March 1926 at the Moffat Tunnel: Delay, Doubt, and Death
In March 1926 at the Moffat Tunnel, thirty days of water stalled the headings, the city’s faith in the project faltered, and the cost of the work could no longer be treated as abstract.
Moffat Tunnel Construction Happenings from 100 Years Ago
March 1926 was the month when the Moffat Tunnel looked numerically close and operationally fragile at the same time—a combination that can be more dangerous than being obviously far from the finish line. Early in the month, officials said the two main headings were separated by only 5,568 feet. Progress, when reduced to percentages, sounded almost like a victory lap: the water tunnel and the main headings at 85 percent complete, crosscuts at 88 percent, and the enlargement of the full-size railroad bore at 56 percent. Yet the same reporting carried a sobering counterweight. As the remaining distance shrank into “mere thousands of feet,” the mountain was proving more unpredictable than at any earlier stage.
The month’s defining setback began with a single blasting round the night of February 28 into March 1 in the water tunnel, when the shot broke abruptly into an underground stream. At first, the inflow was estimated at roughly 3,000 gallons per minute, later described as settling nearer 1,500. The more consequential detail was not the early peak but the persistence. A report published March 31 stated the flow had continued “unabated for 30 days,” which meant March unfolded under a constant hydraulic burden rather than a short-lived incident. Earlier water strikes in the tunnel, it was emphasized, had typically dwindled within a few days. This one did not. That difference in behavior mattered because it shifted the problem from an emergency to a condition—something crews had to live with, work around, and pay for, day after day.
The trouble was concentrated at the East Portal, and geography made it worse at precisely the wrong moment. By then, the east-side heading had crossed the apex and was driving downgrade toward the west. Under ordinary circumstances at the Moffat Tunnel, gravity is a quiet ally: water tends to find its way out of a tunnel toward daylight. Here, gravity became the opponent. Instead of draining out, the water backed into the workings, flooding headings, overwhelming the pumps that were already in place, and forcing workers to remove machinery before it disappeared under rising water. In a project built on planning and repetition, this was the kind of reversal that punishes assumptions. The heading was not merely wet; it was in the wrong position to shed water without sustained mechanical effort.
Engineers tried to quantify the scale of the problem in a way the public could grasp. They estimated that 67,320,000 gallons (modern day note: this amount of water could fill ~102 Olympic-size swimming pools) had poured through during the first month alone. They also reached a conclusion that sounded technical but carried practical dread: they believed the water was Western Slope water traveling eastward. They called it the least favorable hydraulic condition they could imagine. The phrase did not mean water was “bad” in the abstract. It meant the source appeared capable of feeding the bore persistently from the far side of the Divide, making it harder to expect a natural tapering or an easy relief through drainage.
Water, however, was only part of the mechanism. The blast did not merely open a clean conduit; it broke into crushed, running material—“ground-up rock… like cement.” Tons of this muck poured into the heading along with the inflow, burying the work and halting progress for extended periods. That detail changes the picture. Flooding is one kind of disruption. Flooding combined with unstable, self-feeding debris becomes something else entirely: a cycle in which clearing the face does not reliably create progress, because the face can refill. In that environment, “advance” is not a simple matter of more men or longer shifts. It becomes a contest between excavation and re-accumulation.
The response was an exercise in containment rather than cure. Pumps were brought up and kept running, and the water had to be forced up to the apex so it could then drain for miles to the portal. A weir was built to measure the flow, because a project cannot manage what it cannot measure, and earlier experience was no longer a trustworthy guide. To regain control at the source, a drift was driven from the pioneer bore—forty to fifty feet ahead of the railroad heading—to crosscut the vein. Blocking the flow entirely remained under discussion, which is another way of acknowledging that the problem did not present a single obvious remedy. In March, the East Portal was not “behind schedule” so much as locked in a tactical struggle where each option carried costs, uncertainties, and consequences that could not be wished away.
Conditions on the West Portal offered no comfort. That side was described as a “veritable hoodoo,” a phrase that reads like gallows humor from people forced to keep working where the ground refuses to behave. Timbering was relentless, and the accounts stressed that nearly every foot required support. Heavy steel beams were installed in places to restrain slipping walls. Engineers projected more than nine million feet of timber—much of it Oregon fir—would be needed before unstable sections could be secured. March thus became a month of two simultaneous fights: at one end, water and running muck; at the other, ground that demanded timber and steel simply to remain in place long enough for the work to continue.
Even with the East Portal slowed to “practically a standstill” for about a month, officials insisted the project remained about five months ahead of schedule. That claim carried its own pressure. To hole through in July, the accounts said the headings would need to average forty feet of daily progress once normal work resumed. That number matters because it reveals how narrow the margin could become once trouble arrived. A schedule can absorb setbacks when it has slack. A schedule that requires an aggressive daily average turns recovery into a separate risk—one that can tempt corners to be cut, judgment to be rushed, and safety procedures to become “flexible” under the weight of public expectation.
Labor scaled accordingly. The workforce rose to roughly 600 men, the largest since construction began. Supervisors were quoted acknowledging that younger miners were preferred for the hardest assignments because they could better withstand smoke and the conditions inside the mountain. The statement is plain, even clinical, yet it exposes a reality that polite progress reports can conceal: endurance itself had become part of the project’s calculus. March was not only a matter of engineering quantities—feet, gallons, timbers—but of how long nerve and sinew could keep functioning inside an environment that was cold, dark, wet, loud, and increasingly unforgiving.
