Should We Rebuild the Teton Dam?
Have something to say? ADD A NEW POST!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I could not believe the news that our Idaho legislature has appropriated $400,000 to study whether the infamous Teton Dam should be rebuilt. The Teton Dam collapse and subsequent flood was the worst disaster ever in southeast Idaho’s modern recorded history. Five southeast Idaho counties were declared federal disaster areas by President Gerald Ford. I’m amazed our lawmakers would think of trying this again, but maybe they know something we do not?
On the face of it, this idea seems unbelievably foolish. We locals know the story of how the Bureau of Reclamation was warned about the dam’s dangers as they proposed and built it. We know the dam collapsed as it filled to capacity the first time, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. (Read a previous IFz article: Teton Dam brought the best out of Idaho Falls residents.)
Legal opinions of the day were inclined to not hold the federal government responsible, but President Ford quickly expressed that the government had a moral obligation to make things right. Look at how the Bush administration has infamously mishandled the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and imagine if that happened here. Can we count on our federal government in the event of a similar Teton Dam flood today? Can we trust them to make good on their mistake if it happens again?
However, it has been over thirty years since the Teton Dam disaster, and technologies and knowledge has come a long way since then. Let’s discuss what would have to be different this time around, and keep track of this idea’s progress.
Apparently the Teton Dam was an idea considered since before the 1930’s. A local irrigation district president appears to have pulled his political strings to get the dam constructed, and Idaho’s congressional delegation rolled over for the political favor.
The main engineering cause of the Teton Dam failure appears to have been a poor site selection, and poor materials choice. The main underlying cause of the Teton Dam failure appears to be inappropriate political favors which steamrolled engineering expertise and common sense.
I hope we hear from engineers on the idea, but I can believe that today a replacement dam can be built in a safer manner. I am more concerned about inappropriate political shenanigans being pulled to get this built. Take the study sponsors, what stakes do those senators have in this dam? For example, Senator Mel Richardson personally witnessed the flood, so he should appreciate the danger as much as anyone, yet he supports the idea. What business and political ties are motivating Mel Richardson or the other lawmakers to push this idea on us?
What are your questions and concerns about rebuilding the infamous Teton Dam? I wonder if it will be another earthen dam or a concrete structure? Will planning and construction costs include contingency plans for all southeast Idaho cities in the flood path if there is another failure?
What do you think about rebuilding the Teton Dam?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Is there a real need for a dam up there? Is it for agricultural or electical generation uses? Who is pushing this study? Who gets paid to do the study…..and did they contribute to someones campaign. I say follow the money and it will tell the story.
Vote:
0 0 I remember being in Idaho Falls the day the dam broke, and I was about to leave town to go south (I was in a band back then, and had a gig in Southern Idaho).
I left a dry and worried town at 1pm, and by the time I got back we were full swing into the sandbagging, and the Broadway Bridge was under siege, and the rumors kept going around that we were going to have to blow one of the bridges up if the water didn’t recede soon.
But we made it through, and it truly was a marvel of civic cooperation between the Bonneville Search and Rescue, the Idaho Falls Police, the Bonneville Sheriff’s office, and various community groups.
That being said, I’m not sure I’d be interested in the possibility of this happening again. So I’m also curious, what is the motivation behind wanting to rebuild, who will profit? I’m a little skeptical.
Although I’m a little annoyed at spending the money to look into this, I’m also concerned, will the study be truly impartial?
My last thought is that I’m a bit more comfortable with today’s engineering skills, I’d like to think they would learn from the past and do a better job.
Vote:
0 0 I remember that day and the days that followed very well. I was 14 and spent three days sand bagging the east fork of the Idaho canal to save our house that was in a neighborhood that was actually built below the normal canal water level. Through our hard work and cooperation of everyone in the neighborhood, we kept our houses from flooding.
This entire disaster was brought about by shear greed. A small group of influential republican farmers wanted to improve wheat production by irrigation, turning a vast amount of dry farm area (that they collectively owned) behind the Rexburg bench into highly productive irrigated soil. The Teton dam needed to be located where it was built so the reservoir could provide the needed water and minimize the costs incurred with getting that water out to the dry farms.
This same group of farmers also had massive land holdings down in the valley so when the dam broke they lost most of their farms. When Ford declared it a disaster area guess who got new tractors, houses, outbuildings, and restored farm ground.
Seems fair to me, by all means lets get that dam built again.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think the Hurricane Katrina disaster can be compared to the Teton Dam disaster…unless you buy into the theories that Pres. Bush can create hurricanes and/or he himself blew the levies. The Hurricane Katrina disaster was caused by nature and by the local government not the Fed.
In defense of our President I think he handled things well and that the blame should be focused more on the local government.
