Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59

Thread: Dam Bill

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    The law currently reads with all the black and blue. The bill deletes the words in blue and adds the words in red.
    It was already a requirement to protected human life. This bill requires participation if the inundation caused by failure would damage buildings, roads and homes. It requires you to update your contact information and complete a checklist for safe maintenance. It requires notification to DHEC for dam failure or potential failure.



    A BILL

    TO AMEND SECTION 49-11-120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS SAFETY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT FURTHER APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DAMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 49-11-150, RELATING TO DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR DAMS OR RESERVOIRS, NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERSHIP CHANGES, AND EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIED DAM OWNERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTING TO THE DEPARTMENT BY DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERS OF CERTAIN OWNER CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION, TOGETHER WITH A COMPLETED OWNER CHECKLIST, AND TO REQUIRE THE OWNERS OF DAMS OR RESERVOIRS CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH OR SIGNIFICANT HAZARD ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE A CURRENT EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION OF SPECIFIED OFFICIALS, DOWNSTREAM RESIDENTS, AND BUSINESS OWNERS.

    Amend Title To Conform

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

    SECTION 1. Section 49-11-120(4) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

    "(4) 'Dam' means an artificial barrier with appurtenant works, including, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, or floodwalls for the impoundment or diversion of waters or other fluids where failure may cause danger to life or property. However, this does not include a dam:

    (a) less than twenty-five feet in height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the dam, or less than twenty-five feet from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the dam, if it is not across a stream channel or watercourse, to the maximum water storage elevation and has an impounding capacity at maximum water storage elevation of less than fifty-acre feet unless a situation exists where the hazard potential as determined by the department is such that dam failure or improper reservoir operation may cause loss of human life or serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, public utilities, main and secondary highways, or railroads;

    (b) owned or operated by a department or an agency of the federal government;

    (c) owned or licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the South Carolina Public Service Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States Corps of Engineers, or other responsible federal licensing agencies considered appropriate by the department;

    (delete)(d) upon which the Department of Transportation or county or municipal governments have accepted maintenance responsibility for a road or highway where that road or highway is the only danger to life or property with respect to failure of the dam."

    SECTION 2. Section 49-11-150 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

    "Section 49-11-150. (A) The owner of a dam or reservoir constructed in this State solely is responsible for maintaining the dam or reservoir in a safe condition throughout the life of the structure. The owner of a dam or reservoir shall inform the department in writing within thirty days after title to the dam or reservoir legally has been transferred from his ownership. The notice must include the name, and (delete)address (ADD) home or business address, phone number, and email address, if any, of the new owner.

    (B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (A), an owner of a dam or reservoir not exempt from the provisions of this article also must provide the department annually no later than July first of each year with current contact information regarding the owner, including name, home or business address, phone number, and email address, if any, together with a completed dam owner checklist on a form provided by the department.

    (C) The owner of a dam or reservoir (delete) whose failure likely would cause loss of life or substantial property damage, a dam or reservoir classified as a high or significant hazard under existing regulations, (ADD) annually no later than July first of each year shall provide the department a current emergency action plan in the format the department by regulation requires,(ADD) including updated contact information for emergency management officials, such as police, fire, EMS, or utility departments or personnel, and for downstream residents and business owners located in the inundation zone for that dam or reservoir. However, nothing in the emergency action plan or any other provision of law or regulation shall require or impose a responsibility on the owner of a dam or reservoir classified as a high or significant hazard to notify any downstream residents or business owners located in the inundation zone for that dam or reservoir if the dam or reservoir owner has reason to believe that it is near failure or has failed. The owner must notify emergency officials and the department's Dams and Reservoirs Safety program of the dam or reservoir's failure or potential failure. It is the responsibility of the emergency management officials identified in the emergency action plan to inform any downstream residents or business owners located in the inundation zone of this fact and to cause them to be evacuated if it is considered necessary."

    SECTION 3. Section 49-11-170 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding an appropriately numbered subsection to read:

    "( ) The department shall not require any changes to the dam or its appurtenant works due to reclassification of a dam unless failure would likely cause loss of life, or the department, through inspection, identifies repairs that must be made."

    SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
    Last edited by Duck Tape; 02-05-2017 at 06:07 PM.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    The law currently reads with all the black and blue. The bill deletes the words in blue and adds the words in red.
    It was already a requirement to protected human life. This bill requires participation if the inundation caused by failure would damage buildings, roads and homes. It requires you to update your contact information and complete a checklist for safe maintenance. It requires notification to DHEC for dam failure or potential failure.



    A BILL

    TO AMEND SECTION 49-11-120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS SAFETY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT FURTHER APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DAMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 49-11-150, RELATING TO DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR DAMS OR RESERVOIRS, NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERSHIP CHANGES, AND EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIED DAM OWNERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTING TO THE DEPARTMENT BY DAM OR RESERVOIR OWNERS OF CERTAIN OWNER CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION, TOGETHER WITH A COMPLETED OWNER CHECKLIST, AND TO REQUIRE THE OWNERS OF DAMS OR RESERVOIRS CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH OR SIGNIFICANT HAZARD ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE A CURRENT EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION OF SPECIFIED OFFICIALS, DOWNSTREAM RESIDENTS, AND BUSINESS OWNERS.

