Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Maine’s Dam Agency Does What It Can to Keep the Aging Infrastructure Safe

News Feed
Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Nearly a decade after a company abandoned the paper mill that once shaped Bucksport’s economy, its successor is in the process of abandoning three dams that shape the surrounding watershed.On Thursday night, scores of people who rely on the dam’s reservoirs for drinking water and waterfront property value packed into the former mill’s campus, seizing their only opportunity to confront representatives of the dams’ owner, AIM Development USA.One by one, attendees peppered company officials with questions about what would happen to the homes huddled around the dams’ reservoirs and those located downstream, what structural condition the dams are in and what risks will remain when they’re abandoned.“If the worst-case scenario… is that you release the water because we have no other option, do we have a (projection) of what will happen?” asked a resident on Toddy Pond whose family has lived there since the 1930s. “Should I get scuba gear for my house, or should I get sun-tanning lotion, because it will be a desert?”For officials from Bucksport, Orland, Surry and the local water utility, Thursday marked the first time meeting with AIM in-person since the company announced its intention to abandon the dams this summer. They demanded clarity on how AIM would honor its obligation, as stated in property deeds, to maintain a reservoir that serves as Bucksport’s drinking water supply and cools a gas-fired power plant. If no entity or state agency claims the dams, state law allows AIM to open their flood gates and release water from the reservoirs in a minimally impactful way, leaving mudflats and the structures behind. “Our town has sought information from the petitioners,” said Bucksport town manager Susan Lessard, yet “rather than receive information, we have experienced a process characterized by chaos and confusion.” Representatives from AIM met them with silence, promising to answer the questions online in the next few weeks. As Maine’s dams age and maintenance costs mount, the outcome of the debate could provide a playbook for others to follow. Thirteen years after a Monitor investigation revealed that Maine was behind on inspecting the state’s most hazardous dams, Maine’s dam safety program, like dozens of others across the country, remains understaffed and underfunded, even in the face of a changing climate and more intense storms. Although the state agency tasked with ensuring the safety of more than 500 dams is now up-to-date with inspections, the program has yet to institute modern protocols.The office lacks digitized records of emergency procedures that residents should follow if a local dam fails, as well as digital inundation maps outlining flooding threats. Last year the program had to bring an engineer out of retirement to inspect the hundreds of dams under the state’s jurisdiction because applications for the permanent lead engineer were scant, despite reclassifying the position numerous times to higher pay scales. The office only recently hired an assistant engineer to assist with inspections. “Maine’s dam infrastructure is aging, and the Dam Safety Program is currently understaffed, facing significant challenges with implementing dam risk reduction,” wrote the authors of Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan.Several of the dams overseen by the program are both “high” risk — meaning people could die if they fail – and in “unsatisfactory” condition — the worst possible grade. The dam safety program rarely follows up on its repair recommendations, according to a 2023 report, and does not take enforcement actions when dam owners disobey, meaning the program does not compel private dam owners to maintain even the most dilapidated, dangerous dams.As Maine dams reach the end of their useful lives and maintenance bills mount, some dam owners are abdicating upkeep responsibilities or forfeiting ownership of their dams altogether — leaving communities like Bucksport and Orland at risk of inheriting these costly burdens.At an average age of more than 100, the 672 regulated dams on Maine rivers, streams, lakes and ponds are far from paragons of modern infrastructure. Of the 590 Maine dams tracked in a federal dam database, 62 are considered to be in poor condition and have some sort of safety deficiency, while 15 are deemed unsatisfactory and require more immediate maintenance. Ten of the fifteen unsatisfactory dams are also labeled high hazard, meaning that dams from Boothbay Harbor to Fort Fairfield with immediate safety defects could put the lives of downstream residents at risk if they fail. Nine poor condition dams, meanwhile, have the same high hazard rating but are on average more than two decades older than the unsatisfactory dams.It’s up to the state dam safety program to guide owners’ dams into compliance, but regulators say that can be difficult because they lack capacity for enforcement.Maine’s agency has two engineers to oversee the state-regulated dams, which include 15 of the 39 high hazard dams. The federal agency tasked with overseeing large hydropower dams, meanwhile, has five engineers to inspect the 34 high hazard dams under its purview.The behemoth frozen potato purveyor McCain Foods owns a high hazard, poor condition dam that forms Christina Reservoir near Fort Fairfield and another high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dam at Lake Josephine just a mile away.The town of Fort Fairfield owns a pair of high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dams at Bryant Pond and upstream on Libby Brook that are intended to reduce flood risk, but are developing risks of their own. (The town disputed the dam safety program’s assessment, saying their risks are lower and the dams are regularly maintained).Outside of this cluster in Fort Fairfield, Maine’s 75 high hazard dams and 85 significant hazard dams (which may not harm human life if they fail, but will cause economic and environmental damage) are scattered across the state.It’s up to the Maine dam safety program’s lead inspector and assistant to assess 160 high and significant hazard dams once every six years and the remaining 363 dams under state jurisdiction once every 12 years, all while maintaining emergency plans.The program has been able to do just that, according to a 2023 assessment conducted by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. All Maine dams have been inspected within their deadlines and have corresponding emergency plans; this means Maine has one of the highest compliance rates in the country.The authors of the assessment commended Maine dam safety employees for their hard work to “keep the program’s head above water” but painted a grim picture of the program’s ability to enforce safety standards.“Identifying deficiencies through periodic inspection is crucial, but ultimately does nothing for public safety if dams are not repaired and completed in an acceptable manner,” the authors wrote.Low funding and chronic understaffing have long plagued Maine’s dam safety program, symptoms of its sole reliance on federal grants for the program’s operating costs. The program does not receive any direct appropriations from the state legislature and does not collect any fees. In 2021, it received a meager $67,241 through its primary federal grant — at least $200,000 less than it needed, according to an internal report, and the program had to borrow from funds elsewhere.Though the dam safety program has the authority under state law to enforce compliance, none of that funding has gone to enforcement or compliance measures. The program lacks written policies describing what enforcement would even look like.Its scant budget has also made it nearly impossible to hire a permanent lead dam inspector, according to Steven Mallory, the head of the dam safety program and the director of operations and response for the Maine Emergency Management Agency.One year ago, Mallory, who is not an engineer, was facing a perilous situation after the lead dam inspector left for another job and no viable candidates applied to replace him. The program was narrowly rescued when retired inspector Tony Fletcher agreed to return on an interim basis.Mallory has increased the pay scale of the job several times since then but has had only two candidates apply over the three years, likely because engineers can find far more lucrative positions elsewhere.With these constraints, the dam safety program is constantly playing catch-up, failing to take more proactive steps to enforce safety standards, guide dam owners through necessary upkeep or removal and modernize risk mapping and dam databases, according to the assessment. Recent flooding and near misses with dam failure elsewhere in the United States have shown how costly such shortfalls can be. Emergency officials sounded this alarm to a state commission on infrastructure and climate change resilience last week.