The record-union., 1895-05-10
A LESSON IN DAMS.

The collapse of the Bouzey dam, in
graphically described in this paper two
or three days ago, was, in every particu-
lar. an overwhelming catastrophe, the
more conspicuous incidents of which
were the loss of perhaps $50 lives and the
destruction of over $l0.000,0 900 worth of
property. And yet, like most other ca
lamities, it has purpose to serve in the
economy of events. It cannot fail to be
accepted as warning, if it be not taken
as positive demonstration of the unre-
liability of dams, in practice, however
secure they may be considered to be in
theory.
The dam in question was built of the
most substantial material and with the
greatest thoroughness, with the idea that
it would last for all time, and it was ad-
judged by the most competent and trust
worthy authorities to be safe and per-
manent structure: and it was kept in
condition under the surveillance of the
corps of engineers of France. who are
said to be without superiors in the world
for skill and painstaking. II in America.
where engineering is alleged to be done
sometimes with greater regard for dis
patch and less regard for permanency. a
similar structure had given way, it might
be said, justly or unjustly, that it was
faulty in construction or was neglected,
but il is not likely that such superficial
criticism will be offered in this case.
And yet. as though no restraining dam is
ever to be relied upon absolutely, this
Bouzey dam, or $50 yards of its length
and 60 feet of it's hight, which under
scrutiny had shown no symptom Of
weakness or defect, sprang forward in an
instant, without warning, releasing mill
ions of cubic yards of water, which,
within less than two hours thereafter,
had completed it's work of death and
ruin.
What are we to infer from the instan-
taneous demolition of the massive Bouzey
dyke or dam, considered with reference
to the dams with which it is proposed to
restrain hydraulic debris i'll the beds of
torrential streams in the Sierras--dams
sometimes made of logs. but generally of
manzanita brush or pine boughs !?
"But," says the miner, "we can't afford
to build better dams; it wouldn't pay.
We have no use for them after we have
done mining. and you know hydraulic
claim is exhausted in one or two years" !"
This Is the truth of the matter. The
analysis ia brief, but it comprehends the
whole situation; for if the miner were to
construct massive stone dams (Which he
cannot do, because the bare cost is a pro-
hibition of hydraulic mining) they, too,
would come down after while, just the
same as his f1imsy brush breakwaters,
and when the claims are worked out,
which is a brief process, all dams. weak
and strong, will be abandoned alike. to
be dismantled and swept away by the
freshets, along with the debris piled up
behind them. In hydraulic mining it is
not proposed to restrain debris perma-
nently; permanent restraint of debris is
impossible. Hydraulic mining, at best,
means only the accumulation of mud and
grit for future nuisance. The only guar
antee it can offer is to postpone newt
able damage and ruin. AS surely as it is
allowed to continue in any form, or under
any pretext, just 30 surely will it bring
back upon the State the evils on account
of which it was formerly condemned.