Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current regulations for impoundments. My wife and I purchased a farm in 1996 which had everything we were looking for in a piece of property. Chief among the attractive features was a wonderful pond which would serve us well in our plan to raise sheep and goats on the farm. It functioned well as a water source for these animals and allowed us to use it for the irrigation of nursery plants as well. We had no qualms about this pond as it was designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The pond dam was also constructed by The Corps.
In the 28 years we have owned the farm this pond has never given us any trouble. On only one occasion, during hurricane Jeanne in 2004, has water ever entered the spillway. During this event, the dam functioned brilliantly.
It was quite a surprise when, in the latter part of 2022, we received a letter from The Commonwealth stating that our dam was now subject to regulation as it fit into the parameter of a dam height of 25 feet or more with an impoundment of more than 15 acre/feet. We were informed of the need for inspection, creation of a Dam Break Inundation Zone Study and the development of an Emergency Action Plan. While we were pleased to hear that there were grants available to assist with the expenses involved herein, we were shocked to find that these requirements were to cost well in excess of $30,000.00 and, while we might be able to receive 50% of the cost in the form of grants, we would be required to demonstrate our ability to pay for the entire amount should grants not be available for one reason or another. Like so many of our neighbors, we struggle to find the funds to keep our operations going and the specter of this additional expense has been the source on some sleepless nights.
Two issues prompted me to write during this public comment period. First, would it not be appropriate to consider that a Dam engineered and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at no small expense to the previous landowner and used as a major inducement for our purchase of this property; all of which occurred well before the current regulations were put into place, be accorded "Grandfathered" status and not subject to the current regulations? Secondly, it seems that dam height (as defined in the current regulations) being used as the determining factor for regulation is inherently flawed. By this I mean that the relevant issue, at least in our case, is that we have a properly functioning spillway which handled the 13+ inches of rain we had during hurricane Jeanne without issue. The water level never neared the top of the dam. If we were to add additional height to the top of the dam it would not make it any more safe, as the important feature to consider is the height from the natural stream bed level below the dam to the lowest point on the spillway- not the highest point of the dam.
As we cannot afford to pay the expenses required to meet these current regulations we will, if not given some consideration, be forced to decrease the impoundment below the stated 15 acre/feet stated therein in order to be in compliance. This would seem to be a "lose-lose" scenario. The benefit to the ecosystem of the current pond would suffer in this situation as would available fresh water for any emergency. The wildfire issue in Virginia this Autumn (one of which was in our home county of Patrick) points out the potential benefit of having a good water source to tap into in such a case.
My wife and I request that some consideration be given in the Impoundment Regulations for cases like ours- a perfectly functioning pond, engineered and built by an organization with the highest credentials. This appears to be especially relevant when said construction was completed well before any of the current regulations were in place.