“We’ve seen in other states this year issues where dams have failed and flooded communities,” said Darren Woods, director of Aroostook County’s Emergency Management Agency. “We certainly don’t want to see that happen here in Maine.”Hazard classifications and condition assessments don’t necessarily paint the full picture of a dam’s corresponding risk, according to Mallory.The structures may be designed to withstand a 500-year flood and perform well when one hits, but the floodwaters still have to go somewhere. In the case of the town-owned dam in the heart of Dover-Foxcroft, that somewhere is into a crucial state thruway and the basement of a nearby apartment complex. Last December, when the Piscataquis River swelled behind the dam’s wall, it caused water damage and complicated access to the southern part of the state.“Most of our dams are in really good shape where they can handle excess water. However, with all the flooding and the rain, it just exasperates that problem,” Mallory told The Maine Monitor. “It’s just too much water and it’s gotta go somewhere.”Human-caused climate change has increased both the frequency and severity of floods in Maine, spurred by intense downpours concentrated in shorter and shorter periods.A study published last month in the scientific journal Nature found that it’s these rapid downpours — like the one that ripped through central and western Maine in December 2023 — preceded by multiple days of precipitation that caused most dam failures between 2000 and 2021. Its authors concluded that current engineering standards for dam flood resilience assume conservative climate conditions, and they called for officials to revisit these standards and consider more severe weather patterns.Like most other state dam agencies, Maine’s program follows model state dam regulations distributed by the ASDSO and federal government. Those standards have not yet incorporated climate change’s effects into their guidance, according to Mallory, though an ASDSO official said the organization has been advocating that state dam programs adopt updated models for extreme precipitation.Back in Maine, meanwhile, regulations already consider worst-case flooding scenarios for state-regulated dams.Mallory got a taste of what could be in store for Maine dams in the early morning hours of December 19, 2023, when a catastrophic combination of rain and snowmelt engorged the Kennebec River.Mallory’s fears lay downstream, where a pair of high hazard dams are nestled on the Cobbosseecontee Stream right before it meets the Kennebec River in the heart of downtown Gardiner. Both dams are in adequate condition, but Mallory was concerned nonetheless. He rushed to visit the dams, and was relieved to find them effectively passing the torrent of floodwater. Despite the fears that nagged him that day, Mallory said he is confident in Maine’s dams. Yet he can’t discount the increasing impact climate change will have on their infrastructure.While climate change may not be incorporated into the way Maine inspects dams and helps draft emergency plans, the state is preparing Maine dams for climate change in other ways.Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, for example, calls for tapping into a federal grant program for rehabilitating and removing high hazard dams. The mitigation plan’s local risk reduction recommendations show a variety of maintenance needs for municipally-owned, high hazard dams that have been deferred due to a lack of funds, like a $200,000 project to fortify a dam in Durham that has been patched but “needs to be strengthened and repaired to prevent failure.”In July 2023, nearby Vermont experienced firsthand the disastrous outcomes that deferred dam maintenance can lead to. After record downpours flooded valleys up the state’s mountainous spine, five dams failed and more than 50 were damaged or overtopped by floodwater, according to Ben Green, head of the Vermont dam safety program.The dams that failed were all in poor condition and municipally or privately owned, but luckily, Green said, were fairly small, earthen embankments and didn’t result in any downstream damage. That was due in part to the intense flooding that had already wrecked the dams’ watersheds, meaning even the two significant hazard dams that failed did not cause any separate, discernible damage. “So that was fortunate, I guess,” Green said.There were close calls elsewhere. On July 11, 2023, murky brown floodwater in the Wrightsville Reservoir scaled the side of a state-owned dam right outside of Montpelier, coming within one foot of overtopping its spillway and bursting down into the already flood-ravaged state capital.Green said his office stationed personnel at the state-owned dams all night for the first few days after the flood, closely monitoring the dams for any signs of impending failure. Though failures of such magnitude have been rare in Maine, the state has its fair share of hazardous dams and in 2005 saw a state-owned dam fail near Newcastle, releasing debris from a man-made lake that cost $300,000 to clean up.Part of the concern surrounding the abandonment of the Bucksport-area dams comes from the high hazard potential and poor condition of the dam on Silver Lake. If breached, its floodwaters could reach 70 homes and endanger hundreds of lives downstream in Bucksport, according to a 2021 inspection from Fletcher, the dam safety program engineer.Fletcher also described significant deficiencies with the dam, including a deteriorating concrete structure and leakages developing in its left and right sides. He recommended that AIM create an operation and maintenance plan to track the dam’s leakages and other issues, then report back to the dam safety program twice a year.But the dam safety program never followed up with AIM after that, according to Mallory, the dam safety program’s director. The program struggles to inspect all the hazardous dams it is obligated to and couldn’t spare sending an engineer to follow-up on a dam that had already been inspected before its deadline, Mallory told The Monitor Friday after attending AIM’s public hearing.“There’s a lot of steps that we could do if I had another engineer,” Mallory said. “I would have sent an engineer down there to reinspect those dams. I don’t have that. I just don’t have those assets. I have Tony, and we’re trying.”After going four years without tapping into the federal grant that funds the design process for rehabilitating or removing high hazard dams, Maine secured a $2.5 million award this fall. Outside experts and the program’s assistant dam inspector have also been working to update inundation maps with GIS and digitize dam emergency action plans, according to Mallory. And even without the digitization of the emergency plans, Mallory is confident in MEMA’s ability to adequately warn communities through alerts similar to those issued by the National Weather Service for flash floods. Compared to what the state’s hazard mitigation plan and the ASDSO report call for, however, these modest gains are only a sliver of what Maine needs to modernize its dam safety program and foster resilience to climate change. One internal estimate from MEMA recommended a $900,000 annual budget for the dam program, enough funding for two engineers, two assistant engineers and administrative staff.States in similar situations have managed to overcome the same obstacles, however. When Green started at Vermont’s dam safety program in 2017, he was one of two engineers responsible for inspecting hundreds of dams and operating the 13 state-owned dams. The dam safety program’s legal authority was so weak that Green couldn’t even set foot on a private dam owner’s land without their permission, let alone inspect dams and compel owners to make necessary repairs.Then, in 2018, the Vermont legislature granted the program rulemaking authority, allowing dam regulators to bring their program up to date with federal standards and take enforcement action when dam owners fail to maintain their dams. Vermont’s updates were gradual and limited to policy at first, but as time went on the program added a few more staff members through grant funding, then the July 2023 floods fast-tracked the program.“Within a few years we were able to pull together the two additional staff, which made everything seem possible,” Green said. “The flood kept us moving uphill.” Green now has plans for the program to expand to almost a dozen staff members and is leading a massive inventory effort to record the location, condition and owners of the dams that have been able to skirt regulation, then compel the owners to make required improvements.“Dams are forgotten infrastructure, and I think that’s obviously changing with all the highlights that dams have had in the last years,” Green said. “It’s something that we in the dam safety community can’t let people forget.”Back in Maine, Mallory sees the abandonment of the Bucksport dams as an example of the dire straits that his dam safety program is in and a call for action to turn it around.After the hearing, Mallory lingered behind and chatted with state legislators, explaining how part of these complications might have been avoided if Maine adopted the changes recommended in the peer review. With adequate staff, funding and policies, the program could have mandated compliance from AIM and ensured the dams’ safety before they were abandoned.“I think this is a guinea pig,” Mallory said. “This is the first abandonment ever. I’m hoping that with the attention on this, the legislators will (consider the recommendations) that we submitted and that will help future problems.”This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Nearly a decade after a company abandoned the Maine paper mill that once shaped Bucksport’s economy, its successor is in the process of abandoning three dams that shape the surrounding watershed

