St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.

_Francis_Dam

Coordinates: 343249N 1183045W

St. Francis Dam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The St. Francis Dam was a curved concrete

gravity dam, built to create a large regulating and St. Francis Dam
storage reservoir for the city of Los Angeles,
California. The reservoir was an integral part of
the city's Los Angeles Aqueduct water supply
infrastructure. It was located in San Francisquito
Canyon of the Sierra Pelona Mountains, about 40
miles (64 km) northwest of Downtown Los
Angeles, and approximately 10 miles (16 km)
north of the present day city of Santa Clarita.

The dam was designed and built between 1924

and 1926 by the Los Angeles Department of View of the dam looking north, with water in its reservoir
Water and Power, then named the Bureau of (February 1927)
Water Works and Supply. The department was Location Los Angeles County, California,
under the direction of its General Manager and
Vereinigte Staaten
Chief Engineer, William Mulholland.
Coordinates 343249N 1183045W
At 11:57 p.m. on March 12, 1928, the dam
Construction began 1924
catastrophically failed, and the resulting flood
Opening date 1926
took the lives of an estimated 431 people.[2][3]
The collapse of the St. Francis Dam is Demolition date 1929
considered to be one of the worst American civil Dam and spillways
engineering disasters of the 20th century and
remains the second-greatest loss of life in Impounds Los Angeles Aqueduct
California's history, after the 1906 San Francisco San Francisquito Creek
earthquake and fire. The disaster marked the end Height 185 feet (56 m)
of Mulholland's career.[4] Height (foundation) 205 feet (62 m)
Length main dam 700 feet (210 m)
wing dike 588 feet (179 m)
Contents Elevation at crest parapet 1838 feet (560.2m)
spillway 1835 feet (559.3m)
1 Planning and design
2 Construction and modification Width (crest) 16 feet (4.9 m)
3 Prelude to disaster Width (base) 170 feet (52 m)
3.1 Dam instability
Parapet width 16 ft (4.9 m)
4 Collapse and flood wave
5 Investigation Hydraulic head 182 ft (55 m)
6 Aftermath Dam volume main dam 130,446 cu yd
6.1 Dam safety legislation (99,733 m3)
6.2 Licensure of civil engineers wing dike 3,826 cu yd (2,925 m3)
7 Analysis
Spillway type uncontrolled overflow
8 Mulholland Dam reinforcement
9 Present-day remains Reservoir
10 In popular culture Total capacity 38,168 acreft (47.080 106 m3)
11 See also
Catchment area 37.5 sq mi (97 km2)
12 References

1 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

13 External links Maximum length 3 mi (4.8 km)

Maximum water depth 182 ft (55 m)

California Historical Landmark

Planning and design
Official name St. Francis Dam Disaster Site[1]
In the early years of Los Angeles, the city's water
Reference no. 919
supply was obtained from the Los Angeles River.
This was accomplished by diverting water from
the river through a series of ditches called zanjas. At that time a private water company, the Los Angeles
City Water Company, leased the city's waterworks and provided water to the city. Hired in 1878 as a zanjero
(ditch tender), William Mulholland proved to be a brilliant employee who after doing his day's work would
study textbooks on mathematics, hydraulics and geology, and taught himself engineering and geology.
Mulholland quickly moved up the ranks of the Water Company and was promoted to Superintendent in
1886.[5]

In 1902, the City of Los Angeles ended its lease with the private water company and took control over the
city's water supply. The city council established the Water Department with Mulholland as its
Superintendent and when the city charter was amended in 1911, the Water Department was renamed the
Bureau of Water Works and Supply. Mulholland continued as Superintendent and was named as its Chief
Engineer.[5][6]

Mulholland achieved great recognition among members of the engineering community when he supervised
the design and construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which at the time was the longest aqueduct in the
world and uses gravity alone to bring the water 233 miles (375 km) from the Owens Valley to Los
Angeles.[7] The project was completed in 1913, on time and under budget, despite several setbacks.
Excluding the incidents of sabotage by Owens Valley residents in the early years, the aqueduct has
continued to operate well throughout its history and remains in operation today.[8]

It was during the process of building the Los Angeles Aqueduct that Mulholland first considered sections of
San Francisquito Canyon as a potential dam site. He felt that there should be a reservoir of sufficient size to
provide water for Los Angeles for an extended period in the event of a drought or if the aqueduct were
damaged by an earthquake. In particular he favored the area between where the hydroelectric power plants
Powerhouses No. 1 and No. 2 were to be built, with what he perceived as favorable topography, a natural
narrowing of the canyon downstream of a wide, upstream platform which would allow the creation of a
large reservoir area with a minimum possible dam.[9]

A large camp had been set up to house the workers near this area and Mulholland used his spare time
becoming familiar with the area's geological features. In the area, which later the dam would be situated, he
found the mid and upper portion of the western hillside consisted mainly of a reddish colored conglomerate
and sandstone formation that had small strings of gypsum interspersed within it. Below the red
conglomerate, down the remaining portion of the western hillside, crossing the canyon floor and up the
eastern wall, a drastically different rock composition prevailed. These areas were made up of mica schist
that was severely laminated, cross-faulted in many areas and interspersed with talc. Although later many
geologists disagreed on the exact location of the area of contact between the two formations, a majority
opinion placed it at the inactive San Francisquito Fault line. Mulholland ordered exploratory tunnels and
shafts excavated into the red conglomerate hillside to determine its characteristics. He also had water
percolation tests performed. The results convinced him that the hill would make a satisfactory abutment for
a dam should the need ever arise.

The surprising part of this early geologic exploration came later when the need for a dam arose. This is
because it appears that Mulholland either misjudged or ignored the perilous nature of the schist on the
eastern side of the canyon although he was well aware of it and he wrote distinctly of its characteristics in

2 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

his annual report to the Board of Public Works in 1911.[10]

The population of Los Angeles was increasing rapidly. In 1900 the population was slightly over 100,000. By
1910 it had become more than three times that number at 320,000, and by 1920 the figure reached
576,673.[11] This unexpectedly rapid growth brought a demand for a larger water supply. Between 1920 and
1926, seven smaller reservoirs were built and modifications were made to raise the height of its largest of
the time, the Lower San Fernando, by seven feet, but the need for a still larger reservoir was clear.
Originally, the planned site of this new large reservoir was to be in Big Tujunga Canyon, above the city now
known as Sunland, in the northeast portion of the San Fernando Valley, but the high value placed on the
ranches and private land which would be needed were, in Mulholland's view, an attempted hold-up of the
city. He ceased the attempts at purchasing those lands and, either forgetful of or disregarding his earlier
acknowledgement of geological problems at the site,[12] renewed his interest in the area he had explored
twelve years earlier, the federally owned and far less expensive private land in San Francisquito Canyon.
[9][13]

Construction and modification

The process of surveying the area and
determining the location for the St. Francis dam
was begun in December 1922. Clearing of the
site and construction began without any of the
usual fanfare for a municipal project of this
nature. The Los Angeles Aqueduct had become
the target of frequent sabotage by angry farmers
and landowners in the Owens Valley and the city
was eager to avoid any repeat of these expensive
and time-consuming repairs.

