HSOC Corridor Information
The Meramec Basin Project - A Look Back 25 Years
Later
By Conor Watkins
August 8, 2003 marked the 25 anniversary
of a decision that ultimately determined the outcome
of a project which would have drastically altered
the characterer of the Meramec River Basin and
much of the surrounding Ozarks. In the 1960's-1970’s,
31 dams of varying sizes were planned by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Meramec
River Basin. The largest of these, Meramec
Dam, was to impound 42 miles of the Meramec River,
9 miles of the Courtois Creek, and 12 miles of
the Huzzah Creek to form Meramec Park Lake.
This 180 foot tall dam was to consist of earth
fill and impound a 23,000 acre lake. It
would have flooded the upstream portion of present
day Meramec State Park. The dams were proposed
with the rationale that they would improve water
quality by capturing suspended sediments, control
flooding, aid in navigation, and provide recreational
waters. Navigation would not have been helped
on the Meramec River, but would have been enhanced
on the Mississippi River due to a more consistent
flow from the dams. By the time the final
project was approved, it had been incorporated
into the Flood Control/Pick-Sloan Act of 1944,
which called for dams to be constructed for the
uses mentioned above in addition to the generation
of hydroelectric power.
This map shows most of the 31 planned and suggested
reservoirs in the Meramec
Basin Plan as it was proposed in 1965.
<Click image for a larger image.>
The project was highly controversial
and pro and anti-dam groups organized to further
their cause. The topic became so heated
that politicians decided to hold a public vote
before the project could be completed. By
the time the August 8th, 1978 vote was held, construction
on the main Meramec Dam was well underway.
The 180 foot high Meramec Dam was to consist of
one large earth embankment.
A cut through an adjacent saddle was to contain
emergency spillways.
The Harry S. Truman Dam near Warsaw, MO is located
on the Osage River just
upstream from Lake of The Ozarks. It is
an example of an earth dam of a similar
style to the proposed dam on Meramec, but is shorter
in height.
The Maramec Iron Works, operating
at at the site of present day Maramec Spring Park,
first suggested damming the Meramec in the 1830’s.
They proposed a system of locks to aid in the
transport of their products. A dam was proposed
near Pacific in 1929 after the 1927 flooding.
In 1933, a group of around 50 St. Louis citizens
created the Lake Meramec Association to promote
the construction of a lake one mile above the
mouth of the Meramec just south of St. Louis.
They wanted Federal funding from the New Deal
to construct the lake for recreation purposes.
The proposal was shot down when it was realized
this design would have few other benefits.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Congress
authorized multiple large dams on the Upper Mississippi
and Meramec River basins in 1938 after extreme
flooding in both 1927 and 1937. Missouri
Governor Forrest Smith killed plans for dams on
the Meramec, Current, and other rivers in 1949.
Plans for the projects were delayed and altered
until the 1960’s when the project started
moving forward. These changes involved moving
the main Meramec Dam upstream from St. Clair to
Sullivan along with the addition and removal of
some supplemental dams. The original dam
site at St. Clair was geologically a good location,
as that area of the basin was much less cavernous
than the Meramec Park Site. The dam was
moved upstream to one of the most cavernous regions
in the basin due to lobbying by the Sullivan Chamber
of Commerce. A proposal in 1962 suggested
that 6 dams be built. This number increased
to a total of 31 dams by 1965 when the project
was approved once again.
The remains of the Maramec Iron Furnace at Maramec
Spring Park.
The Maramec Iron Works first suggested the damming
of the Meramec
River to aid in navigation and transport of its
products.
As plans evolved, various groups organized to
support or fight the project. The Meramec
Basin Association was formed to insure that the
area was developed properly. The association
turned strongly in favor of the dams, as it was
mostly comprised of local businessmen who thought
that they would profit from tourism and other
industries around a lake. At first, most
residents of nearby towns such as Sullivan, Cuba,
and Bourbon were opponents of the Meramec Dam,
as many were concerned with being chased off their
whether from flooding caused by the lake or rising
taxes/rent due to increasing property values.
Others worried about losing their rural way of
life to an influx of tourists visiting to the
lake. Towards the end of the fight, most
locals had switched sides and were supporting
the project. They were told that a lake
would bring tourism dollars and jobs to their
communities while serving as a reliable water
source for the area. They were also given
some questionable information that the river was
polluted, dying, and no longer an asset to the
area. Such information led many area
residents to believe that a lake was the only
way to develop the Meramec.