But on a more positive note I do recall all the care, help, and love that was shown by those of our communities. When help is truly needed we should not look to our government to be there, we need to be there for each other. That is what makes/made Americans so wonderful.
Vote:
0 0 I, too, remember that day well. I also remember the months following it as my school had to have the mud removed, a new gym floor replaced, classes held in previously abandonded classrooms etc. Essentially, for months, we “lived” with the consequences of the Teton Dam at school.
Maybe I was the wrong, impressionable age, seeing what I did at school. Several friends had their homes damaged by the flood as well. Maybe I can never be objective about this subject given what I saw, heard and know.
As Nemesis and others mention, in some ways we say the very best of what residents of our area could do together. Sandbagging was sandbagging and it didn’t matter where anyone lived, what they did, what church they did (or did not) attend as well as any political beliefs. It mattered to all that we save lives, property, BRIDGES - yes talk about the Broadway Bridge and the engineering to save it, and other infrastructure.
I remember the national news carrying the story as either the lead story or a top story and hearing their commentary. I wondered how many people even know where ID was at that time.
I do think engineering has come a long way since then. Having engineers in my family, I should probably consult them of what they think.
As mentioned earlier by others, I simply don’t understand the why or need for this research. Being research oriented, I want to know the methodology and the who to know how reliable the results are, let alone the timetable. Ultimately, who benefits?
When I read that the drug rehab program may be in serious jeopardy at the Bonneville County Jail, due to Gov. Otter’s cuts, I can’t even comprehend the Legislature wanting to waste money on something like this study compared to helping recovery addicts.
Perhaps I’ve missed the key article or discussion, as I simply do not understand the purpose of this study. It seems like “pork” and the recipient hasn’t been named yet (or I’ve missed it).
If the funding and possibility of rebuilding the dam is to save water, to ensure water for eastern ID residents, I may feel differently about it. Otherwise, thumbs down from me.
O4N
Vote:
0 0 Sorry, IdahoNative #5, don’t want a threadjack here but I really disagree with you that Katrina’s problems were due to the local local government. Those levees that broke weren’t locally built, they were Army Corps of Engineers.
And the response from the Feds was untimely, disjointed, right and left hands having no clue about each other, and a disgrace.
Our sparse population here in SE Idaho, and the fact that the larger population centers were far from the dam, helped us quite a bit when the dam failed.
I’m wondering more than ever, who is the real beneficiary? Did the proponents who pitched this idea cash in on the fear created by the water rights issue recently, where the upper valley lost out to those in the Twin Falls area?
It’s been proposed for a long time. The timing of the approval seems a little odd.
Vote:
0 0 Idaho Native, yeah I meant how Bush bungled the Katrina response, not that he caused the Hurricane or more specifically the levy break. It’s interesting to hear you say you thought he did a good job in responding, most of the country seems to think otherwise.
Ok4Now has a great point, it is bewildering that we are cutting drug treatment programs but funding disaster 2.0.
Political donations are public information, so let’s look at those contributions for the bill sponsors and supporters, see if there are commonalities.
I don’t suppose we have anything as neatly organized and usable for instate politicians as OpenSecrets.org for national politicians?
http://opensecrets.org/ziplookup/index.php?zip=83402&opentab=reps&submit=Go%21
Vote:
0 0 I thought the news reported our state Senate passed the study funding, but the only bill I found was in the House:
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/HJM008.html
It appears the bill sponsors are Rep. Bert Stevenson and Rep. Dell Raybould. Anyone know where we can find campaign finance records for them?
The vote was:
AYES — Anderson, Andrus, Barrett, Bayer, Bedke, Bilbao, Black, Block, Bock, Boe, Bolz, Bowers, Brackett, Bradford, Chadderdon, Chavez, Chew, Clark, Collins, Crane, Eskridge, Hagedorn, Hart, Harwood, Henbest(Burgoyne), Henderson, Jaquet, Killen, King, Kren, Labrador, Lake, LeFavour, Loertscher, Luker, Marriott, Mathews, Mortimer, Moyle, Nonini, Pasley-Stuart, Patrick, Pence, Raybould, Ringo, Roberts, Ruchti, Rusche, Sayler, Schaefer, Shepherd(02), Shepherd(08), Shirley, Shively, Smith(24), Smith(30)(Stanek), Snodgrass, Stevenson, Thomas, Trail, Vander Woude, Wills, Wood(27), Wood(35)
NAYS — None
Absent and excused — Bell, Durst, McGeachin, Nielsen, Thayn, Mr. Speaker
I want to see the details if they specified who is doing this study?