The St. Francis, sometimes referred to as the

San Francisquito, would be only the second
concrete dam to be designed and built by the
Bureau of Water Works and Supply. The first
was the near identical, in size and shape, The approximate extent of the reservoir created by the dam
Mulholland Dam, on which construction had
begun one year earlier. The design of the St.
Francis was in fact an adaptation of the Mulholland Dam with certain changes which were made so as to
suit the location. Most of the design profiles and computation figures of stress factors for the St. Francis
came from this adaptation of the plans and formulas which had been used in the constructing of Mulholland
Dam. This work was done by the Engineering department within the Bureau of Water Works and Supply.
[14][15]

In describing the shape and type of the St. Francis Dam the word curved is used although by today's
standards, due to the amount of curve in its radius, the dam would be considered arched and therefore
making it of the gravity-arch design. It is not so called because the science of gravity-arch dams was still in
its infancy and little was known in the engineering community about the arch effect, how it worked and how
loads were transmitted, other than that it did help with stability and support. As such, the dam was not
designed with any of the additional benefits given by the arch action, which led to its profile being
considered conservative given its size.[16][17]

Annually, as did most other city entities, the Bureau of Water Works and Supply and the ancillary
departments would report to the Board of Public Service Commissioners on the prior fiscal year's activities.
From these we know that by June 1923, the preliminary studies of the area which would become the site of

3 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

the dam and topographical surveys for the St. Francis reservoir and dam were completed. They called for a
dam built to the elevation of 1,825 ft (556 m) above sea level, which is 175 ft (53 m) above the stream bed
base. These early calculations for a reservoir created by the dam revealed it would have a capacity of
approximately 30,000 acreft (37,000,000 m3)[18][19]

On July 1, 1924, the same day Mulholland was to submit his annual report to the Board of Public Service
Commissioners, Office Engineer W. W. Hurlbut informed him that all of the preliminary work on the dam
had been completed. In his report presented to the Board, Mulholland wrote that the capacity of the
reservoir would be 32,000 acre-feet (39,000,000 m3). Hurlbut, who also presented the Board with his annual
report, Report of the Office Engineer gave a clarification for this change from the prior year's estimate. In
his report he wrote that

...at the St. Francis Reservoir the dam site has been cleared and the foundation trench started.
All concrete placing equipment has been contracted for and it is expected actual work of
pouring the concrete will start in approximately ninety days. Additional topographic surveys
have been completed and disclose a storage capacity of 32,000 acre feet at elevation 1825 feet
above sea level.

Construction of the dam itself began five weeks later, in early August, when the first concrete was poured.
[20][21]

In March 1925, prior to Mulholland's report to the Board of Public Service Commissioners, Office Engineer
Hurlbut again reported to Mulholland on the progress of the St. Francis dam and reservoir. He stated the
reservoir would now have a capacity of 38,000 acre-feet (47,000,000 m3) and that the dam's height would
be 185 feet (56 m) above stream bed level. Hurlbut wrote, in an explanation of these changes that was
presented to the Board of Public Service Commissioners, that

Additional surveys and changes in the plans for this reservoir have disclosed the fact that at
crest elevation of 1835 feet above sea level the reservoir will have a capacity of 38,000
acre-feet.[22][23]

This 10-foot (3.0 m) increase in the dam's height over the original plan of 1923 necessitated the construction
of a 588-foot (179 m) long wing dike along the top of the ridge adjacent to the western abutment in order to
contain the enlarged reservoir.[24]

A distinctive aspect of the St. Francis Dam was its stepped downstream face. While the height of each step
was a constant 5 feet (1.5 m), the width of each step was unique to its respective elevation above sea level.
This width varied between 5.5 feet (1.7 m) near the stream bed base at 1,650 feet (500 m) and decreased to
1.45 feet (0.44 m) at an elevation of 1,816 feet (554 m), the base of the spillways and upright panels.[25]

When completed on May 4, 1926, the stairstep faced dam rose to a height of 185 feet above the canyon
floor. Both faces leading up to the crest were vertical for the final 23 feet (7.0 m). On the downstream face,
this vertical section was fashioned into 24 feet (7.3 m) wide sections. A portion of these made up the
spillway, which consisted of 11 panels in total divided into two groups. Each spillway section had an open
area that was 18 inches (46 cm) high and 20 feet (6.1 m) wide for the overflow to pass. The dam also had
five 30 inch (76 cm) diameter outlet pipes through the center section which were controlled by slide gates
attached to the upstream face.

Prelude to disaster

4 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

Dam instability

Water began to fill the reservoir on March 12, 1926.[26] It rose steadily and rather uneventfully, although
several temperature and contraction cracks did appear in the dam and a minor amount of seepage began to
flow from under the abutments. In accord with the protocol for design, which had been established by the
engineering department during construction of the Mulholland dam, no contraction joints were
incorporated.[27] The most notable incidents were two vertical cracks that ran down through the dam from
the top. One was approximately fifty-eight feet west of the outlet gates and another about the same distance
to the east. Mulholland, along with his Assistant Chief Engineer and General Manager Harvey Van Norman,
inspected the cracks and leaks and judged them to be within expectation for a concrete dam the size of the
St. Francis.

At the beginning of April, the water level reached the area of the inactive San Francisquito Fault line in the
western abutment. Some seepage began almost immediately as the water covered this area. Workers were
ordered to seal off the leak, but they were not entirely successful and water continued to permeate through
the face of the dam. A two-inch pipe collecting this seepage was laid from the fault line down to the home
of the dam keeper, Tony Harnischfeger, which he used for domestic purposes. Water that collected in the
drainage pipes under the dam to relieve the hydrostatic uplift pressure was carried off in this manner as well.

