 

the cook’s commissary.16

 After establishing his foothold on the right bank, Charlie Spencer regrouped to obtain more capital from his Chicago backers. He returned at the 

fi rst of the year in 1911 and embarked on a massive building program that would 

change the appearance of Lee’s Ferry dramatically. He formed a new company, 

called the American Placer Corporation, to serve as a holding company for the 

operation.

 Buildings erected by Spencer in 1911 included: an offi ce building to the 

west of the Fort (American Placer Corporation Offi ce); an addition on the west 

end of the old Fort; a new mess hall and cook’s house; three bunkhouses (west, 
762

center, and east); a blacksmith shop; and a laboratory (assay offi ce). Other 

Spencer contributions included smaller features such as root cellars, chicken 

coops, outhouses, and a powder storage magazine. The powder magazine, a large 

dugout excavated out of the right bank, was located up the Colorado River past 

all other improvements. The most unusual Spencer addition was the construction 

of a steamboat, christened the Charles H. Spencer, that lowered its anchor in the 

Colorado.17

 Despite the ability of Charles Spencer to convince others that there was 

gold in the deposits at Lee’s Ferry, he was unable to actually locate any mineral 

wealth. His talents lay in the area of promotion, not production. The fi nal blow 

came when his steamboat could not buck the forceful current of the Colorado.

It had been constructed to transport coal for the boilers of the gold operation.

Without a fuel source, not withstanding the lack of gold, the operation was 

doomed to failure.18

 After the Charles H. Spencer failed in its maiden voyage in December 

of 1911, the workers began to drift away. When the investors cut off the money 

supply, even Spencer himself abandoned his project. Although Spencer would 

continue to return to Lee’s Ferry many times over the next forty years, he never 

matched his construction efforts of 1910-1911.

USGS/Reclamation Controversy over Dam Construction (1921-1933)

 The next scheme of big dreamers that concerned Lee’s Ferry centered on 

a resource that appeared to be plentiful: water. Since the great fl ood that created 

the Salton Sea in 1905, plans had been circulated for a dam on the Colorado to 

provide fl ood control, generate hydroelectric power, and impound water for use 

in California and Arizona. Engineers, politicians, and developers in California 

and Arizona vied to be the fi rst to lay claim to the vast water resources of the 

Colorado.19

 Eugene Clyde LaRue of the U.S. Geological Survey played a key role 

in the development of dams on the Colorado. Although LaRue’s ideas were 

discredited by the politicians of the day, his observations about the fl ow of the 

Colorado proved prescient. LaRue began a comprehensive study of the Colorado 

in 1912. His ultimate conclusion, published in 1916, was that the fl ow of the 

Colorado was not suffi cient to irrigate all of the lands available for agriculture. To 

conserve water, LaRue advocated construction of a series of comparatively small 

dams. This would reduce the total water surface exposed to evaporation, thus 

conserving stored water for irrigation in both California and Arizona.20

 Offi cials at the U.S. Reclamation Service, once a part of the USGS, 

pursued a different vision for the Colorado. The Reclamation Service conducted 

its own studies, relying on the work of J. B. Lippincott. The Californiabased engineer advocated construction of a large dam on the lower Colorado. 
763

Lippincott explained that the advantage of the lower Colorado River dam is that it 

would be closer to power and water use in California. This idea did not set well 

with Arizonans who hoped to divert water from the Colorado for use in the desert 

state.21

 As it turned out, the Californians were better prepared and fi nanced. They 

struck fi rst, in 1921. The Southern California Edison Company entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the United States Geological Survey to conduct a 

survey of the Colorado River with a view toward determining potential dam 

sites. Like other travelers before and after, the Edison men selected Lee’s Ferry 

as the base of their operations because of its easy access to the river and land 

transportation.22

 In addition to surveying the river for possible dam sites, the Edison and 

USGS party erected a stream gaging station at Lee’s Ferry. Placed in operation 

in 1921, the stream gage represented the fi rst fi rm Federal foothold at the ferry, 

an ironic addition to a location selected by John D. Lee to hide from U.S. 

government authority. The Federal presence at Lee’s Ferry had begun.23

 Another irony in the Edison program was that the USGS hydrographer 

E. C. LaRue worked closely with the California company. Because of his prior 

experience, LaRue was a logical choice to head the survey of potential dam 

locations upstream and downstream from Lee’s Ferry. Both the USGS and 

the Edison Company provided funds for the project. Although LaRue would 

later come to a conclusion regarding dam locations that was at odds with the 

electric company, this association was used by his enemies to discredit LaRue’s 

objectivity.24

 The Edison Company leased land from the Navajo Nation on the left 

bank of the Colorado for their headquarters. In 1922 the Edison men erected a 

boathouse there that served as the base of their operations. This work coincided 

with meetings of the Colorado River Commission conducted by Secretary of 

Commerce Herbert Hoover. These discussions in Santa Fe led to agreement 

on a compact that divided the waters of the Colorado between the upper and 

lower basin states. However, Arizona refused to ratify this Compact of 1922. 

The Compact had the effect of splitting the Colorado River drainage into two 

basins, the upper and lower. The location of the division between the basins was 

specifi ed in Article V of the Compact as a hypothetical point one mile below the 

mouth of the Paria River.25

 Separate Reclamation Service investigations of the Colorado culminated 

in 1922 with the publication of the Fall-Davis Report, named for Secretary of the 

Interior Albert Fall and Reclamation Service chief A. P. Davis. The Fall-Davis 

report recommended construction of a high dam at Boulder Canyon that would 

serve several purposes: fl ood control, generation of hydroelectric power, river 

regulation, and storage of water for agriculture. The report essentially followed 
764

the earlier Lippincott plan.26

 Despite the assistance of the Edison Company, LaRue and the USGS 

pursued a vision of Colorado River development that differed from the 

Reclamation Service. LaRue compared the two plans in his second report on the 

Colorado, published in 1925. LaRue stated that the USGS plans “are based on the 

theory that major regulation of fl ow by storage can be developed by dams at or 

above Lees Ferry.” With a large dam at Lee’s Ferry as its centerpiece, LaRue then 

called for a series of smaller dams and reservoirs downstream. These would allow 

for the generation of hydroelectric power while conserving water for agriculture.

The smaller dams would reduce water loss from evaporation. According to 

LaRue, building a dam at Lee’s Ferry would regulate the fl ow of the river and 

allow for a comprehensive development of the Colorado’s resources.27

 The Bureau of Reclamation pursued a different vision. Davis and other 

Reclamation offi cials preferred the recommendations of the Fall-Davis report 

which called for the construction of a large dam in Boulder Canyon on the lower 

Colorado. Accompanying the large dam was a second dam, downstream, that 

would recapture power releases and allow for agricultural diversions. The large 

dam was eventually named Hoover Dam, and the smaller was christened Davis 

Dam.

 The Davis plan had the strong backing of the California congressional 

delegation. The basic elements of the plan were introduced as the Swing-Johnson 

bill in Congress, named for Representative Philip Swing of San Diego and 

cosponsored by Senator Hiram Johnson. The bill eventually became law as the 

Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. Construction of Boulder Dam (later Hoover 

Dam) began in 1930 and was completed in 1936.

 Despite the rejection of LaRue’s idea for an upstream dam, the USGS 

soon developed Lee’s Ferry into a signifi cant scientifi c outpost. With the arrival 

of stream gagers at the ferry, the old Spencer era mining buildings began to see 

new use. Edison gager Irving Cockcroft and his wife Margery moved into the old 

Fort on August 20, 1921.28

 The Cockcrofts established a post offi ce in the American Placer 

Corporation Offi ce building. The place opened for business on August 12, 1922, 

and Irving Cockcroft erected a sign stating that the building was the “Lee’s Ferry 

Post Offi ce.” Since that time, the building has frequently been referred to as the 

“Post Offi ce.” Another change was the conversion of the east Spencer Bunkhouse 

into a school. This was done in 1921 under the impetus of Jerry Johnson, but it 

benefi tted the children of the river gagers working for Southern California Edison 

as well as children of the Mormon residents of Lonely Dell Ranch. The building 

served as a school for about four years. 29

 The United States Geological Survey assumed complete control for the 

stream gaging operation at Lee’s Ferry on November 1, 1923. On that day Edison 
765

gager Irving Cockroft turned over the equipment to USGS employee Jim Klohr. 

The new man brought his family and the small group soon settled into the old 

Fort, using the Spencer addition as a bedroom.30

 Another result of the USGS activity on the Colorado was the designation 

of the spring at Lee’s Ferry, located in the bluff behind the cable ferry, as a public 

water reserve. The experience of the Edison crew and the USGS men showed 

the importance of this water supply. By order of the Secretary of the Interior, 

numerous springs in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

Wyoming, and New Mexico were designated as “public water reserves” in order 

to protect the water supply in isolated and arid locations for the public use. Public 

Water Reserve No. 107, issued on April 17, 1926, included:

All land within a quarter of a mile of a spring on the north bank of 

Colorado River near the old site of Lees Ferry east of the mouth of 

Paria River, and located approximately in what probably will be, when 

surveyed, Sec. 13.31

 Charlie Spencer resumed operations at Lee’s Ferry early in 1931, sending 

several laborers to begin sluicing operations on the Chinle Formation. Spencer’s 

men treated the buildings and grounds as if they were their own, resulting in 

confl ict with USGS hydrologist Charlie McDonald. The two groups, USGS 

gagers and Spencer miners, eventually agreed on exclusive use of separate 

buildings. While this solved the problem for the moment, it soured the USGS 

on any further dealings with Spencer. Offi cials in Washington, D.C., began to 

contemplate how they might prevent any further trespass by Spencer on the 

stream gaging operation. After Spencer’s backers ran out of money in April of 

1931, the brief mining boom came to an end.32

USGS Outpost at Lee’s Ferry, 1933-1945

 The United States Geological Survey consolidated its control over the 

old ferry site in 1933. On January 18, 1933, President Herbert Hoover issued 

an executive order setting aside lands near the existing gaging stations on the 

Colorado and Paria Rivers as an administrative site. President Hoover declared 

that Section 13 and lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Township 40 North, Range 7 East and an 

unsurveyed portion of what, when surveyed, would be Section 18 in Township 40 

North, Range 8 East, were reserved “for occupation and use by representatives of 

the Geological Survey.”33

 The USGS soon undertook an improvement campaign on the property. 

It erected a fence to the east of the Fort, west of the westernmost Spencer 

Bunkhouse (demolished 1943) to demarcate its administrative zone. The Survey 

also considered demolishing several of the Spencer buildings at this time. These 

included the old schoolhouse (east Spencer bunkhouse), the chicken house (center 

bunkhouse, a.k.a. feed and storage room; demolished 1967), and the saddle barn 

(west bunkhouse, demolished 1943), and the Spencer addition to the Fort.34
766

 After 1933 the center of USGS residential activity shifted from the Fort to 

Spencer’s old mess hall (demolished 1967). The USGS converted the mess hall 

into a residence for its stream gagers. This building became known as the “stream 

gager’s residence.”35

 The depression decade led itinerant hydrographer Frank Dodge to become 

more of a permanent resident at the ferry site. A fairly frequent visitor to the 

ferry since 1919, Dodge secured part-time work with the USGS as an assistant 

hydrologist in 1932. The decision to hire Dodge was justifi ed on the basis that 

a second person was needed to make readings during periods of high water. 

Dodge upgraded Spencer’s old laboratory (assay offi ce) building (converted into 

sediment lab 1947; demolished 1967) into a makeshift residence. Over the years, 

this building became known as “Dodge’s Cabin.”36

 A reunion of Mormon pioneers held at Lee’s Ferry in 1935 gave the USGS 

an incentive to clean up its buildings and grounds. The event took place over 

three days in October. The reunion marked a turning point for Lee’s Ferry. A 

sense of the passage of time and the growth of historical perspective gave rise to a 

sense of history about the old place.37

 However, recollections of the past did not always prove accurate. In 1936 

historian Frank Kelly visited the area with former resident Robert B. Hildebrand 

who reminisced about his boyhood at Lee’s Ferry. Hildebrand posed for 

photographs in front of several buildings, one of which he called the original Lee 

cabin. Other visitors, struck by the apparent age of the Samantha Johnson Cabin, 

incorrectly began to associate the old building with John D. Lee. Kelly gave these 

memories a stamp of approval when he described Lee’s Ferry in a 1943 article:

Although some of the old buildings have been destroyed, Lee’s original 

one-room log cabin fortunately has been preserved. Behind it stands 

his old blacksmith shop, where horses were shod and emigrant wagons 

repaired, with giant leather bellows still in working order.38

 As the years passed, and as additional visitors arrived at Lee’s Ferry, the 

story of the Lee cabin and blacksmith shop took on all the elements of truth from 

constant retelling. With the departure of Jerry Johnson from the property in 1934, 

no one remained on site that had direct knowledge of the earlier period. Lee’s 

Ferry had now entered the realm of history, but that history took on aspects of 

myth. As tales were told and retold, some of the stories were embellished.39

 As part of the USGS operations in the thirties, Government Land Offi ce 

(GLO) surveyors returned to the Lee’s Ferry area in 1937 to survey Township 40 

North, Range 8 East. The GLO surveyors noted eight stone buildings and one 

mine shaft at the old Ferry site. The surveyors described the area in their notes as 

follows:
767

In section 18 there is a strip of land on the north side of the river about 

one-fourth mile wide and one-half mile long, whereon there are a group 

of stone cabins, a part of the settlement known as Lee’s Ferry. This 

strip of land is covered by proclamation to the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and a representative of this government bureau 

occupies one of the cabins. The remainder of the cabins were not 

occupied at the time of the survey... There is an old mine shaft in section 

18 near the group of stone buildings near the base of the canyon wall, 

but no operations are being carried on at the present time and there is no 

evidence of valuable mineral deposits.40

 The land survey coincided with an improvement to the grounds by the 

USGS late in 1937. The Survey built a water tank and pipeline to convey water 

from a well to the stream gager’s residence (demolished 1967). The engineers 

added a septic tank, to complement a six-foot by nine-foot bathroom they 

attached to the building. The arrival of indoor plumbing at Lee’s Ferry was not 

the most dramatic event which ever took place at the site, but it was a signifi cant 

improvement.41

 In 1942 the USGS undertook another clean-up of the property. Many of 

the remaining metal objects from the Spencer mining era were collected as part 

of a war-effort scrap drive. The only items that remained after the operation were 

those that were too large to move, such as the boilers Spencer had freighted to the 

site in 1910. In 1943 the west Spencer Bunkhouse, closest to the ravine and in the 

worst shape, was razed for stone used to refurbish other buildings.42

Change of Tide: World War Two

 A number of factors came together during World War Two which brought 

an end to Arizona’s opposition to the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and started 

its battle for authorization of the Central Arizona Project. The fi rst was the war 

itself. World War Two generated a tremendous demand for food and fi ber raised 

in Arizona, resulting in an increase in agricultural production and a corresponding 

rise in water use. Combined with the arrival of defense industries and workers 

into the state, Arizona experienced an increased demand for water. The need for 

improved relations with Mexico, spurred by the war, started treaty negotiations 

in 1941 that resulted in an agreement on water use from the Colorado in 1944.

The election of Governor Sidney P. Osborn (who started the fi rst of his four 

consecutive terms in January of 1941) brought a mature political leader to the 

executive chair, one who understood that Arizona must change its tactics in order 

to move forward.43

 As one of his fi rst legislative efforts, Governor Osborn requested approval 

of a combined “Water and Power Authority” that could take charge of the state’s 

efforts to develop its resources. In 1941 and again in 1943, during the 15th and 

16th Legislatures, Osborn asked for approval of this initiative but was refused 
768

each time. In 1943 he received permission from the Legislature to create a State 

Land Department that would meet some of his goals for more centralized resource 

planning.44

 Also in 1943 Osborn persuaded the Legislature to give permission for 

a committee to negotiate a contract with the Secretary of the Interior for water 

from the Colorado River. As a condition, the Legislature reserved its prerogative 

to approve the actions of the committee. This fi rst step opened the door to a 

fi nal solution in 1944. Governor Osborn convened a special session of the 16th 

Legislature on February 15, 1944, to consider the ratifi cation of the Compact 

and the authorization of a contract with the Secretary of the Interior for the 

use of Arizona’s 2.8 maf (million acre feet) designated in the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act. The legislators responded, and by the end of the special session 

on February 24, 1944, had passed both measures. In addition, the Sixteenth 

Legislature allocated $200,000 for use in a cooperative study with the Bureau of 

Reclamation to devise plans for bringing the water to Central Arizona. Governor 

Osborn signed the measures ratifying the Compact and authorizing the contract 

on February 24, and “ended the most controversial issue in the state’s history, and 

marked the beginning of Arizona’s fi ght to put the waters of the Colorado River to 

benefi cial use.”45

Reclamation Service Arrives at Lee’s Ferry, 1946-1962

 The postwar period saw a renewed level of activity at the USGS 

compound. In 1946 a survey crew from the Bureau of Reclamation arrived to 

investigate possible dam sites and rights-of-way associated with the proposed 

Central Arizona Project. In 1947 the USGS turned Frank Dodge’s old 

residence—Spencer’s assay offi ce—into a new sediment laboratory. That same 

year the Survey constructed a new hydrographer’s residence, measuring 18 by 30 

feet (demolished 1967). The Survey followed this by constructing a new building 

for guest housing (USGS Residence) in May of 1950. Many of the stones for the 

new buildings were salvaged from old Spencer buildings, contributing further to 

the deterioration of the mining legacy at the ferry.46

 The contract between the State of Arizona and the Bureau of Reclamation 

facilitated studies of potential routes to bring Colorado River water to Central 

Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation, spurred by the contribution of $200,000 

from Arizona into its study fund, turned its attention to examining plans for 

the project. During the summer of 1944, U.S. Senator from Arizona Ernest 

McFarland chaired hearings on the Colorado. On June 6, 1944, the Bureau issued 

a report which discussed the possibility of diverting water to Central Arizona. 

The Bureau continued to study the matter, trying to resolve a controversy over the 

route the water would take.47

 John T. Sanders made the fi rst Reclamation mark on Lee’s Ferry. He 

arrived on March 21, 1946, and began to take stream fl ow measurements in 
769

anticipation of constructing Glen Canyon Dam upstream from Lee’s Ferry. On 

October 25, a large party of Bureau of Reclamation employees from the Salt Lake 

City offi ce arrived at Lee’s Ferry. Their fi rst order of business was to improve 

the road from State Highway 89 to Lee’s Ferry. Most of this work had been 

accomplished by November 7.48

 More Reclamation employees arrived in December of 1946. They brought 

boats and barges to facilitate their work on Glen Canyon Dam. Reclamation 

workers established a base camp at Lee’s Ferry. Surveyors fanned out from Lee’s 

Ferry to begin the preliminary survey work for the new dam. Workers drilled a 

well in January of 1947, and by the end of March the operation resembled a small 

city.49

 The studies convinced Reclamation offi cials that E. C. LaRue’s old plan 

of a large regulating dam at Glen Canyon was still a solid one. It took additional 

work to convince politicians in Washington, D.C., and the West that it was a 

good idea. The plan eventually reached fruition as the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act. The measure passed Congress on March 28, 1956. President Dwight 

Eisenhower signed it into law on April 11.

 President Eisenhower touched off the fi rst blasts signaling the start 

of construction of Glen Canyon Dam by telegraph from the Oval Offi ce on 

October 15, 1956. The long-deferred dream of USGS Hydrographer E. C. LaRue 

was about to become reality under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Construction of the dam, completed in 1966, resulted in the creation of Lake 

Powell, a water recreation wonderland. Glen Canyon Dam also tamed the 

Colorado through the Grand Canyon, allowing for the development of a white 

water rafting industry headquartered at Lee’s Ferry. The cold water released 

from the bottom of the dam turned out to be perfect for trout, resulting in the 

development of a stretch of world-class trout fi shing river at Lee’s Ferry.50

 In 1959 USGS personnel apparently burned at least one of the two 

cabins at the cable ferry site, and possibly both. The burned cabin was the Frank 

Johnson Cabin, used by Johnson as a residence while he tended the ferry. A 

second cabin, christened the “Louse House” by travelers who picked up some 

unwanted companions there, had already lost its wooden upper walls and roof by 

1959. According to Crampton and Rusho in their 1965 report, “The cabins were 

burned by the U.S. Geological Survey for the alleged reason that the agency had 

neither the men nor the funds to police the buildings against an increasing number 

of careless tourists.” C. Gregory Crampton photographed both structures on 

September 20, 1959, and reported that the Frank Johnson “Cabin had been burned 

and was still smoldering when visited.”51

 The Glen Canyon Dam construction project resulted in a number of 

scientifi c studies of the history and archaeology of the Glen Canyon region. In 

June of 1960 C. Gregory Crampton of the University of Utah published his study 
770

of historical sites in Glen Canyon from the mouth of the San Juan River to Lee’s 

Ferry. These studies represented some of the fi rst professional historical work 

at Lee’s Ferry. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of completing the studies in 

a short amount of time, errors crept into the text of these early reports that have 

confused the history of Lee’s Ferry to this day.52

The Consortium at Lonely Dell, 1964-1974

 In 1964 a group of investors decided to purchase the Lonely Dell Ranch 

property, the location of Lee’s original cabins on the Paria. Known casually as 

“the consortium,” the group shared a vision of turning the place into a destination 

resort for vacationers. Heading the group was Phoenix architect Denver “Dee” 

Evans and his wife Jean. Evans, son of noted architect Robert F. Evans who 

had developed the Jokake Inn and the Paradise Inn in the Phoenix area, hoped 

to duplicate his father’s success with the construction of a resort at Lee’s Ferry. 

Included in the investment group was E. Reesman Fryer, descendant of Mormon 

immigrants who had crossed at the Ferry in the nineteenth century. Fryer and his 

wife Ione had a different vision for the Lonely Dell Ranch, one of preservation of 

its rich heritage.53

 Five other individuals or married couples formed the consortium: Allen 

Luhrs and Alma Luhrs, John and Alta Luhrs (both couples doing business as 

Luhrs & Luhrs, a partnership), Robert L. and Charlotte Brown, Joseph Louis 

33.2. Eugene C. LaRue’s dream of a Glen Canyon dam was fi nally realized in the 1960s.
771

Refsnes, and Jack and Edythe Whiteman. All were wealthy Phoenix residents. 

John and Alta Luhrs later sold their share to the partnership, which then created 

six undivided interests.

 According to historian H. Lee Scamehorn, the group acquired the property 

“to produce unadulterated seed. The site was suffi ciently isolated that plants 

grown there would not be contaminated by vegetation from other agricultural 

lands.” While this explanation seems plausible, it is more likely—given the 

interest of Evans and Fryer in history—that the property was acquired primarily 

for its historic attractions. In 1987 Fryer described his labor of love: “I replanted 

orchards and rebuilt ditches...I think I worked every bit as hard as John D. Lee 

and Warren Johnson ever did.”54

 The consortium made a large change in the landscape of the property. On 

June 9, 1965, the new owners began construction of two large holding ponds 

into which Paria River water could be diverted and impounded. These irrigation 

facilities served a large orchard of fruit trees that the owners planted south of 

ranch buildings.55

 According to historian Scamehorn, the consortium had a large amount of 

work to do. Years of neglect and deferred maintenance left the Lonely Dell Ranch 

in poor condition. Scamehorn observed:

Lee’s Ranch showed obvious signs in 1964 of advanced deterioration 

caused by prolonged neglect...The condition of the property demanded 

a heavy expenditure for what the partners called “salvage” operations...

The ranch buildings also needed extensive repairs. The stone house 

[Weaver Ranch House] was described by the partners as “primitive.” It 

had to be rebuilt, expanded, and modernized to make it habitable. The 

so-called Lee cabin and other buildings required refurbishing. Hand-split 

shingles were put on the cabins, and in other ways they were restored to 

the appearance they might have had in the 1880s.56

 The ambitious “salvage” program of the partners was cooled a bit in 

1967 when the National Park Service expressed an interest in acquiring the 

property. The two sides, Park Service and partners, began extended discussion 

about acquiring the Lonely Dell Ranch property. The main sticking point in the 

discussions was price. Events reached a climax in 1971 when the Park Service 

fi led suit to condemn the property. This lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality in 

1973, opening the way for renewed negotiations.57

National Park Service at the Ferry Site, 1962-1974

 In 1962 the National Park Service took over administrative control of 

the Lee’s Ferry property from the USGS. However, USGS stream gaging work 

continued. The NPS presence began with periodic ranger patrols to the site 

approximately once per week. Permanent duty began on May 19, 1963, with 
772

the appointment of Ed Mazzer as the Sub-District ranger. Improvements which 

accompanied permanent status were the installation of two trailers, one of which 

served as the Ranger’s residence and the second as the Ranger’s Offi ce. That 

same year the Park Service constructed a new bridge across the Paria River, 

ensuring better access to the Lee’s Ferry site.58

 The acquisition of the old ferry site by the Park Service led to increased 

development for recreational use. It also led to additional historical investigations 

and the fi rst steps toward preservation of the historical buildings at the site. On 

October 6, 1964, NPS Ranger Phil Martin and historian P. T. Reilly conducted a 

survey of the stone buildings at Lee’s Ferry.59

 The Park Service then issued a contract to historians C. Gregory Crampton 

and W. L. Rusho to examine the historic buildings at Lee’s Ferry. The two men 

undertook a fi eld visit to the site on December 10 and 11, 1964. The two scholars 

completed the report in January of 1965, noting:

It should be stressed that this paper has been put together quickly to meet 

an early deadline and it is therefore not complete in factual detail nor 

is it a work of thorough-going scholarship which would have required 

a longer time to produce. Indeed, the history of Lee’s Ferry is amply 

signifi cant to justify a complete and scholarly study.60

 In October of 1965 the Park Service sponsored additional research at Lee’s 

Ferry. Architect Walter A. Gathman and draftsman Donald A. Krueger, working 

for the Park Service’s Division of History Studies, surveyed the 1874 Fort at Lee’s 

Ferry. On the basis of the Crampton and Rusho report, Park Service offi cials felt 

that the Fort was the most signifi cant building in the old Ferry area.61

 In March of 1966 the Park Service took action on the studies. After NPS 

regional historian Bill Brown examined the Fort in person, the Park Service 

undertook a stabilization treatment. Under the direction of HABS architect 

Charles Pope, workers sprayed the interior wooden features of the Fort with an 

epoxy preservative.62

 Differences between the Park Service and the USGS over the future of the 

property led to an unfortunate incident in 1967. On February 7 and 8, 1967, the 

USGS demolished nearly all of the remaining Spencer buildings at the Ferry site.

Both the Park Service and the USGS failed to provide an adequate explanation 

for the destruction. As best as can be surmised, the Park Service and the USGS 

felt that the Spencer buildings lacked historical signifi cance. However, William 

E. Brown, NPS Regional Historian for the Southwest Region based in Santa Fe, 

admitted that:

Review of the record on the Spencer Buildings indicates that it 

would be less than candid to avoid a conclusion that a mistake 
773

may have been made. If so—let it be noted—it was one of 

omission, not of commission.63

 In the fall of 1967 the Park Service returned to address the remaining 

historic buildings at Lee’s Ferry in a more positive manner. The condition of the 

north wall of the American Placer Corporation Offi ce had deteriorated to such a 

point that immediate stabilization work was needed. Roland Richert of the NPS 

Ruins Stabilization Unit examined the building on August 30, 1967. Richert 

returned to Lee’s Ferry and between September 18 and 22, worked with skilled 

mason Willie Yazzie.64

 NPS personnel returned to Lee’s Ferry in 1969 to complete the job of 

historic building documentation begun in 1965. During the intervening years, 

many of the Spencer Buildings had been demolished by the 1967 action, leaving 

representatives of the Division of Historic Architecture, part of the Offi ce of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, to document the remaining buildings.

These included the American Placer Corporation Offi ce, the Chicken Coop, the 

Lee’s Ferry Fort Root Cellar, and the Spencer Bunkhouse.65

 While history continued to be a big draw for tourists at Lee’s Ferry, 

the introduction of trout into the now-frigid waters of the Colorado River that 

emerged from the depths of Glen Canyon Dam began to lure increasing numbers 

of tourists starting in the sixties. Many fi shed from the banks at the river’s edge, 

while others ventured forth in boats. Still others eschewed fi shing entirely. Lee’s 

Ferry developed into the prime point of embarkation for raft trips through the 

Grand Canyon. By 1969, more than 3,000 people were making the river run 

through the Grand Canyon each year. The change even captured the attention 

of a writer for the New York Times, who described the bustling scene in 1969 as 

follows:

A lively, year-round outdoor recreation center has sprung up at this 

scenic and history-saturated spot in the shadow of the Vermillion Cliffs. 

The development, situated along the Colorado River at the northern 

end of the newly created Marble Canyon National Monument, consists 

of a motel, a store, a service station and a marina alongside the river 

and a 28-unit public campground on a bluff nearby. The campground 

is operated by the National Park Service, and is complete with roofed 

shelters, tables, fi repits, trailer turnouts and toilet facilities.66

National Park Service at Lee’s Ferry and Lonely Dell Ranch, 

1974-present

 The National Park Service consolidated its ownership of Lee’s Ferry and 

the Lonely Dell Ranch in 1974 when it acquired the interest of the consortium in 

the ranch property. This acquisition resulted in full Federal control of the area. It 

is also signifi cant as the fi rst time since 1909 that both properties had been in the 

same ownership.67
774

 In 1976, in conjunction with the Nation’s bicentennial and in preparation 

for rehabilitation work at the property, the Park Service undertook several 

examinations of the property. This included an environmental assessment of 

improvements to the roads, boat ramps, parking lots, and proposed raft boarding 

jetty. The Park Service issued the assessment in January of 1976. In March the 

Park Service forwarded a completed National Register nomination of the Lee’s 

Ferry portion of the property to offi cials in Washington, D.C. The National 

Register accepted the nomination on May 15, 1976.68

 Later in the year, the Park Service contracted with University of Colorado 

historian H. Lee Scamehorn to prepare a historic structure report for the combined 

property. Scamehorn completed his report in August of 1976. The Scamehorn 

report is valuable for its detailed analysis of events leading to the purchase of the 

property from the consortium. However, the report’s description of buildings at 

the Lonely Dell Ranch portion of the property contained several errors. These 

errors were repeated in later works. Scamehorn noted that questions have been 

raised about the authenticity of the claims that buildings on the ranch were 

constructed by Lee, but he did not offer a defi nitive conclusion.69

 The historic structure report paved the way for Park Service improvements 

to the property in 1976-1977. Additional rehabilitation work took place in 1983 

and 1984. In 1986 the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit of the National Park 

Service began investigations of the Spencer mining era historic features at Lee’s 

Ferry.70

 The project resulted in a report published in 1987 that documented both 

the vessel and the mining remains. While the report is an excellent and detailed 

account of the Spencer operation, the authors noted that “much of the physical 

evidence of an important chapter in regional history was removed with the 

structures” during the 1967 destruction of the Spencer buildings by the USGS.71

 The historical evaluation program of the 1990s ended with the completion 

of a revised National Register of Historic Places nomination in July of 1997.

Prepared under the direction of Ann Hubber of Historical Research Associates in 

Missoula, Montana, the 1997 nomination was an attempt to reorganize and correct 

the two previous National Register nominations, completed in 1976 for Lee’s 

Ferry and in 1978 for the Lonely Dell Ranch.72

 Today, visitors to Lee’s Ferry are struck with the isolation and desolation 

of the area. While a thin veneer of civilization has been applied in the form of 

improved roads and tourist facilities, even those who arrive in modern motor 

homes and automobiles recognize the sacrifi ce made by the pioneers who arrived 

in wagons to cross the mighty Colorado. The buildings that remain at Lee’s 

Ferry and the Lonely Dell Ranch offer mute testimony to that earlier era, an era 

in which pioneers and settlers clung closely to life at this crucial transportation 

outpost. Above all, visitors are reminded that it is the Colorado River that 
775

made Lee’s Ferry such a needed link in the development of Arizona. The river 

today still retains some degree of its menacing quality, captured in the words of 

historian Sharlot Hall during her 1911 visit:

This wild river takes its toll every few months; the very waves as they 

pass look fi erce and tameless and hungry...It was this same wild current 

that Father Escalante feared to cross in 1776; he turned back after 

coming down and riding into the river twice. I don’t blame him. Death 

sits mighty close to the bank here.73

 Established as a refuge from Federal authorities for exile John D. Lee, 

Lee’s Ferry is now the physical and spiritual center of the Federal contribution 

to western water history. As scholars look back on the centennial of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, an examination of the history of Lee’s Ferry and the turf battle 

between the Bureau and the USGS over the future development of the Colorado 

River gives us a better understanding of the mission of the two agencies. The past 

activity at Lee’s Ferry provides a valuable perspective for westerners concerned 

with the next hundred years of water history.

Dr. Douglas E. Kupel works for the City of Phoenix Law Department where 

he does research in support of water rights and environmental litigation. He 

is the author of Fuel for Growth: Water and Arizona’s Urban Environment

(Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2003.), and he is active in the history 

community as a speaker and program participant.

Endnotes

1. The history of Lee’s Ferry presented here originated as part of a project published by 

Robert G. Graham and Douglas E. Kupel, “Historic Structures Report for Lee’s Ferry and Lonely 

Dell Ranch, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area” (Phoenix: Alliance Architects, 2000).

2. For a good summary of the area’s geologic history, see David A. Phoenix, “Geology of 

the Lee’s Ferry Area, Coconino County, Arizona.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1137.

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1963.

3. For a good synopsis of the Spanish era, see W. L. Rusho, “Living History at Lee’s Ferry,” 

Journal of the West 7 (January 1968): 64-9.

4. The most detailed biographical information about Lee is contained in Manetta (Prince) 

Henrie, Descendants of John Doyle Lee, 1812-1877 (Provo, Utah: privately printed, 1960).

5. A recent summary of scholarship on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is Samuel W. 

Taylor, “Ghost From the Grave,” Restoration 7 (3) (July 1988): 3-9.

6. A. Gary Anderson, “Events at Lee’s Ferry, or Lonely Dell, 1864-1928,” in H. Dean 

Garrett and Clark V. Johnson, eds., Regional Studies in Latter-Day Saint Church History (Provo: 

Brigham Young University, 1989), p. 19.

