Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety

Congressional research reportMar 25, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL33108

Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety

Updated March 25, 2008

Nic Lane

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety

Summary

While dams have multiple benefits (balanced against financial and

environmental costs), they can also present a risk to public safety and economic

infrastructure. This risk stems from two sources: the possibility of a dam failure and

the damage it would cause. Although dam failures are infrequent, age, construction

deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather events contribute to the

possibility. To reduce the risk, regular inspections are necessary to identify potential

problems. Corrective action can then be taken to remedy those deficiencies. Congress

is often called upon to fund remedial actions, as a way to prevent the larger

catastrophes. The 110th Congress will likely see proposals for improving dam safety

and may oversee existing safety programs.

To identify deficiencies that could cause dam failures, the federal government

established inspection requirements for the nation’s federal dams. Once deficiencies

are identified, most agencies finance repairs through their operation and maintenance

accounts. Funding mechanisms vary for larger rehabilitation activities. At the

Bureau of Reclamation, for example, most larger repairs are conducted with annual

appropriations to its dam safety program. At some other agencies, dam rehabilitation

must compete with other construction projects for funding.

The federal agencies with dam safety responsibilities include the Tennessee

Valley Authority, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and State. At

nonfederal dams, safety is generally a state responsibility, though some federal

assistance has been provided. The National Dam Safety Program, which is

authorized through FY2011 by P.L. 109-460, helps states improve their dam safety

programs and train inspectors. In addition, FERC and the Department of Labor’s

Mine Safety and Health Administration require regular inspections at the nonfederal

dams within their jurisdiction. Even so, there are concerns that most state dam safety

programs have inadequate staff and funds to effectively inspect or monitor all of the

dams for which they are responsible. Further, there are concerns that states, local

governments, and other nonfederal dam owners may not have the financial resources

to maintain and rehabilitate their dams.

The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota highlighted the potential for

unexpected infrastructure failure. This may result in a review of the safety of other

elements of our nation’s inventory of critical infrastructure such as dams, levees,

tunnels, and bridges — and a call for additional funding to resolve any deficiencies.

Congress has periodically been urged to provide federal support for rehabilitation

work at nonfederal dams. Demand for such assistance is likely to increase, but

currently no federal policy describes the conditions under which federal funding is

appropriate, nor has Congress established criteria for prioritizing funding among

nonfederal projects.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Dam Failure Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Potential Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Likelihood of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Managing Dam Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Federal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

State Dam Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Federal Support for State Dam Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Reducing Dam Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Identifying Unsafe Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Inspections of Federal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Inspection of Nonfederal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Dam Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Federal Dam Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . 12

Rehabilitating Nonfederal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

State Rehabilitation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

List of Figures

Figure 1. Dam Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2. Construction of Federal and Nonfederal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

List of Tables

Table 1. Hazard Level: Description and Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Agency-Owned Dams by Hazard Level and Frequency of

Formal Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 3. State Grants for Dam Rehabilitation as of October 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety

Introduction1

Dams provide broad economic and social benefits, including flood control,

hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply for drinking, irrigation,

and industrial uses. Dams also entail financial costs (for construction and for

operation and maintenance) and sometimes environmental costs (e.g., loss of riverine

habitat). Dams also can present a risk to public safety, local and regional economies,

and the environment.

Prior to September 11, 2001, Congress had expressed an increasing interest over

several decades in dam safety. In recent years, congressional interest has focused

largely on securing and protecting U.S. dams and water storage facilities from terror

attacks. Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous failure of levees that once protected

New Orleans, however, have renewed congressional interest in the structural integrity

of major water infrastructure.

The modern period of congressional concern began in the 1970s with dam

failures that resulted in loss of life and billions of dollars in property losses.2

Congress and private groups interested in dam safety noted that, while states and

localities are responsible for the maintenance and safety of 95% of the nation’s dams,

large numbers of older dams lacked the maintenance needed to guarantee operational

integrity and prevent failure. These aging dams represented then — and continue to

present — a potential hazard to downstream populations.

A first essential task was to develop accurate data on the nation’s dams: their

number, type, structural condition, and other information useful for making decisions

about dam safety policy and priorities. This was achieved in 1972 with the creation

of the National Inventory of Dams (NID)3 — a computerized, periodically updated4

catalogue of U.S. dams, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that

This report was originally written by Kyna Powers with assistance from Richard Sachs.