In April 1927 the reservoir level was brought to within ten feet of the spillway, and during most of May the
water level was within three feet of overflowing. There were no large changes in the amount of the seepage
that was collected and, month after month, the pipe flowed about one-third full. This is an insignificant
amount for a dam the size of the St. Francis, and on this subject Mulholland said, "Of all the dams I have
built and of all the dams I have ever seen, it was the driest dam of its size I ever saw." The seepage data
recorded during the 19261927 period shows that the dam was an exceptionally dry structure.[28]

On May 27 the problems in the Owens Valley escalated once again with the dynamiting of a large section of
the Los Angeles Aqueduct, part of the California Water Wars. A second incident took place a few days later
which destroyed another large section. In the days that followed, several more sections of the aqueduct were
dynamited which caused a complete interruption of the flow. The near-full reservoir behind the St. Francis
dam was the only source of water from the north and withdrawals began immediately.

During this time, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department received an anonymous phone call that a carload of
men were on their way from Inyo County with the intention of dynamiting the St. Francis Dam and to get
some officers on the way as quick as possible.[29][30] Within minutes, all personnel of the Bureaus of
Power and Light and Water Works and Supply either working or residing within the canyon had been
notified. Cars carrying dozens of officers from both the Los Angeles Police and Sheriffs Department rushed
to the area. Although no sign of the threat that brought all this about materialized, for many days after the
canyon resembled an armed camp.

The Daily Record of High Water Elevations of the St. Francis Dam shows that between May 27 and June 30
alone, 7000 to 8000 acre-feet of water was withdrawn. Through June and July the Owens Valley fight
continued, as did interruptions in the flow from the aqueduct. This in turn caused continued withdrawals
from the reservoir.[30]

In early August, opposition to Los Angeles' water projects collapsed after the indictment of its leaders for
embezzlement. The city subsequently sponsored a series of repair and maintenance programs for aqueduct
facilities that stimulated local employment.[31][32]

Once again, the St. Francis reservoir level rose, although not without incident. Late in the year a fracture
was noticed which began at the western abutment and ran diagonally upwards and toward the center section
for a distance. As with others, Mulholland inspected it, judged it to be another contraction crack and ordered
it filled with oakum and grouted to seal off any seepage. At the same time another fracture appeared in a

5 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

corresponding position on the eastern portion of the dam, starting at the crest near the last spillway section
and running downward at an angle for sixty-five feet before ending at the hillside. It too was sealed in the
same manner. Both of these fractures were noted to be wider at their junction with the hillside abutments
and narrowed as they angled toward the top of the dam.

The reservoir continued to rise steadily until early February 1928, when the water level was brought to
within one foot of the spillway. During this time though, several new cracks appeared in the wing dike and
new areas of seepage began from under both abutments.[33]

Near the end of February, a notable leak began at the base of the wing dike approximately 150 feet (46 m)
west of the main dam. It was discharging about 0.60 cubic feet per second (4.5 U.S. gallons, or 17 liters, per
second) and was inspected by Mulholland who judged it to be another contraction or temperature crack and
left it open to drain. During the first week of March, it was noticed that the leak had approximately doubled.
Due in part to some erosion taking place, Mulholland ordered an eight-inch (20.3 cm) concrete drain pipe to
be installed. The pipe led the water along the dike wall, discharging it at the west abutment contact with the
main dam.

This gave the hillside a very saturated appearance, and the water flowing down the steps of the dam where it
abutted the hill caused alarm among the canyon residents and others traveling on the road 700 feet (210 m)
to the east, as at that distance it appeared the water was coming from the abutment. On March 7, 1928, the
reservoir was three inches below the spillway crest and Mulholland ordered that no more water be turned
into the St. Francis.[34]

On the morning of March 12, while conducting his usual inspection of the dam, the dam keeper discovered a
new leak in the west abutment. Concerned not only because other leaks had appeared in this same area in
the past but more so that the muddy color of the runoff he observed could indicate the water was eroding the
foundation of the dam, he immediately alerted Mulholland. After arriving, both Mulholland and Van
Norman began inspecting the area of the leak. Van Norman found the source and by following the runoff,
determined that the muddy appearance of the water was not from the leak itself but came from where the
water contacted loose soil from a newly cut access road. The leak was discharging 2 to 3 cubic feet (15 to 22
U.S. gallons, or 57 to 85 liters) per second of water by their approximation. Certainly their concern was
heightened not only given its location but more so in that at times the volume being discharged was
inconsistent, they later testified at the Coroner's Inquest. Twice as they watched, an acceleration or surging
of the flow was noticed by both men.[35][36] Mulholland felt that some corrective measures were needed
although this could be done at some time in the future.

For the next two hours Mulholland, Van Norman and Harnischfeger inspected the dam and various leaks
and seepages, finding nothing out of the ordinary or of concern for a large dam. With both Mulholland and
Van Norman convinced that the new leak was not dangerous and that the dam was safe, they returned to Los
Angeles.

Collapse and flood wave

Two and a half minutes before midnight on March 12, 1928, the St. Francis Dam catastrophically failed.

There were no surviving eyewitnesses to the collapse, but at least five people passed the dam within the
hour prior without noticing anything unusual. The last,[37][38] Ace Hopewell, a carpenter at Powerhouse
No. 1, rode his motorcycle past the dam about ten minutes before midnight. He testified at the Coroner's
Inquest that he had passed Powerhouse No. 2 without seeing anything there or at the dam that caused him
concern. He went on to state that at approximately one and one-half miles (2.4 km) upstream he heard above
the roar of his motorcycle a rumbling much like the sound of "rocks rolling on the hill." He stopped and got
off, leaving the engine idling, and smoked a cigarette while checking the hillside above him. The rumble
that had caught his attention earlier had begun to fade behind him. Assuming that it may have been a

6 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

landslide, as these were common in the area, and satisfied that he was in no danger, he continued on.

At the Bureau of Power and Light at both Receiving Stations in Los Angeles and the Water Works and
Supply at Powerhouse No. 1 there was a sharp voltage drop at 11:57:30 p.m.[39] Simultaneously, a
transformer at Southern California Edison's Saugus substation exploded, a situation investigators later
determined was caused by wires up the western hillside of San Francisquito canyon about ninety feet above
the dam's east abutment shorting.[40][25]

Given the known height of the flood wave, and that

within seventy minutes or less after the collapse the
reservoir was virtually empty, the failure must have been
sudden and complete. Seconds after it began, little of
what had been the dam remained standing, other than the
center section and wing wall. The main dam, from west
of the center section to the wing wall abutment atop the
hillside, broke into several large pieces, and numerous
smaller pieces. All of these were washed downstream as
12.4 billion gallons (47 billion liters) of water began
surging down San Francisquito Canyon. The largest
piece, weighing 10,000 tons, (9,071,847 kg) was found St. Francis dam
about three-quarters of a mile (1200 m) below the dam
site. In a somewhat similar phenomenon, the dam portion
east of the center section had also broken into several
larger and smaller pieces. Unlike the western side, most
of these ended lying near the base of the standing section.
The largest fragments fell across the lower portion of the
standing section, coming to rest partially on its upstream
face. Initially, the two remaining sections of the dam
remained upright. As the reservoir lowered, water
undercut the already undermined eastern portion, which
twisted and fell backwards toward the eastern hillside,
breaking into three sections.

