17 minute read
The Failure of the Hatchtown Dam. 1914
The Failure of the Hatchtown Dam, 1914
BY WILLIAM M. TIMMINS
The Dam at Hatch, Utah failed on May 25, 1914, at about 8:00 P.M. and flooded the Sevier Valley as far down river as Junction in Piute County.
The breaking of the dam created horrendous headlines. The Deseret Evening News for Tuesday, May 26, 1914, included the headlines, "Town Under Water When Dam Lets Go" "Wall of water released thirty feet high" "Loss estimated at $100,000." The Panguitch Progress for May 29, 1914, estimated the damages at half a million dollars!
A local citizen recalled her personal experience in the following words.
I recall well the breaking of the Hatchtown Dam, which occurred on the 25th day of May 1914. It is common knowledge that a woman fixes the history of things by relating to dates connected with her own children — as is the case with me in this instance. My husband Sam and I were living on our homestead, some five miles east of town. We owned a little log house (one moved in by the men when the town was settled 1903^1) located on the southeast corner lot of town and quite near the river. Most of our belongings which we had collected during our four years of marriage were in the house, even the layette prepared for our second child who was expected early the following month. A day or so before the breaking of the dam I had taken all the items from the trunk and checked to see if all were in readiness. I was about to leave them on the bed but was prompted to place them back in the trunk, which I did, and we then went back to the homestead.
The day the dam went out, Alexander Wiley Huntington (Uncle Dimic as everyone called him) who was watchman at the dam, phoned town every half hour or so, and made a report of the weakening condition of the dam.
All afternoon my mother-in-law kept at her boys to go remove our things from the house. Will would say, "Mother I will have plenty of time even after the water lets loose to get everything out. Don't worry." Around 4:30 p.m. she persuaded him to go and he got the larger, most needed items.
When the message came, "She's gone," it was just nine minutes until the water front viciously roaring along, hit that little house and Grandma said it vanished like salt in hot water. The windows of the building were two sashes each of 8x10 panes. After the water subsided, boys carried many of the sashes to us, some with not even a cracked glass. Many empty fruit jars were also salvaged with only a little mud in the bottoms, showing they had ridden safely on the surface of the angry waters.
In the house were a dozen or so balls of sewn rug rags. Those balls were unwound and wrapped around about and through the willow trees nearby.
There were many little keepsakes and seemingly precious things that were carried away. But it could have been much worse; say, to have had the stork arrive and to have had no clothes for the baby. We could only count our blessings.
My little brother-in-law, Ernest, was about ten years old at the time and he was much concerned about the breaking of the dam. When he heard them say the water was coming, he picked up the large family bread box and started for the hills. He said, "I didn't want to drown, and I wasn't going to starve."
The local paper indicated that the dam broke about eight o'clock in the evening and that the wall of water reached the flour mill down the river at Panguitch about ten o'clock. The highway bridge over the river below Hatch was swept away "as if it were made of straws instead of heavy timbers." The newspaper related how the bridge "was chained to [trees to] hold to it; but trees, chains and all were swept away instantly by the ten foot wall of water then went on sweeping destruction and ruin down the Sevier Valley and to farmers beside the Sevier river." Other key bridges were also washed away by the flood.
The Deseret Evening News report for May 26 stated that Circleville was deserted. "Main Street is now a raging river. The people here worked all night getting onto higher ground with family and household goods and their stock. The damage is impossible to estimate."
The newspapers printed stories of human interest which occurred because of the flood. The Panguitch Progress reported that,
Miss Alice Syrett, the faithfully [sic] lady at the telephoned [sic], sent warning throughout Circleville Valley, phoned to John F. Chidester of the State Land Board and remained faithful to her post till the waters swept away the wires. People who have found fault with some slight defect in the telephone service appreciate it now.
Latter-day Saint Apostle Heber J. Grant, on his way to Kane County for a church conference, got to Manti but was turned back "on account of no roads." One humorous account by a resident revealed some of the aftermath of the flooding.
