# Tricks to digging below the water level?



## MountainMan304 (Jan 12, 2022)

So, I found a turn of the century dump and I pulled out a straight sided coke where the wall of the dump drops a little below the level of the creek bed. In other words, I pulled it essentially out of the dirt underneath the water. The dump is right on the water and is even below the creek. Any tips on how to dig in these kinds of dumps? Most often the water just refills the hole with mud. It's also a shame, since the freezing and thawing likely caused a lot of these bottles to break. As for the part that is on dry land, I'm not sure if water seeping in and flooding the dig hole would be a problem. Anyone know? Thanks in advance!


----------



## zsmith333 (Jan 12, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> So, I found a turn of the century dump and I pulled out a straight sided coke where the wall of the dump drops a little below the level of the creek bed. In other words, I pulled it essentially out of the dirt underneath the water. The dump is right on the water and is even below the creek. Any tips on how to dig in these kinds of dumps? Most often the water just refills the hole with mud. It's also a shame, since the freezing and thawing likely caused a lot of these bottles to break. As for the part that is on dry land, I'm not sure if water seeping in and flooding the dig hole would be a problem. Anyone know? Thanks in advance!



Dig some test holes at various distances on land. As far as under water, no clue. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hemihampton (Jan 12, 2022)

Sounds exactly like a Dump I've Dug before, Mines on a fast flowing River so the Water does not seem to freeze much as it's always moving but have not noticed alot of broken Bottles due to Freezing, Plus I don't go there in the Winter anyways. But my Hole always fills with mud which is a real Bummer. LEON.


----------



## hemihampton (Jan 12, 2022)

This was below Water Level. LEON.


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 13, 2022)

Thanks guys! I'll definitely dig a few test holes. glad to see that your dump is producing and accessible below water level. Mine is moving as well, but it's just a small stream so it's more likely to freeze. Luckily it seems like the frozen leaf cover keeps the dirt insulated a bit.


----------



## Len (Jan 13, 2022)

Yes, the leaves being darker actually make heat when the sun hits them too.  ...This thread is helpful. We've all been wet. Thanks guys. 
Leon,  did that Hemmingray come out intact?


----------



## Fenndango (Jan 18, 2022)

Put on a mask and snorkel. Bottles will sit on the river bottom even in fast flowing water. 

Also the older stuff was dumped first and closest to the riverbanks and lots of the time this older layer has eroded into the river long ago.


----------



## hemihampton (Jan 18, 2022)

Len said:


> Yes, the leaves being darker actually make heat when the sun hits them too.  ...This thread is helpful. We've all been wet. Thanks guys.
> Leon,  did that Hemmingray come out intact?




Yes it did. LEON.


----------



## Len (Jan 18, 2022)

..."Where is hemihampton  and D.C. getting down? --FUNKE town!"    Nice find Leon.  Power to the L named.


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 18, 2022)

Fenndango said:


> Put on a mask and snorkel. Bottles will sit on the river bottom even in fast flowing water.
> 
> Also the older stuff was dumped first and closest to the riverbanks and lots of the time this older layer has eroded into the river long ago.


Yep, that’s what we’re finding. I believe that this creek is newer, though, as it’s pretty shallow and it turns out the dump continues on the other side of it. It really is a stream I suppose (probably about 5 feet wide, 9 inches deep at its deepest). But the strange thing is that I’m not sure if where the water source is. It’s constant and not smelly, so no sewage or anything.

Also, what’s your or anyone’s opinion on throwing down some plywood so that we don’t get stuck ankle deep in freezing mud and water? We could throw it off the top of the ravine, but it’s already a hike out of there (in West Virginia you gotta literally scale mountains) and I can’t imagine taking a slab of plywood back out.

edit: found some great bottles so far! I’ll be sure to post them before I head back up to college for my last semester.


----------



## willong (Jan 19, 2022)

Plywood is a waste of time, effort and expensive material for your intended use in my opinion. Cheap rubber boots--get them half a size too large and wear with double socks (bulky wool for the outer pair) if it's really that cold--is a better investment. A mountain stream should not pose much difficulty or danger of getting "stuck ankle deep."  Wait until you start probing muddy tidal sloughs for that worry!

