News

Audit finds Vermont behind on dam safety

By Keith Whitcomb Jr.
RUTLAND HERALD
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont could be doing a better job with its dam safety inspection program, according to the state auditor.

A recent audit conducted by State Auditor Doug Hoffer on the Dam Safety Program, managed by the Department of Environmental Conservation, showed the program hasn’t been keeping up with required reports and offers a number of recommendations to address that and the other issues it found.

The audit looked at 10 dams considered to be in “poor condition.” This included dams owned by the state. Some have been in poor condition for more than 18 years. While the safety program has made recommendations for repairs in these cases, no timelines were provided, leading to no follow-up being done.

The audit found that the program hasn’t been completing inspection reports or returning those reports to the dam owners, even when said owners are state entities. Other findings included, the program’s dam inventory isn’t complete and lacks accurate ratings, not all dams have been inspected often enough nor have all inspections been recorded, and that there are different standards held for dams between regulating agencies.

“When Vermonters think about public safety, dams probably don’t come to mind, and I suspect that won’t change unless one fails causing significant property damage, or in a worst case, loss of lives,” Hoffer stated Monday in a release. “While they may not be front of mind, it’s essential that the state government protects people from the risks they pose, especially in light of the fact that the median age of Vermont’s dams is 77 years old.”

He said Wednesday that his office is responsible for a number of financial audits which it uses outside firms to conduct. This frees his people up to conduct performance audits such as this one.

“Back in the 1990s when I did some work for the then-state auditor Ed Flanagan under contract that’s when the professional governmental auditing community began to ask and answer the question, why are we doing this?” said Hoffer. Auditors routinely account for where money goes and whether it’s spent on the programs it’s intended for. “But that’s not the end of the discussion, it’s the beginning of the discussion. The rest of it is, was the money used to achieve the goals intended by the Legislature when you created these programs? All of these programs have objectives and goals.”

Hoffer said not only do taxpayers need to know if programs are working, but so do program managers and the Legislators voting to fund them.

“So we do performance auditing, and this was a performance audit of the dam safety program within the Department of Environmental Conservation, so that’s why we do it. It’s not always about money, though in this case obviously to solve some of these problems, it’s not cheap. Six dams is expensive, but that’s for the department and the Agency of Natural Resources to go to the Legislature and make their case why they need more money.”

Keeping track of the condition of dams is an important task for the state, said Hoffer. Some dams are older than 200 years and pre-date the small communities that may have been built downstream.

According to the report, which can be found on this link bit.ly/927Audit to the state auditor’s website, two dams hadn’t been inspected within the required five-year timeframe, that being the Kent Pond Dam in Killington and the Mirror Lake Dam in . Both were last inspected in 2015 and were due for another one in 2020.

The report also notes that the Public Utility Commission, which oversees dams generating electricity, isn’t using the same definitions for hazard potential as the Dam Safety Program. According to Hoffer, the commission’s definitions lead to dams being inspected less often when that shouldn’t be the case. Hoffer sent a letter to Anthony Roisman, chairman of the Public Utility Commission, in January about this. Roisman responded that he agreed and would direct the Department of Public Service to begin the work needed to update the dam-safety rules.

“I think overall the information is generally accurate and we concur with the conclusions,” said Ben Green, section chief of the Dam-Safety Program, on Wednesday. “Their recommendations are opportunities for us to improve upon our program.”

He said the program hasn’t had much regulatory power, although a 2018 law did allow it to require action from a dam owner when the dam’s condition got bad enough. The department is looking to find rule changes that would bring Vermont more in line with federal standards and is seeking more resources for this.

“There’s certainly going to be a need for resource improvements from what we have now, and we’re moving in that direction,” he said.

keith.whitcomb @rutlandherald.com

Avatar photo

As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.