7. Juanita Brooks, Emma Lee (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1978), p. 78. Historian 

P. T. Reilly credits Jacob Hamblin with the name Lonely Dell; see his Lee’s Ferry: From Mormon 

Crossing to National Park (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1999), p. 23. In an interview with 

the author on July 29, 1999, historian W. L. “Bud” Rusho supported Reilly’s contention, believing 

that the dialog cited in Brook’s work was most likely impressionistic rather than literal.

8. Juanita Brooks, John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat (Logan: Utah State 

University Press, 1992), p. 308.

9. The description is from Elmo Scott Watson, ed., The Professor Goes West (Bloomington: 

Illinois: Wesleyan University Press, 1954), pp. 99-100. Despite DeMotte’s contention that 

Emma’s Cabin was constructed without benefi t of “square and compass,” Lee descendant Edna 
776

Lee Brimhall donated a carpenter’s square the family believed “was used by John D. Lee when he 

built his house at Lee’s Ferry” to the Arizona Historical Society. See Arizona Historical Society 

(AHS) Manuscript MS 97, collection of Mrs. Edna Lee Brimhall, Tucson.

10. For a description of early travel on the Colorado, see Otis “Dock” Marston, “Early Travel 

on the Green and Colorado Rivers,” The Smoke Signal (Tucson Corral of the Westerners) 20 (Fall, 

1969): 231-6. For a brief summary of the fi rst Powell expedition see Elwood Bear, “John Wesley 

Powell—He Tamed the Colorado” Civil Service Journal (January-March, 1969): 3-7.

11. W. L. Rusho, Desert River Crossing (Salt Lake: Tower Productions, 1998), pp. 20-6.

12. Frederick S. Dellenbaugh, A Canyon Voyage: The Narrative of the Second Powell 

Expedition (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1996; originally printed New York: Putnam, 

1908), p. 211.

13. Ibid., pp. 211-2.

14. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 25.

15. For a fi rst-person account of Spencer’s operations, see A. H. Jones, “Review of Mining 

Operations on the San Juan and Colorado Rivers Promoted and Conducted by Charles H. Spencer, 

et al., 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911,” manuscript on fi le, Glen Canyon NRA Archives, 1960.

16. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 228.

17. Ibid., p. 242.

18. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 248. For a summary of the steamboat fi asco, see W. L. Rusho, 

“Charlie Spencer and his Wonderful Steamboat,” Arizona Highways 37 (8) (August, 1962): 34-9.

19. For a description of the controversy surrounding the allocation of water from the 

Colorado River, see John Upton Terrell, War for the Colorado River (Glendale, California: A. H. 

Clark, 1965).

20. Eugene Clyde LaRue, “Colorado River and its Utilization” U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Supply Paper No. 395 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1916). The best 

description of LaRue’s career is found in W. B. Langbein, “L’Affaire LaRue” Journal of the West 

22: 2 (April 1983): 39-47.

21. Langbein, “L’Affaire LaRue,” p. 41.

22. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 281.

23. Ibid., p. 282.

24. Langbein, “L’Affaire LaRue,” p. 44.

25. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 289. See also Joyce and Josef Muench, “Taking the Measure of the 

Colorado River,” Arizona Highways 23 (6) (June, 1947): pp. 4-7.

26. Langbein, “L’Affaire LaRue,” p. 42.

27. Eugene C. LaRue, “Water Power and Flood Control of Colorado River Below Green 

River, Utah” U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 556 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, 1925), pp. 69-73.

28. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 283 and 297. See also Toni Carrel, ed., “Submerged Cultural 

Resources Site Report: Charles H. Spencer Mining Operation and Paddle Wheel Steamboat” 

(Santa Fe: National Park Service Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1987), p. 32.

29. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 297.

30. Ibid., p. 303.

31. Information on the public water reserves is found in the records of the Arizona State 

Offi ce of the Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix. Public Water Reserve No. 107 was later 

confi rmed by Secretarial Order No. 160 (April 8, 1932); Secretarial Order No. 166 (July 16, 

1932); and Secretarial Order 265 (December 23, 1940). It turned out that the spring was located in 

what, when surveyed, was Section 18 of Township 40 North, Range 8 East.

32. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, pp. 352-56.

33. Executive Order No. 6002, January 18, 1933, on fi le at the Arizona State Offi ce, Bureau 

of Land Management, Phoenix.

34. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 381.

35. Ibid., p. 352.

36. Ibid., p. 353. For additional information, see Frank B. Dodge, “The Saga of Frank B. 

Dodge,” manuscript #18714, on file at Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, 1944.
777

37. Glynn Bennion, “There Are Stories Told of the Old Days at Lee’s Ferry,” The Deseret 

News (Salt Lake City newspaper), November 9, 1935.

38. Charles Kelly, “Lee’s Ferry on the Colorado,” Desert Magazine 7 (1) (November, 1943): 

5-8.

39. The custom of holding reunions at Lee’s Ferry, fi rst started in 1935, still continues. See 

Kate Ruland-Thorne, “Lee’s Ferry Reunion,” Arizona Highways 65 (14) (September, 1989): 14-5; 

30-1. This article is also a good example of how historical myths are perpetuated by constant 

retelling. For Reilly’s analysis of the Kelly contribution to history, see Lee’s Ferry, p. 394.

40. Survey Notes for Township 40 North, Range 8 East, Book 4162, page 32, Arizona State 

Offi ce, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix; Township plat of Township 40 North, Range 

8 East, offi cially fi led September 5, 1941, Arizona State Offi ce, Bureau of Land Management, 

Phoenix.

41. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, pp. 401-2.

42. Ibid., pp. 418-9.

43. The best work on the early history of the Central Arizona Project is Rich Johnson, The

Central Arizona Project (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1977).

44. State of Arizona, Acts, Memorials and Resolutions of the Regular Session, Fifteenth 

Legislature (Phoenix: State of Arizona, 1941), Senate Bill 74; State of Arizona, Acts, Memorials 

and Resolutions of the Regular Session, Sixteenth Legislature (Phoenix: State of Arizona, 1943), 

Senate Bill 72.

45. State of Arizona, Acts, Memorials and Resolutions of the Regular Session, Sixteenth 

Legislature (Phoenix: State of Arizona, 1943), pp. 228-32.

46. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, pp. 425-33.

47. A good understanding of contemporary Reclamation thinking about the potential 

development of the Colorado River in the post-WWII era is found in a three part series that 

appeared in The Reclamation Era in 1946. Titled “Corralling the Colorado” the series featured 

articles by Carl P. Vetter (September 1946): 190-2; Oscar J. Buttehdahl (October 1946): 218-29; 

and William E. Warne (November 1946): 240-56.

48. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 425.

49. Ibid., p. 426.

50. The best summary of Glen Canyon Dam history is by Russell Martin, A Story that Stands 

Like a Dam: Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul of the West (New York: Henry Holt, 

1989). See also Jared Farmer, Glen Canyon Dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the Canyon 

Country (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1999).

51. C. Gregory Crampton and W. L. Rusho, “A Report on the History of Lee’s Ferry, 

Arizona” (Salt Lake City: Prepared for the National Park Service, 1965), p. 13; Crampton 

photographs PO197 48b:1:4 and 48b:1:5, September 20, 1959, University of Utah Special 

Collections. In his book, P. T. Reilly dates the fi re to 1964 and reports the arsonist as Larry Lopp; 

see Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 447.

52. C. Gregory Crampton, “Historical Sites in Glen Canyon, Mouth of San Juan River to 

Lee’s Ferry,” University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 46 (June 1960).

53. Docket 226 of Deeds, p. 24, Coconino County Recorder, Flagstaff.

54. H. Lee Scamehorn, “Historic Structure Report Lee’s Ranch, Historical Data” (Boulder: 

University of Colorado, 1976), p. 17. Scamehorn based his conclusion on information obtained 

by appraiser H. B. Embach during a telephone conversation with Dee Evans. See H. B. Embach, 

“Appraisal Report: Property of Denver E. Evans, et al.” Phoenix: Prepared for National Park 

Service, 1966, p. 3, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Archives, Record Group 17516, Folder 

12. The Fryer quote is from Ruland-Thorne, “Lee’s Ferry Reunion,” p. 31.

55. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 450. The provenience of the orchard has caused some confusion. 

The National Register nomination prepared in 1997 incorrectly attributes the modern orchard 

to the National Park Service (section 8, p. 46). This error may have been based on the “Lonely 

Dell Ranch Cultural Landscape Inventory” prepared by Peggy Froeschauer-Nelson in 1996 

which stated “A modern orchard covering a little over two acres has been planted and is currently 

maintained by the NPS.” Froeschauer-Nelson further states specifi cally “the orchard is a modern 

addition planted by the Park Service.” Both quotes from page 2.
778

56. Scamehorn, “Historic Structure Report,” p. 18. It appears that any modifi cations made 

by the consortium to the Weaver Ranch House were few, despite what they may have told the 

appraiser.

57. Ibid., pp. 19-24.

58. The USGS continued to have a resident hydrographer at Lee’s Ferry until August 4, 1976. 

After a short period during which the facility was serviced from Flagstaff, in 1977 the gaging 

station was equipped with satellite telemetry. See Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 524.

59. P. T. Reilly, “Survey of Stone Buildings, Lee’s Ferry,” October 6, 1964, Manuscript 

Collection No. 275, Box 8, Special Collections, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

60. Crampton and Rusho, “Report”, p. iii.

61. Walter A. Gathman and Donald A. Krueger, “Lee’s Ferry, Coconino County” HABS/

HAER Survey Ariz. 58, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (October, 1965; Revised January, 

1969).

62. Reilly, Lee’s Ferry, p. 451.

63. NPS Regional Historian William E. Brown to Dr. C. Gregory Crampton, letter on fi le 

William E. Brown Collection, Manuscript No. 1350, Utah State Historical Society, February 15, 

1967.

64. Roland Richert, “Ruins Stabilization Report, The Old Post Offi ce, Lee’s Ferry, Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area” (Globe: National Park Service Southwest Archaeological 

Center, 1967), p. 1.

65. Gathman and Krueger, “Lee’s Ferry.”

66. John V. Young, “A New Boom at Lee’s Ferry: Recreation Seekers Replace Ore 

Prospectors,” New York Times (February 23, 1969): XX, 13.

67. Docket 511 of Deeds, pp. 400-3, Coconino County Recorder, Flagstaff.

68. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, “Environmental Assessment of Proposed Road, 

Ramps, Parking Lot, and Raft Boarding Jetty at Lee’s Ferry,” Glen Canyon NRA, January 1976; 

Temple A. Reynolds, “Lee’s Ferry Historic District National Register Nomination,” 1974, on fi le 

at Arizona State Historic Preservation Offi ce.

69. Scamehorn, “Historic Structure Report,” pp. 24-9. Perhaps the most egregious error in 

the Scamehorn report was attributing a 1916 date to the Weaver Ranch House. Scamehorn based 

his conclusion on records at the Coconino County Assessor in Flagstaff, but the original records 

have since been destroyed and his research could not be duplicated.

70. Toni Carrel, ed., “Report”, pp. 2-4.

71. Ibid., p. xix.

72. Ann Hubber, “Lee’s Ferry and Lonely Dell Ranch National Register Nomination,” 

manuscript on fi le, Arizona State Historic Preservation Offi ce, 1997.

73. The quotation is from Sharlot M. Hall, Sharlot Hall on the Arizona Strip: A Diary of a 

Journey Through Northern Arizona in 1911, edited by C. Gregory Crampton (Flagstaff: Northland 

Press, 1975), p. 53. The original diary is at the Sharlot Hall Museum in Prescott.
779

Memoirs of a Bureau Curmudgeon: Unabridged 

Version—Politically Incorrect

By:

 Thomas J. Aiken

 A book has been written and Hollywood has made a movie about a 

family’s history where central to the story is the reverence a father and his sons 

have for fl y fi shing in a western river. It is titled, A River Runs Through It. I grew 

up during the fi fties and my father and I held the same reverence for fl y fi shing on 

the Gunnison River in Western Colorado. Our personal paradise extended from 

the western edge of the Gunnison River Canyon near the mouth of Steuben Creek 

to the bridge that led to Iola, which I think was a remnant of a coaling station for 

the old narrow gauge railroad long since abandoned. The River was lined with 

tall willow and cottonwood trees as it meandered through a vast hay meadow. 

Riffl es were full of rainbow trout and slow deep holes were full of lunker German 

browns just waiting for the perfect presentation of a white winged royal coachman 

or ginger quill dry fl y. The rolling river and the willow brush and grasses on the 

bank created an aroma that was intoxicating, I could not imagine anything more 

wondrous or beautiful, there was no place else on earth I would rather be. 

 Then something terrible happened. This paradise began to fall to the 

woodman’s axe in 1960 as a government agency cleared the area for a large 

reservoir. Reservoir? What kind of no account fi shing would that be? Flat 

water—oh, puleeze! I was to learn that this diabolical agency’s name was the 

Bureau of Reclamation. What did that mean? Reclamation of what? It was 

destroying paradise, not reclaiming it! It was an outrage! I vowed that some how, 

some way, some day, I would even the score.

 As a business major at Colorado State University (CSU) a few years 

later, I was in need of another economics class. Without any conscious thought 

I found myself in “Water Resource Economics E-201.” At the bookstore I recall 

thumbing through the book recommended for the course and there before my very 

eyes was that despicable name once again “Bureau of Reclamation.” What have 

I done? Now I have to spend three months reading about the “Bureau of Wreck 

the Nation”! But wait just a minute, on second thought, this might be good.

Better to know something about the despoiler than remain ignorant of it and its 

evil ways. While I did gain some knowledge of the importance of this agency to 

the economic growth and well being of the Western United States, not to mention 

how to calculate a benefi t cost ratio, I could not begin to forgive it nor think kind 

thoughts about it.

 After college and a stint in the Army, I was back home in Colorado 

Springs working as an accountant for the City Utilities, but looking for a better 

job, one offering more challenge and excitement (okay one offering more pay and 

earlier retirement). I took the old Federal Service Entrance Exam one cold spring 
780

day and later found my scores were high enough to qualify me for employment at 

the GS-5 and GS-7 levels. I sat back waiting for the job offers to roll in. I waited 

and waited and waited, fi nally giving up, concluding a Federal job was not in 

my future (believe it or not, in those days a Federal job was a coveted prize and 

people respected Federal employees). Then one late summer day (a dog day of 

August as it were), three job offers arrived in the mail. How exciting! Ripping 

into the envelopes, the fi rst offer was for a GS-5 in the Army Material Command, 

Texarkana, Texas (yeah right!—Army—Texarkana???), the next was for a GS-5 

with the National Park Service in the Grand Canyon (Hmm ...), the last was, oh 

no!...a thousand times no! ... the enemy, despoiler of paradise, the disgusting 

Bureau of Reclamation. But wait, what is this? ... a GS-7? ... in Denver? ... a 

few miles north ...Hmm ... My practical intuitions were kicking in. It was more 

money and since in those days the government did not pay for your fi rst move, it 

would cost less to move to Denver than say the Grand Canyon (where do you live 

at anyway in Grand Canyon? ... a lodge miles from anywhere? ... a rickety cabin 

on the edge of the canyon?).

 The interview took place in 

an offi ce on the fourteenth fl oor of 

a brand new fourteen story gray 

concrete building west of Denver, 

the one that still sticks out like a 

sore thumb. Bill Schlichting and 

Dale Raitt, the two Branch Chiefs 

in the Program Coordination 

Division, conducted the interview. 

Expecting heinous ogres I was 

on my best defenses, but hey, 

these were regular, normal guys! 

(Well, Raitt was an engineer ...). 

Anyway, the job was for a budget 

analyst reporting to Schlichting.

It seemed like something I could 

handle. Besides, I reasoned 

that once inside I could seek my 

revenge. I really, really wanted 

that job now!

 The call from Schlichting came early in September. The job was mine and 

Bill’s question to me was when could I report? I quickly thought—two weeks 

notice to the City Utilities and, most importantly, a week for my dad and I to 

make our annual fall trip to the mighty Gunnison. Yes, paradise was lost, but we 

had found another location upstream at a collection of rustic cabins called Sleepy 

Hollow. It wasn’t the same, but it wasn’t bad, and the fi shing was good. We 

could not bear nor force ourselves to even drive down to see paradise lost, now 

lying under a body of fl at water called Blue Mesa Reservoir.

30.1. Building 67 on the Denver Federal 

Center was completed about the same time that 

 Tom Aiken reported to work at the Bureau of 

Reclamation.
781

 On October 2, 1967, I embarked on a career that I didn’t comprehend for 

one minute would span more than one third of Reclamation’s fi rst one hundred 

years of history. Throughout those many years (that moved far too quickly), I’ve 

been excited, bored, frustrated, angry, happy, satisfi ed, dissatisfi ed, but most of all, 

continually mesmerized by the day to day happenings of the United States Bureau 

of Reclamation. The following is an account of the names, places and events as 

I recollect and interpret them to be. Whether history agrees or not doesn’t really 

matter to me, this is how I saw it and lived it. I use “Reclamation” and “The 

Bureau” interchangeably because I always have and at my advanced age, I feel 

I’m entitled.

 If I could have scripted my career, I could not have arranged for a greater 

start or fi rst boss than Bill Schlichting. He was one of the most honorable and 

forthright people I have ever met, and he had a genuine interest in getting me 

off on the right path in Reclamation. He remained a very good friend until 

his untimely death. I was the new kid on the block in an offi ce of fi ve budget 

analysts. In addition to Bill, there was Rudy Mezner, Bob Cope and Tom 

Bumgartner. The rest of the Program Coordination Division, located on the other 

side of Division Chief George Powell’s offi ce, were the program analysts; Dale 

Raitt, Bill Hilmes, J. R. Smith, Harry Menzel, John Childress, Jim Moomaw, 

Denby Peeples, and Bill Wiley to name a few. As I mentioned, the offi ces were 

in the top fl oor of the new building, the fl oors were shiny tile, carpeting was 

only allowed on “Mahogany Row” (top management), the desks were gray 

steel and only the big cheeses had offi ces, the rest of us were in an open bullpen 

arrangement–probably accounting for my total lack of sympathy for those later in 

my career who bemoaned the onset of systems furniture and cubicles as opposed 

to walled offi ces. As an interesting aside, Congress authorized and appropriated 

$6 million to The Bureau to construct this new building. After moving in, 

someone (no doubt a Harvard grad) decided Reclamation should turn it over to 

the General Services Administration (GSA) to manage. GSA promptly began to 

charge The Bureau $2 million annual rent. This may explain why Harvard has 

more prestige than CSU because I haven’t yet fi gured out why this was good 

for the taxpayers or the farmers and power customers who repay most of what 

Reclamation spends.

 Mezner, Cope, Bumgartner, and particularly Wiley were the fi rst bonafi de 

curmudgeons I met in The Bureau (a curmudgeon is an irascible cantankerous 

old goat who has tremendous knowledge about the organization, who gets very 

irritated at those who only think they know everything and who will be damned 

if they will share this knowledge unless you pay proper homage and appreciate 

that knowledge). In all of my experience, I have never seen a more concentrated 

collection of curmudgeons and reprobates in one location. But they were just 

as critical to my early education as was the formal and “on the job” training 

Schlichting was providing.
782

 I didn’t, of course, recognize it then, but it was the last of the “glory years” 

of Reclamation. We were truly the shining knights on the white horses. We 

walked with a swagger that would make John Wayne proud (stone-cold Steve 

Austin for those too young to remember John Wayne). Our constituency, the 

water and power users, loved us as we kept providing them with bigger and better 

facilities. We kept spreading the cost of these facilities over more and more years. 

Water and power were cheap and plentiful. All was right with the world. A new 

kid on the block could not be in a more central and advantageous place for an 

education than in the budget shop, wedged in “Mahogany Row” on the fourteenth 

fl oor of the most respected engineering organization in the world, bar none. 

 As I embarked on this government career, my only source of knowledge 

about government was the tidbit that stuck in my pea brain from Mr. Heidtsmith’s 

9th grade Civics class at good ol’ North Junior High School in Colorado 

Springs. I remembered there were three branches of government, the executive, 

legislative, and judicial. Further, there were two Senators from each State and 

a bunch of Congressmen and they made up the legislative branch who made up 

the laws. The President was the executive and he had a bunch of people helping 

him called the Cabinet and they carried out the laws and ran the government.

Finally, there was a bunch of judges called the Supreme Court who interpreted 

the Constitution and laws. Pretty good, huh! Well, soon enough I learned that 

things aren’t exactly as they are laid out by academia. There is a dynamic called 

politics that tends to shape, warp, and distort. This is something that has been and 

will continue to be a tremendous infl uential force on the policy and day to day 

activities of Reclamation. In those days The Bureau seemed to me to be more 

of an agency of the Legislative Branch than of the Executive Branch. I learned 

the names of the powerful water bloc in Congress—Senators Carl Hayden and 

Alan Bible and Congressmen Wayne Aspinall, “Bizz” Johnson, Berne Sisk, 

and John Moss, long before I knew 

who the Secretary of the Interior was.

Commissioner Floyd Dominy seemed 

way more dialed into the powerful 

Congressional water bloc than he 

was anyone in the Executive Branch, 

particularly Interior Secretary Stuart Udall. 

The fi rst Secretary I actually met was 

 Rogers Morton. One day, unannounced, he 

walked into our offi ce and shook my hand. 

I was stunned. First of all that it happened 

to a lowly new kid on the block (my desk 

being nearest the door might have had 

something to do with it) and secondly by 

the size of his hand, it engulfed mine and 

made all two hundred and twenty pounds of 

me feel downright dainty, it was one huge 

hand! I have since met and shook hands 

30.2. Offi cial Portrait of Secretary of 

the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton.
783

with every Interior Secretary until Bruce Babbitt, who ironically has held the 

offi ce longest. Our paths just never crossed.

 Those were heady days, days of bigger than life people conceiving 

bigger than life projects—the world’s largest double curved thin arch dam, the 

California undersea aqueduct (taking fresh water entering San Francisco Bay and 

piping it undersea to Los Angeles) controlling the very weather itself, Project 

Skywater—to name just a few. Floyd Dominy was the Commissioner and was, 

in fact, a legend in his own time. Enough has been written about his prowess 

and importance to The Bureau on the political front. Equally important and 

in some sense more important was the person overseeing the technical front, 

Chief Engineer Barney Bellport. One day very soon after I started my career, 

happenstance found me getting on the elevator after lunch—followed by (gulp!) 

“Mahogany Row.” I watched Bellport, his deputy Harold Arthur, Jack Hilf, 

overseer of design and construction, and Hank Halliday the business manager 

step in behind me. My instinct was to bolt out and catch another elevator—too 

late the door had closed. By the time we reached the fourteenth fl oor, there was 

absolutely no doubt in my mind as to who was in charge. Bellport was mightily 

displeased with those present and spent the entire ride climbing up one side and 

down the other of their collective frame. I wanted to disappear into thin air, turn 

into a bug and crawl out, become invisible, be anywhere but there. In reality, 

my presence was probably only noticed by me. Participative management and 

employee input were concepts whose time had not yet come.

 In simplest of terms, the function, budget and organization of The Bureau 

followed a very logical process in those days. Projects were conceived, triggering 

a planning process that took the idea through a reconnaissance investigation, 

appraisal study and, in the early days, a basin survey. This early work was 

done by planning offi ces that were funded through the General Investigation 

appropriation. Generally, the next step would be to provide this information 

to the Congress, and if they authorized the project, a Feasibility and Defi niteplan Report were prepared and construction was started with the funding of the 

Construction and Rehabilitation appropriation. At completion of construction, 

the project was brought on line and an operation and maintenance offi ce was set 

up. All future funding would then be through the Operation and Maintenance 

appropriation. It was interesting that funds for the General Investigation and 

Construction and Rehabilitation appropriations were much easier to come by 

than for the Operation and Maintenance appropriation. Why? Politics. The local 

Congressman could brag to his/her constituency about this new project he/she is 

delivering to them. There isn’t much glamour or glitz in maintaining something 

that already exists. Ho hum.

 Working in the budget shop in the Chief Engineer’s offi ce allowed me 

to see and learn about virtually every thing that was going on in The Bureau, 

something that paid off in later years as I left new kid status and gained rising 

star status moving up the food chain to bigger and better jobs. One issue that 
784

became more and more apparent to me was that the Chief Engineer’s offi ce was 

over staffed even considering the large workload. This was, of course, no secret 

to most, but it certainly wasn’t discussed by the curmudgeons gathered at the 

coffee urn every morning as they whined about their condition in life and longed 

for the good old days. Being the outspoken and inquiring minded person I’ve 

always been (smart aleck), I once asked my curmudgeon educators, “If you are 

so miserable, why don’t you retire?” Ashen silent faces, the new kid had uttered 

the forbidden “R” word. That part of my education soon enough dried up. What 

was happening, however, was The Bureau was starting to feel a pinch brought on 

by a once incredibly large staff resulting from the post World War II repatriation 

program (provide jobs for the returning GIs) and a more scrutinized budget, 

ironically because of the ongoing Vietnam War. Thus, the stage was set for a 

defi ning moment in my career and the decade that changed Reclamation forever.

 By the early 1970s things were becoming more and more clear to me. In 

spite of the tremendous knowledge about The Bureau working on the budget 

afforded me, it was becoming routine and boring. Every year same old thing 

just different numbers. The bread and butter part of my duties was to put out a 

monthly budget summary report to the Commissioner’s offi ce and to put together 

another quarter inch thick budget report for all the big and medium cheeses in 

the Denver offi ce. Once, while on a detail to the Commissioner’s offi ce (getting 

all of $8 a day per diem), I looked into what happened to the report I sent back 

there each and every month. What I found didn’t surprise me. The budget 

secretary received it and fi led it, nobody used or even looked at it. I related this to 

Schlichting and asked if I could prepare it but not send it for a couple of months 

to see if anyone noticed. He agreed. We never heard a word, not even from the 

secretary. I quit preparing it. A unique survey method came to my mind for the 

other report. I would occasionally selectively slip an interesting article from the 

pages of Playboy into one or two of the reports sent to the medium cheeses whom 

I suspected might discretely enjoy reading. I never heard a single comment and, 

believe me, some of the articles were really interesting, not to mention really 

big. My conclusion was that this report got limited review. I never related this to 

Schlichting and continued to crank out the report. Now, I would not recommend 

this survey method today, but if someone is so inspired, I would strongly suggest 

articles from Field and Stream magazine. Many things were swirling in my 

head, the curmudgeons who were eligible to retire had no intention to do so, 

thus slowing any advancement possibilities, the most important aspect of my job 

was of little interest to anyone, and intuition told me that those denizens I saw 

scuttling to and fro in the hallways carrying stacks and stacks of computer punch 

cards would soon enough fi gure out how to replace me, my one hundred key 

Marchant calculator (WWII surplus), and ten key adding machine (Korean War 

surplus). Where did Personnel keep the vacancy announcements?

 Before moving on, it would be fi tting to show the character of some of 

the aforementioned curmudgeons. I’ll start with Rudy Mezner. Rudy was one 

of those people who was a lot older than they look. He had worked for The 
785

Bureau since long before WWII and his defi ning characteristic was his dapper 

look. Rudy was about 5’ 5” and always dressed in various tailored pin striped 

suits with monogrammed shirts and a fedora, something on the order of a James 

Cagney gangster. In those days everyone wore coat and tie, but most came 

out of the Sears catalog or the rack at J. C. Penney’s—government pay being 

what it was (is?). Bob Cope and Tom Bumgartner were WWII vets with stories 

to tell. Bob was on a mine sweeper that sank outside San Francisco Bay, and 

Tom was a bombardier on a B-17 stationed in England. Bill Wiley was a gruff 

old codger with a black patch over one eye, I pretty much steered clear of him.

 Denby Peeples was one of the more interesting of the bunch. He was probably 

at or near seventy years old and as one of the senior analysts, he had a coveted, 

newfangled, mechanical Friden calculator. Somehow, Denby had fi gured out the 

right combination of numbers and the right formula that when he triggered the 

calculation, the Friden churned out a tune one could dance to. John Childress was 

a pipe smoker who started more than one fi re in waste baskets with his discarded 

match. Bill Hilmes kept the fi re extinguisher between their desks. Bizarre folks 

were all around the building. The curmudgeons used to talk about one of the 

engineers who dyed his hair with shoe polish or lamp black. I was later to bear 

witness to this fact when one rainy day I was on a crowded elevator standing 

directly behind this person, watching inky black rivulets fl owing off the back of 

his head and down his erstwhile white collar. There was another gent who wore 

fuzzy earmuffs because he didn’t like sound when he worked. I ought to write a 

book about the characters I’ve run across in The Bureau.

 Ed Hawk, perhaps the most notorious and mysterious of all the 

curmudgeons deserves his own paragraph. Even though I never met Ed, it was 

obvious that he carried considerable weight, because I saw his name in several 

letters as head of various committees—the Ed Hawk Committee. I was later to 

learn that Ed was a fi gment created by that now piece of Americana called the 

Steno-Pool. In those days most of the correspondence was dictated on recording 

machines and sent to the pool for typing. Ed’s real name was “ad hoc.” In 

retrospect, it was amazing how many letters were surnamed and signed without 

being read. Another piece of correspondence that was signed and sent out made 

reference to “the source of the scriptures.” What the author intended to say was 

“thesaurus of descriptors.” The letter made for some interesting reading.

 One more side track and I promise to move on. Earlier I alluded to the 

$8 daily per diem, let me explain. In those days the bureaucracy was incredibly 

miserly. The per diem rates were on a sliding scale that reduced the amount 

allowed the longer you were in detail status. I don’t remember exactly what 

the rates were when I started that particular detail in Washington, probably 

around $20, but I do remember the $8 I was paid during the last couple of weeks 

of this training detail in the Commissioner’s Offi ce. I stayed in the old Park 

Central Hotel, it was closest to the Interior building and, for D.C., the rates were 

reasonable (something in the range of $20). Old timers reading this may recall 

the Park Central. After the fi rst couple weeks you were on fi rst name basis with 
786

the mice and roaches that shared your room. There was no air conditioning, but 

the window did open. Mine had a nice view of a dirty brick wall about ten feet 

away. The risk you ran opening the window was letting the rats in with the cooler 

air. My mice and roach friends did not appreciate sharing the room with rats, so I 

left the window closed most of the time. Another point to be made on the miserly 

scale had to do with vehicles. In those days government vehicles were strictly no 

frills; no radio, no air conditioning. A motor, four wheels and a steering wheel 

was about it. It wasn’t until the ‘70s that radios and air conditioning started to 

show up on vehicles.

 In 1972 a GS-12 Administrative Offi cer position in the Durango Planning 

Offi ce was advertised. Max Stodolski, a friend of mine, had just recently 

transferred there and a quick call to him convinced me to apply. When I went 

for the interview with Project Manager Ed Wiscombe, I was armed with budget 

knowledge of the projects they were studying: San Miguel, Dolores, Paradox 

Valley, and Animas-La Plata. It must have helped because Ed offered me the job. 

I reported to Durango, Colorado, in September. My star was on the rise. As a 

footnote, I should mention my Denver job was abolished after I left (keep track 

of this). While I was still back in Denver, I was vaguely aware of a law that had 

recently been passed called the National Environmental Policy Act which meant 

little to me at the time, but in Durango it was brought up in conversations in staff 

meeting on a regular basis. It didn’t appear to me, or many others at the time, that 

it was that big a deal. A few more papers to prepare and fi le. Other events that 

didn’t seem terribly signifi cant at the time were also occurring. Ellis Armstrong 

became Commissioner, and according to the curmudgeons, there was bad blood 

between him and Bellport. Bellport retired, moved to California and hung out 

his consultant’s shingle. The Chief Engineer’s offi ce became the Engineering 

and Research Center (ERC) and Harold Arthur assumed the helm. Soon after, 

Arthur named Donald Duck as his deputy. I kid you not. Donald was married to 

Dolores and, to my knowledge, they did not have nephews named Huey, Dewey 

or Louie. Shortly after my arrival in Durango, the ERC was in the middle of a 

reorganization that saw the fi rst postwar brain drain as its numbers were reduced. 

Many of the curmudgeons could no longer not think about nor not utter the “R” 

word. Many reluctantly embraced it. On another front, the members of the 

water bloc in Congress began to retire or lose elections and our legislative power 

base began to erode. In 1973 another law was passed that caused the planners 

to scratch their heads, it was called the Endangered Species Act. What did it 

mean? How does it relate to that other law? What does it mean consult with the 

Secretary? Sounds like more paperwork—job security for the planners. 

 At this point I have to digress to tell you about one man’s hog heaven. 

The Animas River fl ows right through Durango, it looks to be a clone of the 

Gunnison AND the then State record German brown trout had been caught under 

the Main Street bridge. With nostrils fl ared and fl y rod in hand I began to fi sh and 

catch fi sh—all the while eyeing the prime stretch south of town. I was aware I 

was looking at the Southern Ute Indian Reservation lands, and since I never saw 
787

anyone fi shing there, I assumed it was not allowed. Imagine my elation when I 

found out that for fi ve bucks you could get an annual reservation pass, imagine 

further my pure bliss that, for reasons I never fi gured out, nobody did. I was truly 

in hog heaven for the two years I lived in Durango. For all intents and purposes 

I had a private fi shing preserve for a measly fi ve bucks! The fi shing was the best 

I have ever experienced and I never saw another living being, except my dad 

and a few deer, the whole time I fi shed there. Hog heaven was to last only two 

years, however. In the fall of 1974 a decision was reached to consolidate the 

Durango and Grand Junction offi ces. My position was to be abolished and I was 

to be transferred to Grand Junction as the Budget Offi cer—Enos Stone was the 

Administrative Offi cer there and he had about thirty years seniority on me.

 Where did we keep the vacancy announcements?

 One more story, if it survives the editors cut. While in Durango, I was 

driving a senior Reclamation manager for a visit to Navajo Dam to investigate a 

pesky leak that had developed in the abutment. He was a rotund and stoic man of 

little humor and few words. As we started to leave for the drive back, he shouted 

“STOP!” Startled to hear his voice, I slammed on the brakes and watched him 

slide forward to become tightly wedged between the seat and the dash. As he 

dropped off the seat, he ... ah ... broke wind with a sonic resonance that would 

make an Arabian stallion proud. I ran around, opened his door and tugged on his 

shoulders until he popped out and landed on the berm of the road. With all the 

dignity he could muster, he stood up, picked up his sunglasses from the fl oor (the 

reason he wanted me to stop in the fi rst place) and got back in the car. I had my 

upper lip clenched tightly between my teeth to maintain composure on the long 

drive back.