PS: If you really have to lay down a mat to stand on, you'll find that laying down brush and branches cut on site, perhaps topped with some old carpet material, will provide surer footing than mud-coated lumber; but I would go the rubber boot route, or even hip waders.


----------



## willong (Jan 19, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> So, I found a turn of the century dump and I pulled out a straight sided coke where the wall of the dump drops a little below the level of the creek bed. In other words, I pulled it essentially out of the dirt underneath the water. The dump is right on the water and is even below the creek. Any tips on how to dig in these kinds of dumps? Most often the water just refills the hole with mud. It's also a shame, since the freezing and thawing likely caused a lot of these bottles to break. As for the part that is on dry land, I'm not sure if water seeping in and flooding the dig hole would be a problem. Anyone know? Thanks in advance!


Find the downstream limit of the dump and slowly work your way upstream with a potato rake. Let the flowing water carry the mud away behind you so that it doesn't obscure you view of the bottom. If there is insufficient current for that, you'll just have work blind.

I had a nice green capers bottle pop up to the surface once when I was scratching through the watery muck, almost knee-deep, at the bottom of a pit near the shore of Lake Washington. The large, old, Seattle dump had originally been deposited in marshland at the end of the nineteenth century, then capped over years with construction and excavation waste. Had to sink shafts a minimum of four feet, more typically six, before even hitting the old trash layer at that site. In the wetter holes, one could only tell they'd gotten all the way through the use layer to original lake bottom when there was no more crunchy feel to the digging tools' movement


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 19, 2022)

willong said:


> Find the downstream limit of the dump and slowly work your way upstream with a potato rake. Let the flowing water carry the mud away behind you so that it doesn't obscure you view of the bottom. If there is insufficient current for that, you'll just have work blind.
> 
> I had a nice green capers bottle pop up to the surface once when I was scratching through the watery muck, almost knee-deep, at the bottom of a pit near the shore of Lake Washington. The large, old, Seattle dump had originally been deposited in marshland at the end of the nineteenth century, then capped over years with construction and excavation waste. Had to sink shafts a minimum of four feet, more typically six, before even hitting the old trash layer at that site. In the wetter holes, one could only tell they'd gotten all the way through the use layer to original lake bottom when there was no more crunchy feel to the digging tools' movement


Thank you for all the tips! I'm thinking ab getting some rubber boots or waders, just because you really do sink about up to your ankles at this dump and can't break free from the mud so it floods your boots. That was another concern of mine that you brought up--how deep the dump goes. It seems way too large to be a surface dump, but the 'clay layer' with slate and stones could easily just be the creek bed and its natural formation, if I'm not mistaken. I have no qualms with digging below the water line and dealing with the veritable quicksand if there's older stuff beneath. 

The bottles in the clay and underneath the waterline tend to be intact, which I'm assuming is the insulation and cushioning of the clay, particularly whenever they burned the dump; but I'm not sure if these bottles being found in that clay layer is an indication that there might be more below. I found the best bottles around that layer--a straight sided Coke from Charleston and a Scott Bros Druggists med. Who knows--the only way to tell for certain is to put in the work and try to dig deeper!


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 19, 2022)

BTW: I see why they say that tons of heart attacks occur during shoveling snow because of the vasoconstriction plus the exertion. Good God I thought I was about to die hiking up and down the mountain and shoveling wet, heavy soil while freezing. I'm a young guy but I'm prescribed ADHD meds which also constrict your blood vessels. Y'all be safe!


----------



## Huntindog (Jan 19, 2022)

What I've done in creek dumps is start at your lowest point of the dump down stream. 
Hopefully there is enough drop to lower the water and dig a ditch to drain it.
Waders is the best to keep you dry and warm.
Always try to throw your spoils as far away as you can. Seems every time the dump runs under the spoils, and I have to re-dig them.
When you think you are on the bottom, dig a few test holes deeper just to be sure.
Good Luck... Sounds like fun


----------



## Bohdan (Jan 19, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> So, I found a turn of the century dump and I pulled out a straight sided coke where the wall of the dump drops a little below the level of the creek bed. In other words, I pulled it essentially out of the dirt underneath the water. The dump is right on the water and is even below the creek. Any tips on how to dig in these kinds of dumps? Most often the water just refills the hole with mud. It's also a shame, since the freezing and thawing likely caused a lot of these bottles to break. As for the part that is on dry land, I'm not sure if water seeping in and flooding the dig hole would be a problem. Anyone know? Thanks in advance!


