The law governing dams in the Commonwealth is found in Virgina Code 10.1-604.  The Virginia Dam Safety Act provides that the Soil and Water Conservation Board "shall promulgate regulations to ensure that impounding structures in the Commonwealth are properly and safely constructed, maintained and operated."  To that end, the existing regulations state that "Safety must be evaluated in light of peculiarities and local conditions for each impounding structure and in recognition of the  many factors involved, some of which may not be precisely known."  Aspects to be conseidered in such an evaluations should include but not be likited to: how well the impoundment has been maintained and operated, and the dam owner's ability to augment the required Emergency Action Plan (EAP) wiht additional safety precautions pertinent to their own situation. 

The language in the Code clearly indicates that the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of dams is an integral part of the overall equation of dam safety.  The weight given to construction aspects in relation to Spillway Design Flood (SDF) requirements is a part of the review but so too is  the O&M.  While this is true for all dams, it is even more evident when recognizing that dams already in existence have a history of O&M while proposed dams obviously do not.  This is a critical difference between existing and new dams and should not be overlooked.  When determining the appropriate SDF, a distinction should be made between existing and new dams regarding clear evidence of proper operation and maintenance.  

Emergency action planning requirements have been greatly expanded and improved in the proposed new regualtions.  However, Emergency Action Plans (EAP's) are not allowed to be considererd by DCR staff in thier determination of Spillway Design Flood (SDF).   FEMA  has recently approved the final version of a Dam Safety Risk Prioritization Tool.  As the FEMA document stipulates, "The States need a simple tool that allows them to identify and prioritize their dam safety risks so that the limited resources available to them can be used most diligently and effectively."   It goes on to utilize the term ALARP, or "As Low As Reasonably Practical."  ALARP is definded by FEMA as being the point that "the risk has been reduced as low as reasonably practical.  This reasonableness test reflects society's aversion to incidents that can potentially cause large loss of life but recognizes that there is a point of diminishing returns.  ALARP is defined at the point where additional risk reduction is not possible without a disproportionate investment for the benefit gained."

The regualtions governing dam safety should follow this standard guidance provided by FEMA.  EAP's, site-specific conditions and other peculiarities exist for every dam and may indicate that a dam owner can reduce the risk to the point of ALARP as defined above.  Such information should be taken into account when determining the spillway design flood for existing dams.  

If specific language that addresses the comments above is not added to the proposed regualtions, then the Virginia dam safety program will remain inordinately rigid in its approach to managing the risk to public safety.  Such rigidity will cost enormous amounts of money, in public and private funds, much more than has been indicated in the summary budget impact information.  Where we need to focus is in determining which dams pose the greatest risk to the citizens.  In so doing we would manage our risk properly, spending what little funding there is on the Commonwealth's most urgent needs.  Remember, no matter what the topic, government can not eliminate all risk.  Rathter, government can only manage it.