One man of our town had gone into the hog raising business and had quite a herd. When the water abated fish were everywhere — thousands of them. Many trout were gathered for food. The man with the hogs decided it would be a good way to grow them out, or fatten them, so he let the hogs wallow in the mud and gather fish for food. When slaughtering time came it was like eating four legged fish and not fresh fish either. To this day I wonder what became of all those fish-flavored hogs.
On June 5, 1914, the Panguitch Progress reported that,
Eight thousand pounds of parcel post mail is piled up at the post offices in Circleville, Junction and Marysvale waiting the opening of the road through the canyon. Four tons of mail will require much extra labor on the part of S. A. Barton, the mail carrier, who has done splendidly in getting all the mail through that he could since the flood.
Utah Governor William Spry immediately noted that,
The State is under obligation to supply water to the settlers as soon as possible, and there is also a moral obligation to take care of losses. It will be my effort to take care of these and bring about a settlement in as amicable a manner as possible. It is probable that the next Legislature will be called upon to make an appropriation to take care of the losses.
The breaking of the dam caused no loss of human life, but individual losses to citizens as well as the destruction of telephones, roads, and other structures, caused significant damage. Early estimates placed this at several hundred thousand dollars, but this figure was rapidly scaled down as actual claims came in.
It was reported locally that "an inspector from the U. S. Government" had investigated the dam site by June 5, following visits by representatives of the Utah Land Board and Governor Spry. Noting that before the dam broke, urgent appeals by the community for investigation of the dam site had gone unheeded, the local paper editorialized somewhat caustically that, "There seems to be no trouble in having State Officers and competent engineers look at the dam or remains of it, now."
The Hatchtown Dam was built by the State of Utah in 1907-08 as a storage dam to impound water for the irrigation of some six thousand acres of land on what was locally known as the Panguitch Bench. The dam was built about one and one-fourth miles south of Hatch, Utah, and the dam took its name from the town. The lands to be brought under irrigation were about thirty miles down stream, along the Sevier River from Hatch, although water from the reservoir was expected to provide an economic stimulus to the entire Panguitch Valley. Similar dams were constructed at other sites along the Sevier River. When the Hatchtown Dam broke, flood waters washed away many smaller dams, but the Piute Reservoir below Junction held the flood waters successfully and prevented further disaster.
The 1915 Biennial Report of the state engineer contained a report to the governor on the failure of the Hatchtown Dam. The state engineer gave as probable causes for the failure (1) poor foundation, (2) poor engineering design of culvert and control works, and (3) increased irrigation on the bench land west of the dam site which led to the development of additional "springs" in the foundation of the dam. Later investigations revealed that as early as 1910 extensive repairs had been made to the dam. A letter from State Engineer W. D. Beers to the governor dated February 10, 1915, commented on the additional information he had obtained since the Biennial Report and concluded,
I do not think it will be necessary for me to change my final conclusions in the report I submitted to you, but the [additional report]... throws considerable light on the behavior of the structure during its operation and shows there was a great line of weakness along the culvert.
Local residents remembered the 1910 troubles. One woman recalled:
Early in 1910 the reservoir basin had reached its capacity of storage,and the gates were ordered opened. The pressure of the water against the gates was so strong as to hold them fast. Three men using all their strength on the big wheels could not move them in the least. As I recall they were referred to as "The Jenson Lock Gates" and were supposed to be "fool proof."
When the re.port was made to the State Engineer that the gates were set firm, Mr. Joseph Jenson, who had been the construction engineer, was sent down to "show the country guys how to do it." The gates would not yield to his mastery. It was decided the gates would have to be opened to let out the water, so it was decided to jar them loose with dynamite. This was done, and as I recall the gates came up, but seemingly a crack was made in the culvert wall and ere long water began to seep out and cave off the dirt, becoming larger as time went by. Efforts were made to check it from caving more, by filling the surface cavity with large black rock.
One Sunday the L.D.S. Stake Conference was in session and die authorities of the ward had gone to attend the Conference in Panguitch. Every able bodied person in Hatch, man, woman and even children who were big enough to load rocks rallied to the cause of saving the dam. We worked hard and long. There was no thought of recompense. Our only thought was to prevent the dam from breaking.