In 1972, failure of a mine tailings dam at Buffalo Creek, WV, flooded a 16-mile valley and

killed 125 people. In 1976, Teton Dam (ID) failed, causing $1 billion in property damage

and killing 11 people. Kelley Barnes Dam (GA) failed in 1977, killing 39 people and

causing an estimated $2.8 million in damage. More recently, the 2003 failure of the Silver

Lake Dam (MI) caused more than $100 million in damage, and the Kaloko Dam (HI) failed

in March 2006, killing 7 people.

The NID was first authorized in the National Dam Inspection Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-367)

and later consolidated under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, National Dam

Safety Program Act (P.L. 104-303, Title II §215; 33 U.S.C. §467).

The NID was last updated in February 2005. See [http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/

webpages/nid.cfm].

CRS-2

presently lists over 79,000 public and private dams.5 For the purposes of the NID,

a dam is defined as “any artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water ... for

the purpose of storage or control of water” that (1) is greater than 25 feet in height

with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet6 (af), (2) is greater than 6 feet in

height with a storage capacity of more than 50 af, or (3) poses a significant threat to

human life or property should it fail.

Federal and nonfederal dams in the NID were constructed for a variety of

purposes. By far, the greatest number of dams — more than 40% — were

constructed primarily for recreational purposes. Other purposes served by dams, in

descending order, include fire protection (20.0%), flood control (19.8%); irrigation

(11.8%); water supply (9.3%); fish and wildlife (4.2%); hydroelectric (2.8%); debris

control (2.0%); mining (tailings dams; 1.8%); and navigation (0.1%). Many dams

serve multiple purposes. For approximately 9.7% of the dams in the NID, the

purposes are unspecified.7

Over 56% of dams in the NID are privately owned. (See Figure 1.) Slightly

more than 20% are owned and operated by local governments. About 4.8 % of dams

are owned by states and 2.4% by public utility companies. The federal government

owns only 4.7% of all NID dams, but this small number (3,771) includes the dams

many Americans view as iconic: the great hydroelectric dams of the West, like Grand

Coulee and Hoover.8 The ownership of some NID dams is not indicated in the

database because that information was not reported to the Corps.

While the federal government owns less than 5% of NID dams, more than 30%

of all dams in the NID inventory were funded, designed, or constructed with federal

resources, most of them through the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS’s involvement in dam construction stems

primarily from the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954,9 which

authorized it to cooperate with states and local agencies to undertake works of

improvement for flood prevention and other purposes. Under this act and an earlier

law to build projects in 11 designated watersheds, NRCS has helped build more than

10,000 upstream flood control dams beginning in 1948. These are generally

relatively small dams owned by public or private entities other than the federal

government. These nonfederal entities are principally responsible for the dams’

operation, maintenance, and security.10

Other sources cite different figures; the online NID data is used throughout this report

unless otherwise specified. When appropriate, these data are referred to as NID Data.

One acre-foot of water is the amount of water that will cover an acre of land to a depth of

one foot, approximately 326,000 gallons.

NID Data.

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, The National

Dam Safety Program Fiscal Years 2000-2001 (Washington, DC: December 2001), p. 6

(Hereafter, cited as FEMA report, 2000-2001).

P.L. 566 (83rd Cong.).

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, A Report to Congress

on Aging Watershed Infrastructure (Washington, DC: June, 2000), pp. 1-2. Hereafter cited

(continued...)

CRS-3

Figure 1. Dam Ownership

Unknown/

Other

11.5%

Public Utility

State

2.4%

4.8%

Federal

4.7%

Local

20.1%

Private

56.4%

Excluding the NRCS, which does not administer any dams, nine federal

agencies operate, or regulate dam safety at approximately 8,500 sites (including nonNID dams).11 Six federal agencies operate NID dams: the Department of Defense

(862), Department of the Interior (751), Department of Agriculture (326), Tennessee

Valley Authority (83), Department of Energy (16), and State Department (7). In

addition, three agencies regulate but do not operate NID dams: FERC regulates 1,775

hydropower dams; the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health

Administration regulates 745 dams; and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

regulates 11 dams. While dams administered by one agency are not generally

regulated by another agency, there are cases where private hydroelectric projects,

regulated by FERC, are located at federal dams.

Congressional interest in dam safety generally falls into three areas: (1) dam

security and the potential for acts of terrorism at major U.S. dam sites; (2) prevention

of potential dam failures due to structural deficiencies; and (3) recovery from dam

failures. This report focuses on the second category, because it is a topic that will

likely become more important as the nation’s dams age; further, it has gained

additional attention in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Dam Failure Risk

While dams have multiple benefits, their failure or misoperation could threaten

public safety, local and regional economies, and the environment. Risk has two

primary components: (1) the damage and deaths associated with dam failure or

misoperation, and (2) the likelihood of such a failure.