Simple  -
You just have to pump it out faster than it comes in.


----------



## willong (Jan 19, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> BTW: I see why they say that tons of heart attacks occur during shoveling snow because of the vasoconstriction plus the exertion. Good God I thought I was about to die hiking up and down the mountain and shoveling wet, heavy soil while freezing. I'm a young guy but I'm prescribed ADHD meds which also constrict your blood vessels. Y'all be safe!


Although I assumed you were young after seeing your mention of college, it is not necessarily a given. I mostly lucked out with health in my younger years and never thought twice about exerting myself when pursuing an interesting hobby. One sometimes forgets that others might have health issues that impact similar pursuits. You take care too.

If that stream bottom is mostly mud and clay without a lot of rocks embedded, you should be able to probe it with the type of probe privy diggers use and save yourself trying to dig exploration holes after you reach the apparent limit of the trash layer. Glass, and certainly intact bottles, do produce a pretty distinctive sound when tapped with a metal probe. Because I was searching for mostly shallowly-buried dumps in thick forests--the covering being produced by decades of fallen leaves and conifer needles, moss and other forest duff--I usually probed for dumps with a simple pitchfork. More often than not, it was the sound and feel of severely rusted cans as the tines crunched into them that clued me to a deposit. however, if you have isolated bottles bedded in mud or clay like a couple of those in Leon's photo, you will not have the benefit of crunchy cans to find deeper bottles. Because striking glass itself becomes more likely in that scenario, I would recommend using a privy probe with a rounded end to minimize the chances of chipping bottles with a probe strike.


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 20, 2022)

willong said:


> Although I assumed you were young after seeing your mention of college, it is not necessarily a given. I mostly lucked out with health in my younger years and never thought twice about exerting myself when pursuing an interesting hobby. One sometimes forgets that others might have health issues that impact similar pursuits. You take care too.
> 
> If that stream bottom is mostly mud and clay without a lot of rocks embedded, you should be able to probe it with the type of probe privy diggers use and save yourself trying to dig exploration holes after you reach the apparent limit of the trash layer. Glass, and certainly intact bottles, do produce a pretty distinctive sound when tapped with a metal probe. Because I was searching for mostly shallowly-buried dumps in thick forests--the covering being produced by decades of fallen leaves and conifer needles, moss and other forest duff--I usually probed for dumps with a simple pitchfork. More often than not, it was the sound and feel of severely rusted cans as the tines crunched into them that clued me to a deposit. however, if you have isolated bottles bedded in mud or clay like a couple of those in Leon's photo, you will not have the benefit of crunchy cans to find deeper bottles. Because striking glass itself becomes more likely in that scenario, I would recommend using a privy probe with a rounded end to minimize the chances of chipping bottles with a probe strike.


Thanks for your response  Yeah, I've had pretty good physical health all my years so far besides a risk of high cholesterol and triglycerides, so I do have to be somewhat careful since the medication is a vasoconstrictor. I'm thinking of bringing a camp heater out, though, to help out with the circulation issues and generally being able to stay out for longer!

There are quite a few rocks topping/mixed in the layer of clay. I've heard that might be an indication that there are deeper layers, but it is a pain to clear out the rocks. Since I'm heading back to school Sunday I'll likely have to buy a probe to pick up where I left off during the summer and just deal with the surface bottles for now. The four layers I'm recognizing so far is a layer of top soil and random forest debris (and frost for now), an ash layer a bit underneath that, a rust layer, then a wet clay layer where bottles (mostly broken) are scattered around. The clay layer is typically where I find the whole ones; I'm guessing they were spared from the heat of the burn, freezing of the soil, and other trash being thrown on top. 

