Can a South Carolina county sponsor a private dam owner's FEMA grant if it means spending public money to maintain private property?

Official title

Opinion addressing the constitutionality of a county sponsoring a private dam owner's federal grant application under the HHPD program.

Requester

Requested by David A. Root, Esq., Attorney for Oconee County.

Plain-English summary

The attorney for Oconee County asked the South Carolina Attorney General a public-money question with a dam at its center. FEMA's High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) program offers grants to rehabilitate dangerous dams, but private dam owners cannot apply directly; only governments and 501(c)(3)/501(c)(4) nonprofits can apply, and one may agree to sponsor a private dam's application at its own risk. The catch is that a government sponsor must commit to operate and maintain (O&M) the rehabilitated dam for the dam's expected life, and that commitment is not grant-funded. The dam at issue, Chattooga Lake Dam, is owned by the Chattooga Lake Club, a gated private community of about eighty members. The county worried that taking on O&M for a privately owned dam would run afoul of South Carolina's ban on spending public funds for a private purpose.

The AG started with two ground rules: it cannot find facts in an opinion, so it assumed the described facts; and it does not interpret federal law, so it cited the federal HHPD statutes only to frame the state-law question. Turning to the South Carolina Constitution, Article X, § 5 requires that public expenditures serve a public purpose, and Article X, § 11 bars pledging or loaning public credit for the benefit of private parties. The state Supreme Court has read these to require a valid public purpose for any spending of public funds, using the four-part test from Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority (the public benefit intended, who primarily benefits, how speculative the project is, and the probability the public interest is served).

The AG leaned heavily on a closely analogous case, S.C. Public Interest Foundation v. S.C. Department of Transportation, where the Supreme Court held that state inspection of three bridges inside a private gated community served no public purpose because the bridge owners, not the public, were the beneficiaries. By the same logic, the AG concluded that if a county takes on O&M for a recreational dam inside a private gated community without further public-purpose justification, a court would likely find it unconstitutional. The county offered two possible public purposes (the lake serves as a reservoir for emergency fire services, and reducing risk to people and roads in the dam's inundation zone), but the AG could not weigh those factual claims and noted the Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act already places dam-maintenance responsibility on the owner, making it less likely a court would find a county public purpose. The opinion ends with alternatives: dam removal (also grant-eligible, without the O&M burden), having a 501(c)(3)/(4) nonprofit sponsor instead, irrevocably dedicating the property to public use, or the club admitting the public.

What this means for you

County officials and county councils

The opinion frames the public-purpose determination as initially one for county council, but warns that committing public funds to maintain a privately owned recreational dam in a gated community would likely be held unconstitutional under Article X, §§ 5 and 11, absent a stronger public-purpose justification than the opinion could evaluate. It points to S.C. Public Interest Foundation as the controlling analogy.

Private dam owners and HOAs

For a gated community like the Chattooga Lake Club, the opinion explains that a government sponsor faces a constitutional obstacle, but a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit can apply for the HHPD grant on a privately owned dam without raising the public-funds problem. Dam removal is another grant-eligible path that avoids the long-term O&M commitment. The opinion also notes the club could resolve the issue by admitting the public.

State agencies (SCDES)

The opinion situates dam maintenance within the Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act: SCDES has authority to inspect and certify dams and to order an owner to make repairs at the owner's expense, and the statute places maintenance responsibility on the dam owner. That allocation is part of why the AG thought a county would struggle to show a public purpose for assuming a private dam's O&M.

Common questions

Can the county just sponsor the grant for the HOA?
It can technically act as a project sponsor, but the AG's view is that the required O&M commitment for a privately owned recreational dam in a gated community would likely be unconstitutional spending of public funds unless the county can show a genuine public purpose, which the AG could not evaluate.

Why is spending public money on the dam a problem?
Article X, §§ 5 and 11 of the South Carolina Constitution require a public purpose for public spending and bar using public credit for private benefit. The AG analogized to S.C. Public Interest Foundation, where maintaining infrastructure inside a gated community that excludes the public was held to serve no public purpose.

