Talk:Johnstown Flood

message: How did the dam break?  What crucial part of the dam gave way to allow it to collapse? 
:Read DAVID McCULLOUGH's book The Johnstown Flood (1968) or watch the pbs documentary 
It was a combination of factors which led to the disaster. Although well-engineered originally, the dam had broken once years earlier, had been rebuilt to lesser standards, and had been poorly maintained for many years. The top was lowered to build a roadway across it, and leaks on the downhill side were patched with mud, brush and scrap wood rather than stone. To make matters worse, additionally, its planned method of draining excess water through the spillway had been greatly reduced by fish screens, so there was no practical way to lower the level to work on it. 
In that weakened condition, with inadequate ability to reduce water level, the dam and the small crew tending to it were faced with holding back the torrential rainfall over several days which basically swamped the dam near its center by going over the top, causing a massive washout of the center section. The lake was several miles long, and held something like 20 million tons of water. It is hard to visualize without seeing the terrain. After reading about it and seeing photos for years, I eventually got there, and only then could I appreciate how much water must have been involved. The lake is still drained, but you can see where it was. Awesome. Hope this answers your question. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 12:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Just to add to what the previous contributor has written: An embankment dam (or earthen dam), if properly designed, constructed and maintaned is generally quite safe. To insure its structural integrity, however, it is imperative that water not be allowed to flow over the top of the dam and erode the earthen fill on the downstream side. Such erosion increases exponentially over time, reducing both the mass and structural continuity of the dam (water "slices" through the dam). In the case on the South Fork dam, the center was already weak, having been previously breached then repaired in an entirely inadequate manner. (In addition to soil, tree limbs, brush and manure were used to bring the center back up to grade.) Also, the valves or "gates" at the base of the dam had been removed and sold for scrap, thus there was no way to lower the level of the reservoir. The dam was also low in the center due to the settlement of the loose fill that had been placed to repair the breach. With the spillway partially blocked by debris caught in the fish screens, and thus unable to handle the large amount of water flowing into the reservoir, water began flowing over the center of the dam at a rapidly increasing rate, essentially slicing it in two. I haven't read the engineering reports prepared after the dam failed, but my impression is that the loss of structural integrity led to catastrophic failure. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: At least one sentence in this article seems to be very similar to another article which can be found at this website.
From this article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing industrial community known for the quality of its steel."
From the johnstownpa.com article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing and industrious community known for the quality of its steel."
The original authorship of this particular piece of writing is actually a National Park Service brochure from the late 1980s, which has been repeatedly used without citation by countless sources. While almost everything the NPS does, as a taxpayer-funded operation, is considered public domain, it should be cited as such. Johnstownfloodof1889man (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible plagiarism in this article

message: In the article, there are two sizes mentioned.
In the section "South Fork Dam and Lake Conemaugh", it states "The lake was about two miles (3 km) long", which agrees with the article South Fork Dam article.
In the section "The Great Flood of 1889", it states: "allowing the water of the 3-mile- (5 km) long Lake Conemaugh".
I will try to find my McCullough book and check it.  Does anyone else know? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same book, but not handy.  One thought is that just prior to the flood, the lake was unusually high.  I wonder if it was normally about 2 miles long, but had increased to about 3 miles with the higher water level.  -- Coneslayer 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2005, the National Park Service conducted a volume study for the South Fork Dam and Conemaugh Lake as it was in the 1880s. As a result of this GIS study, it was determined that in the "high water area", the lake had a perimeter of 6.404993 miles, and a high water volume of 14,017,749.03 tons. (This was done becuase there have been conflicting numbers about the lake for many, many years, and we wanted to use technology to try to estimate an actual size.) I hope this helps. Doug Richardson, Park Ranger, Johnstown Flood National Memorial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.83.123.131 (talk • contribs).
There are at least three totally different values given in this article for the amount of water in the lake: 20 million tons, 20 million gallons, and 20,000 gallons. I'm pretty sure 20,000 gallons is incorrect, but someone needs to fix this error. —Bkell (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even 20 million gallons seems too low.  That's only 61 acre-feet.  -- Coneslayer 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, if I would have read the comment immediately before mine, I would have seen that 20 million tons is approximately the correct value. I'll change the article. —Bkell (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: whatever the lake size 20 million tons of water is 20 million cubic meters (not 18.1 million) - get with the metric system !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.123.200 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in the U.S. a is "ton" is 2000 lbs; a "metric ton" is 1000 Kg, or about 2200 lbs. So 20 million tons equals 40 billion lbs. A meter is equivalent to 35.3 ft3. The density of water at 25°C (78°F) is about 62.2 lbs/ft3. 35.3 ft3 x 62.2 lbs/ft3 = 2200 lbs. Therefore a metric ton of water has a volume of 1 cubic meter. 40x109 lbs / 2200 lbs/m3 = 18.2x106 m3 (to 3 sig figs). Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The article currently says "The lake was about two miles (3 km) long, approximately one mile (1.6 km) wide, and 60 feet (18 m) deep near the dam. The lake had a perimeter of 7 miles (11 km) to hold 20 million tons of water. When the water was at its highest point in the spring, the lake covered over 400 acres (1.6 km²)."  3 km x 1.6 km is 4.8 km², not 1.6.  1 m x 2 m = 2 m² = 1280 acres.  This needs work.   Randall Bart    Talk   20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the size of the lake? 