Nearly a decade after a company abandoned the paper mill that once shaped Bucksport’s economy, its successor is in the process of abandoning three dams that shape the surrounding watershed.

On Thursday night, scores of people who rely on the dam’s reservoirs for drinking water and waterfront property value packed into the former mill’s campus, seizing their only opportunity to confront representatives of the dams’ owner, AIM Development USA.

One by one, attendees peppered company officials with questions about what would happen to the homes huddled around the dams’ reservoirs and those located downstream, what structural condition the dams are in and what risks will remain when they’re abandoned.

“If the worst-case scenario… is that you release the water because we have no other option, do we have a (projection) of what will happen?” asked a resident on Toddy Pond whose family has lived there since the 1930s. “Should I get scuba gear for my house, or should I get sun-tanning lotion, because it will be a desert?”

For officials from Bucksport, Orland, Surry and the local water utility, Thursday marked the first time meeting with AIM in-person since the company announced its intention to abandon the dams this summer. They demanded clarity on how AIM would honor its obligation, as stated in property deeds, to maintain a reservoir that serves as Bucksport’s drinking water supply and cools a gas-fired power plant. If no entity or state agency claims the dams, state law allows AIM to open their flood gates and release water from the reservoirs in a minimally impactful way, leaving mudflats and the structures behind.

“Our town has sought information from the petitioners,” said Bucksport town manager Susan Lessard, yet “rather than receive information, we have experienced a process characterized by chaos and confusion.”

Representatives from AIM met them with silence, promising to answer the questions online in the next few weeks.

As Maine’s dams age and maintenance costs mount, the outcome of the debate could provide a playbook for others to follow.

Thirteen years after a Monitor investigation revealed that Maine was behind on inspecting the state’s most hazardous dams, Maine’s dam safety program, like dozens of others across the country, remains understaffed and underfunded, even in the face of a changing climate and more intense storms.

Although the state agency tasked with ensuring the safety of more than 500 dams is now up-to-date with inspections, the program has yet to institute modern protocols.

The office lacks digitized records of emergency procedures that residents should follow if a local dam fails, as well as digital inundation maps outlining flooding threats.

Last year the program had to bring an engineer out of retirement to inspect the hundreds of dams under the state’s jurisdiction because applications for the permanent lead engineer were scant, despite reclassifying the position numerous times to higher pay scales. The office only recently hired an assistant engineer to assist with inspections.

“Maine’s dam infrastructure is aging, and the Dam Safety Program is currently understaffed, facing significant challenges with implementing dam risk reduction,” wrote the authors of Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Several of the dams overseen by the program are both “high” risk — meaning people could die if they fail – and in “unsatisfactory” condition — the worst possible grade. The dam safety program rarely follows up on its repair recommendations, according to a 2023 report, and does not take enforcement actions when dam owners disobey, meaning the program does not compel private dam owners to maintain even the most dilapidated, dangerous dams.

As Maine dams reach the end of their useful lives and maintenance bills mount, some dam owners are abdicating upkeep responsibilities or forfeiting ownership of their dams altogether — leaving communities like Bucksport and Orland at risk of inheriting these costly burdens.

At an average age of more than 100, the 672 regulated dams on Maine rivers, streams, lakes and ponds are far from paragons of modern infrastructure.

Of the 590 Maine dams tracked in a federal dam database, 62 are considered to be in poor condition and have some sort of safety deficiency, while 15 are deemed unsatisfactory and require more immediate maintenance.

Ten of the fifteen unsatisfactory dams are also labeled high hazard, meaning that dams from Boothbay Harbor to Fort Fairfield with immediate safety defects could put the lives of downstream residents at risk if they fail.

Nine poor condition dams, meanwhile, have the same high hazard rating but are on average more than two decades older than the unsatisfactory dams.

It’s up to the state dam safety program to guide owners’ dams into compliance, but regulators say that can be difficult because they lack capacity for enforcement.

Maine’s agency has two engineers to oversee the state-regulated dams, which include 15 of the 39 high hazard dams. The federal agency tasked with overseeing large hydropower dams, meanwhile, has five engineers to inspect the 34 high hazard dams under its purview.

The behemoth frozen potato purveyor McCain Foods owns a high hazard, poor condition dam that forms Christina Reservoir near Fort Fairfield and another high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dam at Lake Josephine just a mile away.

The town of Fort Fairfield owns a pair of high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dams at Bryant Pond and upstream on Libby Brook that are intended to reduce flood risk, but are developing risks of their own. (The town disputed the dam safety program’s assessment, saying their risks are lower and the dams are regularly maintained).

Outside of this cluster in Fort Fairfield, Maine’s 75 high hazard dams and 85 significant hazard dams (which may not harm human life if they fail, but will cause economic and environmental damage) are scattered across the state.

It’s up to the Maine dam safety program’s lead inspector and assistant to assess 160 high and significant hazard dams once every six years and the remaining 363 dams under state jurisdiction once every 12 years, all while maintaining emergency plans.

