[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL DAM SAFETY
PROGRAM ACT
=======================================================================
(109-93)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-663 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas, Vice-Chair Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
DON YOUNG, Alaska JULIA CARSON, Indiana
(Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Kelly, David P., County Legislator, District 23, Dutchess
County, New York............................................... 16
Maurstad, David I., Director, Mitigation Division and Federal
Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency... 6
Moore, Ruth A., Deputy Commissioner, Natural Resources and Water
Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, New York
State.......................................................... 16
Roth, Larry, Deputy Executive Director, American Society of
Civil Engineers................................................ 16
Smith, Kenneth, President, Association of State Dam Safety
Officials, Assistant Director, Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water................................... 16
Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers............................................. 6
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carson, Hon. Julia, of Indiana................................... 33
Matheson, Hon. Jim, of Utah...................................... 37
Michaud, Michael, of Maine....................................... 54
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 65
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES
Kelly, David P.................................................. 35
Maurstad, David I............................................... 39
Moore, Ruth A................................................... 56
Roth, Larry..................................................... 69
Smith, Kenneth.................................................. 83
Stockton, Steven L.............................................. 116
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Maurstad, David I., Director, Mitigation Division and Federal
Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
responses to questions from Rep. Shuster....................... 46
Moore, Ruth A., Deputy Commissioner, Natural Resources and Water
Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, New York
State, responses to questions from Rep. Shuster................ 61
Roth, Larry, Deputy Executive Director, American Society of
Civil Engineers, responses to questions........................ 75
Smith, Kenneth, President, Association of State Dam Safety
Officials, Assistant Director, Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water, responses to questions........... 92
Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, responses to questions from Rep. Shuster... 119
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
American Rivers, Rebecca Wodder, President, letter, July 25, 2006 122
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL DAM SAFETY
PROGRAM ACT
----------
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, The Honorable Bill
Shuster [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The Subcommittee will come to order.
First, I would like to ask unanimous consent that our
colleagues, Mrs. Kelly of New York and Mr. Matheson of Utah, be
permitted to sit with the Subcommittee at today's hearing to
offer testimony and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
Welcome, Mrs. Kelly, and welcome, Mr. Matheson. We are glad
to have you here.
We are here today to discuss the proposed amendments and
reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program.
Dam safety has been a national and Federal concern since
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the Flood
Control Act of 1936. The legislation, which authorizes the
Federal Government to construct flood control systems
throughout the Nation's high-risk flood zones, was in direct
response to the deadly floods that hit Johnstown, Pennsylvania
in 1936.
After additional dam failures in the 1970s, President
Carter further expanded the Federal Government's role in
addressing the dam safety issue by creating the National Dam
Safety Program we know today.
Administered by FEMA, the program's mission is to reduce
the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United
States. This is achieved through a number of program
components, which include the National Inventory of Dams, the
National Performance of Dams Program, and the Dam Safety
Program Management Tools. The program also helps exchange
information between Federal and State dam safety partners
through the National Dam Safety Review Board and the
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety.
Funds from the program also benefit research, development
of information technology, and the training of the State dam
safety officials who are considered the Nation's first line of
defense from dam failures.
Over the past 25 years, the National Dam Safety Program
helped mitigate the risk of dam failure by providing technical
and financial assistance to State dam safety officials and the
80,000 or so dams they oversee. Of great concern to the Nation
is the ever-growing number of high-hazard dams. These dams,
whose failure could result in loss of life or severe property
damage, total over 10,000 nationwide. The increasing number of
high-hazard dams will continue as our population grows and
spawns new downstream development.
The National Dam Safety Program has increased the level of
knowledge and preparedness to prevent and mitigate the effects
of dam failures, including the ever-growing number of high-
hazard dams.
Mr. Kuhl has introduced H.R. 4981, which reauthorizes and
improves the National Dam Safety Program. Mr. Kuhl has been a
leader on the issue and I commend him on his efforts to see
this program reauthorized.
Mrs. Kelly has introduced H.R. 1105, which amends the
program to provide funding for repairs to publicly owned dams
across the United States. This grant program would fund repair
of the most critical dams, which the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials estimates is a $10 billion need over the next
12 years.
I am proud to be cosponsor of both bills and anticipate
reauthorization of the program in the near future.
I, with my fellow Pennsylvanians, understand the need for
programs such as the National Dam Safety Program. Our region
has faced numerous costly and deadly floods over the past 200
years. I look forward to hearing from all of you today, as our
witnesses.
And with that, I would like to recognize our Ranking
Member, Ms. Norton from the District of Columbia, for an
opening statement, if she has one.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put my
opening statement in the record except to make one or two
remarks.
This is not a controversial bill. I am sure it is a bill
that the States welcome. The National Dam Safety Program had
its origins, of course, in the New Deal, when the kind of dam
safety we were talking about involved what cannot be predicted,
and that is the kind of floods that States and localities now
have gotten hold of.
It is important to understand that while the Federal
Government has leadership responsibilities, for the most part,
the Federal Government does not build dams. Who builds these
dams are private corporations, States, and individuals.
There are, however, 10,000 dams that are considered to have
high hazard potential. Their failure could not only result in
loss of life from hazards, natural hazards, but, of course,
this bill takes on new meaning in the post-9/11 world. Anyone
who is dealing with critical infrastructure today really has to
have an all-hazards approach. And, thus, we look at this bill
in that important light as well.
The Federal Government is not a major funder. The Federal
Government, of course, gives grants. The Federal Government,
however, at least this Committee has been generous in its
authorization, $11.8 million. That is almost double the
authorization last time.
However, the appropriators appropriate, and we can't
guarantee how much will be appropriated. We do know that this
is critical funding for States. By authorizing this bill, I
think we are exerting leadership, calling attention, as well,
to States and localities about the importance of dam safety, of
inspections, of focusing on dam safety for all hazards.
Here in Washington, as you might imagine, we don't have
many dams, but I have to tell you we do have one that concerns
me, it is a small dam called Pierce Mill Dam in Rock Creek
Park. It is a Park Service dam, but it has significant hazard
potential.
I caution everyone to look at their own dams for all of the
hazards, not only the hazards that have been most feared and
most common.
And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from New York
who has taken up this bill. And since it is my first time
publicly, I can thank him for taking this bill up. I will pass
on the words from you, that the first public time I was
commended for doing this bill, which I did a couple years ago,
I was to say, in the worlds of Dick Armey, this is a damn good
bill if this is your first bill to pass.
So, with that, Mr. Kuhl.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking that this
was a good dam bill.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kuhl. Whichever way.
But first let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
commitment to dam safety programs and for holding this
important hearing today.
I would also like to thank Representative Jim Matheson for
working with me on the Dam Safety Act of 2006 and Ruth Moore,
who is here to testify from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, for coming to Washington to
testify.
In addition, I would also like to thank the other witnesses
for coming to testify before us.
During today's hearing, I look forward to discussing the
current state of the dams in our Country and how we can work
together to pass effective legislation that will improve the
safety of dams.
People forget how vital dams are to all of us. Dams provide
many benefits, including protection from flooding, a clean
source of power, safe drinking water, recreational
opportunities, and irrigation for farming. However, without
proper maintenance, dams can be hazardous. Their failure or
improper operation can result in the loss of human life,
economic loss, lifeline disruption, and environmental damage.
On the American Society of Civil Engineers' The
Infrastructure Report Card, our Nation's dams received a
failing grade of D. This should send a strong and urgent
message that we must act now. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' national inventory of dams database, there are
nearly 2,000 dams in New York State, of which 133 lie in my
congressional district. Of those 133 dams, 30 of them are
considered to be high-hazardous and 41 are of significant
hazard. That means if there is a dam failure, there is a high
risk of death and destruction.
Some of the hazardous dams in my district include the
Newton Creek Dam in Chemung County, the Cuba Lake Dam in
Allegany County, the Gates Creek Dam in Cattaraugus County.
In addition, of the 133 dams in my district, 38 of them
were built prior to 1940. These dams pose a particular threat
to their surrounding area simply because of their age.
We cannot jeopardize the safety of our citizens, and we
must take action to repair these hazardous dams. In order to do
so, we must pass legislation that will grant States and
localities the necessary tools to fix this very dangerous
problem.
I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 4981, the Dam Safety
Act of 2006, which I introduced with Representative Jim
Matheson. The bill increases the authorization for funding for
the National Dam Safety Program, an important national program
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that
seems to improve the safety and security of the Nation's dams.
This bipartisan bill provides funding for the next five
fiscal years, through 2011, for FEMA grants to States for dam
safety. It will also allow FEMA to continue leading national
safety efforts. It will augment research, technology transfer,
communication between State and Federal agencies, and provide
much needed training for safety dam engineers. The grant
assistance component of the Act will provide vital support for
the improvement of State dam safety programs which regulate 95
percent of the more than 78,000 dams in the United States.
Along with H.R. 4981, I am proud to be a cosponsor and
supporter of H.R. 1105, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act,
introduced by my colleague and my next seat mate, Mrs. Kelly of
New York. This Act establishes a program within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to fund publicly-owned dam
rehabilitation repairs.
I am confident that both of these bills take significant
legislative steps to address our aging dams. I look forward to
continue working with members of this Subcommittee,
Representative Matheson and Chairman Shuster particularly, to
report legislation out of this Committee that protects and
adequately authorizes funding for our dams.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing today's testimony,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Kuhl.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Michaud for an
opening statement.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for having this hearing. It is an important issue.