Question for everyone though: the dump continues on the other side of the creek as I discovered in my last trip there. I'm not sure what to make of this. Would y'all say that this implied the creek is younger than the dump and it simply carved out a path through it? Or that there was another house on that side? Or maybe they just tossed some over there as well?


----------



## willong (Jan 20, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> Question for everyone though: the dump continues on the other side of the creek as I discovered in my last trip there. I'm not sure what to make of this. Would y'all say that this implied the creek is younger than the dump and it simply carved out a path through it? Or that there was another house on that side? Or maybe they just tossed some over there as well?


If there is an embankment of any significant size on the opposite side, and if the trash continues up that slope, then most likely people dumped into the ravine from both sides. Have you prowled around on the other side of the creek to check it out?

Stream courses usually develop over geological time spans. Unless your stream originates in an outflow of water from a mine portal that is newer than the dump, or similarly, from irrigation runoff or stream diversion that is younger than the trash deposit, I don't think it's reasonable to think that the stream is "new" just because it flows through a trash dump. There was a time when any low ground that could not be tilled was considered "waste" itself, and nearby residents would not hesitate to dispose of their trash in such a spot. Could a farm wagon have been backed into the stream in the past?


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 20, 2022)

willong said:


> If there is an embankment of any significant size on the opposite side, and if the trash continues up that slope, then most likely people dumped into the ravine from both sides. Have you prowled around on the other side of the creek to check it out?
> 
> Stream courses usually develop over geological time spans. Unless your stream originates in an outflow of water from a mine portal that is newer than the dump, or similarly, from irrigation runoff or stream diversion that is younger than the trash deposit, I don't think it's reasonable to think that the stream is "new" just because it flows through a trash dump. There was a time when any low ground that could not be tilled was considered "waste" itself, and nearby residents would not hesitate to dispose of their trash in such a spot. Could a farm wagon have been backed into the stream in the past?


Well, it's not in a ravine exactly. It's a flat area between two hills in such a way that they couldn't have just chucked them off the top. I'm thinking there was an old home or a road which led there, as the hills come together just past the dump so that there's no exit in that direction. I think I said earlier that the stream ends as you walk towards that direction (which is shown on today's maps). I just checked maps from 1909-1936 and that stream doesn't appear anywhere. Strangely enough, there's no marker of a home being there during either 1909 or 1936, so unless it only stood in the years between I'm at a loss (I figured that a family would stay in a home they built longer than that span of time, but I may be wrong). It runs downhill from the direction of that coming together of hills, so there's no stream to be diverted and it has always flowed so it probably isn't runoff. Doesn't smell like sewage or contain any other trash. I'll have to check whether there's a pipe and if it gives any hints. Definitely not a very traditional dump or like any I've dug before--it leaves me with a lot of questions!

*Edit: *It _seems _like the stream appears in in an 1899 map. Maybe it was just too small to be worth drawing on the later maps. Still no home sight on that 1899 map, however. I'll look for some between 1909 and 1936.


----------



## willong (Jan 20, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> Well, it's not in a ravine exactly. It's a flat area between two hills in such a way that they couldn't have just chucked them off the top. I'm thinking there was an old home or a road which led there, as the hills come together just past the dump so that there's no exit in that direction. I think I said earlier that the stream ends as you walk towards that direction (which is shown on today's maps). I just checked maps from 1909-1936 and that stream doesn't appear anywhere. Strangely enough, there's no marker of a home being there during either 1909 or 1936, so unless it only stood in the years between I'm at a loss (I figured that a family would stay in a home they built longer than that span of time, but I may be wrong). It runs downhill from the direction of that coming together of hills, so there's no stream to be diverted and it has always flowed so it probably isn't runoff. Doesn't smell like sewage or contain any other trash. I'll have to check whether there's a pipe and if it gives any hints. Definitely not a very traditional dump or like any I've dug before--it leaves me with a lot of questions!
> 
> *Edit: *It _seems _like the stream appears in in an 1899 map. Maybe it was just too small to be worth drawing on the later maps. Still no home sight on that 1899 map, however. I'll look for some between 1909 and 1936.


