BENTONVILLE -- The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission is investigating whether or not permitting the Lake Bella Vista dam would be appropriate.
The Arkansas Canoe Club petitioned the commission to have the dam permitted under its program.
Comment collection
The Arkansas Natural Resource Commission will collect comments regarding the Lake Bella Vista dam through Jan. 28. They can be sent to:
Randy Young/Arkansas Natural Resources Commission/101 E. Capital Avenue, Suite 350/Little Rock, AR 72201
or by email to Trevor.Timberlake@a….
Source: Staff report
The commission requires dams greater than 25 feet tall and retain more than 50 acre-feet of water to be permitted, Ryan Benefield, commission deputy director, told a small group Thursday. Smaller dams can be permitted if a petition is submitted by anyone who feels the dam causes potential harm to their property or safety.
The Lake Bella Vista dam is 14 feet tall.
The petition process requires the commission hold a public hearing in the county of the dam. About 20 people attended a public hearing held Thursday in the Arvest Bank conference room downtown.
Most people there had also attended City Council meetings when the design contract for a replacement dam was discussed. Many spoke against replacing it and advocated for its removal and restoring Little Sugar Creek.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials declared the dam "failed" in March 2008 after it was overtopped during a storm. It's been overtopped several times since then, including during the recent flooding at the end of December.
The council approved the design contract in December.
Dam repair is expected to cost $3.5 million. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has committed $2.7 million to the city for the project. The remaining money will come from the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management and Arkansas Department of Economic Development.
Benefield and Trevor Timberlake, engineer supervisor for the commission, fielded questions about their role for the first hour of the meeting. Attendees then had the opportunity to submit verbal or written comments.
"We don't have the authority to make a decision on whether the dam is needed or not needed, should be there or not be there," Benefield said. "It's simply a decision on whether or not this dam, even though it is very small based on our scale, should be required to be permitted."
The dam would be subject to the commission's inspection program if permitted, Timberlake said. The dam owner would be required to have an annual inspection. The commission would also have "some regularity" in which it would inspect it based on its hazard classification.
The commission would also review the plans if any modifications were made, including if the dam were to be removed, Timberlake said.
If deficiencies were found to risk compromising the dam's integrity, the commission would enter into an "administrative consent order" with the owner to detail the issues and timeline for when they would need to be addressed, he said. Legal penalties would be imposed if the deadlines weren't met.
Ken Leonard, an opponent of the dam, asked if the commission permits dams it knows will be replaced.
"We have no guarantees that they're going to replace it in the time frame that they said they're going to replace it," Timberlake said. "I think our concerns would exist no matter what, and we would still move forward with the process to permit it."
Timberlake clarified the commission doesn't take ownership of the dam but rather provides and accountability process.
Determining if the structural integrity is sound is part of the vetting process on whether the dam should be permitted, Benefield said. Public safety and economic impact downstream if the dam were to fail are a focus of that evaluation.
Randy Young, executive director of the commission, will make the decision on whether the dam should be permitted. A decision should be made within two months, Benefield said.
NW News on 01/15/2016