I know in the State of Maine we have over 1,000 dams in the
State of Maine, and they are all aging, and safety concern is
vitally important.
With that, Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank you
for having this hearing, and would request unanimous consent to
have the remainder of my opening statement be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Mrs. Kelly.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--and I
appreciate your allowing me to participate in this important
hearing--for taking on an issue that has unfortunately been
ignored at the Federal level for far too long.
The events over the past year in Massachusetts, Missouri,
Hawaii, and in my home State of New York have clearly
demonstrated the need for us to pay more attention to our
Nation's dam inventory. The recent flooding in the Northeast
that crippled much of my district in New York's Hudson Valley
would have been far worse had the vital dam structures
completely failed.
The Dam Safety Program in FEMA should be reauthorized to
continue the work it has fostered over the last 10 years,
including providing critical training to State engineers and
establishing unprecedented cooperation between Federal dam
safety agencies and State dam safety agencies. But the program
should also be strengthened to provide critically needed
funding for the repair and rehabilitation of our Nation's aging
dams.
My bill, H.R. 1105, the Dam Repair and Rehabilitation Act,
would provide $350 million over four years to help protect our
Nation's ailing dam infrastructure. While at first glance this
number may seem high, it represents only a fraction of the
actual cost for rehabilitating our dam infrastructure.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials, represented
here today, estimates rehabilitating all the dams in the United
States would require an investment of $36 billion.
My legislation represents a wise, but fiscally sound,
investment: aiding our financial limited State and local
governments to repair our Nation's most unsafe and unstable
dams. Passing this bill into law would ensure that our homes,
small businesses, and local infrastructure won't be put in any
further risk from failure of a substandard dam.
H.R. 1105 has 33 cosponsors in the House, including the
distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster. And
we thank you. It has also been endorsed by many of today's
witnesses, including ASDSO, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the Dam Safety Coalition, American Rivers, and a
constituent of mine who is here to tell us about that burden of
unsafe dams place on local communities, my friend, David Kelly.
Incidentally, David is not related to me.
The Whaley Lake Dam in Pawling, New York has been holding
back 1.2 billion gallons of water for more than 150 years, and,
as it continues to age, the residents in the surrounding
community are becoming increasingly apprehensive. I have been
working closely with Mr. Kelly and the residents of Pawling to
find a solution to the threat the dam poses, including
inserting language into the Water Resources Development Act to
try to get this dam repaired.
With the Senate passing the bill last week, I hope that the
differences between our bills can be resolved quickly in
conference so that this important funding can be delivered. I
look forward to hearing Mr. Kelly's testimony and hearing him
recount for this Subcommittee the numerous obstacles that he
and the residents of Pawling have tried to overcome because of
Whaley Lake Dam. His story is representative of countless other
local officials around this Nation in dealing with crumbling
dams.
Mr. Chairman, our local communities simply don't have the
money to fix all the dams; they need our help. The Dam Safety
Program Reauthorization Act that is introduced by my colleague
from New York, Mr. Kuhl, and my bill, H.R. 1105, can provide
our States with a significant jump start to fixing our Nation's
dams that we so desperately need. I look forward to the
testimony of all of the witnesses, and, again, I thank you so
much for allowing me to sit in on this very important hearing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mrs. Kelly.
Now I would like to recognize the original sponsor of the
bill, Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you both, Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member Norton, for letting me sit in on the
Subcommittee hearing today, and I certainly want to thank Mr.
Kuhl for his leadership on the issue and appreciate the
opportunity to introduce this bill with him.
And I have a written statement that I would like to ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record. I won't take all my
time, I just want to make one observation, and you have heard
from a number of people here.
Every State has issues with this. There are dams in every
State that are critical in terms of the service they provide,
in terms of water retention or flood control, but they also
represent a potential hazard. So this is truly a national
issue, and that is why it is important we are here today to
talk about this and to continue this program, because it makes
a difference across this Country.
And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the
opportunity to be here today, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Matheson.
I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
statement be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the Subcommittee would request that you summarize them
today in five minutes. If you would, we would appreciate that.
We have two panels of witnesses today. Our first panel has
Mr. David Maurstad, who is Director of Mitigation Division and
Federal Insurance Administrator at FEMA, and Mr. Steven
Stockton, who is Deputy Director of Civil Works for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
I would like to thank both of you for being here today. We
look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Maurstad, would you proceed first?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIVISION
AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; STEVEN L. STOCKTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL
WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Maurstad. Good afternoon, Chairman Shuster, Ranking
Member Norton, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
David Maurstad. I am the Director of the Mitigation Division in
the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Agency. I appear before you today to testify on the
need for the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety
Program.
FEMA is the lead agency for this program, which provides
critical support for the operation, maintenance, and
improvement of our Nation's dams. The need for Federal
leadership to support dam safety in the United States has never
been clearer. The reality is that our Nation's dams are getting
older and, like all things manmade, as they age, more prone to
failure. It is estimated that 85 percent of dams across the
United States are 50 years old.
The National Dam Safety Program provides leadership and
accountability to identify dangerous dams and recommend ways to
mitigate the risks associated with them before they become a
problem. Our number one concern, however, is to mitigate the
risks to the people who live below America's dams. Since the
establishment of the National Dam Safety Program in 1979, there
has been a significant reduction in the loss of life associated
with dam failures.
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
there were 28 failures in the United States from 1874 to 1979
resulting in 3,424 deaths, an average of 122 fatalities per dam
failure. From 1979 to 2004, there were 55 dam failures
resulting in 28 fatalities, a dramatic reduction in the number
of fatalities per dam failure.
In order to maintain this safety record, the program
focuses primarily on providing financial and technical
assistance to the States. There are approximately 79,500 dams
in the United States. Of these, the States regulate
approximately 63,000. The program offers grant assistance to
the States supporting improvement of State level dam safety
programs.
The program also supports dam inspections; aids in the
development, implementation, and exercise of emergency action
plans; offers training for State dam safety staff and
inspectors; and provides technical and archival research
programs that includes development of devices to monitor the
safety of dams.
As a result of this support, the Nation's dam safety
continues to improve. In the past eight years, the number of
emergency action plans for State-regulated high-and
significant-hazard dams has doubled. The number of dam
inspections conducted by the States has also increased over the
past eight years, from approximately 12,000 inspections to
approximately 14,000 inspections.
One of the key components of the dam safety program is
ensuring that dams are owned, operated, and maintained by
skilled and well trained individuals. Since the inception of
the National Dam Safety Program, FEMA has supported a strong
collaborative training program for dam safety professionals and
dam owners.
I have focused so far on the program's support to the
States because they regulate the majority of the Nation's dams,
but I would like to speak briefly about the role that the
program plays in keeping Federal dams safe.
Although the Federal Government owns or regulates only
about 5 percent of the dams in the United States, many of these
dams are significant in terms of size, function, benefit to the
public, and hazard potential. Since the implementation of the
Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, the Federal agencies
responsible for dams have performed an exemplary job in
ensuring the safety of dams within their jurisdiction.
All of these agencies have implemented the provisions of
the Federal guidelines. Many agencies continue to maintain
comprehensive research and development programs, training
programs, and have also incorporated security considerations
and requirements into these programs to protect their dams
against terrorist threats.
Although the National Dam Safety Program is a relatively
small program, FEMA is proud to lead it. The program has helped
significantly to encourage appropriate actions that address the
risks associated with the Nation's more than 79,000 dams.
Through grants, training support, research, data collection,
and other activities, the program provides a much needed
impetus for the ongoing safeguarding and protection of people,
property, and the dams themselves.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today, and I would be pleased to take any questions
from you or other members of the Committee.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Maurstad. Appreciate that.
And, Mr. Stockton, you may proceed.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
Norton, and other members of the Subcommittee. I am Steven
Stockton. I am Deputy Director of Civil Works for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. I am a registered professional engineer in
the State of Oregon.
I am pleased to be here today and have the opportunity to
speak to you about the proposed amendments and reauthorization
of the National Dam Safety Program Act. My testimony today will
provide a brief discussion of the benefits of the program, the
need for reauthorization, and the proposed reforms to the
National Dam Safety Program.
As far as the benefits of the program, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers operates a large number of dams in the United
States, and we have been active in promoting dam safety for
many years. The Corps was a member of the ad hoc committee that
wrote the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety in 1979, after dam
failures occurred early in the 1970s.
Since that time, the Corps has been active in the
activities of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety and also
with the National Dam Safety Review Board, which was
established in 1997. The National Dam Safety Review Board has
been meeting regularly and is active in the development of
joint Federal and State dam safety policies and training.
The National Dam Safety Program provides benefits to the
Nation by reducing risks to life and property from dam failure
in the United States through an effective dam safety program
that brings together the expertise and resources of the Federal
and non-Federal communities in achieving dam safety hazard
reduction. These benefits are being achieved through the
publications of various technical guidelines for the dam owner,
through dam safety training, in Federal and State government on
inspection and evaluation of dams, through cooperative dam
safety research, and through publication of the National
Inventory of Dams.
The National Dam Safety Program has allowed the Corps to
leverage its resources through work with other Federal agencies
and with the various States. The program has improved safety
programs by providing a forum for the States to share
information. The National Inventory of Dams lists nearly 80,000
dams in the United States.