The dam keeper and his family were most likely among
the first casualties caught in the initially 140 feet (43 m) The same view post collapse. The west (left)
high flood wave, which swept over their cottage abutment was entirely swept away. The inactive
approximately a quarter of a mile (400 m) downstream San Francisquito Fault is clearly visible, being
from the dam. The body of a woman who lived with the located along the contact zone of schist and
family was found fully clothed and wedged between two conglomerate.
blocks of concrete near the base of the dam. This led to
the suggestion she and the dam keeper may have been inspecting the structure immediately before its
failure. Neither his nor his six-year-old son's bodies were found.[41]

Five minutes after the collapse, the then 120-foot-high (37 m) flood wave had traveled one and one-half
miles (2.4 km) at an average speed of 18 miles per hour (29 km/h), destroying the heavy concrete
Powerhouse No. 2 there and taking the lives of 64 of the 67 workmen and their families who lived nearby.
This cut power to much of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. It was quickly restored via tie-lines
with Southern California Edison Company, but as the floodwater entered the Santa Clara riverbed it
overflowed the rivers banks, flooding parts of present-day Valencia and Newhall. At about 12:40 a.m.
Southern California Edison's two main lines into the city were destroyed by the flooding, re-darkening the
areas that had earlier lost power, and spreading the outage to other areas served by Southern California
Edison. Nonetheless power to most of the areas not flooded was restored with power from Edison's Long
Beach steam electric generating plant.[42]

7 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

Near 1:00 a.m. the mass of water, then 55 ft (17 m) high,[43] followed the river bed west and demolished
Edison's Saugus substation, cutting power to the entire Santa Clara River Valley and parts of Ventura and
Oxnard. At least four miles of the state's main north-south highway was under water and the town of Castaic
Junction was being washed away.

The 12 mph (19 km/h) flood entered the Santa Clarita valley. Approximately five miles downstream, near
the Ventura-Los Angeles county line, a temporary construction camp the Edison Company had set up for its
150-man crew on the flats of the river bank was hit. In the confusion, Edison personnel had been unable to
issue a warning and 84 workers perished.[44]

Shortly before 1:30 a.m., a Santa Clara River Valley telephone operator learned from the Pacific Long
Distance Telephone Company that the dam had failed. She called a California Highway Patrol officer who
lived nearby, then began ringing the homes of those in danger. The officer and a fellow officer cris-crossed
the streets in the danger zone with their sirens sounding. Within an hour the streets were empty, but little
could be done for those on ranches and dairies in lowlands to the west of town.[38]

The flood heavily damaged the towns of Fillmore, Bardsdale, and Santa Paula, before emptying both
victims and debris into the Pacific Ocean 54 miles (87 km) downstream near Ventura at Montalvo around
5:30 a.m., at which point the wave was almost two miles (3 km) wide and still traveling at 6 mph
(9.7 km/h). Bodies were recovered as far south as the Mexican border; many were never found.

Newspapers across the country carried accounts of the disaster. The front page of the Los Angeles Times ran
four stories, including aerial photos of the collapsed dam and the city of Santa Paula. A Times Flood Relief
Fund was set up to receive donations, mirrored by similar efforts by other publications.[45] In a statement
Mulholland said, "I would not venture at this time to express a positive opinion as to the cause of the St.
Francis Dam disaster... Mr. Van Norman and I arrived at the scene of the break around 2:30 a.m. this
morning. We saw at once that the dam was completely out and that the torrential flood of water from the
reservoir had left an appalling record of death and destruction in the valley below." Mulholland stated that it
appeared that there had been major movement in the hills forming the western buttress of the dam, adding
that three eminent geologists, Robert T. Hill, C. F. Tolman and D. W. Murphy, had been hired by the Board
of Water and Power Commissioners to determine if this was the cause. It was noted that no tremors had
been reported at seismograph stations, ruling out an earthquake as the cause of the break.[45]

Investigation
The collapse of the dam prompted the creation of over a dozen separate investigations into the cause of
failure. With unprecedented speed, eight of these had begun by the weekend following the collapse. Almost
all of these involved investigative panels of prominent engineers and geologists. The more notable of these
groups and committees were those sponsored by California governor C. C. Young, headed by A. J. Wiley,
the renowned dam engineer and consultant to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Boulder (Hoover) Dam
Board; the Los Angeles City Council, which was chaired by the Chief of the Reclamation Service, Elwood
Mead; the Los Angeles County coroner, Frank Nance and Los Angeles County District Attorney Asa Keyes.
Others were convened: the Water and Power Commissioners started their own inquiry, as did the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors who hired J. B. Lippincott. The Santa Clara River Protective
Association employed the geologist and Stanford University professor emeritus, Dr. Bailey Willis, and
eminent San Francisco Civil Engineer and past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Carl
E. Grunsky. There were others, such as the railroad commission and several political entities who only sent
investigators or representatives.

Although they were not unanimous on all points, most commissions quickly reached their respective
conclusions. The governor's commission met on March 19 and submitted their 79-page report to the
governor on March 24, five days later, and only eleven days after the early-morning March 13 flood.

8 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

Although this may have been sufficient time to answer what they had been directed to determine, they had
been deprived of the sworn testimony at the Coroner's Inquest which was scheduled to be convened March
21, the only inquiry that took into consideration factors other than geology and engineering.

The need for nearly immediate answers was understandable, having its roots in the SwingJohnson Bill in
Congress. This bill, which had first been filed in 1922, and failed to be voted on in three successive
Congresses, was again before Congress at the time. This bill would ultimately provide the funding for
constructing the Hoover Dam. Supporters and responsible leaders alike realized the jeopardy in which the
bill then stood. Although the water and electricity from the project were needed, the idea of the construction
of such a massive dam of similar design, which would create a reservoir seven hundred times larger than the
St. Francis, did not sit well with many in light of the recent disaster and the devastation.[46] The bill was
passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Coolidge on December 21, 1928.[47][48]

