SENATE, No. 2549

Report of the Senate committee on Post Audit and Oversight (under the provisions of Section 63 of Chapter 3 of the General Laws, as most recently amended by Chapter 557 of the Acts of 1986) entitled "Decades of Neglect: Recommendations to Improve Dam Safety and Maintenance in Massachusetts" (Senate, No. 2549).

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

In the Year Two Thousand and Six.

Decades of Neglect

Recommendations to Improve Dam Safety and Maintenance in Massachusetts

A Report of the
Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight

May 2006

Massachusetts Senate
The Honorable Robert E. Travaglini
Senate President

Senator Marc R. Pacheco, Chair
Senator Susan C. Fargo, Vice Chair
Senator Robert A. Havern III
Senator Steven A. Baddour
Senator Richard T. Moore
Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos
Senator Robert L. Hedlund

Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight

Senator Marc R. Pacheco, Chairman

It shall be the duty of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight (established under Section 63 of Chapter 3 of the General Laws) to oversee the development and implementation of legislative auditing programs conducted by the Legislative Post Audit and Oversight Bureau with particular emphasis on performance auditing. The Committee shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony and compel the production of books, papers, documents and other evidence in connection with any authorized examination or review. If the Committee shall deem special studies or investigations to be necessary, they may direct their legislative auditors to undertake such studies or investigations.

Senate Post Audit and Oversight Bureau

Jesse L. Stanesa
Director

Jessica Nordstrom
Author

The Committee would like to acknowledge the contributions from Senator Pacheco’s office, including Mary Wasylyk, Chief of Staff, Kristen Green, General Counsel, and Meghan Reilly, Communications Director.

The Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight would also like to acknowledge contributions from The Nature Conservancy, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, American Riverways, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Department of Fish and Game Riverways Program, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency and Taunton elected and emergency management officials.

· Executive Summary ·

Nearly 3,000 dams exist throughout the Commonwealth. Many of these dams were built at the turn of the century and still serve important agricultural, recreational, environmental and public safety purposes today. They provide irrigation for farmlands, offer people a place to swim and supply renewable energy through hydroelectric power. Dams also pose inherent public safety risks. Unsafe dams can damage private property, decimate public infrastructure and pollute local ponds with contaminated sediments. A dam failure can cost a community tens of millions of dollars in emergency repairs, cripple businesses and even result in the loss of life. Given the potential impact on communities, dam safety and maintenance should be a top priority for the state.

The Office of Dam Safety (ODS), under the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), is in charge of overseeing and regulating all dams in the Commonwealth. The agency is responsible for keeping records and overseeing the maintenance, inspections and repairs of all dams to ensure that they are in safe condition. For nearly three decades, however, public officials and academic leaders have questioned whether the Massachusetts dam safety program has the proper resources to fulfill its mission. Policy reports issued in 1979 and 1985 revealed concerns about staffing, funding, coordination and the state’s commitment to dam safety.

These concerns recently resurfaced during the week of October 6, 2005, when historic rainfalls left vast parts of the state submerged in as much as 16 inches of water. A state of emergency was declared in more than 43 communities across the Commonwealth. Officials diligently monitored high-hazard dams that posed an immediate threat to life or property in six communities: Taunton, Southbridge, Concord, Uxbridge, Chicopee and Warren. In Taunton, a private dam located in the heart of the city threatened to buckle under the accumulating rain, forcing local officials to evacuate more than 2,000 people from homes near the dam, close businesses and shutdown the entire downtown area.

The residents of Taunton were fortunate. Due to the quick response of local, state and federal officials during the emergency, serious tragedies were averted. It soon became apparent, though, that dam safety regulations mandated by a 2002 state statute had not been promulgated. Without updated regulations, Emergency Action Plans were not issued, inspections were not conducted and violations were not enforced. Fearing statewide deficiencies in the dam safety and maintenance program, the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight (Committee) held an oversight hearing on dam safety. Through its investigation of the state’s dam safety policies, oversight and management procedures, the Committee discovered that, despite recent improvements, many of the concerns raised nearly three decades ago are still valid today.

Key Findings

· Nearly three decades after the University of Massachusetts report recognized Massachusetts’ failure to create a complete inventory of dams, an accurate inventory still does not exist.

· DCR, under the Romney Administration, did not adopt dam safety regulations until three years after they were required by a 2002 state statute.

· Nearly 49% of dams have not been assessed for any type of structural condition, while at least 5% of dams have no known hazard potential classification.

· In 2001, only 14% of high-hazard dams had Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). In 2002, the number decreased to 8%, well below the national average of 36%.

· Enforcement provisions in other environmental state laws are significantly higher than the penalties in the Commonwealth’s dam safety statute.

· The state employs only seven full-time equivalent (FTE) dam safety staff (3.5 to run the ODS regulatory program and 3.5 to maintain DCR dams) to monitor the state’s 2,950 dams. Requests for increased staffing levels were recently denied by the Romney Administration.

· Over the last ten years, ODS has received inconsistent and inadequate state funding, which has impaired its ability to manage an effective dam safety program.

· In October, ODS requested $1.045 million dollars to implement the new dam safety regulatory program. In the FY07 budget, Governor Romney provided only $512,476.

