World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2020: Nevada and California Water History

The education and training on environmental, health, and safety (EHS) principles to the future workforce is critical. Worldwide, EHS (or SHE or HSE, the multi-way-acronym) educational and training programs need to produce effective leaders, since the EHS-compliance requirements must be accomplished by day-to-day workforce of all entities—government, industrial, institutional, and commercial facilities. The effective understanding of environmental (air, water, waste, and soil), and health and safety (including, “security”) regulatory requirements is critical at all workplaces. The elements of EHSs would include (not limited to): fundamentals; regulations and regulators; environmental permitting and compliance; workplace health and safety (and, security); audit; economics; ethics; and, the leadership. EHS should also be explained to the students with reference to “sustainability” and “resiliency.” Author, with work experience in the government, industrial, municipal, and academia settings, has successfully offered a semester long introductory EHS course at a 4-year college program providing instruction on the EHS elements as included above and, the real-time experience was also provided to the class via field visit and guest lectures. Moreover, since this course would be of interest or is offered to various majors and minors, the teaching and grading of this potential combination of students would need to be planned and a successful instruction must be accomplished. Thus, this paper is elucidated on the introductory level EHS course and its critical elements of instruction.

This paper describes a versatile apparatus suitable for teaching the principles of hydraulic grade lines, parallel and serial pipe analysis, multi-loop pipe network analysis, and surge tanks in courses such as fluid mechanics, water resources engineering, and water distribution system design. The apparatus can be configured in many different ways, depending upon the principle being taught.

Colorado River runoff at Glen Canyon Dam in northeast Arizona was 180% of normal in the late spring of 1983. The peak inflow to Lake Powell of 111,500 ft³/s (3,158 m³/s) occurred on June 29th and required operation of both spillways in addition to the powerhouse and outlet works for two months with a maximum release of 92,600 ft³/s (2,623 m³/s) to the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. A large aeration slot was designed, laboratory tested, and installed in the tunnel spillways before the 1984 runoff season. At the time of the high releases, three fearless river guides illegally launched a small dory at Lee’s Ferry for an unforgettable adventure to set a new time record for the 277-mile (446 km) journey through the Grand Canyon. The story of the illegal river runners was juxtaposed in time with the Glen Canyon Dam engineers' race to avoid a spillway catastrophe during the 1983 spring runoff. The dam engineers and operators had different opinions of the dam than that of the river guides—they felt the dam was a living monolith, pulsating with energy and dynamism and the river runners felt the dam was an offense against nature. The 1983 flow emergency at Glen Canyon is a story of success by both groups, but only after overcoming huge challenges. The story will be summarized in this paper.

We strongly recommend EWRI people visit the London Water and Steam Museum. This presentation includes many slides of this outstanding museum near the Kew tube station. London Museum of Water and Steam features artefacts and interactive exhibits on water. On 26 October 2018, David Gilbert and Jerry Rogers toured the London Museum of Water and Steam, located at Green Dragon Lane, Brentford, London TW8 0EN near Kew Station. Kew Bridge Pumping Station was originally opened in 1838 by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company. In 1999, the United Kingdom Government Department for Culture, Media, and Sport described Kew Bridge pumping station as “the most important historic site of the water supply industry in Britain.” The heart of the museum showcases a majestic collection of steam pumping engines, including engines from Cornwall, as well as rotative engines. There are many good London water supply and treatment exhibits also. In addition, there will be an ASCE, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), and Japan Society of Civil Engineers International Historic Civil Engineering Landmark plaque ceremony 26 July 2020, for the 200 year-old Union Chain Suspension Bridge at Berwick-upon-Tweed. There is a free: “Union Chain Bridge Bicentenary 1820–2020 Conference” coordinated by The Friends of the Union Chain Bridge in association with Northumberland County Council to present a mini-presentations programme 26 July 2020. Note the book: Samuel Brown and Union Chain Bridge: Gordon Miller, Friends of the Union Bridge, 306 pp., 135 photographs, 15.5 GBP. People can visit the Paxton Estate (Paxton Trust), a historic house at Paxton, Berwickshire. In addition, the Scotland ICE group invites ASCE members to visit the “Engineering Foresight From Hindsight Conference” in Edinburgh 24 July 2020, and a summer ICE Scotland tour of Newcastle and historic sites 25 July 2020. Some photos from the co-authors’ tour of Union Chain Bridge in October 2018 will be featured at the EWRI 2020 Conference.

