Order Code RL33108
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Aging Infrastructure:
Dam Safety
September 29, 2005
Kyna Powers
Analyst in Energy and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety
Summary
While dams have multiple benefits, they also represent a risk to public safety
and economic infrastructure. This risk stems from two sources: the likelihood of a
dam failure and the damage it would cause. While dam failures are infrequent, age,
construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather events
contribute to the likelihood. To reduce the risk, regular inspections are necessary to
identify deficiencies and then corrective action must be taken.
To identify deficiencies that could cause dam failures, the federal government
established inspection requirements for the nation’s federal dams. Once deficiencies
are identified, most agencies finance repairs through their operation and maintenance
accounts. Funding mechanisms vary for larger rehabilitation activities. At the
Bureau of Reclamation, for example, most larger repairs are conducted with annual
appropriations to its dam safety program. At some other agencies, dam rehabilitation
must compete with other construction projects for funding.
At non-federal dams, safety is generally a state responsibility, though some
federal assistance has been provided. Funding through the National Dam Safety
Program, which is authorized through FY2006, helps states improve their dam safety
programs and train inspectors. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
require regular inspections at the non-federal dams within their jurisdiction. Even
so, there are concerns that most state dam safety programs have inadequate staff and
funds to effectively inspect or monitor all of the dams for which they are responsible.
Further, there are concerns that states, local governments, and other non-federal dam
owners may not have the financial resources to maintain and rehabilitate their dams.
Following the failure of the levee at Lake Pontchartrain in 2005, it is likely that
there will be increased scrutiny of flood control infrastructure and the structural
stability of high hazard-potential dams. Further, there has been periodic pressure for
Congress to pass legislation authorizing federal support for rehabilitation work at
non-federal dams. Demand for such assistance is likely to increase, but there is
currently no federal policy that describes the conditions under which federal funding
is appropriate, nor has Congress established criteria for prioritizing funding among
non-federal projects.
To help inform discussions on the federal role in dam safety, this report provides
background information on the nation’s dam safety activities and funding
mechanisms. It will not be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Dam Failure Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Likelihood of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Managing Dam Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State Dam Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Support for State Dam Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reducing Dam Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Identifying Unsafe Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Inspections of Federal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Inspection of Non-Federal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dam Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Dam Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . 12
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . 13
Rehabilitating Non-Federal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
State Rehabilitation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Figures
Figure 1. Dam Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. Construction of Federal and Non-Federal Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
List of Tables
Table 1. Hazard Level: Description and Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Agency-Owned Dams by Hazard Level and Frequency of
Formal Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. State Grants for Dam Rehabilitation as of October 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Aging Infrastructure: Dam Safety1
Introduction
Dams provide broad economic and social benefits, including flood control,
hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply for drinking, irrigation
and industrial uses. Dams also represent a risk to public safety, local and regional
economies, and the environment.
Prior to the events of September 11, 2001, Congress had expressed an increasing
interest over several decades in dam safety. In recent years, congressional interest
focused largely on securing and protecting U.S. dams and water storage facilities
from terror attacks. Following Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous failure of levees
that once protected New Orleans, however, there may be renewed interest in the
structural integrity of other major water infrastructure.
The modern period of congressional concern began in the 1970s with dam
failures that resulted in loss of life and billions of dollars in property losses.2
Congress and private groups interested in dam safety noted that, while states and
localities are responsible for the maintenance and safety of 95% of the nation’s dams,
large numbers of older dams lacked the maintenance needed to guarantee operational
integrity and prevent failure. These aging dams presented then — and continue to
present — a potential hazard to downstream populations.
Following the first of these dam failures, an essential first task was to develop
accurate data on the nation’s dams: their number, type, structural condition, and other
information useful for making decisions about dam safety policy and priorities. This
was achieved through creation in 1972 of the National Inventory of Dams (NID)3 —
a computerized, periodically updated4 catalogue of U.S. dams, maintained by the U.S.
1 This report was prepared with assistance from Richard Sachs, Congressional Research
Service.
2In 1972, failure of a mine tailings dam at Buffalo Creek, WV flooded a 16-mile valley and
killed 125 people. In 1976, Teton Dam in Idaho failed, causing $1 billion in property
damage and killing 11. Kelley Barnes Dam, GA failed in 1977.
3 The NID was first authorized in the National Dam Inspection Act of 1972, P.L. 92-367 and
later consolidated under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, National Dam
Safety Program Act, P.L. 104-303, Title II §215 (33 U.S.C. §467). The NID is available at
[http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm].