Speculators came to the area to buy land, hoping
that its value would increase once a lake was
built. Some entrepreneurs started construction
of stores, gas stations, and other businesses
as soon as the lake was initially approved.
Opponents to the project claimed that politicians
were catering to the wants of these residents
and that the dam had become another pork barrel
project. Although the dam was originally
proposed mostly to provide flood control, it now
seemed that the promise of recreation dollars
had some wanting the dam for potential tourism
dollars.
Residents wanting to expand water supplies in
the area also supported the project. One
of Sullivan’s wells had been drilled into
a clay filled cavern, which caused it to produce
turbid water. Although drilling another
or extending the existing well deeper would have
cost an insignificant amount compared to a dam
and likely solved the muddy water problem, those
wanting a lake were quick to point out its water
supply benefits. At the that time, Sullivan
couldn't afford the cost of building a pipeline
and treatment plant to harness the lake's water.
Nearby Jefferson County was also growing quickly.
Its residents were almost evenly split
over their support of the lake but there was an
ever so slight tendency to support the project,
as the Pine Ford Lake would be constructed in
the county. Supporters in Jefferson County
saw the lake as a potential source of water and
tourism dollars while the opposition realized
that the project would flood most of the prime
farmland in the county.
The first opposition against the dam was started
in 1965 by Sam Orr of Leasburg, MO. He believed
that the dam would cause many problems and worked
to get the Sierra Club involved in the fight.
Opposition from The Missouri Coalition for the
Environment followed in 1971. This group
had been started in 1969 by individuals and organizations
concerned with the environment. R. Roger
Pryor, a caver from the St. Louis University Grotto
(caving organization), was one of the main founding
members. The Meramec Basin Association was
originally part of the group but was removed when
the coalition turned against the dam.
The Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club also organized
and came out against the project. This group
would become a major opponent to the project.
It filed a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers
in 1972 after reviewing the project's environmental
impact statement (EIS). The Sierra Club
believed that the original 8 page EIS was incomplete
and that more studies were needed. The lawsuit
was amended in 1974 after the passage of the Endangered
Species Act in 1973. Populations of endangered
Indiana and grey bats live in several caves that
would have been flooded by the reservoirs.
Ultimately the Sierra Club lost the lawsuit, as
expert witnesses stated that the bats would be
extinct in 15-20 years even without a dam.
They did stall the project for a time. Environmental
groups came out strongly against the project,
as they were concerned that the dams would alter
aquatic habitat and eliminate dry land on which
several other endangered species live. As
it was, 120 of 574 (nearly 21%) freshwater fish
species in North America reside in the Meramec,
making it one of the most ecologically diverse
rivers in the Midwest.
When the Army Corps of Engineers was required
to revise its EIS, it cooperated with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Missouri Department
of Conservation. The three agencies hired
a group of researchers from the University of
Missouri - Columbia to study the habitat and possible
impact upon endangered grey and Indiana bats living
in two reservoir areas. Their 1976 report
titled "An Evaluation of The Status of Myotine
Bats in the Proposed Meramec Park Lake and Union
Lake Project Areas, Missouri" stated that
the construction of these reservoirs would harm
bat populations, as some caves and feeding areas
would be flooded. The report recommended
against the construction of the reservoirs in
order to preserve the bat species.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took on an aggressive
land acquisition campaign to obtain land that
would have been flooded by the dam and to buy
property surrounding the lake. Many residents
of the area did not look upon these tactics kindly.
Families who had lived on and farmed the same
land for generations were unhappy to be forced
from their property. Independent minded
Ozarkers didn’t care for the federal government
coming and demanding their land. Many in
the area saw no need for a lake to increase water
quality because they believed that the area was
better left in its natural state, as it was beautiful
and provided plenty of recreational opportunities.
They worried that sewage from haphazardly built
resort properties and oil/fuel from motorboats
would pollute the waters.
The Citizen’s Committee to Save The Meramec
was formed by Emmett Schlueter, a Crawford County
businessman and farmer to fight the Meramec Basin
Association. The purpose of this group,
consisting of urban canoeists and local landowners
set to lose their property, was “to preserve
the scenic, historic, scientific, and cultural
value of the Meramec Region. Many locals
were poorer and used john boats and canoes on
the river. Since they couldn't afford larger
power boats needed to traverse a large lake, they
wanted the river to be left in its current state.