Neither all streams nor all structures are always shown on all maps. It really depends on the purpose and vintage of a map, together with the surveyor's and cartographer's skill. While Township, Range and Section lines can be quite accurate when compared with modern maps, stream courses on old maps are often little more than educated guesswork. The simple reason for this is that the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) was established to divide land in preparation for sale settlement. (See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System) And geographical, hydrological and geological features were considered of secondary interest to the main purpose of establishing townships (not a townsite, but the 36-square-mile land division) to get the lands sold and occupied in order to produce revenue. Obviously, the early surveyors and cartographers were not working from aerial stereo photographs or satellite imagery as the much more recent map makers often were and are.

Does your 1899 map show topography (contour lines)? Are the 1909 and 1936 maps without? If your 1899 map is a USGS map, generally, I would trust stream locations on it more than a map produced for primarily property recording and taxation purposes.


----------



## Wildcat wrangler (Jan 21, 2022)

Fenndango said:


> Put on a mask and snorkel. Bottles will sit on the river bottom even in fast flowing water.
> 
> Also the older stuff was dumped first and closest to the riverbanks and lots of the time this older layer has eroded into the river long ago.



Exactly what I’m thinking! Treat it like gold mining below the creek level, which in the summer around here, is the best place to be when it’s 120 degrees out. I wouldn’t do it right now at my swimming hole, without a wetsuit. Just be aware if your digging under something- gravity even works underwater. Just don’t get yourself pinned there! But it sounds like spring time fun. Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 21, 2022)

willong said:


> Neither all streams nor all structures are always shown on all maps. It really depends on the purpose and vintage of a map, together with the surveyor's and cartographer's skill. While Township, Range and Section lines can be quite accurate when compared with modern maps, stream courses on old maps are often little more than educated guesswork. The simple reason for this is that the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) was established to divide land in preparation for sale settlement. (See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System) And geographical, hydrological and geological features were considered of secondary interest to the main purpose of establishing townships (not a townsite, but the 36-square-mile land division) to get the lands sold and occupied in order to produce revenue. Obviously, the early surveyors and cartographers were not working from aerial stereo photographs or satellite imagery as the much more recent map makers often were and are.
> 
> Does your 1899 map show topography (contour lines)? Are the 1909 and 1936 maps without? If your 1899 map is a USGS map, generally, I would trust stream locations on it more than a map produced for primarily property recording and taxation purposes.


They're all USGS topographical maps. It seems like they paid a lot of attention to waterways, but over time the contour lines have been edited and are a bit inconsistent map-to-map. The 1899 pays much more attention to waterways and includes many that the 1909 map doesn't. I'm thinking that a lot of creeks and streams have been rerouted or "buried," as the 1899 map shows streams which don't appear to exist anymore (or might just be a drainage ditch now). The elevation is consistent with the topographical maps' depiction of my dig site, though they might also reflect just changing geography as development happens.

That's the only difficult part about using these maps--Charleston, WV has changed considerably in topography over each decade, with a lot being leveled out or excavated for more usable space. The building locations around the site are consistent with those known from my research about the area. I'm thinking that maybe this was the dump for (without exposing too much, but I don't think there are any Charleston diggers) a public fair-type park, but the foundations seem too far (probably a quarter mile uphill--the workers would theoretically have to hike up and down the mountain with tons of trash as there's no road leading downhill). The park's existence is consistent with the time period of bottles I'm digging, however. The 1899 map shows a road going through my dig location but no home, but I'm thinking that nearby homes used the road leading to it to dump their trash as it seems just far and accessible enough. Sorry for the essay!