The earliest technical article by an American engineer on hydraulic uplift was the ASCE Presidential Address by James B. Francis in 1888. He suggested applying full hydrostatic pressure at the upstream heel of a dam, diminishing to zero pressure at the downstream toe. Thoughts on the potentially destabilizing role of uplift were mentioned by John R. Freeman in 1911 in his comments on the failure of Bayless Dam near Austin, PA. Between 1911–1918 Arnold C. Koenig, J. B. T. Coleman, and James B. Hays discussed how to account for uplift in masonry dams in the ASCE Proceedings and Transactions. Up until 1927–28 most engineers assumed that uplift pressure was tied to the permeability of the foundation and that of the dam structure. Most assumed that concrete was impervious and incapable of transmitting meaningful pore pressure. The textbooks cited by the engineers who drafted the plans for the St. Francis Dam cited examples that appeared in textbooks published between 1908–18. In 1918 Edward Wegmann asserted that it was impossible to accurately estimate the uplift that might develop beneath a dam and that engineers should rely on their own judgment. Others suggested that an uplift pressure diagram in the shape of a trapezoid be employed, assuming development of two-thirds the theoretical uplift, varying lineally to zero at the toe, unless uplift relief wells were employed. All the various theories were called into question when Hoover Dam was filled to capacity in 1934–41 and excessive uplift pressures developed beneath the dam’s downstream face. This led to tripling the depth of the grout curtain, which took nine years complete. In 1936 Karl Terzaghi introduced his theory of effective stress, which established a distinction between total stress and those ascribable to hydrostatic (pore water) pressure. In 1939 ASCE formed a Subcommittee on Uplift in Masonry Dams. In 1945 Terzaghi summarized the results of experimental work that suggested water was able to transmit pore pressures in concrete. The ASCE committee released their final report in 1952, which included uplift measurements of a modest number of high-head dams and commented on what they felt constituted reasonable bounds on how much uplift could develop if relief wells were installed immediately downstream of grout curtains.

The Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge (the Mike O’Callagham-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge) was dedicated on October 14, 2010. The arch bridge carries Interstate 11 and U.S. Route 93 over the Colorado River just downstream with spectacular views from the pedestrian walkway of Hoover Dam. The bridge was the first concrete-steel composite arch bridge built in the United States, and incorporates the widest concrete arch in the Western Hemisphere. The Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge was nominated by the Nevada Section-ASCE for the 2012 Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award (OCEA) and won the competition, with the OCEA plaque located at the end of the pedestrian walkway beside the highway. With educational panels of the composite concrete deck arch bridge construction methods and companies, a pedestrian walking trail was built from a parking area to a sidewalk and Hoover Dam-overlook along the bridge and highway. Several new oval information panels were added to the Bypass Bridge Parking Plaza, next to rectangular panels explaining the construction methods and stages. Materials utilized in the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge include 10,000 psi to 3,000 psi concrete, precast concrete columns, and many million pounds of structural steel.

Investigations of potential dam sites along the lower Colorado River in Boulder and Black Canyons were initially carried out by the Hydrology Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1901–02. These were further evaluated by the newly-formed Reclamation Service from 1914 until the dam’s eventual construction in 1931–35. The seminal event triggering these studies was the accidental flooding of the Imperial Valley in 1905–07, which inundated more than 500 square miles of irrigable lands. It was assumed that a great embankment dam would be constructed near the head of Boulder Canyon, where the gorge was narrowest and comprised of granite. At this location the average depths of channel sands and gravels was about 65 feet. The site’s location thereafter caused the federal effort to be part of the Boulder Canyon Project. In 1919 California representatives in the House and Senate began introducing bills to approve what would eventually become the largest line item appropriation in American history, up to that time. In 1922–24 Reclamation received funds to explore alternative dam sites in Black Canyon, 18 to 23 miles downstream of the Boulder Canyon site. Dams of similar height built 20 miles downstream would increase the reservoir storage by about 40%, but the average depth to bedrock in the river channel was 120 feet. In 1924 Reclamation recommended a concrete gravity arch dam 740 ft high in Black Canyon. During each session of Congress in the 1920s the Boulder Canyon Act was introduced but failed to win congressional approval for nine years. Along the way, it became a more multi-faceted project, providing irrigation to an enlarged area, increased flood storage, constructing an All-American Canal along the international border, and the novel proposal for Reclamation to construct and operate the world’s largest hydroelectric facility, using the proceeds to repay to cost of the project. In 1927 a board of advisors were appointed to make detailed surveys of the Lower Colorado River and answer five questions that had been raised by critics of the act. These refinements and concessions eventually led to congressional approval in May 1928, but with a special proviso resulting from the recent failure of the St. Francis Dam built by the city of Los Angeles, which had killed ~430 people. Congress appointed a Colorado River Board (CRB) comprised of eminent engineers and geologists to make a detailed evaluation of Reclamation’s designs and report their findings within six months. The CRB’s recommendations were accepted and the Boulder Canyon Act was approved by Congress and President Calvin Coolidge in December 1928.

