Bernie Gaudi looks out from his back yard at what used to be Arcadia Woods Lake.
For the past two years, 14 families, most elderly and in financial strife living along Arcadia Wood Lake ( Coopers Pond), have been crippled by an emergency order instituted by Department of Health and Environmental Control ( DHEC) Bureau of Water to immediately empty their lake in an effort to prevent damage to life should there be a dam failure.
This lake is one of the seven bodies of water that make up Arcadia Lakes. The dam that formed the lake many years ago has been given a “high hazard” classification by DHEC. While it is these families who own the lake, the ownership of the dam has been debated for decades making it difficult to devise a direction as to how to meet the requirements set out by DHEC and who will fund it.
Consequently, DHEC, Department of Transportation ( DOT), and the dam owners have been in legal turmoil significantly impacting the lives of the residents as well as the life of the lake and the wildlife it has supported.
Arcadia Woods Lake, also known as Cooper Pond, before the residents were forced to drain it.
How Arcadia Woods Lake became a “High Hazard”
The Dams and Reservoirs Safety Program of S.C. began in 1977 after President Jimmy Carter took action to protect the public from dam failures such as one in Georgia that caused the loss of many lives and a great deal of property damage. He issued a proclamation requiring the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) to perform a one-time inspection on every high hazard dam throughout the country. Since there was an urgency for S.C. to provide the needed information to the Corps, much of the work on the original inventory was accomplished by part-time temporary technicians hired to work under the few engineers who the Land Resources Commission had employed.
The original Act had required regulation of all dams that were 25 feet or more in height or that had the capability of impounding 50 acre feet of water or more. Once the Army Corps of Engineers finished inspecting approximately 100 dams, the responsibility for follow up work to get dams upgraded, repaired, or removed fell to the state.
The car pictured is driving on the part of Arcadia Lake Drive which is a cut through between Trenholm Road and Two Notch. The car is driving directly over the dam.
Since almost all of the dams were classified as unsafe, the next challenge was to decide which dams were most critical, and, of course, this decision was extremely important because resources to work with the owners were limited, as was legal assistance for enforcement.
The Corps inspections quickly discovered the amount of time and effort involved in trying to get very small dams upgraded did not greatly increase overall safety to the public. Limits were set to identify small dams that would cause danger to the public.
Those placed on the list were dams that were less than 25 feet high and which impounded less than 50 acre feet of water but were a direct threat to life by their failure. The Arcadia Wood Lake dam is considered 21 feet high and, before the water level was lowered, was able to hold 64 acre feet of water.
Since only one of the physical requirements are met, the capacity to hold water, the reason why this lake is on the The Dams and Reservoirs Safety Program list is because it has been ”judged that its failure would cause appreciable property damage or any loss of life.”
Before Arcadia Woods Lake was drained, people other than residents, were allowed to fish. Above is an example of the size of fish in the lake that are now unable to survive in the shallow water.
Mixed messages
The Arcadia Woods Lake Dam has several homes located near the outlet channel downstream. DHEC has determined that at least one of these homes would likely sustain serious damage if the dam experienced catastrophic failure. High Hazard Dams should be designed to pass the flood developed by at least the .5 Probable Maximum Precipitation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) develops these numbers. This rating means the dam would have to withstand the flooding that may occur with the runoff from a little more than 20 inches of rain in 24 hours. Hugo remains the strongest and costliest hurricane in the history of South Carolina. For this storm, rainfall peaked at 10.28 in (261 mm) at Edisto Island. The dam survived.
It is important to note here that George Ballentine, director of Dams and Reservoirs Safety Program, wrote to the president of the Arcadia Woods Lake Company, the chairman of Richland Conservation District, the district conservationist, and to a regional engineer at DHEC in a letter dated April 30, 1981 that hydrology studies and the analysis of the potential hazards below Arcadia Woods Lake Dam were complete.
The recent road patch and the longitudinal cracks along the dam face side of the road, which are towards the center of the dam even in the recently patched area, suggests considerable and continuing movement in the center of the dam.