(...continued)

as NRCS Report, 2000.

FEMA Report, 2000-2001, p. 8-9. This figure differs from the NID-based data on dam

ownership shown in Table 2. Some of these dams may not qualify for inclusion in the NID.

CRS-4

Potential Damage

To quantify the potential harm associated with a dam’s failure, the Interagency

Committee on Dam Safety prepared a hazard potential classification system.12 As

described in Table 1, the three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high) do not

indicate the likelihood of failure, but reflect the amount and type of damage that a

failure would cause. Hazard ratings for each dam are included in the NID. From

2000 to 2006 the number of high-hazard dams increased from 9,921 to 11,811.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), development

below dams is the primary factor increasing dams’ hazard potential.13

Table 1. Hazard Level: Description and Number

Hazard Classification

High Hazard

Significant Hazard

Low Hazard

Result of Failure or Misoperation

— Loss of life is probable.

— Other economic or environmental loss

possible, but not necessary for this

classification.

— No probable loss of human life.

— Could result in economic loss,

environmental damage, and disruption of

lifeline facilities, etc.

— No probable loss of human life.

— Few economic or environmental losses;

losses are generally limited to the owner.

Number of Dams

11,811

13,407

54,349

Source: NID Data. The hazard level of 210 dams was not reported to the Corps for inclusion in the

NID.

Likelihood of Failure

While catastrophic dam failures are fairly infrequent, states reported 1,090 dam

safety incidents — including 125 failures — between 1999 and 2004.14 A number

of factors, including age, construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and

seismic or weather events, contribute to the likelihood of dam failure. For example,

some failures are the direct result of flows larger than the dams were built to

withstand. With the exception of seismic or weather events, age is a leading

indicator of dam failure. In particular, the structural integrity and operational

effectiveness of dams may deteriorate with age, and some older dams may not

Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. Federal Guidelines on Dam Safety: Hazard

Potential Classification System for Dams (FEMA 333). (October 1998, reprinted January

2004).

U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dam Safety

and Security in the United States: A Progress Report on the National Dam Safety Program

in FY 2002 and 2003 (FEMA 466), April 2004.

National Performance of Dams, Dam Incidents Statistics Calculator, at [http://npdp.

stanford.edu/index.html]. This database provides a low estimate of dam safety incidents,

since reporting is voluntary; few private or local dams are included.

CRS-5

comply with current dam safety standards established in the 1970s.15 Overall, more

than 30% of all dams in the NID are at least 50 years old, the designed lifespan of

many dams, and more than 17,000 will cross this threshold over the next 10 years.

(See Figure 2.) According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, in 2003,

approximately 3,243 U.S. dams had deficiencies that left them more susceptible to

failure.16 In 2000, another report estimated that more than $30 billion will be needed

to repair and rehabilitate the nation’s aging dams.17

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1996-05

1976-85

1956-65

1936-45

1916-25

1896-05

1876-85

1856-65

1836-45

1816-25

50+ years old

<1806

# of Dams Constructed

Figure 2. Construction of Federal

and Nonfederal Dams

Year Completed

Managing Dam Safety

Following dam failures at Buffalo Creek (WV, 1972), Teton Dam (ID, 1976),

and Kelly Barnes Dam (GA, 1977), legislative and executive actions established a

program for monitoring the nation’s dams and set guidelines for dam safety at federal

facilities. Subsequent legislation promotes state dam safety programs and facilitates

rehabilitation activities at federal and some nonfederal dams.

Eugene P. Zeizel and Robert H. Dalton, “Aging of Dams and Urban Development Require

Major Dam Rehabilitation Efforts: A Growing Problem in Floodplain Management,”

presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of State Flood Plain Managers,

Charlotte, NC (June 3-8, 2001). This report indicated that 85% of all U.S. dams (not just

NID dams) will be more than 50 years old by 2020.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State

Safety Regulation , 2004. See [http://www.damsafety.org/documents/Word/2004Stats.doc].

In 2003, FEMA reported that there were more than 2,600 unsafe dams based on a report by

the American Society of Civil Engineers entitled The 2003 Progress Report for America’s

Infrastructure (September 4, 2003).

Raul F. Silva, “A Methodology and Estimate of the National Cost for Dam Safety

Rehabilitation,” presented at a conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,

Providence, RI (September 27, 2000).