The program has been able to do just that, according to a 2023 assessment conducted by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. All Maine dams have been inspected within their deadlines and have corresponding emergency plans; this means Maine has one of the highest compliance rates in the country.

The authors of the assessment commended Maine dam safety employees for their hard work to “keep the program’s head above water” but painted a grim picture of the program’s ability to enforce safety standards.

“Identifying deficiencies through periodic inspection is crucial, but ultimately does nothing for public safety if dams are not repaired and completed in an acceptable manner,” the authors wrote.

Low funding and chronic understaffing have long plagued Maine’s dam safety program, symptoms of its sole reliance on federal grants for the program’s operating costs.

The program does not receive any direct appropriations from the state legislature and does not collect any fees. In 2021, it received a meager $67,241 through its primary federal grant — at least $200,000 less than it needed, according to an internal report, and the program had to borrow from funds elsewhere.

Though the dam safety program has the authority under state law to enforce compliance, none of that funding has gone to enforcement or compliance measures. The program lacks written policies describing what enforcement would even look like.

Its scant budget has also made it nearly impossible to hire a permanent lead dam inspector, according to Steven Mallory, the head of the dam safety program and the director of operations and response for the Maine Emergency Management Agency.

One year ago, Mallory, who is not an engineer, was facing a perilous situation after the lead dam inspector left for another job and no viable candidates applied to replace him. The program was narrowly rescued when retired inspector Tony Fletcher agreed to return on an interim basis.

Mallory has increased the pay scale of the job several times since then but has had only two candidates apply over the three years, likely because engineers can find far more lucrative positions elsewhere.

With these constraints, the dam safety program is constantly playing catch-up, failing to take more proactive steps to enforce safety standards, guide dam owners through necessary upkeep or removal and modernize risk mapping and dam databases, according to the assessment.

Recent flooding and near misses with dam failure elsewhere in the United States have shown how costly such shortfalls can be.

Emergency officials sounded this alarm to a state commission on infrastructure and climate change resilience last week.

“We’ve seen in other states this year issues where dams have failed and flooded communities,” said Darren Woods, director of Aroostook County’s Emergency Management Agency. “We certainly don’t want to see that happen here in Maine.”

Hazard classifications and condition assessments don’t necessarily paint the full picture of a dam’s corresponding risk, according to Mallory.

The structures may be designed to withstand a 500-year flood and perform well when one hits, but the floodwaters still have to go somewhere.

In the case of the town-owned dam in the heart of Dover-Foxcroft, that somewhere is into a crucial state thruway and the basement of a nearby apartment complex. Last December, when the Piscataquis River swelled behind the dam’s wall, it caused water damage and complicated access to the southern part of the state.

“Most of our dams are in really good shape where they can handle excess water. However, with all the flooding and the rain, it just exasperates that problem,” Mallory told The Maine Monitor. “It’s just too much water and it’s gotta go somewhere.”

Human-caused climate change has increased both the frequency and severity of floods in Maine, spurred by intense downpours concentrated in shorter and shorter periods.

A study published last month in the scientific journal Nature found that it’s these rapid downpours — like the one that ripped through central and western Maine in December 2023 — preceded by multiple days of precipitation that caused most dam failures between 2000 and 2021.

Its authors concluded that current engineering standards for dam flood resilience assume conservative climate conditions, and they called for officials to revisit these standards and consider more severe weather patterns.

Like most other state dam agencies, Maine’s program follows model state dam regulations distributed by the ASDSO and federal government. Those standards have not yet incorporated climate change’s effects into their guidance, according to Mallory, though an ASDSO official said the organization has been advocating that state dam programs adopt updated models for extreme precipitation.

Back in Maine, meanwhile, regulations already consider worst-case flooding scenarios for state-regulated dams.

Mallory got a taste of what could be in store for Maine dams in the early morning hours of December 19, 2023, when a catastrophic combination of rain and snowmelt engorged the Kennebec River.

Mallory’s fears lay downstream, where a pair of high hazard dams are nestled on the Cobbosseecontee Stream right before it meets the Kennebec River in the heart of downtown Gardiner.

Both dams are in adequate condition, but Mallory was concerned nonetheless. He rushed to visit the dams, and was relieved to find them effectively passing the torrent of floodwater.

Despite the fears that nagged him that day, Mallory said he is confident in Maine’s dams. Yet he can’t discount the increasing impact climate change will have on their infrastructure.

While climate change may not be incorporated into the way Maine inspects dams and helps draft emergency plans, the state is preparing Maine dams for climate change in other ways.

Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, for example, calls for tapping into a federal grant program for rehabilitating and removing high hazard dams. The mitigation plan’s local risk reduction recommendations show a variety of maintenance needs for municipally-owned, high hazard dams that have been deferred due to a lack of funds, like a $200,000 project to fortify a dam in Durham that has been patched but “needs to be strengthened and repaired to prevent failure.”

In July 2023, nearby Vermont experienced firsthand the disastrous outcomes that deferred dam maintenance can lead to. After record downpours flooded valleys up the state’s mountainous spine, five dams failed and more than 50 were damaged or overtopped by floodwater, according to Ben Green, head of the Vermont dam safety program.

The dams that failed were all in poor condition and municipally or privately owned, but luckily, Green said, were fairly small, earthen embankments and didn’t result in any downstream damage. That was due in part to the intense flooding that had already wrecked the dams’ watersheds, meaning even the two significant hazard dams that failed did not cause any separate, discernible damage.

“So that was fortunate, I guess,” Green said.

There were close calls elsewhere. On July 11, 2023, murky brown floodwater in the Wrightsville Reservoir scaled the side of a state-owned dam right outside of Montpelier, coming within one foot of overtopping its spillway and bursting down into the already flood-ravaged state capital.

Green said his office stationed personnel at the state-owned dams all night for the first few days after the flood, closely monitoring the dams for any signs of impending failure.

Though failures of such magnitude have been rare in Maine, the state has its fair share of hazardous dams and in 2005 saw a state-owned dam fail near Newcastle, releasing debris from a man-made lake that cost $300,000 to clean up.

Part of the concern surrounding the abandonment of the Bucksport-area dams comes from the high hazard potential and poor condition of the dam on Silver Lake. If breached, its floodwaters could reach 70 homes and endanger hundreds of lives downstream in Bucksport, according to a 2021 inspection from Fletcher, the dam safety program engineer.

Fletcher also described significant deficiencies with the dam, including a deteriorating concrete structure and leakages developing in its left and right sides. He recommended that AIM create an operation and maintenance plan to track the dam’s leakages and other issues, then report back to the dam safety program twice a year.