Since the current version of the National Dam Safety Act
expires at the end of fiscal year 2000, in order for the Nation
to continue to realize the benefits to the Nation of the
program, reauthorization would be required. Workgroups under
the National Dam Safety Review Board are currently engaged in
research to improve the safety of dams and the development of
additional technical guidelines for dam owners.
Since most of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. are owned by
private companies and individuals, the National Dam Safety
Program provides a single point of access for dam safety
information. The Corps of Engineers believes that the cost of
providing dam safety for dams operated by the Corps is reduced
as a result of Corps participation and cooperation in programs
such as this.
Most of the proposed amendments in the National Dam Safety
Program Act are administrative in nature; however, there are
two amendments that make substantial changes to the program.
These amendments are: one, the addition of assessment for each
dam based on inspections completed by either a Federal agency
or a State dam safety agency to the National Inventory of Dams,
and, two, the extension of the authorization for
appropriations.
The addition of an assessment for each dam to the inventory
will enhance the value of the inventory when used by various
emergency agencies and local governments during times of
natural disasters. The assessments will allow the first
responders to focus their actions where dam failures are most
likely to occur. This will save time and possibly lives in
emergency situations. In addition, these assessments will
provide information that can assist local governments, public
utilities, and private individuals when making investment
decisions concerning property protected by the dams.
If the proposed legislation is enacted in its current
version, authorization of appropriations for the National
Inventory of Dams would increase from $500,000 per fiscal year
to $1 million per fiscal year to accomplish the addition of the
assessments to the inventory.
The current version of the proposed legislation also calls
for the program appropriations to be increased to allow the
program to continue at the present level and to improve the
ability of the National Dam Safety Review Board to evaluate the
performance of State dam safety programs. We are committed to
continuing to improve the safety of Federal dams, continuing to
cooperate with other Federal agencies and the States to reduce
the risk to public safety in areas located below dams,
continuing to help decision-makers set priorities for future
dam safety investments, and continuing to ensure that all
Americans can make more informed decisions on building homes,
locating businesses, and purchasing flood insurance based on
the actual risk of flood and storm damages where they live.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Stockton.
My first question is to both of you. I think I get from
your testimony that you generally support the National Dam
Safety Act, but there are some changes, I think I hear you
saying. Could you elaborate on those changes or things that you
might want to add to it or take out of it? I wasn't quite clear
on that.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. This is an excellent program. As
you know, there are a lot of unmet water resource needs in the
Nation, this being one of them. Dam safety is of paramount
importance, and I think what it has really allowed us to
achieve is a lot of cooperation and collaboration in sharing of
information with other Federal agencies and State agencies so
we can leverage technical knowledge, educational materials, and
those kinds of things.
With respect to the changes, it basically is adding one of
the functions, which is to not only include the data that is in
the National Dam Inventory--which is basically location, size,
hazard category--but also to include the hazard assessments
that the States perform on an annual or during their regular
periodic schedules. We would actually put those in the
database. Now, those would be there for use by State and
Federal officials, but not be open to the public. And that is
the primary change that is in the legislation, which we
support.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. So you support it as it is written
today?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. Both of you?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. And concerning H.R. 1105, the Dam
Rehabilitation and Repair Act, what are both your
organizations' positions on that bill, is that something you
support? Would you make changes to it that you see?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I think that at this point I am not
sure we have a formal position on the legislation. I think that
we would certainly have a couple of suggestions that the
Committee might be willing to entertain. Because of the large
volume of unmet need, you may want to look at, at least
initially, looking at one-time only grants per dam. You may
want to look at making sure that the funding is for those that
would provide the greatest cost-effectiveness. You may want to
consider a different cost-sharing scheme, more along the lines
of equal partners between whoever is responsible for the dam
and the Federal Government; and look at that whoever the owner
of the dam is makes a commitment toward the future maintenance
of the dam.
Mr. Shuster. So, in other words, you think it has merit,
but you are concerned about the amount of money and the amount
of dams that are in the programs.
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Stockton, comment?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I stated, there are
huge unmet needs with respect to dams, and I think we need to
look at innovative financing mechanisms, because everybody
realizes there are not enough Federal or State or local dollars
to do it all themselves.
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Maurstad, over the past few years, FEMA'S role in
mitigation has become somewhat unclear. Do you still believe
that the National Dam Safety Program, mitigation program, is
something that fits under FEMA'S mission still to this day?
Mr. Maurstad. Oh, very much so. We have gotten good support
from FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for
mitigation programs. There is still very much a commitment to
reducing the Nation's vulnerability to future risks, regardless
of whether they are manmade or natural hazard risk, and we are
certainly supportive and, as I indicated in my testimony, proud
to be the lead agency for the National Dam Safety Program.
Mr. Shuster. And we have heard you have had some difficulty
at FEMA developing a specific criteria to define what a State-
regulated dam is for the purpose of allocating State assistance
programs. Is that true, are you having some problems with that,
or have you been able to work that out?
Mr. Maurstad. It doesn't come to the front of my mind, but
my sense would be, my response would be if we are having
difficulties at that, we would continue to work with the
National Dam Safety Review Board to work out those issues. If
it is something that is overdue, we will have to get on top of
it. But we have a good working relationship with the National
Dam Safety Review Board and the Association of State Dam Safety
Officials, so there is no reason in my mind to believe we can't
resolve that issue.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. Thank you.
At this time I recognize Ms. Norton for questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
of questions.
One to Mr. Maurstad. The testimony about dams that may in
fact be at risk, and gathering that data in one place, I
applaud, particularly given FEMA'S post-9/11 concerns.
Something like 10,000 dams have the potential for loss of life
or property, and yet these dams, most of them, I understand,
have been built by private individuals or corporations, or
owned by private individuals and corporations, not States. I
can understand that you would want to gather--or I am sorry, I
guess this is Mr. Stockton who would want to gather this
information about at what risk these dams are in one place, and
it does seem to me that a certain amount of that information
you would not want to be public. But my question, first, am I
correct that most dams are owned by individuals or
corporations?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
Ms. Norton. Now, it does seem to me--and I have to ask you
this question--while there are certain kinds of information, of
course, that we would want not to be public, it does seem to me
that, to the extent that these dams need some repair or
attention, the general public has the right to know and to
bring the pressure that in a democracy you bring. But if you
don't know that you are sitting right there where there is a
high-risk dam, either because the risk is a natural hazard or a
terrorist hazard, you are just sitting there while the poor
data collectors gather their data and kind of talk among
themselves and perhaps talk to those who own the dam. Where is
the pressure going to come from to in fact remedy the problems
that you discover and put in the database?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am. Currently, we are posting what
hazard categories each of the dams poses, but that is kind of a
gross classification. What we would not publish are the
detailed information that would expose the critical flaws--
Ms. Norton. So what you are publishing, you mean even now,
says what, for example?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am
Ms. Norton. What does it say now? Give me typically what
you can learn from what you have been able to post or intend to
post.
Mr. Stockton. It is a public website that has, you know,
name, location, capacity, height, general characteristics, as
well as the hazard classification of that project.
Ms. Norton. And the hazard classification tells you, okay,
this is hazard classification what, A, 1, 2? What is it,
please?
Mr. Stockton. The hazard classification system is explained
and does rank them by risk of damage that they pose.
Ms. Norton. It does seem to me that that is information
that needs to be made public. The details of it, the public
can't much handle anyway, since it is technical information,
but it does seem to me that what you are doing to gather the
data could not be more important, and acting on the data is
important. How do you get the individuals and corporations to
act on the data? Who does that?
Mr. Stockton. The responsibility for regulation of the non-
Federal dams--the Federal agencies are responsible for managing
their own, but the States have the primary responsibility for
regulation of dams within each State.
Ms. Norton. Just as any public funding usually comes from
the State, as well, I take it.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Have they been doing a decent job of regulating
so that, if you expose hazards, the State then does its job and
gets the owner to attend to the hazard?
Mr. Stockton. I think, generally speaking, the States have
been doing an incredibly good job. That said, each State, it
depends on the resources that they have available and can
devote to this, and was stated in prior testimony, I think
there are some critical needs.
Ms. Norton. Yes. Well, I think this authorization will help
if for no other reason than to draw attention to the issue.
Let me ask you one more question. The WRDA bill, finally, I
understand, has just passed. That is a bill that Congress has
passed three times, and I understand it has just passed the
Senate. I just have a question. I understand you have started,
the Corps of Engineers has started on a section of that bill
that I have in Werter but, frankly, did not even need
congressional authorization, and that is a comprehensive plan
for cleanup of the Anacostia River. This is a river literally
three blocks from the Capitol, runs, a dirty, nasty river with
storm water overflow and all that goes with it. Can you give me
information on where you are on the comprehensive for cleanup
of the Anacostia?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am. The Water Resources Development
Act just passed the Senate last week. The version that passed
the House was, I think, about two years ago. I believe--and I
would have to verify this fact--that the feasibility report,
the authorization language to actually authorize the Anacostia
River cleanup would actually be in the House and Senate bill.
But I would have to confirm that.
Ms. Norton. Is my information correct or not, that you have
already started on a comprehensive plan, or have you been
waiting for--which apparently was in your authority to do it
and you have paid some considerable attention to the Anacostia.