Following are extracts of two old letters written at this time. While I do not now recall these facts as herein mentioned, I suppose they were current knowledge when I wrote them to my grandparents who had moved to Delta the previous year.
Hatch, Utah 9 May 1910
We thought we were all out of danger from the reservoir, but don't know for sure yet, as last Thursday it started to cave in a new place west of the culvert, but they think that they have that remedied now, but it may cave again. However the men think it is safe for a while.
Hatch, Utah 26 May 1910
Work has quit on the dam now, but it isn't perfectly safe yet. They have shut the gates almost down now. Someone said they are shut down tight. (This would indicate the stored water supply had all been drawn off) but the culvert has washed out underneath and a good summer-sized stream flows through. They have been trying to fill in the hole but can't seem to do it. They made a box of heavy plank, filled it with rocks and let it down with ropes. The water came through with so much force it broke a piece out of it. Jenson sent down some seamless sacks, told them to fill them full of gravel and let down. They took three bags placed them one inside the other, then filled them with gravel, tied them securely and let them down with ropes. As soon as the water hit it the ropes were broken, opening up tire bags and out came the muddy water. They think the crack was caused by blowing out the gates last spring. It was cracked and when they turned the water in it washed it out. This side looks like it was riprapped, the same as the other side does. Because it started to cave in so many places and they filled it in with rocks.
Despite the history of "hard luck" and the disaster of May 25, the Panguitch Progress for June 5, 1914, indicated that the State Land Board was "thinking" of rebuilding the dam at the same site but was still unsure of the best course of action. Local sentiment seemed to favor immediate rebuilding of the dam so that the reservoir waters would be available to settlers.
On June 17 a number of distinguished visitors, including Governor Spry and State Engineer Beers, visited the site of the dam and areas of major destruction along with members of a local citizens committee. These state officials held an evening mass meeting in the Social Hall in Panguitch where the governor spoke. Later, after the mass meeting, the officials met with local leadership, including Thomas Sevy, chairman of the hurriedly organized Panguitch Citizens' Committee. Members of the State Land Board stayed at the local hotel for a day or two to meet with persons sustaining losses due to the flood.
In a letter to Governor Spry on June 5, State Land Board Commissioner John F. Chidester reported that State Engineer Beers was completing a canal from the river to supply water to Panguitch, although "teams are very hard to get here at this season of the year." Chidester noted that the attitude of the local people was good, crops that were left looked fine, there was plenty of water, and there "is a call for more land and water as soon as the rebuilding [of the dam] starts, we can sell more land and water." Chidester and Beers had prepared a printed form, "Claim for Damages Under the Hatchtown Reservoir," to assist the local citizenry to list their damages. Chidester urged the governor to "Let the people know that the State Administration was ready to assist them in arranging their claims for damages" and noted that one individual was causing some unrest and agitation.
Chidester noted in this same letter to the governor that the damage was "quite heavy" at Panguitch but "like it was at Circleville, the damages are beginning to show up much lighter than it was first supposed."
An earlier letter to the governor from Fred E. Eldredge, secretary of the Panguitch Commercial Club, dated May 27, 1914, stated the flood had done
irreparable damage in the Panguitch Valley. The water destroyed several homes, tore out all the bridges along the channel of the river, wiped out all the telephone lines and fences in its course. It has made the state road wholly impassable between Circleville and Panguitch Valley and the southern part of the state. All the canals in the Valley are more or less injured and in some cases it is doubtful if repairs can be had in sufficient time to save growing crops. The settlers on the bench under the Hatch Project must suffer entire loss of crops.
By February of 1915 the governor and the Land Board had appointed a committee to assist the board in appraising the numerous damage claims. Chidester wrote Spry on February 7, 1915, to state that nearly all local citizens were generally satisfied with the losses as estimated by the board and that except for two or three individuals who might wish to appear personally before the Board of Examiners in Salt Lake City, most persons agreed to have the board present the damage appraisals to the legislature. Chidester informed the governor that he found little evidence of bitter sentiment "that we have been led to believe existed down here."