 Timing and, in the case of rising stars, contacts and mentors are 

everything. A GS-13 Administrative Offi cer position was open in Auburn, 

California, at the construction offi ce for what was to be the world’s largest double 

curvature thin arch dam. I called two people I knew from Denver who were now 

in the Sacramento Mid-Pacifi c regional offi ce, Paul Olbert and Hank Masterson. 

Paul was the Assistant Regional Director for Administration and Hank was a 

branch chief in Personnel; they both suggested I apply. The interview took 

place with Project Construction Engineer Don Alexander and, still armed with 

the knowledge about Auburn Dam I had gained in the budget offi ce, I was able 

to convince him that I was the man for the job—I suspect with some help from 

Olbert and Masterson. I reported for duty the week between Christmas and New 

Years in 1974. What a contrast with the genteel and studious ways of a planning 

offi ce. I was now in the world of clod kicking, hard hat wearing he-men smoking 

cigars the size of which would downright impress a Presidential Intern. Gaylord 

Hay was the soft-spoken Offi ce Engineer, Rod Somerday was the outspoken Field 

Engineer, and Lou Frei was the ranting Project Geologist. One of the interesting 

things to observe was the jockeying for position between Lou and Rod to be the 

“daddy rabbit” for construction operations. Many Auburn employees went on to 
788

hold important jobs in The Bureau, mainly in Denver and on the Central Arizona 

Project.

 Auburn Dam’s Environmental Impact Statement was one of the fi rst 

prepared and the fi rst challenged for adequacy. After a rewrite, a judge declared 

it adequate and, in 1974, work on the massive foundation began. In August 1975 

an earthquake occurred some forty or fi fty miles north of Auburn that brought into 

question the seismic safety of the dam being built. A massive seismic/geological 

investigation began. Then, less than one year later, the defi ning moment for The 

Bureau occurred in Idaho at about 7:45 A.M. June 5, 1976, when a survey party 

noticed a small leak near the right abutment of a newly constructed dam on the 

Teton River. By noon the crest had collapsed and the embankment was breached. 

Reclamation’s swagger turned into a stagger, and we started to second guess 

ourselves on everything, including Auburn Dam. Our confi dence was rocked. 

To compound the Auburn situation, President Carter, soon after coming to offi ce, 

listed Auburn on his “Hit List” of water projects he felt were unneeded. Further 

construction contracts were put on hold. Hit lists, seismic investigations, no new 

contracts—where are the vacancy announcements?

 I should mention that the 1976 Carter/Ford presidential campaign was 

the fi rst in my memory (and the fi rst of many to come) where the candidates 

openly attacked the bureaucracy, in many instances placing blame for the woes 

of the world on the Federal employee’s back and painting us as underworked 

and overpaid slow moving sloths. We unfairly lost prestige that we have never 

recovered. The Carter Administration was the fi rst in my experience to place 

a pure political appointee with no prior Reclamation experience in the role of 

Commissioner, the former State Engineer in Idaho, Keith Higginson. Although 

it only lasted the length of his Administration, Carter also gave us a new name, 

“ Water and Power Resources Service” which to me made eminent sense then and 

now as being a more contemporary, descriptive name for Reclamation–unless 

anyone wants to argue that we are reclaiming the environment from the family 

farm (is that a snicker I hear?). One other thing Carter did that has had a role in 

reshaping The Bureau was to form the Department of Energy (DOE) and transfer 

the power distribution and marketing function from Reclamation to the newly 

formed Western Area Power Administration. What were regional divisions 

under Reclamation became virtual dynasties with fi efdoms spread far and wide 

under DOE. Many in Congress continue to question the wisdom of that action.

Commissioner Higginson began the shift in Reclamation’s public policy by 

placing more emphasis on environmental protection, economic justifi cation and 

dam safety. Auburn survived the “Hit List,” but Carter did not survive his bid for 

reelection. Some say his attempt to eliminate or curtail the Congressional pork 

barrel system (Hit List) undermined the effectiveness of his Presidency. At any 

rate, as the Carter Administration left offi ce they declared that a safe dam could 

be built at Auburn, but no new construction contracts were to be let until new fl ow 

standards on the lower American River were addressed.
789

 The Mid-Pacifi c Region GS-14 Program Coordination Division Chief’s 

vacancy announcement hit the streets in the fall of 1978. The position reported 

to Paul Olbert and I was concerned that all the times I called him a blithering 

idiot when we argued over administrative matters would haunt me. He must 

have agreed that he was a blithering idiot or he appreciated someone who stood 

his ground in an argument because I began my new duties right after Christmas. 

My old job at Auburn was abolished (you’re probably catching onto this). In this 

new job, I was once removed from a Bureau legend that had held the Program 

Coordination job for many years prior. Remember the story of meeting Rogers 

Morton when I was a new kid? At about the same time another individual walked 

into the old budget shop. He was wearing a fedora and a trench coat and my 

reaction wasn“Wow, the Godfather!”. I nearly fell out of my chair when he shook 

my hand and said “Hi! I’m Mike Catino from Sacramento.” Mike went on to be 

the Regional Director in Sacramento and a lot of us affectionately referred to him 

as the Godfather.

 In those days the Program Coordination Chiefs had status in Reclamation 

and held one of the most powerful positions in their Regions. We met formally 

as a group at least four times a year, twice with the Commissioner and all the 

Regional Directors. We also had a close camaraderie that served The Bureau 

well. Managing the budget was handled on the phone. If we had surplus funds, 

I would call Gordon Wendler in Denver or Que Quigley in Boise and move the 

money around. Conversely, if we had a short fall, a quick call to Dwayne Wynia 

in Amarillo or Darrel Hogg in Salt Lake City would usually bear fruit. When all 

else failed, a call to Chuck Lewis in Boulder City would always save the day, 

simply because he had the Central Arizona Project construction budget under 

his purview (big bucks). Of course once Mid-Pacifi c Region’s own San Felipe 

Project got underway, Bill Klostermeyer, The Bureau’s Program and Budget guru 

in the Commissioner’s Offi ce, referred to me as the “CEO of the First National 

Bank of San Felipe.” We seemed to always have surplus money thanks to the 

local benefi ciaries continually getting Congressional write-ins added to the 

budget, even when we didn’t need it. This “green eyeshade” team received many 

kudos from the Department of the Interior and the Offi ce of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for budget presentation and performance over the years.

 Billy Martin was the Regional Director at the time I went to the Region 

and he was perhaps the most pragmatic Regional Director I have worked for. 

To illustrate, Billy assigned me to represent the Region before the California 

Water Commission whenever he was invited to one of their meetings. Those 

were the days of Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, and to get a clue as to the 

makeup of the Commission, I refer you to pages 350 and 351 of the September 

1977, edition of the National Geographic. The lady living in the tree house on 

a redwood stump was a member of the Commission. I’m dead serious and if 

you cannot fi nd the issue, I do have a copy. Needless to say, defending water 

projects to this group was a character builder. Many who attended the public 

meetings of the Commission had an aura of burnt rope and rancid bacon grease 
790

about them. As this group railed against dams and canals and subsidized water 

to farmers, I wondered if it occurred to them where bacon came from or, for 

that matter, what they could personally do with a little water? I feel that, to a 

large degree, subsidized water for farms occurred because the early estimates 

on farmers’ ability to repay were overly optimistic and later it helped preserve 

the small family farmer suffering in the Great Depression on their 160 acres. 

But, it is important to remember that affordable water for family farmers was a 

public value of the time. In later years corporate (albeit sometimes disguised) 

farms were becoming the rule. The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 was passed 

ostensibly to recognize their existence and to begin to address the subsidized 

water issue through higher prices for water on excess acreage (something the Act 

also increased was the acreage that could receive water from 160 acres to 

960 acres). Existing long terms (40 years) contracts were a shield around most 

of the subsidy. However, as these contracts reached their term, new contracts 

were written to address subsidies.

 Throughout this era, The Bureau fought the good fi ght to keep Auburn 

Dam on track. The benefi ciaries of the project were behind us all the way 

shouting words of encouragement. Those of us in The Bureau were encouraged 

when the Carter administration declared a safe dam could be built at Auburn, 

and we had every confi dence in the world when the Reagan administration took 

offi ce that we would complete the project. Reagan gave Auburn a tentative 

green light, but insisted on up front cost sharing by the benefi ciaries. Not a 

problem, we thought, until we turned around to fi nd that our supporters knees 

had turned to jelly in the face of this new bully. Auburn Dam is still in a state 

of suspended animation and water supply contracts written in anticipation of the 

yield from Auburn have compounded Reclamation’s inability to meet obligations 

for water throughout the CVP. There are more and more Reclamation projects 

where enhanced cost sharing has been negotiated; parts of the Central Arizona 

Project, the Buffalo Bill Modifi cation Project and the Shasta Temperature Control 

Device come to mind. Also, power users have begun to fund more power related 

maintenance items on Reclamation powerplants.

 The Reagan Administration gave The Bureau its fi rst pharmacist as 

Commissioner— Robert (Bob) Broadbent. In actuality he was a respected 

politician from Las Vegas who soon gave the Mid-Pacifi c Region its fi rst 

politically oriented and youngest regional director, David Houston. Dave was 

unquestionably one of the brightest individuals I have ever met. I can remember 

more than once briefi ng him on an issue totally new to him while walking down 

the hall to a meeting, and as the meeting took place he knew more about the topic 

than I did. In 1984, my friend and mentor, Paul Olbert retired, leaving open the 

 Assistant Regional Director for Administration job. I applied for the position and 

Dave picked me. You are probably way ahead of me on this by now, but a few 

years after I left the Program Coordination position, it was abolished.
791

 The decade of the ‘80s saw two major realignments of The Bureau. 

 Regions were consolidated from the original seven, which incidentally were 

referred to by number when I fi rst started, to fi ve. In 1985 the Lower Missouri 

Region (Region 7 to curmudgeons) was consolidated with the Upper Missouri 

Region (Region 6). Later, in 1988, most of the Southwest Region (Region 5) was 

folded into the aforementioned region to create the vast Great Plains Region. A 

small piece of the Southwest Region was added to the Upper Colorado Region 

(Region 4). Rumors persisted for some time that Mid-Pacifi c Region (Region 

2) and the Pacifi c Northwest Region (Region 1) would be combined and that 

the Lower Colorado Region (Region 3) would join the Upper Colorado Region.

Neither rumor has panned out—at least not yet. Now, having said all of that, the 

change from numbers to names, I suppose, was because names were more lyrical 

and prettier sounding than numbers. Curiously, bureaucrats being bureaucrats, 

we’re not satisfi ed until we’ve assigned everything an acronym, we now refer to 

the regions by letters; GP, MP, UC, LC, PN. Alas . . .

 With notable exceptions like the massive Central Arizona Project, and a 

few smaller projects like Dolores, Paradox Valley and Dallas Creek in Colorado, 

and San Felipe in California, Reclamation’s construction program was starting to 

wane. One by one, The Bureau construction stiffs began to snuff out the cigars 

and hang up their hardhats. The exodus in the MP Region was accentuated with 

the retirement of Bill Hart who managed construction of the San Felipe Project.

Bill, a genuine curmudgeon, used to show his disdain for things not specifi c 

to construction by wearing bright red Mickey Mouse socks to Regional Offi ce 

management meetings. Even I picked up on the social comment. Looking back, 

I think the only overarching authorizing legislation we have had since the ‘60s 

involving construction was the “Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.” We 

have had a few specifi c authorizations like the temperature control device at 

Shasta Dam, but the construction heartbeat has become a mere murmur of its 

former self. In addition to Auburn, other construction projects were stopped 

midway. Construction on the San Luis Drain in California was halted because 

of environmental concerns with having the outfall in the Delta. In the interim, 

drain water was spread in an area designated as the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge. 

An environmental alarm was sounded when three eyed, four legged birds were 

found in the refuge, a result of selenium build up from farm drainage. The decade 

could be defi ned as a paper decade as volumes of reports on the environment were 

written and, in the second half, a time of self examination for Reclamation.

 The transition between the Reagan and Bush administrations, even though 

both were Republican, brought on a whole new cast of characters in the politically 

appointed positions (which seems to be ever expanding). Let me take a moment 

to illustrate what I have observed during these times.

 As the loyal campaigners (or donors) are rewarded with appointments 

to high-level government jobs, it seems like they all will have stopped at the 

nearest shopping mall bookstore and bought the latest management technique du
792

jour book—Management by Objectives, Zero-based Budgeting, Total Quality 

Management, ad nauseam—as they charge in to show the careerist how they 

are going to improve our productivity. Swell. Fittingly, they have unwavering 

loyalty to the administration they helped elect, but they often assume (or demand) 

the careerist do likewise. It is my experience that except for the chameleon 

careerist, most careerists fi rst loyalty is with the United States and the agency they 

work for, otherwise why be a civil servant? Careerists have their own political 

preferences and occasionally have developed good working relationships with 

Congressional members and their staffs. I wonder if it occurs to the political 

appointee just where some of the occasional really dicey questions they are asked 

at congressional hearings come from? Loyalty is a personal thing.

 Most political appointees are decent folks with our Nation’s interest at 

heart and after a few months in offi ce realize that the careerists do actually know 

a thing or two about what they are doing and a mutual respect begins to develop.

However, with every Administration there are the political peacocks who never 

show respect for the civil servant because, in their minds, they alone hold all 

of the answers and the careerists are lower caste drones there simply to do their 

bidding. I have noticed with some level of alarm that in recent years more and 

more career managers are becoming more and more concerned with “politically 

correct” than they are with following the letter of the law and accomplishing good 

public policy. I read once, and believe it to be true, that the career civil servant, 

the “bureaucracy” if you will, has served as the ballast in the “Ship of State” 

that keeps it from swinging too far to the right or to the left every time there is a 

change in the Administration. As more and more politically appointed positions 

are established further and further down in the hierarchy of an agency the more 

wildly the “Ship of State” will veer. I truly believe that the Congress should put 

fi rm limitations on the number of political appointees to one or two per agency 

and eliminate the “burrowing in” efforts of political appointees during changes in 

Administrations. One saving grace is that the strutting and crowing of any given 

political peacock usually lasts less than twenty-four months and there is always 

the chance that they will be replaced by an appointee that can develop a mutual 

respect with the careerist.

 Now that I’ve wound myself up real tight on politics, I’m going to digress 

to tell you about an interesting near miss I had with politics. During my tenure 

at the Auburn project, I was befriended by a gentleman by the name of Wendell 

Robie. Among other things, Wendell was the driving force behind the Winter 

Olympics at Squaw Valley, owned a bank with branches throughout Northern 

California, owned a lot of Northern California and was the most powerful 

man in the Republican party in Northern California. We became friends while 

I was a member of the Lions Club he chartered in the 1930s when I was the 

Administrative Offi cer at Auburn Dam where I worked closely with Wendell on 

relocating the Western States Trail, another one of his interests. (Allow me an 

interesting sidebar in this digression)—Wendell once took me for a ride in his 

car to check out possible trail sites along the canyon of the Middle Fork of the 
793

American River. We wound our way down the canyon wall on a poor excuse 

of a single lane mining road at a place called Ruck-a-Chucky. We got to the 

bottom of the canyon and stopped at the edge of the water. While I was nervously 

pondering how we were going to back all of the way out of this predicament, 

Wendell gunned the engine and we plunged into the river! Somehow I stifl ed 

the scream of terror in my throat, drawing courage from Wendell’s nonchalant 

demeanor as water began fl owing through the fl oorboards of his family sedan. We 

bounced and drifted and fi nally bounded up on the remains of the mining road on 

the other side whereupon Wendell opened his door and suggested I do the same 

to drain out the part of the river that we had captured during the crossing. When 

the color returned to my face, I thought “That was weird.” I was later to learn that 

we were just ahead of the pulse fl ow released daily for power production from the 

upstream dams. Apparently Wendell did this frequently and somehow I fi gured it 

was pointless to ask him why he didn’t own a jeep.

 To get me back on the real point of this digression, it was during one of 

my many encounters with Wendell that he asked if I wanted a career in politics. 

He stated that “they” would get me on the Placer County Board of Supervisors 

and then look to the State Assembly and, in time, national politics. This was not 

to be taken lightly, because Wendell controlled the GOP in that part of California. 

I asked him why Bizz Johnson, a Democrat, held the Fourth Congressional seat.

Wendell smiled and responded that they had an “understanding” and that when the 

time was right, he would put his man in. His man was Gene Chappie, a colorful 

member of the State Assembly that I had met and came to know. The time was 

right very soon after that, and Gene became the next Congressman to represent 

the Fourth District. I thought about Wendell’s offer, but ultimately thanked him 

and said no.

 In 1987 Commissioner 

 Dale Duvall asked Reclamation 

to examine the direction of its 

programs. That examination, 

“Assessment ‘87,’” pointed out 

the need for water conservation, 

improved management of 

projects, and the need to address 

environmental values. The hiring 

of people with biological science 

degrees was almost reaching a par 

with hiring engineers launching 

yet another metamorphosis of 

The Bureau. The last decade 

of the twentieth century was 

kicked off with an initiative of 

Commissioner Dennis Underwood 

entitled, “The Strategic Plan.” It 

30.3. C. Dale Duvall while Commissioner of 

Reclamation.
794

used “Assessment 87” as a base and laid out a new long term “A big picture” for 

Reclamation with specifi c goals and action plans. The Bureau was beginning to 

turn greener and greener as the world was presented with the “Strategic Plan” in 

1992. That year also saw the passage of one of the most signifi cant laws to affect 

and change the course of Reclamation, the “Reclamation Projects Authorization 

and Adjustment Act of 1992”. It was a far-reaching law with forty titles 

impacting almost all of Reclamation, but nowhere so dramatically as California’s 

Central Valley Project with Title XXIV, the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA assigned environmental protection and restoration a 

priority equal to that of water and power deliveries. Implementation of the law 

has been a diffi cult process because it so radically changed a paradigm that had 

existed for over a half a century.

 In 1993 Regional Director Roger Patterson suggested that I take the 

vacant Project Superintendent’s job at Folsom Dam. I at fi rst resisted because 

it was yet another job at my same grade level (my mentors had long since left 

The Bureau and my rising star had long since stalled—I guess the other potential 

mentors I had called blithering idiots had taken the words personally), besides, 

the only thing I knew about electricity was that it could shock you (I was later 

to learn that a turbine runner was not an Olympian from India). I was aware of, 

and Patterson pointed out, that we had some real personnel and administrative 

issues at Folsom that needed attention. Additionally, he indicated he was going 

to assign more responsibility and consolidate fi eld offi ces into Area Offi ces (ours 

became the Central California Area Offi ce [CCAO]). Silly me, I thought under 

those circumstances there would be a grade raise someday. Alas. Twenty four 

34.4. Folsom Dam spillway in 1998. The dam is a composite structure with a concrete 

spillway and earth wing dams on the American River above Sacramento, California. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the dam between 1948 and 1956, but Reclamation 

manages the dam in cooperation with the Corps.
795

years as a GS-14 must be a record. Am I starting to sound like the coffee urn 

curmudgeons of so long ago? Oh well, it was a much better commute; half the 

distance, no freeway, dodge deer and count road kill. You probably guessed, but 

Patterson abolished the Assistant Regional Director-Administration position. For 

those of you who have not kept score, every Bureau job I have held has been 

abolished after I’ve left it (I’m sure that is a record). A record that I might share 

with a handful of others is that I have worked under ten Commissioners, seven 

acting Commissioners and eight Presidents.

 Another event occurred in 1993 that impacted all of Federal Government. 

It was a vice-presidential initiative to change the way the government works 

called the National Performance Review (NPR). “More with less” became the 

battle cry to “cut red tape, put customers fi rst, empower employees to get results, 

and get back to basics” (if you are tempted to say “yada, yada, yada” at this 

point, feel free). Commissioner Dan Beard outlined his plan for the Bureau that 

fl attened management, implemented the Area Offi ce concept and to “ ... 

focus on: operating our projects with greater environmental sensitivity ...”

Impacts on staff were felt throughout the organization, but nowhere as severe as 

the Denver offi ce, which I think by this time was being called the Reclamation 

Service Center—I admit I’ve lost track. Its direction was to de-emphasize design 

and construction and to provide support to all Reclamation offi ces at the lowest 

possible cost. The Denver workforce was reduced and realigned accordingly.

 A challenge to Denver’s new direction occurred a little after 8:00 A.M.

Monday morning, July 17, 1995. I was at my offi ce at Folsom Dam loading my 

briefcase for a trip to the Regional Offi ce for a round of meetings when Dennis 

McComb, our O&M Chief, stuck his head in my offi ce and dead panned, “Gate 3 

just failed.” My reaction was—“what the hell is he talking about?” He repeated 

and still unbelieving, we jumped in a car and headed for the dam. The sight 

that unfolded as we came around the bend was 

incredible. Water was spewing a hundred feet 

in all directions from the center of the dam—I 

hope to shout “the gate had failed!” We quickly 

assembled a team consisting of experts from 

our Denver Offi ce, the Corps of Engineers, 

McClellen Air Force Base, and California 

Department of Transportation, among others to 

immediately go to work on fi guring out how to 

plug the hole and design a long term fi x. The 

bell had been tolled that Reclamation’s aging 

infrastructure is in need of attention. Still, 

suffi cient budgets to address these problems 

have been hard coming. You can see why Area 

Managers sometimes feel like Quasimodo trying 

to get Esmeralda’s attention ringing and ringing 

the bells of Notre Dame. 

34.5. Gate 3 at Folsom Dam 

after failure July 17, 1995
796

 The ‘90s saw a renewed effort toward bringing about a more diverse 

workforce. In retrospect we have come a far way during my career, albeit 

not far enough in the eyes of many. If I could take you back to 1968 and the 

curmudgeons at the coffee urn and had I told them then that at that very moment 

there was a grammar school girl on Long Island, New York, named Maryanne 

Bach who will go on to get an advanced degree in ecology and will become a 

Regional Director, or that Felix Cook, the black engineer toiling in the catacombs 

of their building, will go on to head the technical side of Reclamation, they would 

have looked at me funny and thought to themselves “This poor kid must have 

suffered a head wound when he was in Vietnam. ... what the hell is ecology?” 

I take personal pride in the small level of career help I’ve been able to provide 

to some of the women I’ve had the privilege of working with over the years.

 Donna Darr was a supply clerk in the Auburn Offi ce when we fi rst met. She 

went on to become Mid-Pacifi c Region’s most successful liaison offi cer in the 

Commissioner’s Offi ce. Dee Winn was my secretary and Marcy Turner was a 

budget clerk when I became the Program Coordination Chief. By the time I left 

the position, both were professional graded budget analysts and Marcy went on to 

be a Branch Chief. Susan Hoffman’s career has proceeded from soil scientist to 

Mid-Pacifi c Region’s Planning Offi cer. On the other hand, try as I might, I was 

not able to get the grade the CCAO Administrative Offi cer, Joni Ward, deserved. 

It is locked in at GS-12. It is particularly a concern because I was a GS-13 

Administrative Offi cer at Auburn and my duties were no greater than Joni’s were 

when she had the job. Does a glass ceiling exist? Do we have a way to go?

 At the turn of the millennium those of us with a part of the CVP were 

wrapped up in renewing the long term contracts our users had held for forty years. 

The changes brought on by the CVPIA made the process a contentious one. First 

of all, the contracts could only be renewed for twenty-fi ve years. A situation 

that made it more diffi cult for farmers to get long term loans for farm operations. 

Additionally, less water was available to the users as more was committed to 

environmental restoration. And, of course, the water that would be available 

would have a much higher price. It was a blow felt most severely by smaller 

family farms and those with marginal lands. The values of the fi rst part of the 

century, symbolized by the famous picture of the H. J. Mersdorf “Desert-Ranch” 

with the sign stating “HAVE FAITH IN GOD AND U.S. RECLAMATION,” 

had been reversed by the end of the century. Because of delays in fi nalizing the 

environmental documentation, interim contracts were negotiated to bridge the 

expired contracts and the new long term contracts. The whole process took over 

a decade to complete. In the early part of the contract negotiations, I had the 

privilege of working with The Bureau’s quintessential curmudgeon, Cliff Quinton. 

Cliff was a repayment specialist and the Central California Area Offi ce’s chief 

negotiator who had a scowl and demeanor that would make a middle linebacker 

weak in the knees. He was extremely knowledgeable and was never tripped up in 

negotiations. For years after his retirement, I was able to keep contractors in line 

with the mere threat of bringing Cliff out of retirement.
797

 By and large, John Q. Citizen takes water for granted and why shouldn’t 

he? Isn’t it always there when he turns on his tap? Isn’t there abundant food in 

the grocery store? Doesn’t the air conditioner kick on when the temperature gets 

above 78 degrees? Aren’t all of his favorite golf courses a verdant green? Few 

people outside of the industry have a clue as to how complex the water world 

is. As the twentieth century rolled into the new millennium, those who read 

newspapers and watch the news should have been getting the message that they 

better start paying more attention to the many faceted water issue. For example, 

story after story has been in the news about the plight of the West Coast salmon. 

The fi shermen blame the farmers and the dams that supply them, the farmers 

say the fi shermen are over-harvesting the sea, the environmentalists blame the 

loggers, fi shermen, and farmers, and they all blame the sea lions. Who is right? 

Who is wrong? Is the answer to stop fi shing? Put farms out of production? Stop 

logging? No, of course not, people still value plentiful food and good homes!

When I fi rst started my career, nearly one third of John Q’s disposable income 

went for food, today it is more like one tenth. John Q. has grown up without 

being hungry or doing without. He is focused on “me” and “now.” More and 

more of his dollars are spent on entertainment and “toys.” He apparently isn’t 

taking time to think about the long term as his parents and grandparents did. By 

his parents ‘and grandparents’ standards, his decisions probably seem downright 

goofy. Thus, as Reclamation’s second hundred years begin, the stage is set for 

water related decisions that would confound the decisionmakers of one hundred 

years ago. One would hope that John Q. will become aware of the water world 

and let the elected offi cials know what his values are. As it stands now, John Q. 

is complacent to let the special interest or advocacy groups dictate his values for 

him while he remains in blissful ignorance. I wonder if John Q. understands that 

as we put more and more farms out of production for environmental values, we 

become less adaptable to droughts that occur across the nation, and we become 

more dependent on foreign food. I wonder further if he understands that our 

30.6. This image showcasing the Mersdorfs’ hopes is an iconic image to Reclamation.
798

growing dependency on foreign foods, in many cases, is leading to massive 

environmental destruction as more and more rainforests are leveled to make 

farmland. Whether it is triggered by drought, the West Coast salmon, or the 

Sandhill Crane in Nebraska, or rolling brownouts throughout the Reclamation 

West, the issues with water are basically the same; there are more and more 

diverse demands for water, and not everyone’s demands can be met without 

impacting someone or something else.

 Reclamation attempts to inform John Q, but it wasn=t always so. Prior 

to the Teton collapse, The Bureau had a high and mighty self image and public 

relations was not much more than simply setting up tours for various facilities.

The public image of Reclamation continued to erode throughout the late ‘70s and 

early ‘80s. The late ‘80s and ‘90s saw Reclamation make concerted efforts to at 

least respond to negative press and in more and more instances, get ahead of the 

media on issues through improved media relationships. Press releases are issued 

on all major issues and events and Reclamation managers are being trained in how 

to deal with the media. Jeff McCracken, Mid-Pacifi c Region’s Public Information 

Offi cer came to Reclamation with an extensive background in the news industry. 

He fostered good relationships with the various editors, reporters, and news 

directors by keeping them informed on issues and being forthcoming when they 

had questions. Because of this, he was able to successfully guide the Mid-Pacifi c 

Region through some potential public relation disasters. With the public outreach 

throughout Reclamation now in place, John Q. has no one to blame but himself 

for not being informed on water issues.

 As Reclamation steps boldly into it’s second century we have a new 

President, a new Secretary of the Interior and a new Commissioner who is one 

of us, a person who came up through the ranks, John Keys, former Regional 

Director of Pacifi c Northwest Region and a pretty good college football referee. 

For all the curmudgeons, this is a welcome sign; for those who have not worked 

for a Commissioner with a Bureau background, they will appreciate the depth of 

understanding of their issues from the start.

 A few months after this screed 

was submitted as part of the Reclamation 

History Symposium, our nation was 

attacked by terrorists. Here and elsewhere 

I have amended my original manuscript.

Uncertainty has become the norm as 

Reclamation struggles to protect the very 

facilities that the western United States relies 

upon for water, food production, power and 

fl ood protection. Much has changed and 

more will change in our employees’ daily 

lives and how business is conducted. Already 

armed guards patrol critical infrastructure 

30.7. John W. Keys III as 

Commissioner of Reclamation.
799

and other security measures have been brought to bear. Security is a new factor 

to be budgeted for and executed. Secrecy has entered Reclamation’s world. Yet 

politics are still part of the picture. Two events occurred in 1995 that prompted 

me to start the ball rolling to get a bridge authorized that would take the public 

traffi c (over eighteen thousand cars a day) off the top of Folsom Dam. They 

were the Oklahoma City bombing and the failure of the spillway gate which 

made obvious the vulnerability of Sacramento to a man made fl ood. At least 

six separate security reviews before and after 9/11 indicated that public access 

to the top of the dam presents a serious security risk. Duh! At Congressman 

Doolittle’s request for data, I had an appraisal level study completed so that he 

might use the data to draft a bill to get a bridge authorized. With the events of 

9/11, I thought getting the bridge authorized would be a slam dunk—it was such 

obvious good public policy. To my great surprise, however, the Department of 

the Interior came out in total opposition to the proposed legislation, stating that 

it was a local transportation issue. Never mind that Reclamation over the years 

allowed the road to become a major artery for two of the fastest growing counties 

in the United States. Never mind the many vulnerabilities and danger to the 

lives of hundreds of thousands of people immediately downstream that the dam 

poses by allowing clear access to the top of all eight spillway gates. How the 

political people could keep a straight face and say it is a local transportation issue 

is really beyond me. I had arranged for non-Federal cost sharing, but the bill was 

written for full Federal funding, which apparently had stuck in somebody in the 

Department’s craw. Congress controls the Federal purse strings and if they say 

fully Federal, then so be it. The important thing is the safety and security of the 

structure and the many people who live in immediate harm’s way; it is simply 

good public policy.

 To summarize the last third of The Bureau’s history, I would make 

reference once again to the shining knight on the white horse. He was still 

charging hard in the late ‘60s, but the noble steed was starting to get winded. The 

‘70s turned out to be an unexpected low hanging branch that knocked him head 

over heels; squarely to the ground. The ‘80s found him staggering in search of 

his steed, but a storm of paperwork and environmental problems buried him and 

allowed his now dented armor to tarnish and rust. As he laid there, he began to 

ponder his place in the world. In the ‘90s, he was propped up and told that the 

Water Kingdom has changed, the throne was being shared by many rival kings in 

an uneasy truce. The image of the damsel in distress and the fi re breathing dragon 

was becoming blurred in his eye, “which was which?,” he asked. Where does he 

go from here? The answer most likely is to become gatekeeper and arbiter, like 

other aging knights of old, to resolve differences and attempt to equitably divide 

the waters of the Water Kingdom.

 On a personal note, I don’t know precisely when I became a curmudgeon, 

but it happened. I suppose it was inevitable. I didn’t recognize it until more 

and more people started to ask me when I was going to retire, and it was driven 

home when Betsy Rieke, a fellow Area Manager, made that particular reference 
800

to both herself and me during one of our manager’s meetings. Have I exacted my 

revenge on The Bureau? Well, I don’t know—some probably think so. I do know 

that I’ve made The Bureau pay, though, something in the order of $2 million 

to do something I=ve had some fun doing. And, I wrangled a GS-15 out of the 

powers to be. Although it wasn’t my intention, I’ve made a couple of Regional 

Directors uncomfortable with actions I’ve taken in the interest of good public 

policy albeit politically incorrect at the time. I know there will be a sigh of relief 

in some quarters when I soon announce my retirement. Do I still fi sh? I can=t say 

I do. The days on the Southern Ute Reservation spoiled me. That coupled with 

the large crowds and small trout in California lessened the enjoyment. Besides, 

I rediscovered another passion from my frivolous youth, building hot rods. I get 

great enjoyment buzzing around town in my ‘34 Ford with its chopped top and 

327 engine, leaving every Harry Highschool, who thinks his Honda is hot stuff, in 

the dust when the light turns green. Like it or not, things change, people change, 

values change. As The Bureau proceeds through the next one hundred years, 

these things are certain; the values we hold today will change, public policy will 

continue to change, and Reclamation=s mission will continue to change. As the 

Beatles once sang, “O bla dee, O bla dah, life goes on.”

 Heraclitus was right, you know, you can’t step into the same river twice.

Thomas J. Aiken, at the time of the history symposium, was the area manager of 

the Central California Area Offi ce in Folsom. He has since retired.
801

The World Commission on Dams: A Case Study on 

 Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia River Basin 

Project: Process and Lessons Learned

By:

Paul C. Pitzer

 Except for the Great Wall of China, dams are the largest man-made 

objects on this planet. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) states that there 

are around eight hundred thousand of them scattered across six of the seven 

continents. Most are comparatively small in volume, but an estimated fortyfi ve thousand are higher than a fi ve story building, and a few are monumental 

exceeding ten or more million cubic yards of material.1

 These dams are 

responsible for about 30–40 percent of the irrigated land worldwide and dams 

generate 19% of the world’s electricity.2

 Various studies have looked at individual dams—their histories, their 

politics, their technological achievements, their environmental and cultural 

impacts.3 From these it is clear that dams can and have dramatically altered 

their surroundings. Those changes have brought both positive and negative 

results and spirited debate continues about which might outweigh the other. 

Specifi cally, government bodies, civil society organizations, private contractors, 

and fi nancial institutions have debated the costs and benefi ts of dams, large and 

small. Large dams have come under especially close scrutiny. Proponents point 

to power production, fl ood control, irrigation, domestic water supply, navigation, 

and recreation as worthy enhancements resulting from their construction—this 

refl ecting the nature of many dams as multipurpose projects. Opponents decry 

adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts that generally follow in 

the wake of dam construction—with some of those impacts being unanticipated.