4 The NID was last updated in Feb. 2005.
CRS-2
Army Corps of Engineers — that presently lists 79,777 public and private “dams.”5
For the purposes of the NID, a dam is defined as “any artificial barrier that has the
ability to impound water ... for the purpose of storage or control of water” that (1) is
greater than 25 feet in height with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet6 (af),
(2) is greater than 6 feet in height with a storage capacity of more than 50 af, or (3)
poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail.
Federal and non-federal dams in the NID were constructed for a variety of
purposes. By far, the greatest number of dams — approximately a third — were
constructed primarily for recreational purposes. About 21.4% were built primarily
for fire protection. The others, in descending order of their primary purpose, are:
flood control (16.4%); irrigation (10.1%); water supply (7.4%); hydroelectric
(2.7%); fish and wildlife (1.3%); mining (tailings dams) (1.2%); debris control
(0.8%); and navigation (0.1%). Approximately 8.7% of the dams in the NID have
other primary purposes, or those purposes are unspecified.7 While these are the
primary purposes, many dams have multiple uses.
Nearly 56% of dams in the NID are privately owned. (See Figure 1.) Slightly
more than 20% are owned and operated by local — county or municipal —
governments. About 4.8 % of dams are owned by states and 2.4% by public utility
companies. The federal government owns only 4.7% of all NID dams, but this small
number (somewhat more than 3,700) includes the dams many Americans view as
iconic: the great hydroelectric dams of the West, like Grand Coulee and Hoover.8
The ownership of some NID dams is not indicated in the database because that
information was not reported to the Corps.
While the federal government owns less than 5% of NID dams, more than 30%
of all dams in the NID inventory were funded, designed, or constructed with federal
resources, most of them through the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS’ involvement in dam construction stems
primarily from the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954,9 which
authorized it to cooperate with states and local agencies to undertake works of
improvement for flood prevention and other purposes. Under this act and an earlier
law to build projects in 11 designated watersheds, NRCS helped build more than
10,000 upstream flood control dams beginning in 1948. These are generally
relatively small dams owned by public or private entities other than the federal
5 Other sources cite different figures; the online NID data is used throughout this report
unless otherwise specified. When appropriate, this data will be referred to as NID Data,
2005.
6 One acre-foot of water is the amount of water that will cover an acre of land to a depth of
one foot, approximately 326,000 gallons.
7NID Data, 2005.
8U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, The National
Dam Safety Program Fiscal Years 2000-2001(Washington, DC: December 2001), p. 6
(Hereafter, cited as FEMA report, 2000-2001). Available at [http://www.fema.gov/fima/
damsafe/dsreport3.shtm] on Sept. 14, 2005.
9Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.L. 83-566.
CRS-3
government. These non-federal entities are principally responsible for the dams’
operation, maintenance, and security.10
Figure 1. Dam Ownership
Unknown/
Public Utility
Other
2.4%
State
11.5%
4.8%
Federal
4.7%
Local
20.1%
Private
56.4%
Excluding the NRCS, which does not own any dams, nine federal agencies own,
operate, or regulate dam safety at approximately 8,500 sites (including non-NID
dams).11 Six federal agencies own NID dams. These are: the Department of Defense
(862), Department of the Interior (750), Department of Agriculture (326), Tennessee
Valley Authority (83), Department of Energy (16), and the State Department (7). In
addition, 3 agencies regulate, but do not own NID dams: the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates 1,775 hydropower dams; the Department
of Labor, Mine Safety and Heath Administration regulates 745 dams; and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission regulates 11 dams. While dams owned by one agency are
not generally regulated by another agency, there are cases where private hydroelectric
projects, regulated by FERC, are located at federal dams.
Congressional interest in dam safety generally falls into three areas: (1) dam
security and the potential for acts of terrorism at major U.S. dam sites; (2) prevention
of potential dam failures due to structural deficiencies; and (3) recovery from dam
failures. This report focuses on the second category because it is a topic that will
likely become more important as the nation’s dams age; further it is likely to gain
additional attention in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
10U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, A Report to Congress
on Aging Watershed Infrastructure (Washington, DC: June, 2000), p. 1-2. Hereafter, cited
as NRCS Report, 2000.
11FEMA Report, 2000-2001, p. 8-9. This figure differs from the NID-based data on dam
ownership shown in Table 2. Some of these dams may not qualify for inclusion in the NID.
CRS-4
Dam Failure Risk
While dams have multiple benefits, their failure or misoperation could threaten
public safety, local and regional economies, and the environment. Risk has two
primary components: (1) the damage and deaths associated with dam failure or
misoperation, and (2) the likelihood of such a failure.