Doesn't fire-reservoir use or flood risk make it a public purpose?
The county raised both, but the AG cannot find facts in an opinion, so it could not decide how a court would weigh them under the Nichols test. It noted the Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act puts maintenance on the owner, which cuts against a county public purpose.

Is there a way to get the dam fixed without this problem?
Yes, per the opinion: a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit can sponsor the grant, dam removal is grant-eligible and avoids the O&M commitment, the property could be irrevocably dedicated to public use, or the club could admit the public.

Background and statutory framework

The federal HHPD program, 33 U.S.C. § 467f-2, funds rehabilitation of high-hazard dams and requires a project sponsor, as subrecipient, to assure the dam owner will maintain the dam and to commit to provide O&M for the dam's expected life. The AG cited these provisions to define the obligation but declined to interpret federal law.

The state-law analysis rests on the South Carolina Constitution. Article X, § 5 requires that any tax state the public purpose for its proceeds, which the Supreme Court has read to require a public purpose for public expenditures (S.C. Public Interest Foundation v. S.C. Department of Transportation). Article X, § 11 prohibits pledging or loaning public credit for the benefit of private parties (State ex rel. McLeod v. Riley, overruled on other grounds by WDW Property v. City of Sumter). Whether an act serves a public purpose is primarily a legislative question that courts will not disturb unless clearly wrong (Elliott v. McNair), evaluated under the four-part test in Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority. Applying S.C. Public Interest Foundation, the AG concluded public O&M of a private gated-community dam would likely fail that test.

Counties do have recognized public-safety powers, including fire protection, under S.C. Code § 4-9-30(5) and § 4-21-10. But the Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act, S.C. Code §§ 49-11-110 to -260, makes the dam owner responsible for safe maintenance: § 49-11-150 places maintenance responsibility on the owner, and § 49-11-160 lets SCDES order an owner to repair an unsafe dam at the owner's expense. Because maintenance responsibility already lies with the owner, the AG thought it unlikely a court would find a county public purpose in assuming that burden.

Citations

Constitution and statutes:
- 33 U.S.C. § 467f-2 (federal HHPD grant program; sponsor O&M commitment)
- S.C. Const, art. X, § 5 (public-purpose requirement for public spending)
- S.C. Const, art. X, § 11 (no pledge or loan of public credit for private benefit)
- S.C. Code § 4-9-30(5) (2021) and § 4-21-10 (2021) (county public-safety powers)
- S.C. Code §§ 49-11-110 to -260 (2008) (Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act), incl. § 49-11-150 (owner maintenance responsibility) and § 49-11-160 (SCDES repair orders)

Cases:
- S.C. Pub. Interest Foundation v. S.C. Dep't of Transportation, 421 S.C. 110, 804 S.E.2d 854 (2017)
- State ex rel. McLeod v. Riley, 276 S.C. 323, 278 S.E.2d 612 (1981)
- WDW Prop. v. City of Sumter, 342 S.C. 6, 535 S.E.2d 631 (2000)
- Elliott v. McNair, 250 S.C. 75, 156 S.E.2d 421 (1967)
- Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, 290 S.C. 415, 351 S.E.2d 163 (1986)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-constitutionality-of-a-county-sponsoring-a-private-dam-owner-s-federal-grant-application-under-the-hhpd-program/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/3qsckphs/rootd-os-10967-final-opinion-10-16-2024-pdf.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON

ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 16, 2024

David A. Root, Esq.

King Kozlarek Root Law
P.O. Box 565

Greenville, SC 29602-0565

Dear Mr. Root:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter
requests an opinion addressing the following:

As we discussed last week, I serve as the County Attorney for Oconee
County, South Carolina. The Oconee County Council requested that I seek an
Attorney General’s opinion with respect to the potential use of public funds on
private property in the context of FEMA’s grant program for rehabilitating High
Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD). I have attached a highlighted copy of the Notice
of Funding Opportunity from DHS/FEMA for this grant opportunity, which is
lengthy, but relatively easy to flow through via the summary and table of contents.
My primary concern is noted on page 11, regarding ongoing maintenance and
operations responsibilities. (I have also included the federal code section
establishing this requirement.) This is a requirement that the subrecipient (Oconee
County in this instance) commit to provide operation and maintenance of the grant
funded project for the life of the dam, and while the HOA / private owner of the
dam will in all likelihood be the first obligor for these costs, it seems clear that there
is no means by which to totally absolve the County from ultimate responsibility. I
have communicated with SCDES on this issue, and they understand my concern
but did not have a ready answer in this context.