The governor's commission was the first to release its findings, titled Report of the Commission appointed
by Governor C. C. Young to investigate the causes leading to the failure of the St. Francis dam near Saugus,
California. The report became the most widely distributed analysis. Along with most of the other
investigators, they perceived the new leak as the key to understanding the collapse, although the
commission believed that "the foundation under the entire dam left very much to be desired." The report
stated, "With such a formation, the ultimate failure of this dam was inevitable, unless water could have been
kept from reaching the foundation. Inspection galleries, pressure grouting, drainage wells and deep cut-off
walls are commonly used to prevent or remove percolation, but it is improbable that any or all of these
devices would have been adequately effective, though they would have ameliorated the conditions and
postponed the final failure."[49] They placed the cause of the failure on the western hillside. "The west end,"
the commission stated, "was founded upon a reddish conglomerate which, even when dry, was of decidedly
inferior strength and which, when wet, became so soft that most of it lost almost all rock characteristics."
The softening of the "reddish conglomerate" undermined the west side. "The rush of water released by
failure of the west end caused a heavy scour against the easterly canyon wall ... and caused the failure of
that part of the structure." There then "quickly followed ... the collapse of large sections of the dam."[50]

The committee appointed by the Los Angeles City Council, for the most part concurred in attributing the
collapse to "defective foundations", and wrote, "The manner of failure was that the first leak, however
started, began under the concrete at that part of the dam which stood on the red conglomerate; this leak
increased in volume as it scoured away the foundation material already greatly softened by infiltrated water
from the reservoir which removed the support of the dam at this point and since no arch action could occur
by reason of the yielding conglomerate abutment, made failure of the dam inevitable." Likewise, they
concluded the failure most likely followed a pattern similar to that which was proposed by the governor's
commission, although they did acknowledge that "the sequence of failure is uncertain."

The committee ended their report with, "...having examined all the evidence which it has been able to obtain
to date reports its conclusions as follows:

1. The type and dimensions of the dam were amply sufficient if based on suitable foundation.
2. The concrete of which the dam was built was of ample strength to resist the stresses to which it would
normally be subjected.
3. The failure cannot be laid to movement of the earth's crust.
4. The dam failed as a result of defective foundations.
5. This failure reflects in no way the stability of a well designed gravity dam properly founded on
suitable bedrock."[51]

The consensus of most of the investigating commissions was that the initial break took place at or near the
fault line, which had been a problem area since water first covered the area, on the western abutment. The
prevailing thought was that increasing water percolation through the fault line had either undermined or
weakened the foundation to a point that a portion of the structure blew out or the dam collapsed from its

9 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

own immense weight. This agreement among them was also

due, in conjunction, with a chart which was made by the
automatic water level recorder located on the dams center
section. This chart clearly showed that there had been no
significant change in the reservoir level until forty minutes
before the dams failure when, during that forty minutes, a
small though gradually increasing amount of loss was
recorded.[52] This controversial item would unfortunately,
turn out to be another area they had handicapped themselves
Concrete block from the west abutment of the without the important information that would later be brought
dam about half a mile below the dam site. to light during the testimony which would be given at the
Approximately 63 ft. long, 30 ft. high and 54 Coroner's Inquest; the only investigation that took evidence
ft. wide. The wing wall is in the distance. other than engineering and geology into account.

The only theory to vary greatly from the others was that of
Bailey Willis, Carl E. Grunsky and his son. They believed
that the portion of the east abutment below the dam was the
first to give way, clearing the way for the collapse to take
place. Their investigations, while somewhat in collaboration,
culminated in two reports, one by the Grunskys and the other
by Dr. Willis, which were completed in April 1928. These
reports, according to Carl Grunsky, "were reached
independently" and "are in substantial agreement."

Dr. Willis and the Grunskys agreed with the other engineers
and investigators on the poor quality and deteriorating
Standing section with fragments from east conditions of the entire foundation, although they maintained
side of dam that a critical situation developed on the east abutment. Dr.
Willis, the geologist of the investigative team, was most
likely the first to discover the "old landslide" within the mountains which had made the eastern abutment for
the dam. In his report, he discussed it at great length and the Grunskys drew substantially on it, as they did
his analysis of the schist, for their own report. The Grunskys, as civil engineers, took the lead in that area of
the investigation, and in describing the role played by "hydrostatic uplift." Uplift, called such as it tends to
lift the dam upward, a condition which although many designers and builders of dams had become aware of
by the late 1890s to early 1900s, was still not generally well understood or appreciated. Nevertheless, it was
becoming a matter of debate and a concern to dam builders of this era that water from a reservoir could seep
under a dam and exert pressure upward. Due, for the most part to inadequate drainage of the base and side
abutments, this phenomenon of uplift destabilizes gravity dams by reducing the structures effective
weight and thereby makes it less able to resist horizontal water pressure. Uplift can act through the bedrock
foundation, most commonly this condition develops where the bedrock foundation is strong enough to bear
the weight of the dam, but is fractured or fissured and therefore susceptible to seepage and water saturation.
[4][50]

According to their theories, water from the reservoir had permeated far back into the schist formation of the
eastern abutment. This lubricated the rock and it slowly began to move, exerting a tremendous amount of
weight against the dam, which according to the Grunskys was already becoming less stable due to uplift.
Making the situation worse, Dr. Willis established that the conglomerate, on which the western abutment of
the dam rested, reacted upon becoming wet by swelling. In fact, the amount of swelling was such that it
would raise any structure built upon it.[53] This view was reinforced when surveys taken of the wing wall
after the failure were compared with those taken at the time it was built. They reveal that, in areas, the wall
was 2 to 6 inches higher than when built.[54] Therefore, the dam was caught between forces that were acting
on it much like a vise, as the red conglomerate swelled on one side, and the moving mountain pressed in on
it from the other.

10 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

In his report, Grunsky concluded;

As soon as the dam was loosened on its base the toe of the structure spalled off. This was
probably the beginning of its breaking up, and probably occurred sometime after 11:30 PM
during the 23 minutes in which the water in the reservoir apparently fell 3/10 of a foot.
Thereupon, quite likely, a part of the east end of the dam, meanwhile undermined, went out and
the dam at this end lost its hillside support. Hydrostatic uplift at the already loose west and the
weight of the remaining portion of the undermined east end caused a temporary tilting of the
dam towards the east, accompanied by a rapid washing away of the hillside under the dam at its
west end which then also began to break up. The reservoir water was now rushing with
tremendous force against both ends and against the upstream face of all that was standing of the
dam. This rush of water carried away huge blocks of concrete from both ends of the dam...[55]

There was and remains a difference of professional opinions on the amount of time that elapsed, shown by
the chart made by the Stevens automatic water level recorder, from when the line indicating the reservoir
level broke sharply downward until it became perpendicular. Most feel the amount of time indicated on the
chart is thirty to forty minutes, not the twenty-three minutes that Grunsky stated.