Damage
To quantify the potential harm associated with a dam’s failure, the Interagency
Committee On Dam Safety prepared a hazard potential classification system.12 As
described in Table 1, the three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high) do not
indicate the likelihood of failure, but reflect the amount and type of damage that a
failure would cause. Hazard ratings for each dam are included in the NID. From
2000 to 2005 the number of high hazard dams increased from 9,921 to 11,811.
According to FEMA, development below dams is the primary factor increasing dams
hazard potential.13
Table 1. Hazard Level: Description and Number
Hazard Classification
Result of Failure or Misoperation
Number of Dams
High Hazard
— Loss of life is probable.
11,811
— Other economic or environmental loss
possible, but not necessary for this
classification.
Significant Hazard
— No probable loss of human life.
13,407
— Could result in economic loss,
environmental damage, and disruption of
lifeline facilities, etc.
Low Hazard
— No probable loss of human life.
54,349
— Few economic or environmental losses;
losses are generally limited to the owner.
The hazard level of 210 dams was not reported to the Corps for inclusion in the NID. NID Data,
2005.
12 Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, FEMA 333. Federal Guidelines on Dam Safety:
Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams (Oct. 1998, reprinted Jan. 2004).
13 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 466: Dam Safety and Security in the
United States: A Progress Report on the National Dam Safety Program in FY 2002 and
2003.
CRS-5
Likelihood of Failure
While catastrophic dam failures are fairly infrequent, states reported 1,090 dam
safety incidents— including 125 failures— between 1999 and 2004.14 A number of
factors, including age, construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and
seismic or weather events, contribute to the likelihood of dam failure. For example,
some failures are the direct result of flows larger than the dams were built to
withstand. With the exception of seismic or weather events, age is a leading indicator
of dam failure. In particular, the structural integrity and operational effectiveness of
dams may deteriorate with age and some older dams do not comply with current dam
safety standards established in the 1970s.15 Overall, more than 30% of all dams in
the National Inventory are at least 50 years old, the design life of many dams, and
more than 17,000 will cross this threshold over the next 10 years. (See Figure 2.)
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, in 2003, approximately
3,243 U.S. dams had deficiencies that left them more susceptible to failure.16 In
Figure 2. Construction of Federal and Non-Federal
Dams
20,000
d
te 18,000
uc 16,000
tr 14,000
12,000
ons
50+ years old
10,000
C
s
8,000
m
6,000
a
4,000
2,000
of D
#
-
<1806
1816-25
1836-45
1856-65
1876-85
1896-05
1916-25
1936-45
1956-65
1976-85
1996-05
Year Completed
14 National Performance of Dams, Dam Incidents Statistics Calculator. Available Sept. 14,
2005, at [http://npdp.stanford.edu/index.html]. This database provides a low estimate of dam
safety incidents, since reporting is voluntary; few private or local dams are included.
15Eugene P. Zeizel and Robert H. Dalton, “Aging of Dams and Urban Development Require
Major Dam Rehabilitation Efforts: A Growing Problem in Floodplain Management,”
presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of State Flood Plain Managers,
Charlotte, NC (June 3-8, 2001). This report indicated that 85% of all U.S. dams (not just
NID dams) will be more than 50 years old by 2020.
16Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State
Safety Regulation — 2004. Available Sept. 14, 2005, at
[http://www.damsafety.org/documents/Word/2004Stats.doc].
In 2003, FEMA reported that there were more than 2,600 unsafe dams based on a report by
(continued...)
CRS-6
2000, another report estimated that more than $30 billion will be needed to repair and
rehabilitate the nation’s aging dams.17
Managing Dam Safety
Following dam failures at Buffalo Creek (WV, 1972), Teton Dam (ID, 1976),
and Kelly Barnes Dam (GA, 1977), legislative and executive actions established a
program for monitoring the nation’s dams and set guidelines for dam safety at federal
facilities. Subsequent legislation promotes state dam safety programs and facilitates
rehabilitation activities at federal and some non-federal dams.
Federal Management
Through legislative and executive actions, the federal government has become
involved in multiple areas of dam safety. First, in 1972, Congress passed the
National Dam Inspection Act (P.L. 92-367) which authorized the Corps to undertake
a program of national dam inspections and to establish the National Inventory of
Dams. Activities under this law provided the impetus for broad scale monitoring and
a centralized location for information on many of the nation’s dams.