It says the fiscal statement is in HJM8:
http://www3.idaho.gov/oasis/HJM008.html
Interestingly, the only cost it mentions is this:
FISCAL IMPACT
The Bureau of Reclamation projects the cost of studying the enlargement of Minidoka Dam as $1.4 million. The cost for an initial study of Teton Dam replacement is estimated at $400,000. Other than the in-kind use of IDWR staff time, there would be no cost to the State of Idaho to participate in the Corps of Engineers’ feasibility study of water supply and flood control on the Boise River, including Twin Springs Dam.
I don’t get it, no cost to Idaho? Who is paying for this study then? And I still wonder who is going to do the study?
Vote:
0 0 we need the dam for power end of story.It will allow coal fired electrical plants to slow less pollution’ dam builders of the time said it would fail built to fast not enough compaction I dont worry about current building practices.billions of dollars worth of power is the reward.
Vote:
0 0 If they build the dam right this time I have no problem with it. I wasn’t around here when the old dam broke but if I read the old stories right there were plenty of warnings along the way that the dam wasn’t going to work as built.
Vote:
0 0 Reconstruction of the dam is and has been proposed for years for one reason only — irrigation for farmers, not power generation. It has been advanced primarily by a small, very influential group of farmers. In his book “The Henry’s Fork” (Winchester Press, 1986), Charles E. Brooks reported that over half of the farmers supporting reconstruction of the dam favored rebuilding it at exactly the same site. This despite the fact that every single geologist both working on the dam and opposing it were aware of the condition that ultimately led to the dam failure — water seeping through the porous lava bedrock on which it was built. One farmer was quoted as saying “All the water in that river belongs to us (the farmers) and we will do what we dam* please with it. That dam will be rebuilt exactly where it was before.” Id. at 97.
As shocking and arrogant as this statement sounds, it is not atypical. Anyone at all familiar with Idaho politics knows that much of Idaho policy is controlled by small but disproportionately powerful groups of agricultural and business interests. But as powerful as these interests may be, they have no legal claim to exclusive ownership the Teton River.
My family has farmed the area just upstream of the Teton dam site for over four generations. By many accounts they have done this largely to support their fishing habit in the Teton Canyon. I don’t think my great grandpa would have given up his favorite fishing hole to rebuild a dam that has already failed once, killed 11 people and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, including farms.
A famous songwriter put it well: “Lakes and levees, dams and locks/ They put that river in a box/ It was running wild/ But men must have control/ We live our lives in starts and fits/ We lose our wonder bit by bit/ We condescend but in the end We lose our very souls/ Goodbye to a river.”
Dams are sometimes necessary and in the best public interest. But science and experience shows this simply is not a prudent place to do it. It is not worth the risk and the sacrifice of a true natural wonder to benefit the few.
Vote:
0 0 Its strange that I had never actually gone over to the spillway before yesterday, given Rexburg is my hometown. I missed the flood, having been born in 1980. But now, having finally toured the heavily graffitied spillway of the Teton Dam site yesterday afternoon, this subject is quite fresh in my mind.
After re-reviewing the evidence surrounding the failure of the Teton Dam, it is my conclusion that the dam failed because of structural design flaws, most notably the cracks that formed in the top of the dam’s clay core. To a lesser exent, the location of the dam did play a minor role in its failure, but the design of the dam itself was inadequate for the location. A 32 foot long vertical crack in the core near the spillway side is exactly what led to the failure of the dam. As soon as the reservoir level reached this crack, the water began to seep through, essentially causing an erosive, cascading failure.
The nearby Ririe Dam, which was also built at the same time, and built in a similar fashion, was constructed in a canyon that is essentially the same geologically as the Teton Canyon is. This dam, while not as large as the Teton Dam, has operated without incident since it was completed. I attribute this to an adequate design, and competent construction of critical substructures like the core and grout curtain (two things that were lacking at the Teton Dam site).
It is my opinion that rebuilding the Teton Dam is inevitable at some point in the next few decades, especially given the strain on SE Idaho water supplies in recent years. However, it is also my opinion that the only acceptable proposal for a Teton Dam design is a reinforced concrete arch dam (like Hoover Dam) on exactly the same site, designed by the best civil engineers out there, and constructed exactly as specified by those engineers. Elements such as the intact spillway structure, and the powerplant intake tower could be refurbished as part of the new design (this would also lower construction costs).
It may be that the highland farmers are the main group interested in this project going forward, but the original dam was to provide up to 20-30 megawatts of power to the grid (2-10Mw turbines were installed in the powerplant at the dam’s base, with space for a third to be installed) .
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religion.idahofallstoday.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
whew, slow day, time to all start commenting again!
Loading ...
Vote:
That link I gave in the fifth paragraph links to a comprehensive (and document-cited) history of what happened in the Teton Dam disaster.
This site also provides perspective on the disaster: http://www.tetondam.org/the_story/