The Valley of Mexico is a closed basin that contained five interconnected lakes prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. As the Spaniards settled in the valley and began the development of present-day Mexico City, periodic flooding of the lakes threatened the urban development and the lifestyle of the people in the city. Over multiple centuries, New Spain and later independent Mexico constructed various hydraulic works to reduce flooding and to increase the land area available for development and farming. These hydraulic works eventually led to the complete drainage of the Valley of Mexico. This paper presents the engineering history of the first set of hydraulic works, whose centerpiece was a 6-km-long tunnel through the low hills near Heuhetoca in the northwestern part of the basin. The goal of the system was to reduce the inflow into Lake Zumpango, the most upstream lake in the northwest extent of the basin, which would reduce the overall flow into Lake Texcoco, on whose shores the capital city was built. This paper also discusses the social inequalities interwoven in the drainage project.

In 1908–09 John S. Eastwood built the world’s first large-scale reinforced concrete multiple arch dam at Hume Lake east of Fresno, CA. Prior to his death in August 1924 Eastwood championed the multiple arch dam as the “ultimate dam” because of its economic efficiency and its ability to counter the destabilizing effect of uplift. Although seventeen of Eastwood’s multiple arch dams were built in California, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and British Columbia, he experienced opposition from engineers who advocated massive gravity dams. Most prominently, the New England-based engineer John R. Freeman opposed Eastwood’s designs as inferior substitutes to massive gravity structures. Most notably, Freeman castigated Eastwood’s designs as “lace curtain” dams, asserting that on “psychological” grounds they failed to provide a proper visual assurance of strength. Freeman’s objections, and his professional prominence, presaged the eventual abandonment of multiple arch dam technology in America after World War II.

In 1930, the Bureau of Reclamation selected Saco Reink DeBoer as the city planner for the company town of Boulder City for the residences of workers on Hoover (Boulder) Dam. Over 1,500 buildings were constructed to house the 5,000 plus dam workers, making Boulder City the third largest city in Nevada. DeBoer gained experience with the Denver Parks and Parkway System and other towns throughout Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The Radburn, New Jersey, superblocks around central park spaces were utilized in the Boulder City plan. During the Community Planning Movement, Boulder City was the first fully developed new town. Named after the dam general superintendent in 1981, the Frank T. Crowe Memorial Park was a large planned neighborhood park. The Boulder City civic center of public buildings was the center of a triangular-shaped city plan with the Bureau of Reclamation Administration Building at the apex. In 1931, the infrastructure base of water, sewer, electricity, and roadways was constructed. Also, in 1931, the water for Boulder City was planned and constructed for six miles from the Colorado River in a twelve-inch water main pumped 2,000 feet in elevation. A pre-sedimentation basin, filtration system, water softening, and chlorination were designed and constructed. Four pumping stations and five water storage tanks were required. Boulder City was administered by a city manager, Sims Ely, who reported only to the Bureau Construction Engineer, Walker R. Young, for Hoover Dam. The winning construction bid was by Six Companies Inc. Six Companies Inc. set up a separate subsidiary, the Boulder City Company, to complete workers’ lodging, boarding, recreation, transportation to and from Hoover Dam, and other services. Six Companies Inc. agreed to finance the operation of the grade school and pay for twelve teachers’ salaries, with Congress paying $70,000 for the school building.