That all said, my ultimate question is whether this operations and
maintenance obligation (which will not be grant funded) relative to private property
runs afoul of the general prohibition against spending public funds on private

property. ...

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING « POST OFFICE BOX J1549 « COLUMBES, SC 29211-1849 « TsLepnons Sy2-744 3970 FACSIMILE &
a 2721-13445 ALEPH Sod end ft w OP AUAIMILS

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 2
October 16, 2024

Also, please note that the subject dam, the Chattooga Lake Dam, is owned
by the Chattooga Lake Club, a gated, private (non-profit) community consisting of
approximately eighty members, with the subject lake being approximately 45 acres.
The area is surrounded by the Sumter National Forest. Based on information
gleaned from the Emergency Action Plan for the Chattooga Lake Dam, SC ID:
D1637, the dam is an earthen dam built in 1954, with the 44.9-acre lake fed from
Taylor Creek and six mountain streams directly from Sumter National Forest.
Surrounded by National Forest, Chattooga Lake feeds downstream to Taylor Creek
and Lake Leroy in the headwaters of the Chauga River. In addition to recreational
use and habitat for fish and wildlife, Chattooga Lake serves as a reservoir for
emergency fire services at the local and US Forest Service level. There are at least
twenty-nine sites that fall within the identified inundation zone that may be at risk
in the event of dam failure, and [High] Hazard Class D1639 Lake Leroy Dam is
located downstream. Eight roads:

Chattooga Lake Rd, Ball Park Rd, Village Creek Rd, Moxley Dr, Bethlehem Trl,
Coppermine Rd, Highlands Hwy (OCONEE S-28), and Chattooga Ridge Rd
(OCONEE S-258) which has an average daily traffic count of 150, fall within the
inundation boundary and will likely be impacted in the event of dam failure.

Law/Analysis

Initially, it must be noted that this Office cannot find facts in our opinions. As we have
explained:

Because this Office does not have the authority ofa court or other fact-finding body,
we are not able, in a legal opinion, to adjudicate or investigate factual questions.
Unlike a fact-finding body such as a legislative committee, an administrative
agency or a court, we do not possess the necessary fact-finding authority and
resources required to adequately determine ... factual questions...

Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989) (1989) (alterations in original). As a result,
this opinion will assume the facts as described in order to provide guidance on the issues raised.

The HHPD grant program is a federally created program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide technical, planning, design, and
construction assistance in the form of grants to States for rehabilitation of eligible high hazard
potential dams.” 33 U.S.C. § 467f-2(a).! These grants may be used for the “repair, removal, or

' This Office’s opinions have repeatedly noted, “The examination of federal law and the policies of a federal
agency are beyond the scope of an opinion of this Office.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 2648714 (June
16, 2011); see also Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 3362068 (June 25, 2013) (providing questions regarding

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 3
October 16, 2024

any other structural or nonstructural measures to rehabilitate an eligible [HHPD].” 33 U.S.C. §
467f-2(b). The South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) published
guidance documents that explain while privately-owned dams are eligible to receive grant funds,
private owners are not eligible to apply for such a grant themselves. See SCDES, Notice of Funding
Opportunity- Federal Fiscal Year 2024 High Hazard Potential Dams Rehabilitation Grant Rev. 0
(October 2, 2024). “Non-federal governments (i.e., state, county, municipal) and 501(c)(3) or
501(c)(4) non-profit organizations are the only entities eligible to apply. An eligible applicant as
defined above may choose to act as a Project Sponsor for a privately-owned dam solely at its own
discretion and at its own risk.” Id. When an eligible entity acts as a project sponsor for a privately-
owned dam, it is required to “provide[] an assurance, with respect to the dam to be rehabilitated
by the eligible subrecipient, that the dam owner will carry out a plan for maintenance of the dam
during the expected life of the dam.” 33 U.S.C. § 467f-2(c)(2)(C). The project sponsor, as a
subrecipient, is also required to “commit to provide operation and maintenance of the project for
the expected life of the dam following completion of rehabilitation.” 33 U.S.C.A. § 467f-
2(d)(2)(C) (emphasis added).