Amid the flood and the timber, the human cost of the work returned to the foreground in the death of Charles Cecil “Charley” Decker, almost certainly eighteen, though some newspapers misstated his age. A mucker at the West Portal for only about a month, he was struck by a slab of roof rock after a blasting round. The reports emphasized that he entered before loose material had been fully scaled. The slab hit with enough force to break ribs, leg, pelvic bone, and back, and to cause catastrophic internal injuries. He was taken to the West Portal hospital, and from the outset his condition was described as hopeless. He lived nearly a day—long enough for his parents to reach him—before dying.
The tributes that followed were not generic. They were specific in a way that suggests a community trying to explain, to itself, why this loss felt so sharply personal. Decker was described as physically strong and unusually upright—“morally clean,” a boy who “stood out from among boys.” One line captured the kind of memory that refuses to be reduced to an accident report: “his smile will always remain with us.” Funeral services in Yampa drew a wide circle of relatives, neighbors, and lifelong friends. Local young men served as pallbearers. Musical tributes were offered. He was buried in Yampa cemetery, mourned by his parents, four surviving brothers, and his grandmother. Newspapers wrote that his death cast “a deep gloom” across the region because he was just entering early manhood and was held in universal esteem. In March 1926, the tunnel’s progress could be counted in feet, but its cost was being counted in names.
While crews fought geology underground, Denver fought politics above it, and March reads like the moment the project’s civic narrative began to fracture under its own weight. As financial and governance realities became harder to soften with optimism, newspapers began to speak in a different register. One blunt line framed the shift in public mood: “Gradually it seems to be dawning on Denver that their Moffat Tunnel is going to be the very biggest white elephant they ever purchased.” That language was not merely colorful. It signaled a fear that the tunnel was becoming a permanent obligation rather than a triumphant public work—an asset that would demand continual explanation, continual funding, and continual defense.
Much of the dispute focused on structure: who held risk, who controlled decisions, and who would be forced to pay when nature imposed costs beyond anyone’s preference. Critics hammered on the idea that Denver owned the overwhelming share of the enterprise and would bear the same share of any losses, whether the bookkeeping ran through the tunnel district or the water system. The point was framed as an uncomfortable inevitability: it could “look like a difference over a matter of bookkeeping,” yet still end with the same payer, in roughly the same proportion, regardless of which political faction prevailed in the argument.
City Attorney Henry May pressed the legal vulnerability of the arrangements with language that invited skepticism rather than deference. He called the structure “full of flaws and of at least doubtful validity,” then framed the question that makes any open-ended public commitment feel intolerable: if supplemental bonds could be issued, “how do we know what amount of bonds will be issued?” He also pointed to the absence of a reporting requirement—“no provision… requiring the commission to report to anyone” how or when money was to be spent. The attack landed not only because it questioned a policy choice, but also because it questioned the presence of guardrails. In public finance, distrust tends to metastasize fastest where oversight feels optional.
Liability anxieties attached themselves to the water bore in particular, and that is where technical misunderstanding became political fuel. Critics seized on the claim that the water tunnel was placed “above” the railroad tunnel, then asked a question designed to sound like common sense: “Why was the water tunnel placed above the railroad tunnel? Everyone knows that water usually runs downward, and not up.” As an engineering premise, the “directly overhead” framing is not consistent with the side-by-side configuration described in the material at hand, but politically the claim did not need to be geometrically perfect to be damaging. It needed only to feel plausible long enough to harden suspicion. The result was a public argument in which the same words—“leaks,” “percolations,” “damage”—could be used to frame the commission as careless, evasive, or both.
The political consequences arrived quickly and personally. A headline described a “brutal attack on water commissioners” that caused three men to resign, calling them “able and high-minded,” and noting that the mayor had difficulty finding replacements with comparable ability. That detail matters because governance capacity is not infinite. When qualified people walk away, the institution loses competence at the moment it most needs steadiness. The dispute thus threatened not only the tunnel’s reputation but the practical quality of decision-making while the project remained exposed to geological surprises.
By late March, even former boosters were framed as conceding that Denver was trapped by its own stake. One line summed up the predicament with coarse directness: “Denver is in a hel-uv-a-fix. For she must eventually extinguish 85% of the cost of the big bore whether she wishes to or not.” Another remark, steeped in fatalism, pointed to “years of litigation and trouble” and the chorus of “I told you so.” The press, in this portrayal, was not merely reporting disagreement. It was documenting a civic mood shifting from optimism to suspicion, from pride to anxiety, and from “when will it be finished” to “what have we committed ourselves to, and who will be accountable if it goes wrong.”
Yet March also contained an impulse to stabilize meaning before events stabilized on their own. An “official history” of the tunnel—written by Edgar McMechen and to be issued by Wahlgren Publishing—was endorsed by the Denver Chamber of Commerce directors, after earlier endorsement by the commission. The move reads like an attempt to consolidate legitimacy at a moment when legitimacy was fraying. In a large public enterprise, narrative becomes a form of governance. When the ground turns wet, and politics turns hot, whoever controls the frame can influence whether the next setback is treated as an unfortunate chapter in a heroic story or as proof that the entire undertaking was flawed from the start.
That was March 1926 in its clearest shape: measurable proximity to completion, paired with conditions that made completion feel less assured; mechanical persistence underground, paired with institutional instability above it; and a community’s grief for one young man, paired with a city’s fear that the costs—financial, legal, and moral—were only beginning to come due.
B. Travis Wright, MPS | Preserve Rollins Pass | March 1, 2026
Want to uncover more incredible Moffat Tunnel stories? Our blog is filled with deeper dives into its history, untold tales, and connections to Rollins Pass. Explore more and journey through time with us!
The primary purpose of our work is to inform the public.
