Follow-up review: Safe Dams Program

FOLLOW-UP REVIEW
Safe Dams Program October 2002

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor

Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St. S.W.

Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334-8400

This is a Follow-up Review of the Performance Audit of the Safe Dams Program conducted by the Performance Audit Operations Division in September 2000.
Background
The Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978 established Georgia's Safe Dams Program following the November 6, 1977 failure of Georgia's Kelly Barnes Dam in which 39 people lost their lives. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for administering the Program. The purpose of the Program is to provide for the inspection and permitting of certain dams in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all citizens of the state by reducing the risk of failure of such dams. The Program has two main functions: (1) to inventory and classify dams and (2) to regulate and permit highhazard dams.
Georgia law defines a dam as any artificial barrier which impounds or diverts water, is 25 feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream, or has an impounding capacity at maximum water storage evaluation of 100 acre-feet (equivalent to 100 acres one foot deep) or more. Structures below the minimum height and impoundment requirements are exempt from regulation by the Program. The Program checks the flood plain of the dam to determine its hazard classification. The Program uses specialized software to build a computer model to simulate a dam breach and establish the height of the flood wave in the downstream plain. If the results of the dam breach analysis, also called a flood routing, indicate that a breach of the dam would result in a probable loss of human life, the dam is classified as Category I (high-hazard). Category II dams are structures where dam failure would not be expected to result in loss of human life.
As of July 2002, the Program's inventory of dams consisted of 390 Category I dams, 3,268 Category II dams and 1,182 exempt dams. The Program noted that an additional 382 Category II dams needed to be studied for possible reclassification to Category I dams.

Synopsis of the Performance Audit
The performance audit found that the Program needed to take steps to maximize its use of available resources in order to reduce dam failure risks. Additionally, the audit found that the

Safe Dams Program

Page 1

Program needed to develop a long-term plan outlining how it would address its problems, how long corrective action will take, and the resources (both temporary and long-term) that would be needed. The audit also recommended that the Program reconsider devoting practically all of its resources to the task of inspecting all Category I dams annually since a potentially much greater threat existed from dams that had not yet been classified as high- hazard.
Our follow-up review found that the Program has made several changes and added five engineers and a data entry person to improve operations and to address backlog problems. In its response to the Follow-up Review, EPD noted that is has only recently been able to increase its engineering staff to address backlogs that developed over fifteen or more years. EPD also noted that as the new staff become more familiar with dam safety issues the Program would continue to address the issues raised in the Audit and Follow-up Review as resources and time permits. Our follow-up review also found that many of the problems identified in the audit still exist as discussed below.
Status of Findings and Recommendations
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): While the Program's purpose is to protect the public by reducing the risk of dam failures, it does not adequately monitor dam failures to measure its performance or to identify possible operational changes that might improve dam safety. Current Status: The Program still only records minimal information on dam failures on its monthly reports and reports to the National Performance of Dams Programs. The Program still does not analyze the causes of dam failures to identify trends or problems that might indicate the need for changes to improve Program operations.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program noted that it disagrees with the need to monitor dam failures as a measure of its performance. The Program reported that virtually all of the dams that fail in Georgia are not regulated under the Safe Dams Act and that their time and resources are better spent on reducing the backlog of flood routings, Visual Inspection Reports, and compliance issues.
Classifying
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): All Category II dams are not being reassessed every five years as required by the Safe Dams Act to determine if they should be reclassified as high-hazard (Category I) structures. The Program knew of 458 Category II dams in 21 counties that had not been reassessed for more than five years (up to seven years). Given the demands on the Program and their currently available resources, consideration should be given to seeking legislative authority to allow the Program to prioritize their reassessment efforts. Additionally, Program personnel need to adequately document their reassessment activities. Current Status: The Program has made the workloads of the two employees responsible for reassessing Category II dams more equivalent in order to alleviate the backlog. However, as of June 2002, the Program's backlog had increased to 524 Category II dams in 17 counties that had not been reassessed in the last five years (up to eight years). The Program has not sought legislative change s to allow it to reassess rapidly growing counties more often than once every

Safe Dams Program

Page 2

five years (or to assess rapidly growing counties more often). The Program has not changed how it documents its reassessment activities.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program reported that it expects to have all counties reassessed within the maximum five year period allowed under the Safe Dams Act by October 2003. The Program also thought that the maximum time allowed between assessments should remain five years; however, it has begun to evaluate which counties need to be reinventoried more often than once every five years.
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): The Program has a backlog of 267 flood routings that need to be completed to determine if these structures should be reclassified as high-hazard dams. The Program also has 62 Category II dams for which Program personnel have already performed the routing, but the routings have not yet be en approved by the Program Manager. Existing rules should be enforced (and/or new rules sought) to require governing authorities issuing permits for development within the possible flood plains of Category II dams to submit flood routings. Current Status: From July 2000 through July 2002, the Program completed 80 flood routings and approved 27, which is a significant increase over prior activities. (From July 1997 through June 2000, the Program only completed 32 flood routings and approved 15.) However, as of July 2002, the backlog of routings had increased to 358 and 24 routings remained that were submitted to the Program Manager but not yet approved. The Program plans to request $500,000 in their fiscal year 2004 budget to hire contractors to complete 50 additional routings. An analysis by the Attorney General's Office (that was requested by the Program in June 2002) indicated that the Program did not have the authority to take enforcement actions against local governing authorities for not informing dam owners and the Program when they issued permits for development that caused Category II dams to be reclassified high- hazard dams.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding. The Program noted that the likelihood of more dams becoming high-hazard increases as the population of the state increases which will require even more dams to have routings to reassess their classifications.