Have you started on it or have you been waiting for the Werter
bill to pass?
Mr. Stockton. I believe we have--and I will have to confirm
this for the record, but I believe we have completed the study
process. The request for authorization is in the versions of
Werter in the House and the Senate, but it has not been funded
for construction or authorized for construction, excuse me.
Ms. Norton. I wonder if you would transmit to my office a
copy of the plan so that I can see what work you have been
doing.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stockton.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Kuhl for questions.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
questions.
Statistically, it looks as though, at least for the last 10
years, since FEMA has been in control over the dam safety
project, that the actual number of dams that have now become
unsafe has increased. Is that correct? Is the information I am
getting correct?
Mr. Maurstad. I think that would be correct, and it is
because, as I indicated, as the dams get older, they become
naturally more unsafe if the maintenance or the upkeep of those
dams doesn't keep pace with the age. So it is mostly as a
result of the aging process of the dam inventory in the
Country.
Mr. Kuhl. All right. Now, if more are becoming unsafe,
shouldn't we be working to make them less unsafe? And if the
answer is yes, then the question--actually, both of you--is why
aren't we? Now, this bill actually puts a new mandate on the
Corps, whereas, before, the position was that you may do
inspections. Now, under this reauthorization, you are required
to absolutely conduct an inspection. Is that kind of an impetus
coming from a directive from the Congress to mandate
inspections, which will then, for sure, point out unsafe dams,
all of them across the Country? Is that going to necessitate an
increased funding level?
I know it is a multi question, but I would appreciate your
insight. We want to be helpful, obviously. We want to eliminate
any potential hazards that are here. And I guess I am looking
to both of you because, in my short time here, I have noticed
the appropriations going to the Homeland Security Department is
increasing significantly over the last years, but I don't see
that same kind of increase in appropriations for the Dam Safety
Program increasing. Just looking for your insight. Not begging
a fight, just looking for an insight.
Mr. Maurstad. No, I think that certainly, again, as we work
with the States--and their primary responsibility is the
regulator of most of the dams across the Country--we want to do
what we can to provide them with the necessary training, the
necessary funds for research, inspections. The Mitigation
Division is, of course, particularly interested in the
emergency assistance planning aspect of what the States are
doing. The data collection is an important part to provide
everybody the relevant information to be able to make good
decisions both at the private level, local level, and Federal
level.
So I think clearly we support the intent of what the Dam
Safety Program is intended to accomplish. Certainly, as the
civil engineers have pointed out and as testimony earlier,
there is a great need out there, and the challenge will be to
continue to come up with the resources to meet those needs.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir, I think the Federal role is more of
facilitation, coordination, collaboration, sharing of
information, technical information, and developing consistency
and measuring the size and magnitude of the program, assessing
the dams, classifying them by hazard category so we all know
what the state of the infrastructure is. I don't believe there
is any provision in this legislation that mandates Corps of
Engineers inspection or direction to do anything specifically
for any group or category of dams.
Mr. Kuhl. A follow-up question to both of you. Based on
your oversight of this Dam Safety Program, do you have any
thought as to what the outstanding financial need is for total
repair of all the dams that are insufficient across the
Country?
Mr. Maurstad. The only number that I would have would be
the number I think that has been provided by the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials, and I am not sure--I know they are
going to be on the next panel. I am not sure that I have that
number right at my fingertips. I could certainly secure it for
you for the record.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Kuhl.
I now recognize Mr. Michaud for questions.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the line of questioning from my colleague from New
York. That is the same concern that I have, and I heard it in
your opening remarks, about a huge unmet need. And I was just
wondering what that unmet need was, and I just heard your
comments to my colleague from New York.
I guess my concern is when you look at the huge unmet need
and the fact that States are primarily responsible for the
majority of the dams within their States, however, with the
budgetary constraints at the State level for various reasons,
what do you think the role of the Federal Government should be?
I will use Maine for an example. We have one dam inspector for
the whole State of Maine.
There is a problem when you look at not only inspecting the
dams, but also the enforcement. How do you address that
enforcement? And then I would like you to comment on how do you
address an issue where actually you have a Federal agency such
as the U.S. Forest Service, who owns dams, who is in dispute
with a State, in violation of State law for five years, and
nothing has been done yet. How do you solve these problems and
continue to move forward to make sure dam safety is a top
priority for both your agencies?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I think clearly, as has been indicated,
our role is to facilitate and coordinate amongst the dam safety
community on how best to solve all of these problems. I think
that with the resources that have been made available, I
believe, for the most part--not in all parts--the States are
trying to do as much as they can with not only their own
resources, but with the resources that the Federal Government
provides them. So the collaboration that occurs through the
various interagency groups, data sharing, research, training
opportunities, all of those lend itself to trying to address
the problem.
Now, the overriding issue is where and who is going to
provide the necessary funding, and, of course, we will work
with Congress on trying to develop an answer for that.
Mr. Michaud. Do you think, when you look at engineers--and
I am not sure what other States are doing. What is your opinion
on, when you look at colleges and programs that universities
might offer, some of the classes, do you think it is worthwhile
looking at, whether that might be a program, actually the
university systems might be able to do as far as having their
engineers out there to help inspect or write emergency planning
plans, or is that too premature at this time? And do you think
that there should be some Federal oversight if that does occur,
to help the States meet their needs?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I am not an engineer. I am not
knowledgeable relative to what is provided in the engineering
colleges around the Country, but I would just say in a very
general sense the training that we try to coordinate with our
dam safety technical workshops we have done both at the
regional level, at the local level, the Association of Dam
Safety Officials develop training across the Country, I think
that we are working with the Corps of Engineers on a new web-
based training opportunity. So I think that the exploration on
how to better train dam safety officials is certainly out
there. We are willing to look at whatever opportunities can
best facilitate the necessary objectives.
Specific to engineering training, I might defer to Mr.
Stockton relative as to whether there is a deficiency there or
not, or whether there is something more than the Dam Safety
Review Board could be doing with the engineering educational
community to facilitate improvement.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. I think it is an excellent
suggestion. I mean, it really gets down to resources. And if
there is a lot of talent in the college and universities that
can be used in an appropriate way, I think that is an
appropriate application and would get people to focus and give
it the visibility that the program really needs.
Mr. Michaud. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just one last
question.
What role does the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers play with
other Federal agencies? As I mentioned earlier, where we have a
law in the State of Maine, the U.S. Forest Service has not met
the obligations under that law. Do they contact the Corps of
Engineers for assistance, or what role do you play when you are
dealing with a State law versus another Federal agency as it
relates to dams?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. Each Federal agency is responsible
for regulation, monitoring, and operations and maintenance of
their projects. We are members of the Interagency Committee on
Dam Safety and the National Dam Safety Review Board. The
Department of Agriculture also has members on both of those
boards. But as far as any regulatory authority, no. We can
provide technical assistance on a reimbursable basis.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
I want to thank both of you gentlemen for being here today.
We appreciate it. And I am certain we are going to be
submitting some questions to you for more detailed answers. So,
again, thank you for being here today, we appreciate it. And
you are excused. Thank you.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. The Committee now calls our second panel
today. If you folks want to make your way to the table.
First off, I would like to thank each and every one of you
for traveling here, a great distance some of you, for being
here, taking the times out of your schedule. It is important
that we hear from folks that are out there in the field, as
they say, in the real world. So we appreciate your being here
today.
We are joined today by several panelists: Ms. Ruth Moore,
who is the Deputy Commissioner of Natural Resources and Water
Quality, a Division of New York's Environmental Conservation;
Mr. Larry Roth, who is the Deputy Executive Director of the
American Society of Civil Engineers; and Mr. Kenneth Smith,
Assistant Director of Indiana's Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water, and President of the Association
of State Dam Safety Officials; and, finally--Mrs. Kelly is not
here--not to be confused as a relative of Mrs. Kelly's, Mr.
David Kelly, who is a County Legislator from Duchess County,
New York.
Thank you all, again, for being here today. I am certain
you are going to give us further insight to the issue that we
have before us here today.
So, with that, I recognize Mr. Kelly. You can start off
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID P. KELLY, COUNTY LEGISLATOR, DISTRICT 23,
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK; RUTH A. MOORE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, NEW YORK STATE; LARRY ROTH, DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS;
KENNETH SMITH, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY
OFFICIALS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member Norton, distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, my name is David Kelly. I am here today to
connect you with a small community that is reaching out to take
on the responsibility of maintaining, rebuilding, and
ultimately taking ownership of a local hidden public threat, an
earthen dam.
Throughout these United States, we have hundreds of
thousands of earthen structures holding back billions of cubic
gallons of water. These dams were built for many reasons:
community drinking water reservoirs, energy production, flood
mitigation, recreation usage, amongst others. And while their
benefits are well known, their dangers of their potential
failures are overcoming local communities like mine in Duchess
County and all across this Country.
For the past eight years, Pawling residents have been
working towards sustaining their quality of life by accepting
the demanding responsibilities of ownership of a dam that was
built in 1847. The Whaley Lake Dam was built by the owners of a
hat and dye factory some seven municipalities downstream on the
historic Hudson River. The waters that it holds were used to
control the high and low levels of the stream which provided a
flow to the factory to turn its waterwheel, its machines, its
mills, and, in the early 1900s, a generator. Because of its age
and its deteriorating condition, the dam, and its 1.2 billions
of gallons that it holds back, poses a risk to our community.
