A mine-waste impoundment located on the Middle Fork of the Buffalo Creek watershed in Logan County, West Virginia failed a minute or so before 8 a.m. February 26, 1972, causing the sudden release of 17.6 million cubic feet (132 million gallons) of water and mining waste sludge onto the Buffalo Creek Valley floor. The failure can after heavy rain weakned a poorly constructed and overfilled impoundment that had a history of problems. The instantaneous release of the water behind this impoundment immediately began a fall of 253 feet to Buffalo Creek, washing out two additional combination waste banks and impoundments in its path, and tore off the corner of a burning mine-refuse bank before cascading directly into the western slope of Buffalo Creek Valley, one-half mile away.

The surge had devastating impacts on the residents of 16 coal mining hamlets in Buffalo Creek Hollow. At the end of the three hour event, 125 people had died and 1,000 more were injured. Five hundred and seven houses were lost or demolished; 44 mobile homes were destroyed; another 273 houses were severely damaged; while nearly 663 more houses suffered damage to varying degrees. A total of 4000 people were thus left homeless by the flood. The flood completely leveled the town of Saunders, W.V.

In addition, 30 business establishments, 1000 automobiles and trucks, 10 bridges, and power, water and telephone lines were all destroyed, and the county road and the rail lines servicing the valley's coal mines were severely damaged.

Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr. established the West Virginia Ad Hoc Commission of Inquiry into the Buffalo Creek Flood to invesigate the disaster. The Commission identified three principal causes, allrelated to Dam No. 3, the largest and highest in elevation of all the impoundments:

• Improper Construction. Dam No. 3 was not built using engineering practice standard in earth-dam construction; no foundation preparation was done and no attempt at compaction of the fill material was made other than occasional grading by bulldozer.
• Weak Foundation. Material Dam No. 3 was not built using engineering practice standard in earth-dam construction; no foundation preparation was done and no attempt at compaction of the fill material was made other than occasional grading by bulldozer.
• Inadequate Overflow System. A 24-inch overflow pipe for high-water conditions was placed in the dam approximately 7 to 10 feet below the level of the compacted crest. However, this pipe was not of a sufficient size to handle the water increase at the time of failure. Furthermore, the pipe should have been placed lower in the dam to be effective. The dam should have had a fool-proof decant system or spillway designed by and constructed under the direction of a registered professional engineer with a knowledge of dam construction.

Some 625 survivors of the flood sued the Pittston Coal Company, seeking $64 million in damages, but settled in June 1974 for $13.5 million or approximately $13 thousand for each individual after legal costs. A second suit was filed by 348 child survivors, who sought $225 million, but settled for $4.8 million in June 1974. The state of West Virginia also sued the company for $100 million for disaster and relief damages, but Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr. settled for just $1 million, three days before leaving office in 1977. The lawyers for the plaintiffs, Arnold & Porter of Washington, D.C., donated a portion of their legal fees for the construction of a new community center.

A large number of Buffalo Creek citizens felt that the Pittston Coal Company and the state of West Virginia had responsibilities well beyond what the Governor's Commission and the courts suggested. A self-organized citizen commission issued their own report titled A Citizens' Report on Criminal Negligence in a West Virginia Mining Community. The citizen's commission concluded that:

• The Buffalo Mining-Pittston Company is guilty of gross negligence, willful violation of the law, and incomprehensible callousness to human needs and values.
• The Company was grossly negligent in constructing and operating the refuse dam on its property.
  
• The Company's first concern has been to increase its profits and theefore cut corners that endangered the town.
• The Company should have been aware the dam would fail, because the dam had a partial failure in 1971, and a smaller dam had completely collapsed in 1967.
  
• The Company violated state and federal law since the dam was never approved for proper design and maintenance.
• The Company was insensitive to its community responsibilities in that no system existed for warning people living downstream of the dam, although the Company must have known the dam was dangerous.
  
• The Company showed callousness toward human suffering by failing to help with relief and rehabilitation efforts.

The citizen's commission also claimed that stae and federal agencies were quilty of negligence, buck-passing, and dereliction of their duty to inspect, certify, and otherwise oversee coal mining operations.

Sources

• Appalshop, The Buffalo Creek Flood : An Act of Man, Accessed 26 August 2008.
• Disaster on Buffalo Creek, A Citizens' Report on Criminal Negligence in a West Virginia Mining Community, Accessed 26 August 2008
• Davies, William E. , James F. Bailey, and Donovan B. Kelly, West Virginia's Buffalo Creek Flood: A Study of the Hydrology and Engineering Geology, Geological Survey Circular 667 (Washington, D. C., 1972).
• West Virginia Division of Culture and History, Buffalo Creek, Accessed 26 August 2008.
• West Virginia Ad Hoc Commissionof Inquiry into the Buffalo Creek Flood
• Wikipedia Contributors, Buffalo Creek Flood, Wikipedia, Accessed 26 August 2008.