Ballentine states, “the house downstream from the dam could receive some damage in the event of dam failure, but this does not appear to constitute a loss-of-life situation. Under the provisions of the amended South Carolina Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act passed by the General Assembly last year, this dam is therefore more properly classified as a “Significant Hazard” rather than a “High Hazard. Under this set of conditions, the Commission will not require the dam’s spillway capacity be increased, but merely cautions the owners they may be liable for any damages that may result from dam failure or improper operation.”
Arcadia Woods Lake in its present condition. Not only do irrigation pipes no longer reach the yards of the homeowners, there is not enough water to use.
In a letter from DHEC dated June 29, 2012, the homeowners living on the lake were given an emergency order to empty the lake, 30 days to have the engineering study conducted, and a proposal to repair the situation. The direct order was from DHEC Bureau of Water to dam owners to “take immediate action to empty the reservoir formed by the Arcadia Woods Lake dam.” This emergency order banned the impoundment of water in the reservoir until all necessary repairs are made and the department issues a Certificate of Completion or Operation for the dam.
“Should the owners not comply with the emergency order as stated, DHEC will take actions necessary to provide protection to life or property including removal of the dam and will then recover the expense to do so from the owners of the dam.”
To the shagrin of the wildlife living in the lake, the level was lowered by 50 percent. The responsibility to execute the rest of the order, 30 days to have the engineering study conducted and a proposal to repair the situation, falls to the dam owners as well as those living on the lake.
Silt from upstream is moving into Arcadia Woods Lake. A young boy sank in this mud and had to be pulled out. The lake is now much shallower with all the silt,and there is no way it currently has the capacity to hold 64 acre feet of water.
The question arises, “Who owns the dam and is therefore responsible for the repair needed to satisfy the order from DHEC?” This is not so easily answered and has been the genesis of decades of litigation.
Dam history
The dam was built in 1937 having a single lane road atop that led to the home of T.D. Taylor, ten to 20 feet across, typical of what a small dam could support. In 1948, T.D. Taylor sold the Right of Way of the dam to the SC Highway Department with its intention to build a road traveling from Trenholm Road to Two Notch.
In 1960, Taylor died and left all his property in the area, about 29 acres, to his young wife. At this time, Mrs. Taylor lived across the lake. Later, Mrs. Taylor sold this home and property to Advanced Builders Diversified, Inc., and, for unknown reasons, Mrs. Taylor did not sell the dam. She also remarried, became Mrs. Vera Cockrell, and built a house about two acres below the dam.
In January 16, 1980, DOT notified South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission the Right of Way is the only easement not claim to the underlying land. Meaning, the DOT owns the Right Of Way, and the Cockrells own the dam.
In 1988, Mrs. Cockrell, through a lawsuit, tried to transfer ownership of the dam to the lakefront property owners and to DOT based on the order of the original deed of 1948 that T.D. Taylor signed, giving the Right of Way to DOT to control, operate, manage, and maintaine the dam. Her request was based on the idea these two parties utilize the dam and not Mrs. Cockrell. The judge would not allow the transfer of ownership to these parties.
Mrs. Cockrell in an attempt to resolve the issue, lowered the level of the water in the lake by removing boards from the spillway tower (lock). Now ownership of the lock is in question.
In 1991, Mrs. Cockrell, through a second attempted lawsuit, lost again. The final order saying Arcadia Woods Lake Company (AWLC) owns the lake, and the lock that controls the water level in the lake, and Mrs. Cockrell owns the dam. The sole right to manipulate lake water levels through the use of the lock belongs to the AWLC, the homeowners living along the lakefront.
They did not appeal.
In 2005, Mrs. Cockrell sold her home to the Geckles.
In 2012, the Geckles challenged DHEC’s charge they are considered owners of the dam. DHEC regulations say the owner of a dam is someone who owns, controls, operates, and maintains the dam. The dam includes all the parts of the dam riser, emergency spillway, and slope. The riser structure is owned by the Arcadia Woods Lake Company; the dam property is owned by Vera Cockrell; the toe of the dam outside the structure is on the Geckle’s property and, therefore, by this definition, the Geckles are partial owners of the dam.
