Page 17 - lw3198

NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
(Rev. 8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Section number 8 Page 13

St. Francis Dam (Site of), Los Angeles County, California — Narrative Statement of Significance
[continued]
The full dollar value of the disaster’s damages were never completely or officially tallied. According to Outland, the total cost to the
City of Los Angeles was probably in the neighborhood of $13.5 million, including roughly $8.0 million toward the settlement of
property and wrongful death claims, unknown cleanup and restoration expenses, lost water and power generating revenue, the cost of
replacing Power House No. 2, as well as the lost investment in the dam itself. A total of 336 death and 62 disability claims were
filed against the City of Los Angeles. Most of the claims were settled with remarkable alacrity, mainly within a year, and without
court intervention. [Outland, 1963: 223-27; Jones, 1928: 21]

The method by which the rapid settlement of claims was accomplished succeeded in contributing to the controversy surrounding the
disaster, as well as public suspicions of collusion and conspiracy which became a persistent feature of the popular view of the St.
Francis Dam story. Each of these themes played out in no small part against the backdrop of the controversial history of the Owens
Valley water project itself.

Impact on the Regulation of Dam Construction

Until 1915, dam construction in California remained largely unregulated. The first state controls on dam construction in the state
were adopted that year, when the Legislature required plans for reservoirs and dams to be submitted to the State Engineer. Still,
compliance with this law was essentially voluntary.

Heavy rainstorms in San Diego County in January 1916 caused the failure of one dam and the partial failure of another, resulting in a
loss of life and a renewed focus on the issue of dam safety in California. The State Reclamation Board, which had expressed concern
that the 1915 legislation did not go far enough, released the recommendations of a two-year study of dam safety in August 1916. The
Board recommended State supervision and oversight of the planning, construction, maintenance, and operation storage reservoirs.
[Engineering News, 1916: 259]

The legislature acted on the Board’s report by passing the Dam Safety Act of 1917. The new law granted the State Engineer authority
over all dams greater than ten feet in height, or which impounded at least three million gallons of water, built by irrigation districts,
individuals and private companies. Exceptions included dams used to retain mining debris constructed by California Debris
Commission, dams constructed by municipal corporations and designed by local engineering staff, and dams which were part of a
water system regulated by the State Public Utilities Act. [Ch. 377, Stats. 1917, p. 516; California Blue Book, Department of Public
Works, 1928: 156]

The State Railroad Commission had been granted authority over all dams owned by public utilities by the State Public Utilities Act
of 1915, but the Commission did not begin “effective supervision” until after the passage of the Dam Safety Act of 1917. Between
1917 and 1929, the Railroad Commission oversaw the construction of 46 of the 140 public utility dams built in California to that
date. Nevertheless, dams constructed by municipalities, or otherwise regulated, were exempted from the Railroad Commission’s
pervue. Further, the Commission complained of a lack of clear authority and adequate funding to oversee the maintenance of dams
within their regulatory domain. Of particular concern were dams constructed prior to 1917. In 1920 the Federal Power Commission
was granted authority to supervise the design and construction of public hydroelectric dams. [California State Railroad Commission,
1928-29: 1-2]

The dam safety regulations in place on March 12, 1928 were a patchwork created as the perceived need for oversight arose. The
catastrophic failure of the St. Francis Dam, just two years after it was completed and with great loss of life and property, almost
immediately called into question the existing system of regulating dam construction in California.