CRS-6

Federal Management

Through legislative and executive actions, the federal government has become

involved in multiple areas of dam safety. First, in 1972, Congress passed the

National Dam Inspection Act (P.L. 92-367), which authorized the Corps to undertake

a program of national dam inspections and to establish the National Inventory of

Dams. Activities under this law provided the impetus for broad scale monitoring and

a centralized location for information on many of the nation’s dams.

In 1977, following the failure of Teton Dam and Kelly Barnes Dam, President

Jimmy Carter ordered a review of federal dam safety activities, and subsequently the

ad hoc Interagency Committee on Dam Safety released safety guidelines for dams

regulated by federal agencies.18 The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety establish a

basic structure for agencies’ dam safety programs. In general, the guidelines

encourage federal agencies and dam owners regulated by federal agencies to abide

by uniform safety standards. They direct that each agency with dam safety

responsibilities have a dam safety officer and that the agencies coordinate with other

agencies. They also establish guidelines for staff training, periodic evaluations,

documenting dam safety activities, and operation and maintenance.

Congress also enacted the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act (P.L. 95-578, 43

U.S.C. §508) in 1978 to set more detailed guidelines for the Bureau of Reclamation.19

This act authorizes Reclamation to preserve the structural stability of its dams and

related facilities by performing modifications.

State Dam Safety Programs

States have primary responsibility for the safety of 95% of the nation’s dams.

According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, every state but Alabama

and Delaware20 has a dam safety regulatory program.21 Typically these programs

include “(1) safety evaluations of existing dams, (2) review of plans and

specifications for dam construction and major repair work, (3) periodic inspections

of construction work on new and existing dams, and (4) review and approval of

emergency action plans.”22 Many state dam safety programs are poorly funded. In

2004, state budgets for dam safety averaged $742,000,23 ranging from less than $50

Interagency Committee on Dam Safety and U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (June 1979 reprinted

April 2004).

While the Bureau of Reclamation manages the most dams, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers manages the most NID dams.

Alabama has 1,403 dams and Delaware has 61 dams.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State

Safety Regulation — 2004.

Ibid.

Average of reported state budgets; excludes Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada,

(continued...)

CRS-7

per state-regulated dam (IA, IN, KS, MS, OK and TX) to more than $16,000 per dam

regulated by Puerto Rico.24

Federal Support for State Dam Safety Programs. While federal

activities in the 1970s generally focused on increasing dam safety information and

strengthening requirements at the nation’s federal dams, subsequent legislation began

to address the safety of nonfederal dams. In 1996, Congress created the National

Dam Safety Program (NDSP)25 and assigned responsibility for administering it to

FEMA. The NDSP is the nation’s principal dam safety program; previously, there

was no comprehensive national effort devoted to nonfederal dam safety and the

safety of downstream populations.

Management of the NDSP. The NDSP is a mechanism for federal and state

cooperation that includes an Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) with

the Director of FEMA as its chair. ICODS, which was initially formed in 1980, is

composed of representatives from FERC, the International Boundary Water

Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority,

and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and

Homeland Security (FEMA). ICODS is responsible for coordinating information

exchange among federal dam safety agencies.26

The act also established a National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB)

consisting of five representatives appointed from federal agencies, five state dam

safety officials, and one representative from the U.S. Society on Dams. All the

representatives are appointed by the director of FEMA. This board advises the

FEMA director on dam safety issues, including the allocation of grants.27

Assistance to States. The National Dam Safety Act establishes two state

assistance programs with budget authorizations. These include the following:

Training for State Inspectors. At the request of states, FEMA

provides technical training to dam safety inspectors.

Assistance to State Dam Safety Programs. States working toward or

meeting minimal requirements are eligible for assistance grants. The

objective of these grants is to upgrade state programs using the

ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program as a guide. The model

state dam safety program includes a recommendation that dams be

inspected at least every five years.

(...continued)

South Carolina, and South Dakota, which did not report their dam safety budgets.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State Safety

Regulation — 2004.

Ibid.

National Dam Safety Program Act, P.L. 104-303, Title II §215 (33 U.S.C. §467).

P.L. 107-310, ICODS’ authority is limited to coordination among federal entities only.

National Dam Safety Program Act, P.L. 104-303, Title II §215 (33 U.S.C. §467)

CRS-8

Allocation of state assistance grants is determined by the NDSRB and the

director of FEMA. In FY2000 and FY2001, FEMA distributed $8 million to states

with existing dam safety programs to assist with buying equipment, conducting dam

inspections, and developing Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). This money is not

available for rehabilitation activities.