For eight years the homeowners and public officials have
been working jointly on their efforts. Because the 159 year old
dam has no owner of record, the property was taken back by the
county for nonpayment of taxes. The New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, following a 1998 assessment of
the dam's condition as unsound, has recently considered
breaching the dam. State, county, and town officials, along
with the homeowners, continue to work together to resolve this
entire legal logistic nightmare.
Concerns have continued to surface through discussions on
how to maintain the current quality of life, maintain the value
of their homes, maintain the value of the assessment of the
entire local community--both the town and the county--maintain
the recreation and tourism vitality, and reduce the
environmental effects if this lake were to be drained.
Thousands of privately-donated dollars and personal hours
have been dedicated to this project to date. Design proposals
have been drawn up, maps have been designed, public
informational meetings have been held, and we asked for the
assistance from our State agencies. The entire Pawling
community is taking charge and trying to move forward.
But they have only taken it nearly as far as they can do.
Pawling and Duchess County need assistance to relieve the
financial burden that will cause millions of dollars to merely
repair and rebuild only portions of the original dam structure.
That is where the Federal Government plays a crucial role.
Local communities like the town of Pawling simply do not have
the resources to pay the necessary improvements to rehabilitate
the dams like this one at Whaley Lake. I hope that as Congress
and this Subcommittee considers reauthorizing the Dam Safety
Program, they will include a program to assist States and
communities to repair and rehabilitate deficient dams.
H.R. 1105, introduced by my Congresswoman, who was present
here earlier, Sue Kelly, would provide $350 million over the
next four years for dam repair and rehabilitation program. Such
funds would go a long way in preventing disasters like the one
we saw earlier in Hawaii.
Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Norton, this is a mere
glimpse of one small community's struggle on an unsafe dam. As
Congress continues to examine the Dam Safety Program, we must
consider that maintenance must be performed on all the
structures which are built. Communities will need to know that
a program exists to allow the relief from the burden of taking
ownership of a hazardous dam.
Once again, I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to
testify today, and look forward to your questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Ms. Moore, you may proceed.
Ms. Moore. Thank you and good afternoon. Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member Norton, and members of the Subcommittee, on
behalf of Commissioner Denise Sheehan, I want to thank you for
allowing the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to testify today on timely and important
congressional legislation to reauthorize the Federal Dam Safety
Program. My name is Ruth Moore, and I serve as the Department's
Deputy Commissioner for Natural Resources and Water Quality.
The Department welcomes the Subcommittee's interest in dam
safety and applauds Congressman Kuhl in particular for
introducing H.R. 4981.
Article 15 of New York State's environmental conservation
law provides the statutory framework for many of the
Department's water resource programs, including dam safety. The
Department's dam safety program is designed to protect the
public and safeguard property, and to ensure that natural
resources are not adversely affected.
The New York State legislature first recognized the need
for the State to regulate dams in 1911, making the Department's
dam safety programs one of the oldest in the Nation. The
statute requires permits to construct or repair a dam; requires
dam owners to operate and maintain dams in a safe condition;
and gives the Department, among other things, authority to
remove or repair a dam in order to safeguard life, property, or
the natural resources of the State. These statutory
requirements facilitate the Department's ability to implement
the National Dam Safety Program in New York State, and
amendments to the NDSP as proposed in 4981 would enhance these
ongoing State and Federal efforts and cooperation.
There are over 5500 dams in New York State, and while the
safe operation of a dam is the responsibility of the dam owner,
the Department's staff perform regular and periodic inspections
of certain dams in addition to the dam owner's operational and
inspection activities.
The Department inspects the State's 384 high-hazard dams
every two years, and 757 intermediate-hazard dams have
historically been inspected every four years. We also perform
unscheduled inspections of dams as needed. Dams under
construction may be inspected more frequently, for example. Dam
safety staff perform an average of 400 inspections each year
and, with the new staff which Governor Pataki approved in the
State's current fiscal year, our ability to inspect dams will
be further enhanced.
H.R. 4981 provides much needed assistance to New York
State's efforts to effectively protect the health and safety of
its citizens and natural resources through the safe management
of dams. By requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain
and update information on the inventory of dams in the United
States, the bill will help provide New Yorkers with the
assurance they need that dams are maintained in a safe
condition. Since the Corps' assessment of dams would be based
on inspections completed by either a Federal agency or a State
dam safety agency, this program would effectively complement
the dam safety activities already underway in New York State.
With Federal recognition of State responsibilities for dam
safety and inspection comes the need for Federal funds as well
to assist States like New York in carrying out those
responsibilities. For that reason, the Department supports
provisions which authorize adequate funds for the National Dam
Safety Program, the National Dam Inventory, and for research,
training, and staff; and we believe the Department is well
positioned to qualify for assistance from the National Dam
Safety Program under the enhanced requirements proposed in
4981.
In addition to the Department's support for congressional
approval of H.R. 4981, I would like to emphasize the importance
of enacting congressional legislation that assists programs
already underway to repair and rehabilitate older dams whose
failure could significantly harm the health and safety of our
citizens. Such assistance can be found in H.R. 1105, introduced
by Congresswoman Sue Kelly of New York.
H.R. 1105 would establish a grant program in FEMA to aid
States undertaking rehabilitation projects on deficient
publicly owned dams. Authorized appropriations would amount to
$50 million for fiscal year 2007, with $100 million per year
authorized for 2008 through 2010. The authorization of these
funds would bolster the Department's efforts to encourage
public dam owners in New York State to rehabilitate and repair
many older dams, and would help supplement the State's $15
million dam safety grant program for municipalities authorized
by Governor Pataki's 1996 Clean Water, Clean Air Bond Act.
Your attention to this important issue is greatly
appreciated. By work together, we can ensure the quality of New
York's dams and, through that, the safety of its residents,
their property and water supply, and the many natural and
scenic resources which New York has to offer.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Ms. Moore.
Mr. Roth, you are recognized.
Mr. Roth. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, good
afternoon. My name is Larry Roth. I am the Deputy Executive
Director of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I am a
licensed professional engineer and a licensed geotechnical
engineer in the State of California. Before joining ASCE's
staff, I had 30 years experience in water resources
engineering, including dams, levees, and canals.
Let me start by thanking you for holding this hearing. As
someone who has worked in this field for many years, I can say
there are few infrastructure issues of greater importance to
more Americans today than dam safety. So I am very pleased to
appear here today to testify for ASCE in strong support of H.R.
4981, the Dam Safety Act of 2006. We believe that Congress
should pass this bill without delay in order to reauthorize the
National Dam Safety Program.
In addition, ASCE urges the Subcommittee to approve
companion legislation H.R. 1105, the Dam Rehabilitation and
Repair Act of 2005 This bill amends the National Dam Safety
Program to provide critically needed funding for repairs to
publicly owned dams across the United States. Like all manmade
structures, dams deteriorate with age.
Last year, ASCE issued the latest in a series of
assessments of the Nation's infrastructure. Our 2005 Report
Card for America's Infrastructure found that the number of
unsafe dams in the United States rose by a stunning 33 percent
between 1998 and 2005.
Moreover, the Nation's dam safety officials estimate that
it will cost more than $10 billion over the next 12 years to
upgrade the physical condition of all critical, non-Federal
dams, dams that pose a direct risk to human life should they
fail.
The problem of hazardous dams is potentially enormous. As
the Congressional Research Service stated last September,
unsafe dams represent a serious risk to public safety. The
study said, while dam failures are infrequent, age,
construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic
or weather events contribute to the likelihood of failure. To
reduce the risk, regular inspections are necessary to identify
deficiencies, and then corrective action must be taken.
Although catastrophic failures are rare, the States
reported 1,090 dam safety incidents, including 125 failures,
between 1999 and 2004. The number of high-hazard dams, dams
whose failure would cause loss of life, is increasing
dramatically. By 2005, the number of high-hazard potential dams
totaled more than 10,000 across the Nation.
Even more alarming, States currently report that more than
3500 unsafe dams have deficiencies that leave them more
susceptible to failure. Many States have large numbers of
unsafe dams, including Pennsylvania with 325; New Jersey with
193, and Ohio with 825. The actual number is potentially much
higher since some State agencies do not report statistics on
unsafe dams.
Congress has been committed to dam safety for more than 30
years. It enacted the National Dam Inspection Act of 1972,
which created the National Inventory of Dams, or the NID. The
NID, which was last updated in February 2005, now lists more
than 79,000 U.S. dams of varying purposes, ownership, and
condition. More than half are privately owned; fewer than 5
percent are owned by the Federal Government.
H.R. 4981, a bipartisan bill, ensures that corrective
action will be taken in a timely manner. The bill is quite
simple. Let me summarize its chief provisions briefly.
The bill would require the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, to maintain and update
information on the inventory of dams in the United States,
including an assessment of each dam based on inspections
completed by either a Federal agency or a State dam safety
agency. It would require that the strategic plan for dam safety
prepared by the Director of Federal Emergency Management
establish performance measures, in addition to goals,
priorities, and target dates, towards effectively administering
the Act to improve dam safety.
It would further require that States, to be eligible for
assistance under the Act: one, have to perform inspections at
least every five years of those dams and reservoirs that pose a
significant threat to human life and property; two, create a
process for more detailed and frequent safety inspections; and,
three, develop the authority to issue notices to require owners
of dams to install and monitor instrumentation.