There is apparently no exact way to determine if the benefi ts of a dam outweigh 

the costs, and the heated debate over this has accelerated and continued without 

resolution. People on both sides of the issue agree that the polarization of 

opponents and proponents has resulted in a virtual breakdown of constructive 

dialogue.4

 One aspect of the argument is the degree to which large dams collectively 

have successfully accomplished the goals initially projected for them. There 

have been few comprehensive studies of all large dams on a worldwide basis. 

“Cooked” fi gures often cloud the ability to weigh the value of benefi ts against 

those of costs. The estimated values of those costs and benefi ts are generally 

based on subjective judgments complicated by rapidly changing social priorities.

While large dam building in the Industrialized World peaked in the twentieth 

century and now has more or less stopped, Third World Countries continue to 

project and build large dams; for example, the Three Gorges Dam on the 

Yangtze River in China currently nearly completed. The question is whether or 
802

not this is wise, and if so, under what conditions and guidelines future large dams 

should be built to maximize their benefi ts while minimizing their costs and their 

detrimental impacts, and guaranteeing achievement of the goals projected for each 

structure.

 In Third World countries many dams have been and are fi nanced by 

the World Bank.5 In April 1997 the World Bank, together with the World 

Conservation Union (IUCN), held a meeting in Gland, Switzerland, to discuss a 

recently completed World Bank study of fi fty Bank-funded dams.6 Participants7

agreed that an independent commission should review the “performance of 

large dams and set guidelines for the future.”8 After subsequent meetings, the 

result was the recommendation that the World Bank and World Conservation 

Union create, by November 1997, a World Commission on Dams (WCD) which 

would work (following a fi ve month preparation period) for two years.9

 It would 

function under two “overarching goals.” First “to review the development 

effectiveness of dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy 

development,” and second “to develop internationally-accepted standards, 

guidelines and criteria for decision making in the planning, design, construction, 

monitoring, operation, and decommissioning of dams.”10 These goals were 

elaborated in six objectives:

1. To assess the experience with existing, new and proposed large 

dam projects so as to improve (existing) practices and social 

and environmental conditions.

2. To develop decisionmaking criteria and policy and regulatory 

frameworks for assessing alternatives for energy and water 

resources development.

3. To evaluate the development effectiveness of large dams.

4. To develop and promote internationally acceptable standards 

for planning, assessment, design, construction, operation, and 

monitoring of large dam projects and, if the dams are built, 

ensure affected peoples are better off.

5. To identify the implications for institutional, policy and 

fi nancial arrangements so that benefi ts, costs and risks are 

equitably shared at the global, national and local levels.

6. To recommend interim modifi cations—where necessary—of 

existing policies and guidelines, and promote “best practices.”11

 The planners and stakeholders immediately recognized a few signifi cant 

problems. First, they needed to insure objectivity and second, they needed to 

involve representatives of all “stakeholders” in each aspect of the work.12
803

To that end, they recommended an independent commission composed of a 

chair and eleven commissioners with a “secretariat” appointed by the chair. In 

addition to the goals and objectives, the fi nal report of the WCD was to include 

“recommendations on policies, standards, guidelines, best practices and codes 

of conduct” as well as an “understanding of the accuracy of predictions of costs 

and benefi ts used in the dam planning process and of their overall development 

effectiveness and the need for restoration and reparation where necessary.”13

A third problem was the fact that every dam, regardless of size, is unique in 

its technical confi guration, its effects, and its economic and social/cultural 

surroundings. The planners recognized that drawing meaningful conclusions 

from many different and distinct sources and studies would be a formidable task.

 Finally, there was the problem of paying for the study. The World Bank 

agreed to arrange funding in the amount of just under ten million dollars. By 

June 2000 fi fty-one contributors had pledged more than seventy-fi ve percent of 

that amount.14 Signifi cant contributions came from the governments of Germany, 

Norway, Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Japan, South 

Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

 Guidelines for selection of the commissioners included the need 

for eminent persons with appropriate expertise and experience, objectivity, 

and integrity, and independence with the ability to represent the diversity 

of stakeholders and their points of view including various affected regions, 

communities, and both public and private sectors.15 Selected as Chair of the 

WCD was Professor Kader Asmal of South Africa (Minister of Water Affairs and 

Forestry).16 Vice-Chair was Lakshmi Chand Jain of India (High Commissioner 

to South Africa). The remaining commissioners were Donald J. Blackmore of 

Australia (Chief Executive, Murray-Darling Basin Commission), Joji Cariño of 

the Philippines (Executive Secretary, International Alliance of Indigenous-Tribal 

People of the Tropical Forest based in London), José Goldemberg of Brazil 

(Professor and Director of the Institute for Electro-technical Energy, University 

of São Paulo), Judy Henderson of Australia (Chair, Oxfam International), Gran 

Lindahl of Sweden (President and CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.—a 

global engineering fi rm), Deborah Moore of the United States (Senior Scientist, 

Environmental Defense Fund), Medha Patkar of India (Founder, Struggle to Save 

the Narmda River), Thayer Scudder of the United States (Professor, California 

Institute of Technology), Jan Veltrop of Norway (Harza Engineering Company 

and Chairman of the United States Committee on Large Dams), Shen Guoyi of the 

People’s Republic of China (Director General of the Department of International 

Cooperation in the Ministry of Water Resources), and Achim Steiner as SecretaryGeneral and ex-offi cio Commissioner.17

 On 16 February 1998 in Cape Town, South Africa, Professor Asmal 

offi cially launched the World Commission on Dams with an address to 

its commissioners, members of the press, and other interested parties. He 

emphasized the diversity of the commissioners and the unanimity fi nally achieved 
804

by the stakeholders in their selection—this apparently after some diffi culty and 

disagreements. He emphasized the overarching goals for the WCD and added, 

At a time when dam building is increasing in some countries, in 

others, dams are already reaching the end of their useful lives. Clearly 

consideration may have to be given to the mechanisms, both with 

existing dams and those being contemplated, for the effective and 

effi cient decommissioning of dams. Indeed this reality now confronts the 

owners of a number of large dams in the United States.18

 The WCD hosted the fi rst of its many public meetings on 21 and 22 

September 1998 in Bhopal, India. That meeting focused on “Large Dams and 

Development in South Asia: Experiences and Lessons Learned.”19 Seemingly 

having had a successful beginning, the Commission went on to a variety of large 

and smaller meetings during which announcements identifi ed the representative 

large dams that it would study in depth. Specifi cally, the Commissioners 

identifi ed seven individual large dams and river basins for detailed case studies. 

These were the Tucurui Dam and Amazon/Tocantins River in Brazil, the Glomma 

Dam and Lagen River Basin in Norway, the Tarbela Dam and Indus River Basin 

in Pakistan, the Pak Mun Dam and Mekong/Mun River Basins in Thailand, the 

Aslantas Dam and Ceyhan River Basin in Turkey, the Kariba Dam and Zambezi 

River Basin in Zambia/Zimbabwe, and the Grand Coulee Dam (GCD) and 

Columbia Basin Project (CBP) and the Columbia River Basin in the United 

States. In addition, the WCD would complete country reviews of China and 

India. A pilot study would fi rst be done on the Gariep/Van der Kloof Dams and 

Orange River in South Africa.20

 For each individual case study, the following questions were to be 

addressed:

1. What were the projected versus actual benefi ts, costs, and 

impacts of the dam?

2. What were the unexpected benefi ts, costs, and impacts?

3. What was the distribution of costs and benefi ts—who gained 

and who lost?

4. How were decisions made?

5. Did the project comply with the criteria and guidelines of the 

day?

6. What were the lessons learned?

Questions three and six were of greatest signifi cance.
805

 In addition to the seven in-depth studies, the WCD announced that it 

would also do a limited analysis of an additional 150 dams using existing data 

from as many sources as possible. The WCD urged interested parties to make 

contact with specifi c study groups to contribute information and views.

 For the following two year period, the WCD established subgroups that 

began the indicated studies. Commissioners and designated group leaders held 

extensive meetings and workshops to that end, adhering as much as possible 

to its “multistakeholder process”—that is, involving representatives of every 

identifi able aspect connected with that specifi c project.21 It is not the purpose of 

this paper to explore all of those studies but rather to focus specifi cally on the 

Grand Coulee Dam study and its fi ndings. Some attention, however, will be given 

to the fi nal report since the Grand Coulee study contributed to it.

 The WCD announced that selection of Grand Coulee Dam for study was 

based on the dam’s size and because of the ongoing debate about its positive and 

negative impacts. The WCD added that Grand Coulee Dam was also of vital 

interest since it is a mature dam in a mature democracy where debates about relicensing, decommissioning, protection of endangered species, and recreational 

demands on water resources are more advanced than elsewhere in the world.22

 WCD senior advisors Sanjeev Khangram and Jamie Skinner traveled to 

Seattle, Washington, in February 1999 to begin work on the Grand Coulee study. 

To guide and complete the study, the advisors selected Dr. Leonard Ortolano of 

the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Stanford University. 

Assisting Ortolano was Dr. Katherine Kao Cushing from the University of 

California at Berkeley.23

 On 20 May 1999 fi fty-six stakeholders met with Ortolano, Cushing, 

Commissioner Jan Veltrop, and WCD Senior Advisor Sanjeev Khagram (an 

assistant professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government 

at Harvard University) at Cavanaugh’s Inn at the Park in Spokane, Washington. 

The stakeholders represented government agencies, farmers, industry, and Native 

Americans. Most of those attending were from the United States but there was 

some representation from Canada. The meeting was at times contentious as 

various stakeholders had strongly held views and agendas. Some feared that 

the whole thing was an attempt by environmentalists to remove more dams—

specifi cally Grand Coulee Dam. In fact, a column in the Davenport Times of 

Spokane had called the Commission an “upstart group of pseudo scientists” 

who would “come down on the side of removing, abandoning or breaching 

the mighty Grand Coulee Dam.”24 Columbia Basin Project farmers wanted to 

redress decades-old grievances concerning cost of the water delivered to them 

and their desire to expand the project. Native Americans were anxious to discuss 

their cultural losses resulting from dam construction. Regional politicians were 

disturbed at the prospect of somehow losing local control. Some questioned the 

origins of funding for the WCD, wondering who was behind the study and to what 
806

end? Bureau of Reclamation Public Affairs Offi cer Craig Sprankle reported later 

that after listening to Professor Ortolano and looking at and commenting on the 

issues and questions to be studied, there was less suspicion.25

 Antagonisms between project farmers and others involved with irrigation 

projects is an on-going saga. Farmers, who often pressured the government 

to build dams and irrigation facilities, later complained bitterly about the cost 

of the water. Such had been the case on the Columbia Basin Project. Early 

on in the project’s history, many farmers balked at land ownership restrictions 

and withdrew from the project. In the late 1950s and early 1960s farmers and 

the Bureau of Reclamation carried on an especially acrimonious debate about 

renegotiation of costs. The need to raise charges stemmed to some degree from 

high unanticipated costs needed to install drainage facilities.26 Easing of land 

ownership restrictions during the Reagan years has led farmers to want project 

expansion, but they balked at the anticipated cost which in the 1990s was 

estimated at about two billion dollars.

 In the 1990s the Bureau of Reclamation conducted two environmental 

impact studies concerning project expansion and concluded that it was not 

practical at that time.27 Area farmers dispute the fi ndings and challenge fi gures—

especially the allocation of moneys collected from the sale of power generated 

at the dam.28 Many of the “old-timers” remember promises made in the 1920s 

and 1930s that the water would actually be free, and that power sales would pay 

all of the costs.29 All of the deeply held opinions among the participants made it 

diffi cult for participants to achieve consensus.

 The purpose of the Spokane meeting was to draft a scoping paper 

delineating the issues to be addressed within the framework of the case study 

procedure. Eventually the stakeholders divided into breakout groups and 

addressed the task. Under the headings of Irrigation, Hydropower, Flood Control, 

Project-Affected People, Ecosystems/Anadromous Fish, Recreation, Distribution 

of Benefi ts and Costs, and Basin-Wide Issues, the participants identifi ed 114 

issues. These were later arranged into three categories:

• Issues to be addressed in the study

• Interesting background information, and 

• Issues of less direct relevance

Forty-three issues were listed as primary for the study, fi fty-eight were 

background information, and eleven were of less direct relevance.30

 The WCD Grand Coulee team also held a meeting on 4 October 1999 

in Castlegar, British Columbia, Canada, to gather additional input. Seventeen 
807

stakeholders attended representing BC Hydro, Canadian First Nations, and others. 

They discussed and added to the results of the Spokane meeting.

 In the area of irrigation, the stakeholders directed Ortolano to concentrate 

on technological changes since the start of the project—specifi cally increased 

effi ciency, altered attitudes concerning the environment (with emphasis on fi sh, 

waterfowl, and groundwater quality), and factors obstructing expansion of the 

project. Concerning hydropower, the stakeholders urged focus on distribution 

of low-cost benefi ts (specifi cally, the stakeholders pointed out that availability of 

low-cost power in the region had drawn new industry creating a growing market 

for power which was resulting in increased costs to all including farmers). There 

were no concerns aimed at fl ood control. In the category of project-affected 

people, stakeholders directed the WCD team to detail the “displacement” of 

Native Americans, reparations for such displacements, disruption to their cultural 

lives, and destruction of such culturally signifi cant items as burial sites. With 

ecosystems and anadromous fi sh, there was a range of opinions. In general, the 

stakeholders urged consideration of impacts of Grand Coulee Dam on native 

species as well as those introduced to mitigate anticipated damage. Concerning 

recreation, confl ict between the need for occasional drawdowns of Franklin D. 

Roosevelt Lake and the desires of locals for consistent lake levels drew attention. 

Distribution of benefi ts and costs led the stakeholders to urge reexamination of 

the “relationship between hydropower revenues and cost of providing irrigation 

works and water.” In addition, stakeholders pointed to the Columbia Basin Treaty 

between the United States and Canada, and wondered, “Who pays for what? 

Who benefi ts and who loses?” Finally, under basinwide issues, the Canadian 

stakeholders felt that “. . . basin-wide management system, in some instances, led 

to a transfer of benefi ts from Canada to the U.S. (For example, there used to be 

orchards upstream, now there are none. But there are orchards downstream).” In 

short, the stakeholders urged the WCD committee to explore fully the Columbia 

Basin Treaty.31

 It is signifi cant to speculate, at this point, that the comments of the 

stakeholders and the degree to which at least some of them pursued their 

individual agendas rested on a measure of misunderstanding on their part about 

the nature and authority of the World Commission on Dams. Although none of 

the stakeholders said as much at the Spokane meeting, or at any other meeting, 

there was in their comments an implication that they felt the WCD had the 

power and authority to redress their grievances. Lost was full appreciation of the 

WCD’s charge to examine the dams in question only with the hope of presenting 

information about past experiences and develop guidelines for future large dam 

development elsewhere. At no time did the WCD studies intend to infl uence 

existing conditions nor did it have the authority to correct problems and injustices 

however lamentable.32

 Based on their study so far and the results of the Spokane meeting, in June 

1999, Ortolano and Cushing issued their scoping report for the 
808

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project case study.33 It presented a précis 

that would act as the guide for the eventual fi nal report. Divided into eight major 

sections, that fi nal report would contain an introduction explaining the study and 

naming the participants, an overview of the nature of the Columbia Basin Project, 

historical analysis of the project’s development, discussion of costs and benefi ts 

including unexpected impacts, a look at distribution of those costs and benefi ts, 

analysis of consistency with planning criteria and norms, basinwide linkages, 

and fi nally, an assessment of development effectiveness and lessons learned. The 

lessons learned would be the heart of the fi ndings and the most signifi cant section 

that would move on into the WCD’s overall fi nal report.

 Over the next six months, Ortolano and his team gathered information, 

conducted interviews, drew together detailed background and historical studies 

and essays, and began to formulate their fi nal report. Early in December 1999, 

the team released a circulation draft of the proposed fi nal report.34 At over four 

hundred pages, the draft report contained detailed histories, charts, maps, and 

other fi ndings including analysis of interviews and conclusions based on the data. 

Copies of the draft circulated among the stakeholders who were then invited to a 

fi nal meeting. 

 That all-day meeting was held at the Benson Hotel in Portland, Oregon, 

on 13 January 2000. Thirty-four persons attended—somewhat fewer than 

anticipated.35 Twenty-six were stakeholders; two of the others were WCD 

Commissioners Jan Veltrop and Deborah Moore, two observers came from 

the World Resources Institute and Harvard University (both of which were 

conducting independent investigations of the WCD process), representing the 

WCD was Senior Advisor Jamie Skinner, and the others were in some way part of 

the Grand Coulee study team.36

 After introductions and statements by Commissioners Veltrop and Moore, 

Professor Ortolano presented the study’s main fi ndings. He recited a brief 

history of the project and detailed its benefi ciaries and major cost-bearers. To no 

one’s surprise, he listed the benefi ciaries, in order of signifi cance, as Columbia 

Basin Project farmers or irrigators, Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers, 

downstream residents and businesses, recreators and recreation-related commerce, 

and United States residents in the Northwestern states, and Canada.37 Major 

cost-bearers were, in order of signifi cance, Native American and First Nations 

Tribes, environmentalists and environmental non-governmental organizations, 

commercial fi shermen, sport fi shermen, non-Native Americans forced to resettle, 

United States taxpayers, Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers, some 

United States farmers outside the project area, and Canada.38

 At fi rst glance, it appears odd that Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 

ratepayers appeared on both lists. Grand Coulee Dam is a key component of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System which supplies seventy-fi ve percent of 

the power in the region at costs well below the national average. Direct Service 
809

Industries and large industrial customers benefi t from even more generous rates. 

On the other hand, the rates could be lower. BPA ratepayers also underwrite 

irrigation, fi sh mitigation programs, and programs to enhance and recover 

endangered anadromous fi sh populations. In the area of irrigation, ratepayers 

cover eighty-seven percent of the irrigators’ construction costs—a sizable 

subsidy which accounts, in large part, for irrigation being the fi rst item among the 

benefi ciaries. In fact, there was nearly unanimous agreement among interviewed 

stakeholders that the irrigating farmers were the prime benefi ciaries of the project. 

BPA ratepayers would pay even less if they did not subsidize irrigation and fi sh 

protection. Hence they both benefi t and at the same time, bear some of the costs 

of the project.

 Despite the extensive benefi ts received by farmers, following in the 

tradition of their physiocrat predecessors, representatives of the irrigation districts 

felt the study should refl ect what the farmers pay rather than what they do not pay. 

For example, they pay for Operation and Management and equipment 

replacement. The subsidy irrigators receive is only for construction. 

Irrigation district representatives felt there was no power subsidy because 

they pay for primary and secondary pumping costs “at cost.” Professor 

Ortolano responded by saying that what the farmers pay does not refl ect 

the value of power in the open market. The irrigators voiced their 

objection to the use of the term subsidy.39

At no time did anyone point out that without the government underwriting 

the project and the income from the sale of electricity, the cost to farmers 

to compensate for the water they receive would be both astronomical and 

prohibitive.

 Native American representatives felt that modern tribal economies 

and the project’s effects on them were not adequately covered in the report. 

Representatives of the Colville Confederated Tribes agreed to supply Ortolano 

with additional information detailing specifi c losses resulting from construction of 

the dam, the reservoir, and the irrigation project.

 Stakeholders were then each asked to fi ll out a form dealing with the eight 

“lessons learned,” that appeared in section eight of the draft study. Each could 

indicate strong agreement (sa), agreement (a), no view (nv), disagreement (d), or 

strong disagreement (sd).

 Briefl y stated, the eight lessons and the feedback on them were as follows:

1. An open planning process facilitates identifying and resolving 

confl icts among stakeholders; a closed process serves the opposite 

purpose.

 sa: 7 a: 6 nv: 0 d: 2 sd: 3
810

2. Periodic, planned re-evaluations of project operations provide a 

mechanism for incorporating temporal changes in social values into 

project operations.

 sa: 6 a: 4 nv: 1 d: 2 sd: 5

3. Periodic, planned re-evaluations of project operations provide a 

mechanism for incorporating changes in science and technology into 

project operations.

 sa: 6 a: 5 nv: 0 d: 2 sd: 5

4. While subsidies for water project outputs can accomplish useful social 

policy objectives, they can lead to situations where resources are not used 

in an economically effi cient manner.

 sa: 2 a: 9 nv: 0 d: 4 sd: 3

5. There are limits to government planning in a market-driven, capitalistic 

system.

 sa: 2 a: 9 nv: 2 d: 1 sd: 4

6. In a decentralized resource management decision-making context 

such as the one existing in the Columbia basin, failure of stakeholders to 

coordinate can lead to major institutional failures.

 sa: 1 a: 9 nv: 2 d: 2 sd: 3

7. Decisions that introduce signifi cant irreversible effects should only be 

taken after very careful study.

 sa: 4 a: 7 nv: 1 d: 2 sd: 3

8. Tools for cumulative impact assessment need to be applied to avoid 

resource management problems.

 sa: 6 a: 6 nv: 0 d: 2 sd: 3

 While the minutes of the meeting refl ected the analysis that stakeholders 

mostly agreed with item number one and items fi ve through eight and were split 

on items two through four, it is clear that there was no consensus or general 

agreement and that respondents were ‘all over the board.’ Not all stakeholders 

responded to each lesson, and one stated later that he had disagreed with all 

statements simply because he disagreed with the report in general.

 Discussion of the lessons learned took considerably longer than 

anticipated and consequently, participants did not complete the full agenda. 

Comments included suggestions for an increased list of benefi ciaries.40 Three 

additional lessons learned were suggested:

1. Once you build a project, there will continue to be debate about 

how a project is operated, and a plan should be in place for a process to 

manage these debates about operations.
811

2. In large projects, most of which are multi-purpose, it is possible 

for the various purposes to be in opposition, and even mutually exclusive 

(e.g., foregone power revenues due to irrigation withdrawals).

3. Mechanisms need to be created to address claims by peoples 

adversely affected by projects.

 With all of this in hand, Ortolano and his team prepared the fi nal report 

which they issued in March 2000. It contained eleven lessons learned; three 

(number one, number seven—which became number ten, and number eight—

which became number eleven) remained the same or nearly the same as in the 

preliminary study. Altered were numbers two, three, and fi ve and added were fi ve 

entirely new items. The altered and new items are listed below:

1. Same as #1 above

2. In a multipurpose water project, it is common for project 

purposes (e.g. fl ood control and recreation) to confl ict. Because 

confl icts among various purposes are practically inevitable, a 

process for managing stakeholder contributions to debates on 

project operations should be institutionalized on future projects.

3. (which was changed from #2 above) For future projects, 

periodic, planned re-evaluations can provide a mechanism for 

incorporating temporal changes in social values into project 

operations. To meet social policy objectives, it might be necessary 

to reduce uncertainties for stakeholders whose decisions would be 

infl uenced by results of re-evaluations.

4. (which was changed from #3 above) For future projects, 

periodic, planned re-evaluations provide a mechanism for 

incorporating changes in science and technology into project 

operations. To meet social policy objectives, it might be necessary 

to reduce uncertainties for stakeholders whose decisions would be 

infl uenced by results of re-evaluations.

5. Substantial infl ation-corrected cost overruns in GCD and 

CBP refl ect the uncertainties that surround large construction 

projects. These uncertainties underscore the need for wide-ranging 

sensitivity analyses to ensure that project goals and objectives are 

robust and can be met with available resources. Implicit or indirect 

subsidies need to be evaluated under alternative market conditions 

to ensure that the subsidies are in line with the project’s social 

objectives.
812

6. Stakeholders and planners involved in an open planning 

process need to work with a common conceptual framework and 

vocabulary in making formal project appraisals. Of particular 

importance is the distinction between private and social (economywide) perspectives. Failure to develop a shared conceptual 

framework and vocabulary can lead to unnecessary acrimony.

7. In large water resources projects, those who bear the 

costs may not receive many benefi ts. Therefore, mechanisms 

for ensuring just compensation are important. In a project that 

has impacts that cross international borders, the usual forums for 

allowing parties to make compensation claims—for example, 

the judicial system in the U.S.—may not be satisfactory, and 

alternative forums should be considered. Alternative dispute 

resolution mechanisms may also be able to speed up the 

settlements of claims normally brought using the court system.

8. (Which was changed from #5 above) Limits exist on the 

extent to which government plans can be implemented effectively 

in a market-driven capitalistic economy.

9. In designing institutions for river basin management, 

centralization, and decentralization each have their advantages and 

disadvantages.

10. Same as #7 above.

11. Same as #8 above.41

 The report altered a bit the list of benefi ciaries and cost bearers and 

concluded that the major benefi ciaries of the Columbia Basin Project (CBP) 

were/are, in descending order, the local irrigators and agribusiness people, 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rate payers (including public utility 

districts [PUD]), downstream residents, people using the area for recreation, the 

general economy of the Northwestern United States, and British Columbia Hydro 

ratepayers. On the distaff side, the cost bearers in descending order were/are 

United States and Canadian native peoples, persons concerned with maintaining 

ecosystem integrity, commercial fi shing interests in the United States and Canada, 

sports fi shing interests, non-Native peoples who were forced to relocate, United 

States taxpayers, some United States farmers outside of the CBP area, and some 

upstream residents and businesses.42

 No project in American history had been as completely and thoroughly 

studied prior to its construction as was the Columbia Basin Project. Through 

the 1920s numerous investigations looked into the various plans to irrigate the 

Columbia Basin with the defi nitive report completed by the Army Corps of 
813

Engineers in 1932; the so-called 

Butler Report or 308 Report.43

That report established the 

“grand plan” for development 

of the Columbia River, a 

blueprint largely followed 

through subsequent decades. It 

fi nally established the physical, 

if not the economic viability 

of Grand Coulee Dam and the 

Columbia Basin Project. In the 

1940s, Harlan Barrows of the 

University of Chicago investigated 

twenty-eight potential problems that 

would guide the development of 

irrigation using water from behind 

Grand Coulee Dam. Barrows, who 

had been instrumental in planning for 

the Tennessee Valley Authority, took 

four years and used over three hundred 

people to scrutinize every aspect of the project then imaginable with the hope 

of yielding a planned and orderly development free from signifi cant diffi culties. 

The resulting Columbia Basin Joint Investigations (CBJI) fi lled many books and 

acted as the guide for building not only the irrigation works, but also planned 

communities, industry, and laid out the whole economic and physical strategy for 

the area.44 The overarching ideal was to create a “planned promised land” where 

the economy and the environment were controlled eliminating both fi nancial 

depression and drought. A holdover from the New Deal, the concept of planning 

would have been applied as fully as possible.45

 Repeatedly, the fi ndings of the WCD report indicate the failures of 

particularly the Joint Investigations.46 For example, farmers were scheduled to 

repay fi fty percent of the cost of irrigation but they actually pay only about ten 

to fi fteen percent. The CBJI dramatically underestimated productivity per acre 

on the project. Crop production in 1998 was $637 million, over twice what had 

been predicted, even with dollar values adjusted for infl ation. The investigations 

projected 80,000 families living in created towns and on something in excess of 

10,000 farms of about 160 acres each. The average farm size now of about fi ve 

hundred acres is much greater than the planners recommended as prodigious 

changes in farm technology have thwarted the goal that would have fostered the 

35.1. Grand Coulee Dam construction in 

1936.

35.2. Grand Coulee Dam in 1948 after 

construction.
814

growth of small family farms and rural communities.47 None of the anticipated 

planned communities/cities have materialized. Farmers tended to locate in 

already existing towns rather than in new communities or on their farms.

 The CBJI did not envision a third powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam or 

any of the large upstream dams that now regulate the fl ow of the Columbia River. 

When dollar values are adjusted for infl ation, the cost of the original and the 

newer power generating facilities at the dam have run about thirty percent higher 

than estimated.48 On the positive side, among other things, the CBJI in no way 

anticipated the atmospheric pollutants avoided through the use of hydroelectric 

power rather than fossil fuel alternatives, a benefi t which has a high value but one 

diffi cult to calculate.

 The WCD report concluded that it would be impossible to assess the 

success or failure of the Grand Coulee Fish Management Project (GCFMP) which 

set a target rate of 36,500 salmon passing up the river to spawn annually. In the 

1930s, over 70,000 fi sh were caught annually by commercial fi sheries alone. 

Nobody knows the total number of fi sh that utilized the river in those days. Today 

there is no viable commercial fi shery as little or no commercial fi shing is allowed. 

This change in conditions renders meaningless any attempts at evaluation.49

 If nothing else, the case of Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin 

Irrigation Project demonstrates the diffi culties encountered in trying to plan a 

large project with multiple and varied impacts existing in a dynamic and rapidly 

changing society. Anticipating the future with its shifting values and goals is 

impossible. This author clearly remembers one of his teachers in the early 1950s 

telling our elementary school class that the large dams on the Columbia River 

were “conservation projects.” Few knowledgeable teachers would make that 

statement today.

 “At the time GCD was planned, assessing ecological effects of proposed 

federal projects was neither a requirement nor a priority.”50 “The state of 

knowledge of ecosystems at the time was such that virtually no consideration 

was given to the maintenance of genetic biodiversity.”51 In addition to the most 

obvious damage to the salmon (anadromous fi sh), the project caused dramatic 

changes in the plant and animal populations of the project area while at the same 

time creating new wetlands and habitat areas. Little of this was anticipated, and 

only minimal care is taken now of the new wildlife areas.

 In the 1930s and 1940s there was no process for including input from the 

Colville and Spokane tribes in any aspect of the decision making process. This 

matter was not addressed for decades and was only somewhat remedied in the 

mid-1990s when the government fi nally reached a settlement with the affected 

peoples.52
815

 Trade-offs also exist between regional development and objectives related 

to equity and the environment. This is clearly shown by the way GCD affected 

indigenous peoples in the upper Columbia River Basin. In the view of many 

Native Americans and members of First Nations in Canada, GCD was nothing 

short of catastrophic. For them, the project had a disastrous effect on their 

culture.53

 The WCD report stresses the need to have all stakeholders involved in 

decision making from the outset, and this is refl ected in the lessons learned listed 

above; especially lesson number one.

 The WCD report gave considerable attention to the economic viability 

of Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project. Because an economic 

effi ciency objective (the condition that economic benefi ts exceed costs) for water 

resources projects developed by Reclamation and the Corps did not come about 

until the late 1930s and early 1940s, this objective had little formal infl uence on 

the planning of GCD and CBP. However, concerns about what would now be 

termed economic effi ciency were raised in the context of GCD and CBP. For 

example, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers both used economic effi ciency arguments to support their opposition 

to the project.54

 The WCD report concludes that due to the need for projects to increase 

employment during the economic depression of the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s 

promise to honor campaign commitments in the Northwest, and the strength 

and effectiveness of local project supporters, concerns about whether or not 

the undertaking would be economically viable were ignored or overridden.

Furthermore, at the time, there was minimal concern, if any, for the feelings 

of and cultural stability of the Native Americans involved. The WCD report 

continues,

...the consensus of the 12 individuals we interviewed representing 

irrigators, PUDs, and local governments in the CBP area was that the 

net positive impacts of GCD and CBP for the region far outweighed the 

costs to Native Americans [sic.]. Such regional development arguments 

frequently ignore the subtleties involved in making arguments related to 

economic effi ciency. Indeed, some of those who trumpet the economic 

signifi cance of the project do not recognize either the failure to pay 

interest on the capital cost of irrigation or the lost power revenues 

associated with providing below-market price energy to pump irrigation 

water as signs of economic ineffi ciency.55

 If judged in terms of only regional development goals, the CBP must 

be considered a success. Indeed, the WCD report admits that the hydroelectric 

facilities have had an overwhelmingly positive benefi t-cost ratio.56 However, there 

have been considerable power cost subsidies to local users such as Public Utility 
816

Districts (PUDs). In other words, had the market price been charged to all, the 

benefi ts would have been even greater. 

 The report’s executive summary concludes,

The regional development objectives of GCD and CBP have, to a 

considerable extent, been achieved. But they have come at a substantial 

cost to the rest of the economy, both in terms of direct construction 

subsidies and in revenues foregone from indirect subsidies in the form of 

below-market energy prices.57

As for the cultural impact of the project, the WCD report states,

There is no calculation procedure that allows a balancing of these 

negative social impacts and cultural losses against the substantial 

regional development benefi ts that the US Northwest has enjoyed as a 

result of GCD and CBP.58

 The report also commented on the irreversible elimination of anadromous 

fi sh runs in the hundreds of miles of habitat upstream from Grand Coulee Dam, 

and the damage done to wild stocks of salmon and steelhead in the mid-Columbia 

River tributaries with the introduction of hatchery and transplanted fi sh. 

 Today, U.S. citizens rely on an open planning process tied to NEPA 

(National Environmental Protection Act) to help decision-makers become aware 

of trade-offs: how much of one objective, such as the quality of the environment, 

must be sacrifi ced when attempting to augment another, such as regional 

development. However, nothing equivalent to NEPA existed in the time that 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his administrators decided to proceed 

with construction of GCD. Moreover, even the open planning prescribed by 

NEPA has limitations. For example the NEPA process does not necessarily 

address the consequences of unequal power among stakeholders, a problem that 

still plagues the anadromous fi sh recovery and recreational jurisdiction issues 

associated with GCD and CBP.59

 Finally, the WCD report summary concludes:

After nearly 60 years of project operations, those who have benefi ted 

from GCD and CBP have, quite naturally, become focused on maintaining 

the advantages they have enjoyed as a result of the project—mainly 

low-cost irrigation water, low-cost electricity, and benefi ts from fl ood 

control and recreation. At the same time, groups that were disadvantaged 

by the project (i.e., Native Americans and First Nations) are continuing 

their struggles to obtain compensation for what they perceive as broken 

promises and grave injustices of the past. It is possible that individuals 

who gain or lose from future water resources projects will be just as 

tenacious in defending their gains or seeking compensation for their 

losses many years after basic project decisions have been made.60
817

 The overriding objective of the WCD was to provide guidance for future 

large dam projects. The preceding quote was aimed toward that end, and it 

provides a convenient segue into comments about the completed fi nal overall 

report of the WCD which would assess and meld the fi ndings of all of the regional 

studies including the GCD and CBP study.

 With some fanfare, Nelson Mandela and the WCD Commissioners 

unveiled the fi nal report at a luncheon held in London on 16 November 2000. 