In 1977, following the failure of Teton Dam and Kelly Barnes Dam, President
Jimmy Carter ordered a review of federal dam safety activities and subsequently the
ad hoc Interagency Committee on Dam Safety released safety guidelines for dams
regulated by federal agencies.18 The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety establish a
basic structure for agencies’ dam safety programs. In general, the guidelines
encourage federal agencies, and dam-owners regulated by federal agencies, to abide
by strict safety standards. They direct that each agency with dam safety
responsibilities19 have a dam safety officer and that the agencies coordinate with
other agencies. It also establishes guidelines for staff training, periodic evaluations,
documenting dam safety activities, and operation and maintenance.
In addition to the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Congress enacted the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act (P.L. 95-578, 43 U.S.C. §508) in 1978 to set more
16(...continued)
the American Society of Civil Engineers entitled The 2003 Progress Report for America’s
Infrastructure (Sept. 4, 2003).
17Raul F. Silva, “A Methodology and Estimate of the National Cost for Dam Safety
Rehabilitation,” presented at a conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
Providence, RI (Sept. 27, 2000).
18 Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, and U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (June 1979 reprinted
April 2004).
19Agencies with dam safety responsibilities include the Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the
Interior, Labor, and State.
CRS-7
detailed guidelines for the Bureau of Reclamation.20 This act authorizes Reclamation
to preserve the structural stability of its dams and related facilities by performing
modifications.
State Dam Safety Programs
States have primary responsibility for the safety of 95% of the nation’s dams.
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, every state but Alabama
and Delaware21 has a dam safety regulatory program.22 Typically these programs
include “(1) safety evaluations of existing dams, (2) review of plans and
specifications for dam construction and major repair work, (3) periodic inspections
of construction work on new and existing dams, and (4) review and approval of
emergency action plans.”23 Many states dam safety programs are often poorly
funded. In 2004, state budgets for dam safety — which averaged $742,00024 —
ranged from less than $50 per state regulated dam (IA, IN, KS, MS, OK and TX) to
more than $16,000 per dam regulated by Puerto Rico.25
Federal Support for State Dam Safety Programs. While federal
activities in the 1970s generally focused on increasing dam safety information and
strengthening requirements at the nation’s federal dams, subsequent legislation began
to address the safety of non-federal dams. In 1996, Congress created the National
Dam Safety Program (NDSP)26 and assigned responsibility for administering it to
FEMA. The NDSP is the nation’s principal dam safety program; prior to creation of
the program, there was no comprehensive national effort devoted to dam safety and
the safety of downstream populations.
Management of the NDSP. The NDSP is a mechanism for federal and state
cooperation that includes an Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) with
the Director of FEMA as its chair. ICODS, which was initially formed in 1980, is
comprised of representatives from the FERC, the International Boundary Water
Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and
20While the Bureau of Reclamation owns the most dams, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
owns the most NID dams.
21 Alabama has 1,403 dams and Delaware has 61 dams.
22Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State
Safety Regulation — 2004.
23Ibid.
24Average of reported state budgets. Excludes Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada,
South Carolina, and South Dakota did not report their dam safety budgets. Association of
State Dam Safety Officials, State by State Statistics on Dams and State Safety Regulation
— 2004.
25Ibid.
26 National Dam Safety Program Act, P.L. 104-303, Title II §215 (33 U.S.C. §467).
CRS-8
Homeland Security (FEMA). ICODS is responsible for coordinating information
exchange among federal dam safety agencies.27
The act also established a National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB)
consisting of: five representatives appointed from federal agencies, five state dam
safety officials, and one representative from the U.S. Society on Dams. All the
representatives are appointed by the director of FEMA. This board advises the
FEMA director on dam safety issues, including the allocation of grants.28
Assistance to States. The National Dam Safety Act establishes two state
assistance programs with budget authorizations. These include:
! Training for State Inspectors. At the request of states, FEMA provides
technical training to dam safety inspectors.
! Assistance to State Dam Safety Programs. States working toward or meeting
minimal requirements are eligible for assistance grants. The objective of these
grants is to upgrade state programs using the ASDSO Model State Dam Safety
Program as a guide. The model state dam safety program includes a
recommendation that dams be inspected at least every five years.
Allocation of state assistance grants is determined by the NDSRB and the
director of FEMA. In FY2000 and FY2001, FEMA distributed $8 million to states
with existing dam safety programs to assist with buying equipment, conducting dam
inspections, and developing Emergency Action Plans (EAPs).29 This money is not
available for rehabilitation activities.