Finally, H.R. 4981 reauthorizes very modest appropriations
of the National Dam Safety Program, the National Dam Inventory,
and for research, training, and staff.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I
would be very pleased to take any questions you may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr .Roth.
And now, Mr. Smith, please proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kenneth
Smith. I am a civil engineer and the Assistant Director of the
Division of Water in the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. I am responsible for the State's dam safety program.
I am also the President of a national professional society
known as ASDSO, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
Chairman Shuster, thank you very much for having this
hearing.
Congressman Kuhl, we really appreciate your efforts for
introducing the reauthorization of the Dam Safety Program.
And Congresswoman Kelly, I really deeply appreciate your
introduction of the Dam Rehabilitation Act.
We are pleased to be here today to offer this testimony
regarding the condition of the Nation's dams, the critical role
of the Federal Government in dam safety and security at dams.
The Association, I assume you know, is a nonprofit
organization with about 2300 members. This includes State,
Federal, local, and private sector individuals. We are
dedicated to improving dam safety through research, education,
and communication. Our goal simply is to reduce the loss of
lives and damage to businesses and property by encouraging wise
dam safety practices.
Individual States' dam safety programs regulate about 95
percent of the 79,000 dams in the United States. The States and
their programs certainly look to Congress and the Federal
Government for their continuing leadership by example, with
federally-owned and regulated dams and support of the national
dam safety cause.
There have been many dramatic incidents of dam failures
that we all recognize. In 1976, the federally-owned Teton Dam
failed, killing 14 people and causing over $1 billion in
damages. Also in the late 1970s, in Georgia, a much smaller
privately owned dam, Kelly Barnes, failed in Toccoa Falls.
These, compared to or attached to the recent failures in
Hawaii, killing seven people, failures in Missouri, New York,
and a near-failure in Massachusetts last year, have certainly
brought again to focus the vulnerability and the potential
consequences of our deteriorating, unsafe deficient dams.
Downstream development continues below many dams, and these
dams continue to age. They demand greater attention and
investment to assure their safety. Failures like these that we
have seen are a reminder of the obligation to assure that all
dams are properly constructed, operated, and maintained.
As has been mentioned, the Dam Safety Program today is
administered through FEMA and has been for the last 10 years.
This program has encouraged the inspection of dams and provided
very valuable assistance to the State dam safety programs There
has been critical training for State engineers; there has been
research activities that have occurred. Additionally, the
program directs the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a
national tracking system that catalogs dams in the United
States. This national program is very vital to assuring safety
of the dams and must continue.
Dam safety, however, requires more than what the national
program currently provides. Inspections and education alone and
tracking systems will not substantially improve dam safety when
we have such an aging infrastructure. The reconstruction
funding is needed both for public-and privately-owned dams. The
H.R. 1105 that is currently proposed is a great beginning to
address publicly-owned dams. Unsafe privately-owned dams,
though, can still cause people to lose their lives. Finding a
financial mechanism for private-owned dams remains an unsolved
challenge. We must not forget that even privately-owned dams
present great public safety concerns.
Thank you again for the time you have given this topic. The
Association requests in the strongest terms possible you
recognize the benefits of dams and the unacceptable
consequences of dam failures, and the role Congress needs to
play by passing H.R. 4981 and H.R. 1105, and that you demand
aggressive management of the National Dam Safety Program to
achieve the results the people who live below our dams expect.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
I want to thank all of you for staying under the five
minute time allocation. Everybody yielded back with some time,
which, in Congress, doesn't happen too frequently.
I know Mrs. Kelly has been involved in a markup, so I am
going to yield to her first for questions, if she has any.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. I really appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman. Yes, we are in a markup, which is necessitating my
running back and forth.
I want to know if I can do a bit of business here and, with
unanimous consent, insert into the record a letter from the
American Rivers that concerns this hearing.
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. Thank you.
My first question is for Mr. Kelly. As you know, the
legislation that I have would provide funding for repair and
rehabilitation of publicly-owned dams. I wonder if you could
describe for the Subcommittee the great lengths that you and
the residents of the Town of Pawling have gone to try to bring
the Whaley Lake Dam into public control.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, thank you, Mrs. Kelly. The Whaley Lake Dam
currently is held by Duchess County and the in rem proceedings
mean that there is basically no owner of record. But the owner
of record was a corporation out of New York City, based out of
New York City.
What would happen under these proceedings is that the
county would take title or ownership of the property for a mere
second, as the county attorney indicated to us in earlier
conversations. At that point, they would transfer ownership
over to the Town of Pawling. The Town of Pawling would then,
being a public entity, would transfer it over to a dam
district, that is, potentially being voted on by the members of
the district around the lake. So it would end up going from
private ownership in the in rem proceedings into a public
ownership to the State.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. And you are working on this, Mr.
Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, we are. We have been currently working on
this and trying to work out the logistic nightmare of it for
eight years of how it actually has to happen. We have been
discussing it with the State attorney general's office, with
the comptroller's office, with the governor's office. Every
corner there seems to be a different avenue on how it has to
happen and the formality of the public notification of the
owners and of the last known owners and any of their heirs. It
has been a--the nightmare is very--this is an understatement,
but it has been a lengthy process and there is a rock that
comes up at every corner.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. It sounds to me as though the
homeowners around the lake have incurred some considerable cost
in trying to get this resolved. Is that true?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, it is. The homeowners currently have put up
thousands of dollars towards a legal fund that they have
formed, a dam committee themselves, which is sanctioned by the
Town of Pawling. They have put up all the money to secure
counsel for themselves, and they have also put in thousands of
hours of deed research to find out the owners of the parcels
surrounding the lake to see who has lake rights into the
parcels and to see actually the title searches into the
previous owners and how far they have gone back. We have been
fortunate that we do have a title--a person that owns a title
search company that has authorized his business. As I said,
thousands of hours have gone into this to try to find the
owners.
Mrs. Kelly of New York. I hope this all works out.
I want to say that I am very impressed with the testimony
of Ms. Moore, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Smith. You know your stuff, and
it is good to have you here to be able to testify with such
good testimony that you have brought to us today. So I thank
all four of you for your insight into the need for this piece
of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and
appreciate your sensitivity to my being in the markup.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate
your being here.
Now I recognize Mr. Kuhl for questions.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple.
I am interested because, obviously, I have got my
colleague, Mrs. Kelly, here, and you all have heard the
testimony of the prior panel and are familiar with the two
bills that are being introduced. Is there something we are
missing that should be added that we haven't picked up on? I
mean, you people are the experts in the field who are dealing
with this every day and it is part of your livelihood. We are
the people who are trying to gather information and make the
program even better.
Is there something we are missing that should be added? For
any of you to offer up anything that you may have. We still
have time to tinker with it a little bit before it actually
gets put on the floor. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, Mr. Congressman. The gentleman from FEMA
discussed the--if I remember right, how the monies would flow
back to the States and how that has been handled in the past.
We have been fortunate that Congresswoman Kelly has gained some
conversation back and forth from FEMA, but one issue that
seemed to keep coming up in conversation that they were dealing
with privately owned dams. I think the language definitely
needs to have conversation both ways about publicly and
privately owned dams. There shouldn't have to be a stigma of
who owns a dam or what happens or any financial burden.
In our case, this dam was there before any of us really
gained residency into the district or around the lake, and it
served another purpose. As times changed and as the influx of
people, actually, after 9/11, have moved up into Duchess
County, or from New York City up to northern areas, we have
seen a growth in area.
So I think in dealing with private or public ownership, I
think we just need to have straight language that if there is
imminent danger, as in our case, the New York State DEC raises
a level of high-hazard in our case, that we need to just look
at those dams and take care of them on a level of high-hazard,
and not worry about who is private or publicly owned, because
there is a hazard downstream to, in this case, seven
municipalities, and the water would actually flow--the first
flow from our water, if there was a breakage of the dam, it
would take out actually a federally-owned, newly repaired dam,
the United Nuclear Dam.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay.
Any of the rest of you want to add? Yes, sir, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. The bills are very good the way they
are, and particularly when I think of the rehabilitation bill.
It is so good to know that we are at this first step and this
first start. There is one issue, though, that I will bring up
that has not really been mentioned so far, and that is the
concept of a thing called emergency action plans.
With any dam, no matter how good it is engineered, how good
it has been maintained, sometimes situations occur where there
are problems at the dam, and emergency action plans are those
items that are then used by the owner and the local officials
as they try to respond to an emergency, make sure they know who
they need to notify, and who they need to be getting out of
harm's way.
The reason I bring this up is that across the Nation about
50 percent--I think it is 60 percent of the States--have a
requirement, a State requirement that emergency action plans be
in place for all high-hazard dams. My State in particular,
Indiana, does not have such a requirement, and many States
don't. I wonder if we were going to add anything to the bill,
the one thing I think of adding to the rehabilitation bill
might be a requirement that if one of these grants is given to
a particular dam, that regardless of whether or not there is a
State requirement for an emergency action plan, as part of
receiving that grant, the owner of that dam should probably be
required to have created and practiced and continued to update
an emergency action plan.
Thank you.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay.
Mr. Roth or Ms. Moore?
