# Navajo (Dry) Lake



## dixonha (Jan 12, 2009)

I guess PBH was correct after all: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=20810677&nid=14 ... featured-2


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Even a blind monkey finds a banana once in a while.



I hope they can find a solution in time to help. I fear that "temporary" solutions will result in money being wasted. Sure, they could go fill the hole with a bunch of dirt -- but what happens when another hole opens up and still drains the lake? The whole dike needs replacement, and that can't happen unless the lake is drained. Catch 22.

(my own opinion says that the only economic hardships will fall on the lodge owner at Navajo. Las Vegans will still come through Iron County and spend time on our mountains. The loss of fantastic fish is short-term loss that we all hate to see. Long-term, I think you'll get those fish back, and probably a nicer reservoir to boot).


----------



## dixonha (Jan 12, 2009)

I think they need to let it drain and get the thing fixed. It should have been fixed 30 years ago. It's a rare year when there's not a breach in the dike. That lodge is nasty anyway. I feel for the owners, but the place needs a serious upgrade.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

ah fellers... enough money can fix it. re the technique used at fontenelle, and other leaking dams. you can fix it without draining. you take and drill a hole however deep and whatever diameter starting on one side, fill it with slurry mud, then drill the next hole directly adjancent to it, move the mud from hole 1 to hole 2 and slurry concrete into hole 1. repeat across the dam and when done, you have a concrete barrier across the dam/dike down as far as you need it. or the technique used at willard by which is similar bu instead of drilling, a large, custom track hoe is used but basically the same technique, continuous excavation and backfill with appropriate material.

just lots of money. and who pays the bill. and is this on the states dam failure list? and many other questions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

this is a dike...not a dam. The dike is not made of concrete and the water will in many years run over the entire dike...if the dike is not repaired correctly, a new breach will likely happen as soon as the water runs over the dike again. Comparing the repair processes used on Willard or Fontanelle would not be appropriate because the water doesn't regularly flow over the top of the entire dike/dam.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

dike/dam are the same thing and are engineered the same - to prevent water from flowing through the stucture. if the problem is overtopping of the dike/dam with subsequent erosion of the downstream face, then a redesign of the spillway or whatever mechanism is used to let water flow from one side to the other would need to be considered. if water regularly submerges an earthfill structure entirely you have a real engineering nightmare and someone really screwed up on the original design... unless the design was such that regular submersion was anticipated of which i know of none... with compacted earth fill dikes/dams, the concrete cutoff wall works well to prevent water from seeping thru the face to the apron/sill which in time leads to dam failure or dike failure as in quail creek in 1986... same thing with trial lake dike in 89... maybe i got those two backwards in dates... anyway not being familiar with navajo lake specifically, it seems that the ability to bypass water downstream is not appropriately sized. regardless, leaks/holes in the dike can be repaired via the cutoff wall method. or traditional fill removal, extension, compaction and replacement. its just lots of money either way.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> if the problem is overtopping of the dike/dam with subsequent erosion of the downstream face, then a redesign of the spillway or whatever mechanism is used to let water flow from one side to the other would need to be considered. if water regularly submerges an earthfill structure entirely you have a real engineering nightmare and someone really screwed up on the original design... unless the design was such that regular submersion was anticipated of which i know of none...


You know of one. Navajo.

That's exactly the problem. The dike is submerged every winter/spring. Years of submersion have super-saturated the earth-filled dike, and thus the whole thing is falling apart. It was a poor design from the beginning, and a "good" fix is going to cost a lot of money, and take some time. One of the biggest issues is: how do you complete the work, when there is a lake on both sides of the existing dike?

If you have ideas that you think are good, you should plan on attending the public meeting concerning the dike at the DWR office in Cedar City on June 19th at 6:30 p.m.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

If they have to build a whole new one I would think they could fill in the breach and save what they have in fish and water and build the new one directly behind or east of the existing one. Now would be a good time while the water is low. But getting government agencies to get together and to release money may take a few years :roll:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Sorry for the delay. No update has been given on Navajo Lake since the meeting on the 19th and I guess I may have been the only one on this forum who was in attendance. But since we (UWC) had a booth at the Southern Outdoor Expo and since my desktop crashed shortly thereafter and I haven't had my new laptop up and running very long, I sorta forgot about poor ol' Navajo which is dropping about 2 1/2" per day per the DWR at the meeting. 

In any case, there were about 10 or 12 DWR employees there and 22 in the audience which was mostly made up of engineers, contractors, local business owners and politicians (candidates, city councilmen, county commissioners, etc.) who all had a dog ($) in the fight. As far as know, there were only 3 anglers there, me, an acquaintance and his brother.

Based on my notes and memory, here's what happened.

