Misplaced Pages

#103896

36-593: Great Falls Dam can refer to: Great Falls Dearborn Dam , a hydroelectric dam on the Catawba River, South Carolina Great Falls Dam (Maryland-Virginia), a proposed dam on the Potomac River, later proposed as Seneca Dam Great Falls Dam (Tennessee) , a hydroelectric dam on the Caney Fork near Rock Island, Tennessee, USA Great Falls Dam (Manitoba) ,

72-409: A 1921 report, which proposed a concrete gravity dam which would include a hydroelectric powerplant. Reservoir capacity was projected at 300,000 acre-feet (0.37 km ) for a 24,000-acre (9,700 ha) reservoir with a reservoir at 215 feet above sea level. Power generation capacity was planned at 105 MW and total cost was projected at $ 18,616,000 in 1921. By direction of Congress in 1936 and 1937

108-576: A dam for flood control, power generation and water quality improvement, to be located above Great Falls at Riverbend. The scheme was revived following World War II. Opposition to the flooding of the entire river to Cumberland by a chain of dams, and to the inundation of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal doomed the Riverbend proposal. However, in 1963 the Corps proposed a new plan to improve water quality on

144-587: A hydroelectric dam on the Winnipeg River near Selkirk, Manitoba, Canada Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Great Falls Dam . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Falls_Dam&oldid=704721275 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

180-455: A nearly continuous chain of reservoirs from tidewater to Cumberland, Maryland . The 1938 program was focused on flood control, on the heels of a major flood in 1936. The reformulated 1963 program focused on water supply and quality, mitigating upstream pollution from sewage and coal mine waste. While several projects came to fruition in one form or another, most were never pursued or were abandoned after significant public opposition. Savage River

216-593: A result of the catastrophic flood of 1936, Congress mandated a study by the Corps of Engineers on flood control on the Potomac. The Corps report published in 1938 proposed a series of dams on the main stem of the Potomac and on several tributaries. The reservoirs were to start at tidewater at Chain Bridge . Proposed dams on the Potomac included ( unbuilt projects in italics ): The Shenandoah would have been dammed at two places: Other reservoirs would have included: With

252-411: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Seneca Dam The earliest proposals for exploitation of hydropower on the Potomac were made in the 1880s. By the 1920s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the possibilities for hydroelectric power. After a new study mandated by Congress in 1936-37, the Corps of Engineers in 1938 proposed

288-541: The Ball's Bluff battlefield would have been submerged, as well as the Monocacy Aqueduct . Roads and railroads were expected to be flooded by the reservoir and would have had to be replaced. The 1963 report described the relocations as "extensive." Road relocations were budgeted at $ 8,500,000 and railroads at $ 10,040,000. About 21,000 acres (8,500 ha) of wildlife habitat was expected to be inundated, including

324-512: The McKee-Beshers and Dierssen wildlife management areas. 13,120 acres (5,310 ha) of replacement habitat was expected to be required to mitigate habitat loss. The project was judged to have little effect on agriculture and forestry. 460 families were expected to be displaced. Potomac River basin reservoir projects The Potomac River basin reservoir projects were U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs that sought to regulate

360-493: The Army Corps of Engineers, which manages Washington D.C.'s water supply system, examined possibilities for flood control along the Potomac. The Corps returned with an ambitious agenda for 14 dams on the main stem of the Potomac, its branches and its major tributaries. Beginning at tidewater, a dam at Chain Bridge would extend to Bear Island , where another dam would back a reservoir up to Great Falls. Just above Great Falls

396-753: The Bloomington project was built approximately as originally proposed, creating Jennings Randolph Reservoir . In 1968 the landmark study The Nation's River was published by the Department of the Interior , examining strategies for the appropriate use and clean-up of the Potomac. It disputed the strategy of dilution and noted that flood control projects could not be economically justified on their own. The report documented absent or inadequate wastewater treatment, discharge from combined sanitary and stormwater sewers, and agricultural runoff. This document became

SECTION 10

#1732791973104

432-612: The Department of the Interior was attended by more than 1000 people, only three of whom spoke in favor of the Corps plan. In the meantime the Park Service had proposed its own plan for a parkway on the canal right-of-way from Cumberland to Washington. Opposition to this plan gained force during the 1950s and culminated in a 1954 letter to the Washington Post by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas blasting

468-700: The Maryland side, Seneca Creek would have been flooded past Dawsonville , and the Monocacy River would have been flooded past Frederick to Ceresville . The main river pool would have extended to Sandy Hook, Maryland. Maps of the reservoir show that portions of Point of Rocks and Buckeystown , Maryland would have been flooded by the full flood pool, and most or all of Lilypons and Seneca in Maryland, Limestone School and Fairview in Virginia and White's Ferry in Maryland and Virginia. The lower portion of

