Scientists Made a Remarkable Discovery After Draining Niagara Falls in 1969
In 1969, scientists discovered something incredible after draining Niagara Falls.
If you could travel back in time to 1969, you'd witness something amazing. Instead of a random desert, you'd see one of the world's most potent waterfalls.
For six months in the summer and fall of 1969, the American side of Niagara Falls remained totally dry. This allowed experts to analyze the falls' rock face without worrying that erosion might cause it to become unstable. The process of erosion occurs when water and wind wear down the earth’s materials.
For instance, if glacial ice becomes muddy, erosion is taking place. Three waterfalls that span the international border between Canada and the United States combine to form the magnificent Niagara Falls. The Horseshoe Falls are one of the three waterfalls. In order from largest to smallest, the Goat Island-separated American Falls are entirely on the American side, while the Horseshoe Falls are primarily on the Canadian side.
Many people didn't think we could actually go against wild nature and stop such insane amounts of water from flowing, but we did. It took a 600-foot dam across the enormous Niagara River to really shut down these amazing falls. The Bridal Veil Falls, the smallest of them all, are on the American side but separated from the others by Luna Island. Don't America and Canada have a cool natural border? Consequently, they needed to divert 60,000 gallons of water per second so that the remaining flow could pass over the largest horseshoe falls.
Yes, the ones that are entirely on the Canadian side of the border. Over 27,000 tons of rock were utilized to build the dam, and over 1,000 trucks transported that rock back in the sweltering summer of 1969. The American Falls ended their continuous flow on June 12th after more than twelve thousand years, so the Horseshoe Falls then took the extra flow and absorbed it so that research could be done. But the locals were still worried. They knew it wasn't possible to control such amounts of water. They were afraid the water might take a different route and cause a catastrophic flood. They were worried that tourists wouldn't come anymore. If teams didn't manage to make the waterfall flow again the way it used to. But tourists kept coming even that summer, and they got a unique chance to see something no one had ever seen before or after during that period.
There was even a temporary walkway built only 20 feet away from the edge of the now dry falls. It helped workers clean the bottom of what used to be a river so tourists could go there and explore the wild landscape of the falls that was usually under the water, hostile, and not accessible to visitors at all as they were exploring the dried bottom of the falls. Researchers stumbled upon millions of different coins people had thrown in the water over decades. There was a Niagara Falls piggy bank. They removed most of those coins; we wonder who took them.
In the past few decades, more and more visitors have been coming to the area; think of all the things they could find here—in addition to more coins, of course, but also lost cameras, drones, cellphones, and other items that irresponsible tourists might dump in the waterfalls. Since two pedestrian bridges in Niagara Falls are almost 120 years old and are located above the rapids, experts debate whether or not to divert the water once more.
People talk about Niagara Falls a lot, and some believe they're doomed. However, the idea of removing all the water and turning Niagara Falls into a desert proved to be feasible. However, it may need to be done again in 2030. For instance, while Angel Falls in Venezuela are over three thousand feet tall, Niagara Falls stands out from other waterfalls due to the volume of water that rushes over them.
The Niagara River emerged following the last ice age along with the whole Great Lakes Basin, of which the Niagara River is part. Eighteen thousand years ago, this awesome waterfall didn't exist. Very high waterfalls don't usually have great amounts of water, but the combination of all those huge amounts of water and the height is what makes Niagara Falls so breathtaking. They may also be some of the fastest moving waterfalls on our planet. As the ice sheets moved southward, they formed the basis of the Great Lakes and melted, releasing massive amounts of water into the basins. Ice sheets covered southern Ontario and were one to two miles thick.
Typically, the water we drink is fossilized, renewing only 1% of the time, with the remaining 99% originating from ice sheets. Since the ice receded and the ensuing waters filled the Niagara Peninsula, it has been approximately 12,500 years since the region was visible. Water began to descend through what later became the Niagara River, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. It took a lot of time, but the water eventually eroded Cliffs, and formed these spectacular Falls.
Now you might have noticed that the Niagara River is amazingly green. This specific color tells us how powerful the water is when it comes to erosion. Every minute Niagara Falls spews over 60 tons of dissolved minerals; all that together with dissolved salt and finely ground rock makes the color so magnificent, people who live in the United States and Canada, or more precisely over a million people who have access to the area, use the waters of Niagara River for different purposes. For example fishing, getting drinking water, doing recreational activities, including swimming, boating, and bird watching, producing hydroelectric power, and so much more.
The first hydroelectric generating station in the world was built at the end of the 19th century, and it was right next to the Falls. Soon it started paying off because people were getting electricity from it. But this electricity could travel only 300 feet, so something needed to be improved there.
Nikola Tesla was the one who took up the challenge and made the necessary changes. He discovered that electricity could travel long distances if an alternating current was used. Today, several Niagara Falls power plants provide over 2 million kilowatts of power.
Another interesting thing, 1969 wasn't the only time when Niagara Falls stopped. Back in 1848, the water didn't flow over the Falls for up to 40 hours. The Falls were already very popular among tourists and a useful source of energy for local people. Nature was to blame this time. Ice blocked the source of the Niagara River and an American farmer was the first one to notice it.
It was March 29th and Tesla went for a walk right before midnight soon he realized he couldn't hear the powerful roar of the Falls. He quickly went to the edge of the river and stood there. In short, there was hardly any water. Factories and mills had to shut down because they depended on that water. Turtles were just wandering around and fish didn't survive. Some people took a walk on the river bottom taking little things they could find there as souvenirs. Then two days later, on March 31st, people heard a distant rumbling coming from up the River. It was getting nearer and louder until a wall of water appeared in front of their eyes, and one of the world's greatest attractions, that millions of tourists visit every year, was back in business again; magnificent, and in the end invincible, as it should be.
About the Creator
Althea March
I am a writer who searches for facts to create compelling nonfictional accounts about our everyday lives as human beings, and I am an avid writer involved in creating short fictional stories that help to stir the imagination for anyone.
Keep reading
More stories from Althea March and writers in Earth and other communities.
Do Not Visit This Beach: 500 Shipwrecks and 11 Species of Shark
At the beginning of the 20th century, somewhere off the coast of West Africa, a German steamship was leaving the port. Suddenly, the weather got worse, and the vessel entered a thick fog. The sailors ran aground on a sandbank close to the shore. Luckily, no one was hurt, and they were even able to save their precious cargo, but the ship was stuck in the sand for good, and it was not alone there.
By Althea March3 years ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Comments