Mr. Roth. Thank you, Mr. Kuhl. The American Society of
Civil Engineers does strongly support both H.R. 4981 and 1105.
But I would point to our own report card, which you cited, sir,
thank you, and to our colleagues from the Association of States
Dam Safety Officials, that the total investment to bring our
dams into compliance and to remove obsolete dams probably tops
$30 billion. H.R. 1105 provides a modest $350 million over four
years to address these dam safety issues. I guess if there is
anything on my wish list, it is probably not very popular, but
certainly more money would always be nice.
Mr. Kuhl. Well, we are used to that request.
If I might just follow up on that, Mr. Chairman, in the
transportation side of the Transportation Committee, we are
always seeing these analyses that talk about how there are so
many deficient bridges and roads and things like that, and how
much money it takes to maintain that level of deficiency,
knowingly fully that there is an aging process that goes on,
but to maintain that certain level.
Do you have any idea, based on your overall figure of, say,
$30 billion to totally repair, what it would be to maintain
this level of efficiency on an annualized basis for
expenditures?
Mr. Roth. I am not certain I could give you a precise
answer to that question. However, it is not just a matter of
maintain, but actually reversing some of the problems that we
see with our most unsafe dams. And I believe the cost estimate,
which is sort of a minimum price tag, would be $10 billion over
a 12 year period.
Unfortunately, our report card and that number talks about
a very large chunk of money. I believe our report card calls
for $1.6 trillion over five years. But only about half of that
is new money. And if you divided it out over five years, it is
a much more manageable size number, one that we could more
easily get our arms around.
It seems that $10 billion over 12 years might be a very
reasonable investment in our Nation to protect public health,
safety, and welfare from unsafe dams. We only have to look at
the levee situation in New Orleans to realize how large and how
tremendous both a socialist society impact, as well as a
property damage impact that a failure might occur. And let's
not kid ourselves, we call those levees in New Orleans, but
they are really dams. New Orleans, as a city, is below sea
level. I think the level in Lake Pontchartrain is about plus 6
or so. So those are dams, and they deserve to be treated in the
same degree of seriousness with which we approach all of our
Nation's dams.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Mr. Roth.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to extend my
time.
Mr. Shuster. Sure. Thank you.
My question is first concerning the H.R. 1105, which Mr.
Roth said money and Mr. Kuhl said we are used to that request
up here. But as Mrs. Kelly's bill authorizes, tries to
authorize $350 million in funding to help repair dams, would
the four of you, any of you, care to comment on this? As we try
to develop the argument why should the Federal Government pay
with assisted funding State and local dams, what argument
should we use? Give us your best case. When we make the
argument, what should we put forward, coming from you folks
that are out there in States and localities?
Go ahead, Mr. Smith, you can start.
Mr. Smith. I think the question really was why is there a
Federal role, why does there need to be leadership.
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Smith. Several thoughts kind of jumped to my mind on
that one, the first one just being generally the fact that the
Federal Government itself is an owner and regulator of dams,
and in that position it has tried very much over the last few
years to lead by example, and I think that is a very
appropriate role that the Federal Government should do, do the
right thing with their own dams, the ones they regulate, and
then sort of set the course for communities around the Country
and the States, as well as private owners. Someone has got to
take that leadership role. If it is not the Federal Government
with their own, I don't know who else it would be. And somehow
I don't see there being able to be the movement in a particular
focused direction if it weren't for the Government at least
standing out there and pointing the way.
The second issue really is the dam failures and their
potential flood innundation areas really do not respect State
boundaries. I think it is very much an issue that, because of
that, requires some Federal attention.
And, really, the third response to that--and I think the
most important part why they should be involved--is really that
when there is a disaster, the National Flood Insurance Program
and the President's Disaster Relief Fund are typically the
source that repair and recovery costs often come from for this
downstream flooded areas that occur. When you have to get into
the repair and cost of these, the cost of even a single dam
failure far exceeds the kind of numbers that we are talking
about for preventative rehabilitation to a dam to begin with,
and I think they even typically exceed the kind of numbers we
are talking about with the programs even now for the
rehabilitation program.
Mr. Shuster. Would your organization have the names of
areas in the Country where a dam is in one State and, if it
failed or if it is a high-hazard dam, would--for instance,
Pennsylvania, if it failed, it would flood people in Maryland?
Because that is information that would be helpful. Can you get
those? Because I, quite frankly, don't know. In my own State, I
think that the Youghiogheny Dam in Western Pennsylvania, if it
flooded, breached, broke, it probably would do some damage to
West Virginia or Maryland. So that to have those kinds of facts
would be interesting.
Mr. Smith. When I think about the database that is out
there with the Corps of Engineers, the database currently that
is there doesn't capture that kind of a question or response.
Determining which dams those are would not be a task we could
do real easily, but, sir, if it is what you would like, we
would certainly try to get that answer. We can work with our
States to try to get a list put together.
Mr. Shuster. Because trying to authorize that sum of money,
it is going to have to be a compelling argument, and you make
one there, when you cross State lines. And through the commerce
clause would be where the Federal Government could step up and
say, well, because it is going to cause damage across State
lines, maybe the Federal Government should play a stronger role
than it does.
Mr. Roth, do you care to comment?
Mr. Roth. I think I agree completely with Mr. Smith's
comments. Mr. Shuster, I spent most of my career as a
practicing engineer in the State of California, and in 1917 the
St. Francis Dam failed in Southern California, killing a number
of people and causing a lot of property damage. The leadership
of that State at that time said this will not happen again, and
California has adopted a very aggressive dam safety program.
And perhaps along with increased Federal funding there
needs to be increased police action, if you will, to bring
owners of dams such as the one that Mr. Kelly has addressed, to
the table and have them take care of their responsibilities.
Mr. Shuster. Ms. Moore, do you care to comment?
Ms. Moore. I think many panelists have said today that not
only do we need Federal assistance in terms of money, but we
appreciate the Federal expertise, especially in times of
crisis. And in New York we work very cooperatively with the
Corps and with FEMA. In particular, we have had some
devastating floods last month in New York, and both the Corps
and FEMA are helping us get back on our feet. In terms of our
dams, over 800 dams were in the flood-affected areas, and FEMA
and the Corps are helping us to go back and inspect and look at
those dams to make sure that they are still of good integrity.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly, do you care to comment?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the previous
panelists did say, the support of knowledge and technology is
what the Federal Government should be here to help the citizens
of the United States about. But there are also areas around
ours that the Department of Interior, with the Appalachian
Trail crosses right in back of our dam, so if that was to
break, we would lose a large section of the Appalachian Trail,
and there is a lot of commerce there.
Mr. Shuster. All right, thank you. One other question, and
I don't know who may be familiar with this program, but the
Department of Agriculture Small Watershed Dam Assistance
Program, how does that compare to H.R. 1105, the rehabilitation
bill, Mrs. Kelly's bill? Are you familiar with it at all? I
know the one thing it doesn't compare to is H.R. 1105 is a lot
larger sum of money. But do you have any idea, have you worked
with that program at all in the Department of Agriculture?
[No response.]
Mr. Shuster. None of you have.
Mr. Kelly, you first?
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Kelly, when we
originally contacted her back in 1998, was one of the first
areas we looked at, because there was some coordination between
them and also the Department of Interior. But the funding
mechanism, there needed to be something in the Water Resources
Act, if I remember right, back into there, and it was just a
time factor of having it passed by both houses.
Mr. Shuster. I am sorry, I didn't quite get all that that
you said.
Mr. Kelly. If I remember right, back from the time in 1998,
there was an incident where we needed to have the bill pass in
the Water Resources Act.
Mr. Shuster. Okay.
All right, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. I apologize, I don't think I am as well versed
on that one as I should be. But the Public Law 566 program--
which is I think what you are kind of referring back to--that
had built through the NRCS had built many dams over the years
in the past, they have kind of gotten out of the practice of
dam building over the years, but I am familiar that there has
recently been attempts through them to have legislation and
funding to go back to some of those dams that are now in place
to do upgrades that were out there and some repairs that are
needed.
I know that it is out there. I know that a small amount of
money has gone towards that, but I think we are still looking
at a couple of pieces of the same puzzle, really, with these
public dams out there and the private ones that are there. That
effort kind of goes towards some of the same problem, but still
it is towards a limited number of the dams, the ones that they
built. If there is something more specific about that program,
a question that you would have that we can get an answer for, I
would be happy to try.
Mr. Shuster. No, I just wondered if you had any experience
with it. Just a general question.
Thank you very much.
Finally, Ms. Norton. You are the last questioner, so
proceed.
Ms. Norton. I just have a couple of questions. Maybe this
is a question I should ask Mr. Kuhl. This is called the Dam
Safety Act, and I understand it was the Dam Safety and Security
Act. This is only a title, but given the all-hazards approach
and given the discussion here of security, I wondered if
security was left out or taken out for a reason.
Mr. Shuster. I don't know. It is the same program. Just
shortened the title, trying to economize on our words around
here.
Ms. Norton. You know, I hate to say that language is
everything, but Congress gives greater attention to security
these days than to safety, and it is not a major point, and I
don't mean to say it is.
I do have a question. I am confused as between the private
and the publicly-owned. Would somebody--when it is a privately-
owned dam, what does somebody get out of owning a dam? Is there
some revenue that the privately-owned dam can count on, which
means that they then obviously would protect their investment
by repair and what have you?
