As real as it gets. Thanks DT.
I might not agree with all your votes but I appreciate your transparency. And I appreciate you starting this thread/discussion
As real as it gets. Thanks DT.
I might not agree with all your votes but I appreciate your transparency. And I appreciate you starting this thread/discussion
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.
You an I generally get along.
The flag well you were wrong but you have to get elected I don't, YET, any way. The Merg/SW338 for co Gov is in the works.
Anyway.
Man come on you are working on that little piece of dirt an you probably have figured out even with you in your position how cumbersome those pricks can be.
Why would you ever encourage anyone to vote for such a thing?
Again what is the penalty?
If there is no penalty an can never be one I'll be ok with y'all wasting time on this. basically make everyone feel good but not allow anyone to be able to do anything.
Oh, but put a caveat in that it is ok to fire multiple warning shots at said DHEC investigator. Then ill be ok.
One I can fire at them 2 nothing can happen to me! I'm ok with it then.
Really in all honesty here Trump the guy you all said was gonna be horrific has come in an issued a order removing 2 regs for every new reg introduced an good ole SC ass hole to the country is fast tracking more regs in the name of conservatism.
Oh the irony
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
I know nothing about dams and have no idea if this is a good bill or not, but I agree with Silentweapon. Let's start eliminating 2 regs/laws for every new one that is created.
No one that has a damn said: "Oh well. It blew to bad."
Everyone that happened to was devastated. Everyone that happened to have a damn blow was truly upset not only for the road damage but their loss.
To assume a land owner needs the help from government to encourage them to do the "right thing" is insane, and the definition of what Reagan warned about.
One year when building an moving dirt on a large scale isn't a lot of time. Remember it had not even been 13 months an we as carolinians suffered another major set back in the form of Mathew. In some cases the damns were more vulnerable than if left alone because they were in the process of being rebuilt. To say the land owner was wrong or negligent is ignorant. Albeit the private sector clearly can do it faster than the same government that wants to regulate them. Go down to Sumerton there are still roads closed because of bridges blown out from the so called 1000 year flood.
Y'all can't fix a little old bridge yet you wanna regulate the man whom is putting his property back in order.
No No No. This is stupid an a TOTAL waste of energy an public resources.
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
Fuck the speaker, that in its self is the problem with politics. This bill is burdensome to the landowner and further involves government in our lives.
cut\'em
Agree with last two posts.
some people are beyond help.
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.
Contacted my Senator this morning. Please do the same if it matters to you.
Thanks,
Jenks
I've recently had to deal with SCDHEC Dam Safety Department to get a 5' tall, 30 acre-ft pond, with direct discharge into the ocean, classified as "exempt" from the Dam Safety Program. I agree that not every Jim-Bob in the state with a backhoe should be filling in a 10' valley creating a small lake a 1/2 mile above main street, but as it is written, and as my clients found out, SCDHEC can walk on to your property, put up a notice, then it is your problem to prove to them that you are "exempt". Your landowner is guilty until they get a Professional Engineer to prove their dam is "exempt" which cost them money, time, and no small amount of worry. The burden of proof should be on SCDHEC to prove that an existing dam falls under the program, not for a landowner to prove it does not. Furthermore the application process for new dam construction should be something an average Joe can fill out without paying an Engineer, unless there is a threat to human life, or serious property damage as PROVEN by SCDHEC. Again, as it stands now SCDHEC can slap you under their regulation because they "think" you fall under the regulation, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Please use spaces an paragraphs.
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
I like your post an I assume you did it on a phone.
However it is difficult to digest.
Just saying.
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
You my friend are correct. I'll type what I feel so I can roll on to the next thread.
but those long threads are hard to ready.
No one is gonna go O a "and" should be there rather than a "an"
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ananananananananananananananananananannaananananan anananananananananananananananananananandddddddddd ddddddddddddddd. bbbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttt tttt
see it doesn't give you a chance to digest.
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
I agree, it did run on a bit. I'm unfortunately known for that. The original post has been edited and re-posted below for your reading convenience:
I've recently had to deal with SCDHEC Dam Safety Department to get a 5' tall, 30 acre-ft pond, with direct discharge into the ocean, classified as "exempt" from the Dam Safety Program.
I agree that not every Jim-Bob in the state with a backhoe should be filling in a 10' valley creating a small lake a 1/2 mile above main street. As it is written, and as my clients found out, SCDHEC can walk on to your property and put up a notice with no other warning or communication and at that point it is the landowners problem to prove to them that you are "exempt". Your landowner is guilty until they get a Professional Engineer to prove their dam is "exempt" which cost them money, time, and no small amount of worry.
The burden of proof should be on SCDHEC to prove that an existing dam falls under the program, not for a landowner to prove it does not. Furthermore the application process for new dam construction should be something an average Joe can fill out without paying an Engineer, unless there is a threat to human life or serious property damage as PROVEN by SCDHEC. Again, as it stands now SCDHEC can slap you under their regulation because they "think" you fall under the regulation, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
*an "an" and * an "and".
Dam
Tyler Simmons wasn’t offsides. 1-9-2018
Isaiah Bond didn’t catch the ball. 12-2-2023
Bookmarks