The group also believed that other methods would
better provide recreation and flood control in
the area, as the proposed lakes would have permanently
flooded more land than they would protect downstream.
"Please No Dams"
This picture from an unknown source was obviously
produced
by opponents of the dam. Notice the phonetic
spelling
of "Meremac."
Multiple caves, which would have been partially
or totally flooded, were located upstream from
the proposed dam. These included Onondaga
Cave, Cathedral Cave, Greens Cave, and over a
hundred other smaller caves. Many of the
caves such as Onondaga are scenic and contain
very unique formations. Others contain endangered
species of bats and rare wildlife unique to caves
in the area. Cavers played a very important
role in working to fight the project. Lester
Dill, the owner of Onondaga and Cathedral Cave
(both now part of Onondaga Cave State Park), provided
much publicity against the project. Dill
was originally a founding member of the Meramec
Basin Association and in support of the dam but
changed his stance when he realized that a large
portion of Onondaga cave would be flooded.
At this time he opened up Cathedral Cave, another
scenic cave on his property, for commercial uses
and filed a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers.
It was his goal to have the Corps of Engineers
compensate him for two show caves instead of one.
He hired a man with a love for geology, Don Rimbach,
to help fight the dam project. Rimbach ended
up writing and distributing a book called “Stop
Meramec Dam: It’s A Damsite Worse Than Teton”
to further the anti-dam cause. Although
some of the engineering geology concerns addressed
in the book were questionable, it helped to sway
public opinion by comparing the Teton Dam, which
had catastrophically failed in 1976, to the proposed
Meramec Dam. The lawsuit was dropped in
1976, as Dill decided that he wouldn't win, and
decided to settle out of court. Negotiations
over a price for the land and caves were taking
place up until the vote cancelled the project
once and for all.
When the 1973 Endangered Species Act was passed
both Indiana and grey bats were listed as protected
species. Caves along the Meramec River provided
habitat to these species, allowing for further
delays in the project. Cavers also questioned
the geology of the dam site. Protecting
scenic caves, wildlife habitat, and potentially
unstable geology/dam safety were the main issues
to cavers.
Concerns about the geology under the dam site
were based on the fact that the area is karst
terrain with many caves and voids dissolved into
the rock. Corps of Engineers reports stated
that they were planning to remove clay fillings
from the caves and fill them with grout.
A grout curtain was also to be constructed under
and around the dam to prevent excessive leakage
and high hydraulic pressures that could destabilize
the dam. Grout is basically a mortar/cement
type substance that is injected into fractures
and voids in the rock. Such procedures are
commonly used during dam construction. In
this case, grouting would have been very expensive
and time consuming due to the large number of
caves.
There were differences as to what was defined
as a cave to to the Corps of Engineers and cavers,
so not all caves would be grouted or have their
clay fillings removed as stated in reports.
The Corps defined any passaged with a height of
four or more feet to be a cave. Anything
less was not considered a cave and would not be
grouted, which raised concerns among many familiar
with caves. A perfectly round passage four
feet in diameter would have a cross sectional
area of over 12 square feet. 12 square feet
is the approximate area of a standard doorway
and the area of the Titanic open to the sea when
it sank. Clayey sediments could be eroded
out of a cave, even with a few inches of open
space, so plans of leaving four feet were questioned.
There was also 120-130 miles of lake shoreline,
all of it being cavernous karst terrain, to worry
about. The cost of finding and grouting
all the sizeable leaks in the entire reservoir
bottom and rim might have been astronomical.
There is a chance that the lake would never have
been able to fill to its maximum capacity due
to leakage through caves and other solution openings.
Some worried that the filled caves underneath
the dam and lake would be overlooked. Cavers
in the Ozarks realize that most caves are partially
filled with clayey sediments that make for a muddy
mess. These sediments are mostly clayey
residual soils left after nearby carbonate bedrock
has weathered away while leaving its impurities
behind. Many Ozark caves with seemingly
huge passages are mostly filled with sediments
and some are completely filled with sediments,
making them harder to discover by geophysical
analysis. As it was, five air filled caves
were discovered under the left abutment (side)
of the dam. A boring was drilled into Mushroom
Cave and it was found that the true cave floor
was covered up by more than 140 feet of clay and
weathered rock fill.