Reauthorization of the NDSP. The NDSP was reauthorized in 2002 as the
Dam Safety and Security Act of 2003 ( P.L. 107-310, 43 U.S.C. §467).30 P.L. 107-
310 made several changes to the original program, including (1) the addition of a new
goal for the program that encompasses dam security; (2) a goal for states to obtain
authority to require owners to improve security; (3) a limitation on the authority of
ICODS to exchange information among federal entities only; (4) a clearer definition
of the role of the NDSRB in relation to the states, and encouragement to maintain an
27“Until January 2003, ICODS was responsible for overseeing and coordinating the majority
of federal and state activities conducted under the National Dam Safety Program through
its Subcommittees. This oversight and coordination role has now passed to the National
Dam Safety Review Board with the enactment of the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002.”
[http://www.fema.gov/fima/damsafe/fema.shtm] visited on Sept. 22, 2005. Under
legislation passed in the 107th Congress (P.L. 107-310), ICODS’ authority is limited to
coordination among federal entities only.
28National Dam Safety Program Act, P.L. 104-303, Title II §215 (33 U.S.C. §467)
29FEMA Report, 2000-2001, p. 2-4.
30U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Dam Safety and
Security Act of 2003, H. Rept. 107-626, 107th Congress (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002).
The language of the House-passed version of the legislation, H.R. 4727, was signed into law
by President Bush on Dec. 2, 2002.
CRS-9
effective national program to enhance dam safety and protect human life and
property; and (5) the addition of two new research components on (a) information
technology to store, query, and distribute dam safety data related to dam performance
(failures, large storm events, earthquakes, etc.), and (b) dam safety vulnerability
assessments and management of sensitive dam information.
Public Law 107-310 authorized the program for an additional four years and
increased the total authorized funding to $8.6 million annually from FY2003 through
FY2006. These funds are to remain available until expended. Specified funding
authorizations include an increase for research from $1.0 million to $1.5 million for
each fiscal year. The program retains the authorized levels for dam safety training
at $500,000, and increases authorized funding for staff from $400,000 to $600,000
for the same time period.
Reducing Dam Failures
As the nation’s dams age, they are likely to develop various deficiencies. For
example, dam’s foundations can show signs of seepage, cracking, and movement.
To prevent failure or misoperation, these deficiencies must be identified and
corrected.
Identifying Unsafe Dams
The first step toward rectifying dam-safety issues is to identify safety
deficiencies. Such deficiencies are often identified by engineers during informal
inspections, or during formal inspections conducted by senior engineers. Formal
inspections are generally conducted after major seismic or weather events, and on a
periodic basis. As described below, the frequency and type of periodic inspections
varies across agencies.
Inspections of Federal Dams. Each of the six federal agencies that owns
dams is responsible for maintaining dam safety by performing maintenance,
inspections, and rehabilitation work. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety,
established in 1979 by President Carter, provides basic guidance for agencies’ dam
safety programs. Specifically, this document recommends that agencies formally
inspect each dam at least once every five years. As shown in Table 2, however,
some agencies require more frequent inspections. These inspections are typically
funded through the agencies’ operations and maintenance (O&M) budgets.
CRS-10
Table 2. Agency-Owned Dams by Hazard Level and Frequency
of Formal Inspections
Agency
Number of Dams by Hazard Level
Frequency of
Formal
Inspectionsa
Total
Significant High
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
326
70
29
5 years
Department of Defense
Air Force
29
0
0
5 years
Army
191
24
30
5 years
Corps of Engineers
608
90
470
5 years
Navy
34
4
4
5 years
Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
435
24
343
3 years
Bureau of Indian Affairs
64
19
44
3 years
Bureau of Land Management
2
2
0
3 years
Fish and Wildlife Service
177
22
11
2.5 years
National Park Service
72
30
13
5 years
Department of State
International Boundary
7
1
5
5 years
Water Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority
83
15
63
5 years
Department of Energy
16
2
1
5 years
NID Data, 2005.
a Inspection frequency obtained from agency officials in Nov. 2004.
Inspection of Non-Federal Dams. Inspecting non-federal dams is
generally a state responsibility, but the states are often poorly funded. According to
the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 10 state regulators are needed for
every 250 dams to do the best job of carrying out their responsibilities.31 However,
the average number of dams per FTE is 395 and only two states (CA and FL) and one
territory (PR) have the recommended number of staff.32
31 Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Model State Dam Safety Program (1998).
32 Association of State Dam Safety Officials, State By State Statistics on Dams and State
Safety Regulation — 2004.
CRS-11
Federal Involvement. While regulating non-federal dams is generally a state
responsibility, the federal government has assumed regulatory authority over certain
non-federal dams. As described below, two federal agencies — the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) — participate in inspections of certain private dams.
In addition, the NRCS may become involved with inspections at the dams it
constructed.