But the dam safety program never followed up with AIM after that, according to Mallory, the dam safety program’s director. The program struggles to inspect all the hazardous dams it is obligated to and couldn’t spare sending an engineer to follow-up on a dam that had already been inspected before its deadline, Mallory told The Monitor Friday after attending AIM’s public hearing.

“There’s a lot of steps that we could do if I had another engineer,” Mallory said. “I would have sent an engineer down there to reinspect those dams. I don’t have that. I just don’t have those assets. I have Tony, and we’re trying.”

After going four years without tapping into the federal grant that funds the design process for rehabilitating or removing high hazard dams, Maine secured a $2.5 million award this fall. Outside experts and the program’s assistant dam inspector have also been working to update inundation maps with GIS and digitize dam emergency action plans, according to Mallory.

And even without the digitization of the emergency plans, Mallory is confident in MEMA’s ability to adequately warn communities through alerts similar to those issued by the National Weather Service for flash floods.

Compared to what the state’s hazard mitigation plan and the ASDSO report call for, however, these modest gains are only a sliver of what Maine needs to modernize its dam safety program and foster resilience to climate change. One internal estimate from MEMA recommended a $900,000 annual budget for the dam program, enough funding for two engineers, two assistant engineers and administrative staff.

States in similar situations have managed to overcome the same obstacles, however. When Green started at Vermont’s dam safety program in 2017, he was one of two engineers responsible for inspecting hundreds of dams and operating the 13 state-owned dams.

The dam safety program’s legal authority was so weak that Green couldn’t even set foot on a private dam owner’s land without their permission, let alone inspect dams and compel owners to make necessary repairs.

Then, in 2018, the Vermont legislature granted the program rulemaking authority, allowing dam regulators to bring their program up to date with federal standards and take enforcement action when dam owners fail to maintain their dams.

Vermont’s updates were gradual and limited to policy at first, but as time went on the program added a few more staff members through grant funding, then the July 2023 floods fast-tracked the program.

“Within a few years we were able to pull together the two additional staff, which made everything seem possible,” Green said. “The flood kept us moving uphill.”

Green now has plans for the program to expand to almost a dozen staff members and is leading a massive inventory effort to record the location, condition and owners of the dams that have been able to skirt regulation, then compel the owners to make required improvements.

“Dams are forgotten infrastructure, and I think that’s obviously changing with all the highlights that dams have had in the last years,” Green said. “It’s something that we in the dam safety community can’t let people forget.”

Back in Maine, Mallory sees the abandonment of the Bucksport dams as an example of the dire straits that his dam safety program is in and a call for action to turn it around.

After the hearing, Mallory lingered behind and chatted with state legislators, explaining how part of these complications might have been avoided if Maine adopted the changes recommended in the peer review. With adequate staff, funding and policies, the program could have mandated compliance from AIM and ensured the dams’ safety before they were abandoned.

“I think this is a guinea pig,” Mallory said. “This is the first abandonment ever. I’m hoping that with the attention on this, the legislators will (consider the recommendations) that we submitted and that will help future problems.”

This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A rare glimpse inside the mountain tunnel that carries water to Southern California