The central concern raised in your letter is that if the County sponsors the Chattooga Lake
Club’s grant application, the federal grant requirements regarding operations and maintenance
(hereinafter “O&M”’) of the privately-owned dam appear to put the County at risk of violating the
South Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on spending public funds for a private purpose.’
Sections 5 and 11 of Article X of the South Carolina Constitution set parameters on how public
funds may be spent. Section 5 of Article X states, “No tax, subsidy or charge shall be established,
fixed, laid or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people or their
representatives lawfully assembled. Any tax which shall be levied shall distinctly state the public
purpose to which the proceeds of the tax shall be applied.” S.C. Const, art. X, § 5. The South
Carolina Supreme Court has interpreted section 5 to mean that any expenditure of public funds
must be made for a public purpose. See S.C. Pub. Interest Found, v. 8.C. Dep't of Transportation.
42158.C. 110, 123, 804 S.E.2d 854. 861 (2017). Further, section 11 of Article X states, “The credit

the interpretation or application of federal regulations or policy are beyond the scope of an Attorney
General's opinion). Relevant federal statutes are listed to establish the parameters of the HHPD grant
program and the potential conflicts with the laws of South Carolina.

• This Office cannot anticipate how interested parties may attempt to address this issue. The SCDES Notice
  of Funding Opportunity states, “Where the Project Sponsor is not the dam owner, a separate agreement will
  be required between Project Sponsor and dam owner.” SCDES, Notice of Funding Opportunity- Federal
  Fiscal Year 2024 High Hazard Potential Dams Rehabilitation Grant Rev. 0 (October 2, 2024). FEMA’s
  Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams Grant Program Guidance, 36 (June 2020) suggests “all
  applicable parties enter a legally binding contract to provide O&M of the project for the 50-year period
  following completion of rehabilitation” and also develop an O&M Financial Plan to “demonstrate[] the
  subrecipient will have adequate funding resources for O&M activities...” Perhaps such agreements can be
  drafted to adequately demonstrate the political subdivision’s commitment to O&M for the expected life of
  the dam without the potential use of public funds.

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 4
October 16, 2024

of neither the State nor of any of its political subdivisions shall be pledged or loaned for the benefit
of any individual, company, association, corporation, or any religious or other private education
institution except as permitted by Section 3, Article XJ of this Constitution.” S.C. Const, art. X, §
11. Our Supreme Court has construed this section to prohibit the expenditure of public funds or
resources for the primary benefit of private parties. See State ex rel. McLeod v. Riley, 276 S.C.
323, 329, 278 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1981), overruled on other grounds by WDW Prop. v. City of
Sumter, 342 S.C. 6, 535 S.E.2d 631 (2000). Therefore, if'a political subdivision intends to sponsor
a privately-owned dam’s HHPD grant application and is required to spend public funds to provide
O&M, it must have a valid public purpose for doing so.

The South Carolina Supreme Court described what constitutes a public purpose.

In deciding whether governmental action satisfies a public purpose, we look to the
object sought to be accomplished. As a general rule a public purpose has for its
objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare,
security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents, or at least
a substantial part thereof.

Id. at 123, 804 S.E.2d at 861 (citations omitted), In Elliott v. McNair, 250 S.C. 75, 88, 156 S.E.2d
421, 428 (1967), the Court explained that “the question of whether an act is for a public purpose
is primarily one for the Legislature, and this court will not interfere unless the determination by
that body is clearly wrong.” In Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, 290 S.C. 415, 351
S.E.2d 163 (1986), the Court reaffirmed its four-part test for determining whether a legislative
finding of a “public purpose” is valid.