The Department of Transportation has a Right of Way on Arcadia Lakes Drive.
Research available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act leads to information supporting the idea the cause of the problem is the building of the two lane road. Exploring this may bring light as to how the cost of executing the order from DHEC should be apportioned.
Did the construction of the two lane road compromise the integrity of the dam?
With the intention to build a road traveling from Trenholm Road to Two Notch, the South Carolina Highway Department ( DOT) expanded the dam originally having a one lane dirt road to accommodate a two lane road. Having full rights, the highway department added a large amount of dirt on the downstream side and not on the lake side in order to accommodate the road. This made the dam off center and made the downstream side slope very steep.
After inspecting the road and the dam, Michael Wallwork, PE, a civil/traffic engineer, said Arcadia Lake Drive across the dam had a stable north side of the roadway, the waterside, having no cracks.
The south side of the road, however, has a series of longitudinal cracks in two areas initially along the western end of the dam where water flow down the hill runs off the road onto the dam wall and along the lower parts of the road.
“Water run-off and erosion control is one of the most critical elements in constructing a road. Any roads built across an embankment or dam should have curb and gutter constructed on both sides with drains down to the water level with no water permitted to run down the sides of the dams or embankments except for normal rainfall,” said Wallwork.
In this case, when the road was built, it was simply a two-lane, rural road with little narrow shoulders and little to no runoff or erosion control, no guard rails, and no fences across the dam.
Currently, the only erosion control is a small earthen berm created during the installation of the northern section of the guardrail a few years ago. Even this noncontinuous berm was recently breached along the north side along the western end of the dam without any means of preventing erosion as water runs off the road. This is where the beginning of erosion has been noted.
All of the water is directed to the south side of the roadway since the road seems to be mostly sloped to the south. The asphalt berm, the narrow ledge along the top of the slope, that was added to the middle and eastern end of the road holds a single drain about 10 inches in diameter.
Not only does debris collect around this drain, but neighbors have seen the rain create a pond on the road in the area of the drain, which is an indication there is a blockage or the drain is inadequate. Wallwork also noted even further to the east is evidence of another unprotected overflow, collection of debris just before the eastern end of the longitudinal cracks.
Without controlled drainage by curb and gutter on rural style roads, erosion of the low side of the road is common. As runoff flows off the road, it softens the embankment, leading to a gradual collapse of the road pavement.
In addition to these concerns, the dam owner blocked the overflow pipes on the waterside of the dam with concrete.
According to Wallwork, until recently when the residents partially succeeded in having truck restriction signs installed, Arcadia Lakes Drive was used by many trucks as a shortcut. As trucks increase in size, weight, and quantity, they have had a significantly greater impact on the road pavement because the pavement, roadbed, and drainage were not constructed to accommodate these vehicles and their frequency in the first place. The “No Trucks” signs were difficult to enforce without determining a load limit. DOT officials are unable to provide a load limit because they did not build the dam the road is situated on.
Senator Joel Lourie mediated a meeting that was attended by all parties involved.
Government: Senator Joel Lourie; Rep. Joan Brady; and James Brown, director Richland County Legislative Delegation; and Rick Thomas; Mayor of Arcadia Lakes;
SCDOT: Natalie Moore, attorney for DOT; A.Tony Magwood; Walter Reed, District 1; and Robert Dickinson; and
DHEC: Roger Hall, attorney for DHEC; John Poole, engineer; John Litton, water; Ann Clark, Dam Program; Joseph Hidy, Esq., husband of Patty Hidy, Power of Attorney for Vera Cockrell; George Geckle; Shelley Smith; Jessie King, attorney for Geckle/ Smith; Jerry Green, Leah Green; Brian Bates, Engineer;
Arcadia Woods Lake Company: Herb Louthian, Esq.; Peggy Smith; Mike Smith; Chuck Libby; and Terry Gaudi.