This figure shows the 140 feet of clay filling
uncovered by the borings
through Mushroom Cave.
<Click image for a larger and more comprehensive
figure.>
The Corps of Engineers denied that caves in the
area crossed underneath surface watershed drainage
divides in its report “Meramec Park Lake
– Site Geology.” The locals
and cavers who had explored caves in the area
realized this was not true, as (Big) Hamilton
Cave crosses under a drainage divide. Flow
underneath surface drainage divides is common
in karst terrains and has been indirectly observed
by dye tracing throughout the Ozarks. Both
sides of the drainage divide crossed by Hamilton
Cave would have been flooded by the lake so this
cave was not a concern. Undiscovered caves
might have been a problem, especially in the area
of the Hamilton Creek Fault.
There was concern that the increased
water pressure caused by a partial or full lake
level could have lead to the possible piping (internal
erosion) of sediments from filled caves.
The erosion of these sediments could have led
to possible dam instability. Another concern
was that large amounts of water could have traveled
around or under the dam without an actual dam
breach. This could happen if the increased
water pressure eroded sediments from a large filled
cave that had been overlooked. Such a loss
of sediments would lead to an underground flow
path able to pass large volumes of water.
A massive release of water could lead to a rapid
lowering of the lake and potentially devastating
flooding downstream.
On the other hand, the clayey sediments
found in most Ozark Caves are very insoluble,
cohesive, and non-dispersive in still water.
Any caver cleaning up after a trip to a muddy
Ozark cave will attest to the fact that cave clay
is hard to wash off. A flow path through
an undiscovered completely clay filled cave would
have likely been very long and not a threat to
the dam's stability, as the hydraulic gradient
would have been low and unlikely to cause piping.
Several clay filled caves were discovered near
Norfork Dam on the North Fork River in northern
Arkansas during its construction. No corrective
action was taken and the lake has experienced
no abnormal leakage since its final filling in
1944.
<Click image for more comprehensive plan.>
This cross section shows one abutment (side) of
the dam and nearby caves.
Postcard of Norfork Dam (unknown date)
<click
for rear description>
Norfork Dam in Arkansas has not experienced problems
even though
clay filled caves are present throughout the area.
Sorry, cute girls are
not included with all dams!
It is possible to build dams in
karst terrains. This is shown by the successful
projects constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) in the karst regions of the southeast U.S.
On the other hand, problems at Wolf Creek Dam,
which impounds Lake Cumberland in Kentucky, has
needed multiple repairs due to the fact that the
karst geology of the area was somewhat overlooked
during construction. Hales Bar Dam, a TVA
project, had to be decommissioned due to leakage
and potential instability caused by karst.
After the construction of Bull Shoals Lake on
the Missouri/Arkansas border, a spring downstream
from the dam went from discharging 2 cubic feet
per second to an average of 50 cubic feet per
second. The spring, named Dew Spring, is
obviously a leak from the lake and became Arkansas’
second largest spring. Although the Corps
of Engineers tried to stop its flow by grouting
caves, these attempts have been unsuccessful.
The flow rate from this spring has not increased
since the filling of the lake so it is thought
to pose little threat to the stability of the
dam or lake. On the other hand, the cave
passages near the proposed Meramec Dam site are
much larger in cross section and might have led
to higher grouting costs if problems arose.
In 1977, large solution features
were discovered during the construction of the
Mark Twain Lake's Clarence Cannon Dam on the Salt
River near Hannibal, MO. The feature was
directly under the dam's left abutment so it needed
to be addressed. All sediments were removed
and then the cavities were filled with clay and
concrete. A large concrete blanket was placed
over the filled cavities. If such a modification
had been made at the ill-fated Teton Dam, it would
have been much less likely to fail. These
problems were not inexpensive to fix, as they
helped run the cost of the dam up from $40 million
to $364 million.
Large karst features were uncovered beneath the
Cannon Dam during the
construction of Mark Twain Lake. They were
filled and covered before the
dam was completed and have not caused problems
with the lake or dam.
