State rarely sanctioned dam owners before historic flood crumbled structures
South Carolina regulators who are charged with protecting the public from hazardous dams made just a dozen enforcement cases against dam owners in 21 years, records show.
And during one decade-long stretch, state officials didn’t take enforcement action against anyone for breaking dam safety laws.
A state database, reviewed by The State newspaper, shows a history of sparse enforcement by the Department of Health and Environmental Control of South Carolina’s dam safety laws.
Records examined by the newspaper show that, from 1994 through September of this year, DHEC issued enforcement orders to less than 1 percent of the owners of South Carolina’s 2,400 regulated dams. Most of those enforcement cases were in a handful of counties. When fines were levied, they typically were for less than $1,600, according to DHEC’s enforcement database and a Dec. 4 email to the newspaper.
Details of the department’s enforcement efforts, which current and former agency officials concede were spotty, are emerging at a time of increased scrutiny about the dam safety program that DHEC has run since 1994.
About three dozen DHEC-regulated dams are known to have broken across the state during heavy rains and flooding the weekend of Oct. 3 and 4, prompting questions about whether a lack of oversight contributed to the failures. DHEC and other state officials now are scrambling to bolster the dam safety program with additional money for inspections and enforcement.
Steve Bradley, who ran DHEC’s dam program until retiring in 2011, said he is not surprised at the low number of enforcement cases. Bradley said dam inspectors and agency enforcement officials didn’t communicate well.
Bradley, whose job included dam inspections, said he tried to get dam owners to comply without sending cases to enforcement. He said the agency never seemed interested in making enforcement cases.
“It seemed like there was a big disconnect from my end with the enforcement people,’’ Bradley said. “I believe part of it was my own fault.’’
Bradley said that a lack of resources for dam safety also contributed to the relatively low number of enforcement cases.
With an annual budget of about $200,000 or less, DHEC had one of the nation’s most poorly funded dam safety programs, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. At one point, Bradley said he was the only full-time staff member in the S.C. dam safety program.
Shaky dams, limited enforcement
Inspection records show that many dams that broke in the October storm had been cited multiple times by DHEC for flaws that needed correcting. But enforcement records show no evidence the owners were fined or sanctioned by the DHEC enforcement staff.
Dams at Lake Elizabeth and Upper Rockyford Lake in Richland County were among those. While neither dam received an unsatisfactory rating, inspectors found repeated problems.
Inspection reports for Lake Elizabeth in 2012 and in 2014 noted a pitted concrete spillway, a crack in the dam and vegetation that needed clearing. A 2010 report also noted that trees and vegetation needed clearing. Trees and bushes on an earthen dam can create holes from roots that can weaken the structure. A cracked concrete spillway also is more apt to fail.
When the Lake Elizabeth dam broke during the October flood, it washed out part of U.S. 21 north of Columbia.
Records show the Upper Rockyford Lake dam had been a continuous source of concern to inspectors because of the vegetation and trees on the structure. Eight different inspection reports from November 1997 to December 2010 said vegetation and trees were problems on the structure.
A 2015 inspection report, written two months before the October flood, noted “many trees, which are not good for the dam.’’ It recommended cutting trees and limbs.
When the Upper Rockyford Lake dam failed, many property owners evacuated their homes as flood waters rose. A dam downstream from the one at Upper Rockyford also broke.
Homeowners at both Lake Elizabeth and Upper Rockyford Lake declined comment, saying their neighborhood associations, which oversee the dams, are involved in lawsuits filed after the flood. But they previously have said they tried to maintain the dams before the structures broke.
Officials with DHEC and their counterparts in several states said the goal isn’t to pound people with enforcement actions and fines. “We do not do our job with a mind toward being punitive,’’ DHEC director Catherine Heigel told lawmakers earlier this month.
Instead, the goal is to make sure that property owners with flawed dams maintain the structures or repair them when told of problems, said Heigel and dam safety officials in Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey. But, Heigel added, it is important to enforce the law when dam owners won’t fix problems discovered during inspections.
“If you look at the dam safety program itself, you will actually see fairly sparse enforcement activity over the years,’’ Heigel said. “Enforcement activity is ultimately ... needed where you’ve gone and exhausted all of these paths to work with owners to help them get into compliance.’’
According to enforcement records examined by The State:
<bullet> DHEC issued dam safety enforcement orders against dam owners only in Richland, Greenville, Anderson and Lee counties from 1994 through September of 2015.
<bullet> Four of the 12 enforcement cases involved one Greenville County family that had been at odds with the agency for several years.
<bullet> DHEC didn’t issue any dam safety enforcement orders from 2002 through 2011.
<bullet> Nine of the 12 enforcement cases since 1994 have been made in the past three years.
DHEC’s database lists all enforcement actions taken against people, companies or governments for environmental violations. Both The State newspaper and DHEC staff members searched the database, finding collectively only 12 enforcement actions for violation of dam laws.
Of the dam safety enforcement cases identified in DHEC’s database, the agency noted excessive vegetation, cracked spillways, holes from animals burrowing in the dams and, in some cases, failure to comply with past agency requests for improvements.
The highest fine DHEC issued was a $4,500 penalty against the owners of a Greenville County dam that had a history of enforcement disputes over dam safety. The other fines were under $1,600, records show.
Future improvement?
South Carolina’s enforcement effort is relatively small when compared to some states.
New Jersey, for example, regulates fewer dams than South Carolina but averages 20 to 25 enforcement cases a year.
Overall, New Jersey officials made about 150 enforcement cases against dam owners during the past decade, most in the past five to six years, said Bob Considine, a spokesman for the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection.
Georgia dam safety director Tom Woosley estimated that, in some years, Peach State officials will issue eight to nine enforcement orders, but in other years it may be only one or two. Virginia rarely issues enforcement orders against dam owners, instead preferring to work with the owners to repair suspect structures, said Virginia dam safety spokesman Jim Meisner.
Part of the problem with the lack of enforcement in South Carolina is the spotty inspection record DHEC has had in the past. Agency officials acknowledge DHEC hasn’t inspected some dams as often as needed because its staffing levels were low. And without inspections to detail problems, enforcement cases don’t occur, they say.
“Due to resource and budget limitations, the time between inspections for some dams was longer, which also impacted potential enforcement actions,’’ according to an email from spokeswoman Jennifer Read.
Read’s email said DHEC “cannot speculate’’ on whether more aggressive enforcement would have kept dams from breaking. But officials say the agency is committed to improving the dam safety program.
Heigel, who became DHEC director last summer, is seeking $595,000 from the Legislature to bolster the dam safety program so that it properly can inspect dams and enforce the law when necessary. She told legislators Dec. 11 the state needs to bring the program up to standards.
The department also is seeking $2.5 million in state flood recovery funds to hire contractors to help its staff bring questionable dams up to standard. Meanwhile, House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Darlington, has filed a bill to tighten the dam safety law.
Since the Oct. 4 flood that broke dams, the agency has sent a team to inspect the most dangerous structures. It also has launched enforcement actions against noncompliant dam owners. The agency has issued emergency orders to assess damage at 76 dams and has cited 25 owners who did not comply with the orders, Read’s email said.
Critics say they hope DHEC’s efforts to bolster its dam safety program are long-lasting.
“They’ve, obviously, neglected it for a lot of years, and now it’s time to catch up,’’ said Dave Hargett, a Clemson University adjunct professor who tracks dam safety issues. “But is that going to be a flash in the pan and last two years, and then their budget gets cut again?’’
This story was originally published December 26, 2015 at 6:04 PM with the headline "State rarely sanctioned dam owners before historic flood crumbled structures."