Senator Lourie encouraged the parties to seek an engineering report to identify the problem before any other action could take place.
Senator Lourie asked DOT officials why there weren’t load restrictions on Arcadia Lakes Drive. Over the years, the governor, the mayor, and many other people have complained about the heavy traffic which should have a load limit.
Peggy Smith said some years ago DOT officials put up a sign that said, “Thru Truck Prohibited.” The sheriff claimed there is no way to enforce such signage. DOT officials stated they have no authority to put load limits on the road, and it is DHEC’s job to request signage and someone else to enforce it.
“If we had a weight limit, the sheriff could issue fines of between $ 400 and $ 500.” Rick Thomas said that’s the way it was explained to him.
DHEC officials, in turn, said it is not their job to put weight limits on roads; it is DOT’s job.
Walter Reed said they have plans and designs on the roads they built, but since they didn’t build the dam, they cannot evaluate the strength. “ When something goes wrong with our road, we can say it needs low limits. However, we have no engineering study on the dam.”
One of the homeowners stated, “ This is government at its absolute worst!” In a letter dated January 30, 1980, for the purpose of identifying ownership of the Arcadia Wood Lake Dam, the law offices of Wise, Wise & Shealy indicated the road was not constructed completely as set out in the special provisions of the grant to the SC Highway Department in that the center line was placed closer to the lake than it was originally supposed to have been, though this has not been proven.
After several car accidents, DOT reconfigured the degree of the curve of the road, and guard rails were installed for added safety. While installing the north side guardrail, however, a DOT contractor drove a steel support post through the center of the overflow pipe reducing its capacity. These pipes under the roadway allow water to flow from the lake through the dam should there be a need for removal of excess water. “To protect the integrity of the dam, removal of this restriction is highly desirable,” said Wallwork.
By adding a large amount of dirt on the downstream side and not on the lake side in order to accommodate the road made the dam off center and made the downstream side slope very steep, not placing the center line where the drawings indicated as suggested in the letter by the law offices of Wise, Wise & Shealy, not establishing proper drainage and erosion control, driving the support post through the center of the overflow pipes, adjusting the curve of the road, and updating the need for guard rails due to car accidents, and not providing a load limit are all items relating to the design, construction, and maintenance of a road which are the responsibility of the SCDOT.
Why now? Problems date back to 1979
The first documentation of the problem is found in a report dating back to 1979 where The State Attorney General, Land and Soil Conservation department, became concerned with the structure and had the United States Army Corp of Engineers conduct a study which concluded the road on the dam was not safe for heavy traffic due to overtopping and slope instability. They concluded the condition to be High Hazard.
The first credit of the recommendation to restrict heavy traffic flow is given back in January of 1980 through a Dam Failure report conducted by the Law Engineering group. This report was submitted by the state’s dam inspection program stating immediate measures be taken to restrict heavy traffic flow from crossing the structure until such time when the dam embankment can be made stable to prevent danger to motorists crossing the dam should it fail.
Governor Richard Riley, the state and local Civil Defense officials, and S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission (LRCC) were notified of this report recommending that immediate action be taken to prevent an accident and immediate measures be taken to restrict heavy traffic flow from crossing the structure until such time when the dam embankment can be made stable.
A meeting was held where LRCC discussed closing the roadway over the dam and having the affected parties and possible owners make the dam repairs.
The road was closed for at least six months. There is no specific documentation found giving reason why the road was reopened. However, it was shortly after this time that George Ballentine notified the relevant agencies the hydrology studies and the analysis of the potential hazards concluded that should there be a dam failure, the house downstream from the dam may receive some damage, but it does not appear to constitute a loss-of-life situation.
Throughout the ’80s, the Land Resources Conservation Commission (DHEC) inspected the dam several times and found the dam to be unsafe. In May of 2000, DHEC reported to Mrs. Cockrell that its inspection found cracks on the road running across the dam and recommended that DOT evaluate the situation so they could make necessary arrangement to restrict traffic. Again in September 2011, DHEC notified Mrs. Cockrell that a crack and a depression on the roadway were found, and it was recommended that an engineer and DOT be contacted to evaluate the situation.