-From Clarence Cannon Dam, Left Abutment Conference,
7-8 September 1977
One of the more visible examples of a lake’s
failure to hold water happened in Missouri a few
miles south of Willow Springs, MO near the town
of Pomona. The Missouri Department of Conservation
constructed a fishing lake named Ponoma Lake by
building an earth embankment dam. Investigations
showed the area wasn’t well suited to building
a lake, but political pressure encouraged the
project to continue. The creek is a losing
stream watershed (one that loses much of its flow
to groundwater) and the valley floor consists
of highly permeable residium from the Roubidoux
Formation. The lake held water, but not
for long. Almost all the water was drained
overnight when a sinkhole opened in the bottom
of the lake. Local residents between the
lake and nearby Greer Spring reported hearing
an underground roar and observed dust being emitted
from dry cracked soil as the lake was draining.
Attempts were made to plug the leaks but they
were unsuccessful. Today, the area is called
the Dean W. Davis Wildlife area and no mention
is made of a lake. The dam and spillways
are still present but no water is retained except
in two sinkhole ponds. At first glance,
one might have a hard time determining which side
of the now heavily overgrown dam was meant to
be a lake.
This picture of the Ponoma “Lake”
was taken in spring 2003 looking off the dam
in the upstream direction. A sinkhole pond
is present in the distance.
Although the situation at the Dean W. Davis Conservation
Area is not directly comparable to the main Meramec
Dam, one of the 31 dams in the project was to
be constructed on the Dry Fork (of the upper Meramec)
near Salem, MO. It was to be a fishing lake
much like the Dean Davis Lake. This waterway
is a blatant losing stream and serves as much
of the recharge area for Maramec Spring.
See http://web.umr.edu/~cwatkin/cwome/article16.htm
for more information on the Dry Fork and Maramec
Spring. The dam abutments and reservoir
rim would have been in contact with the permeable
Roubidoux Formation. This would have likely
been a leaky reservoir if it had been constructed
and would have required extensive grouting and/or
lining in order to hold water. It is likely
that more money and effort would have been spent
on the project than on the Pomona Reservoir, as
the project was funded by federal and not state
dollars. The chance of success might have
been higher due to the additional funding.
An earlier proposal titled “Gasconade river,
Mo.; letter from the Secretary of War transmitting
report from the chief of engineers on the Gasconade
river, Mo., covering navigation, flood control,
power development, and irrigation” (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1932) proposed the construction
of four large dams on the nearby Gasconade River.
These plans specifically stated that no reservoir
would reliably hold water once the level reached
the Roubidoux Formation due to its high permeability.
Perhaps the attitude that a lake could be built
in an obvious losing stream was fueled by the
fact that the United States had achieved incredible
technological feats in the previous few decades.
These achievements included the harnessing of
nuclear power and putting a man on the moon.
At the time, it seemed that anything was possible
and that no goal was too ambitious.
It appeared that political support was behind
the dam for years. In the 1970’s,
the public support for the dam started to diminish
and politicians took note. Farmers and residents
didn’t want to give up their lands and some
doubted the safety of the project. The Teton
Dam in Idaho had just failed in 1976, which caused
one billion dollars worth of damage and 14 deaths.
When members of the public asked questions about
the safety of the project with respect to its
geology, the Corps of Engineers skirted the subject.
This led many members of the public to believe
that the proposed dam was not safe. Soon
politicians began to question Meramec Dam.
President Carter evaluated many Corps of Engineers
projects and deemed them unnecessary. He
cancelled funding for 19 including the Meramec
Dam in his first 1977 budget. Congress soon
reinstated funding for all but the Meramec Dam.
Support for the dam was diminishing during the
1970's. From the Missouri
Earth Advocate, an environmental activist publication.
By 1978, construction on the dam had started
but was on hold due to lack of funding.
Work in 1977 had uncovered a large cave with no
natural entrances near the future dam. A
large diameter boring was drilled into the cave
with a calyx drill rig in order to allow people
to be lowered into the cave. After investigating,
it was found that the elevation of the cave was
entirely above the level of the proposed reservoir
but the fact that a new cave had been invigorated
the opposition. This cave was named Moore’s
Cave after Bruce Moore, a Chief in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.
He was a forceful person who fought hard against
opponents to the dam. Excavations also tapped
into a spring, which flows to this day.
Five other known caves in the left abutment were
possibly interconnected. Evidence also indicated
that there was a large cavern 90 feet below the
downstream edge of the proposed dam. It
was obvious that Mother Nature wasn’t going
to make this a cheap and easy project. Projected
costs just kept rising higher, due to both the
non-ideal geology of the site and delaying tactics
of anti-dam activists. In 1966, the estimated
completion price was $38 million but that had
risen to $124 million by 1977.