Key Recommendations

ODS must develop a complete and accurate inventory of dams by December 15, 2006.
ODS must inspect all high and significant-hazard dams that were not included in the emergency inspection order, regardless of their condition.
ODS must ensure Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) are developed for all high and significant-hazard dams and available for dam owners and local and state dam safety officials.
Enforcement provisions need to be increased from $500 per day up to $25,000 per violation for high or significant-hazard dams. Fines collected should be dedicated to the Dam Safety Trust and be used for future dam safety needs.
Significantly increase funding for the dam safety program, to meet requests made by ODS. In FY07, provide $1.045 million to ODS for the implementation of the new dam safety regulatory program. Ensure future funding for ODS is maintained.
Provide $10.3 million for capital improvements to DCR owned dams. Priority should be given to high and significant-hazard dams, especially those in unsafe or poor condition. Funding must also be made available for the development of EAPs for state owned dams.
Create a $20 million Dam Safety State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) to provide low interest loans to assist qualifying private and municipal owners with assessment, repair and removal of dams. Priority should be given to high and significant-hazard dams in unsafe or poor structural condition.
Allow local communities, at their discretion, to use Chapter 90 funds for dam repair, maintenance or removal.

Provide additional dam safety and maintenance FTE) staff to ensure public safety is maintained. An additional 8.5 FTE staff are required for ODS to implement the state’s new dam safety regulations. An additional 4.5 FTE staff are needed for DCR to address the current backlog of state owned dams in poor repair.

· Overview of Dams ·

Any artificial barrier that blocks or diverts the flow of water in a stream or river can be considered a dam. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) defines a dam as a structure that is at least 25 feet in height or has the capacity to store at least 50 acre-feet of water.[i] Over the last century, dams have been built on almost every major river in the country and thousands have been constructed across the state. ODS estimates there are 2,950 dams in Massachusetts, but the precise number is unknown because the state does not have an accurate inventory.[1] According to ODS records, more than 50% of the dams in the state are privately owned, 28% are owned by municipalities and 12% are owned by the state.[2] Numerous other man-made structures have been built in the state’s rivers and streams, but do not fall within the DCR definition of a dam.

Figure 1: Dam Ownership in Massachusetts

Owner	Number of Dams	Percentage
DCR	338	11%
DFG	12	Less than 1%
Other State	13	Less than 1%
Municipal	836	28%
Private	1,669	56%
Utilities	50	2%
ACOE	16	Less than 1%
Other	16	Less than 1%
Total Estimates*	2,950	100%

Source: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs *estimates based on inaccurate inventory

Many of these dams serve important agricultural, recreational, environmental and public safety needs. Dams provide irrigation for farmlands, offer a place for people to swim, help control floods, create a source of drinking water and supply renewable energy through hydropower.

By their very nature, dams also pose inherent public safety risks. The millions of gallons of water released when a large dam breaks can cause damage to private properties, decimate public infrastructure and pollute local ponds with contaminated sediments. Unsafe dams pose an even greater threat to the environment, people and property downstream.

A breached dam can cost a community tens of millions of dollars in emergency repairs, close businesses and even result in the loss of life. One of the worst dam failures in the country took place in Williamsburg, Massachusetts. In 1874, the Mill River Dam in Williamsburg broke, killing 139 people, damaging factories and destroying 740 homes in four different towns.[3] The last major dam failure in the Commonwealth, which took place in 1968 in Lee, Massachusetts, released 12 million gallons of water, destroyed homes and killed two people.[4] Over the last century, more than 8,000 people worldwide have died as a result of dam failures.[5]

Dam failure can be caused by structural deficiencies (e.g. poor design, lack of maintenance), natural disasters (e.g. floods, earthquakes) or human interaction with dams (e.g. vandalism, poor operation, terrorism).[6] According to a report prepared for Congress, “with the exception of seismic or weather events, age is the leading indicator of dam failure.”[7] In Massachusetts, many dams were built during the Industrial Revolution and are either obsolete or in need of serious repair. As the state’s dams continue to age, dam safety and maintenance becomes even more important.

There are several management tools state agencies can employ to help mitigate risks, including hazard classifications, inspections, repair or removal, and emergency action plans. A hazard classification system was developed by the federal government in 1979 to categorize dams by their “potential consequences of failure.”[8] A dam classified as “high-hazard” is a structure that would cause considerable damage to public property or life if it failed. “Significant-hazard” dams are those likely to pose a threat, while “low-hazard” dams have little chance of damaging property or injuring people.[9] Hazard classifications do not specify whether or not a dam is unsafe, they simply indicate the amount of damage that would be caused if a dam was to break. Dams can also be assessed by their structural condition and rated as unsafe, poor, fair or good.

Regular inspections by civil engineers are critical to identifying deficiencies that could lead to dam failures. Inspection frequency should be based on a dam’s hazard potential, as well as structural condition. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) recommends high-hazard dams be inspected annually, significant-hazard dams every two years and all other dams every five years.[10] In order to carry out these responsibilities, the ASDSO recommends that states employ ten regulators for every 250 dams under its jurisdiction.[11]

Once problems are identified, it is necessary that dam owners take corrective action, such as repair or removal, to bring the dam into safe condition. According to ASDSO, “for large and moderate sized dams, repairs can cost in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.”[12] Contaminated sediments can sign