In support of his theory of the dam tilting, Grunsky pointed to an odd clue near the western lower edge of
the standing section. Here a ladder had become wedged in a crack that had opened apparently during this
rocking or tilting process and then had become tightly pinched in place as the section settled back on its
foundation. Measurements taken proved the crack must have been much wider at the time that the ladder
entered it. Further, surveys indeed showed the center section had been subjected to severe tilting or twisting.
These surveys established that the center section had moved 5.5 inches (14 cm) downstream and 6 inches
(15 cm) toward the eastern abutment.

Although this investigation was insightful and informative, the theory, along with others which
hypothesized an appreciably increasing amount of seepage just prior to the failure, becomes less likely when
it is compared against the eyewitness accounts of the conditions in the canyon and near the dam during the
last thirty minutes before its collapse.[56] Grunsky hypothesized, though failed to explain the action of the
dam tilting as he described. This action would have the dam in motion as a singular unit while conversely,
testimony given at the Coroner's Inquest indicates that the dam was fractured transversely in at least four
places. Furthermore, the two cracks, which bordered each side of the standing center section, would have
served as hinges to prevent this.[57]

Aftermath
The center section, which had become known as
"The Tombstone" due to a newspaper reporter's
description of it as such, became an attraction
for tourists and souvenir hunters.

In May 1929, the upright section was toppled

with dynamite, and the remaining blocks were
demolished with bulldozers and jackhammers to
discourage the sightseers and souvenir hunters
from exploring the ruins. The wing dike was
used by Los Angeles firemen to gain experience Map showing the location of the St. Francis Dam and
in using explosives on building structures. The reservoir north of Santa Clarita between two later, still extant
St. Francis Dam was not rebuilt, though reservoirs Castaic and Bouquet.
Bouquet Reservoir in nearby Bouquet Canyon

11 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

was subsequently built in 1934, as a

replacement.[25]

To this day, the exact number of victims remains

unknown. The official death toll in August 1928
was 385, but the remains of victims continued to
be discovered every few years until the
mid-1950s.[58] Many victims were swept out to
sea when the flood reached the Pacific Ocean
and were never recovered, while others were
washed ashore, some as far south as the
Mexican border. The remains of a victim were
found deep underground near Newhall in 1992,
and other bodies, believed to be victims of the
disaster, were found in the late 1970s and 1994.
Concrete ruins of the St. Francis Dam remain strewn about
The current death toll is estimated to be a
San Francisquito Canyon.
maximum of 431 victims.[59]

At the Coroner's Inquest, the leak that Tony Harnischfeger had spotted was cited as evidence that the dam
was leaking on the day of the break, and that both the Bureau of Water Works and Supply and Mulholland
were aware of it. Mulholland told the jury he had been at the dam the day of the break, due to the dam
keeper's call, but neither he nor Van Norman had observed anything of concern, nor found any dangerous
conditions. Mulholland further testified that leaks in dams, especially of the type and size of the St. Francis,
were common. During the Inquest Mulholland said, "This inquest is a very painful thing for me to have to
attend but it is the occasion of it that is painful. The only ones I envy about this thing are the ones who are
dead."[60] In subsequent testimony, after answering a question he added, "Whether it is good or bad, don't
blame anyone else, you just fasten it on me. If there was an error in human judgment, I was the human, I
won't try to fasten it on anyone else."[61]

The Coroner's Inquest jury determined that one of the causative factors for the disaster lay in what they had
termed as "an error in engineering judgment in determining the foundation at the St. Francis Dam site and
deciding on the best type of dam to build there" and that "the responsibility for the error in engineering
judgment rests upon the Bureau of Water Works and Supply, and the Chief Engineer thereof." They cleared
Mulholland as well as others of the Bureau of Water Works and Supply of any criminal culpability, since
neither he nor anyone else at the time could have known of the instability of the rock formations on which
the dam was built. The hearings also recommended that "the construction and operation of a great dam
should never be left to the sole judgment of one man, no matter how eminent."[62]

Mulholland retired from the Bureau of Water Works and Supply in March 1929. His assistant, Harvey Van
Norman, succeeded him as chief engineer and general manager. Mulholland was retained as Chief
Consulting Engineer, with an office, and received a salary of $500 a month. In later years, he retreated into a
life of semi-isolation. He died in 1935, at the age of 79.[4]

Dam safety legislation

In response to the St. Francis Dam disaster, the California legislature created an updated dam safety
program and eliminated the municipal exemption. Before this was added, a municipality having its own
engineering department was completely exempt from regulation.

On August 14, 1929, the Department of Public Works, under the administrative oversight of the State
Engineer, which was later assumed by the Division of Safety of Dams, was given authority to review all
non-federal dams over 25 feet high or which would hold more than 50 acre-feet of water. The new
legislation also allowed the State to employ consultants, as they deemed necessary.

12 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

Additionally, the State was given full authority to supervise the maintenance and operation of all non federal
dams.[63]

Licensure of civil engineers

Having determined that the unregulated design of construction projects constituted a hazard to the public,
the California legislature passed laws to regulate civil engineering and, in 1929, created the state Board of
Registration for Civil Engineers (now the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and
Geologists).[64]

Analysis
The failure of the dam is now believed to have
begun with the eastern abutment of the dam giving
way, possibly due to a landslide. This scenario,
having its roots in the works of Willis and Grunsky,
was expanded upon by the author Charles Outland
in his book Man-Made Disaster : The Story of St.
Francis Dam which was first published in 1966.
Looking across the canyon at the dam site in 2009; the The material on which the eastern abutment of the
outlines of landslides are visible on the far side of the dam had been built may itself have been part of an
canyon. ancient landslide, but this would have been
impossible for almost any geologists of the 1920s to
detect. Indeed, the site had been inspected twice, at different times, by two of the leading geologists and
civil engineers of the day, John C. Branner of Stanford University and Carl E. Grunsky; neither found fault
with the San Francisquito rock.

J. David Rogers,[65] inspired by the work of Outland, investigated the failure and published an extensive
scenario, albeit somewhat controversial, of the possible geological and rock mechanic actions which may
have led to the dam's failure. He attributed the failure to three major factors: the instability of the ancient
landslide material on which the dam was built, the failure to compensate for the additional height added to
the dam's design, and the design and construction being overseen by only one person.[25]

A critique of Rogers's historical analysis of the dam's collapse was published in the journal California
History in 2004 by historians Norris Hundley Jr. (Professor Emeritus, UCLA) and Donald C. Jackson
(Professor, Lafayette College). While accepting most of his geological analysis of the failure, the article
makes clearer the differences and deficiencies of the structure built in San Francisquito Canyon and how it
fell short of the standards for large-scale concrete gravity dams as practiced by other prominent dam
engineers in the 1920s.[50]

Mulholland Dam reinforcement

Shortly after the disaster, many living below Mulholland Dam, which creates the Hollywood Reservoir,
feared a similar disaster and began to protest and petitioned the City of Los Angeles to drain the reservoir
and remove the dam.