Large diameter calyx cores are displayed adjacent
to Truman Dam near Warsaw, MO.
UMR Professor Emeritus, Dr. John Rockaway of the
Geological Engineering
Department, is getting ready to be lowered down
a large diameter calyx
boring to investigate the newly discovered Moore's
Cave.
Additional
picture of boring
Map
of Moore's Cave
The entrance to Moore's Cave as it appears today.
Some Corps employees began to question
the viability of the project when borings began
to reveal rotten rock at many locations at or
near the dam site. Many believed that an
excessively deep cutoff trench and grout curtain
would be needed below the dam if it were to hold
water. Even more people began to wonder
about the project after the report "Geotechnical
Evaluation of The Hamilton Creek Fault, Meramec
Park Lake" was produced by John Rockaway,
now UMR Professor Emeritus of Geological Engineering,
in March 1977. The fault consists of an
approximately two mile wide zone of parallel
normal faults with a total displacement between
100 and 150 feet trending east to west south of
the dam site. Although the fault has been
inactive for over 250 million years and would
not have been a direct threat to the stability
of the dam, the rock within the zone is highly
fractured, weathered, and could have served as
an excellent location for leakage. The fault
is believed to be very deep seated, so plugging
leaks may have been nearly impossible, as witnessed
at the Hales Bar Dam. Some argued that Sprinkle
Spring, a small spring downstream of the dam,
would have turned into a much larger spring if
the lake had been built.
"Looking up Hamilton Creek From the west
side of the Meramec River."
-From Geotechnical Evaluation of The Hamilton
Creek Fault, Meramec Park Lake (Rockway, 1977).
Hamilton Creek has developed its wide valley in
the area of the Hamilton Creek
Fault, as the rock is weaker and more easily weathered
than surrounding formations.
Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton decided
that he couldn’t support funding for the
dam without a public referendum. On Aug
8, 1978, a nonbinding voter referendum was held
in 12 counties to be directly affected by the
dam and the city of St. Louis. As a whole,
64 percent of voters opposed the dam. Reisdents
of the St. Louis metro area voted heavily against
the project while residents in communities near
the dam voted largely in favor of the dam.
Although this vote was nonbinding and carried
no legal clout, it forced Congress to re-evaluate
the project. On December 29, 1981, President
Regan signed a bill from Congress to deauthorize
the project. This vote was the first time
in history that the public had a direct say in
a Corps of Engineers project. Never before
had a Corps of Engineers project been stopped
once progress had started.
The anti-dam side scored a large victory when
Marlin Perkins, a well-respected naturist came
out against the project just before the vote.
He worked with the Sierra club to create a short
film showing the Meramec in its free flowing form
that urged voters to vote NO on the project.
Wehrenberg Theaters of St. Louis showed the film
before every movie for 30 days before the August
8 vote. Perkins worked to make the St. Louis
Zoo the premier facility it is today while serving
is its Director. He also starred in Mutual
of Omaha’s nationally acclaimed television
program, “Wild Kingdom.” By
the 1970’s, he was known around the world
and was an icon in the St. Louis region.
There is no doubt that his opinion helped sway
voters.
During the fight over the dam, both
sides exaggerated and twisted their points and
often brought up topics irrelevant to their originally
stated concerns in order to further their cause.
Public meetings were heated with passionate arguments
being commonplace occurances. A 1977 public
meeting in Sullivan filled the city hall and resulted
in very intense discussions. The meeting
is now referred to as “The Meramec Shootout”
although no actual shots were fired. Fighting
got particularly nasty when extremists from both
sides of the debate began exchanging death threats
and personal property was sabotaged. Don
Rimbach, the geologist/activist hired by Lester
Dill, was attacked and nearly run down by earthmoving
equipment while investigating at the dam site.
To this day, both sides still hold strong beliefs
in support of their cause and suggestions to restart
the project have been discussed as recently as
1998. Pro-dam sentiments are still strong
among residents of nearby towns such as Sullivan,
Leasburg, Cuba, and Bourbon. There were
no black and white answers to questions about
the project. It would not have been known
if the reservoir had leakage problems until after
it was filling . Only the presence of a
reservoir would have demonstrated the changes
to the environment, recreation, culture, and the
economies of surrounding towns.