The Court should first determine the ultimate goal or benefit to the public intended
by the project. Second, the Court should analyze whether public or private parties
will be the primary beneficiaries. Third, the speculative nature of the project must
be considered. Fourth, the Court must analyze and balance the probability that the
public interest will be ultimately served and to what degree.

Id. at 429, 351 S.E.2d at 163 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the question of whether a particular
project serves a public purpose is initially one for county council to decide.

In South Carolina Public Interest_Foundation v. South Carolina Department of
Transportation, the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed a factually similar case to the one
presented in your letter where the Department of Transportation inspected three bridges located
within a private gated community and issued a report addressing its findings. See S.C. Pub. Int.

Mr. David A. Root, Esa.
Page 5
October 16, 2024

Found., 421 S.C. at 115, 804 S.E.2d at 857. The Court held that these inspections violated Article
X, section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution.

We find the inspection of the bridges did not serve a public purpose. We do not
doubt that the inspection was conducted to assuage safety concerns. However, the
owners of the bridges were the beneficiaries of the inspection, not the public at
large, whose access to the bridges is limited to the authorization provided by the
homeowners. In short, it is not the public's responsibility to pav the maintenance
costs of bridges located within a gated community that seeks to exclude the public
from enjoying the use of the bridges. Thus, because it did not serve a public
purpose, we find the inspection was unconstitutional.

S.C. Pub. Int. Found., 421 8.C. at 123, 804 S.E.2d at 861 (emphasis added). This Office has
previously opined, “[T]hese authorities can be understood to prohibit the expenditure of public
funds on the private roads and bridges where the public at large is denied access to use that same
infrastructure.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2023 WL 4830898, at 5 (July 5, 2023). Similarly, ifa political
subdivision undertakes O&M responsibilities for a recreational dam within a private gated
community without further justification of its public purpose, a court would likely hold those

activities are unconstitutional.

Your letter describes two reasons to support finding public purpose regarding use of funds
for the Chattooga Lake Dam. The first stated reason is that “Chattooga Lake serves as a reservoir
for emergency fire services at the local and US Forest Service level.” Certainly, counties are
authorized to provide fire protection as a recognized public purpose. See S.C. Code § 4-9-30(5)
(2021)(“[E]ach county government ... shall have the following enumerated powers ... to assess
property and levy ad valorem property taxes ... for functions and operations of the county,
including, ... including ... public safety, including police and fire protection, disaster preparedness
we); S.C, Code § 4-21-10 (2021) (“The governing body of any county may by ordinance or
resolution provide that the county shall provide fire protection services, ambulance services and
medical clinic facilities”). However, as stated above, this Office cannot find facts in an opinion
and is, therefore, unable to evaluate how likely it is a court would uphold a legislative finding of
public purpose based solely on the extent the lake is used to provide fire services under the Nichols
test.

The second stated reason is to limit the risk posed to those persons, roads, and other
infrastructure falling with the inundation boundary in the event of the dam’s failure. While
counties are authorized by S.C. Code § 4-9-30(5) to provide “public safety, including police and
fire protection, disaster preparedness,” the General Assembly adopted the Dams and Reservoirs
Safety Act, S.C. Code §§ 49-11—-110 to —260 (2008), with the stated purpose to “provide for the

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 6
October 16, 2024

certification and inspection of certain dams in South Carolina in the interest of public health,
safety, and welfare in order to reduce the risk of failure of the dams, prevent injuries to persons
and damage to property, and confer upon the department the regulatory authority to accomplish
the purposes.” S.C. Code § 49-11-130 (2008). The Act designates SCDES with the “authority for
the safe maintenance of the dams and reservoirs of this State and the powers of inspection and
certification.” S.C. Code § 49-11-140 (2008). Therein, the General Assembly established that the
responsibility for maintaining a dam or reservoir lies with its owner.

The owner of a dam or reservoir constructed in this State solely is responsible for
maintaining the dam or reservoir in a safe condition throughout the life of the
structure. ... The owner of a dam or reservoir whose failure likely would cause loss
of life or substantial property damage, a dam or reservoir classified as a high or
significant hazard under existing regulations, shall provide the department a current
emergency action plan in the format the department by regulation requires.