504-506: The Potomac, which moved water storage off the main stem of the Potomac to its upper tributaries and scaled the Riverbend dam back to a lower dam at Blockhouse Point, near the mouth of Little Seneca Creek , to be called Seneca Dam. This proposal was debated through the 1960s until it was finally abandoned in 1969. Beginning in the 1880s a series of proposals were made to use the Potomac River 's hydropower potential, which arises from

540-556: The Riverbend Dam could enhance flow over Great Falls during daylight hours. Locks were to be provided to allow small craft to reach Harpers Ferry. The cost of this program was estimated at $ 235 million in 1945. The Corps plan, which would have inundated nearly all of the defunct Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was opposed by the National Park Service , which had acquired the canal property in 1938. A 1954 hearing at

576-587: The Riverbend Dam would create a reservoir up to Sandy Hook , just below Harpers Ferry . Dams at Sandy Hook, Rocky Marsh Run, Pinesburg and Little Orleans would convert the main stem of the river to a series of slackwater reservoirs. More dams on the North and South Forks of the Potomac, the North River and the Shenandoah River would complete the scheme. The Corps suggested that the discharge from

612-489: The Seneca Dam proposal had been publicly abandoned by the Corps of Engineers. Water quality and supply concerns that had previously been cited as reasons for dam building were addressed by new Federal requirements for stringent sewage treatment, which greatly improved water quality on the lower Potomac, eliminating the need to dilute effluent in reservoirs. Mine waste discharge was also regulated, with dilution provided by

648-484: The authority of the Antiquities Act on January 18, 1961. The proclamation earned the enmity of House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Chairman Wayne Aspinall . Later in 1961 a park authorization bill was proposed with Aspinall's support that would allow dam construction on the Potomac. In May 1962 the Corps proposed a new scheme for 16 dams on the Potomac and its tributaries. This version scrapped most of

684-475: The basis for Potomac study, development and management. The widespread implementation of pollution controls as a result of the Clean Water Act reduced upstream pollution. Water conservation measures meant that water use did not follow the trend expected by the Corps of Engineers, and reservoirs were not required to meet demand. The river's potential for transportation and hydropower was explored from

720-620: The beginning of the United States, with George Washington 's Potomac Company one of the first consortia to try to exploit the Potomac's route through the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains. The failure of the Potomac Company led to the formation of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in 1825 to use the river's route to build a still-water canal to Cumberland. Starting in 1799 the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers were used to power

756-534: The effects of upstream sewage discharge, especially during periods of low river flow, and opined that unless sewage was diverted by pipeline to the Chesapeake Bay , a dam would be necessary to dilute the effluent to an acceptable level. However, the Corps projected that the Seneca reservoir would not be able to assure sufficient water flow and quality without support from upstream dams on tributaries. The dam

SECTION 20

#1732791973104

792-604: The eventual construction of Jennings Randolph Lake on the North Branch of the Potomac by the Corps of Engineers. The Riverbend Dam was to be a 119-foot (36 m) dam at the westward bend of the Potomac just above Great Falls. Its reservoir was to extend nearly to Harpers Ferry, with branches extending up the Monocacy River past Frederick and major branches on streams in Loudoun County, Virginia . The dam

828-434: The federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry . A variety of industries grew up in the area, powered by river waters. The earliest proposals for exploitation of hydropower on the Potomac were made in the 1880s. By the 1920s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the possibilities for hydroelectric power at Great Falls . Power generation capacity was planned at 105 MW and total cost was projected at $ 18,616,000 in 1921. As

864-409: The flow of the Potomac River to control flooding, to assure a reliable water supply for Washington, D.C. , and to provide recreational opportunities. Beginning in 1921 the Corps studied a variety of proposals for an ambitious program of dam construction on the Potomac and its tributaries, which proposed as many as sixteen major dam and reservoir projects. The most ambitious proposals would have created

900-520: The intervention of World War II none of these projects were pursued, but they were revived in 1945 as a basis for further study. In 1958 the Corps again was directed by Congress to study dams, this time to improve water quality in addition to flood control. Upstream sewage discharge and the effects of coal mine drainage on the Potomac headwaters caused the new focus, in which the assured flow of reservoirs would combine to dilute pollution to an acceptable level for drinking water treatment. A further interest