The law signed by Reagan to decommission the
project also gave the Corps of Engineers options
on how to deal with properties acquired for the
dam and lake. In 1974, the Corps of Engineers
had built a visitor center and overlook above
the area and held thousands of acres of land.
The state of Missouri had first dibs on the land
and took around 20 percent of the land deemed
to have unique scenic and natural values.
Parts of the Huzzah State Forest, The Vilander
Bluffs of Onondaga Cave State Park, and areas
of Meramec State Park were acquired by these gifts.
The portions of Meramec State park containing
Hamilton Valley and Greens Cave were acquired
in this manner. The remaining 80 percent
of the land was sold back to the public with first
options given to the original landowner.
Much of the land was re-appraised at higher values,
sometimes up to ten times the amount the owners
sold it for, so many original owners were unable
to repurchase their land. The owners who
had tied their land up in litigation were among
the few who kept their property. Unclaimed
land was sold at three public auctions.
Scenic easements were established along the banks
in an attempt to insure that the river remains
clean and natural. These easements are legally
unclear and are more voluntary than mandatory.
Enforement of the easements has remained a contentious
issue to this day. The Corps of Engineers
visitor center became the Hickory Ridge Conference
Center at Meramec State Park. The scenic
overlook meant to overlook the dam and its lake
remains nearby.
Hickory Ridge Conference Center
During and after the fight over the dam project,
residents of St. Louis and other nearby areas
came to see what all the fuss was about.
Although people had always floated canoes on the
Meramec River, the pastime became much more common
and floaters soon jammed the river on summer weekends.
This occurrence continues to this day and shows
no signs of letting up. Many canoeists who
enjoyed their inexpensive form of recreation cast
votes against the project on voting day.
Over twenty years have passed since voters defeated
the dam project. The area where the dam
was to have been is now overgrown and one wouldn’t
even know that it was once the site of such a
large project. There are two small ponds,
one on each side of the river, left from excavations
during the first part of the construction.
These two ponds show up on maps as Turtle Pond
and Beaver Spring Lake. The site on the
northwest side of the river (Turtle Pond) is easily
reached by walking 1,000 or so feet upstream from
the Meramec Store and Canoe Rental at Meramec
State Park. A dirt 4-wheel drive trail leaves
the parking lot and heads into the woods back
several hundred feet from the riverbank.
This trail leads directly to the north part of
the dam site. Beaver Spring Lake is located
just across the river from Turtle Pond and is
fed by the spring that was tapped into during
construction.
Turtle Pond is one of the few recognizable remnants
of the Meramec Dam Project.
The Meramec Motel was built near the Hickory
Ridge Conference Center after the deauthorization
of the dam and serves as a place for visitors
to stay. The casing surrounding another
calyx boring sits almost directly in front of
the motel and closely resembles the one over Moore's
Cave. One can park near the motel and walk
to the scenic overlook built by the Corps of Engineers,
which is at the very end of the parking lot.
This excellent overlook provides a scenic view
into the hills and farms of the surrounding area.
If Meramec Dam had been successfully completed,
the overlook would have looked directly down the
axis of the dam and much of the forest below would
now be a lake. It is hard to imagine that
this area led to so much public and political
turmoil as one sits and admires the scenery from
this peaceful location. On the other hand,
one can see why so many wanted the land left alone.
Calyx hole near the Meramec Hotel and Greg Hempen,
a USACE employee
who worked on the dam project.
The overlook built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is still in use today.
Additional
View
This scenic view is visible from the overlook
built by the Corps of Engineers
to show the Meramec Dam and its lake. If
the dam had been completed, much
of this scene would now be underwater. This
overlook was to look down the
axis of the dam.
Today the Meramec is one of seven
free flowing rivers (meaning no large dams have
impounded the river) in Missouri. The other
six such rivers are the Big Piney, Gasconade,
Little Piney, Big Piney, Current, Jack’s
Fork, and Eleven Point Rivers. If all dams
proposed throughout the years had been constructed,
none of these rivers would be free flowing through
their entire length today.
The Flood Control Acts passed after
the disastrous Mississippi River floods specifically
targeted the Missouri Ozarks, as the area was
subject to local flooding and was believed to
be a disproportionately large contributor to the
flooding problem on the Mississippi. The
Ozarks comprise only 4% of the land area in the
Mississippi watershed but were thought to have
provided over 38.3% of the water in the 1927 flood.