Permitting and Inspection of Category I (High-Hazard) Dams
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): The Program has a backlog of 13 Visual Inspection Reports that need to be completed and 67 dam construction and modification plans that need to be reviewed. These projects must be completed for the Program to ensure that these high-hazard dams meet Category I standards. Current Status: The Program is making progress at reducing the backlog of construction and modification plans that need to be reviewed. In 2001, the Program created a Permitting and Compliance Unit to help expedite the review of construction and modification plans. The Program also implemented a 45 day review deadline in January 2002 to help ensure that plans were reviewed in a timely manner. In July 2002, the Program revised the Georgia Safe Dams Program Engineering Guidelines to include information on the design submittal process and a checklist for engineers to complete when submitting plans to the Program for their review. As of July 2002, the Program had reduced the backlog of construction and modification plans needing review to 33. However, the backlog of Visual Inspection Reports (VIRs) that needed to be

Safe Dams Program

Page 3

completed has increased to 18. Of the 18 VIRs, 13 are in some state of review while five have not been started.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding.
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): Poor documentation makes it difficult to reliably assess the degree to which the Program's annual inspection activities have been completed. However, a review of inspection records for 64 (of 235) Category I dams found no documentation that inspections had occurred during calendar year 1999 for 21 (33%) of the dams . The Program should better document the inspections that it performs. Current Status: The Program has improved its documentation of annual inspections of Category I dams. A review of 36 (of 374) Category I dams in 10 counties found that 35 (97%) contained documentation of the ir last annual inspection.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding.
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): Although it occurs rarely, when Category I dam owners are not cooperative, it may take years before deficiencies with a high-hazard dam are corrected. The Program needs stricter enforcement of established deadlines and a better system to track projects with outstanding enforcement actions. Current Status: The Program is taking more timely action and no longer issues multiple consent orders or administrative orders against uncooperative dam owners. The Program also maintains a calendar to keep up with deadlines associated with issued orders. Problems with the dams cited in the audit as having long standing deficiencies have been resolved by the Program.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding.

Inventory of Dams
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): The Program is not maintaining accurate inventory information on the dams in the state. Comparison of data between the computerized database and manual files found a discrepancy (in one or more of the five fields reviewed) for 60 (94%) of the 64 dams reviewed by the audit team. The Program needs to develop a plan to ensure that the inventory upgrade is completed in a timely manner. Current Status: The Program is in the process of creating a new database for its inventory of dams. A database transcriber has started converting 35mm slides to digital images, which will be incorporated into the database. The Program expects the new database to be operational before the end of calendar year 2002.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding.

Georgia Safe Dams Act
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has not requested revision of the definition of a "dam" under the Safe Dams Act to

Safe Dams Program

Page 4

allow it to regulate all dams that pose a potential threat to human life. The Program is aware of 103 dams in 35 counties that probably pose a threat to human life but are not regulated since they do not meet the existing height/capacity requirements for classification as a dam. Current Status: EPD indicated that it has not requested that the law defining a "dam" be changed. As of July 2002, the Program has identified 118 dams in 38 counties that pose a probable threat to human life but are unregulated. The Program indicated that they do not actively search for unregulated high- hazard dams but estimates that if they did the number of such structures could be as high as 300.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, the Program agreed with the finding.
Finding /Recommendation (as reported in 2000): EPD has not requested clarification of provisions of the Safe Dams Act regarding whether highways downstream of a dam should be considered in determining whether a probable loss of human life situation exists. While the Program does not know the total number of highways threatened by dams in the state, a recent survey identified 16 dams in 11 counties that may be threatening highways. Current Status: An analysis by the Attorney General's Office (that was requested by the Program in June 2002) indicated that under the current law, highways downstream of a dam should not be considered in determining whether a probable loss of life situation exists. As mentioned in the audit report, 80% of 15 safe dam programs surveyed by the audit team considered threats to roadways in determining if the failure of a dam posed a threat to human life. EPD should seek a change in the law to allow consideration of risks to human life resulting from highways located downstream of a dam when classifying a dam.
In its response to the Follow-Up Review, EPD reported that it has discussed changing the Safe Dam Act with legislative leaders but there was not enough support for a change to the Act at this time.
For additional information or to request a copy of the original report, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director at 404-651-8855.
Or see our website: www2.state.ga.us/departments/audit/pao/pao_main.htm

Safe Dams Program

Page 5