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). |
A Report
of the
Senate Committee on Post
Audit and Oversight
May 2006
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
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.
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
These concerns recently resurfaced during the week of
The residents of
Key Findings
·
Nearly three decades after the
·
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
·
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
·
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
Figure 1: Dam Ownership in
|
Owner |
Number of Dams |
Percentage |
|
DCR |
338 |
11% |
|
|
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
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
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