    Amend Title To Conform

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

    SECTION 1. Section 49-11-120(4) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

    "(4) 'Dam' means an artificial barrier with appurtenant works, including, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, or floodwalls for the impoundment or diversion of waters or other fluids where failure may cause danger to life or property. However, this does not include a dam:

    (a) less than twenty-five feet in height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the dam, or less than twenty-five feet from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the dam, if it is not across a stream channel or watercourse, to the maximum water storage elevation and has an impounding capacity at maximum water storage elevation of less than fifty-acre feet unless a situation exists where the hazard potential as determined by the department is such that dam failure or improper reservoir operation may cause loss of human life or serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, public utilities, main and secondary highways, or railroads;

    (b) owned or operated by a department or an agency of the federal government;

    (c) owned or licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the South Carolina Public Service Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States Corps of Engineers, or other responsible federal licensing agencies considered appropriate by the department;

    (delete)(d) upon which the Department of Transportation or county or municipal governments have accepted maintenance responsibility for a road or highway where that road or highway is the only danger to life or property with respect to failure of the dam."

    SECTION 2. Section 49-11-150 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

    "Section 49-11-150. (A) The owner of a dam or reservoir constructed in this State solely is responsible for maintaining the dam or reservoir in a safe condition throughout the life of the structure. The owner of a dam or reservoir shall inform the department in writing within thirty days after title to the dam or reservoir legally has been transferred from his ownership. The notice must include the name, and (delete)address (ADD) home or business address, phone number, and email address, if any, of the new owner.

    (B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (A), an owner of a dam or reservoir not exempt from the provisions of this article also must provide the department annually no later than July first of each year with current contact information regarding the owner, including name, home or business address, phone number, and email address, if any, together with a completed dam owner checklist on a form provided by the department.

    (C) The owner of a dam or reservoir (delete) whose failure likely would cause loss of life or substantial property damage, a dam or reservoir classified as a high or significant hazard under existing regulations, (ADD) annually no later than July first of each year shall provide the department a current emergency action plan in the format the department by regulation requires,(ADD) including updated contact information for emergency management officials, such as police, fire, EMS, or utility departments or personnel, and for downstream residents and business owners located in the inundation zone for that dam or reservoir. However, nothing in the emergency action plan or any other provision of law or regulation shall require or impose a responsibility on the owner of a dam or reservoir classified as a high or significant hazard to notify any downstream residents or business owners located in the inundation zone for that dam or reservoir if the dam or reservoir owner has reason to believe that it is near failure or has failed. The owner must notify emergency officials and the department's Dams and Reservoirs Safety program of the dam or reservoir's failure or potential failure. It is the responsibility of the emergency management officials identified in the emergency action plan to inform any downstream residents or business owners located in the inundation zone of this fact and to cause them to be evacuated if it is considered necessary."

    SECTION 3. Section 49-11-170 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding an appropriately numbered subsection to read:

    "( ) The department shall not require any changes to the dam or its appurtenant works due to reclassification of a dam unless failure would likely cause loss of life, or the department, through inspection, identifies repairs that must be made."

    SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.


    First, thanks for bringing this to everyone'a attention.

    This version with the font colors (thanks for posting it) does not mention the new employee, capital costs for new office, and annual costs for salary (I remember a computer every 2-3 years in the bill). Has all of that been removed? My least favorite part of the bill is the new employee totally dedicated to monitoring dams.
    Last edited by DJP; 02-05-2017 at 09:24 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    dam failure or improper reservoir operation might result in the loss of human life


    Call it regulation but look what just happened in Cola.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Bowman
    Posts
    6,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    dam failure or improper reservoir operation might result in the loss of human life


    Call it regulation but look what just happened in Cola.
    Not that I am in the know but didn't the first dam in the series that led to all the trouble belong to the federal government and therefore would not have been covered by this regulation.
    cut\'em

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Mars Bluff, SC
    Posts
    13,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    dam failure or improper reservoir operation might result in the loss of human life


    Call it regulation but look what just happened in Cola.
    Exactly. And no matter how many regulations are in place, govt or anyone else cannot defend against Mother Nature. Man has attempted time & time again but she continues to bitch slap them. All of these regs coulda been in place & the outcome woulda been the exact same. Army corp built the dam in Lumberton that broke & literally demolished the town of Nichols. I can tell you the people of Nichols read these bills & just shake their heads.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    united states of america
    Posts
    21,600

    Default

    Everything can lead to loss of human life.

    Stop writing new laws. Good lord.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    I don't support this Bill. I'll work on some letters and calls tomorrow.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJP View Post
    I don't support this Bill. I'll work on some letters and calls tomorrow.
    Well don't waste your time with the House. The bill is now in the senate.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Manning
    Posts
    2,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    Well don't waste your time with the House. The bill is now in the senate.
    Are you in support of this bill?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    I do not like the added regulation but dam owners do have some responsibility for the safety of others. I am owner of a dam of 200 acres with people immediately downstream. The dam just above ours almost failed, twice. I doubt our would have survived if it had.