Over three hundred invited dignitaries attended including World Bank President 

James D. Wolfensohn and World Conservation Union Director General, Maritta 

von Bieberstein Koch-Weser.61 That report incorporated fi ndings of the worldwide 

studies of large dams including those from Grand Coulee Dam.62

 The Final Report found that worldwide sixty to eighty million people 

have been displaced by dams while sixty percent of the world’s rivers have been 

affected by dams and diversions.63 The study found the use of water worldwide to 

be more than twice what it was fi fty years ago. The report listed eight signifi cant 

conclusions:

1. Large dams display a high degree of variability in delivering 

predicted water and electricity services—and related social 

benefi ts—with a considerable portion falling short of physical 

and economic targets, while others continue generating benefi ts 

after 30 to 40 years.

2. Large dams have demonstrated a marked tendency towards 

schedule delays and signifi cant cost overruns.

3. Large dams designed to deliver irrigation services have 

typically fallen short of physical targets, did not recover their 

cost and have been less profi table in economic terms than 

expected.

4. Large hydropower dams tend to perform closer to, but 

still below, targets for power generation, generally meet 

their fi nancial targets but demonstrate variable economic 

performance relative to targets, with a number of notable 

under- and over-performers.

5. Large dams generally have a range of extensive impacts on 

rivers, watersheds and aquatic ecosystems—these impacts are 

more negative than positive and, in many cases, have led to 

irreversible loss of species and ecosystems.

6. Efforts to date to counter the ecosystem impacts of large dams 

have met with limited success owing to the lack of attention 
818

to anticipating and avoiding impacts, the poor quality and 

uncertainty of predictions, the diffi culty of coping with all 

impacts, and the only partial implementation and success of 

mitigation measures.

7. Pervasive and systematic failure to assess the range of 

potential negative impacts and implement adequate mitigation, 

resettlement and development programmes for the displaced, 

and the failure to account for the consequences of large dams 

for downstream livelihoods have led to the impoverishment 

and suffering of millions, giving rise to growing opposition to 

dams by affected communities worldwide.

8. Since the environment and social costs of large dams have been 

poorly accounted for in economic terms, the true profi tability 

of these schemes remains elusive.64

 The report continued, 

...the WCD Global Review documents a frequent failure to recognize 

affected people and empower them to participate in the process. As the 

Global Review of dams makes clear, improving development outcomes 

in the future requires a substantially expanded basis for deciding on 

proposed water and energy development projects.65

 The report made recommendations and commented,

Social, environmental, governance and compliance aspects have 

been undervalued in decision-making in the past. It is here that the 

Commission has developed criteria and guidelines to innovate and 

improve on the body of knowledge on good practices and add value to 

guidelines already in common use. Seen in conjunction with existing 

decision-support instruments, the Commission’s criteria and guidelines 

provide a new direction for appropriate and sustainable development.

Bringing about this change will require:

• planners to identify stakeholders through a process that 

recognizes rights and assesses risks;

• States to invest more at an earlier stage to screen out 

inappropriate projects and facilitate integration across sectors 

within the context of the river basin; 

• consultants and agencies to ensure outcomes from feasibility 

studies are socially and environmentally acceptable;
819

• the promotion of open and meaningful participation at all 

stages of planning and implementation, leading to negotiated 

outcomes;

• developers to accept accountability through contractual 

commitments for effectively mitigating social and 

environmental impacts;

• improving compliance through independent review; and,

• dam owners to apply lessons learned from past experiences 

through regular monitoring and adapting to changing needs and 

contexts.66

 The WCD congratulated itself by pointing out that it had conducted 

“the fi rst comprehensive global and independent review of the performance 

of essential aspects of dams and their contribution to development.”67 But the 

recommendations, while commendable, are somewhat utopian. It is clear that 

consideration of all “stakeholders” in the decisions affecting any given large dam 

would have meant that few, if any, would ever have been built. Identifi cation of 

stakeholders itself presents a problem. In the 1930s, at the time of Grand Coulee 

Dam construction, for example, who could have predicted the advances in power 

transmission that would make the entire trans-Rockies West a market for the 

dam’s electricity? And if that had been anticipated, would (or should) power 

interests in California or Nevada have been allowed the same input as those in 

Oregon and Washington? This is a question of particular signifi cance at this 

writing (March 2001) as power shortages and brown-outs plague California.

 When a government agency implements its act of “taking” through 

eminent domain, not many feel adequately compensated, and changes in lifestyle 

or culture are beyond replacement or adjustment. All large dams have involved 

tradeoffs, and in most cases, the power of government and/or industry have 

overshadowed the desires of those adversely affected. There is little reason 

to believe that this will not continue, and in fact, it continues today with the 

formidable Three Gorges Project on the Yangtze River in China where over 

a million people have been displaced. Where the environment is concerned, 

when and where push comes to shove, the demand for power, for example, will 

undoubtedly overshadow environmental damage. Few Americans are willing to 

keep their homes cooler in winter, do without air conditioning in summer, and 

eliminate use of other electrical conveniences.

 The studies by the World Commission on Dams were a prodigious and 

laudable undertaking. Their main contribution may be amassing and assembling 

information about dams, their histories, and their problems all in one place.

Few, if any, of the fi ndings are new or startling. The report, like the fi nal report 
820

on Grand Coulee Dam, while acknowledging past goals and how they have 

changed, clearly refl ects and emphasizes the values and concerns of the late 1990s 

industrialized countries and not those of the times when the various dams were 

built or the conditions under which they were built. The recommendations are 

praiseworthy, but only time will tell if they have any signifi cant impact.

Paul C. Pitzer has published several articles and Grand Coulee: 

Harnessing a Dream (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 

1994). He has recently retired from teaching American history in the 

Portland, Oregon, area, and he served as a consultant to the World 

Commission on Dams (WCD). Dr. Pitzer contributed four annexes, 

or appendices, to: World Commission on Dams, WCD Case Studies: 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project, USA, circulation draft, 

December 1999 found at http://www.dams.org and in hard copy in the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s library at the Denver Federal Center. 

Endnotes

1. The Large Dams Debate, http://www.dams.org/about/debate.htm. The International 

Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) estimates that there are in excess of 20,000 dams in China 

alone. See the Web Page of the World Commission on Dams: Dam Facts and Statistics; http://

www.dams.org/consult_region_esea_stats.asp. Note that the extensive and detailed web pages of 

the World Commission on Dams form the primary source for this paper along with printed copies 

of the Commission’s reports and the personal experiences of this author working on some of those 

reports. As web pages are fl uid and often changing things. Some of the addresses listed in notes 

below may no longer be functioning. This author has printed copies of all web pages cited. To 

start with the main page of the WCD, go to http://www.dams.org Note that spellings in all WCD 

documents (including where such are cited in this paper) conform to British spellings.

2. World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for 

Decision-Making, The Report of the World Commission on Dams, (London: Earthscan 

Publications, Ltd. November 2000), Executive Summery, p. xxviii. Examples of such studies 

would include: Murray Morgan, The Dam (New York: Viking Press, 1954); Joseph E. Stevens, 

Hoover Dam: An American Adventure (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988); 

Russell Martin, A Story That Stands Like a Dam: Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul of the 

West (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1989.)

3. “The Large Dams Debate,” http://www.dams.org/about/debate.htm.

4. Social, economic, and environmental problems resulting from dam construction led the 

World Bank to consider ending funding for dam construction and switch emphasis to coal as a 

source of power. The problems from burning of fossil fuels led to a renewed interest in dams. See 

WCD in the Media, 19 April 1997, http://www.dams.org/MediaItem.asp?item=46.

5. The Mandate of the World Commission on Dams; http://www.dams.org/mandate.asp. 

For a list of participants in the Gland, Switzerland workshop, see: Commission World Dams1, 

http://www.cwra.org/news/arts/tonydam1.htm.

6. Participants included the Institute of Hydrology, United Kingdom; Tata Energy 

Research Institute, India; Institute of Population Resources, China; ISAGEN, Columbia; 

Tropical Environmental Cons. Ltd., Senegal; Intermediate Technology Development Group, 

United Kingdom; Volta River Authority, Ghana; Harza Engineering Company, USA; Lesotho 

Highlands Water Project, Lesotho; Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens, Brazil; Alliance 

for Energy, Nepal; Electricite de France, France; International Commission on Irrigation and 

Drainage; Ministry of Water Resources, China; Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), Switzerland; 

International Finance Corporation; Berne Declaration, Switzerland; Narmada Bachao Andolan 

(NBA), India; Nam Theun 2 Electricity Consortium (NTEC), Laos; International Rivers Network, 

USA; Laymeyer International, Germany; California Institute of Technology, USA; International 
821

Commission on Large Dams; Electrowatt Engineering Ltd, Switzerland; The World Bank; 

IUCH-The World Conservation Union, Switzerland and Laos. World Commission on Dams 

Overview Http://www.dams.org/overview.asp. Also see Press Release for 11 April 1997, 

http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=42.

7. The Mandate of the World Commission on Dams; http://www.dams.org/mandate.asp.

8. The initial goal was for the World Commission on Dams to start work in June 1998 and 

fi le its fi nal report in June 2000. With some delays, the fi nal report, discussed below, was issued 

November 16, 2000.

9. The Mandate of the World Commission on Dams; http://www.dams.org/mandate.asp.

10. World Commission on Dams Overview Http://www.dams.org/overview.asp

11. A ‘Stakeholder’ is any person or group that has some interest in or can be in any way 

affected by a project or undertaking. For creation of the WCD, the World Bank and World 

Conservation Union identifi ed fi fty stakeholders who guided selection of the Commissioners.

12. World Commission on Dams Overview Http://www.dams.org/overview.asp.

13. Contributors included Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 

(Sida); Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; The World Bank; Deutsche Gesellschaft für 

Technische Zusammen Arbeit (GTZ); Siemens; Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KFW); South 

African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; Harza Engineering; The Government of 

the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Water Resources; German Federal Ministry of 

Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ); Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Enron; 

Hydro Quebec; Ministry of Finance - Japan; National Wildlife Federation; Swiss Agency for 

Development and Cooperation (SDC); World Wildlife Fund; Canadian International Development 

Agency; United Kingdom Department for International Development; Charles Steward Mott 

Foundation; Bureau of Reclamation, United States; Coyne et Bellier; Atlas Copco (USA); Berne 

Declaration; Skanska; Republic of Ireland; United Nations Foundation; Goldman Environmental 

Fund; United Nations Environment Programme; AusAID, The Australian Government’s Overseas 

Aid Programme; Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken-The Netherlands; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Finland. Funding and Finances, http://www.dams.org/about/funding.htm.

14. The Commissioners, http://www.dams.org/about/commissioners.htm.

15. For additional information on Professor Kader Asmal, see WCD Press Releases 24 

September 1997, http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=41.

16. The Commissioners, http://www.dams.org/about/commissioners.htm, and http://www.

dams.org/comm.asp. It is signifi cant to note that all of the commissioners had multi-national 

experiences in their professional lives. Selections of some commissioners and of the vicechair were complicated by controversy and disagreements among the stakeholders. HistoryCommission Launch, http://www.dams.org/launch.asp.

17. History: Commission Launch, http://www.dams.org/launch.asp. Also see http://www.

dams.org/press/pressrelease_4.htm.

18. WCD Press Releases, 7 September 1998, http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.

asp?item=37.

19. Focal Dams/River Basin Case Studies, http://www.dams.org/studies/. For individual 

press releases announcing WCD studies, see WCD Press Releases, 29 January 1999 (Tarbela 

Dam) http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=67; WCD Press Releases, 21 February 

1999 (Grand Coulee Dam), http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=68; WCD Press 

Releases, 18 March 1999 (Tucurui Dam), http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=71, 

WCD Press Releases, 20 March 1999 (Pak Mun Dam), http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.

asp?item=21, WCD Press Releases, 20 March 1999 (Kariba Dam), http://www.dams.org/

PressReleaseItem.asp, WCD Press Releases, 14 June 1999 (Gloma and Lagen River Basin) http://

www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=77, Dams Newsletter No. 2, March 1999, http://www.

dams.org/newsletter2_studies.asp.

20. Anthony H. J. Dorcey, “World Commission on Dams: a Unique Multistakeholder 

Process, Agreement and Initiative,” http://www.cwra.org/news/arts/tonydam1.html.

21. WCD Press Releases, 21 February 1999 “World Commission to Study Grand Coulee 

Dam,” http://www.dams.org/PressReleaseItem.asp?item=68.
822

22. Leonard Ortolano and Katherine Cao Cushing, WCD Case Studies: Grand Coulee Dam 

and Columbia Basin Project USA [Final Report], (Vlaeberg, Cape Town, South Africa: World 

Commission on Dams Secretariat, March 2000.) Ortolano and Cushing added additional authors: 

Nicole T. Carter (Stanford University), William Green (CCRITFC - Canadian First Nations), Carl 

Gotsch (Stanford University), Kris May (Stanford University), Tim Newton (B. C. Hydro), Paul 

Pitzer (Beaverton, Oregon), Sophie Pierre (Canadian First Nations), Josh Smienk (Columbia Basin 

Trust), Michael Soules (University of California, Berkeley), Marilyn Watkins (Watkins Historical 

Research—Native Americans), and Harza Engineering (Chicago, Illinois).

23. WCD In the Media, “World Commission Butts Heads With Local Farmers,” 26 May 

1999, http://www.dams.org/MediaItem.asp?Item=23.

24. WCD In the Media, “World Commission Butts Heads With Local Farmers,” 26 May 

1999, http://www.dams.org/MediaItem.asp?Item=23.

25. Paul C. Pitzer. Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream (Pullman, Washington: Washington 

State University Press, 1990), pp. 291-310.

26. CH2MHill, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Continued Development of the 

Columbia Basin Project, Washington” (Boise, Idaho: Bureau of Reclamation, September 1989).

27. It is signifi cant to remember that during the early debates that led to the construction of 

Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, proponents held that the sale of 

electricity generated at the dam would pay for all of the costs of irrigation. Paul Curtis Pitzer, 

“Visions, Plans, and Realties: A History of the Columbia Basin Project,” unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Oregon, 1990, pp. 247-353. A study by the General Accounting 

Offi ce further concluded that expansion of the project would not be economically feasible. See: 

Government Accounting Offi ce, Water Resources: Issues Concerning Expanded Irrigation in the 

Columbia Basin Project. (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce, January 1986).

28. Pitzer. Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream, pp. 26.

29. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report Annexes], pp. A1-1 to A1-12.

30. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report Annexes], pp. A1-1 to A1-12

31. This comment is based on the personal observations of this author who was present at the 

13 January 2000 meeting in Portland, Oregon, which is discussed below.

32. Leonard Ortolano and Katherine Kao Cushing, “Scoping Report for the Grand Coulee 

Dam and Columbia Basin Project Case Study,” World Commission on Dams, 5th Floor, Hycastle 

House, 58 Loop Street, P.O. Box 16002, Vlaeberg, Cape Town, 8018, South Africa, June 1999.

33. Leonard Ortolano and Katherine Kao Cushing, “Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia 

Basin Project USA,” circulation draft: (Cape Town, South Africa: World Commission on Dams, 

December 1999).

34. Bad weather that day may explain why some of the stakeholders missed the meeting.

35. “Meeting Minutes: World Commission on Dams—Grand Coulee and Columbia Basin 

Project Case Study, Second Consultative Meeting,” 13 January 2000, Portland, Oregon, p. 1.

36. Ortolano and Cushing, “Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project,” circulation 

draft, pp. 5-1 to 5-6. Benefi ts to Canada resulted from lower costs for power and because the 

Canadian government used the proceeds from the Columbia River Treaty to build major water 

projects in Canada. Without those benefi ts, the government had anticipated building coal-fi red 

powerplants.

37. Ortolano and Cushing, “Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project USA,” 

circulation draft, pp. 5-1 to 5-6.

38. “Meeting Minutes: World Commission on Dams—Grand Coulee and Columbia Basin 

Project Case Study, Second Consultative Meeting,” 13 January 2000, Portland, Oregon, p. 2.

39. Additional benefi ciaries included hunters on the Columbia Basin Project, contribution to 

Allied forces in World War II, British Columbia Hydro ratepayers, environmental gains due to the 

lack of pollutants since coal-burning power stations are not needed, and environmental gains in the 

various reservoirs and wetlands created. “Meeting Minutes: World Commission on Dams—Grand 

Coulee and Columbia Basin Project Case Study, Second Consultative Meeting,” 13 January 2000, 

Portland, Oregon, p. 7.

40. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report], pages 8-1 to 8-16.
823

41. Note that the major change from the list in the preliminary report was the elimination of 

Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers from the cost-bearer side. Ortolano and Cushing,

WCD Case Studies [Final Report], pages 5-2 to 5-4.

42. Pitzer, Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream, pp. 21-59. A study required by Congress 

in its 1925 Rivers and Harbors Act resulted in a report issued on August 12, 1926, called House 

Document No. 308, 69th Congress, 1st session; it has come to be called the “308 Report” as 

have most subsequent studies done by the government on the Columbia River. The original 

“308 Report” called for an extensive survey of a number of rivers including the Columbia River. 

Congress authorized that study in 1927. Done in two parts, one looked at the river above the 

confl uence with the Snake River and it was supervised by Major John Soule Butler for the Army 

Corps of Engineers. Although Butler completed most of his work by mid-1930, the fi nished report 

was not released to Congress until March 29, 1932, as Columbia River and Minor Tributaries: 

Letter from the Secretary of War Transmitting Pursuant to Section 1 of the River and Harbor Act 

approved January 21, 1927,...Containing a General Plan for the Improvement of the Columbia 

River and Minor Tributaries for the Purposes of Navigation and Effi cient Development of WaterPower, the Control of Floods, and the Needs of Irrigation, 2 Vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, 1933).

43. Pitzer. Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream, pp. 270-1.

44. Richard Lowitt. The New Deal and the West (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University 

Press, 1984), pp. 138-52.

45. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report], March 2000.), ix.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., p. x.

48. Ibid., p. xiii

49. Ibid., p. xii.

50. Ibid., p. xiii.

51. Pitzer. Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream, p 222.

52. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report], p. xxix.

53. Ortolano and Cushing, WCD Case Studies [Final Report], p. xxvii; also 9-3.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., xxix.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., p. xxx.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Press Release, 16 November, 2000, “World Commission on Dams Launches ‘Landmark’ 

Final Report.”, World Commission on Dams, http://www.dams/org/press/pressrelease_73.htm. 

Also see: The Christian Science Monitor, 20 November, 2000, editorial; and The Oregonian,

17 November, 2000, p. A30.

61. Complete reports from all studies are available on the web page of the World 

Commission on Dams (http://www.dams.org). The fi nal report is also available at http://www.

damsreport.org. That site offers information on purchase of a published copy of the fi nal report 

titled Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making - The Report of the World 

Commission on Dams, (Earthscan Publicans Ltd., London and Sterling, Virginia, November 2000).

62. World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development, p. xxx.

63. Ibid., p. xxxi. (Note the use of British spellings throughout the report).

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., p. xxxvi.

66. Ibid., p. xxxvii.

67. “BPA energy crisis may put salmon at risk,” The Oregonian, 19 January 2001, p. 1.

The need to release water from federal dams on the Columbia River to sustain California power 

needs has decreased the reservoir holdings behind those dams making release of water during 

the spring and summer salmon runs problematical. This situation backs this author’s position 

that the demand for power, as it has in the past, will continue to jeopardize and/or overshadow 

environmental considerations. It is signifi cant that as dams in the United States come up for 
824

relicensing, something that happens every fi fty years, environmental groups are attempting to use 

this opportunity to challenge the operations of various dams. At the same time, dam owners and 

government agencies are seeking to expedite and simplify the process in order to complete it more 

quickly.
825

The State of Nature and the Nature of the State:

Imperialism Challenged at Glen Canyon

By:

Kevin Wehr

Abstract

This paper investigates the ways in which the American government has 

built an infrastructure on the landscape of the American West, especially through 

the discursive construction of a particular nature-society relationship. This 

relationship is neither static nor uncontested—as it changes over time, different 

social groups are more and less able to effectively challenge the human domination 

of nature. I wish to situate this paper in relation to both discourses about nature 

(“the state of nature”) and to processes of state building in the American West (“the 

nature of the state”). I examine briefl y the social and historical context of the high 

dams in the West, specifi cally Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams, both built in the 

1930s. I then discuss in more detail the rise of an effective oppositional discourse 

in the late 1950s, centered on the proposal of the Echo Park and Glen Canyon 

Dams. I argue that this period marked the end of the “golden years” of dam 

building, and that this episode represents a signifi cant change in the relationship 

between society and nature. This change is marked by the rise of contestation 

around Glen Canyon Dam, but its emphasis is more on advocating a shift from a 

nature-society relationship based primarily on domination and economic-resource 

maximization to one based in part upon aesthetic and other forms of appreciation.

This opposition at Glen Canyon was, I argue, a challenge and an opportunity for 

the Bureau of Reclamation. In the last 40 years the Bureau has neglected to take 

up this opportunity to improve its relations with nature and environmentalists, as 

shown in the rhetoric surrounding the Centennial celebration at Hoover Dam, in 

June of 2002.

Introduction

 Most of the dams in the West were built during the Progressive Era and 

the New Deal, and consequently refl ect an ideology of rational planning and state 

building based in a faith in scientifi c progress. State-sponsored infrastructure had 

myriad environmental and political effects, but the natural formations1

 that the 

state worked to overcome also had a profound infl uence on how society developed. 

Through an examination of the ways that nature, society, and the state have 

interacted with and mutually constructed one another, this paper will attempt an 

integration of political and environmental sociology.

 The theoretical impetus for this paper is to illuminate the relationship 

between society and nature. The larger theoretical concerns are twofold. First, 

political and environmental sociology have contributed important insights towards 

understanding the ways that culture and politics are linked and the way that society 

and nature are linked, but rarely are these areas integrated. Through an examination 

of dams in the American West, this work makes sense of the ways that a central 

concern of political sociology—state-building—infl uences and is infl uenced by the 
826

nature-society relationship, which is a central concern of environmental sociology. 

Second, there were specifi c social and environmental effects of this state building 

that contributed to a nature-society relationship that dialectically changes over time. 

Since the natural environment is not simply a passive object that the state builds 

upon, historical discourse analysis can help integrate political and environmental 

sociology by contributing to the understanding of the ways that natural conditions 

helped and/or hindered state-building. This paper thus asks the specifi c question: 

what discursive methods were used to justify or contest the building of an economic 

and political infrastructure in response to the perceived water scarcity of the 

American West?

 To address this question, this paper examines the discourse around three 

dams of the American West— Boulder, Grand Coulee, and Glen Canyon: how they 

were presented to the public by the state and how the public received them. The 

physical existence of the dams has no inherent meaning; rather, different social 

groups assign meaning to the dams. The ideology that gives support to the naturesociety relationship that is based in domination is one that I, following James Scott, 

call high modernism. Scott’s work, Seeing Like a State, argues that high modernism 

is a world-view in which the “strong version of the beliefs in scientifi c and technical 

progress that were associated with industrialization in Western Europe and in North 

America from roughly 1830 until World War I” was transcendent. Scott defi nes 

high modernism as a “supreme self-confi dence about continued linear progress, the 

development of scientifi c and technical knowledge, the expansion of production, 

the rational design of social order, the growing satisfaction of human needs, and, 

not least, an increasing control over nature (including human nature) commensurate 

with scientifi c understanding of natural laws.” (Scott, 1998: 89) In this paper I 

argue that the dams of the American West represent an important case study of high 

modernism. This high modernism that was so well-characterized by the proposal 

and construction of Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams, began to crumble in the 

1950s. The rise of an environmentalist discourse allowed a successful contestation 

of the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams in Dinosaur National Monument in Utah.

The Social and Historical Context: Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams

 Intense battles marked the beginnings of the debates, actual construction, and 

even the dedication of Boulder Dam. First proposed by Mark Rose and the Imperial 

Irrigation District in 1911, the dam was fought over by western states, debated by 

farmers, power companies, media moguls, Congress, and Bureau of Reclamation 

engineers. Finally approved in 1928, and constructed from 1931-1935, Boulder 

Dam established the foundation for state-building discourses that were infused with 

the rhetoric of dominating nature and subordinating it to human ends. The Colorado 

River was variously described as a “tyrant,” a “raging river,” and a “natural 

menace.” In order to overcome nature-imposed barriers, the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Congress, and several Presidents of the U.S. acted (sometimes in concert sometimes 

at cross-purposes) to convert the river to a “natural resource.”
827

 This conversion occurred as much through discursive deconstruction and 

reconstruction as it did through the actual building of the dam in the river. The 

discursive construction of the Colorado River as a natural resource contained 

elements of appreciation for nature as a productive force as well as a deprecation 

of nature as “red in tooth and claw.” The discursive construction of the river also 

included strong elements of state-building rhetoric that characterized the river as 

a potentially useful resource, a key element in the building of an empire in the 

American West. Various social groups fought over how this empire was to be 

built—and who would benefi t from the resources. Private capital battled for control 

of the electricity, local farmers and their Congressional delegates fought for water 

rights, and the many Depression Era jobless jockeyed for employment while union 

activists struggled to organize them. At Boulder Dam, the fi rst of the high dams 

in the West, it was the state-sponsored plan that won out at Boulder:2 the federal 

government would put forward the money and the design, private capital would 

contract to build the dam, power would be leased to private utility companies for 

distribution, and through several strikes and work actions the job site would remain 

non-unionized.

 Boulder Dam inaugurated a golden age of dam building in the United States, 

dated loosely from 1930 through 1960. In his journalistic style, Marc Reisner called 

this time “the Go-Go years” (Reisner 1986), while the more academic Lawrence 

Lee calls it the “Second Phase of Reclamation” (Lee 1980). Boulder Dam started 

this period as the fi rst high dam proposed and built explicitly for multiple purposes. 

The legal and technical groundwork established with Boulder Dam determined 

the course of the other large dams; similarly, the social and political maneuvering 

required to construct Boulder Dam informed the discourses around Grand Coulee 

and Glen Canyon.

 High dams in the West were also an outgrowth of the changing sociopolitical landscape. Beyond the geographical and physical variation (Grand Coulee 

in the Pacifi c Northwest versus Boulder and Glen Canyon in the southwestern 

desert), the dams differ in important respects in the discourse pertaining to their 

proposal and construction due to this differing social and political context. Different 

groups boosted or contested each project for different reasons. The discursive 

legitimation of the dams required different techniques in each area. Similarly, the 

solution to political problems of Boulder Dam would set a path for how later dams 

were negotiated.

 Within the discourse around the proposal and construction of Grand Coulee 

Dam, we can hear the echoes of debates over Boulder. Begun just after Boulder 

Dam (1931-36), Grand Coulee (1933-41) benefi ted from popular confi dence in such 

projects, a positive governmental climate towards public works, and technological 

achievements invented at Boulder. Built on the successful legal foundations of 

the Colorado River Compact and other enabling decisions, Grand Coulee was also 

completed by some of the same construction companies and many of the same 

workers who built Boulder. The continuities are certainly strong, but the contrasts 
828

are also important: local boosters, absent at Boulder, were key to the success of 

Grand Coulee Dam.

 The discourses at 

Grand Coulee are both 

competing and overlapping, 

but all were built on 

particular constructions of a 

nature-society relationship 

that enabled human 

domination of the Columbia 

River, exemplifi ed in Woody 

Guthrie’s lyrics “that wild 

and wasted stream.” These 

discourses about nature were 

based in an ideology that 

helped construct the river as 

something to be dominated by humans. The river was seen as a wild entity—but one 

that could nonetheless be harnessed by human endeavor. High modernist discourses 

characterized much of these rhetorical styles used at Grand Coulee. The dam was 

part of an imperialist vision and was to be built by the federal government as part 

of a plan to settle and build up the West. These typical state building goals were, 

under a period of high modernism, implemented using the scientifi c and rational 

engineering techniques that would carry the region, and therefore the nation, along 

the linear path of progress.

 The discourses around Grand Coulee Dam are important in two respects. 

First, as with Boulder, the lack of an oppositional discourse precluded the possibility 

that the dam would not be built. Second, the discourses also expose a set of 

constructions of nature and the nature-society relationship.

 I call the discourses at Grand Coulee 

“imperialistic,” following the terms used 

by the boosters themselves.3

 Imperialistic 

discourses justifi ed the dam in terms of 

building an empire, extending civilization, 

and made special use of ideas such as 

manifest destiny. Different groups used 

this category differently: the national-level 

discussions were centered around a fairly 

pure imperialistic high-modernist discourse, 

while the local proponents fought over 

specifi c proposals for the dam using differing 

styles of imperialistic high modernist 

rhetoric and individualistic capitalist 

rhetoric. While the elite groups used an 

36.1. These U.S. Postage 

stamps of Boulder Dam (1935) 

and Grand Coulee Dam (1952) 

demonstrate the strong interest 

of the government in presenting these iconic structures 

to the American Public, among whom interest was high at 

the time.
829

individualistic capitalist discourse that was suffused with the values of unfettered 

competition and a strong opposition to federal intervention, the local boosters 

argued from a high modernist perspective that valued the interventions of the state in 

building large-scale water systems that could not be achieved by local capital alone. 

It is worth noting that all of these discourses were in favor of some form of the dam, 

none were opposed to building the dam.

 The discourses of the two main adversarial groups precluded any discussion 

of not building a dam. The competition between discourses was instead over 

who would build the dam and what it would look like. Not only did the statesponsored, high-modernist plan win approval, but those who were opposed to a 

state-sponsored plan eventually backed it in order to get their part of the benefi ts. 

Even those one might imagine would protest the dam supported it. Local Indian 

tribes, whose land was inundated by the dam’s reservoir, supported the dam due to 

the promise of water and hydropower benefi ts. Farmers, who faced competition 

if new lands were brought into production, supported the dam due to its cheap 

hydropower. Labor unions, a group that often opposed non-unionized public works, 

supported the project because of the need for jobs. Woody Guthrie, erstwhile 

opponent of government, church, and 

capitalism, supported the dam because 

of jobs, power, and irrigation. Like all 

hegemonic ideologies, high modernism 

was largely successful because it could 

absorb resistance and suppress dissent, but 

rhetorical techniques are not the only ways 

of co-opting dissent of course. Detractors 

were curbed in part by practical and 

political considerations.

 As well as exposing the ability 

of high modernism to absorb resistance, 

the imperialistic discourses also expose a 

particular construction of a nature-society 

relationship. The rhetorical strategies 

employed at Grand Coulee by Rufus 

Woods, James O’Sullivan, and so many 

others portray nature in complex ways, 

but ways that always reveal an attitude of 

domination on the part of humans.

 Woods, for example, declared that 

“Nature” was on the side of the pumping 

plan developers. Nature had provided 

the perfect location, and had even built a 

canal seemingly just for the purposes of 

the human inhabitants of the area. This 

36.2. Rufus Woods was a tireless 

promoter of Grand Coulee Dam and the 

Columbia Basin Project.
830

characterization of nature points to the complexity of the nature-society relationship 

as understood by many of the proponents of Grand Coulee Dam. The dam was at 

once intended by nature, and yet the Columbia River was seen as a mighty force 

that was nearly impossible to subdue. Humans could harness the river, but it would 

take an awesome effort. Nature was clearly an active force in his plan: nature was 

capable of building canals, carving out a reservoir, and providing an ideal dam 

site. This characterization of nature points to the complexity of the nature-society 

relationship as understood by many of the proponents of Grand Coulee Dam. The 

dam was at once intended by nature and yet the Columbia River was seen as a 

mighty force that was nearly impossible to subdue. The gendered character of this 

relationship of domination is inescapable: it is almost as if nature is inviting humans 

(men) to subdue it (her).

 Yet nature was also seen as wild, powerful, and a formidable opponent. 

Much of the imperialistic rhetoric was obsessed with describing the wild power of 

the river, albeit in terms of its potential. The river was characterized as the “wildest 

big stream in the civilized world,” and the attempt to harness it would be nearly 

impossible, “a waste of time an’ money.” Thus nature was also an active force 

as well as one that invited humans to dominate it. What are we to make of this 

complexity and near contradiction? In part, it stems from the contradictory character 

of the discourses used: imperialism implies domination—both of nature and of 

other humans—while locals also tended to see their land as blessed by God, and the 

inhabitants (or immigrants) as a chosen people. Thus nature is simultaneously a 

resistant force that must be overcome as well as a benefi cial force that helps humans 

toward their glory and destiny.

 If the boosters of the dam manipulated interpretations of empirical facts 

regarding nature to make the dam seem blessed (or at least easy to build), then what 

does it matter whether nature is a positive or a negative force, whether imperialistic 

and Hebraic discourses are contradictory? This is to say, in the end the dams were 

built and most of the competing social groups came out ahead. If so, why did the 

competing discourses matter? These competing discourses were all self-interested. 

The imperialistic and Hebraic discourses were both heavily disposed towards a 

society-centered philosophy. In fact, there were no oppositional discourses that 

were not self-interested until the rise of the environmentalist discourse during the 

Glen Canyon debate. Until this powerful environmentalist discourse emerged, there 

was no apparent opposition, or at least no discursive grounds to root opposition in.

Lacking this powerful discursive grounding, the ideology of high modernism was 

transcendent

Harnessing the Colorado: The Bureau’s Grand Plan

 In the late 1940s and early 1950s the Bureau of Reclamation built dams at 

an incredible pace throughout the West. Rivers by the hundreds were dammed for 

single and multiple purposes as the Bureau rode a wave of public and governmental 

approval. This golden age of dam building was overseen by Commissioners of 
831

Reclamation Michael Strauss and Floyd Dominy, who pursued further construction 

with great zeal. One major aim of the Bureau was the total development of the 

upper and lower Colorado.

 In 1946 the Bureau of Reclamation published its plans for this total 

development of the Colorado River. The ponderous title of the document conveys 

the enormity of its contents: The Colorado River: A Comprehensive Report on the 

Development of the Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin for Irrigation, 

Power Production, and Other Benefi cial Uses in Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. (Bureau of Reclamation 1946) This 

report reuses the label given to the Colorado 25 years before when Boulder Dam 

was proposed, the epigram printed on the cover of the report reads: “A natural 

menace becomes a national resource.” This continuity in discourse is important. 

The Bureau, with its comprehensive report, was attempting to continue its successful 

development of the Colorado and the West through what had become standard 

rhetorical techniques. The discourses used at Boulder and Grand Coulee were 

unquestioningly reused to boost the Glen Canyon and Echo Park dams in the upper 

Colorado Basin project.4

 The report outlined a total of 134 projects (including dams, canals, 

diversions, and pumping systems) in the upper and lower Colorado Basin, totaling 

$2,185,442,000. Included in these were proposals for dams at Echo Park, Split 

Mountain, and Glen Canyon. In the report, the Bureau outlines the justifi cations for 

such a massive series of projects:

Future development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin 

is needed to relieve economic distress in local areas, to stabilize highly 

developed agricultural areas, and to create opportunities for agricultural 

and industrial growth and expansion throughout the Colorado River Basin.