In February of 2012, DHEC officials visited the dam for inspection, and they were unable to determine the true owner of the dam. The old Cockrell homesite was sold to the Geckles. After a failed attempt to find resolution from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, DHEC’s attorney recommended all possible dam owners be notified of the results of the inspection.
In May of 2012, DHEC received a citizen complaint regarding the formation of a large “sink hole” on the crest of the dam. Based on this complaint, the Bureau of Water staff conducted a site visit to observe the situation. When they arrived on the site, they discovered that DOT had performed some maintenance to repair potholes on the roadway surface. Based on field observations and file data, they changed the status of the dam from “Hazard” to “High Hazard.” They noted the house located at the end of Wisteria Lane would be inundated during a failure.
In June of 2012, a follow up visual inspection was performed. Those in attendance during the inspection were members of the AWLC, SCDOT representatives, Mr. Geckle, and Mr. Poole and Mr. Melenkov representing DHEC. Mr. Melenkov noted when he went down to the toe of the dam that a camera would be needed in order to confirm that there are cracks. This is estimated to cost $3,000.
After this visual inspection, DHEC sent out inspection and repair orders to all known owners and their representatives. These orders mandated a detailed inspection be performed and plans to remedy the situation be prepared.
When asked why DHEC did not enforce the requests it made in the past for the need for repairs to this dam, Jim Beasley, Div. of Media Relations S.C. DHEC, stated, “Enforcement actions were taken by the department in June 2012. Prior to that date, the department had encouraged responsible parties to take action on several issues. A combination of physical concerns related to the dam by June 2012 resulted in the department deciding the responsible path forward was issuance of the orders.”
Thirty four years have passed since the first warning was issued.
With permission from the DHEC board, Poole sent out a request to all dam owners and lake owners to repair the dam and to drain the lake.
As stated earlier, on June 29, 2012, DHEC sent an emergency order to AWLC to empty the lake, 30 days to have the engineering study conducted, and a proposal to repair the situation. A direct order from the DHEC Bureau of Water to dam owners to “take immediate action to empty the reservoir formed by the Arcadia Woods Lake dam.”
This emergency order banned the impoundment of water in the reservoir until all necessary repairs are made and the Department issues a Certificate of Completion or Operation for the dam.
“Should the owners not comply with the emergency order as stated, DHEC will take actions necessary to provide protection to life or property including removal of the dam and will then recover the expense to do so from the owners of the dam”.
Who this hurts
It is DHECs job to develop and enforce regulations that protect the lives of the people it serves. While this enforcement is intended to benefit lives, meeting the demands that it requires has inadvertently caused turmoil to the lives of the residents living on the lake.
As the people involved continue to try to understand the problem and attempt to resolve the issue, the people living along the lake have had to unite and comprehend difficult, complicated scenarios. Two of the households have a husband and wife in their 50s, four have a husband and wife in their 60 to 70s, four households include widows ranging from 60 to 90 years old, three homes have a husband and wife in their 80s, and one has a husband and wife in their 90s.
Previously, most everyone was financially comfortable. However, with age and the economy, this has changed drastically. Within this population, there are those ill with chronic health problems, some have battled cancer, one has had a hip replacement, some are unemployed and financially strapped, some have had to rent their house as they cannot sell it.
The Larsons, who are in their 90s, had a closing date for the sale of their home but were unable to complete the transaction when the real estate agent informed them that the buyers heard of the problem with the lake and were no longer interested in the purchase.
They had made arrangements to live in a retirement facility in Florida near their children, but they can no longer afford to move. Mrs. Larsen broke her hip a few weeks ago, and her daughter has come from Florida to help her. This 90 year old couple cannot look after themselves nor can they sell and move near their children in Florida where they would be cared for. The real estate agent also suggested they remove the “for sale” sign until the issue is resolved.