S.C. Code § 49-11-150 (2008) (emphasis added). The Act also permits SCDES to issue “an order
directing the owner of a dam or reservoir to make at his expense the necessary maintenance,
alteration, repair, or removal” if it is found the dam or reservoir is “unsafe and is dangerous to life
or property,” “not maintained in good repair or operating condition,” or not maintained “in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificate of completion and operation issued by
the department.” S.C. Code § 49-11-160 (2008) (emphasis added). Because SCDES is authorized
to certify and inspect dams to prevent failure and injuries to persons and damage to property and
because the responsibility for maintenance lies with the dam owner, it is unlikely a court would
find a county has a public purpose for obligating itself to maintain a privately owned dam within

its jurisdiction.
Conclusion

The central concern raised in your letter is that if the County sponsors the Chattooga Lake
Club’s grant application, the federal grant requirements regarding O&M of the privately-owned
dam appear to put the County at risk of violating the South Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on
spending public funds for a private purpose. If a political subdivision intends to sponsor a
privately-owned dam’s HHPD grant application and is required to spend public funds to provide
O&M, it must have a valid public purpose for doing so. See S.C. Const, art. X, § § 5,11. The
question of whether a particular project serves a public purpose is initially one for county council
to decide. A court would evaluate this determination according to the four-part test laid out in
Nichols, supra. In a recent case where the Department of Transportation inspected three bridges
located within a private gated community, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that use of
public funds violated the South Carolina Constitution when it explained, “It is not the public's
responsibility to pay the maintenance costs of bridges located within a gated community that seeks
to exclude the public from enjoying the use of the bridges.” South Carolina Public Interest

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 7
October 16, 2024

Foundation, 421 S.C. at 123, 804 S.E.2d at 861. As is discussed more fully above, it is this Office’s
opinion that if a political subdivision undertakes O&M responsibilities for a recreational dam
within a private gated community without further justification for its public purpose, a court would
likely hold those activities are unconstitutional.

Since the primary issue expressed in your letter concerns the potential O&M obligations
under the program, dam removal may be a consideration as it is a listed use for funds awarded
under the HHPD grant program and would not entail the same O&M obligations for the County?
Alternatively, a privately owned dam does not need to be sponsored by a political subdivision of
the State. Non-profit organizations registered as either a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) are eligible to
“apply for an HHPD grant on any eligible dam, including dams that are privately owned.” SCDES,
High Hazard Potential Dams Rehabilitation Grant, https://des.sc.gov/programs/bureau-
water/dams-reservoirs/high-hazard-potential-dams-rehabilitation-grant (last visited Oct. 10,
2024). Such an organization could apply as a project sponsor for the Chattooga Lake Dam and its
O&M obligations would not present the same issue of using public funds for private purposes.
Finally, as this Office has repeatedly noted in regard to maintenance of private roads, if private
property is irrevocably dedicated to and accepted by a political subdivision for public use, then
maintaining such property with public funds would constitute a valid public purpose and be
permissible. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2024 WL 2034557 (April 30, 2024) (addressing issues
related to maintenance and improvements to privately owned dirt roads, or, alternatively, public
dedication of such roads into a county road system). Of course, the Club could also solve the
problem by admitting the public.

Sincerely, . J
Matthew Houck

Assistant Attorney General

3 See 33 U.S.C. § 467f-2(b) (“A grant awarded under this section to a State may be used by the State to
award grants to eligible subrecipients for- (1) repair; (2) removal; or (3) any other structural or nonstructural
measures to rehabilitate an eligible high hazard potential dam.”) (emphasis added); see also SCDES, Notice
of Funding Opportunity- Federal Fiscal Year 2024 High Hazard Potential Dams Rehabilitation Grant Rev.
0 (October 2, 2024) (10. Dam removals are considered “rehabilitation” under this grant program; therefore,
planning, preliminary engineering, design engineering, and construction activities associated with dam
removal are eligible. ... [D]am removal represents the greatest amount of risk reduction of any type of
“rehabilitation” project ...”).

Mr. David A. Root, Esq.
Page 8
October 16, 2024

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

LA Vek GEA

Solicitor General