936-475: The mainstem dams in favor of more tributary dams, and moved the Riverbend Dam to a site at Seneca, 4.5 miles (7.2 km) upstream. The Seneca Dam was to be lower than Riverbend. Douglas immediately attacked the proposal, as did Maryland Representative Charles Mathias . A task force review in 1966 opposed the Seneca Dam. In 1968 draft legislation proposed the Potomac National River, eliminating

972-629: The plan and urging the canal's preservation as a wild park, and challenging Post editors to walk the 185-mile (298 km) length of the canal towpath. Joined by conservation leaders and supported by the Park Service, the hike was accomplished in seven days and brought the preservationist cause extensive publicity. In 1958 the Corps again was directed by Congress to study dams, this time to improve water quality in addition to flood control. Tension between legislation for park use and water management use increased, until President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument under

1008-468: The possibility of a Seneca Dam in favor of more tributary dams. However, this proposal was opposed by landowners and other interests in the areas earmarked for dams on the Monocacy , Cacapon and upper Potomac rivers. In 1968 Congress converted the national monument into Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park , effectively precluding dam construction anywhere along the length of the park. By 1969

1044-476: The steep drop of the river at Great Falls as it crosses the Atlantic Seaboard fall line , dropping to sea level over about 10 miles (16 km). Frequent flooding and a desire to secure a reliable water supply for Washington, D.C. increased the attractiveness of a major dam on the Potomac. A detailed plan for a major dam on the Potomac at Great Falls was first advanced by the Corps of Engineers in

1080-536: The visual intrusion of the Riverbend Dam at Great Falls, Seneca Dam was placed at Blockhouse Point, about 1.6 miles (2.6 km) downstream from the mouth of Seneca Creek , about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) upstream from the Riverbend site and just downstream from the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 's Dam Number 2. No immediate hydroelectric development was planned, the dam was meant to provide a water source, to control floods, and to provide recreation. The Corps of Engineers assumed that water quality would continue to decline under

1116-588: Was expected to be about 5 feet (1.5 m), with another 7 feet (2.1 m) for the rest of the year. The pool would have varied from 38,700 acres (15,700 ha) at maximum flood pool to 24,000 acres (9,700 ha) at full conservation pool, and 9,100 acres (3,700 ha) at minimum pool. Construction was expected to take six years. The reservoir was planned to store 550,000 acre-feet (0.68 km ), of which 50,000 acre-feet (0.062 km ) were allocated for sedimentation. An additional 643,000 acre-feet (0.793 km ) were available for flood storage. The reservoir

Great Falls Dam - Misplaced Pages Continue

1152-503: Was planned as a straight-crested concrete gravity dam with a central overflow spillway regulated by 27 gates. Provision for future power generation was to be included in the south abutment, with water supply provisions on either end of the dam. No lock was to be provided for small craft. For flood control the project was designed to pass 150,000 cu ft/s (4,200 m /s) of a 400,000 cu ft/s (11,000 m /s) flood to minimize damage downstream. Drawdown from May to September

1188-578: Was projected to cost more than $ 100 million in 1962 dollars. The project was opposed by Maryland and Virginia, as well as by conservation organizations and fell out of favor with the Corps of Engineers in 1969. As with the Riverbend proposal, the reservoir was to spread along tributary creeks and reservoirs, in some cases considerable distances. On the Virginia side, Sugarland Run would have been flooded to Herndon , Broad Run to Sterling , Goose Creek to Evergreen Mill and Catoctin Creek to Taylorstown . On

1224-574: Was the creation of recreational opportunities on the new lakes. The new study was published in 1963 as the Potomac River Basin Report . The new plan involved 16 major reservoir projects and 418 small headwater reservoirs. The plan also recommended the use of more effective wastewater treatment strategies. The cost of the entire program was estimated at $ 498 million in 1963 dollars. The major projects included ( unbuilt projects in italics ): Of all of these projects, only Bloomington

1260-399: Was the only project from the 1938 program to be built. The largest project to be proposed was Seneca Dam on the Potomac just above Washington, D.C.. The Seneca project was abandoned in 1969 after the creation of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park , which preserved much of the area Seneca Dam would have flooded. The Verona and Sixes Bridge projects survived into the 1970s. Only

1296-458: Was to incorporate small locks to allow pleasure boats to reach Harpers Ferry. After intense public opposition the Riverbend project was shelved in favor of less ambitious proposals The final proposal for a lower Potomac dam was Seneca Dam. The concept developed in the 1950s and was proposed by the Corps of Engineers in its final form in the 1963 Potomac River Basin Report . Answering objections to

#103896