Financial consequences
Consequently, the property values of the homes that were once considered lakefront have considerably dropped.
If residents who want to sell are unable, they will have to find tenants. Homes left empty for more than three months may find their insurance provider could drop their homeowner’s policy coverage.
This will have a domino effect as the neighboring homes will also drop in value.
Currently, the cost and the burden of this mandate lies with the 14 families who live on the lake. The families have incurred legal expenses and professional expenses to prepare for and execute the injunction. They have settled on an engineering company to conduct the study and are waiting for the finished report. It is anticipated the report will provide a thorough description of the problem and recommendations for repair or reconstruction. The next expense will be the actual execution of the repairs. All of this is occurring with legal involvement representing all parties, including DHEC and DOT, our government agencies.
To date, the dollar amount DHEC, Department of Transportation, the Geckels, and the Cockrell estate have spent on legal fees and investigation regarding the dam in question is unknown.
The Arcadia Wood Lake Company ( AWLC) the residents— have agreed to divide expenses to satisfy DHEC’s order. The expense for the homeowners since DHEC’s orders in 2012 have been in the neighborhood of $10,000 so far. Preliminary engineering studies are costing about $8,000, and a full engineering study of the system is estimated by engineer ing companies to cost at least $40,000. The actual cost of drawing up plans that would satisfy DHEC and the necessary repairs and/or rebuilding might cost up to $500,000. So far 11 of the 14 households paid $500 each for legal fees and $ 650 for preliminary engineering study. Seven households have paid an additional $3,000 for legal fees.
There are homeowners who do not have the money to pay assessments, and some are not in agreement. These homes were a nest egg for the future.
AWLC is going to put a lien on the homes of the people who have not paid the assessments meaning they will have no rights to the lake and no say in what is done there.
In addition to the legal and engineer ing fees, there have been other costs. Due to the low level in the lake, the irrigation pipes no longer reach the water intended for lawns and flower beds.
Water bills have doubled and some of them are also having to pay lawn services to cut down the weeds growing in the lake beds. A request was made by the homeowner to have DHEC inspect and treat for mosquitoes due to the new growth when there used to be water. DHEC determined there was no need for spraying. In addition, the lack of water is increasing stress on the fish and other wildlife.
The lake is filling up with silt from upstream sources. Most of this silt was carried into the lake by storm water that collected the silt and debris from upstream construction and other activities. This has been going on for years, and the situation was exacerbated when the railroad trestle/ dam and culvert were installed years ago that collected upstream water and funneled it into the lake.
Years ago, the homeowners sued the railroad and were awarded a sum of money that allowed them to dredge some of the accumulated silt in the upstream portion of the lake, but this was a temporary measure which did not stop the siltation.
One of the responsibilities of the Richland Depar tment of Public Works, Stormwater Division is to insure that silt from construction sites and other activities is not allowed to be carr ied downstream by storm water. The result of their inability to meet this responsibility is that ponds and lakes have been filling up with silt.
When AWLC was forced to drain its lake, much of the silt from the areas near the mouth of the culvert from the railroad trestle was carried downstream by rapidly moving water after heavy rains. This can easily be seen when standing on Arcadia Woods Road and looking upstream. The heavily eroded areas of the silt field, and most of this eroded mater ial ended up in the upper portion of the lake and also caused additional downstream silt bars that can also be seen from their homes.
The result of all of this is that when and if the dam is fixed, and the lake is allowed to refill, there may be a much shallower lake and the water impounded may be much less than it was before.
“I would guess the water in front of my house will be so shallow one will be able to ‘walk’ to almost the middle of the lake without reaching water that is waist deep. Also, par ts of the silt/sand bar to the left of my house will not be covered at all,” said homeowner Bernie Gaudi.
Walking on the silt and into the lake is dangerous. In one instance, the silt trapped a child in the upper portion of the lake when he tr ied to walk out to the water. He sunk up to his waist in what was almost ‘quicksand’ and had to be pulled out by a passer-by using a rope.