Yes, please, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. There are many privately-owned dams, and the
owners--sometimes it is just an individual that has the
property and has the dam on it. It may be there serving no
purpose other than recreation for them at this point. Quite
often that seems to be the purpose; they don't seem to have a
revenue stream or anything to come to the aid of that dam, and
those people we do have great difficulty with when they start
looking at the rehabilitation costs of the structure. It can be
very expensive to rehab a dam, and they are very much a
concern.
Now, some private-owned dams are held by like a homeowners
association or a lake association of some people that are
living around it. Those folks even there don't really have a
revenue stream of a way to pay for their dams. They may have an
association dues--
Ms. Norton. What was the incentive for a private
entrepreneur to build a dam in the first place?
Mr. Smith. Many times to take a piece of land and increase
its value by having waterfront property to sell to people.
Ms. Norton. In which case they would have a vested
interest.
Mr. Smith. Yes, because they have the homes around them.
Ms. Norton. Yes. Because I would be very concerned about
dams which now become important not only for public safety, but
for security, being in the hands of private parties who don't
have a revenue stream, don't get public funding of any kind,
and, yet, could have a dam that causes a disaster. You know,
once there is a disaster of any kind, I don't care of it is a
natural disaster or a security disaster, it is our problem. It
is FEMA that is going to end up having to deal with it. So at
some point I would like to know more about those dams.
For publicly-owned dams, what percentage of these dams are
publicly-owned, approximately?
Mr. Smith. Approximately 60 percent of the dams in the
Nation are privately owned. About 5 percent of the dams are
regulated or owned by the Federal Government. The public-owned,
off the top of my head, ball park, is probably about 25 to 35
percent of the dams.
Ms. Norton. Those would be State-owned dams, for the most
part?
Mr. Smith. They could be State or community or a county, a
locality. In my State it could include conservancy district-
owned dams. I know in Ohio, next door, they have the same
procedure. One of the things we try to encourage some private
owners, like a homeowners association group, is to form a thing
called a conservancy district. Conservancy districts are little
local units of government that can then have some taxing
authority, if they have much of a tax base, in order to try to
raise some revenues for their structures.
Ms. Norton. Well, I know it is a hard time. We will be
asking the Federal Government for funds. The Federal Government
does fund, to some extent, most infrastructure, to one extent
or another. Of course, it does not fund--that is what the new
act would face up to. All I can say is good luck.
This act, of course, does not authorize that. I very much
support this new bill. I hate to say it, but to get funding,
whole new set of bills funding what we have not funded before,
I hate to say it, but I know what it will take. It will take
something happening. When something happens to one of these
dams and it was because it wasn't repaired and it was years
old, and, yes, the State had been looking at it for a long
time, and yet the State obviously has many, many priorities and
has got to act on the priorities that the public is screaming
about, at that point we will get some kind of bill that is for
the repair at least of those dams which are in critical need.
I salute your work. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Kuhl, you had another question?
Mr. Kuhl. Yes. I just wanted to follow up.
Mr. Kelly raised an issue about the timeliness of the
activity that you have gone through, how long of a process it
has been and what you have had to do relative to claiming
ownership. How many of the dams across the Country really do we
have private owners who really don't want to take ownership of
the dams? Any estimate?
Mr. Smith. I guess that one is to me, since I work with the
owners a lot. Boy, an estimate. That one is kind of hard, but
as many of the owners that we deal with, just so many of them,
they barely even realize it is their responsibility. They have
seen somebody out there inspecting, whether it is a government
official or the Corps somewhere along the way. Their favorite
thing seems to be to assume that someone else is responsible
for it and will take care of everything. It is a great
challenge that we face all the time, trying to convince owners
of their responsibilities with their dams. I would hate to put
a percentage on it, but, sir, it is pretty high.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. And I don't know whether Ms. Moore can help
me out here. I am just trying to think about, okay, if an owner
really doesn't--kind of give you a problem like Mr. Kelly has--
if an owner really doesn't want to follow through--say it is
owned by a company that was producing energy for what purpose,
and all of a sudden they have gone bankrupt, okay, and now
there is no owner.
And so Mr. Kelly now starts the only process he knows how,
and that is to get the county government to take title to the
property. What happens if the dam fails in the middle of this
process? Now you have some subsequent owners like the bankrupt,
where there is no recourse, and you have this damage that is
done as a result of the failed dam. If the county is taking
title, they are, all of a sudden, now assume responsibility and
the result to the people who are there under it. Has that been
a problem anywhere, as far as dam transferrals, to get these
kinds of things taken care of?
Mr. Smith. As far as dam transferral, and even just general
awareness--you know, people buy property and aren't even aware
of what they are buying, or they buy property downstream of a
dam and are really unaware of it. There is a lack of awareness
out there. As much as we have tried to educate the public and
get information out, people are really unaware of what they are
even getting themselves into.
As far as ownership, it is very much an issue. Somebody
else started a dam, get in trouble, declare bankruptcy, and
then you have got a dam sitting there. I can think of one not
that far from our State capital in that county to the south
where that is the problem I am dealing with right now. The
owner has gone bankrupt and he has left a bad dam in place, and
trying to work through that whole process of who is ultimately
responsible. Unfortunately, I think that often will wind up
falling back to the State to deal with it.
About two years ago I finally finished dealing with one
such dam that had no owner that we could find on record at all.
It was in very, very bad shape. It took us over 10 years of
working through the courts and with the officials to finally
get to the point--and also through our own people to try to
find the money--to finally decommission this dam and take it
out of service in order to reduce the hazard that was there. It
was a very long process.
And as I have talked to most of the States around the
Nation, it is that funding for dam removal, for those abandoned
or unwanted dams, it is something that is also needed out
there. We all struggle with trying to come up with the money.
This dam cost the State of Indiana over a quarter of a million
dollars to take out and, like I said, staff's efforts over a 10
year period to try to do it. So it is very much a problem out
there. When the people see what it costs to actually
rehabilitate a dam, these private owners do tend to try to run
away from them.
Mr. Kuhl. I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, without going
further on this, if this is not an issue that maybe the
Subcommittee should be looking at relative to if there is an
unawareness of filing of the inspection reports to alert to
where there are dams and what the quality of them is on real
estate things, and then a follow-up process for transfer that
might prohibit actually a transfer to a willing buyer. So it is
just an issue I think maybe potentially needs a solution.
Mr. Shuster. I think that is an excellent point. I was
surprised when they said 60 percent of the dams in the Country
are privately held, and it is probably something we ought to
take a look into. So I appreciate your bringing that point
forward.
You said 60 percent of the dams. I am trying to figure in
my mind what does a private dam look like. It doesn't probably
look like Hoover Dam. I know my father, who was a great
champion of transportation and infrastructure in this Country,
built a dam in a creek, but thanks goodness for all of us it is
only a little more than a big mud puddle. So what do we call a
private dam? Is it my father's mud puddle could be a private
dam versus something much, much larger?
Mr. Smith. The number that is out there of the number of
dams in the Country of 79,000 is based on a certain set of
criteria. I won't remember them all perfectly, but the Federal
definition of what even constitutes a dam large enough to be
regulated starts with something like a size that is over 25
feet high and has I think the number is 50 acre feet of water
that is behind it.
Mr. Shuster. Fifty what?
Mr. Smith. Acre feet of water. So, you know--
Mr. Shuster. Surface of 50 acres?
Mr. Smith. No, that would be volume of water. So 50 acre
feet would be one foot deep over a 50 surface area, 50 acre
surface area.
Mr. Shuster. Okay.
Mr. Smith. Or 10 feet deep over the whole thing and 5
surface acres. So there is a size to theses number of dams.
There is a lot more probably smaller structures that might be
the kind of thing that you were saying your father built, that
aren't really included in it.
What does a dam typically look like that I find is in
private ownership? I will go out and I will find something that
is anywhere from 20 to 40 feet tall, an earthen structure, 400
to 700 feet long across a valley, with a concrete spillway in
it and a lake behind it that may have a surface area of 10
acres or more of water behind it in an individual's ownership.
And, sadly, these people often want to maximize the size of
that pool behind it, so they will stick the dam right on their
downstream property limit.
Mr. Shuster. Right on their what?
Mr. Smith. Right on their downstream property limit, you
know, in order to have as big a lake as possible. And so they
will wind up not owning and controlling the area immediately
below the toe of their dam. The areas that they are going to
impact the most they don't control, and that is why these
things so often wind up high-hazard structures.
Mr. Shuster. Right. And that is a great concern. You say
that a lot of them don't have any kind of revenue stream to do
the maintenance, and I think that is your concern, Mr. Kuhl and
Mrs. Kelly. That is really something that is a great concern.
Well, thank you all very much.
Mr. Kuhl, do you have anything else? Okay.
Thank you again, all of you, for being here. We appreciate
your being here, helping to educate us as we move forward on
Mr. Kuhl's bill and hopefully Mrs. Kelly's bill.
I would ask unanimous consent to have the statements of the
Democratic Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Oberstar's, and Congresswoman Julia Carson's statements
included in the record.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing, and unanimous consent that during such time as
the record remains open, additional comments offered by
individuals or groups may be included in the record of today's
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
Once again, thank you all very, very much for being here
today.
And, with that, the Committee stands in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30663.091