We first were given a history of the dike which revealed that it was first built in the 30's using CCC workers and it was a few feet high and basically just thrown together. It was built to increase the depth of the lake so that fish could survive the winters and get bigger. Then as time went on, it became a little more sophisticated (engineered) and higher as layer by layer was added, but the construction methods were still quite crude and along with the weather (freezing overnight), it created unstable bonds from layer to layer even within the same job. As a result, basically, two things are responsible for the several breaches over the years, piping and overflow erosion. Piping is the flowing of water through the dike where the bonds are unstable and the overflow erosion is the flowing of water down the back side which is too steep.

Then we were shown the different options for fixing the problem both short term and long term. The short term is to just fix the breach and the concrete overflow which would cost about $150,000. There are 3 different ways of fixing the breach. One is to do it underwater which involves some modern technology, another is to just let the lake drain and the third is to set/build coffer dams on each side of the breach to keep the water out of the work place. All of these methods will fix the current problem but won't insure against problems in the future. We could be doing this every year! And the fishery would pretty much be gone most of the time and strictly put and take.

The long term solutions are to tear the whole thing down and start all over or to just build a new and improved and higher structure attached to the east side of the existing dike similar to a dental crown. There may be some piping with the old dike, but it couldn't go all the way through and the overflow erosion would end because of the height, material, compacting and slope of the new "crown", but we're talking $4 to $5 million either way, along with 3 to 5 years before the fishery is back to what it is now.

Regardless of what we do, the money isn't there right now because it all has to be raised/used during the same fiscal year. The only money they have is $50,000 to do some core drilling to find out what the dike looks like inside so they can draw up engineered plans to present to the entities that can provide the funds and/or materials and/or equipment, ie; Forest Service who owns the land the lake is on, Utah State Legislature, Iron County, Kane County, Cedar City, Panguitch, some businessmen and angler's groups (Trout Unlimited and SFW were mentioned, though they weren't there.) Unfortunately, I couldn't speak for UWC because we hadn't had a chance to discuss this beforehand and because they were asking for donations of assets which UWC doesn't have. Also, I have to admit I had no idea how this meeting was going to go down. I thought it was a meeting informing the general public of the problems going on at the Lake and letting us know we may not be able to fish it for a while. It turned out to be a business meeting to organize a fund raising committee to generate $4 to $5 million from some government agencies and high rollers. However, I did talk privately to Richard (aquatics biologist) about some ideas and assured him we would pursue this further. I'm not sure how we could fit in, but we may be able to help with the fundraising somehow.

In any case, the whole project is currently still in the planning and development stage with the core drilling bidding plans first on the list. The drilling bids come first, then the drilling, then the core analysis, then the repair plans have to go to some dam safety agency before the fund raising of government agencies takes place, yadda, yadda, yadda. By then it will be winter and the lake will be dry and the fish dead and gone. Maybe next spring we'll actually get started and plant fish by following fall, ya think? Geez, I hate politics!!

Edit: I just read a local press release that says that once the professional construction is complete, there will be a need for volunteers. It didn't specify the work, but probably for clean up and maybe riparian vegetation re-planting? chub removal via netting?, restroom construction? boat ramp signs? or????? In any case we can help them there! We'll keep you posted.


----------



## hedged (May 20, 2012)

Thanks for the update. Put up a toll booth and let the people who use it pay for it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

My understanding is that funding is nearly in place, engineering is being done, and bids will go out soon. The project to repair the dike should start in September. While numerous fish will certainly be lost, we may not lose all of them. We should also be happy that the lake should be able to starting retaining water over the course of the winter, and could (depending on the winter we have) re-fill next spring. Things are actually looking better than what I was expecting.


hedges -- if you want to manage Navajo with a toll booth, maybe we should do the same with all of our fisheries? Of course, we'd severely limit our fisheries with that methodology, and lakes like Navajo would get ALL the money. Thank goodness we don't manage fisheries based off of that line of thinking!!


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

There are not many reservoirs left that you don't have to pay to use.
It wouldn't surprise me to see all of them charging to launch a boat in the near future.


----------



## hedged (May 20, 2012)

That is my biggest complaint about fishing in Utah. Limited access for public except through parks and campgrounds. I'm not a fan of paying to play or camp but it's the way our public resources are all headed. I used to spend a lot of time at Sand Hollow until the lake was put in and they made it pay to play. Salt Lake area is primarily the same way. 

Considering Navajo lake is 90% used by non-residents why not charge them for the usage of Utah's resources. Heck why stop there put one at Duck Creek and Tropic or even better the bottom of Cedar, Parowan and Beaver Cyn. Why should the local be stuck with all the bills.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

so, in one breath you complain about "pay to play" and in the next you ask specifically for "pay to play"?

You're a confused dude!


----------



## hedged (May 20, 2012)

Not exactly complaining, just making a point on where I stand and that pay to play is where every decent recreation site in this state is headed.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wait until our legislature tries to take away our Federal land and lease it to the highest bidder!!


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> wait until our legislature tries to take away our Federal land and lease it to the highest bidder!!


Or, wait till Utah gets ownership back and sells all of it.


----------