“ We had a similar experience when someone who was helping us extend our irrigation pipe into deeper water sunk up to his waist in silt/mud in front of our house. He was able to get one leg free and finally pull himself out, losing his boot in the process. Like quick-sand, the surface of the material looks firm while, in fact, it consists of a dense slurry of silt and water that can easily trap anyone trying to walk out to the water’s edge. The situation is worse after a heavy rain, but even today, it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to attempt to walk out to the waterline in front of my house,”explains Bernie Gaudi. A letter was sent to Robert Dickinson, district maintenance engineer of DOT, to of fer him an opportunity to explain DOT’s position.
In an effort to bring clarity to this complicated issue, please answer the following questions.
Questions from Rosanna W. Lomas
1. The dam was built in 1937 having a single lane road atop that led to the home of T.D. Taylor, ten to 20 feet across. In 1948, T.D. Taylor sold the Right of Way of the dam to SC Highway Department with their intention to build a road traveling from Trenholm Road to Two Notch ( U. S. Route No. 1). In order to accommodate the expansion of the dam from a one lane dirt road to a two lane highway would there be a need to conduct a study to determine the weight capacity of the dam?
2. If a weight capacity study was conducted, would you be able to determine what vehicles would be supported by the dam (i.e. cars, small trucks, large trucks, 18 wheelers, etc.)?
3. It is noted that the road built with the acquisition of the Right of Way by DOT did not have elements in place for water run-off and erosion control. As I understand from a road engineer, water run-off and erosion control is one of the most critical elements in constructing a road. Any roads built across an embankments or dam should have curb and gutter constructed on both sides with drains down to the water level with no water permitted to run down the sides of the dams or embankments except for normal rainfall. Currently, the only erosion control is a small earthen berm that was created during the installation of the northern section of the guardrail a few years ago. This non-continuous berm was recently breached along the north side along the western end of the dam without any means of preventing erosion as water runs off the road. Can you explain why the department did not execute a well functioning erosion control system when they built the road?
4. Several years ago, while installing the north side guardrail, SCDOT contractor drove a steel beam through the center of the overflow pipe reducing its capacity. This action not only inhibits the water flow but also compromises the integrity of the dam. Has your department any plans to correct this?
5. A Dam Failure report conducted by the Law Engineering group in 1980 found that immediate measures be taken to restrict heavy traffic flow from crossing the structure until such time when the dam embankment can be made stable to prevent danger to motorist crossing the dam should it fail. Notice of this was sent to Governor Riley, the State and local Civil Defense officials, and SC Land Resources Conservation Commission. The road was closed for at least six months and then reopened. Do you know why the road was allowed to be reopened?
6. What responsibility, if any, do you think the SCDOT owns in this matter?
7. How can you help to resolve the issue?
8. How much money has SCDOT spent on litigation to defend its position?
Response from Robert C. Dickinson, SCDOT district maintanance engineer
SCDOT received and reviewed a copy of DHEC’s letter dated May 21, 2012. This letter’s subject was ‘Hazard Classification Change for Arcadia Woods Lake Dam and was sent to potential owners of the dam that forms Coopers Pond. According to DHEC, the purpose of copying SCDOT with this letter was simply to provide notification of the change of the hazard classification, which primarily increases the inspection frequency. It has been determined by Richland County Court that SCDOT is not an owner of the dam structure and is not responsible for maintaining the dam or water impounded by the dam as we do not impound waters of the state for purposes of enhancing the value of private property.
The roadway is essentially in place by “easement” and, therefore, SCDOT is only responsible for maintaining the road surface for use by the traveling public. The dam structure has been determined to be private property whereby landowners have access to and benefit from the existence of the pond, and, therefore, they are required by the law to be responsible for the upkeep of the structure.
Since this matter involves the dam structure (private property), upon which State law prohibits the expenditure of public funds, I would defer the responses to your questions to the technical expertise of the dam owners. We are glad to hear the dam owners have made the decision to resolve the problems with their dam structure for the continued enhancement of their property.
Loading Comments