    It has been watered down but was destined to pass the House at some level because the Speaker himself introduced it.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    Well don't waste your time with the House. The bill is now in the senate.
    I understand. I saw that in your original post. Thanks for the heads up.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    10,712

    Default

    I can understand them monitoring big dams. DHEC should have been doing that. And population of an area should be a factor. IE stop messing with farmers and rural ponds to make a point when you are too afraid of the political fallout from the subdivision lakes.

    BUT, to create new permanent positions as a knee jerk reaction to a 1000 year flood is wasteful and what voters are tired of.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    18,449

    Default

    DHEC - the branch of government so completely inept that the only reason they could invent to come onto my farm in a regulatory capacity was to compell me to produce a permit, issued by DHEC, 30 years ago. Yes please, let's give them more regulatory oversight.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11,116

    Default

    Not NO BUT HELL NO.

    DHEC isn't capable of regulating a mud puddle efficiently as it is now you wanna grant them power to come knock on my door and tell me how to build something?

    No. No NO.

    I already delt with that little prick around Florence. He was so inept finally the Army Corps of Engineers told him in a official letter from the Corps:
    "Look dumb ass, clearly you are in over your head. We discovered you never even went to school and yet your parading around in a County truck telling folks what you think they should be doing in concern to wet lands. As the Federal agency that you will listen to we wanna know exactly how and what inference you utilize to come up with your findings." "Buy the way do not concat Mr SW338 again."

    I have the letter some were, the dumb ass part was me adding it but other wise it pretty much reads as that.

    So here is a Fed agency telling a overworked an undermanned state agency they don't even have qualified individuals working for them and you wanna give them more power.

    Hell, no. What ever asshole dreamed this shit up needs to have some bricks tied to his or their legs an hooped into said 3 acre pond along with the piece of paper this crap is written on.

    What contempt the GA must have for regular SC folks. Here last week y'all were bitching about money now your spending it on something that is totally unnecessary.

    What the hell is wrong with you all. Granted 180k would be a drop in the bucket for roads but it is still something rather than this misuse of funds.
    Yup, he's crazy...


    like a fox. The dude may be coming in a little too hard and crazy but 90% of everything he says is correct.

    Sort of like Toof. But way smarter.
    ~Scatter Shot

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,181

    Default

    Duck Tape,

    So, you are in support of this bill? I don't understand the justification. There's a lot of things we could do to save more human lives (and I'm not even conceding that this bill will do that but apparently that's the justification). For example, we could make cars a hell of a lot safer, but they'd be a lot more expensive, less fuel efficient, etc. Basically, "if it saves one life, it's worth it," just isn't a good justification in the real world. Any dam owner knows the consequences if his dam fails and someone or some property gets hurt/damaged. He'll get sued to hell and back, and, personally, I think that's adequate incentive for folks to do it safely. Will it work everytime? No. Will dams fail? Yes. But I would humbly submit that will happen whether or not you have the government involved. I'm not surprised that "Republicans" are supporting this bill b/c a lot of "Republicans" diverged from the conservative path a while ago. But how anyone who fashions himself as a conservative (I don't know if you call yourself that or not) could support this bill is truly beyond my comprehension. This is more government bureaucracy, more of our money, from a proven-inept agency, that will probably do very little to add any benefit to SC citizens at all. At the end of the day, folks either believe in limited government and personal responsibility, or...they don't.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    DHEC can already make you comply with their regs without this bill. This bill requires you to monitor and annually report that you are doing your part as a responsible dam owner when peoples live are at risk.

    I don't like added regulation or more state employees. Nothing will prepare us for the 1000 year flood.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Mars Bluff, SC
    Posts
    13,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    DHEC can already make you comply with their regs without this bill. This bill requires you to monitor and annually report that you are doing your part as a responsible dam owner when peoples live are at risk.

    I don't like added regulation or more state employees. Nothing will prepare us for the 1000 year flood.
    Good. Well hopefully you can get your colleagues to vote against it.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    DHEC can already make you comply with their regs without this bill. This bill requires you to monitor and annually report that you are doing your part as a responsible dam owner when peoples live are at risk.

    I don't like added regulation or more state employees. Nothing will prepare us for the 1000 year flood.
    Ok, I'm still not sure where you stand. You voted for it or against it?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    326

    Default

    What is the average cost to existing pond owners that have to meet the requirements of the Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    I just can't see how DHEC can determine which dams qualify for oversight without understanding the physical traits of every dam. This is a logical step towards registering every dam and pond in the state. It is also implies that DHEC to go onto your property and see if your dam qualifies. Lastly, one of the last saving grace's of the traditional farm pond is that existing dams and outlets are grandfathered in. This chips away at that freedom and puts us closer to a State where owning land with a pond is extremely difficult and expensive. I understand the point of the bill, but this is going to reach way past where it should.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •