# Budget cut threatens dam safety



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Budget cut threatens dam safety 

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1109346352291680.xml

Friday, February 25, 2005, By Jeff Alexander, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER 

Michigan's dam safety program, established after a 1986 flood burst several dams in West Michigan, would be eliminated under Gov. Jennifer Granholm's proposed 2006 budget. 

Critics say removal of the program would endanger people who live and play on Michigan's rivers. One state regulator said if the program is dropped, deaths and property damage "could be expected to occur." 

The governor has proposed cutting all funds for the dam safety program, possibly by next month. She also suggests repealing the law that established the program in October, when the next fiscal year begins.

If approved by the Legislature, the changes would remove virtually all oversight of 1,048 of Michigan's 2,500 small dams currently subject to state regulation, including nearly 90 dams in the Muskegon River's tributaries. 

The proposal would eliminate regular dam inspections. Dams could be modified, enlarged or removed without state oversight. And dam owners would no longer have to plan for disasters or alert emergency personnel if a dam was in danger of collapsing, according to state officials. 

Granholm's proposal would not apply to 100 hydroelectric dams regulated by the federal government, including the Croton, Hardy and Rogers dams on the Muskegon River. 

"It's an unfortunate situation when the state's finances are such that we have to consider cutting a program that deals with public safety. The elimination of the dam safety program could potentially be a dangerous thing for people recreating on the rivers of the state," said Brent Nichola, president of the Michigan River Alliance. 

Don Winne, executive director of the Michigan Lake and Stream Association, said repealing the laws that mandate regular inspections and maintenance of small dams and lake level control structures is "ridiculous." 

Some state officials predicted disastrous results. 

"If Michigan's dam safety program is eliminated, loss of human life and serious property and environmental damage would be expected to occur due to increased dam failures," according to Byron Lane, chief of the dam safety unit in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 

Granholm's proposal comes six months after she wrote a letter urging President Bush and Congress to provide federal funds for dam maintenance and removal. Granholm said Michigan has at least 20 dams with "serious deficiencies." 

"The nation's dams have been overlooked at significant cost to property owners, public safety and the environment," Granholm said in her August 2004 letter to the president. "The rapid deterioration of these dams demands our attention and our national investment." 

Granholm's spokesperson did not return calls seeking comment. 

Michigan's dam safety program costs the state about $350,000 annually, said Dave Hamilton, chief of the DEQ's water management section. Hamilton said that amount is a pittance compared to the damage caused when a dam fails; the 2003 collapse of an earthen dam in Michigan's Upper Peninsula caused $100 million damage in Marquette County, according to state officials. 

"Dams are a major part of the infrastructure in this state. There is an economic interest associated with every dam; there's also a threat to people downstream if a dam fails," Hamilton said. 

Under existing law, 1,048 dams in the state must be inspected at least once every five years. A routine inspection in the mid-1990s, for instance, revealed structural flaws in the Hersey Dam; that dam is now targeted for removal, which would eliminate a safety hazard and liberate a large trout stream that flows into the Muskegon River. 

Alabama is the only state without a dam safety program, according to officials at the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 

Michigan's program took effect in 1990, four years after the flood of 1986 wiped out several small dams in West Michigan and nearly burst the mammoth Hardy Dam. The 1986 flood destroyed dams in Luther, Hesperia, White Cloud and Hart. All have been rebuilt. 

The number of dam failures in Michigan has dropped dramatically in recent years, according to DEQ data. The state recorded 52 dam failures in the 1970s; 74 in the 1980s; 17 in the 1990s; and six through the first five years of the 21st century's first decade. 

Sarah Mayfield, a spokeswoman for the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, called Granholm's proposal "really surprising" in the wake of the 2003 dam collapse in Marquette County. 

"Eliminating a dam safety program is a risky proposition for the public," Mayfield said. "When you lose a dam safety program you lose track of what's out there and the risk to public safety -- it's pretty alarming."


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Federal monies have been cut back too. Many dams in the west are old and not being maintained properly. I was just watching a special on this subject. Many engineers say that there will start to be some major failures very soon. With it will come loss of life. They are not sying maybe this will happen but they are saying when. :sad:


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Some of my articles get posted on another forum and I received these questions from Lori:
Do we know what Gov. Granholms rationale is for pulling the financial support for maintenance, or if she is recommending an alternative? I know that there is considerable support for removing dams from our rivers since they create an artificial barrier for river life. There may be more to it than just the budget cut.

I then put out to my network:
I received these email questions from a Lori. Can anyone help me answer her questions?

I received two responses of interest.

There has been somewhat of a misunderstanding about this. The budget proposal is to eliminate the DEQ inspection program only. Owners and operators of dams, including state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, would remain legally obligated to ensure the proper maintenance and safety of the dams for which they are responsible.
Frank Ruswick
Special Assistant to the Director
MDEQ
[email protected]
517-373-6093

I was then surprised to have Jeff (local reporter friend of mine) respond directly to Frank Ruswick of the DEQ.

I believe Mr. Ruswick is mistaken. The governor's budget proposal and accompanying executive order propose to eliminate funding for the dam inspection program. The governor also proposes to REPEAL THE LAW that established the Dam Safety Program. If approved, the governor's budget would leave Michigan without a dam safety program. Those are the facts. What does it mean? It's akin to eliminating the Michigan State Police and expecting motorists to obey the speed limit on Michigan's state highways.
Jeff Alexander (i'm the guy who wrote the article referenced below)


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Another insider response.

Frank, give us a break. Anybody that has worked around this program knows that every time the inspection program has been cut, dam safety has been ignored by the owners. Sure, owners/operators are "legally responsible" to maintian safe dams but through the years, every time that the inspection program has resumed after funds were restored, inspectors found many many dams that had fallen into a state of disrepair while nobody was looking. As was noted in a later response, this is akin to announcing that all police have been pulled off of roads but people are still personably responsible for maintaining legal speed. If you believe that this results in safety, you haven't lived below one of the aging dams.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Dumping dams is too risky

Thursday, March 03, 2005

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1109864824179690.xml

Gov. Jennifer Granholm's proposal to eliminate funding for the state's dam safety program comes with too high a price for public safety as well as for Michigan's property and environment. The savings would be $350,000, a tiny sum in a $41.2 billion budget. 

Lawmakers should focus on more clear-cut savings opportunities rather than on ending a program that performs a necessary function at low cost. The state also should consider that it sets standards and issues permits for construction and repair of dams. Checking on compliance is the other half of the service. 

The Dam Safety Program, under the Department of Environmental Quality, administers the state's rules governing 1,048 of Michigan's 2,500 dams. The four-member staff is a much-needed watchdog to monitor dam owners' cooperation with inspections and other safeguards. Of the 1,048 dams effected, 34 are in Kent and Ottawa counties.

Dams over six feet in height with over five acres impounded are regulated by the state. Inspection reports are required every three to five years for dams, depending on hazard potential. Hazard classifications of "high," "significant" or "low" are based on the level of damage that may be caused by failure rather than dam condition. 

Dam safety specialists review all inspection reports, inspect Department of Natural Resources dams and conducts inspections for municipalities if requested. Emergency action plans are also handled by the unit for "high" or "significant" hazards. 

Steven E. Chester, DEQ director, said the state is not repealing state laws for dam safety, only eliminating the program that monitors inspections and compliance. Owners still must "ensure the integrity of the dams" and perform inspections and other requirements. But without safety staff review, the current rate of better than 95 percent compliance would likely drop. 

The dam safety program, was enacted in 1990 after days of heavy rainfall in 1986 destroyed several small dams in West Michigan. Alabama is the only state without a dam safety program, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 

Dam failures, although rare, do occur and can be more costly than $350,000. Ms. Granholm and lawmakers should be mindful of the 2003 State of Emergency declared in Marquette County, when dams on the Dead River system failed, forcing evacuations. The failure of the federally regulated system caused $100 million in damages. Seventy-nine of the dams tracked by the state are labeled "high" hazard including the Ada and Cascade dams in Kent County and Buttermilk Creek Detention Dam in Ottawa. Approximately 136 dams have a mid-range hazard rating of "significant" including the Rockford Dam. 

Dam safety groups and local governments are right to be concerned about the budget threat to the dam safety program. The state's prospect of a small savings simply doesn't justify the risks of dam failures. Lawmakers should look for other places to save.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Proposed state budget cut sparks debate about dam safety

The 1986 floods inspired a change in Michigan's dam safety program. By 1990, new inspectors were hired and state law toughened in an attempt to prevent future dam failures. 

Fifteen years later, dam safety experts worry the program could be gutted by state budget cuts. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed cutting the $350,000 program and farming out more inspections to private contractors in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. How much that would cost is not yet known.

http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/030405/sta_dam001.shtml


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

anywhere were one can see a whole list of the mid and high rated dams?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I think that any dam that can be removed, should be, do we really want to pay to maintain for a bunch of old dams that serve no real purpose.

as an example, the ausable river dam in grayling is in the proccess of being removed. this is expected to improve the trout fishery as well as the canoeing. which should be a benifit to the economy in the area. the downside if it is a downside is that several property will have there pond front replaced with a cedar swamp along the free flowing ausable.

one of those pond fronts happens to be the Fred Bear home. Dr. Fenn owns the home and he appeared in the local paper in support of the project. as far as i can tell he is the one with the most to lose. in addition to losing the beutiful view that meant so much to Mr Bear and his homesite, the waterfall that we built in his front yard will have to be revamped or lost because it wont be able to circulate from the millpond. and he still supports the removal for the good of the river.

I say if the dam is not absolutly nessesaray then an evironmentally safe removal is in order


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Talking with Jeff Alexander his article has caught the notice of the AP Press. Look for more articles to draw attention to this serious matter.

Cuts may gut dam safety program - 03/10/05 

Floods in 1986 brought reform, but state budget cuts may mean inspections could become private.

The 1986 floods inspired a change in Michigan's dam safety program. By 1990, new inspectors were hired and state law toughened in an attempt to prevent future dam failures. 
Fifteen years later, dam safety experts worry the program could be gutted by state budget cuts. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed cutting the $350,000 program and farming out more inspections to private contractors in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. How much that would cost is not known.

Michigan has about 2,500 dams, 1,048 of which are large enough to require inspections under state regulations. Those dams are inspected every three to five years, depending on their hazard level.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0503/10/C07-112833.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 17, 2005

Contacts: Mitch Koetje 906-346-8519, Ann Wilson 906-228-6561 

Public Meeting to Focus on Dead River Recovery Plan

The Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality are sponsoring a public meeting to provide a progress report and seek input on appropriate restoration goals for the Dead River in northern Marquette County, which was extensively damaged in a flood in May 2003.

The meeting will take place at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 23, at the Negaunee Township Hall located at 42 West M-35. In addition to DNR and DEQ speakers, Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) will present the results of environmental assessments completed in 2004. UPPCO will also be presenting a review of natural channel design concepts and goals. The natural channel design process is an important component of the Dead River restoration and recovery process. 

"Our purpose is to keep the public up to date on what has been going on with the various agencies involved in the studies, projects, and plans for restoration of the Dead River watershed," said Steve Casey, District Supervisor for the DEQ Water Bureau. "Since the decisions regarding rebuilding or design of the Tourist Park and Silver Lake Basin dams rest with the owners of those facilities, we will not be talking about those aspects of the restoration at this meeting."

Agenda items will include updates on projects/plans completed in 2004, fisheries update and Silver Lake Basin management goals, review of projects to be completed with Natural Resources Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection funding, and a time line for the road to recovery. The agencies are also looking for people familiar with the Dead River system to provide comment describing pre-flood conditions and post-flood damages they have observed. This information will be used to help set restoration goals.

The Dead River Update, a newsletter released earlier this month, contains a great deal of information about the Dead River Recovery progress and a "Resource Concerns Survey." The newsletter is available on the following Web sites: city of Marquette, www.mqtcty.org; county of Marquette, www.co.marquette.mi.us; Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality, www.michigan.gov/deq ; Central Lake Superior Watershed Partnership, www.superiorwatersheds.org; or from the Marquette office of the DNR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office, Industrial Parkway, Marquette or the Sawyer office of DEQ.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Residents informed of river plan 

http://www.miningjournal.net/ , Saturday, March 26, 2005

MARQUETTE - Residents living in the Dead River watershed weighed in on the Environmental Recovery Plan as officials presented it Wednesday night in Negaunee Township. 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service and Upper Peninsula Power Company representatives remarked on efforts to restore the river, which was severely damaged in the 2003 flood that tore through the region. 
"We've found that the composition of the fisheries along the Dead River watershed remain more or less the same with less numbers of those species present," said Shawn Puzen, environmental analyst with the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. 

The plan includes supplemental assessments, a fishery survey, a mussel survey, a survey of macro-invertebrates, a substrate survey, a catalog of morphological stream parameters and pilot study of revegetation efforts. As the very terms of these surveys are considered by some residents to be convoluted, officials from each department carefully explained each phase of the recovery studies. 

This summer, fishery biologists and environmental engineers will continue habitat and fishery studies and restoration efforts. 

"It's very important that we monitor midsummer water temperatures and oxygen levels in the Silver Lake Basin," DNR fisheries biologist George Madison said. "Currently the population is located in a relatively small, 20- to 25-feet, pond. However the pond is fairly deep." 

The officials were sensitive to those in attendance, many of whom were affected by the flood. 

"It looks horrifying to see all this happen," Madison said. "But I'm confident we're going to have a good, healthy sport fishery." 

Ray Wales and his brother Charles share a cabin in the watershed and are the the "most upstream" members of the Dead River Campers Association. Wales said he hoped there will be opportunity for public participation in the recovery process. 

"As mediation proceeds, I hope you will all consider the constructive dialogue of the people," Wales said. 

Wales was in his camp when the Silver Lake Basin gave way, which sent around 9 billion gallons of water past his camp. 

"It was the most unearthly thing I'd ever seen or heard," Wales said. "The sound of mature trees being ripped out of the ground and thrown into each other and just the sound of the river rushing through the forest around us. It was like nothing I'd ever heard before. I'll never forget it." 

The river eventually rose 35 feet to within literally an inch of washing into the cabin's basement. 

"Three days later we saw the high water mark on the cabin and it came that close of flooding our camp," said Wales, showing an inch with his fingers. "We were one of the lucky ones."


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Dam Safety Action Alert

As part of their 2006 Budget Proposal, the Granholm administration is proposing significant changes to The Dam Safety Act. With a budget of $350,000, this Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) program not only conducts dam inspections in specific cases but through its monitoring and compliance activities it insures the safety of our dams and works to minimize their environmental impacts.

The proposal is to amend the Dam Safety Act to completely remove any reference to MDEQ out of the Act (as well as any other State Agency or Department). This proposed change will eliminate the program that monitors inspections and compliance. In the case where the inspection requires remedial work, there would be no monitoring to insure the work is done or done correctly. Dam owners will still have to conduct inspections but these inspections will be filed with the local emergency planning authority. However, DEQ would no longer be available to provide assistance or advice to the local emergency action authority and thus could result in a lack of uniformity across the State. Most important the DEQ would lose any authority to order remedial work on unsafe dams.

The impression most people have is that the proposed cuts leave the program in place and is intended to simply shift the expense of conducting inspections from the taxpayers to the dam owners themselves. In reality inspections make up a very small part of the budget. Under the Act, dam owners already have the expense of engaging a licensed professional engineer to prepare an inspection report. The only exception is for local units of government or a small non&#8209;profit organization who can currently request the MDEQ conduct a visual inspection and prepare a report. If this inspection report disclosed the need for a more detailed investigation or evaluation the department may order the owner at their expense to provide the report.

Under the Dam Safety Program, MDEQ inspects about 75 to 80 dams a year. About 20 per year are for local units of government. This amounts to less than 9% of the Dam Safety Program budget.

The remaining dams inspected are state owned dams. There are 230 to 240 of these dams that require inspections under the Act and MDEQ does about 60 inspections a year. . The estimate is that it is about 25% of MDEQ's annual Dam Safety Program budget to do these inspections. If DEQ does not do these inspections, the state agency which owns the dam will have to hire engineers to do the inspections.

Under the Dam Safety Act, MDEQ determines the level of hazard of an existing dam. Currently there are 79 dams classified as high hazard and 136 dams classified as significant hazard. Under the proposed amendment there would not be a hazard classification program.

Monitoring and compliance is a major part of the dam safety program. Good things happen as a result of these activities. An example is Ketchum Park Dam on Rice Creek owned by the City of Marshall. An inspection by MDEQ under the Dam Safety Program resulted in the City being required to do about $700,000 of remedial work on the dam. With the encouragement and assistance of MDNR and MDEQ, Marshall has decided to remove the dam and restore a cold water stream.

Please take action today. Contact your State Representative and Senator and ask him/her to reject the proposed changes to the Dam Safety Act. The bottom line is there is no significant monetary cost savings in eliminating MDEQs Dam Safety Program but there is the potential for very real adverse costs to public safety and the State=s natural resources.

Also, please send your message to Governor Granholm, MDEQ Director Steven Chester and the following State Senators and Representatives:

Senate Natural Resources Committee:
Patty Birkholz - Chair
Bruce Patterson
Gerry Van Woerkem
Liz Brater

Donna Stine
Policy Specialist
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
PO Box 30235
2101 Wood Street
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 346-6487 - phone
(517) 371-1505 - Fax
[email protected]


----------

