State commissioner outlines Richmond Lake dam repair timeline; residents press county to clarify upstream control

Brock Greenfield, South Dakota Commissioner of School and Public Land, told the Brown County Commission that engineers discovered the dam’s cutoff wall needed more extensive repair than the original spillway-only plan, and that March bidding produced prices above earlier estimates. Greenfield said state staff and contractors worked with FEMA and the legislature to secure additional appropriations and to re-bid the work so the project could proceed.

Greenfield summarized why the project grew in scope and cost. “When the bids were opened on March 4 … they were outside the realm of what we had had appropriated up until then,” he said, adding that clarifications and a second opening on March 27 reduced the low bid by about $1.4 million and lowered the amount the state needed to request by roughly $700,000.

Why it matters: Richmond Lake serves recreation, shoreline property values and downstream flood-control functions. Officials described the dam as a high-hazard structure that, if it failed, could threaten downstream communities; residents said they want the timing and legal authority for any drawdown clarified well in advance.

Greenfield gave a tentative schedule: a pre-construction meeting in late April, mobilization the week of May 6, earthwork and lake drawdown beginning mid-May, and the cutoff-wall contractor on-site by early–mid June. He said engineers’ refill scenarios ranged from a best-case of about 49 calendar days to a worst-case of roughly 247 days depending on inflows and weather.

Residents used the meeting’s public-comment portion to press a different urgency: determining who legally controls upstream gates and water rights on a regulator dam north of Richmond Lake. One resident asked directly, “Who has the legal rights to the water north?” and urged the county and state to research the instrument that assigned management when the structure was built in the 1990s.

County leaders and Greenfield agreed that jurisdiction and management need to be clarified. Chair noted the water board that once handled some of these duties was disbanded years ago and said the county would research who now holds authority and pursue follow-up meetings. The commission also urged continued transparency and additional public meetings that include the state, contractor representatives, local townships, Game, Fish and Parks, and the Richmond Lake Association.

Residents raised technical and ecological concerns as well: past fish kills tied to low oxygen levels were cited during the meeting as a reason to ensure waterflows and aeration are addressed in project planning. Several property owners asked whether work could be coordinated with shoreline restoration while the lake is drawn down; Greenfield invited contractors and engineers to offer cost-containment ideas and said the state was open to discussion but would weigh legislative scrutiny of any reallocated funds.

Next steps: County staff said they will research legal ownership and operational control of the upstream regulating dam, coordinate detour planning and township impacts with highway and township officials, and schedule follow-up public meetings while the state advances contract execution and permitting.