Reauthorization of the NDSP. The NDSP was reauthorized in 2002 as the

Dam Safety and Security Act of 2003 (P.L. 107-310, 43 U.S.C. §467). P.L. 107-310

made several changes to the existing program, including the addition of (1) a new

goal for the program that encompasses dam security; (2) a goal for states to obtain

authority to require owners to improve security; (3) a limitation on the authority of

ICODS to exchange information among federal entities only; (4) a clearer definition

of the role of the NDSRB in relation to the states, and encouragement to maintain an

effective national program to enhance dam safety and protect human life and

property; and (5) the addition of two new research components on (a) information

technology to store, query, and distribute dam safety data related to dam performance

(failures, large storm events, earthquakes, etc.), and (b) dam safety vulnerability

assessments and management of sensitive dam information.

P.L. 107-310 authorized the program for an additional four years and increased

the total authorized funding to $8.6 million annually through FY2006 with funds

available until expended. Specified funding authorizations include an increase for

research from $1.0 million to $1.5 million for each fiscal year. The program retains

the authorized levels for dam safety training at $500,000, and increases authorized

funding for staff from $400,000 to $600,000 for the same time period.

The enactment of P.L. 109-460 authorized an average of $9.96 million annually

for FY2007 through FY2011 for FEMA-administered research, dam safety training,

and maintaining the NID.

Reducing Dam Failures

As the nation’s dams age, they are likely to develop various deficiencies. For

example, dams’ foundations can show signs of seepage, cracking, and movement.

To prevent failure or misoperation, these deficiencies must be identified and

corrected.

Identifying Unsafe Dams

The first step toward rectifying dam-safety issues is to identify safety

deficiencies. Such deficiencies are often identified by engineers during informal

inspections, or during formal inspections conducted by senior engineers. Formal

inspections are generally conducted after major seismic or weather events, and on a

periodic basis. As described below, the frequency and type of periodic inspections

varies across agencies.

Inspections of Federal Dams. Each of the six federal agencies that operate

federal dams is responsible for maintaining dam safety by performing maintenance,

CRS-9

inspections, and rehabilitation work. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety,

established in 1979 by President Carter, provide basic guidance for agencies’ dam

safety programs. Specifically, this document recommends that agencies formally

inspect each dam at least once every five years. As shown in Table 2, however, most

agencies under the Department of the Interior require more frequent inspections.

These inspections are typically funded through the agencies’ operations and

maintenance (O&M) budgets.

Table 2. Agency-Owned Dams by Hazard Level

and Frequency of Formal Inspections

Agency

Number of Dams by Hazard Level

Total

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Department of Defense

Air Force

Army

Corps of Engineers

Navy

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Department of State

International Boundary

Water Commission

Tennessee Valley Authority

Department of Energy

Significant

High

Frequency of

Formal

Inspectionsa

326

5 years

191

608

470

5 years

435

177

343

3 years

2.5 years

5 years

Source: NID Data.

a. Inspection frequency obtained from agency officials in Nov. 2004.

Inspection of Nonfederal Dams. Inspecting nonfederal dams is generally

a state responsibility, but the states are often poorly funded. According to the

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 10 state regulators are needed for every

250 dams to do the job of carrying out their responsibilities.28 However, the average

number of dams per FTE is 395 and only two states (CA and FL) and one territory

(PR) have the recommended number of staff.29

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Model State Dam Safety Program (1998).

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State By State Statistics on Dams and State

Safety Regulation — 2004.

CRS-10

Federal Involvement. While regulating nonfederal dams is generally a state

responsibility, the federal government has assumed regulatory authority over certain

nonfederal dams. As described below, two federal agencies — FERC and the

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) —

participate in inspections of certain private dams. In addition, the NRCS may

become involved with inspections at the dams it constructed.

Private Hydropower Dams. Under the 1920 Federal Power Act, FERC

(formerly the Federal Power Commission) regulates more than 2,500 nonfederal

hydropower dams.30 Pursuant to the Federal Guidelines on Dam Safety and FERC

Order 122,31 FERC’s regional engineers are to inspect each high-hazard dam annually

and outside consultants are to inspect these dams every five years. Low-hazard dams

are to be inspected every three years. The federal government recovers the costs of

these and FERC’s other activities from the hydropower industry. In general, FERC’s

dam safety program has received positive recognition.32

Private Mining Dams. Under the Mine Safety and Health Act,33 MSHA

regulates 745 private dams. Under these regulations, dams used for surface mining

are normally inspected every two years and those used for underground coal mines

are to be inspected every four years.34

NRCS-Constructed Flood Control Dams. Since 1948, the NRCS has

constructed more than 10,500 flood control dams. These dams were turned over to

local entities under contracts that stipulate the nonfederal responsibility for operation

and maintenance of the dams. Therefore, the dam owners are responsible for

conducting inspections pursuant to state regulations. As resources permit, however,

NRCS may use funding appropriated under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act35

to help dam owners assess specific structural or operational problems. In certain

situations, NRCS will conduct an inspection as part of this assessment process.