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 21, 2022)

Wildcat wrangler said:


> Exactly what I’m thinking! Treat it like gold mining below the creek level, which in the summer around here, is the best place to be when it’s 120 degrees out. I wouldn’t do it right now at my swimming hole, without a wetsuit. Just be aware if your digging under something- gravity even works underwater. Just don’t get yourself pinned there! But it sounds like spring time fun. Good luck!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, it's a stream that a baby couldn't drown in unfortunately. I hope I find a nice creek to snorkel in at some point. Tons of spiders, chemicals, and human waste in the creeks near me though! In Charleston, there's a legend of a massive man-sized catfish named Moldy Dick who grew so large from all of the waste and chemicals hahahaha


----------



## willong (Jan 21, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> Well, it's a stream that a baby couldn't drown in unfortunately. I hope I find a nice creek to snorkel in at some point. Tons of spiders, chemicals, and human waste in the creeks near me though! In Charleston, there's a legend of a massive man-sized catfish named Moldy Dick who grew so large from all of the waste and chemicals hahahaha


Moldy Dick sounds like something a guy doesn't want to catch!


----------



## willong (Jan 21, 2022)

MountainMan304 said:


> They're all USGS topographical maps. It seems like they paid a lot of attention to waterways, but over time the contour lines have been edited and are a bit inconsistent map-to-map. The 1899 pays much more attention to waterways and includes many that the 1909 map doesn't. I'm thinking that a lot of creeks and streams have been rerouted or "buried," as the 1899 map shows streams which don't appear to exist anymore (or might just be a drainage ditch now). The elevation is consistent with the topographical maps' depiction of my dig site, though they might also reflect just changing geography as development happens.
> 
> That's the only difficult part about using these maps--Charleston, WV has changed considerably in topography over each decade, with a lot being leveled out or excavated for more usable space. The building locations around the site are consistent with those known from my research about the area. I'm thinking that maybe this was the dump for (without exposing too much, but I don't think there are any Charleston diggers) a public fair-type park, but the foundations seem too far (probably a quarter mile uphill--the workers would theoretically have to hike up and down the mountain with tons of trash as there's no road leading downhill). The park's existence is consistent with the time period of bottles I'm digging, however. The 1899 map shows a road going through my dig location but no home, but I'm thinking that nearby homes used the road leading to it to dump their trash as it seems just far and accessible enough. Sorry for the essay!


No need to apologize for an essay, at least not to me. I've posted a few of those here myself.

On the other hand, I may have to apologize to you for all my questions, for I fear I might have gotten you to reveal more than you wanted to about your site.

I enjoy a mystery that might be solvable with maps a bit of on-site exploration. I have a hunch about what you might be looking at, but I don't want to goad you into revealing any more that might clue others in to your dump location, though I would hope those who participate in this forum, if any are from your region, would be principled enough to not poach. I'll move further discussion onto "Conversations" function, probably do so tonight or tomorrow night. I was just intending to drop by briefly; and I don't want to get into drafting another "essay" myself right now, especially as the next one will require a few attachments and links.

Talk to you later.


----------



## Wildcat wrangler (Jan 21, 2022)

willong said:


> Moldy Dick sounds like something a guy doesn't want to catch!



Sounding like a “glow in the dark” catfish fillet-who needs candlelight! My creek not only has all the lions and bobcats peeing in it- if you drink that you will get Giardia- but it’s the only water above ground in 20 miles- so you see black poly pipe going up all the hills, with people dropping bare well pumps down in my creek and who knows what chemicals they use. People leave generators along the creek in the bushes- then ask me did I see anyone taking it- don’t they know everyone gets broken into and ripped off the second their vehicle is seen leaving.? (I can’t build out there- it’s bad!)They pulled the whole side off the house across the creek from me, off to rip him off! He had some magnetic lock set up on his doors. We had the biggest drug bust up and down the creek a few years back- I learned I had met some ms13 members out there- who had 8500 plants, planted on EVERYONES property. We had the FBI, and the DEA crawling all over my wilderness wildlife refuge property, that summer. Out there, you assume EVERYONE is packing heat- if not, they are new to the area…. & probably should leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hemihampton (Jan 21, 2022)

starting to sound like you live in Detroit.


----------



## MountainMan304 (Jan 21, 2022)

hemihampton said:


> starting to sound like you live in Detroit.


I'll be honest, I call Charleston little Detroit sometimes. A good deal of violent crime, theft, drug overdoses, etc. as a result of poverty. Where Wildcat lives sounds nearly like Charleston!


----------