Private Hydropower Dams. Under the 1920 Federal Power Act, the FERC
(formerly the Federal Power Commission) regulates more than 2,500 non-federal
hydropower dams.33 Pursuant to the Federal Guidelines on Dam Safety and FERC
Order 122,34 FERC’s regional engineers inspect each high hazard dam annually and
outside consultants inspect these dams every 5 years. Low hazard dams are inspected
every 3 years. The federal government recovers the costs of these and FERC’s other
activities from the hydropower industry. In general, FERC’s dam safety program has
received positive recognition.35
Private Mining Dams. Under the Mine Safety and Health Act (1977),36 the
Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration, regulates 745 private
dams. Under these regulations, dams used for surface mining are normally inspected
every 2 years and those used for underground coal mines are inspected every 4
years.37
NRCS Constructed Flood Control Dams. Since 1948, the NRCS
constructed more than 10,500 flood control dams. These dams were turned over to
local entities under contracts that stipulate their responsibility for operation and
maintenance of the dams. Therefore, the dam owners are responsible for conducting
inspections pursuant to state regulations. As resources permit, however, NRCS may
use funding appropriated under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act38 to help dam
owners assess specific structural or operational problems. In certain situations,
NRCS will conduct an inspection as part of this assessment process.
33 FEMA Report, 2000-2001, p. 8-9. Of these 1,775 are included in the NID (261 Significant
Hazard and 697 High Hazard Dams).
34 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Order 122, 46 Fed. Reg. 9036 (Jan. 28, 1981),
18 C.F.R. §12.
35 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of the Inspector General, FERC Dam Safety Program,
DOE/IG 0486, (Oct. 2000).
36 Mine Safety and Health Act, P.L. 91-173, as amended by P.L. 95-164 (30 U.S.C. §801).
Available Sept. 14, 2005 at [http://www.msha.gov/REGS/ACT/ACTTC.HTM].
37 Discussion with Kelvin Wu, Chief, Mine Waste & Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, on Nov. 19, 2004.
38 Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act, part of the Grain Standards and Warehouse
Improvement Act of 2000, P.L. 106-472, § 313.
CRS-12
As amended by §2505 of the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171)39 the Small
Watershed Rehabilitation Program is authorized to receive both mandatory funding
through the Commodity Credit Corporation and discretionary funding to be
authorized through agriculture appropriations each year. Mandatory funding amounts
were to start at $45 million in FY2003 and increase by $5 million each year through
FY2007, while discretionary funding was to start at $45 million in FY2003 and grow
by $10 million each year through FY2007. To date, congressional appropriators have
prohibited mandatory funding each year, while providing a portion of the
discretionary funding that had been authorized. Actual appropriations were $29.8
million in 2003, $29.6 million in 2004, and $27.3 million in 2005.
Dam Rehabilitation
Federal Dam Rehabilitation
After dam safety deficiencies have been identified, rehabilitation activities
should be undertaken. However, most federal agencies do not have funding available
to immediately undertake all non-urgent repairs. Rather, they generally prioritize
their rehabilitation needs — based on various forms of risk assessment — and
schedule these activities in conjunction with the budget process. At some agencies,
dam rehabilitation needs must compete for funding with other construction projects.
Rehabilitation activities at the two major dam-owning agencies are described below.
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the Corps,
most dam deficiencies are addressed through the normal operation and maintenance
(O&M) procedures. However, “rehabilitation or modification of Corps’ dams for
safety purposes is accomplished through the Major Rehabilitation Program and the
Dam Safety Assurance Program.”40 The purpose of the Major Rehabilitation
Program “is to allow accomplishment of significant, costly, one-time structural
rehabilitation or major replacement work (other repairs related to dam safety are
accomplished under the normal O&M program)” 41 This program does not apply to
facilities that were turned over to local interests for operation, maintenance, and
major replacements after they were constructed by the Corps. The Dam Safety
Assurance Program, however, applies to all dams built by the Corps regardless of
current ownership. Specifically, this program “provides for modification of
completed Corps dam projects which are potential safety hazards in light of current
engineering standards and criteria.... This program is intended to facilitate upgrading
of those project features which have design or construction deficiencies.”42 The
Corps schedules rehabilitation under all of these programs based on funding
availability.
39 Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), P.L. 107-171 § 2505.
40Army Corps of Engineers, Dam Safety Preparedness, EP1110-2-13 (June 1996), p. 5-1.
41Ibid.
42Ibid.