As amended by §2505 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171),36 the Small

Watershed Rehabilitation Program is authorized to receive both mandatory funding

through the Commodity Credit Corporation and discretionary funding to be

authorized through agriculture appropriations each year. Mandatory funding amounts

were to start at $45 million in FY2003 and increase by $5 million each year through

FEMA Report, 2000-2001, pp. 8-9. Of these 1,775 are included in the NID (261

significant-hazard and 697 high-hazard dams).

FERC, Order 122, 46 Fed. Reg. 9036 (January 28, 1981), 18 C.F.R. §12.

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of the Inspector General, FERC Dam Safety Program,

DOE/IG 0486, (October 2000).

P.L. 91-173, as amended by P.L. 95-164 (30 U.S.C. §801). See [http://www.msha.gov/

REGS/ACT/ACTTC.HTM].

Discussion with Kelvin Wu, Chief, Mine Waste & Geotechnical Engineering Division,

Mine Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, on November 19, 2004.

§313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-472).

§2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill).

CRS-11

FY2007, while discretionary funding was authorized at $45 million in FY2003 and

was to grow by $10 million each year through FY2007. To date, congressional

appropriators have prohibited mandatory funding each year while providing a portion

of the discretionary funding that had been authorized. Actual appropriations were

$29.8 million in FY2003, $29.6 million in FY2004, $27.5 million in FY2005, and

$31.5 million in FY2006, $31.3 million in FY2007,37 and $19.9 million for FY2008.

The FY2009 budget estimate for this program is $5.9 million.38

Dam Rehabilitation

Federal Dam Rehabilitation

After dam safety deficiencies have been identified, rehabilitation activities

should be undertaken. However, most federal agencies do not have funding available

to immediately undertake all non-urgent repairs. Rather, they generally prioritize

their rehabilitation needs — based on various forms of risk assessment — and

schedule these activities in conjunction with the budget process. At some agencies,

dam rehabilitation needs must compete for funding with other construction projects.

Rehabilitation activities at the two major dam-owning agencies are described below.

Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers. At the Corps, most

dam deficiencies are addressed through the normal O&M procedures. However,

“rehabilitation or modification of Corps’ dams for safety purposes is accomplished

through the Major Rehabilitation Program and the Dam Safety Assurance

Program.”39 The purpose of the Major Rehabilitation Program “is to allow

accomplishment of significant, costly, one-time structural rehabilitation or major

replacement work (other repairs related to dam safety are accomplished under the

normal O&M program).” 40 This program does not apply to facilities that were

turned over to local interests for operation, maintenance, and major replacements

after they were constructed by the Corps. The Dam Safety Assurance Program,

however, applies to all dams built by the Corps regardless of current ownership.

Specifically, this program “provides for modification of completed Corps dam

projects which are potential safety hazards in light of current engineering standards

and criteria.... This program is intended to facilitate upgrading of those project

features which have design or construction deficiencies.”41 The Corps schedules

rehabilitation under all of these programs based on funding availability.

E-mail correspondence with Mr. Stuart Simpson, National Watersheds Program Leader,

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, NRCS, Washington, DC (Oct. 30, 2007).

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2009 Budget, Explanatory Notes for Committee on

Appropriations, vol. 2, pp. 18-36.

Army Corps of Engineers, Dam Safety Preparedness, EP1110-2-13 (June 1996), p. 5-1.

Ibid.

CRS-12

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. After

Reclamation’s engineers conduct dam safety inspections, through the Safety

Evaluation of Existing Dams (SEED) account, any corrective action is carried out

through the Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Action program (ISCA).42 Authority

for Reclamation’s dam safety program originates in the Reclamation Safety of Dams

Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-578) and 1984 amendments (P.L. 98-404). Through ISCA

appropriations, Reclamation focuses funding on priority structures “based on an

evolving identification of risks and needs.” Prior to recent legislation, Reclamation

needed to submit a report to Congress for approval of modifications exceeding

$750,000. The 108th Congress increased that ceiling to $1,250,000.43 Costs incurred

due to “age and normal deterioration of the structure” are considered normal

operating costs and are cost-shared, with rates depending on the purposes for which

the structure was constructed (project purposes). Furthermore, “modifications

resulting from new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in the state of the art

criteria” are cost-shared, with 15% of the costs allocated for reimbursement

according to project purposes.