(Bureau of Reclamation 1946: 21)

The Bureau used a typical rhetoric of economic progress to justify its proposals.

It emphasized the industrial and agricultural growth that will be spurred by the 

projects, as well as the relief of local economic distress. Such arguments had 

become, by the late 1940’s, standard techniques for legitimation. The Bureau’s new 

projects, however, would be both bigger and, it argued, more benefi cial.

 For example, in their 1946 proposal, the Bureau claimed that the cost to 

benefi t ratio was higher than 1.0. “These benefi ts indicate that a basin-wide plan for 

full development of the water resources could return to the Nation $1.30 for each 

dollar required to construct, maintain, and operate the projects” (ibid. 1946: 18).

 And yet, the Bureau did identify some cause for hesitation. Through a 

careful reading of the document it is clear that the Bureau admits “there is not 

enough water available in the Colorado River system for full expansion of existing 

and authorized projects and for all potential projects outlined in the report” (ibid 

1946: 21). So why did the Bureau propose them if there was not enough water?
832

 The answer may be that the Bureau saw the Colorado River as teetering on 

the brink. With just a small ($2 billion) nudge, the Bureau could knock the Colorado 

into the realm of completely harnessed. The Bureau argued that:

Yesterday the Colorado River was a natural menace. Unharnessed it tore 

through deserts, fl ooded fi elds, and ravaged villages. It drained the water 

from the mountains and plains, rushed it through sun-baked thirsty lands, 

and dumped it into the Pacifi c Ocean—a treasure lost forever. Man was 

on the defensive. He sat helplessly by to watch the Colorado River waste 

itself, or attempted in vain to halt its destruction (ibid. 1946: 25).

The Bureau here was engaged in the discursive construction of the river. The 

river was simultaneously a powerful actor (“a natural menace”) and also an entity 

that was treasured as a potential economic resource. The justifi cation based on an 

imperial modernist ideology of expansion and development by the federal state for 

the utilitarian benefi t of all society was founded in such a rhetorical construction. It 

is no mistake that only “villages” populate the area through which this unharnessed 

resource travels. The state was interested in building up civilization in these areas—

never mind that Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix were already sprawling 

metropolises at the time.

 Man was portrayed as defensive against the active river, but through 

courageous action, the river can be tamed:

Today this mighty river is recognized as a national resource. It is a lifegiver, a power producer, a great constructive force. Although only partly 

harnessed by Boulder Dam and other ingenious structures, the Colorado 

River is doing a gigantic job. Its water is providing opportunities for 

many new homes and for the growing of new crops that help to feed this 

nation and the world. Its power is lighting homes and cities and turning 

the wheels of industry. Its destructive fl oods are being reduced. Its muddy 

waters are being cleared for irrigation and other uses (ibid. 1946: 25).

The river had been tamed and transformed through the benefi cent hand of the state. 

The Colorado now gave life rather than taking it. It had been put to work, had built 

new homes, gardens, and fi elds, contributing to national prosperity. The proper role 

of the river had been achieved, with a little help from humankind. And yet the job 

was not done, according to the Bureau.

 The river was only partially harnessed. Given the terrifi c benefi ts gained 

already, what a shining future the river had before it:

Tomorrow the Colorado River will be utilized to the very last drop. Its 

water will convert thousands of additional acres of sagebrush desert to 

fl ourishing farms and beautiful homes for servicemen, industrial workers, 

and native farmers who seek to build permanently in the West. Its 

terrifying energy will be harnessed completely to do an even bigger job in 

building bulwarks for peace. Here is a job so great in its possibilities that 
833

only a nation of free people have the vision to know that it can be done and 

that it must be done. The Colorado River is their heritage (ibid. 1946: 25).

In this amazing nationalistic passage, the Bureau claimed legitimacy for its 

state-building proposals through the great prosperity to be gained from further 

development. The 134 dams and canals in its proposal were labeled as the heritage 

of past Americans, those free frontiersmen who worked so hard to build upon the 

vision of manifest destiny. The Colorado River remained a “part of America’s 

frontier” (ibid. 1946: 71), the inheritance of all Americans, whom the Bureau 

glowingly called “empire builders” (ibid. 1946: 45).

 The Bureau’s grand plan had many supporters; most prominent was the State 

of Arizona. Offi cials from Arizona used the same discourse of imperial modernism 

to boost Glen Canyon Dam. Arguing that although the dam was long overdue, it 

was required to bring development to their state. In April 1957, for example, Desert

Magazine described the benefi ts to arise from Glen Canyon Dam, using similar 

rhetoric as the Bureau (Murbarger 1957):

When man erects a mighty dam across the Colorado River at Glen Canyon 

. . . a new era will dawn. . . . A city will rise from the desert fl oor; new 

factories will turn their wheels with power from the impounded water.

The building of the dam was hailed as the start of a new era, one fi lled with 

prosperity for the population and industry. The article further boosted the dam 

with discussions of the benefi ts of recreation on the reservoir and the huge areas of 

shoreline that would be created by the lake for tourists to explore.

 The Phoenix periodical Action published an article in its October 1957 issue 

boosting the dam, arguing that the long range benefi ts for Arizona were clear:

No doubt about it, northern Arizona, particularly Flagstaff, will benefi t 

from the building of the Glen Canyon Dam. Phoenix, because of its 

strategic position in the state’s economic pie, will also benefi t.

Arizona boosters focused on the economic benefi ts that the dam would produce, 

combined in part with fl ood control. The discourse they used to do so was strikingly 

similar to that of the imperial modernist discourse used at Boulder and Grand 

Coulee. Echoing the Bureau of Reclamation’s recycling of a successful discourse, 

the Arizona supporters discursively constructed the river as an economic resource 

that was fi nally being developed so as to bring Arizona what was due.

 In what appears to be an attempt to counter protests about the building of the 

dam, some periodicals engaged in discourse that constructed the area as a wasteland. 

In February of 1957 the magazine Western Construction argued that:
834

The entire area is a vast expanse of wasteland, uninhabited except for a few 

ranchers on the northwest side of the river and scattered Indian families on 

a reservation to the southeast (McClellan 1957: 29).

In fact, the Navajo Nation Reservation (the largest in the U.S.) had thousands of 

inhabitants and one of the most developed rangeland economies of any reservation.

The construction of the area as one that could easily be sacrifi ced can be seen as a 

response to the environmentalist discourse highlighted in the next section.

 The Bureau of Reclamation and its allies in civil society recycled many of 

the rhetorical strategies that were successful in the 1920s and 1930s for boosters 

of the Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams. This state-building discourse combines 

legitimation through the interpretation of history (frontiersmen of vision who built 

a foundation for the future) with the rational application of science and technology 

to benefi t all society (reduction of a fl ood menace, improvement of an economic 

resource). This combination allowed the discursive reconstruction of the Colorado 

River into a natural economic resource. The river was tamed and harnessed and put 

to work for society.

 The only problem with this discourse was its overuse; the Bureau could 

have had no idea that this was reducing the effi cacy of the discourse, for it had been 

so successful in the past. A new way of thinking about nature was growing in the 

American West, however, and its rise eclipsed the Bureau’s dominance in western 

development.

Chanting down Echo Park

 The environmentalist discourse used to oppose Echo Park and Split 

Mountain Dams in the 1950s was not actually new. It was a derivation of the 

nature-as-aesthetic-resource argument that John Muir unsuccessfully used from 1907 

to 1913 in fi ghting the Hetch Hetchy Dam in California. In fact, elements of its 

expression can be seen in works that date back at least 120 years (Nash 1967/1982).

John Muir was one of the fi rst advocates of wilderness preservation in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains of California and Nevada. His founding of the Sierra Club in 

1892 was partially in response to the conversion of Yosemite State Park into the 

second National Park. As stated in a 1911 bulletin, the Club’s goals were primarily 

to “take the lead in all matters involving the preservation of the wonderful natural 

scenery which California is so fortunate as to possess, and in calling the attention of 

the world to these wonders” (Sierra Club 1911).5

 In 1908 these goals were threatened by the proposal of a dam in Hetch 

Hetchy Valley, adjacent to Yosemite Valley and partially within the Park boundaries. 

Muir led the battle to save Hetch Hetchy Valley, arguing in a 1908 letter to Sierra 

Club members that Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy held an “unrivalled aggregation 

of scenic features” and that it should be “preserved in pure wilderness for all time 

for the benefi t of the entire nation” (Muir 1908). Muir argued that the government 
835

should respect the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, or else all such boundaries 

would be meaningless. In the end, Muir’s battle was lost, and San Francisco built 

a dam for its municipal water supply in Hetch Hetchy Valley. But this oppositional 

discourse was resurrected forty years later by very group that Muir had founded—a 

discourse that placed inherent aesthetic value in nature.

 The 1946 proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation to build a set of dams 

at Echo Park and Split Mountain, as part of the grand plan to develop the Upper 

Colorado River Basin, would back water into Dinosaur National Monument. 

 Bernard DeVoto broke this story of a latter-day Hetch Hetchy in the 22 July 1950 

issue of the Saturday Evening Post. From his regular Harper’s column “The Easy 

Chair,” DeVoto had denounced cattle barons and Bureau of Land Management 

grazing leases (Thomas 2000). DeVoto’s article “Shall We Let Them Ruin Our 

National Parks?” was a similarly incendiary piece, full of fi ghting energy and 

infl ammatory rhetoric. Under the large-font title, the piece opens with a mid-sizedfont sentence in offset text asking, “Do you want these wild splendors kept intact 

for your kids to see? Then watch out for the Army Engineers and the Bureau of 

Reclamation—because right where the scenery is, that’s where they want to build 

dams” (DeVoto 1950:17).

 DeVoto challenges the democracy under which we ostensibly live:

No one has asked the American people whether they want their sovereign 

rights, and those of their descendants, in their own publicly reserved beauty 

spots wiped out (ibid. 1950:17).

 DeVoto’s warning cry to Americans not to let the engineers of the Bureau 

perpetrate this crime against “unspoiled natural beauty” continued with an 

admonition: “No one can doubt that the public, if told all the facts and allowed to 

express its will, would vote to preserve the parks from any alteration now or in the 

future” (ibid. 1950:17).

 DeVoto’s muckraking article argues quite clearly that Americans 

would never choose to let this go forward, if only they knew. The piece is a bit 

disingenuous, for the Bureau engineers were not trying to pull the wool over 

anyone’s eyes. They were in communication with the Park Service throughout 

the planning stages, and fully believed that the reservoirs represented a benefi cial 

recreational opportunity for Americans. DeVoto, however, disagreed with this 

assessment. To DeVoto, the area was perfect as it was, and should not be altered in 

any way. If given all the facts, DeVoto argued, Americans would not support the 

project.

 Amidst half-page photographs of Dinosaur National Monument, DeVoto 

goes on to describe the scenic quality of the area as well as the ruin that it will 

become. Though he never explicitly compares the Dinosaur case to Hetch Hetchy, 

DeVoto’s article proved quite signifi cant to groups like the Sierra Club. The 
836

Reader’s Digest reprinted the article later in 1950, and Martin Litton, reporter for the 

Los Angeles Times, wrote several articles exploring the case in more depth. It was 

this series of articles outlining the imposition on a wilderness area that caught the 

attention of David Brower, Executive Director of the Sierra Club (Litton 1992).

 Brower took the lead in opposing the dam in Echo Park, seeing in the 

fi ght the possibility of redeeming Muir’s loss at Hetch Hetchy nearly forty years 

before. Brower assembled a coalition of individuals and groups committed to 

keeping national parks and monuments free from development. He led the fi ght 

by coordinating a massive letter-writing campaign and helping to publish many 

pamphlets and several books. Among the many notable fi gures involved in the fi ght 

were wilderness photographers Eliot Porter and Ansel Adams, novelist Wallace 

Stegner, and publisher Alfred A. Knopf.

 Brower was very concerned about the encroachment of a reservoir into a 

national monument, and he recruited Wallace Stegner to edit a book on the Dinosaur 

situation, in an attempt to bring national attention to the cause, to be published by 

Alfred K. Knopf (Thomas 2000: 164). This Is Dinosaur: Echo Park Country and 

Its Magic Rivers combined the writing talents of Stegner, Knopf, and several others 

with thirty-six striking photographs of the region, six of which took advantage of the 

new, and expensive, full-color printing technology. The book’s aim was to introduce 

people to this little-visited area, and to convince them that it was worth saving.

 Wallace Stegner’s contribution discussed the history of the national 

monument, an “almost ‘unspoiled’” wilderness area. With his deep understanding 

of the intertwining of human history and natural environment, Stegner notes that 

Dinosaur National Monument is a “palimpsest of human history, speculation, rumor, 

fantasy, ambition, science, controversy, and confl icting plans for use, and these 

human records so condition our responses to the place that they contain a good part 

of Dinosaur’s meaning” (ibid. 1955: 3).

 In describing the area, Stegner talks lovingly of “cliffs and sculptured forms 

[that] are sometimes smooth, sometimes fantastically craggy, always massive” that 

“have a peculiar capacity to excite the imagination; the effect on the human spirit is 

neither numbing or awesome, but warm and infi nitely peaceful” (ibid. 1955: 4).

 Stegner’s call for wilderness protection came at a time when he was still 

relatively unknown as a writer. In 1955 his important early work The Big Rock 

Candy Mountain was ten years old, and he had just fi nished his nonfi ction novel 

on John Wesley Powell’s adventurous exploration of the Colorado, Beyond the 

Hundredth Meridian. His Pulitzer Prize winning novel Angle of Repose would not 

be written until fi fteen years later. Stegner was taking a chance by being politically 

outspoken. He was, as Thomas argues, in some ways attempting to fi ll the role 

left empty by the death of his friend Bernard DeVoto in 1955 (Thomas 2000: 166). 

 Alfred A. Knopf was, in many ways, taking a bigger chance.
837

 Knopf published This Is Dinosaur and presumably put forward much of the 

capital needed for the expensive camera work. His chapter, entitled “The National 

Park Idea,” argues forcefully for preservation of wilderness areas for both people 

and wildlife. The national park “is not a resort, though there will always be those 

who try to make it so. And the very special purposes of recreation, education, 

refreshment, and inspiration for which Parks and Monuments have been set aside 

prohibit many economic uses which are thoroughly legitimate elsewhere” 

(ibid. 1955: 85). Knopf argued that there were many other places where such 

economic purposes could be pursued, but that National Parks and Monuments had to 

be defended categorically and on general principle, or else all such areas would be 

threatened in the future.

 After arguing philosophically for the preservation of Dinosaur National 

Monument, Knopf argued from logic. Such a threat is not just temporary, but 

permanent:

If you fl ood a canyon, as it is proposed to fl ood the Dinosaur canyons with 

dams at Echo Park and Split Mountain, that canyon is gone forever, buried 

fi rst under water and eventually under silt (ibid. 1955: 86-87).

 Much of the piece is spent arguing against perceptions of the American 

public about the southwestern lands (exemplifi ed in articles such as the one 

previously quoted from Western Construction). Knopf is at pains to point out that

Dinosaur is not expendable wasteland, not a profi tless desert, but a scenic 

resource of incalculable value that has been preserved this long precisely 

because of its inaccessibility. . . . Dinosaur deserves to be more visited. 

. . . That is all it would take, that democratic groundswell, to insure that 

Dinosaur and the other superlative places will be passed on, unimpaired, to 

our grandchildren’s grandchildren (ibid. 1955: 93).

Knopf ends by calling on the legitimacy of history and the myth of democratic 

America. Americans are wise people, and can see value when it is shown to them. 

They deserve their heritage, and so do their grandchildren. This treasure can be 

saved through the use of our democratic powers to stop the tyrannical exercise of 

authority by a faceless bureaucratic agency.

 Knopf and Stegner’s book enjoyed quite a good reception. It is styled as 

a coffee-table book, and was sold all over the country through Knopf’s powerful 

distribution channels. In combination with the massive letter-writing campaign that 

Brower organized through the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Isaac 

Walton League, the fi ght for Dinosaur ranged from American’s living rooms to 

Capitol Hill.

 Brower initiated a storm of protest over the proposed dam at Echo Park, 

a key element of which was the fl ooding of the Department of Interior and 

Congressional Representatives with letters of outrage. Letters were addressed 
838

to President Eisenhower, Secretary of Interior Douglas McKay, and individual 

Senators and Representatives. Most letters were forwarded to the Secretary of 

Interior, who cataloged many of them, now collected at the National Archives and 

Records Administration. The catalog for 1954 contained a listing of 2,875 letters 

that the department received that year. The letters are signed by individuals writing 

as rangers, lawyers, citizens, or members of conservation groups. All of these 

letters exhibit some form of an environmentalist discourse, often combined with an 

economic argument, such as evaporation problems, cost-benefi t arguments, and even 

the perception that hydropower was obsolete due to the expansion of atomic energy 

(perhaps a very un-environmental argument).

 The environmentalist discourse that the proposed dam at Echo Park brought 

out was focused on the quality of the place in and of itself. The construction of 

the river canyon as an economic resource was resisted vociferously. Instead, the 

river, the canyon, and the entire area were discursively constructed as a natural 

and aesthetic resource that was of such value for recreation and inspiration that to 

destroy it for economic purposes would be a great evil.6

 Letter writers sounded this 

tone over and over, in many creative ways.

 This environmentalist discourse was straightforwardly exemplifi ed by 

Edward Thatcher of Eugene, Oregon (8 March 1954), who cited the “magnifi cent 

natural beauty” of Dinosaur National Monument. Thatcher argued that the 

proposed Echo Park Dam would inundate the “canyon scenery and rock formations 

incomparable in their value to citizens of this country.”7

 Russell D. Butcher of Millbrook, New York, spent a bit more time 

explicating his position. On 15 January 1955 Mr. Butcher wrote to the President, 

saying that he was “greatly disturbed” and that 

it is my belief that this country should protect its great parks from 

commercial and private developments. . . . I do not consider any one 

of these plans to be of great enough importance, or without perfectly 

good alternatives, to warrant a breaking away from park principles—of 

keeping them “intact and in their entirety for the enjoyment, education, 

and inspiration of all the people for all time.” Also, because these park 

service areas comprise only about one-half of one per cent of the entire 

U.S., I truly believe that we should preserve them as a last remnant of the 

once vast primeval America. . . . It is merely opening the way for further 

encroachment upon other areas. It is very easy to visualize a slow eating 

away of the park system, as one by one they are opened up to commercial 

interests. I believe therefore, that we should start thinking about this 

problem now before we suddenly fi nd ourselves without any of these fi ne 

parks; that we should pass them on to the next generations, unspoiled.

 Vera Moran, of Santa Rosa, California, was not nearly as congenial and 

circumspect as many writers. Ms. Moran wrote to Secretary McKay saying:
839

Those who want to benefi t themselves by stealing public resources—

whether forests, parks, national monuments-or however derogated—are 

Public Enemies

Of the United States

When they get through with it, America the Beautiful will no longer be 

beautiful—it will be stripped and stark.

. . . protect the public and public interests by saying to these predators and 

public enemies:

Keep Out!!

 Such arguments about the splendid beauty of Dinosaur were clearly 

heart-felt. Many writers went even further in their claims about the uniqueness 

of the area. A. Weston Niemela, of the Chemketan Conservation Committee, a 

conservation group within the Oregon Indian tribe, wrote on 5 March 1955 that 

“Many of us in the Chemeketans have been to the Monument and can testify to 

its unique beauty; as an area of recreational and spiritual value it could never be 

replaced.” In the nuanced version of the Chemeketans discourse, the uniqueness of 

this area in terms of its beauty and recreational qualities is combined with a spiritual 

element. The spiritual aspect of their discourse makes a larger set of claims that 

evokes John Muir’s idea of nature as a cathedral for worship: inundation equals 

desecration.

 On 28 April 1955 Eleanor Roosevelt Elkott, of Birmingham, Michigan, 

wrote to the President, saying 

The United States is a big country. The citizens derive spiritual and moral 

strength from their land—touring, camping, fi shing, golfi ng. It is not fair 

for citizens who believe in freedom and democracy to be overuled [sic] 

by men sitting in offi ces who want to make money. . . . We must not build 

Echo Park Dam.

Her association of golfi ng with spirituality not withstanding, Ms. Elkott makes a 

case that was echoed by many writers.

 The preservationist argument tended to be a popular environmentalist 

discourse that cited the spiritual, recreational, and inspirational qualities of 

wilderness in general and the American Southwest in particular. The letter writers 

intensely resisted the construction of the Monument as a wasteland or as an 

economic resource. Instead, they saw the canyons and the rivers as an incomparable 

aesthetic resource that should not be squandered in the name of progress and 

economic development.

 In the face of nearly 3,000 letters, Secretary McKay could respond only 

with a formula letter, citing the complexity of the situation. He acknowledged the 

“vexing situation” and its complex of contested views and interests. His position, 

though, in the face of this fi rst wave of letters remained steadfast. It would take a 

larger coordination of national groups to sway him. In combination with published 

books and letter-writing campaigns, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and 
840

the National Park Association, continually published updates and excoriations of 

the Department of the Interior, the President, and the Bureau of Reclamation in 

their house organs: Sierra Club Bulletin, Living Wilderness, and National Parks 

Magazine.

 Starting in 1954 and continuing without abatement for a full year, in its 

Bulletin the Sierra Club published articles, editorials, and photographs of Dinosaur 

National Monument. The Sierra Club argued unrelentingly against the dam at Echo 

Park, discursively constructing the river as a natural aesthetic resource worth saving.

 The Sierra Club called members to action with direct textual requests and by 

the presentation of images. The cover of the February 1954 issue of the Sierra Club 

Bulletin carried an image of the Yampa River as it fl owed through an area called 

Rainbow Recess in Dinosaur National Monument. Underneath was the headline in 

large font “Trouble in Dinosaur” and some short text describing the

primitive paradise unequalled anywhere . . . a unique gem of the 

National Park System . . . are needlessly threatened. You can prevent the 

destruction. Men of vision saved this place for us. Now it’s turnabout.

Underneath this text reads a large, underlined font “URGENT: Please read this issue 

now—and lend a hand.”

 The Wilderness Society, in a coordinated effort, sent the February 1954 

issue of the Sierra Club Bulletin to their members with an additional message on 

the cover: “The Wilderness Society sends you this issue to stress the urgent need to 

act promptly.” The lead article in this issue is entitled “Two Wasteful Dams—Or a 

Great National Park?” and argued forcefully against the need for them, contrasting 

this with the great inherent value of the place itself. Highlighting the aesthetic value 

of the area, the article quoted the National Park Service in saying that “the effects 

upon ‘irreplaceable ... values of national signifi cance would be deplorable’” 

(Sierra Club 1954: 3). The article continued by arguing that there were alternative 

sites, that the Secretary of Agriculture is currently worried about surpluses, and 

most importantly, that the “proposed Echo Park and Split Mountain dams would 

destroy the park value of Dinosaur; the unique would give way to the commonplace 

and would imperil the entire Park System” (ibid. 1954: 4). To the argument that 

the reservoirs would make the area more accessible to tourists, the author responded 

by pointing out that this would be true: “you can look at part of the setting 

[the highest 100 feet of exposed canyon]—after we’ve lost the priceless gem” 

(ibid. 1954: 4). The discourse used to defend Echo Park and Dinosaur National 

Monument continually reverted to a defense of the “priceless” aesthetic quality of 

the place. Nature, the Sierra Club argued, was irreplaceable, while the reservoirs 

had plausible alternatives.

 The National Park Service, in an extraordinary confl ict within the 

Department of Interior, fought strenuously against the Bureau of Reclamation plans 
841

for Dinosaur National Monument, dovetailing its arguments with the Sierra Club 

and the Wilderness Society. Though much of this confl ict remained hidden from 

public view, some of it was apparent, and the results of the confl ict can be seen in 

the subsequent restructuring of the National Park Service after the decision to drop 

the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams.

 Early in the process of developing the grand plan of the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the National Park Service appears not to have been concerned with 

the encroachment on the Monument that would occur due to the building of the two 

dams in Utah. In fact, a “memorandum of understanding” between the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the National Park Service, dated 4 November 1941, indicated that 

the “The Dinosaur National Monument region and its water control possibilities” 

is a most vital area for study.8 Furthermore, “concerning the Dinosaur National 

Monument region, it seems not improbable that a policy similar to that already 

agreed to in principle for the Grand Canyon National Monument situation could be 

applied. Although legislation would be required in both cases to effect this policy, 

i.e., change the status of the areas from monument to recreational areas, the National 

Park Service does not believe such legislation would be diffi cult to secure.” This 

change in status would allow development; a recreational area is a lesser category 

that does not limit usage the way that a National Park or Monument does.

 Even through January of 1954, just before the Sierra Club issued its call 

to action, the Park Service was still interested in budgetary allocations from the 

Department of Interior so as to improve the section where the reservoirs would 

be located. In an internal memorandum, the Park Service estimated a cost of 

$21,000,000 needed to improve the recreational facilities, including boating and 

swimming.

 The Park Service was interested, no doubt, in making the best of a situation. 

At this point, the Secretary of Interior and the President were both set on moving 

forward with the Bureau’s plans. In the face of this apparent juggernaut, the Park 

Service could at least capitalize on these plans by making the area accessible and 

developing it for maximum tourism.

 Between 1949 and 1954, however, factions within the Park Service became 

more and more concerned about the precedent set at Dinosaur. Other Reclamation 

projects were being designed in or near National Parks or Monuments in Kings 

Canyon (California), Glacier Park (Montana), and the Grand Canyon (Arizona).

Some Park Service offi cials feared a continuing loss of power vis-à-vis the Bureau 

of Reclamation. Reclamation already had a budget of more than fi ve times the Park 

Service, and some Park offi cials worried that increasing their budget to develop 

recreational opportunities would not be worth the trade off of the precedent of 

inundating part of the Monument (Stratton and Sorotkin 1955).

 As early as 1949 the confl ict within the Park Service was apparent in some 

memorandums circulated inside the Service and even forwarded to the Secretary 
842

of Interior. One such memo stated outright that the Monument’s “preservation in 

its natural state represents its highest use” (Stratton and Sorotkin 1955: 70). The 

Bureau and the Park Service continued attempts to balance their confl icting interests, 

and contradictory memos such as the 1949 and 1954 examples above must be seen 

in this light: they represent negotiations between several interest groups within the 

Department of Interior.

 Just how much rancor existed between the Bureau and the Service is 

apparent in the accusations that the Park Service was behind the publication of 

Bernard De Voto’s July 1950 article in the Saturday Evening Post. Michael Straus, 

then Commissioner of Reclamation, wrote to Newton Drury, Director of the Park 

Service, asking where DeVoto had gotten the photos for his article, as they were 

attributed to the Park Service.

 These internal confrontations and accusations destabilized the Department 

of Interior and to some extent allowed Park Service personnel to coordinate with 

outside groups such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. For example, 

Park Service Director Drury wrote to a conservationist organization, regarding the 

Park Service’s correspondence with the Bureau of Reclamation. This continued 

information exchange between the two agencies would, Drury hoped, “enable us 

to alert the conservationists of the Nation and more effectively with respect to 

remaining threats to national park areas from dam building” (Stratton and Sorotkin 

1955: 76).

 In 1953, just before the public controversy exploded, some members of 

the Park Service also took a long-term view of this controversy. Commenting 

in a private correspondence that the confl ict could actually improve the state of 

conservation movement in the United States, one offi cial wrote “I’m beginning to 

think the dam controversy will prove a good thing in the long run.” The recipient 

replied: “I believe it has done more to bring the various conservation groups together 

than anything I can remember” (Stratton and Sorotkin 1955: 75). This assessment 

of the national situation was indeed accurate, perhaps even more so than the 

writer imagined. For in the next two years the public outcry took the shape of an 

oppositional discourse, in part defi ned by the National Park Service’s defense of its 

preserved lands.

 The National Park Service had a public sphere group that advocated for 

protection and expansion of the Park System: the National Parks Association. 

In their quarterly periodical National Parks Magazine, rangers and offi cials 

of the National Park Service joined citizens and activists in writing about the 

“incomparable” loss that the Park System would suffer from the dam project, 

making them “useless for monument purposes” (National Parks Association 1954: 

3).

 The National Parks Magazine used the same environmental discourse as 

the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, with the additional legitimacy provided 
843

by the liberal inclusion of national and state park offi cials’ statements, as well as 

pro-development voices, such as the Manager of Winter Park, Colorado, Stephen 

J. Bradley. Bradley wrote of his visit to Dinosaur National Monument in the April 

1954 issue of National Parks Magazine, that “we were in a scenic area, the like of 

which for sheer dramatic beauty—of color, form, movement and sound—I had never 

experienced anywhere, and I have visited one-third of our National Parks.” The 

discursive construction of the river canyons as an aesthetic treasure worth preserving 

was thus propounded from many sides, public and private.

 In addition to their monthly publications and organizing efforts, the Sierra 

Club also internally distributed several policy manuals, guides for political action, 

and a “Public Relations Primer,” with “how-to” procedures for contacting the press, 

making speeches, etc. (Sierra Club 1957).

 One section of this primer, entitled “misconceptions frequently encountered” 

lists a specifi c suggestion for responding to challenges such as “The Sierra Club 

opposes progress; it is always opposing dams and roads.” Readers were directed to 

respond with 

The Sierra Club does not blindly oppose progress, it opposes blind 

progress. It opposes dams when it is proposed to build them in, or where 

they will affect, dedicated scenic wilderness and wildlife areas, especially 

when alternatives exist” (Sierra Club 1957: 9).

Such clear training of its members helped the Sierra Club effectively oppose the 

dams at Echo Park and Split Mountain.

 Unity of message, along with the 

many variants offered by members and 

affi liates in their letters to government 

offi cials, helped convince Secretary of the 

Interior Douglas McKay to drop the dams 

that would fl ood portions of Dinosaur 

National Monument. In late November 

of 1955 McKay announced his decision 

not to build the dams.

 Regarding the victory, David 

Brower noted in his diaries on 1 

December 1955: “Recent events prove 

that people really believe in preserving 

portions of America’s original beauty—

and that the strength of their belief shapes 

policy.” The victory, for David Brower, 

was sweet. It certainly confi rmed that 

Americans could exercise some form 

36.3. Douglas McKay, Secretary of the 

Interior during the term of Dwight D. 

Eisenhower.
844

of direct democracy, and that enough of them believed strongly in preservation 

to sway the government. In short, he was witnessing the birth of a powerful new 

discourse—one that would electrify the environmental movements in the United 

States. It would, however, turn out to be a hollow victory for the Sierra Club 

and environmental organizations in general, and even a personal defeat of great 

signifi cance to Brower. In order to remove the dams at Dinosaur, the Sierra Club 

was essentially locked into not protesting the great storage dam at Glen Canyon. 

Though the oppositional discourse at Echo Park focused on keeping Dinosaur as a 

Monument in order to preserve the wilderness area, the victory was won in part by 

showing how other aspects of the upper Colorado Basin development plan could 

substitute for the Echo Park and Split Mountain projects. In a letter to Secretary 

McKay on 20 May 1955, David Brower asked about increasing Glen Canyon 

Dam by 35 feet, pointing out that this could offset the loss of Echo Park and Split 

Mountain: “Would it be physically possible to substitute for some of this storage? 

...by adding 35 feet to the present 700-foot height planned for the Glen Canyon 

Dam.”

 Through this strategy, Brower and the Sierra Club effectively shut 

themselves out of protesting Glen Canyon Dam. Many accounts at the time describe 

this as an agreement or a trade off, but there is little evidence of any formal pact. 

Instead, the Sierra Club had made a political mistake in granting the legitimacy 

of the Glen Canyon site and the upper Colorado project as a whole by suggesting 

raising the Glen Canyon Dam’s crest height to offset the loss of Echo Park and Split 

Mountain. As Luna Leopold commented to Stegner and Brower: “if the Sierra Club 

gets into the problem of suggesting alternatives for Echo Park and Split Mountain 

Dam you are going to let yourself wide open” (Thomas 2000: 174). By granting this 

legitimacy the Sierra Club could hardly fi ght Glen Canyon Dam.

The Glen Canyon Compromise: The Place No One Knew

 The victory at Echo Park was based on Brower’s own presentation to 

Congress, where he made the explicit comparison to Hetch Hetchy, and told the 

Representatives not to make the same mistake twice. He also went on to show how 

Bureau engineers had failed in their math. Brower pointed out that the Glen Canyon 

Dam could be raised in height to increase capacity and thereby make up the loss of 

storage at Echo Park. The Bureau could thus back down on Echo Park while saving 

its upper Colorado development plan. It was a Faustian bargain for the Sierra Club 

though, as Brower soon understood, for Glen Canyon was an astoundingly beautiful 

place that few people knew about.

 Glen Canyon was so remote from Anglo society—there were several rough 

roads to it in the Navajo Reservation to the south, but none leading to the river from 

the north—that it was virtually unknown even halfway into the twentieth century.

 It was in this “place that no one knew” that Glen Canyon Dam was built, 

begun in 1956 and fi nished in 1964. The Sierra Club mourned the loss with several 
845

publications, most notable the coffee-table book of Eliot Porter photographs 

published by the organization and edited by David Brower, The Place No One 

Knew (Porter 1963). In the Foreword to the book, Brower helped to entrench the 

environmentalist discourse that constructed the river and its immediate environs as a 

remarkable natural aesthetic resource:

Glen Canyon died in 1963 and I was partly responsible for its needless 

death. So were you. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, knew it well 

enough to insist that at all costs it should endure. When we began to fi nd 

out it was too late (ibid. 1963: 7).

The building of a dam is equated with river death, and Brower admits culpability. 

After Secretary McKay’s decision was made to remove Echo Park from 

development in favor of increasing Glen Canyon Dam’s height, Brower went on 

several trips down that stretch of the Colorado, and described the area as some of the 

most magnifi cent scenery he had ever seen. Porter’s camera recorded the beauty for 

other Americans to see.

 Eliot Porter wrote much of the text that accompanied his photographs. 