In the 1930s, workers bored a 13-mile tunnel beneath Mt. San Jacinto. Here's a look inside the engineering feat that carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Thousands of feet below the snowy summit of Mt. San Jacinto, a formidable feat of engineering and grit makes life as we know it in Southern California possible. The 13-mile-long San Jacinto Tunnel was bored through the mountain in the 1930s by a crew of about 1,200 men who worked day and night for six years, blasting rock and digging with machinery. Completed in 1939, the tunnel was a cornerstone in the construction of the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct. It enabled the delivery of as much as 1 billion gallons of water per day.The tunnel is usually off-limits when it is filled and coursing with a massive stream of Colorado River water. But recently, while it was shut down for annual maintenance, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California opened the west end of the passage to give The Times and others a rare look inside. “It’s an engineering marvel,” said John Bednarski, an assistant general manager of MWD. “It’s pretty awe-inspiring.” The 16-foot-diameter San Jacinto Tunnel runs 13 miles through the mountain. While shut down for maintenance, the tunnel has a constant stream of water entering from the mountain. A group visits the west end of the San Jacinto Tunnel, where the mouth of the water tunnel enters a chamber. He wore a hard hat as he led a group to the gaping, horseshoe-shaped mouth of the tunnel. The passage’s concrete arch faded in the distance to pitch black.The tunnel wasn’t entirely empty. The sound of rushing water echoed from the walls as an ankle-deep stream flowed from the portal and cascaded into a churning pool beneath metal gates. Many in the tour group wore rubber boots as they stood on moist concrete in a chamber faintly lit by filtered sunlight, peering into the dark tunnel. This constant flow comes as groundwater seeps and gushes from springs that run through the heart of the mountain. In places deep in the tunnel, water shoots so forcefully from the floor or the wall that workers have affectionately named these soaking obstacles “the fire hose” and “the car wash.”Standing by the flowing stream, Bednarski called it “leakage water from the mountain itself.”Mt. San Jacinto rises 10,834 feet above sea level, making it the second-highest peak in Southern California after 11,503-foot Mt. San Gorgonio.As the tunnel passes beneath San Jacinto’s flank, as much as 2,500 feet of solid rock lies overhead, pierced only by two vertical ventilation shafts. Snow covers Mt. San Jacinto, as seen from Whitewater, in March. At the base of the mountain, the 13-mile San Jacinto Tunnel starts its journey. The tunnel transports Colorado River water to Southern California’s cities. During maintenance, workers roll through on a tractor equipped with a frame bearing metal bristles that scrape the tunnel walls, cleaning off algae and any growth of invasive mussels. Workers also inspect the tunnel by passing through on an open trailer, scanning for any cracks that require repairs.“It’s like a Disneyland ride,” said Bryan Raymond, an MWD conveyance team manager. “You’re sitting on this trailer, and there’s a bunch of other people on it too, and you’re just cruising through looking at the walls.” Aside from the spraying and trickling water, employee Michael Volpone said he has also heard faint creaking.“If you sit still and listen, you can kind of hear the earth move,” he said. “It’s a little eerie.”Standing at the mouth of the tunnel, the constant babble of cascading water dominates the senses. The air is moist but not musty. Put a hand to the clear flowing water, and it feels warm enough for a swim. On the concrete walls are stained lines that extend into the darkness, marking where the water often reaches when the aqueduct is running full. Many who have worked on the aqueduct say they are impressed by the system’s design and how engineers and workers built such a monumental system with the basic tools and technology available during the Great Depression.Pipelines and tunnelsThe search for a route to bring Colorado River water across the desert to Los Angeles began with the signing of a 1922 agreement that divided water among seven states. After the passage of a $2-million bond measure by Los Angeles voters in 1925, hundreds of surveyors fanned out across the largely roadless Mojave and Sonoran deserts to take measurements and study potential routes.The surveyors traveled mostly on horseback and on foot as they mapped the rugged terrain, enduring grueling days in desert camps where the heat sometimes topped 120 degrees.Planners studied and debated more than 100 potential paths before settling on one in 1931. The route began near Parker, Ariz., and took a curving path through desert valleys, around obstacles and, where there was no better option, through mountains.In one official report, a manager wrote that “to bore straight through the mountains is very expensive and to pump over them is likewise costly.” He said the planners carefully weighed these factors as they decided on a solution that would deliver water at the lowest cost. VIDEO | 02:45 A visit to the giant tunnel that brings Colorado River water to Southern California Share via Those in charge of the Metropolitan Water District, which had been created in 1928 to lead the effort, were focused on delivering water to 13 participating cities, including Los Angeles, Burbank and Anaheim. William Mulholland, Los Angeles’ chief water engineer, had led an early scouting party to map possible routes from the Colorado River to Southern California’s cities in 1923, a decade after he celebrated the completion of the 233-mile aqueduct from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles with the triumphant words, “There it is. Take it.”The aqueduct’s design matched the audaciousness of the giant dams the federal government was starting to build along the Colorado — Hoover Dam (originally called Boulder Dam) and Parker Dam, which formed the reservoir where the aqueduct would begin its journey.Five pumping plants would be built to lift water more than 1,600 feet along the route across the desert. Between those points, water would run by gravity through open canals, buried pipelines and 29 separate tunnels stretching 92 miles — the longest of which was a series of nine tunnels running 33.7 miles through hills bordering the Coachella Valley.To make it possible, voters in the district’s 13 cities overwhelmingly approved a $220-million bond in 1931, the equivalent of a $4.5-billion investment today, which enabled the hiring of 35,000 workers. Crews set up camps, excavated canals and began to blast open shafts through the desert’s rocky spines to make way for water.In 1933, workers started tearing into the San Jacinto Mountains at several locations, from the east and the west, as well as excavating shafts from above. Black-and-white photographs and films showed miners in hard hats and soiled uniforms as they stood smoking cigarettes, climbing into open rail cars and running machinery that scooped and loaded piles of rocks.Crews on another hulking piece of equipment, called a jumbo, used compressed-air drills to bore dozens of holes, which were packed with blasting power and detonated to pierce the rock. (Courtesy of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) The work progressed slowly, growing complicated when the miners struck underground streams, which sent water gushing in.According to a 1991 history of the MWD titled “A Water Odyssey,” one flood in 1934 disabled two of three pumps that had been brought in to clear the tunnel. In another sudden flood, an engineer recalled that “the water came in with a big, mad rush and filled the shaft to the top. Miners scrambled up the 800-foot ladder to the surface, and the last man out made it with water swirling around his waist.”Death and delaysAccording to the MWD’s records, 13 workers died during the tunnel’s construction, including men who were struck by falling rocks, run over by equipment or electrocuted with a wire on one of the mining trolleys that rolled on railroad tracks. The Metropolitan Water District had originally hired Wenzel & Henoch Construction Co. to build the tunnel. But after less than two years, only about two miles of the tunnel had been excavated, and the contractor was fired by MWD general manager Frank Elwin “F.E.” Weymouth, who assigned the district’s engineers and workers to complete the project.Construction was delayed again in 1937 when workers went on strike for six weeks. But in 1939, the last wall of rock tumbled down, uniting the east and west tunnels, and the tunnel was finished. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, stands in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water. The total cost was $23.5 million. But there also were other costs. As the construction work drained water, many nearby springs used by the Native Soboba people stopped flowing. The drying of springs and creeks left the tribe’s members without water and starved their farms, which led to decades of litigation by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and eventually a legal settlement in 2008 that resolved the tribe’s water rights claims.The ‘magic touch’ of waterBy the time the tunnel was completed, the Metropolitan Water District had released a 20-minute film that was shown in movie theaters and schools celebrating its conquest of the Colorado River and the desert. It called Mt. San Jacinto the “tallest and most forbidding barrier.”In a rich baritone, the narrator declared Southern California “a new empire made possible by the magic touch of water.” “Water required to support this growth and wealth could not be obtained from the local rainfall in this land of sunshine,” the narrator said as the camera showed newly built homes and streets filled with cars and buses. “The people therefore realized that a new and dependable water supply must be provided, and this new water supply has been found on the lofty western slopes of the Rocky Mountains, a wonderland of beauty, clad by nature in a white mantle of snow.”Water began to flow through the aqueduct in 1939 as the pumping plants were tested. At the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant, near the aqueduct’s halfway point, water was lifted 441 feet, surging through three pipelines up a desert mountain. March 2012 image of the 10-foot-diameter delivery lines carrying water 441 feet uphill from the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant. (Los Angeles Times) From there, the water flowed by gravity, moving at 3-6 mph as it traveled through pipelines, siphons and tunnels. It entered the San Jacinto Tunnel in Cabazon, passed under the mountain and emerged near the city of San Jacinto, then continued in pipelines to Lake Mathews reservoir in Riverside County. In 1941, Colorado River water started flowing to Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Compton and other cities. Within six years, another pipeline was built to transport water from the aqueduct south to San Diego.The influx of water fueled Southern California’s rapid growth during and after World War II.Over decades, the dams and increased diversions also took an environmental toll, drying up much of the once-vast wetlands in Mexico’s Colorado River Delta. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, walks in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel. An impressive designToday, 19 million people depend on water delivered by the MWD, which also imports supplies from Northern California through the aqueducts and pipelines of the State Water Project.In recent decades, the agency has continued boring tunnels where needed to move water. A $1.2-billion, 44-mile-long conveyance system called the Inland Feeder, completed in 2009, involved boring eight miles of tunnels through the San Bernardino Mountains and another 7.9-mile tunnel under the Badlands in Riverside County.The system enabled the district to increase its capacity and store more water during wet years in Diamond Valley Lake, Southern California’s largest reservoir, which can hold about 260 billion gallons of water. “Sometimes tunneling is actually the most effective way to get from point A to point B,” said Deven Upadhyay, the MWD’s general manager.Speaking hypothetically, Upadhyay said, if engineers had another shot at designing and building the aqueduct now using modern technology, it’s hard to say if they would end up choosing the same route through Mt. San Jacinto or a different route around it. But the focus on minimizing cost might yield a similar route, he said.“Even to this day, it’s a pretty impressive design,” Upadhyay said.When people drive past on the I-10 in Cabazon, few realize that a key piece of infrastructure lies hidden where the desert meets the base of the mountain. At the tunnel’s exit point near San Jacinto, the only visible signs of the infrastructure are several concrete structures resembling bunkers. When the aqueduct is running, those who enter the facility will hear the rumble of rushing water. The tunnel’s west end was opened to a group of visitors in March, when the district’s managers held an event to name the tunnel in honor of Randy Record, who served on the MWD board for two decades and was chair from 2014 to 2018. Speaking to an audience, Upadhyay reflected on the struggles the region now faces as the Colorado River is sapped by drought and global warming, and he drew a parallel to the challenges the tunnel’s builders overcame in the 1930s. “They found a path,” Upadhyay said. “This incredible engineering feat. And it required strength, courage and really an innovative spirit.” “When we now think about the challenges that we face today, dealing with wild swings in climate and the potential reductions that we might face, sharing dwindling supplies on our river systems with the growing Southwest, it’s going to require the same thing — strength, courage and a spirit of innovation,” he said. A steep steel staircase gives access to a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Officials to Test Water From Ohio Village Near Cold War-Era Weapons Plant After Newspaper Probe