CRS-13
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. After
Reclamation’s engineers conduct dam safety inspections, through the Safety
Evaluation of Existing Dams (SEED) account, any corrective action is carried out
through the Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Action program (ISCA).43 Authority
for Reclamation’s dam safety program originates in the Reclamation Safety of Dams
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-578) and 1984 amendments (P.L. 98-404). Through ISCA
appropriations, Reclamation focuses funding on priority structures “based on an
evolving identification of risks and needs.” Prior to recent legislation, Reclamation
needed to submit a report to Congress for approval of modifications exceeding
$750,000. The 108th Congress increased that ceiling to $1,250,000.44 Costs incurred
due to “age and normal deterioration of the structure” are considered normal
operating costs and are cost-shared, with rates depending on the purposes for which
the structure was constructed (project purposes). Furthermore, “modifications
resulting from new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in the state of the art
criteria” are cost-shared, with 15% of the costs paid by the project purposes.
Rehabilitating Non-Federal Dams
In 2002, a Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
estimated that $36.2 billion is needed to rehabilitate non-federal dams and that $10.1
billion is needed over the next 12 years for repairs to “the nation’s most critical
dams.”45 Responsibility to undertake this rehabilitation generally falls to dam
owners.
State Rehabilitation Funding. While the federal government does provide
some direct funding for rehabilitating non-federal dams, states and dam-owners bear
the brunt of the costs. Most states have little funding to repair their own dams, let
alone those dams owned by local governments, public utilities, and private entities.
According to a Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (the
Task Committee), in 2003, nine states — AZ, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OH, PA, UT, and
WI — have loan or grant programs to repair unsafe dams. These programs generally
focus on publicly owned dams. Additional information on these programs is
provided in the Task Committee’s 2003 report and is recreated in Table 3.46
43FY2001 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Justifications, p. BW-384.
44A Bill to Authorize Additional Appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of
1978, P.L. 108-439.
45A Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, The Cost of
Rehabilitating our Nation’s Dams: A Methodology, Estimate, and Proposed Funding
Mechanisms (Dec. 2002), p. 4. Available Sept. 15, 2005, at [http://www.damsafety.org/].
46 Ibid.
CRS-14
Table 3. State Grants for Dam Rehabilitation as of October 2003
State
Program
Program
Source and
Eligibility
Loan/Grant
Term of Loan
Type
Name
Amount of
Amount
Funding
AZ
Loan or
Dam
Legislature,
State engineer
Loan for the cost of
Term of loan is
Grant
Repair
Lien fund,
determines dam
the project, or grant
up to 20 years at
Inspection
to be dangerous
for a portion of
3-6% interest
fees, filing
to life, non-
project costs
depending on
fees,
emergency
the length
principle
and interest
from
previous
loans
MD
Loan and
Maryland
State
Counties, utilities
planning
Environm
Agency/
and private
assistance
ental
Non-profit
groups. Need to
Service
Corporation
have established
service district
for water supply,
resource
reclamation,
dredging or storm
water
MA
Grants
Funding
Local
75% of the project,
through
communities for
local share can be in-
Dept. of
repairs or
kind contributions
Environmen
removal
tal
Managemen
t. No new
appropriatio
n as of Oct.
2003.
NJ
Revolving
Dam
$20M-$5M
Local units of
Cost of project for
Up to 20 years
loan fund
Restoratio
for state
governments,
loans
at 2% assessed
n and
high hazard
private owners
Up to 100% for
against real
New grant
Clean
dams,
can be co-
grants
estate benefitted
fund for
Water
$15M
applicants
municipal
Trust
loans. In
ly owned
Fund
2000 an
dams
additional
$9.5a was
added
NY
Grants
Clean
$17M
Municipality for
75% of eligible
Water/Cle
bonding
dam safety
project (25% local
an Air
projects
match) $300,000 cap
Bond Act
per project
CRS-15
State
Program
Program
Source and
Eligibility
Loan/Grant
Term of Loan
Type
Name
Amount of
Amount
Funding
OH
Revolving
Ohio
Revolving
Owner must
5-25 years at
loan fund
Water
loan fund
under mandate
lower than
Developm
from ODNR
market rate
ent
Dam Safety Loan
Authority
Program-local
units of
government, state
districts
Dam Safety
Linked Deposit
Program- private
ownership/orgs
PA
Revolving
Pennvest
Revolving
Projects
Up to cost of project
20-30 years at
loan fund
loan fund,
associated with
low interest
$2B from
wastewater, water
state
supply or
general
stormwater
purpose
funds
UT
Loans or
Utah
$4.5a from
High hazard dam
80-95% grant for
grants
Board of
general
owners.
irrigation or water
Water
revenue and
Mandated repairs
supply dams, loans
Resources
0.8 cent
or grants for other
sales tax
owners
(created
originally to
deal with
flood
control
problems)
WI
Grants
DNR
$11.5M of
Local units of
50-50 grants up to a
Municipal
bonding
government and
$200,000 maximum
Dam
over 10
Lake Districts
Grant
years.