This figure is somewhat suspect today, as measuring
techniques, especially over such a large area,
were not that precise in 1927. The percentage
of water contributed by the Ozarks to the 1927
was probably actually smaller.
The whole story behind the Meramec
Dam will probably never be heard. Although
some of the reports and other information created
during the project still show up at many libraries,
much of the information was destroyed after the
project ended once and for all. Some involved
in supporting or fighting the project have died
without ever fully documenting their story.
Others have sworn themselves to secrecy for fear
of negative repercussions and will likely never
tell all their part of the story. Even after
25 years, people on both sides of the fight still
hold strong opinions and one might want to maintain
a neutral stance if discussing the project with
residents of the upper Meramec Basin. As
recently as 1998, a suggestion was made to revive
the reservoir idea in order to supply drinking
water to the Sullivan area. This was in
response to part of the city water supply being
contaminated by TCE. It is likely that strong
beliefs will continue well into the future.
On the evening of Friday August
8, 2003, an event titled “Miracles And Milestones
– The Rebirth of a River” was held
at the Powder Valley Nature Center in Kirkwood,
MO. The event was held by the Open Space
Council to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the
vote ending the Meramec Basin Project once and
for all. All were welcome to attend but
the majority of those present had worked to fight
against the dams. Presentations were given
on the history of the project’s evolution
and eventual demise. Other presentations
focused on the cleanup and progress on the Meramec
River that has occurred in the 25 years since
the dam was voted down. Tours the next day
at Onondaga Cave State Park focused on the history
of the cave and how it played into the dam.
These tours concluded over a month of activities
held at various sites along the Meramec River
in honor of the vote.
To get to Meramec State Park, which contains
the main dam site and other features discussed
above, take I-44 east to the second Sullivan exit
(exit 226), which is labeled Hwy 185 south.
Follow Hwy 185 south for around three miles to
the park entrance on the right. For a map
of the developed areas of the park, stop at the
main visitors center or store. Maps and
information can be obtained at the visitor center.
A natural history museum within the visitor center
highlights the proposed dam and the fight over
its construction.
Highway map showing location of Meramec State
Park (M) in relation to Rolla.
Thanks to the “WPA Guide To
Missouri: Route 66 Tour” (http://members.aol.com/hsauertieg/rt66/wpa_mo.htm),
Fisher Cave Biology (http://www.missouri.edu/~jad4bc/biology.htm),
U.S. Forest Service Program in Missouri - Gardner
Unit (1935), Missouri-Illinois Forest Picture”
by John D. Woerheide, “Toward a Vision For
Missouri’s Public Forests” (1992),
"Weathering - Some Topographic Clues To Its
Depth" (1964) by George D. Roberts, personal
conversations with Greg Hempen of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers - St. Louis District, Jo Schaper,
Rich Orr, “Geologic Wonders And Curiosities
of Missouri” by Thomas R. Beveridge and
Jerry Vineyard, “Passages of a Stream”
by James P. Jackson, “Stop Meramec Dam –
It’s A Damsite Worse The Teton” by
Don Rimbach, “The Lake That Never Was”
by Tom Uhlenbrock (6-8-2003) of the St. Louis
Post Dispatch, the friendly staff at Meramec State
Park, The Missouri Earth Advocate newspaper, personal
and e-mail conversations with Jo Schaper, “Geology
260 – Karst Hydrology: South-Central Missouri
Karst Field Trip” (UM-Rolla course - 2003)
and personal communication with by Jim Vandike
of the Missouri DNR, “Meramec Park Reservoir
– Site Geology” by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, brochures present at the park visitor
center, and the users of the MOCAVES listserve
for much of the information presented in this
article. Other excellent references on the
Meramec Basin project are the book “Damning
The Dam: The St. Louis District Corps of Engineers
and The Controversy Over the Meramec Basin Project
from its Inception to Its Deauthorization”
by T. Micheal Ruddy and “Silver Anniversary
of the Meramec Dam Defeat, August 8, 1978”
by Jo Schaper (http://members.socket.net/~joschaper/meradam.html).
This article was previously published in the
Missouri
Miner, the student newspaper of The
University of Missouri – Rolla -2003.
(C) 2003 by Conor Watkins
|
