Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Dams topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs $370,000 engineering grant and options for high‑hazard Town Pond dam
Summary
Town staff described a $370,000 phase‑one engineering grant for rehabilitation of the high‑hazard Town Pond dam (65% federal; local match ~ $129,500). Council debated liability, long‑term use, sale or removal of the dam and asked staff to return with cost estimates and DEES/DNR guidance for an April agenda.
Town staff briefed Batesburg‑Leesville council on a high‑hazard dam rehabilitation effort focused on the town‑owned Town Pond (sometimes referred to in the record as Batesburg reservoir) and outlined a set of options the town must consider.
Staff said the currently proposed phase‑one scope is engineering work estimated at a $370,000 total price tag, with 65% federal funding (about $240,500) and a local match of approximately $129,500. Phase two — construction to fix the auxiliary spillway, restore the access road crossing, update the primary drawdown system, install a new trash rack and implement a tree‑removal plan — was described as likely to exceed $1 million.
The briefing recounted the June 22, 2023 overflow event when the spillway overtopped and an access road was washed out; staff showed recent photographs of the emergency spillway, the dam crest and the raw‑water pump building, and noted the dam’s classification as “high hazard” in state listings.
Council debate centered on three practical questions: 1) whether to accept and pursue grant funds now to reduce liability and fund engineering; 2) whether to invest local matching funds when the town might later sell, decommission or otherwise dispose of the property; and 3) what the long‑term disposition should be (repair and retain as a town asset, draw the pond down and maintain it, sell the property to a private owner, or cut the dam and return the creek to free flow).
A council member argued strongly for removal as a liability‑reduction measure, saying, “I think the last thing, my personal opinion is it’s doing us no good. Cut that dam and let it go.” That position was voiced alongside others who favored obtaining firm cost estimates for decommissioning and an appraisal of the property’s value before committing local match funds.
Staff told council they would place the grant acceptance on the April council agenda and would consult with state dam authorities (referred to in the meeting as “dees” and dam professionals) to determine approval requirements and options for controlled drawdown or removal. Council requested estimates for the cost to cut the dam, guidance from DEES/DNR on controlled approaches and information on whether decommissioning would change downstream effects or wetlands designations.
Next steps: the matter will appear on the April council agenda for a formal vote on accepting the grant; staff will return with technical estimates and the state agency guidance the council requested.
