U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the 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

30–663 PDF 2007

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

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas, Vice-Chair

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

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

(1)

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.
2

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 authoriza-
3

tion, $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 sig-
4

nificant 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.
5

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
6

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
7

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
8

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.
9

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 decisionmakers 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.
10

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
11

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
12

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
13

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
14

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
15

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?
16

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.
17

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
18

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
19

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.
20

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
21

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
22

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 publiclyowned 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
23

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.
24

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.
25

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
26

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
27

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,
28

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.
29

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.
30

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
31

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
32

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 highhazard 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.]
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

Æ