When combined with the images, his words repudiate the discursive construction of 

the river as a “menace” by the Bureau. The river is characterized as “serene” and 

“overwhelming:”

The eye is numbed by the vastness and magnifi cence, and passes over the 

fi ne details, ignoring them in a defense against surfeit. The big features, the 

massive walls and towers, the shimmering vistas, the enveloping light, are 

all hypnotizing, shutting out awareness of the particular (ibid. 1963).

The superlatives in his text are easily matched by the photographs, printed in 

stunning clarity and color. Porter’s images linger on the general features for only 

the fi rst moments and are soon caught up in the fi ner details that were originally 

overlooked. The photographer turns from the wide-angle to the macro close-up and 

an intimacy of the canyon becomes apparent.

 Porter continually moves between the macro and the micro in his text and his 

photographs. He records what this “place that no one knew” was like before it was 

inundated. The larger picture that emerges from the collection of images and text is 

that of a tremendous aesthetic asset that has been lost. The work argued forcefully, 

if indirectly, against the discursive construction of the river as a menace, a tyrant, or 

an agent of chaos.

 Another author who experienced the river before the dam was put into place 

was Edward Abbey. The book that brought fame to Abbey was Desert Solitaire,

which contains a chapter called “Down the River.” This piece describes Abbey’s raft 

trip through Glen Canyon all the way to the site of the dam, just as the foundation 

was being poured. It opens with Abbey’s characteristic acerbity:
846

The beavers had to go and build another goddamned dam on the Colorado.

Not satisfi ed with the enormous silt trap and evaporation tank called Lake 

Mead (back of Boulder Dam) they have created another even bigger, even 

more destructive, in Glen Canyon (ibid. 1968: 173).

Abbey’s chapter continues on, using corrosive sarcasm, to belittle the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the federal government in general. In the midst of this rant, Abbey 

fi nds time to describe the scenery in the canyon, which will be submerged under 

400 feet of water in a matter of months: “white sands,” “green willows,” “a 

sculptured landscape.”

 The Navajo Indians also bore witness to the damming of Glen Canyon. The 

Navajos were not politically well organized in the mid-1950s. They had recently 

suffered a great deal of hardship due to Bureau of Indian Affairs herd reduction 

programs in the late 1930s (White 1983: 313). This social disarray led to an offi cial, 

but essentially meaningless, approval of Glen Canyon Dam by the Navajo Tribal 

Council. The Council, a group that was formed at the behest of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs to handle the sale and leasing of rich oil lands on the reservation in 1927, 

had very little legitimate governing power over the diverse and widespread peoples 

of the reservation. They did, however, pass motions approving proposals from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (such as herd reductions) and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Glen Canyon Dam). Raymond Nakai, the Chairman of the Tribal Council at the 

time that the dam was built, said “A conservationist is one who is content to stand 

still forever. Major Powell would have approved of this lake. May it ever be 

brimmin’ full” (McPhee 1971: 196).

 Nakai’s comments notwithstanding, many Navajos did not approve of the 

dam, though little of this contestation made it into the historical record. There was 

signifi cant disagreement about the benefi ts that would fl ow to the Navajo. There 

were many who, gesturing to history, asked what the Navajo had ever seen of other 

promises made by the government. Others believed the Bureau of Reclamation 

promises of hydropower and irrigation water (John 2000). In the end, the dam was 

built, based in part on the approval of the Tribal Council. The Navajo have, forty 

years later, not received any benefi ts from the dam aside from increased tourism in 

the area.

 Though Abbey and the Navajos did not directly attack the Bureau’s 

discourse, Brower, in the Foreword to The Place No One Knew, did argue against 

the discursive construction of the Colorado as an economic resource:

Good men, who have plans for the Colorado River whereby “a natural 

menace becomes a natural resource,” would argue tirelessly that the 

Colorado must be controlled, that its energy should be tapped and sold 

to fi nance agricultural development in the arid West. But our point here 

is that for all their good intentions these men had too insular a notion of 

what man’s relation to his environment should be, and it is tragic that 

their insularity was heeded. The natural Colorado—what is left of it—is a 
847

miracle, not a menace. The menace is more likely the notion that growth 

and progress are the same, and that the gross national product is the 

measure of the good life (ibid. 1963: 7-8).

Brower met the Bureau’s arguments head-on. The river was not, Brower contended, 

a menace. The menace instead was that constellation of forces that push for what 

Brower called “blind progress”—those that rate value only by economic measures.

Brower clearly showed his bitterness in this work: his comments regarding “what 

is left of” the river, the selling of energy to fi nance agriculture, the argument for 

storage that Brower asserts is “absolutely not needed in this century, almost certainly 

not needed in the next” (ibid. 1963: 7).

 In the years to come, Brower and the Sierra Club would indeed have 

occasion to wage battle against the Bureau’s developmentalist mindset. They fought 

hard to lower the storage level of Glen Canyon so as to avoid the inundation of 

 Rainbow Bridge National Monument. The original height of Glen Canyon Dam 

was to be 580 feet, but with the compromise it was raised to 730 feet. When it was 

found that this would bring the water level to the base of Rainbow Bridge, one of 

the natural wonders of the world, the Sierra Club lobbied for protection. Many 

schemes were put forward, including a check dam below Rainbow Bridge to keep 

the reservoir water out. Eventually the Bureau accepted a proposal to keep the water 

level of the reservoir at 3700 feet above sea level, and to build the dam to just 710 

feet high.

 The Sierra Club’s loss at Glen Canyon may have been a high price to pay, 

but the failure in many ways galvanized the new environmentalist discourse in the 

United States. Since the building of Glen Canyon Dam no more high dams have 

been built in the U.S. The Sierra Club was successful in stopping several more 

dams on the Colorado, including two in Grand Canyon. The Club has continued to 

grow in strength and purpose over the nearly four decades since the “death of Glen 

Canyon.” In 1993 the Club attempted to avenge its loss of Glen Canyon by helping 

to write legislation to breach the dam and restore Glen Canyon. The legislation 

remains stalled, but the discourse continues to be a powerful force in America.

Conclusion: Challenging Imperialism and Avoiding the Challenge of 

Environmentalism

 Through the struggle to save Dinosaur National Monument, and in the 

mourning of Glen Canyon, a new oppositional discourse became established. This 

oppositional discourse, which I have labeled environmentalist, constructed nature as 

a priceless treasure that needed to be protected from blind progress. Drawing on the 

lessons learned from Muir’s failed Hetch Hetchy battle, activists successfully fought 

against the intrusion into the National Park System by the Bureau of Reclamation.

They were able to discursively reconstruct a river—as an entity that had value in and 

of itself, not simply something that could be economically benefi cial to society.
848

 In a dramatic shift from the lack of oppositional discourses regarding the 

proposal of Boulder and Grand Coulee, a powerful new discourse was born in the 

struggle over the proposal of Echo Park and the building of Glen Canyon Dam. This 

discourse highlighted an inherent value that existed in nature and wilderness, a value 

that was worthy of preservation over exploitation.

 This shift in the valuation of nature points to a larger transformation of the 

relationship between nature and society. This transformation is certainly something 

that is in process, unevenly completed, and perhaps will never be as hegemonic as 

imperial modernism was. This new view of the nature-society relationship, a view 

based on preservation and inherent natural value, has destabilized the hegemonic 

imperial modernist ideology. In offering an effectual foundation for oppositional 

discourse, the environmentalist ideology has stopped the damming of the rivers 

of the West, and forced society to re-examine its relationship to growth, natural 

resources, and state building.

 Some commentators have identifi ed the Echo Park-Glen Canyon episode as 

a signifi cant moment of the development of environmentalism in the late twentieth 

century. Though the discourses used were not new, they were mobilized on a 

massive level and in an effective way for the fi rst time. Gottlieb (1993: 41) notes the 

historic signifi cance of this battle over wilderness in his book on the origins of the 

modern environmental movement, and Mark Harvey (1994) picks out Echo Park as 

a “symbol of wilderness” that was “a great test to the sanctity of the park system.”

(Harvey 1994: xiv) Though the use of the singular “movement” by Gottlieb 

should be questioned, the importance of Echo Park and Glen Canyon for the set of 

environmental movements that have blossomed in the last 40 years is clear.

 The imperialistic modernist discourse about the domination of nature and 

the building of a state infrastructure in the West was transcendent from at least the 

early 1920s through the middle 1950s. This hegemonic discourse brought together 

aspects of state building and the domination of nature (control of nature, control 

of the population, and the boosting of economic development) into a monolithic 

discourse that defi ned the relationship between nature and society. With the rise of 

an oppositional discourse at Echo Park and Glen Canyon, this hegemony was fi rst 

successfully contested.

 The emergence of an oppositional discourse can be seen as both a challenge 

to the Bureau of Reclamation (surely this is how David Brower and Floyd Dominy 

saw it), but it can also be viewed as an opportunity. The Bureau of Reclamation 

could have picked up on this new and powerful social movement and taken its 

concerns to heart. Indeed, there has been some change within the Bureau, but the 

Bureau has hardly “gone green,” and could embrace environmental ideas to a much 

larger extent than it has.

 Instead, the Bureau still uses the old rhetoric of imperialism and triumph 

rather than absorbing the environmentalist concerns. At the Centennial celebration 
849

in June 2002, the several offi cial speakers continued the tone of imperialistic 

discourse that was used through the middle of the twentieth century. The 

Commissioner of Reclamation declared that “stability, progress and development” 

are the cornerstones for the Bureau’s next 100 years. John Keys continued, relying 

on notions of nationalism, declaring that “the sounds coming from the generators are 

the sound of freedom.”

 The Secretary of the Interior kept up the beating of the drum, declaring that 

“we can do it before and can do it again.” Just what it is that the Bureau will do 

remains to be seen. But it seems clear that what it has not done is take to heart the 

challenges of the environmental movements of the last forty years. The Bureau 

remains stuck in a discourse of imperialism, and it risks losing legitimacy in the eyes 

of those who need it most: the people of the West.

Kevin Wehr is on the faculty of the Department of Sociology at California State 

University–Sacramento. At the time this paper was written, he was a graduate 

student in sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Routledge 

published his book on this topic, America’s Fight Over Water, in 2004.

Endnotes

1. Throughout this work I will use the term natural to indicate non-human processes, entities, 

or characteristics. I counterpoise this to the term social, which exclusively involves human endeavor. 

As I will discuss, however, these two realms are thoroughly imbricated in one another through history 

and historical recollection and reconstruction. Thus, natural formations such as climate, geography, or 

soil composition, should be differentiated from social barriers such as the ways that humans respond to 

nature in the built environment. For example what is normally construed as a “natural disaster” such 

as a fl ood destroying a town is more appropriately termed a “social disaster,” for it was social decision 

to place a community in a fl ood plain.

2. Black Canyon is the name of the site where Boulder Dam was built. The name of the dam 

is after the original site, Boulder Canyon, slightly upstream from Black Canyon. In his 1922 report 

to Congress, Arthur Powell Davis, Commissioner of Reclamation, suggested a dam “at or near 

the vicinity of Boulder Canyon.” (Bureau of Reclamation, Albert B. Fall 1922: 21) Thus in 1928 

Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Act, and the project was offi cially named after Boulder Canyon 

even though Black Canyon was ultimately chosen as a more appropriate site for the high dam. The 

name was eventually changed to Hoover Dam by an act of Congress in 1947.

3. The boosters of Grand Coulee Dam published many pamphlets and bulletins, gave speeches, 

and wrote letters to offi cials. The many documents drawn on for this work are contained in the 

National Archives and Records Administration, Denver, RG115, Central Classifi ed Files, Entry 3, 

boxes 228-325, and in the archives at the University of Washington. For more detail, see Wehr, 2004. 

All quotations in the following section are drawn from these sources.

4. This is offi cially known as the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP).

5. Letters and pamphlets held in the Sierra Club Collection, Bancroft Library, University of 

California, Berkeley (Sierra Club 1911-1970).

6. The idea of the river as an “economic resource” as opposed to a “natural” and “aesthetic” 

resource is a false dichotomy. Activists constructed this binary so as to fi ght the economic logic of 

using the river for society’s ends. But what they did not recognize (or chose not to make explicit) was 

that the aesthetic use of the river is just as anthropocentric as an economic use, though it may be more 

sustainable. Activists did use some rhetoric about the qualities of the river in and of itself, this was 

largely understood to be a benefi t for humanity in terms of recreation, spiritual regeneration, or simply 

aesthetic pleasure. As Cronon (1996) has shown, wilderness is a human creation, a mirror that refl ects 

“our own unexamined longings and desires.”
850

7. All letters quoted in this section are held by the National Archives and Record 

Administration, College Park, Maryland, Record Group 48, Central Classifi ed Files, entry number 4-4; 

boxes 360-64.

8. This memorandum is held by the National Archives and Record Administration, College 

Park, Maryland, Record Group 48, Central Classifi ed Files, entry number 4-4; box 363.

References Cited

Abbey, Edward. 1968. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York: Ballantine Books.

Abbey, Edward. 1975. The Monkey Wrench Gang. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Abbey, Edward. 1990. Hayduke Lives! New York: Little, Brown and Co.

American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. “Dam Removal Success Stories: 

 Restoring Rivers Through Selective Removal of Dams that Don’t Make Sense.” American 

 Rivers, Friends of the Earth, Trout Unlimited.

Bureau of Reclamation. 1946. The Colorado River: A Comprehensive Report on the Development 

 of the Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin for Irrigation, Power Production, and 

 Other Benefi cial Uses in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and 

 Wyoming. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Reclamation. 1965. Lake Powell: Jewel of the Colorado. Washington D.C.: Government 

 Printing Offi ce.

Bureau of Reclamation (Albert B. Fall, Arthur P. Davis). 1922. Development of the Imperial Valley 

 (The Fall-Davis Report). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce.

Cronon, William. 1996. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” in

 William Cronon (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking The Human Place in Nature.

 New York: Norton. 

DeVoto, Bernard. 1950. “Shall We Let Them Ruin Our National Parks?” Saturday Evening Post, 22 

 July 1950, 17-19, 42, 44, 46, 48.

Gorski, Phillip S. 2000. “The Mosaic Moment: An Early Modernist Critique of Modernist Theories 

 of Nationalism.” American Journal of Sociology 105: 1429-1469.

John, Candace. 2000. “Personal Interview.”

Lee, Lawrence. 1980. Reclaiming the American West: An Historiography and Guide. Santa Barbara: 

 ABC-Clio.

Litton, Martin. 1992. “Grand Canyon River Guides Oral History Project: Martin Litton Interview.”

McPhee, John. 1971. Encounters with the Archdruid. New York: Noonday Press.

Nash, Roderick. 1967/1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.

National Parks Association. 1954. “Dinosaur Dams Again.” National Parks Magazine 28: 3-5.

Porter, Eliot. 1963. The Place No One Knew, Edited by D. Brower. San Francisco: Sierra Club.

Reisner, Marc. 1986. Cadillac Desert. New York: Viking.

Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition 

 Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sierra Club. 1911-1970. “The Sierra Club Collection, Bancroft Library.”

Sierra Club. 1954. “Two Wasteful Dams—Or A Great National Park?” The Sierra Club Bulletin 39: 

 3-4.

Sierra Club. 1957. Public Relations Primer. San Francisco: Sierra Club.

Stegner, Wallace. 1955. “This Is Dinosaur.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Stratton, Owen and Phillip Sorotkin. 1955. “The Echo Park Controversy and Upper Colorado River 

 Development.” in Department of Interior Central Classifi ed Files box 363. College Park: 

 National Archives and Records Administration.

Thomas, John L. 2000. A Country of the Mind: Wallace Stegner, Bernard DeVoto, History, and the

 American Land. New York: Routledge.

Weber, Max. 1952. Ancient Judaism. Translated by Hans Gerth and Don Martindale. New York: 

 The Free Press.

Wehr, Kevin. 2004. America’s Fight Over Water. New York: Routledge.

White, Richard. 1983. The Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social change 

 among the Choctaws, Pawnees, and Navajos. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wilderness Society. 1954. “Slick Paper with Slick Words.” The Living Wilderness 19: 27-30.

Wirth, Conrad. 1980. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
851

Writing Water in the West: Reclaiming the Language 

of Reclamation

By:

Nancy Cook

 My essay examines the language used to write about water in the West. 

In this piece, I begin an analysis of discourses about water: offi cial language vs. 

literary language, bureaucratic narrative vs. personal narrative, scientifi c language 

vs. quotidian language, wet vs. dry texts. Through the use of an extended 

“glossary,” I work to include western American writers as integral to the conversation about the role of water issues in the West. The Bureau of Reclamation 

(USBR) has materially changed the face of the West; yet it has just as certainly 

changed the language of water in the West. Within the context of the USBR’s 

history, I argue that the languages we use to talk about, write about, and analyze 

water in the West are critical components of the water actions taken. How we 

say what we say about water is integral to how we think about water and what we 

do about it. I claim that creative writers engage water in a way that is crucial to 

public policy decisions, and that richer, more dynamic, and more deeply critical 

conversations must take place as we face yet another period of hydraulic crisis in 

the western United States.

 The glossary works to bring various discourses into play with one another, 

demonstrating that fi rst we need an adequate hydraulic language before any 

substantive analysis and change can take place. Throughout my essay, I employ 

offi cial discourse from sources such as Bureau of Reclamation and the United 

States Geological Survey; the discourse of personal narrative and poetry from 

such writers as Wallace Stegner, William Kittredge, Richard Hugo, and Ripley 

Schemm; as well as my own observations. Bureaucratic discourse often operates 

like an aircraft carrier turning at sea: it takes a long time to alter its course.

Creative discourses, however, respond quickly and sometimes subtly to changes 

in an author’s experience, as Ivan Doig, Stegner, and others have so elegantly 

shown us. These more intimate voices can articulate the local, the personal, and 

the private, offering readers deeply-placed stories that render the complexity and 

dynamism of water-use issues in the West. Rather than the exclusively urban, 

polemicist, or public policy voices so often heard in discussions of Western water 

issues, these are the voices from the West’s outback: experienced on the land, 

observant of change, and cognizant of the myriad effects one simple alteration of 

water policy can create.

 Each of the writers I engage here resists simple binaries, infl ated rhetoric, 

and the pyrotechnics associated with other western writers such as Edward Abbey. 

While Abbey’s work remains popular and important, I think we can learn more 

about the history of federal land and water-use policy, about water in the West, 

and about creative solutions from the more measured voices among western 

writers.
852

 Issues of public vs. private have vexed both policy makers and western 

writers for decades, and the friction between them is nowhere more apparent than 

in the discourse of water rights. The arid West has more public land than any 

other part of the United States, while at the same time, private property rights 

have been defended most vigorously in the West. And more than any offi cial 

cost-benefi t analysis, creative juxtaposition of the language of water reveals other 

parameters of any cost-benefi t analysis. My essay asks that we try putting varied 

discourses into conversation, creating new ways of thinking about aridity, about 

public and private, about rights and responsibilities as we manage a dynamic and 

complicated set of hydraulic systems.

 Plenty of people have claimed that aridity is the great fact of the American 

West—John Wesley Powell, Walter Prescott Webb, and Wallace Stegner, 

immediately come to mind. What happens if we look at the West, and western 

writing using discourses of water as our lens? Instead of close readings of literary 

texts, here I offer a glossary, maybe even a primer, of water and words in the 

West. Stegner, among many others, suggests that humans, like other species, are 

conditioned by climate and geography. What’s western about westerners? For the 

moment, let’s imagine it’s our relationship to water and its words.

Ablation:

1. “The process by which ice and snow waste away owing to melting and 

evaporation” (USGS website).1

 2. Look up in June from any of a thousand 

parched valleys, and imagine the gift of iciness. Look up again in July 

from the same task and the same valley, and your dreams have evaporated. 

It’s easier to imagine evaporation than melting, for your sweat has dried, 

leaving a salt line that marks your labor as clearly as the snowline retreats, 

recoiling from your parched and thirsty glare.2

Acre-foot.

1. “A unit for measuring the volume of water, is equal to the quantity of 

water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot and is equal to 43,560 

cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. The term is commonly used in measuring 

volumes of water used or stored” (USGS website). 2. How many acre-feet 

for Las Vegas golf courses, fountains, the lushness of even the median 

strips in San Diego, alfalfa crops, water slides, swimming pools, restaurant 

water glasses, full fl ushes, long showers, head lettuce, clean towels, car 

washes? Who uses more water, one of William Kittredge’s eastern 

Oregon buckaroos, or the actor who plays the cowboy on screen?

3. After the movie people leave our ranch in New Mexico, the wind takes 

the porta potties and knocks them down, spilling life-giving moisture and 

death-dealing disinfectant onto the parched earth. Math teaser: How many 

twelve-ounce plastic bottles, half full of water from France, rolling with 

the winds, taunting jackrabbit and coyote alike, does it take to cover one 

acre in one foot of water?
853

Arid.

1. “A term describing a climate or region in which precipitation is so 

defi cient in quantity or occurs so infrequently that intensive agricultural 

production is not possible without irrigation” (USBR website).3

 2. The 

defi ning fact of the inter-mountain West. Perpetually in the rain shadow. 

When I hang clothes on the line, they snap in the wind and are nearly dry 

before I fi nish hanging them. The downpour of yesterday is invisible 

today. 3. “Aridity, and aridity alone, makes the various West one. The 

distinctive western plants and animals, the hard clarity (before power 

plants and metropolitan traffi c altered it) of the western air, the look 

and location of western towns, the empty spaces that separate them, the 

way farms and ranches are either densely concentrated where water is 

plentiful or widely scattered where it is scarce, the pervasive presence of 

the federal government as landowner and land manager, the even more 

noticeable federal presence as dam builder and water broker, the snarling 

states’-rights and antifederal feelings whose burden Bernard DeVoto once 

characterized in a sentence–‘Get out and give us more money’–those are 

all consequences, and by no means all the consequences, of aridity.”4

Backwater.

1. “Water backed up or retarded in its course as compared with its natural 

condition of fl ow” (USGS website). 2. “A small, generally shallow body 

of water with little or no current of its own. Stagnant water in a small 

stream or inlet” (USBR website). 3. Any of the places off a state or county 

road, with no stoplight to impede the fl ow of children and dogs, sheep and 

cattle, pick-ups and tractors. The places of the heart for Wallace Stegner, 

Ivan Doig, William Kittredge, and Deirdre McNamer.

Claim.

1. “Asserts one’s right to.”5

 2. Water claims, mining claims, proving up 

a homestead claim. 3. The West does create a type, different from your 

garden-variety easterner. 4. See “reclamation.”

Condensation.

1. “The process by which water changes from the vapor state into the 

liquid or solid state. It is the reverse of evaporation” (USGS website).

2. A matter of faith when digging in a desert wash, visqueen sheeting in 

hand, praying water will collect, that evaporation can be reversed. It takes 

a long time to get a drink. 3. The process by which the fl ood of memories 

becomes words–nouns, verbs, landforms. See also Ivan Doig, Mary 

Austin, and John Muir.

Consumptive waste.

1. “The water that returns to the atmosphere without benefi tting man.” 

(Thomas, 1951, p. 217, in USGS website). 2. Virga. You watch it rain 

a mile away on the valley’s western slope, and here, where cacti, not 
854

timothy reign, you see the atmosphere take back the rain, even as it tries 

to fall your way. 3. Where snowpack goes when the river remains low, 

where your alfalfa crop goes when you can’t pump from the river. 

4. When your canoe runs aground every two minutes, scraping away your 

confi dence. At least you don’t hear the irrigation pumps when the river is 

low.

Control.

1. “A natural constriction of the channel, a long reach of the channel, 

a stretch of rapids, or an artifi cial structure downstream from a gaging 

station, that determines the stage-discharge relation at the gage” (USGS 

website). 2. John Wesley Powell’s struggle on the Colorado, to keep the 

men on the river, to reach long into the future with a watershed-based law 

of ownership. 3. Glen Canyon Dam, and the lake that bears his name.

4. Edward Abbey’s Hayduke and a jeep full of dynamite. 5. The great sin 

that William Kittredge writes penance for in Hole in the Sky, Taking Care, 

Who Owns the West?, and here, in Owning It All:

I saw the beginnings of my real life as an agricultural manager. 

The fl ow of watercourses in the valley was spread before me 

like a map, and I saw it as a surgeon might see the fl ow of blood 

across a chart of anatomy, and saw myself helping to turn the 

fertile homeplace of my childhood into a machine for agriculture 

whose features could be delineated with the same surgeon’s 

precision in my mind.6

 6. The central debate in John McPhee’s Encounters with the Archdruid.

Dam.

1. “A barrier built across a watercourse to impound or divert water. A 

barrier that obstructs, directs, retards, or stores the fl ow of water. Usually 

built across a stream. A structure built to hold back a fl ow of water” 

(USBR website). Example: As children we made toy dams in the eroded 

fi ssures after a big rain. We imagined we had equipment like our father 

had. We chanted “keyway, spillway, cat, riprap, carryall, scraper,” hoping 

to conjure the kind of power the Connecticut Yankee had in that book 

by Mark Twain. 2. The epithet used to conjure Floyd Dominy into his 

appointed circle of hell.

Dominy. 

The damned great Floyd, Satan in Mark Reisner’s Cadillac Desert,

dominated and controlled river fl ows throughout the West, married reclamation to recreation, and gave us houseboats in place of “the place no one 

knew,” Glen Canyon. For Dominy, Glen Canyon Dam:

Is food for growing America, drinking water for dwellers in an 

arid country, electric energy to provide the comforts of life and 
855

to turn the wheels of industry. It is jobs and paychecks—in the 

West and across the nation—and it is also taxes for the United 

States Treasury.

Most signifi cant of all, however, it is health and fun and the 

contentment of contemplating Nature’s beauty for thousands who 

might never experience these thrills of the outdoors if engineers 

had not inserted between the steep walls of Glen Canyon a 

mammoth concrete slab to control and clear the erratic river that 

used to be known as the “Big Red.”7

 This April Fool’s Day speech of 1965 promises that control is an absolute 

good, that nature’s messy and erratic processes should follow government 

interests, that the dirty “Big Red” will be cleansed, made “fun” for those seeking 

the “thrills of the outdoors.” Examples: As a teenager, I jumped boat wakes on 

Lake Powell, happy for the warm water and the miles of uninterrupted water 

skiing. The roar of the outboard motor covered the sound of wakes slapping 

the “steep walls” of sandstone, and almost covered the great echoing crashes 

as the water-weakened sandstone broke off in slabs and sank into the placid 

waters of Lake Powell. Glen Canyon Dam has begun to silt in, as many said it 

would, water allocations exceeded “streamfl ow” and sometimes leave the Central 

Arizona Project—hundreds of miles of open concrete canal—dry as bones in 

the desert. Abbey’s characters seek to void the Dominys, blast the “mammoth 

concrete slabs” to smithereens, and stop the Catherine “wheels of industry.” John 

Pfahl’s photographic series of submerged petroglyphs inscribes the erasure of 

those remnants of a culture (see “traditional cultural property” [USBR website]) 

that dwelled in arid country without benefi t of houseboats, air conditioning, or 

paychecks. Dominy has survived his foes–Brower, Reisner and Abbey all dead, 

while Floyd sips bourbon in a Vegas hotel, feted by an acre-foot of Water Board 

offi cers.

“There was this nice old man,” my mother drawls in her Tennessee

 accent, “His late wife was Southern, you know. I think he was a 

 big deal...He got an award. He used to work for the government.” 

 “Floyd Dominy?” I asked, incredulous. 

 “How did you know his name? There was some book,” she 

 continues, “that made him angry. He said he would have sued for libel 

 if his wife had been alive to read those lies. People told him the 

 author was dead, and he just laughed. 

 ‘Survived ‘em all,’ he said.”

Would Dominy have sued in Federal Court, in Water Court? Will 

Floyd survive Glen Canyon Dam?
856

Domination.

 See Dominy.

Drainage.

1. “Process of removing surface or 

subsurface water from a soil or area. A 

technique to improve the productivity of 

some agricultural land by removing excess 

water from the soil; surface drainage 

is accomplished with open ditches; 

subsurface drainage uses porous conduits 

(drain tile) buried beneath the soil surface” 

(USBR website). 2. What westerners call 

canyons, arroyos, deep indentations in 

mountains or hills, because sometimes they

contain water. Is there water in the La Jara 

drainage? Will it water the cattle in the 

section 7 pasture? Do we have to improve

the water? Can we divert it without a 

permit? 3. What William Kittredge’s family did to reclaim swamp land for 

agriculture:

The most intricate part of my job was called ‘balancing water,’ a 

night and day process of opening and closing pipes and redwood 

headgates and running the 18-inch drainage pumps. That system 

was the fi nest plaything I ever had (60).

Drawdown.

“Lowering of a reservoir’s water level; process of depleting a reservoir 

or ground water storage. ...The amount of water used from a reservoir” 

(USBR website). Example: The drawdown of the Snake River, as 

discussed by Mary Clearman Blew and Ripley Schemm in Schemm’s 

poem, “For Mary, On the Snake”:

“But the most amazing thing of all,”

You continue, “was the reappearance

of the river itself.” I write it back 

To you so you hear the poem your words

sing: “Underneath has been a tough

western river all along with sandbars

and a real current. Day by day

it emerged, and it was like gradually

recognizing a lost part of myself.” 

But then you tell how they closed

the gates, how you saw the river widen,

hardly stirring again. “Apparently,” 

You end, “it’s not possible to have both

Placid surface and mean current.”

37.1. Floyd E. Dominy while 

Commissioner of Reclamation.
857

I have to write you back, Mary. Think how

the mean current works, always there,

deceptive, below the surface.8

Feds.

Western term for any employee of the government or collective noun for 

any policy makers back east who make stupid decisions, as in “The feds 

say I can’t kill coyotes with 1080 anymore. I’d like to show the feds 

my dead sheep.” One’s antagonism toward the feds is a key element in 

western identity. Bernard DeVoto once characterized westerners’ attitude 

toward the feds in one sentence—“Get out and give us more money” (in 

Stegner, 9). Urban westerners resent the idea of the West as a dumping 

ground for national wastes, while lamenting the lack of federal regulation 

of utilities. Rural westerners resent almost all federal policy, but depend 

on federal subsidies for roads, telephone service, postal delivery, and 

agricultural entitlements. Stegner reminds us that another distinguishing 

feature of the West is the high percentage of federally owned land. The 

feds are our landlords and our neighbors. Feds are us.

Firn.

“Old snow on the top of glaciers, granular and compact but not yet 

converted into ice. It is a transitional stage between snow and ice” (USGS 

website). Example: Firn is what John Muir could see and name, but his 

fellow travelers could not. Here is Muir from his trip with the Harriman 

expedition:

The earnest, childish wonderment with which this glorious 

page of Nature’s Bible was contemplated was delightful to 

see. All evinced eager desire to learn.

 “Is that a glacier,” they asked, “down in the canyon? 

And is that all solid ice?”

 “Yes.”

 “How deep is it?”

 “Perhaps fi ve hundred or a thousand feet.”

 “You say it fl ows. How can hard ice fl ow?”

 “It fl ows like water, though invisibly slow.”

 “And where does it come from?”

 “From snow that is heaped up every winter on the 

mountains.”

 “And how, then, is the snow changed into ice?”

 “It is welded by the pressure of its own weight.”

 “. . . Are those bluish draggled masses hanging down 

from beneath the snow-fi elds what you call the snouts of 

glaciers?”

 “Yes.”

 “What made the hollows they are in?”

 “The glaciers themselves, just as traveling animals 

make their own tracks.”
858

 “How long have they been there?”

 “Numberless centuries,” etc. I answered as best I 

could,...while busily engaged in sketching and noting my 

own observations, preaching glacier gospel in a rambling 

way, while the Cassiar, slowly wheezing and creeping along 

the shore, shifted our position so that the icy canyons were 

opened to view and closed again in regular succession, like 

the leaves of a book.9 (122-123)

Firn, a monosyllable, like Muir’s short affi rmatives. “Welded by the 

pressure of its own weight,” as desertifi cation is welded to the West by 

the weight of urbanization, irrigation, and recreation. Muir’s snouts of 

glaciers nose smaller and higher reaches of the mountain West, receding 

like the animals—bears, wolves—whose habitat shrinks as we reject 

the doctrine of “consumptive waste,” responding to the call of Muir’s 

“glacial gospel” with mining and petroleum effl uvium. “How long have 

they been there?” ask Muir’s companions. “Numberless centuries,” etc. 

Western writers attend to the “etc.,” asking us to consider “numberless 

centuries” against a diminished present and an evaporating future. The 

glaciers of Glacier National Park suffer ablation, taking “fi rn” out of the 

glossary and into the antiquarian’s dictionary, signifying the ablative 

case. [Grammatical case indicating separation, direction away from, and 

sometimes manner or agency.]

Hydrology. 

1. “Scientifi c study of water in nature: its properties, distribution, and 

behavior. The science that treats the occurrence, circulation properties, 

and distribution of the waters of the earth and their reaction to the 

environment. Science dealing with the properties, distribution and fl ow of 

water on or in the earth” (USBR website). 2. Modifi ed to hydro-philology. 

The attentive and loving study of the language of water. 3. The mysteries 

of virga, hail, hot springs, capillary forces, alluvium, fetch, riffl es. The 

wonderful suggestiveness of mud cake, littoral, ephemeral creek, jeopardy 

opinion, eddy, morning glory spillway, muck, fl occulation, gravel blanket, 

paradox gate, sheepsfoot roller, or sticky limit. 4. The multiculturalism 

of arroyo, playa, reservoir, revetment. 5. The great disappointment of the 

scientifi c and bureaucratic hijacking of Eolian, fatal fl aw, future without, 

grapple, grizzly, groin, horsehead, reach, resilience, rill, sinuosity, and 

weep hole.

Infi ltration.

1. “The fl ow of fl uid into a substance through pores or small openings” 

(USGS website). 2. Infi ltration within federal, state and local government 

to change the language of laws away from ownership of acre-feet, miner’s 

inches, prior appropriation, to a Powellian language of the communal—

use, rather than ownership, biotic and human use, as opposed to selfinterested use. As Kittredge claims:
859

In the American West we are struggling to revise our dominant 

mythology, and to fi nd a new story to inhabit. Laws control our 

lives, and they are designed to preserve a model of society based 

on values learned from mythology. Only after re-imagining our 

myths can we coherently remodel our laws, and hope to keep our 

society in a realistic relationship to what is actual. (64)

In situ.