Rehabilitating Nonfederal Dams

In 2002, a task committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials

estimated that $36.2 billion was needed to rehabilitate nonfederal dams and that

$10.1 billion was needed by 2014 for repairs to “the nation’s most critical dams.”44

Responsibility to undertake this rehabilitation generally falls to dam owners.

State Rehabilitation Funding. While the federal government does provide

some direct funding for rehabilitating nonfederal dams, states and dam-owners bear

the brunt of the costs. Most states have little funding to repair their own dams, let

alone those dams owned by local governments, public utilities, and private entities.

According to the task committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,

in 2003, nine states (AZ, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OH, PA, UT, and WI) have loan or grant

programs to repair unsafe dams. These programs generally focus on publicly owned

dams. Additional information on these programs is provided in the Task

Committee’s 2003 report and is recreated in Table 3.45

Federal Funding. While the federal government does help fund

improvements to state dam programs, little federal funding is available for

rehabilitating nonfederal dams. FEMA and NRCS are the primary sources of federal

support for nonfederal dam rehabilitation.

FY2009 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Justification, pp. BW-8 and 9.

A Bill to Authorize Additional Appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act

of 1978, P.L. 108-439.

A Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, The Cost of

Rehabilitating our Nation’s Dams: A Methodology, Estimate, and Proposed Funding

Mechanisms (December 2002, revised October 2003), p. 4. See [http://www.damsafety

coalition.org/files/pdf/asdsoreport.pdf].

Ibid.

CRS-13

Table 3. State Grants for Dam Rehabilitation as of October 2003

State

Program

Type

Program

Name

Source and

Amount of

Funding

Eligibility

Loan/Grant

Amount

Loan or

grant

Dam Repair

Legislature,

lien fund,

inspection

fees, filing

fees, principal

and interest

from previous

loans

State engineer

determines dam

to be dangerous

to life, nonemergency

Loan and

planning

assistance

Maryland

Environmental

Service

State agency/

non-profit

corporation

Counties,

utilities and

private groups.

Need to have

established

service district

for water

supply,

resource

reclamation,

dredging or

storm water

Grants

Funding via

Dept. of

Environmental

Management.

No new

appropriation

as of Oct.

2003.

Local

communities

for repairs or

removal

75% of the

project, local

share can be

in-kind

contributions

Revolving

loan fund

Dam

Restoration

and Clean

Water Trust

Fund

$20M-$5M

for state high

hazard dams,

$15M loans.

In 2000 an

additional

$9.5a was

added

Local units of

governments,

private owners

can be coapplicants

Cost of

project for

loans

Up to 100%

for grants

75% of

eligible

project (25%

local match)

$300,000 cap

per project

New grant

fund for

municipally

owned dams

Grants

Clean

Water/Clean

Air Bond Act

$17M bonding

Municipality

for dam safety

projects

Revolving

loan fund

Ohio Water

Development

Authority

Revolving

loan fund

Owner must be

under mandate

from ODNR.

Dam Safety

Loan Programlocal units of

government,

state districts.

Dam Safety

Linked Deposit

Loan for the

cost of the

project, or

grant for a

portion of

project costs

Term of Loan

Term of loan is

up to 20 years at

3-6% interest

depending on

the length

Up to 20 years

at 2% assessed

against real

estate benefitted

5-25 years at

lower than

market rate

CRS-14

Program

Type

State

Source and

Amount of

Funding

Program

Name

Eligibility

Loan/Grant

Amount

Term of Loan

20-30 years at

low interest

Programprivate

ownership/orgs.

Revolving

loan fund

Pennvest

Revolving

loan fund, $2B

from state

general

purpose funds

Projects

associated with

wastewater,

water supply or

stormwater

Up to cost of

project

Loans or

grants

Utah Board of

Water

Resources

$4.5a from

general

revenue and

0.8 cent sales

tax (created

originally to

deal with

flood control

problems)

High hazard

dam owners.

Mandated

repairs

80-95% grant

for irrigation

or water

supply dams,

loans or

grants for

other owners

Grants

DNR

Municipal

Dam Grant

Program

$11.5M of

bonding over

10 years.