In the 1920s San Francisco and Los Angeles reigned as California’s premier cities. During the 1920s both built major concrete curved gravity dams, massive structures that helped symbolize the growing importance of their respective urban centers. But the fate of these two dams was quite different: San Francisco’s O’Shaughnessy Dam remains today a vital component of the Bay Area’s municipal water supply system, while Los Angeles’ St. Francis Dam catastrophically failed on March 12, 1928, killing some 400 people. This paper illustrates how the two dams differed in their design—especially in regard to uplift—and also notes how an exemption included in California’s 1917 dam safety, allowed engineers M. M. O’Shaughnessy (for San Francisco) and William Mulholland (for Los Angeles) the freedom to build them without any review or approval by the State Engineer or other state authorities.

Since the first mining of silver in the Washoe Mountains of Utah Territory in 1859, water was a precious commodity. Initially it was obtained from natural springs and tunnels dug into the sides of the mountains above Virginia City and Gold Hill. But the mines required huge amounts of water that couldn’t be supplied by the springs. In October 1871, civil engineer Hermann Schussler prepared a report for the Virginia and Gold Hill Water Company which proposed a 7-mile-long 11.5-inch riveted wrought iron inverted siphon pipeline from high in the Sierra Nevada near Lake Tahoe, across the Washoe Valley, to discharge in a flume that fed a storage reservoir near Virginia City. The dynamic pressure head at the lowest point in the pipeline was approximately 1,900 feet, the highest in the world at that time. The pipe fabrication started in March 1873, and the project was completed in August 1873. A second pipeline was completed in 1875, a 3,994-foot tunnel was added in 1877, and a third pipeline in 1887. Each of the pipelines also included flumes constructed to convey water to the pressure pipelines and from the end of the pressure pipelines to Virginia City. The Marlette Lake Water System was dedicated as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1975, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992.

Inspection and testing standards for water conservancy projects play the vital normative guiding role in the inspection and testing work of water conservancy projects and are very important to ensure the quality and safety of water conservancy projects. This paper analyzes the general situation of inspection and inspection standards for water conservancy projects in thirteen professional fields, such as concrete engineering, geotechnical engineering, instrument and equipment, water conservancy machinery, etc. Taking concrete engineering as an example, the harmony, applicability, and adequacy between standards and inspection items (parameters) are analyzed. What’s more, based on the demand of water industry and the development trend of technology, the suggestions for the construction of inspection and testing standards of water conservancy projects in the future are put forward.

Manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) are post-construction stormwater control measures (SCMs) that are used as offline or inline treatment devices along storm drain pipe lines to remove stormwater borne pollutants. An MTD can employ settling, filtration, and/or other processes to remove pollutants from runoff. The increased use of MTDs and the increasing number of systems have prompted the need for consensus standards to characterize the performance of these technologies. It has been recognized that it is important to establish, through the testing of full-sized commercial units, the limits for an MTD’s pollution removal capabilities. To date, performance evaluations have been governed by leading regulators, such as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (via the NJCAT program) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (via the TAPE program). But, looking to the future, regulators and the MTD industry are working together to establish a nationwide verification/certification program based on international standards developed by ASTM. Development of standards for these post-construction MTDs is largely taking place in ASTM’s Subcommittee C27.70 on Precast Concrete Products for Stormwater Management. A few ASTM standards (C1745, C1746, and C1814) have been developed to date, but several more are under development. This paper reviews the current programs being used to characterize MTD performance and then details the consensus standards that are being developed within the ASTM process to evaluate the water quality enhancement effectiveness of the larger family of post-construction stormwater control measures (SCMs).

Many designers and regulators are faced with increasing storage demands for regional and site-specific detention requirements. This is especially true in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic regions where major storms over the past two decades have redefined traditional flood plain maps and design rainfall intensities. Coupled with rising land values, underground detention/retention systems (UDSs) offer a safe and effective means of reclaiming land usage. The efficiency—total storage relative to total excavation—of the UDS greatly impacts cost and the resulting benefit of electing to use underground storage versus an open pond. Therefore, many manufacturers and designers find every available means of supplying required storm water storage, including utilization of air within stone backfill. Available materials, construction methods, and proper designs dramatically impact the long-term reliability of stone void space and associated risk of flooding.