“In place, the original location, in the natural environment” (USBR 

website). Example/question: Is Rainbow Bridge really “in situ”? 

2. Where the language of water needs to be resettled.

Irretrievable.

“Commitments that are lost for a period of time” (USBR website). Only 

in bureaucratic language could this mean “lost for a period of time.” Fear 

not, futurists: Hetch Hetchy is “irretrievable,” but in the government sense.

Precipitation.

1. “As used in hydrology, precipitation is the discharge of water, in 

liquid or solid state, out of the atmosphere, generally upon a land or 

water surface. It is the common process by which atmospheric water 

becomes surface or subsurface water ...[.] The term ‘precipitation’ is also 

uncommonly used to designate the quantity of water that is precipitated.” 

(Meinzer, 1923, p. 15 in USGS website). 2. The abundant precipitation 

in the winter of 1955 left Northern California fl ooded to heights still not 

duplicated. Although we were not in the fl ood plain, our December lambs 

turned green from mold (only last year did I learn that this was fatal), 

and I have suffered from lifelong allergies to molds. 3. In Northern New 

Mexico when it rains two inches in an hour, dirt roads turn to gumbo. You 

stop where you are, and if you want to get home from town, you walk, 

even in your town clothes, watching as the earth clings to you, wanting to 

keep you in place. That sucking sound is the lip-smacking earth feeding 

on your best shoes.

Reclamation.

Not listed in USGS glossary. Not listed in USBR glossary. 1. Code 

word for dam building in the fi rst two thirds of the twentieth century. 

The Bureau of Reclamation, a federal agency that spent tax dollars to 

subsidize agriculture, but more often agribusiness, utility companies, 

and urban development. See Floyd Dominy. 2. Act of re-appropriation, 

reclaiming the West as an “emotional homeland.” 3. Coincident with the 

new language of USBR, reclaiming federal power for conservation and 

preservation. 4. Reclamation of language and representation in the service 

of biotic communities and even backwaters.
860

Relict.

1. “A species, population, etc., which is a survivor of a nearly extinct 

group. Any species surviving in a small local area and widely separated 

from closely related species” (USBR website). 2. Floyd Dominy, the 

farmer with a D8 and a dream of a little dam. 3. Relicts now gone: 

Edward Abbey; Everett Reuss, who walked away in Canyonland; Maynard 

Dixon, who dared to paint aridity; Arth Chaffi n, almost alone at Hite 

Ferry; Mary Austin’s pocket miners.

Scour.

1. “Erosion in a stream bed, particularly if caused or increased by channel 

changes” (USBR website). 2. The ailment in cattle that makes day-use 

recreationists write letters to their Congressmen. Get those cattle with 

diarrhea off our range. My new hiking boots are ruined!

Things we can actually do with these words:

1. Play: the language of water is becoming indigenous to the West, and 

it’s a language rich with possibility: Acequia, braided channels, crick, 

ditch rider, diversion, drought, sometimes drouth, ephemeral, fl oodgate, 

headgate, irrigation, subirrigation, meander, submeander, meromictic, 

miner’s inches, mirage, parched, rain shadow, riffl e, riparian, riprap, 

runoff, spring box, tanks, troughs, throughfall, virga, water crop, water 

court, water gap, water law, waterpocket fold, water master, water witch.

2. Twist them, divert them: here’s a post-timber sale tongue twister: How 

much water will a watershed shed if a watershed gets waterlogged from 

logging?

3. Read them: A short of list of western books both wet and dry: wet 

books: MacLean’s A River Runs Through It, Roosevelt’s Ranch Life and 

the Hunting Trail, The Journals of Lewis and Clark, Doig’s Bucking the 

Sun, Stegner’s Angle of Repose, McNickle’s Wind from an Enemy Sky,

and Nichols’s The Milagro Beanfi eld War, Anaya’s Bless Me, Ultima; dry 

books: Austin’s The Land of Little Rain, Abbey’s Desert Solitaire, Cather’s 

My Ántonia, Silko’s Ceremony, McCarthy’s Blood Meridian.

4. Reclaim them: Why can’t ownership become owning up? 

Stewardship? Why can’t the land own us?

One fi nal term from the USBR Glossary:

Author’s signature. “This is the signature of the person or persons 

with primary responsibility for writing the document. Signature of the 

document by the author(s) signifi es that a draft document was provided to 

team members and that they had an opportunity to comment on the draft.

The author’s signature also implies that comments were considered and 
861

that any critical issues or infl uencing factors were incorporated into the 

document” (USBR website). I await the chance to place my “author’s” 

signature on this document.

Nancy Cook, Ph.D., is an associate professor and teaches nineteenth, twentieth, 

and twenty-fi rst century American literature and culture in the English 

Department at the University of Montana, Missoula. She has published several 

articles and is working on a book on class issues in the twentieth century rural 

West.

Endnotes

1. W. B. Langbein and Kathleen T. Iseri, “General Introduction and Hydrologic Defi nitions,” Science in Your Watershed, USGS <http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html> (May 23, 

2001). All subsequent quotations from USGS glossary will be noted by parenthetical citation, 

USGS.

2. All defi nitions that are not in quotations are my own.

3. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Glossary <http://www.usbr.gov/cdams/glossary.

html> (June 28, 2001). All subsequent quotations from USBR glossary will be noted by parenthetical citation, USBR.

4. Wallace Stegner, The American West as Living Space (Ann Arbor: University of 

Michigan, 1987), 8-9.

5. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition.

6. William Kittredge, Owning It All (St. Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press, 1987), 57.

7. Dominy, “Open Spaces for All Americans,” speech, 1 April 1965, box 32, Floyd Dominy 

Papers, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie; quoted in Jared Farmer, Glen

Canyon Dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the Canyon Country (Tucson: University of Arizona 

Press, 1999), 148.

8. Ripley Schemm, “For Mary, On The Snake,” in Circle of Women: An Anthology of 

Contemporary Western Women Writers, ed. Kim Barnes and Mary Clearman Blew (New York 

City: Penguin Books, 1994), 80-1.

9. John Muir, from Travels in Alaska, reprinted in Ann Zwinger, editor, Writing the Western 

Landscape (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994), 122-3. The Cassiar is a small steamship, possibly hired 

from Cassiar, B.C. See the full text of Travels in Alaska for details.

Works Cited:

Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York: Ballantine, 

1968.

__________. The Monkey Wrench Gang. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975.

Anaya, Rudolfo. Bless Me, Ultima. Berkeley: Quinto Sol, 1972.

Austin, Mary. The Land of Little Rain (1903). New York: Penguin, 1997.

Barnes, Kim and Mary Clearman Blew, eds. Circle of Women: an Anthology of Contemporary 

 Western Women Writers, New York: Penguin, 1994.

Cather, Willa. My Ántonia (1918). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

DeVoto, Bernard, quoted in Stegner, Wallace. The American West as Living Space. Ann Arbor: 

 University of Michigan, 1987. 

Doig, Ivan. Bucking the Sun. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

__________. This House of Sky: Landscapes of a Western Mind. New York: Harcourt 

 Brace Jovanovich, 1978.

Farmer, Jared. Glen Canyon Dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the Canyon Country, Tucson: 

 University of Arizona Press, 1999.

Kittredge, William. Hole in the Sky. New York: Knopf, 1992.

__________. Owning It All. St. Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press, 1987.
862

__________. Taking Care. Minneapolis: Milkweed, 1999.

__________. Who Owns the West? San Francisco: Mercury House, 1996.

Langbein, W. B. and Kathleen T. Iseri. “General Introduction and Hydrologic defi nitions,” 

Science in Your Watershed, USGS <http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html>

Maclean, Norman. A River Runs Through It, and Other Stories. Chicago: University of Chicago 

 Press, 1976.

McCarthy, Cormac. Blood Meridian. New York: Random House, 1985.

McNamer, Deirdre. Rima in the Weeds. New York: Harper Collins, 1991.

McNickle, Darcy. Wind From an Enemy Sky. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978.

McPhee, John. Encounters with the Archdruid. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1971.

Muir, John, from Travels in Alaska, reprinted in Writing the Western Landscape. Ed. Ann 

 Zwinger, Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.

Nichols, John. The Milagro Beanfi eld War. New York: Holt Rinehart, 1974.

Pfahl, John. Submerged petroglyph series. www.johnpfahl.com

Reisner, Mark. Cadillac Desert. New York: Viking, 1986.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail (1888). New York: Timelife, 1981.

Schemm, Ripley. “For Mary, On the Snake,” in Circle of Women: an Anthology of Contemporary 

 Western Women Writers. Ed. Kim Barnes and Mary Clearman Blew, New York: 

 Penguin, 1994.

Silko, Leslie Marmon. Ceremony. New York: Viking, 1977.

Stegner, Wallace. Angle of Repose. New York: Doubleday, 1971.

__________. The American West as Living Space. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1987.

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889). New York: The Modern 

 Library, 2001.

USGS site, <http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html>

USBR site, <http://www.usbr.gov/cdams/glossary.html>

Webb, Walter Prescott. Great Plains (1931). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition.
I-1

Index

A

Abbey, Edward 542, 543, 845

Abrams, Duff 10, 142

acreage limitation 509, 510, 626

aging infrastructure 795

Aiken, Thomas J. 779, 780

air-entrained cement 145

air-entraining admixture 34, 35

Alamo River 274

Alaska Investigations Offi ce 496

Albright, Horace 477

Alcova Dam 100

Alexander, Don 787

Alexander, Lt. Colonel B. S. 505

Alger, Russell 363

alkali aggregate reaction 138, 145

All-American Canal 449, 719

American Falls Dam 33, 95

Amur 305

Anderson, Clinton B. 554, 597, 723

Anderson Ranch Dam 101

Animas La-Plata Project 602

Apache Trail 301

arch and cantilever behavior in dams 254

arch dam 255, 259

Arch Dam Analysis Program (ADAP) 50

Arch Dam Stress Analysis System (ADSAS) 49

Arizona 583, 590, 833

Arizona Dam 301

Arizona v. California 582, 583, 588, 589

Armstrong, Ellis 786

Arrowrock Dam 8

Arthur, Harold 783, 786

Aspinall, Wayne 598, 727

Aswan High Dam 671

atomic energy 628

Auburn Dam 49, 647, 787, 788, 790

Austin, Colorado 744

Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis (ADINA) 50

B

Babb, Cyrus 296

Bach, Maryanne 796

Bailey, Edward 316 

Banks, Frank A. 15, 224, 230

Barcellos Judgment 177

Barrett, Frank 727

Bartlett Dam 382

Beck, Harry 48

Belle Fourche Dam 85, 91, 96, 154
I-2

Belle Fourche Project 167

Bellport, Barney 783, 786

Bennett, Wallace 727

Besendorfer, Moroni 437

Better Business, Better Farming, Better Living 316

Billings, Frederick 316

Billings Land & Irrigation Company 320

Billings, Parmly 316

Billings Polytechnic Institute 323

Billings Sugar Factory 321

Black Canyon Diversion Dam 10

Bloom, Paul 552, 558, 566, 568

Blue Nile River Basin 669

Bonneville Unit 441

Borah, William 336

Bostwick Division 173

Boulder Canyon National Reservation 479

Boulder Canyon Project 264

Boulder Canyon Project Act, 1928 279, 447, 468, 524, 720

Boulder Dam 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 448, 453, 454, 455, 457, 458, 459, 467, 468, 

469, 470, 471, 472, 474, 475, 479, 480, 481, 482, 484, 493, 485, 486, 488, 489, 491, 492, 

493, 698, 826, 827. See Hoover Dam

Boulder Dam Recreation Area 467, 484, 485, 486, 488, 489. See Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area

Bradbury Dam. See Cachuma Dam

Bridge Canyon 592

Bridge Canyon Dam 468, 590, 599

Broadbent, Robert (Bob) 790

Brower, David 526, 542, 647, 836, 843, 845

budget summary report 784

Buffalo Bill Dam 7. See Shoshone Dam

Bumgartner, Tom 785

Bureau of Reclamation 67-71, 123, 153, 202, 221-23, 225-36, 238-40, 467, 469, 472, 473, 

476-84, 487-90, 492-94, 622, 640, 645-49, 651-53, 656, 658, 659, 663, 697–714, 697–714, 

710. See U. S. Reclamation Service 

Burkett, Elmer 339

Burley Irrigation District 400

Butler, John 234, 237

C

Cachuma Dam 106. See Bradbury Dam

California Development Company 274

California Water Commission 789

Cammerer, Arno B. 479

Camp David Peace Accord 671

canals 191, 305

Carey Act, 1894 320

Carey, Robert 414

Carson River Diversion Dam 292

Carter, Thomas 336

Catino, Mike 789

cavitation 28, 29, 537

CCC 737-751

cement 135-150

cement hydration 136
I-3

Central Arizona Project (CAP) 579-604, 649

Central Utah Project 179, 440, 441, 442, 602

Central Utah Water Conservancy District 442

Central Valley Project 175, 503-519

Central Valley Project Association (CVPA) 509

Central Valley Project Conference (CVPC) 509

Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 1992 (CVPIA) 515, 794, 796

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) 176

Chabot (Lower San Leandro) Dam 73

Chaffey, George 274

Chapman, Oscar 727

Charleston, Utah 435-439

Chavez, Dennis 555

Chief Engineer 71

Chief of Construction 69

Childress, John 785

Chinook salmon 511, 515

chuting 141

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). See Emergency Conservation Works; See CCC

Cle Elum Dam 96

Clyde, George 727

Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station 70

Colorado River 195-206, 274, 535, 718, 826, 827, 831. See Grand River

“Colorado River and its Utilization,” 1916 708

Colorado River Aqueduct 284

Colorado River Basin 195-206

Colorado River Basin Project Act 582, 596, 602

Colorado River Board 282

Colorado River Compact, 1922 451, 452, 524, 709, 718

Colorado River Compact Commission 717

Colorado River squawfi sh 514

Colorado River Storage Project Act 591

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) 525, 551, 554, 715, 716, 720, 724, 728, 730, 732

Colton, Don B. 433

Columbia Basin Project 174, 626, 646

Columbia River 308 report studies 237

computers 45, 104

concrete 135-150

alkali-aggregate reaction 138, 145

Concrete Laboratory 70, 144

Concrete Manual 144

conference of engineers at Ogden. Utah 256

construction equipment 98, 103, 107, 116

construction project management 144

Contra Costa Canal 175

conveyor system use 108

Cook, Felix 796

Coolidge Dam 719

Cope, Bob 785

Copen, Merlin 47

corrugated plastic pipe 162

Cragin, C. C. 378

Cross, Hardy 268

Crowe, Frank T. 10

Cui-ui lake suckers 209-220
I-4

culinary water 439

cultural ideology of concrete use 269

CVPIA . See Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 1992 (CVPIA)

cyclopean concrete methods 141

cylinder formula 254

D

daily per diem 785

Dallas Creek 602

dam design 1, 249-269

Hoover Dam improvements 19

Dam, Elephant Butte 9

dams

 risks involved 96

Dams and Control Works 97, 102

Davis, Arthur P. 68, 70, 225, 226, 256, 264, 275, 291, 665

Davis Dam 106, 486

Davis, David W. 70

Deaver Irrigation District 409

Deer Creek Dam 438

Deer Creek Reservoir 435, 437, 439

Delta Cross Channel 517

Delta Division 513

delta smelt 515

DeMary, Albin C. 385

DeMary, Elizabeth L. 385

Department of Agriculture 685

Derby Diversion Dam 81, 211, 292

DeSazilly, J. Augustine 251

Desert Solitaire 845

Design of Small Dams 68, 129

Design Standards No. 13—Embankment Dams 75

developing state-of-the-art concrete 139

Development Company of America (DCA) 367, 368, 370

DeVoto, Bernard 835

Dinosaur National Monument 468, 487, 525, 730, 835

discursive methods 826

diverse workforce 796

Division of Foreign Activities 668

Dixie Project 602

Dolores 602

Dominy, Floyd 637, 646, 649

Donna Darr 796

double curvature arch 40-66, 43, 47

Downey, Sheridan 510

drain 163, 165

drainage 153, 154, 156, 159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 

182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 192

Drainage and Ground Water Branch 155

Drainage and Ground Water Division 155

Drainage and Minor Construction Act 158

Drainage Engineering Section 155

Drainage Manual 156, 189

drought 547

Duck, Donald 786
I-5

durability of concrete 136

durable concrete 136

durable engineering material 137

Durango Planning Offi ce 786

Duvall, Dale 793

E

earthfi ll porewater pressures 101

Earth Manual 68, 115, 129

Earth Materials Laboratory 70, 98, 102

Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Dams (EACD) 50

Eastern South Dakota Basins Study 181

East Park Dam 8

Echo Dam 95

Echo Park 266, 525, 831, 838, 841, 843, 844

Echo Park Dam 468, 487, 724, 730

Eklutna Project 495, 498, 499, 500

electrical census of the United States 697

electrical engineering 67

electricity 699, 701, 702, 705

Elephant Butte Dam 8

drainage in dam 9

Ely, Northcutt “Mike” 583

Ely, Sims 366, 481

Embankment Dam Instrumentation Manual 129

embankment dams 67, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 83, 84, 85, 94, 96, 98, 104, 106, 123, 129

Embudo, New Mexico 639

Emergency Conservation Works 738. See CCC

Endangered Species Act 786

engineering 250

Engineering and Research Center (ERC) 786

engineering geology 67

Engineering News 257

environmental sociology 826

environments that aggressively attack Portland cement concrete 137

Escalante National Monument 524

F

Fact Finders’ Act of 1924 157, 409, 682

Fact-Finders’ Commission 408, 682

Failure of Teton Dam 118

Failure of Teton Dam—A Report of Findings 118

Fall/Davis Report 275, 277

Fallon, Nevada 293

Farmers Home Administration 691

farming 613

Federal Reports Elimination Act, 1998 159

Federal Water Power Act 697

Finney, E. C. 413

Flaming Gorge Dam 724

Flood Hydrograph and Routing (FHAR) computer program 202

fl ooding in 1983 28

Folsom Dam 508, 795, 799

Fontenelle Dam 106, 108, 125

Food Security Act of 1985 158
I-6

foreign food 798

foreign visitors 666

form and mass 250

Fort Laramie Canal 298, 349

Fort Laramie Unit 335

Frannie Division 408

freeze-thaw deterioration in concrete 139

Frei, Lou 787

Fresno Dam 101

Friant Dam 515

Friends of Lake Powell 545

Fritson, Naomi 173

G

Garden City Project 702

Garland Division 408

Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act, 1986 159

General Services Administration (GSA) 781

geotechnical engineering 67, 96

Gerber Dam 67

construction methods 10

Gianelli, William 514

G.I. Bill of Rights 683

Gibson Dam 238, 262

Glen Canyon 528, 531, 535, 536, 831, 844

Glen Canyon Dam 34, 265, 267, 523, 526, 527, 533, 537, 538, 698, 724, 825, 844

Glen Canyon Institute 544

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 487

glory hole spillway 18, 858. See morning glory spillway

Glover, Robert E. 160

Goldwater, Barry 584

Granby Dam 105

Grand Canyon National Monument 476, 486

Grand Coulee 826

Grand Coulee Dam 15, 28, 30, 32, 33, 230, 698, 801, 827

Grand River 718. See Colorado River

Grand Valley Canal 718

Grand Valley Project 719

Granite Reef Diversion Dam 301

Granite Reef Underground Storage Project 304

gravity dams 251, 260

gravity design 254

grazing 432, 483

Great Western Sugar Company 321

Green Mountain Dam 101

Ground Water Manual 189

grouting 106

Guernsey Dam 95, 298

Gunnison Project. See Uncompahgre Project

Gunnison Tunnel 294, 302, 719

H

Hall, William Hamilton 505

Han River Basin, Korea 669

Harper, Sinclair O. 229 
I-7

Hawk, Ed 785

Hayden, Carl 478, 579, 582, 584, 585, 589, 600

Hay, Gaylord 787

Heber City 438

Heber, Utah 430

Heber Valley 439

Helmand Valley 669

Hemenway Wash 482

Hesper Farm 317

Hetch Hetchy Dam 834

Hetch Hetchy Valley 472

Heyburn, Weldon 338

Higginson, R. Keith 71

high-frequency, mechanical concrete vibrator 144

Highline Canal 348

High-Pressure Reservoir Outlets 97

Hilf, Jack 783

Hill, Louis C. 301

Hilmes, Bill 785

“hit list” 628

Hoffman, Susan 796

Hohokam 376

Hooker, Elton 363

Hoover Dam 1, 14, 15, 19-28, 30, 31, 33, 45, 61, 64, 143, 195, 196, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 264, 

273, 279, 284, 285, 447, 666, 698, 719. See Boulder Dam

Horse Mesa Dam 380

Houk, Ivan 262

Houston, David 790

Howell, C. H. 261

Hudson Reservoir & Canal Company 365

Hungry Horse Dam 34, 146

Huntley Project 154, 168, 321

Huntley Project Demonstration Farm 324

hydration in concrete 136

hydraulic engineering 67

hydraulic fi ll construction 81

hydraulic piezometer 103

hydroelectricity 709, 720

hydrologic studies for Hoover Dam 195

hydrology 67

hydrostatic pressure indicator 103

I

Ickes, Harold 70

Imperial Dam 719

Imperial Irrigation District 276

Imperial Valley 274, 275

Independent Panel to Review Cause of Teton Dam Failure 118

Indian Camp Dam 551, 552, 553, 564, 566, 571

Indian reserved rights 558

instrumentation 103

instrumentation engineering 67

Interior Department Appropriation Act of 1954 158

internal vertical movement device 103
I-8

international program 663, 664, 667, 668

Interstate Canal 298

Irrigation Drainage Program 179

J

Jackson, Henry (Scoop) 597

Jaquith, A. C. 261

Jordanelle 441

Jordanelle Dam 443

Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir 440

Jorgensen, Lars 280

K

Kansas River Projects 173

Kaufmann, Gordon 283

Kendrick, John 419

Kendrick Project 143

Kennett Dam and Reservoir. See Shasta Dam and Shasta Lake

Kennett Reservoir 507

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge 515

Kesterson Reregulating Reservoir 175

Kesterson Reservoir 515

Kesterson Wildlife Refuge 791

Keys, John W., III 798

Kincaid Act 276

King, William H. 433

Klamath Project 679, 691

Klostermeyer, Bill 789

Knopf, Alfred A. 836

L

Laguna Dam 719

Lahontan cutthroat trout 209

Lake Alice 348

Lake Mead 482

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 486, 488. See Boulder Dam Recreation Area

Lake Minitare 348

Lake Powell 487, 542, 546, 547

Lake Sherburne Dam 296

Lake Tahoe 209, 292

language and writing about water in the West 851

LaRue, Eugene C. 524

Leopold, Luna 844

Lewiston, Idaho 698

Lippincott, Joseph B. 449

liquefaction 104

Litani River Basin 669

Living Rivers 545

long-distance power transmission technology 449

long distance transmission of electricity 699

Los Angeles 284, 450, 708

Lower Missouri Region 72

low-heat cement 143
I-9

M

Main, Bob 46

Malpasset Dam 1, 37

Marble Bluff Dam 214

Marble Canyon 592

Marble Gorge Dam 599

Marshall Plan 667

Marshal, Robert Bradford 506

Martin, Billy 789

Martinez, Andres 552, 556

Martinez, Eluid 552, 569

Martin, John 366

Maxwell, George 290, 368

McClellan, Leslie 227

McCracken, Jeff 798

McKay Dam 95

McKay, Douglas 843

Mead, Elwood 70, 228, 409, 410, 411, 412, 477, 615, 665

mechanical engineering 67

Mekong River Basin 669

Merritt Dam 111

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) 284, 454, 618

Mexican Water Treaty and Protocol, 1944 452

Mezner, Rudy 785

middle third theory in dam design 252

Mid-Pacifi c Region 789

Midway, Utah 438

Milk River Project 296, 302

Minatare 298

Minidoka Dam 81

Minidoka Irrigation District 400

Minidoka Project 386, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 700, 703

Minidoka Water Users Association 386

mining 483

Minnesota and Montana Land and Improvement Company 317

modern concrete 137, 143, 149

Mondell, Frank 339

Montgomery, L. C. 437

Montgomery, Walter 440

Monticello Dam 51

Moody, W. T. 160

Mormon Flat Dam 380

morning glory spillway 19. See glory hole spillway

Morton, Rogers 782

Moss, Preston 318

Mt. Elbert Forebay Dam 124

multiple purpose dams 223

Murphy, Frank 363

Murphy, (Nathan) Oakes 363, 365, 369

Murphy, Simon 365

Museum of Northern Arizona 529
I-10

N

Nambé Falls Dam 43

National Environmental Policy Act 786

National Irrigation Water Quality Program (NIWQP) 184 

national parks 467

National Parks Association 842

National Park Service 469, 479, 481, 484, 841

 reconcile its own ideal of preservation 467

National Park Year 479

National Performance Review (NPR) 795

national recreation area 487

Navajo 725

Navajo Dam 107, 108, 725

Navajo Generating Station 600

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project 725

Navajo Indians 846

Navajo Rainbow National Park 533

Nebraska v. Wyoming 354

Newell, Frederick H. 68, 226, 256, 290, 614, 637, 639, 641, 642, 643, 665

Newlands, Francis G. 290, 292

Newlands Project 168, 291, 302. See Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project

New Melones Dam and Powerplant 517

Nichols, John 552, 564

Nile River 670

nineteenth century engineering 250

Noetzli, Fred 258, 260, 263, 267

North Platte 679

North Platte Project 297, 303, 333, 341, 344, 352, 414. See Sweetwater Project

Northport Canal 350

NPS-USBR cooperation 478

NPS-USBR partnership 468

O

Oahe Unit 180

Oakes 5,000 Acre Test Area 182

ocher-forming bacteria 187

O’Donnell, I. D. “Bud” 315-319, 325-327

oil shale 731

Omnibus Adjustment Act 157

oppositional discourse 847

O’Sullivan, James 829

outdoor recreation 468, 469

Owyhee Dam 16, 230, 262

P

Pacheco, Rudy 552, 568

Pacifi c Southwest Water Plan 592

Page, Arizona 527 

Palisades Dam 107

Pa Mong Project 669

Park, Parkway, and Recreation Area Study Act, 1936 479

Parker Dam 33

Pathfi nder Dam 4, 256, 298, 333

Peeples, Denby 785
I-11

Peripheral Canal 513, 514

Phoenix, Arizona 303

physical model testing 262

piezometer 103, 115

Pineview Dam 100

Pittman, Key 485

plastic pipe 190

Point IV Program 667

political appointees 791

politics 793

Porter, Eliot 542, 845

Powell, John Wesley 290

power revenues paid to water users 414

pozzolan 135, 146

pozzolanic sands 135

prior appropriation 716

process quality control technique 144

Proctor, Ralph R. 98

Proctor’s density test 98

profi le of equal resistance 251

Progressive culture 386

Progressive engineers at Reclamation 226

Project Superintendent 794

Provo River 443

Provo River Project 435

Provo River Water Users Association 435

Provo Water Users Association 436, 440

Public Law 258 691

public vs. private power ownership 407

Pueblo Dam 54, 57, 112, 124

Pyramid Lake 209, 211, 212

Pyramid Lake Fishway 214

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 302

Q

quality of concrete impaired 136

Quinton, Cliff 796

R

Rainbow Bridge 531

Rainbow Bridge National Monument 847

Rampart Dam 647

Rankine, W. J. M. 252

rational fi lter criteria 102

Reclamation Act, 1902 290, 335, 611, 612, 613, 639, 640

Reclamation and the CCC 748

Reclamation Commission, 1913-1915 69

Reclamation Project Act of 1939 157, 423

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 515

Reclamation Reform Act, 1982 510, 627, 790

Reclamation Service 69, 612, 614, 616. See Bureau of Reclamation

recreation 305, 434

Red Bluff Diversion Dam 512

Red Fleet (Tyzak) Dam 123

regionalization 791
I-12

Reisner, Marc 643

reservoir raised the water table 438

Reynolds, Steve 558

Rifkind, Simon 583

Rio Grande Compact 555

riparian water rights 505

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 508

Riverton Project 170-172, 692

Robie, Wendell 792

Robinson, Henry M. 363

Rockwood, Charles 274

Roddis, E. E. 409

roller-compacted concrete 55, 146

Roosevelt Dam 370, 719. See also Theodore Roosevelt Dam

Roosevelt, Theodore 290, 369

Rowley, Henry W. 318

Rupert, Idaho 385, 386, 388, 389, 394

Rusho, W. (Bud) L. 523

S

Sacramento River 504, 511

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 506

Sacramento Valley 504

Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams (SEED)

safety of dams 121

safety of dams program 147

Salmon Lake Dam 94

Salton Sea 275, 523

Salt River Project 299, 302, 303, 305, 375-383, 581, 699, 703

Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association 300

San Andreas Dam 73

sand-cement 9, 141

San Felipe Project 789

San Joaquin River 504

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (SJVDP) 178

San Juan-Chama Diversion Project 551, 554

San Juan River 546

San Luis Dam 111

San Luis Drain 175, 515, 791

San Miguel 602

Santa Fe, Prescott, & Phoenix Railroad 364

Sao Francisco River Basin 669

Savage, John (Jack) L. 10, 14, 93, 229, 262, 265, 667

Saylor, John 599

SCADA 305. See Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System

Schlichting, Bill 781

security 799

sedimentation 546

Seismic Stability of Earth Dams, 1951 104

seismology 67

selenium 176, 516

separate power revenues from irrigation repayments 410

Shafroth, James 294

Shasta Dam 30, 32, 33, 516. See Kennett Dam and Reservoir

sheepsfoot roller 83
I-13

sheepsfoot tamping roller 96

Shoshone Dam 7, 679

Shoshone River. See Buffalo Bill Dam

Shoshone Irrigation District 409, 422

Shoshone Project 407, 408, 410, 413, 700

Sierra Club 599, 843, 844, 847

Sinclair, Upton 510

SJCDP 555

Sly Park Dam 107

Smoot, Reed 432

Smythe, William E. 617

Snowy Mountains Scheme 669

Soldier Creek Dam 111, 124

Somerday, Rod 787

Southern California Edison 447, 449, 455, 708

Southern Pacifi c Railroad 275

Southern Sierra Power Company 456, 708

Southwest Region 72

Spillway Crisis 534

Split Mountain Dam 835, 841, 843

State Water Plan 506, 508

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 175

Stegner, Wallace 836

Stevenson Creek Test Dam 238, 262, 263

Stewart Mountain Dam 380

St. Francis Dam 96, 450

Stony Gorge Dam 13

Straus, Michael W. 669

Strawberry Reservoir 434

Strawberry River diversion 430

Strawberry Valley Project 431, 702, 703

Strawberry Water Users Association 434

stream adjudication suits 559

striped bass 514

strongest concrete 136

structural concrete 250

structures 191

sulfate attack on concrete 137

Supervisor of Irrigation 69

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 305

Sutherland, George 432

Sweetwater Project 333. See North Platte Project

Swing-Johnson Act, 1928 279. See Boulder Canyon Project Act, 1928

Swing, Philip 458

swings of temperature 257

T

Taft, William Howard 295

Talpa 553

Tamarisk 539 

Taos, New Mexico 552

Taos Pueblo 553

Taylor, Frederick W. 234

Taylor Park Dam 100, 302

technical cooperation and exchange 673
I-14

Teighman, F. 6

Terry Pumping Plant 191

Terzaghi, Dr. Karl 96

Teton Dam 71, 106, 112, 116, 118, 119, 622

Teton Dam Failure Review Group 117

Theodore Roosevelt Dam 141, 468

Soon after completion Reclamation noticed the recreation potential of its reservoirs 468

The Use of Laboratory Tests to Develop Design Criteria for Protective Filters, 1955 104

Third Power Plant 32

Three Gorges Dam 667, 671

Tiber Dam 106

Tieton Dam 94, 95

Tonto Project 300. See Salt River Project

Torpin, Mary 174

tourism 469

Town Sites and Power Development Act, 1906 407, 702

training activities 671

transient state drain spacing procedures 159

transmission lines 483

trenching machines 163

trial load method 5, 44, 45, 49, 238, 261, 265, 282

Trinity Dam 107

Truckee Canal 292

Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project 210. See Newlands Project

Truckee River 209, 210

Truman Doctrine 667

Turner, Marcy 796

Tyzak Dam 123

U

Udall, Morris 594

Udall, Stewart 594

Uncompahgre Project 293, 302, 719. See Gunnison Project

Uncompahgre Valley 719

underground power plant 41

Underwood, Dennis 794

Union Pacifi c Railroad 480

United States v. Tilley, et al. 353

University of Utah 528

uplift and sliding 253

Upper Basin Compact 720

USBR. See Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Geological Survey 656

U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act 667

U.S. Reclamation Service 70. See Bureau of Reclamation; See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

V

Veeder, William 558

veterans 679, 680, 681, 684, 688, 690, 691, 692

veterans settlement on Reclamation projects 677

Virgin National Park 470
I-15

W

Walcott, Charles D. 68. 291

Wallace, Henry A. 394

Walter, Raymond (Ray) F. 86, 229

Ward, Joni 796

Warren Act, 1911 333, 335, 336, 337, 340, 341, 343, 346, 350, 616

Warren, Francis E. 290, 336

Water and Power Resources Service 72, 121, 788

Water Power Act 447

water power sites for speculative purposes 701

Watkins, Arthur 726

weakest concrete 136

Webber, Darrell 46

Wellton-Mohawk Division 182

Welton Street laboratory 25

West Divide 602

Western Area Power Administration 788

Westlands Water District 511

Weymouth, Francis (Frank) E. 70, 225, 229, 265, 278, 618

Weymouth Report, 1924 278, 281, 282

Wheeler-Case Projects 749

Wheeler, E. T. 4, 257

Wilbur 477, 478

Wiley, Bill 785

Williston Project 702

Willwood Division 408

Wilson, Herbert M. 665

Winger, Ray 160, 187, 188

Winters v. United States 296, 589

Winterton, Allen M. 436

Wirth, Conrad 479

Wisner, George Y. 4, 256

Wisner-Wheeler paper 257

Woods, Rufus 829

Work, Hubert 409

World Commission on Dams 801

World War I 679

Wright Act, 1887 505

Wylie, Lemuel F. 527

Y

Yellowstone Fair Association 317

Yellowstone Valley 315

Yellowtail Dam 34

Yosemite National Park 472

Z

zones in embankment dams, 1938 102
I-16