A strong editorial in the Panguitch Progress for August 7, 1914, read, "If the people of Piute and Garfield counties expect to get damages from the flood they want to send very good, able men, with sound sense, to the Legislature." In the fall election Thomas Sevy, chairman of the Citizens' Committee, was elected to the Utah House of Representatives. Of interest is the fact that Chidester in his letter to Spry on February 7, 1915, indicated ". . . if Representative Sevy will be a little more cool headed, the claims will be adjusted without difficulty, as I feel that he has stirred up a feeling that there was no need for."
During early 1915 some pressure was mounted to bring suit against the Utah State Land Board or to take other legal action to assure restoration of losses. Probably, however, the consensus of local opinion is mirrored in a telegram to the governor dated February 8, 1915, from Thomas Haycock, president of the Panguitch Commercial Club, which read, "The masses of the people in and around the Panguitch Valley damaged by the flood from the Hatchtown Dam are satisfied and heartily approve of the action so far taken on their claims presented to the Land Board." A number of leading citizens subscribed to this attitude and wrote Governor Spry to urge him to so inform the legislative committees handling claims against the state.
Most initial reaction favored rebuilding the reservoir. On February 9, 1915, Benjamin Cameron, treasurer and manager of the Garfield County Telephone Company in Panguitch, wrote Governor Spry saying, "I would like to see the reservoir constructed this coming summer, as I believe it is a good thing for the State and the people." Some sentiment adverse to the rebuilding of the dam and disputations concerning the location and other matters mounted slowly.
The minutes of the Hatch L.D.S. Ward, Panguitch Stake, for August 8, 1915, recorded
The residents of Hatch Ward, Panguitch Stake, met at 5 p.m. to consider the advisability of petitioning the State Land Board not to build a reservoir just below our town. A committee was chosen as follows to make said petition: Jas. B. Burrows, L. Leroy Porter and A. W. Huntington.
The ward clerk later recorded in the minutes of the August 15, 1915, sacrament meeting of the Hatch Ward, "Also read a letter gotten up by appointment, protesting to State Land Board against the building of a reservoir just below our town." Such objection by Hatch residents had more to do with a proposed dam site and availability of water if the site was down river from the town than whether or not to rebuild the dam.
An elderly resident of Hatch recalled working "for the State of Utah on a drilling machine for about four months in 1916 testing for foundations and there is one there of a dam formation but it was not used." He also noted that many local residents have been working since the 1940's to have a dam built.
The dam was never replaced because of long drawn-out legal battles over water rights. The settlers below the dam eventually abandoned the land, which reverted to the state, and since then the land has grown only sagebrush and wild grass without irrigation.
A number of years later the engineer, who had been in charge of construction at the Hatchtown Dam, applied for the position of state engineer under Governor Simon Bamberger, who served from 1917-21. The story is told that the man produced a number of credentials for Governor Bamberger's review at the time of his interview and stressed his excellent academic qualifications and broad professional experience. The governor simply asked him, "Didn't you design the Hatchtown Dam?" When the candidate said, "Yes," Bamberger threw the papers in the wastebasket and dismissed him. Bamberger subsequently hired another candidate as state engineer.
Despite local concern over problems with the dam dating from as early as 1910 and with a history of trouble with the dam site (at least two earlier dams built after 1900 near the same site had failed), no official action or serious investigation was made until after the failure of the dam. One wonders at the indifference displayed over such an obvious potential disaster. Perhaps Governor Spry's assurance that "every precaution has been taken to make the [Hatchtown] reservoir and canal construction substantial and secure" imparted a false sense of security. It is only hoped a lesson has been learned from the history of the Hatchtown Dam, and in the future corrective measures will be taken in situations which need to be changed. Indifference can be very costly as the residents who survived the Hatchtown Dam disaster can testify.
For full citations and images please view this on a desktop.
