And further , this embankment was hazardous because of the unsta- ble nature of its foundation . It was founded over a great refilled pit , which was 360 feet wide at the top , 170 feet at the base and 70 feet deep ; this pit was a necessary ex- cavation for the foundation of the end of the stone dam , which was 164 feet wide at the base as before stated . It would be impossible to refill this pit as compactly as orig- inal ground , hence the safety of the reservoir was de- pendent not only on an embankment of a problematic section , but this problematic section , rested upon an un- staple foundation . The second of the objections , the core wall of this embankment was 200 feet high and with no lateral pro- tection or support from original ground whatsoever , as the artificially placed earth on each side of the wall had the height of the wall itself , 200 feet . Considering the height of the wall , and this in artificially placed earth , it could be but an experimental structure , inasmuch as it woud be about twice the height of any heretofore built . The third objection , the double means afforded the water to reach the core wall , this is another serious ob- jection , as the water by starting at the end of the em- bankment in the reservoir and following between the face of the stone dam and the embankment would inevitably reach the core wall . It would be impossible to puddle or other- wise compact the embankment against the dam to pre- vent this , as settlement would surely follow in any em- bankment of this great height . This objectionable feature here exists because of the combination of a stone dam and an embankment , while it could not exist in either a continuous stone dam or , on the other hand , a continu- ous embankment and core wall .