Authorities in Ohio plan to test the water supply across a small village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites

LUCKEY, Ohio (AP) — Authorities in Ohio plan to test the groundwater supply across a village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites.However, The Blade in Toledo said its tests showed radioactivity levels 10 times higher than normal in water from a drinking fountain at Eastwood Middle School, 45 times higher than normal at the Luckey Library and 1,731 times higher than normal at a water pump near athletic fields.“We’ve got to get to the bottom of this,” said Lt. Col. Robert Burnham, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Buffalo District, which oversees the cleanup.Nineteen of the 39 samples collected by the newspaper from well water across Luckey — at homes, businesses, and public places — showed radioactivity at least 10 times greater than what the federal government calls normal for the area, the newspaper said. The Blade hired an accredited private lab to conduct the testing.The radioactivity detected was primarily bismuth-214, which decays from the radioactive gas radon-222. Experts agree that high levels of bismuth-214 suggest high levels of radon are also present.Radon exposure is the leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.The testing also found low levels of radioactive cobalt-60, a man-made isotope, in two wells. Experts called that finding extremely rare.Taehyun Roh, a Texas A&M University scientist who specializes in environmental exposures, said regulators should also conduct air and soil testing to assess the extent of the contamination and identify the source."Since this area likely has high radon levels, testing for radon in both air and water is advisable,” he wrote in an email. “A safe drinking water advisory should be issued, recommending the use of bottled water until further assessments and mitigation measures are in place.”The Corps of Engineers has long maintained that residential drinking water was not being contaminated by the removal work. Burnham and others said they still believe that to be true, citing thousands of their own soil samples.The state Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health will lead the testing. In an email, Ohio EPA spokesperson Katie Boyer told the newspaper the contaminant levels in the public drinking water are still “within acceptable drinking water standards.” She said any concerns raised by the state testing would be addressed.The 44-acre industrial site — 22 miles (35 kilometers) south of Toledo — was long crucial to America’s nuclear weapons program. In the 1940s, farmland was replaced by a sprawling defense plant that produced magnesium metal for the Manhattan Project. In the 1950s, the plant became the government’s sole source of beryllium metal for nuclear bombs, Cold War missiles and Space Race products, including a heat shield for Project Mercury.“Things that happened generations ago are still affecting us,” said Karina Hahn-Claydon, a 50-year-old teacher whose family lives less than a mile from the site. “And that’s because the government didn’t take care of it.”Private drinking wells, unlike municipal systems, are not regulated, and responsibility for testing is left to owners. The Blade’s testing took place from April 2024 through January.Radioactivity has been linked to an increased risk of various cancers, including blood and thyroid cancers.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

UK spending watchdog censures water firms and regulators over sewage failings

NAO finds regulatory gaps have enabled overspending on infrastructure building while not improving sewage worksWater companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries. Continue reading...

Water companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries.Bills in England and Wales are rising by £123 on average this year, and will go up further over the next five years, so that companies can fix ageing sewage infrastructure and stop spills of human waste from contaminating rivers and seas. Several water firms have complained to the Competition and Markets Authority because they want the regulator to allow them to increase bills even further.Only 1% of water companies’ actions to improve environmental performance, such as improving sewer overflows, have been inspected by the Environment Agency, the authors of the NAO report said. They also found there was no regulator responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater assets to prevent further environmental harm.The report, which audited the three water regulators, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, also found the regulators did not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets such as leaking sewers and ageing sewage treatment facilities as they do not have a set of metrics to assess their condition.Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Given the unprecedented situation facing the sector, Defra and the regulators need to act urgently to address industry performance and resilience to ensure the sector can meet government targets and achieve value for money over the long term for bill payers.”Despite the huge costs of infrastructure, the water companies have moved slowly meaning that at the current rate, it would take 700 years to replace the entire existing water network, the report found. Regulatory gaps and a lack of urgency about replacing old and malfunctioning infrastructure has caused a “rising tide of risk” in the sector, which is contributing to increasing bills for customers, the report warned.It also criticised the lack of a national plan for water supply and recommended that Defra must understand the costs and deliverability of its plans, alongside the impact they would have on customers’ bills.Several of the issues raised by the NAO, including concerns about weak infrastructure, have come to the fore in the debate over the future of Thames Water, the country’s largest water company with 16 million customers. Thames, which is under significant financial pressure with almost £20bn in debt, needs to secure fresh investment within months. Questions over the state of Thames’s infrastructure and regulatory punishment it could face for its failures have dogged the process of winning fresh funds. Meanwhile, Ofwat has also rejected its requests to raise bills by as much as 59%, instead allowing a 35% increase over the next five years.The government set up the independent water commission (IWC) last year to investigate how the water industry operated and whether regulation was fit for purpose.Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Tory chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said: “Today’s NAO report lays bare the scale of the challenges facing the water sector – not least the real prospect of water shortfall without urgent action.“The consequences of government’s failure to regulate this sector properly are now landing squarely on bill payers who are being left to pick up the tab. After years of under-investment, pollution incidents and water supply issues, it is no surprise that consumer trust is at an all-time low. Having not built any reservoirs in the last 30 years, we now need 10.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Consumers rightly expect a water sector that is robust, resilient and fit for the future. Defra and the regulators must focus on rebuilding public confidence and ensure the sector can attract the long-term investment it desperately needs.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”An Ofwat spokesperson added: “We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight. We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act.”Water UK, which represents the water companies, has been contacted for comment.