message: FYI,
The images that were supposedly of the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 were discovered to be doctored images of the Johnstown Flood of 1889.  Here's the link:, and do a search for Galveston.  The details on the images explain the doctoring.  The images are government images so they should be public domain.
25or6to4 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source of images 

message: This disaster was clearly the result of human mistakes.  A previous comment phrases it perfectly:  "Nature only affected the timing of the disaster."  Earthen dams have been used since antiquity, and they are very effective and can be made safe.  The original builders of the dam in question were extremely competent and made a safe dam.  The top of the dam was an adequate height above the surface of the lake.  There was a spillway on one side to relieve high water levels, and if the spillway was insufficient to control water levels, underwater pipes controlled by valves operated from a control tower could be used to drain more water.  All these devices were important because the worst thing that can happen to an earthen dam is to have water go over the top.  This dredges the top soil off the dam, and as the top of the dam lowers, more water overflows, setting up a rapidly increasing failure mode.  The purchaser of the dam and lake, who developed it as a vacation site for the wealthy patrons of the club, simply did not consult with a competent enough engineer before he modified the dam.  The top was lowered to accomodate two carriages side by side.  The spillway was screened to keep game fish from exiting the lake, and the drainage pipes were removed and sold for scrap.  In its final form the water was just a few feet from the top, with no way to lower the levels in case torrential rains overfilled the lake.  During the storms leading to the disaster, debris rapidly collected on the spillway screens, choking the only exit available for the extra water.  Even in that era, the parlous state of the modified dam could have been forseen by any competent dam engineer.  It's true that the members of the club, not being engineers, could not have been aware of these faults, but they nevertheless were principals in the company responsible for the calamitous dam modifications, and should have been held legally liable, as they would be today.  The original developer who initiated the dam modifications had passed away before the flood, but the corporation and its members are still liable.  In my opinion, the immense wealth and social prominence of the club members, and their huge political influence no doubt was responsible for their complete exoneration in this case.  I would not be surprised if further scholarly research eventually unearths (no pun intended) some shady financial dealings associated with the denouement of this affair.Cd195 (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility for disaster 

message: I deleted the sentence on the Rob Szabo song "The Johnstown Kids", as the song has nothing to do with the flood. --24.145.4.58 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: I recommend adding a section about the media coverage of the disaster. There was tremendous amount of yellow journalism surrounding the flood, including many stories of corpses being robbed of valuables (most were later discredited). On a positive note, the media coverage also helped garner the support of citizens across the U.S. and several other countries, leading to over $3,000,000 in donations. 
Example - June 2, 1898: "10,000 Dead: Johnstown Blotted out by the Flood" - World
Sources (most available on Google): The Johnstown flood, By David G. McCullough; The Principles of Relief, By Edward T. Devine; The Red Cross in peace and war, By Clara Barton; American datelines: major news stories from colonial times to the present, By Ed Cray, Jonathan Kotler, Miles Beller
DCSB2005 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage 

message: After the flood, the Pennsylvania legislature adopted a temporary tax on telephone service, which is still in effect today. Can some editor research this to find a good source? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary telephone tax in Pennsylvania 

message: Gutenberg book with some illustrations and other infos: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27669 76.117.247.55 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  May be usefull... 

message: Tough to tell when such a tiny amount of material has been cited, but should this article contain reference to "sex slaves," "weener size," and "asian minorities, hispanics, and white boys"?Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like someone reverted part of the vandalism, but missed part of it - I just fixed it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism/Citations

message: Turkey didn't exist in 1889.70.190.168.175 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our article on the Ottoman Empire, "Turkey" was used as an alternate name for the Empire even before the Republic of Turkey. The link did point to the wrong article, so I changed the link without changing the name in the body text. If someone feels strongly they can change the name in text as well. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey? 

message: There is a flood simulation video on YouTube that is very interesting. It continues with other information on Johnstown and the flood. The external links section already lists probably more than it should but if this was deemed helpful maybe it could be used in place of one already there. Otr500 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226205316/http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/flood/john89.html to http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/flood/john89.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329151903/http://www.jaha.org/edu/flood/story/prr_reports_flood.html to http://www.jaha.org/edu/flood/story/prr_reports_flood.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020021007/http://www.betweenthelakes.com/states/johnstown.htm to http://www.betweenthelakes.com/states/johnstown.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/24/us/frank-shomo-infant-survivor-of-johnstown-flood-dies-at-108.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020021007/http://www.betweenthelakes.com/states/johnstown.htm to http://www.betweenthelakes.com/states/johnstown.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104032631/http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/clubanddam.html to http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/clubanddam.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219011323/http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/history.html to http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Johnstown Flood (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: — Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia

message: The final chapter is about the Johnstown flood telling many eyewitness accounts 2601:2C3:4380:AB0:1C7D:829C:AD6F:578 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The complete story of the Galveston Horror by John Coulter published 1900 

message: The article claims that difficulty recovering damages from the Dam owners  "led to American law changing from a fault-based regime to one of strict liability."
I find that both hard to believe and unsupported by any references mentioned in the article.  It's also contradicted by the "strict liability" article which the sentence links to. 
I'm tempted to remove the entire sentence from the article but I'm writing here first to solicit feedback before doing so.
20after4 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this claim needs to be supported