Currently fully

subscribed

Local units of

government and

Lake Districts

50-50 grants

up to a

$200,000

maximum

Source: Association of State Dam Safety Officials. The Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams: A Methodology,

Estimate and Proposed Funding Mechanism Appendix B (Dec. 2002, revised Oct. 2003). See [http://www.

damsafetycoalition.org/files/pdf/asdsoreport.pdf].

a. Units not included in source table.

FEMA. As described above, the Department of Homeland Security, through

FEMA, runs the National Dam Safety Program which offers training and other

assistance to state dam safety programs, though it generally does not provide

rehabilitation funding. Legislation in the 109th Congress would have extended the

NDSP and authorized funding through FY2011 and would have provided a total of

$350 million to FEMA for a grant program for states to rehabilitate and repair

publicly owned dams. Authorized funding would have been $50 million for FY2007

and $100 million annually through FY2011. Through other programs, FEMA may

provide assistance to reduce the flood damage a failure would cause.46 However, this

assistance generally does not include funding for rebuilding or rehabilitating dams.

NRCS. Many upstream flood control dams were built with assistance from the

NRCS and turned over to local sponsors. Many of these dams are now nearing the

end of their design life and some have significant rehabilitation needs. The NRCS

has estimated that more than $540 million is needed to rehabilitate these dams.47 In

2000, Congress enacted legislation authorizing $90 million in discretionary funding

See FEMA’s Mitigation Grant Programs at [http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/

index.shtm].

NRCS Report, 2000, pp. 1, 15.

CRS-15

over five years to rehabilitate aging flood-water retention projects.48 Funds are to be

allocated based on an annual ranking of requests for rehabilitation assistance. For

FY2002, Congress appropriated $10 million for this dam rehabilitation program.

For FY2003, the Administration did not include the program in its budget

request. However, the 2002 farm bill49 established the Small Watershed

Rehabilitation Program, and included $275 million in mandatory funding for the

program through FY2007. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is

significant because it is the first federal initiative to dedicate funding assistance to

repair nonfederal dams (rather than tear down or build new dams). It uses a costshare formula providing for 65% federal-35% local funding. In the past, cost sharing

has been an equal responsibility of the federal government and local sponsors for

most purposes.

Other Agencies. In general, federal agencies such as the Corps and

Reclamation do not rehabilitate nonfederal dams. As described above, however, the

Corps does sometimes repair structural deficiencies that resulted from its

participation in the design or construction of the nonfederal dam. Though quite rare,

Congress has also directed federal agencies to use their dam safety appropriations to

rehabilitate a nonfederal dam that it did not help design or build.50 However,

representatives from the Corps and Reclamation have testified that they do not

support such congressional direction.51

Conclusions

As the nation’s dams age and development continues in floodplains, the

structural integrity of this infrastructure will become a more significant public safety

issue. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, dams’ planned capacity to withstand

floods and other natural disasters has come under increased scrutiny. However, it is

unclear to what extent there will be a widespread re-evaluation of flood and

earthquake ratings at high-hazard dams. Such an evaluation could raise additional

policy questions. For example: (1) what criteria should be used to determine whether

current risks are acceptable; (2) if risks are not acceptable, should the dam be

improved, or should other activities (e.g., changes to the design and or placement of

downstream development) be undertaken; and (3) who should pay?

Regardless of whether dams were constructed to withstand an earthquake or

flood of “appropriate” magnitude, they may have age-related deficiencies that need

to be corrected to maintain current levels of safety. Therefore, it is likely that

The Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvements Act of 2000, P.L. 106-472, §313.

§2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, P.L. 107-171.

See, for example, Goshen Dam (VA). Information from Charles Pearre, U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Washington, DC, on February 2, 2005.

U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power,

Miscellaneous Water and Hydroelectric Project Bills, S.Hrg. 108-271 (108th Congress), p.

28.

CRS-16

appropriations requests for safety inspections and rehabilitation activities will

continue and may increase. It should be noted, however, that there currently are no

clear criteria for prioritizing dam rehabilitation funding across agencies.

It is also unclear to what extent the federal government will fund inspection and

rehabilitation activities at nonfederal dams. Through the National Dam Safety

Program, the federal government provides training and assistance to state dam safety

programs; authorization of appropriations for this program was extended through

FY2011. Further, Congress has authorized appropriations for rehabilitation activities

at several nonfederal dams. While there is likely to be an increasing demand for such

assistance, there is currently no federal policy that describes the conditions under

which federal funding is appropriate, nor has Congress established criteria for

prioritizing funding among nonfederal projects.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.