Water firms admit sewage monitoring damaging public trust

The industry says powers to self-monitor water quality should be handed back to the regulator.

Water companies should no longer be allowed to monitor their own levels of sewage pollution, the industry body has told the BBC exclusively.Instead they are proposing a new, third-party monitoring system to build consumer trust.The recommendation is part of a submission made to the UK government's independent review into the water sector.Campaigners have long complained the companies' self-reporting has prevented the true scale of pollution in UK water being revealed.A third-party system could add more pressure to the regulators, which have also been criticised for not holding the companies to account. A report from the National Audit Office is expected to say on Friday that the Environment Agency does not currently have enough capacity to take on any new monitoring.David Henderson, CEO of industry body Water UK, told the BBC: "We absolutely accept that self-monitoring is not helping to instil trust and so we would like to see an end to it, and in place of it a more robust, third-party system." As part of their permitting arrangements water companies are expected to regularly sample water quality to identify potential pollution, and submit this data to the Environment Agency in an arrangement known as "operator self monitoring". But there have been incidents of misreporting by water companies in England and Wales uncovered by the regulators, who said some cases had been deliberate.Southern Water was previously issued fines totalling £213m by the industry regulator (Ofwat) and the environmental regulator (the Environment Agency) for manipulating sewage data.In that case, there was unreported pollution into numerous conservation sites which caused "major environmental harm" to wildlife.The company later admitted its actions "fell short".Henderson added that the industry never asked to self-monitor, but that it was introduced in 2009 by the then Labour government to "reduce the administrative burden" on the Environment Agency (EA). In 2023, the BBC reported that EA staff were concerned that, due to funding cuts, the Agency was increasingly relying on water companies to self-report rather than carrying out its own checks on pollution from sewage. The current environment minister, Steve Reed, has promised to review the system, calling it the equivalent of companies "mark[ing] their own homework".But the National Audit Office (NAO), which reviews government spending, questioned the ability of the EA to take on any new monitoring. "Regulators need to address the fact that they currently have limited oversight over whether water companies are carrying out their work as expected. It is hard to see how they will achieve this without increased overall capacity," said Anita Shah, NAO Director of Regulation.It is expected to publish a full review of the regulation of the water sector on Friday. A Defra spokesperson told the BBC: "We are committed to taking decisive action to fix the water industry. The Water Commission's recommendations will mark the next major step [to] restore public trust in the sector."The government launched an independent water commission in October to review the sector and the way it is regulated. The public consultation closed on Wednesday with the findings expected in July. Water UK submitted a 200-page document of recommendations, including this call to end self-monitoring.The industry body also requested that water meters be universal across England and Wales to make bills fairer. At present about 60% of the population have a meter."The meter is just to ensure that people are paying for what they use as opposed to a flat rate of system where you can use virtually no water and pay the same as someone filling up a pool three times in a summer," said Henderson."This doesn't properly reflect the value of water and encourage people to conserve it in the way that we need," he added.

Cambodia Canal's Impact on Mekong Questioned After China Signs Deal

By Francesco Guarascio(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water...

(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water from the rice-growing floodplains of Vietnam's Mekong Delta, said the body overseeing the transnational river.After months of uncertainty, Phnom Penh last week signed a deal with China to develop the Funan Techo Canal when President Xi Jinping visited Cambodia as part of a tour of Southeast Asia.It was Beijing's first explicit public commitment to the project, giving state-controlled construction giant China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) a 49% stake through a subsidiary, but also linking Chinese support to the "sustainability" of the project.The Secretariat of the intergovernmental Mekong River Commission (MRC) that coordinates the sustainable development of Southeast Asia's longest river said it had so far received from Cambodia only "basic information" on the project."We hope that further details, including the feasibility study report and other relevant reports, will be provided," the Commission said in a statement to Reuters this week.That would be needed "to ensure that any potential implications for the broader Mekong Basin are fully considered," it added.The canal has already created concern among environmentalists who say it could further harm the delicate ecology of the Mekong Delta, which is Vietnam's major rice growing region and is already facing problems of drought and salination as result of infrastructure projects upstream. Vietnam is also a leading exporter of rice.On Friday, the Cambodian government said the canal would have minimal environmental impact and "aligns with the 1995 Mekong Agreement" which governs cooperation among riverine countries in Southeast Asia.The Mekong River, fed by a series of tributaries, flows some 4,900 kilometres (3,045 miles) from its source in the Tibetan plateau through China, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to the sea."Whether the Funan Techo Canal violates the 1995 Mekong Agreement depends on several factors, including its connection to the Mekong mainstream," the Commission said, offering additional guidance to Phnom Penh and other member states "to ensure compliance".Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam are members of the MRC while China and Myanmar are dialogue partners.The Cambodian government did not respond to questions about whether it intended to share the requested documents.Vietnam's foreign ministry did not reply to a request for comment after the deal with China was signed, but the country has repeatedly asked Cambodia to share more information about the canal to assess its impact.Xi made no reference to the canal in his public statements in Phnom Penh but a joint communique issued at the end of his visit said China supported Cambodia in building the canal "in accordance with the principles of feasibility and sustainability".The deal signed by CCCC on Friday was for a 151.6 km (94.2 miles) canal costing $1.16 billion.However, the Cambodian government says on the canal's official website that the waterway would stretch 180 km and cost $1.7 billion at completion in 2028.The higher cost reflects a short section to be built by Cambodian firms as well as bridges and water conservation resources, the government told Reuters without clarifying who would pay for the bridges and water conservation.Cambodia's deputy prime minister said in May 2024 that China would cover the entire cost of the project, which was put at $1.7 billion.The canal is designed to link the Mekong Basin to the Gulf of Thailand in Cambodia's southern Kep province. Much of the Mekong's nutrient-rich sediment no longer reaches rice farms in the Delta because of multiple hydroelectric dams built by China upriver, a Reuters analysis showed in 2022.The project agreed with China is also different from the original plan as it is focusing on boosting irrigation rather than solely pursuing navigation purposes, said Brian Eyler, an expert on the Mekong region at U.S.-based think tank Stimson Center.The water diverted from the Mekong Delta "will be much more than previously described," said Eyler.(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio; additional reporting by Khanh Vu in Hanoi; Editing by Kate Mayberry)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.