Program
Currently
fully
subscribed
Source: Association of State Dam Safety Officials. The Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams: A Methodology,
Estimate and Proposed Funding Mechanism (Dec. 2002 Revised Oct. 2003). Appendix B. Available on Sept. 23, 2005,
at [http://www.damsafetycoalition.org/files/pdf/asdsoreport.pdf].
a Units not included in source table.
CRS-16
Federal Funding. While the federal government does help fund
improvements to state dam programs, little federal funding is available for
rehabilitating non-federal dams. FEMA and the NRCS are the primary sources of
federal support for non-federal dam rehabilitation.
FEMA. As described above, the Department of Homeland Security, through
FEMA, runs the National Dam Safety Program which offers training and other
assistance to state dam safety programs; it generally does not provide rehabilitation
funding. Through other programs, however, FEMA may provide assistance to reduce
the flood damage a failure would cause.47 However, this assistance generally does
not include funding for rebuilding or rehabilitating dams.
NRCS. Many upstream flood control dams were built with assistance from the
NRCS and turned over to local sponsors. Many of these dams are now nearing the
end of their design life and some have significant rehabilitation needs. The NRCS
has estimated that more than $540 million is needed to rehabilitate these dams.48 In
2000, Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation authorizing $90 million
in discretionary funding over 5 years to rehabilitate aging flood-water retention
projects. Funds are to be allocated based on an annual ranking of requests for
rehabilitation assistance.49 For FY2002, Congress appropriated $10 million for this
dam rehabilitation program.
For FY2003, the administration did not include the program in its budget
request. However, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,50 which
established the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, includes $275 million in
mandatory funding for the program through FY2007. The Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Program is significant because it is the first federal initiative to
dedicate funding assistance to repair non-federal dams (rather than tear down or build
new dams). It uses a cost-share formula providing for 65% federal funding and 35%
local funding. In the past, cost sharing has been an equal responsibility of the federal
government and local sponsors for most purposes.
Other Agencies. In general, federal agencies such as the Corps and
Reclamation do not rehabilitate non-federal dams. As described above, however, the
Corps does sometimes repair structural deficiencies that resulted from their
participation in the design or construction of the non-federal dam. Though quite rare,
Congress has also directed federal agencies to use their dam safety appropriations to
rehabilitate a non-federal dam that it did not help design or build.51 However,
47 See the FEMA’s Mitigation Grant Programs, available Sept. 13, 2005, at
[http://www.fema.gov/fima/mitgrant.shtm].
48 NRCS Report, 2000, p. 1 & 15.
49 The Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvements Act of 2000, P.L. 106-472, §313.
50 Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act, P.L. 107-171, §2505.
51 See, for example, Goshen Dam, VA. Information from Pearre Charles, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, DC, on Feb. 2, 2005.
CRS-17
representatives from the Corps and Reclamation have testified that they do not
support such congressional direction.52
Conclusions
As the nation’s dams age and development continues in floodplains, the
structural integrity of this infrastructure will become a more significant public safety
issue. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it is likely that dams’ planned capacity
to withstand floods and other natural disasters will come under increased scrutiny.
However, it is unclear to what extent there will be a widespread re-evaluation of
flood and earthquake ratings at high-hazard dams. Such an evaluation could raise
additional policy questions. For example, (1) what criteria should be used to
determine whether current risks are acceptable; (2) if risks are not acceptable, should
the dam be improved, or should other activities (e.g., changes to the design and or
placement of downstream development) be undertaken; and (3) who will pay?
Regardless of whether dams were constructed to withstand an earthquake or
flood of appropriate magnitude, they may have age-related deficiencies that need to
be corrected to maintain current levels of safety. Therefore, it is likely that
appropriation’s requests for safety inspections and rehabilitation activities will
continue. It should be noted, however, that there currently are no clear criteria for
prioritizing dam rehabilitation funding across agencies.
It is also unclear to what extent the federal government will fund inspection and
rehabilitation activities at non-federal dams. Through the National Dam Safety
Program, the federal government provides training and assistance to state dam safety
programs; authorization of appropriations for this program expires in FY2006.
Further, Congress has authorized appropriations for rehabilitation activities at several
non-federal dams. While there is likely to be an increasing demand for such
assistance, there is currently no federal policy that describes the conditions under
which federal funding is appropriate, nor has Congress established criteria for
prioritizing funding among non-federal projects.
52 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Water and Power, Miscellaneous Water and Hydroelectric Project Bills, Hearing 108-271
(108th Congress), p. 28.