A Committee of Engineers & Geologists to Assess Mulholland Dam was appointed to evaluate the safety of
the Mulholland Dam. An External Review Panel to evaluate the structure, convened by the State of
California, followed this in 1930. The same year, the City of Los Angeles Board of Water & Power
Commissioners appointed their own Board of Review for the dam. Although the states panel did not
recommend modification of the dam, both panels came to similar conclusions that the dam lacked what was

13 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

then considered sufficient uplift relief. That may have led to destabilization, and was unacceptable. Again in
1931, a fourth panel, the Board of Engineers to Evaluate Mulholland Dam, was appointed to assess the
structure. As well, an external study group appointed by the Board of Water & Power Commissioners
produced a "Geological Report of the Suitability of Foundations". Certain design deficiencies, which had
been made by the engineering department during the planning phase of the dam, were uncovered. These had
to do with the dam's base width in conjunction to its ability to resist uplift, sliding and to withstand
earthquake loading.[66]

The decision was made to permanently keep the Hollywood Reservoir drawn down. It was also decided to
keep the amount stored in the reservoir to no more than 4,000 acreft (4,900,000 m3) and to place an
enormous amount of earth, 330,000 cu yd (250,000 m3), on the dams downstream face to increase its
resistance against hydraulic uplift and earthquake forces, and to screen it from public view. This work was
carried out in 193334.[67][68]

Present-day remains
The only visible remains of the St. Francis Dam are
weathered, broken chunks of gray concrete and the rusted
remnants of the handrails that lined the top of the dam and
the wing dike. The ruins and the scar from the ancient
landslide can be seen from San Francisquito Canyon Road.
Large chunks of debris can still be found scattered about the
creek bed south of the dam's original site.

The site of the disaster is registered as California Historical

Landmark #919.[1] The landmark is located on the grounds Remains of the "Tombstone" section of the dam
of Powerhouse No. 2 and is near San Francisquito Canyon in 2009. The partially buried edges of the stair-
Road. A mass grave for victims of the disaster is at Ivy stepped face of the dam are visible.
Lawn Memorial Park in Ventura, near where the Santa Clara
River reaches the ocean.

The road sustained heavy storm damage in 2005, and when rebuilt, it was routed away from both the
remains of the dam and the damaged portion of the roadway.[69]

In popular culture
Numerous fictionalized references are made to Mulholland, the California Water Wars, the aqueduct,
and the St. Francis Dam disaster in the 1974 movie Chinatown.
Rock musician Frank Black makes several references to the St. Francis Dam disaster in his songs "St.
Francis Dam Disaster" and "Ol Mulholland."
The 2014 young adult novel 100 Sideways Miles by Andrew A. Smith features the current site of the
dam disaster as well as some discussion of the historical event.

See also
List of dams and reservoirs in California
Dam failure
Baldwin Hills Reservoir
Malpasset Dam
Johnstown Flood

14 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

References
Notes

1. "St. Francis Dam disaster". Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks. Retrieved 2012-10-08.
2. Stansell, Ann (August 2014). Memorialization and Memory of Southern California's St. Francis Dam Disaster of
1928. California State University, Northridge (Thesis).
3. Stansell, Ann C. (February 2014). "Roster of St. Francis Dam Disaster Victims". Santa Clarita Valley History In
Pictures.
4. Mulholland, Catherine, William Mulholland and the St. Francis Dam ; St. Francis Dam Disaster Revisited, Nunis
Jr., Doyce B. (Ed.) Historical Society of Southern California. 1995. ISBN 0-914421-13-1
5. Water and Power Associates Inc. "William Mulholland Biography" (http://waterandpower.org/museum
/Mulholland_Biography.html)
6. Water and Power Associates Inc. "DWP Name Change Chronology" (http://waterandpower.org/museum
/Name_Change_Chronology_of_DWP.html)
7. American Society of Civil Engineers "First Owens River Los Angeles Aqueduct" (http://www.asce.org/People-
and-Projects/Projects/Landmarks/First-Owens-River---Los-Angeles-Aqueduct/)
8. "Los Angeles City Council Declares 2013: Year of the L.A. Aqueduct". LADWP. 18 January 2013. Retrieved
11 March 2013.
9. Rogers 1995, p. 21.
10. Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct to the Board of Public Works, 1911
11. "Historical Resident Population City & County of Los Angeles, 1850 to 2000". LA Almanac. Retrieved
November 20, 2013.
12. Kahrl 1983, p. 312.
13. Outland 2002, p. 123.
14. Rogers 1995, pp. 2326.
15. Coroner's Inquest 1928, pp. 31920.
16. Rogers, David J. "Impacts of the 1928 St. Francis Dam Failure on Geology, Civil Engineering, and America, p.
2"
17. Rogers 1995, p. 30.
18. Outland, p. 29.
19. Official Action Taken by the Board of Public Service Commissioners and Board of Water and Power
Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, Relative to the St. Francis Reservoir
20. Outland 2002, p. 33.
21. Annual Reports of the Board of Public Service Commissioners 19241925
22. Outland 2002, p. 30.
23. 24th Annual Report of the Board of Public Service Commissioners, Report of the Office Engineer
24. Outland 2002, p. 201.
25. Rogers, J. David. Reassessment of the St. Francis Dam Failure (http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/st_francis_dam
/reassessment_of_st_francis_dam_failure.pdf) Missouri University of Science & Technology
26. Mulholland, Catherine (2000). William Mulholland and the Rise of Los Angeles. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press. p. 320. ISBN 0-520-21724-1.
27. Outland 2002, p. 198.
28. Outland 2002, p. 46.
29. Coroner's Inquest 1928, p. 547.
30. Outland 2002, p. 49.
31. Nadeau, Remi A. The Water Seekers. New York: Doubleday, 1950. ISBN 0-9627104-5-8
32. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power "Whoever Brings the Water Brings the People"
(http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/whoeverbrings.htm)
33. Rogers 1995, p. 35.
34. Outland 2002, p. 51.
35. Coroner's Inquest 1928, p. 384.
36. Outland 2002, p. 67.
37. Coroner's Inquest 1928, pp. 64145.
38. Pollack, Alan (MarchApril 2008). "St. Francis Dam Disaster: Victims and Heroes". The Heritage Junction
Dispatch. Santa Clara Valley Historical Society.
39. Coroner's Inquest 1928, p. 468.
40. Outland 2002, p. 108.

15 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

41. Outland 2002, pp. 7374.

42. Outland 2002, p. 96.
43. Charles H. Lee collection, Water Resources Collections and Archives, University of California, Riverside
44. Outland 2002, p. 127.
45. ISBN 978-0-542-97374-1
46. Outland 2002, p. 193.
47. "The Story of Hoover Dam Chronology". United States Bureau of Reclaimation. March 13, 2015. Retrieved
August 4, 2016.
48. Stevens, Joseph E (1988). Hoover Dam: An American Adventure. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 27.
49. Commission appointed by Governor C. C. Young 1928, p. 123.
50. Jackson, Donald C. and Hundley, Norris. "Privilege and Responsibility: William Mulholland and the St. Francis
Dam Disaster." California History (Fall 2004) pp. 847 | url = https://dspace.lafayette.edu/handle/10385/1563 }}
51. Report of Committee appointed by the City Council of Los Angeles to investigate and report the cause of the
failure of the St. Francis Dam
52. Outland 2002, p. 204.
53. Outland 2002, p. 208.
54. Rogers 1995, p. 43.
55. Grunsky, C.E and C.L.; Willis, Bailey "St. Francis Dam Failure" accompanied by "Report on Geology of St.
Francis Damsite". Western Construction News, May 1928
56. Coroner's Inquest 1928, pp. 64244.
57. Outland 2002, pp. 20912.
58. SCV Historical Society "Construction of the St. Francis Dam" (http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory
/ap2330.htm)
59. SCH History (http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/annstansell_damvictims022214.htm)
60. Coroner's Inquest 1928, p. 16.
61. Coroner's Inquest 1928, p. 378.
62. Coroner's Inquest & 1928 p.
63. "Statutes and Regulations pertaining to Supervision of Dams and Reservoirs" (PDF). State of California.
Retrieved 2013-10-04.
64. A Brief History of the Board (http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/history.shtml) Board for Professional
Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists, ca.gov
65. Rogers is Ph.D., P.E., R.G., Karl F. Hasselmann Missouri Chair in Geological Engineering, Department of
Geological Sciences & Engineering and professor at Missouri University of Science and Technology
66. Rogers 1995, p. 85.
67. Rogers 1995, p. 86.
68. "Earth Guards Dam from Quakes." (https://books.google.com/books?id=uSgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44&
dq=1930+plane+%22Popular&hl=en&ei=5nuUTt-4LubfsQLC1I3vAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=true) Popular Science, April 1934
69. "Roads Closed for Months, San Francisquito, Bouquet Routes Heavily Damaged" (http://www.thefreelibrary.com
/ROADS+CLOSED+FOR+MONTHS+SAN+FRANCISQUITO%2c+BOUQUET+ROUTES+HEAVILY...-
a0127469751) Daily News (Los Angeles, California) (January 20, 2005)

Bibliography

Rogers, David J. (1995). "A Man, A Dam and A Disaster". The St. Francis Dam Disaster Revisited
Nunis Jr., Doyce B. Ed. Historical Society of Southern. ISBN 0-914421-13-1.
Commission appointed by Governor C. C. Young (1928). "Report of the Commission appointed by
Governor C. C. Young to investigate the causes leading to the failure of the St. Francis dam near
Saugus California".
Coroner's Inquest (1928). Transcript of Testimony and Verdict of the Coroner's Jury In the Inquest
Over Victims of St. Francis Dam Disaster: Book 26902. Los Angeles County Department of Coroner.
Jackson, Donald C.; Hundley, Norris (Fall 2004). "Privilege and Responsibility: William Mulholland
and the St. Francis Dam Disaster" (PDF). California History.
Kahrl, William. L. (1983). Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles Water Supply in the
Owens Valley. University of California. ISBN 0-520-05068-1.
Mead, Elwood; Hill, Louis; Beach, Lansing (1928). "Report of Committee appointed by the City
Council of Los Angeles to investigate and report the cause of the failure of the St. Francis Dam".

16 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

Outland, Charles F. (2002). Man-Made Disaster: The Story of St Francis Dam (revised ed.). The
Arthur H. Clark Company. ISBN 0-87062-322-2.

Further reading

Horton, Pony R. "A Test of Integrity: The Original Story Upon Which The Docu-Drama is Based".
A popular article detailing the St. Francis Dam disaster. Based on Horton's 25 years of research
into the story. Informational sources include Horton's interviews with Catherine Mulholland,
Dr. J. David Rogers, and Robert V. Phillips, former Chief Engineer & General Manager,
LADWP. A slightly lengthened version of the article was published in 2009 in The Raven and
The Writing Desk; The 6th Antelope Valley Anthology by MousePrints Publishing, Lancaster,
California. ISBN 0-9702112-7-9
Wilkman, John (2016) Floodpath: The Deadliest Man-Made Disaster of 20th-Century America and
the Making of Modern Los Angeles, New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-62040-915-2.

External links
"San Francisquito Canyon and the St. Francis Dam". Santa
Wikimedia Commons has
Clarita Valley Historical Society. Retrieved March 29, 2003.. media related to St. Francis
Several photographs of the dam under construction, Dam.
completed, its ruins, and a list of the victims.
St. Francis Dam Disaster (http://www.scvtv.com/html/legacyfrankrock.html) 30-minute television
program available online.
Remembering the St. Francis Dam Disaster (http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/sg031101.htm),
by Michele E. Buttelman, The Signal March 11, 2001.
Google Earth image of the St. Francis Dam ruins (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&
q=34.547707,+-118.512971&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=34.547707,-118.512971&
spn=0.003579,0.005987&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr)
"Application of the Method of Characteristics to the Dam Break Wave Problem"
(http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:164021), Journal of Hydraulic Research, 47 (1), pp. 4149.
St Francis Dam Flood (http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search_mode=noPunct&
free_form=St.+Francis+Dam+Flood), image gallery at USGS
Complete List of St. Francis Dam Disaster Victims (http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory
/annstansell_damvictims022214.htm), compiled by Ann C. Stansell, California State University-
Northridge.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Francis_Dam&oldid=771818255"

Categories: Dams in Los Angeles County, California Dams completed in 1926 Reservoirs in California
Dam failures in the United States Disasters in California 1928 industrial disasters
Floods in the United States Los Angeles Aqueduct History of Los Angeles
History of Los Angeles County, California History of Ventura County, California
California Historical Landmarks Burials in Ventura County, California Santa Clara River (California)
Sierra Pelona Mountains Santa Clarita, California Santa Paula, California
Burials at Ivy Lawn Cemetery 1928 in California 1928 disasters in the United States
March 1928 events

This page was last modified on 23 March 2017, at 18:08.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may

17 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27
St. Francis Dam - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

18 of 18 03.04.2017 08:27