Chapter 6 - The Dam Problem
In the March 1997 Board meeting, General Manager Elmer Stephens resigned suddenly for personal reasons. Assistant General Manager Troy Ledbetter was appointed as Acting General Manager and later that year was named as General Manager.
Soon after Troy succeeded Elmer, he found a letter from the State of Georgia Safe Dams Program in the GM’s office. The letter had been written the preceding year following the annual inspection of Lake Petit Dam by the agency. The agency stated that Petit Dam was suspected of not meeting new Program specifications for protection against seismic events, and required that the POA commission an engineering analysis of the dam.
The POA hired Jordan, Jones, and Goulding (JJG) from Atlanta as the primary engineering firm and they, in turn, retained Piedmont Geotechnical as their earthen dam experts. After considerable testing, expense, and passage of time, JJG determined that the dam was deficient, and that the best method for bringing it into compliance was to dump thousands of truckloads of dirt on the downstream side of the dam which would increase its strength by increasing its bulk. In addition to the cost (approximately $2.5 million) and disruption that this solution would require, it would also cause the road at the foot of the dam to be relocated well into the existing play field, thereby eliminating the playfield. (During this period, on October 2, 1997, the Byrne Corporation of Georgia took on The Greenwood Development Corporation of Greenwood, South Carolina as a partner in the Big Canoe Company.)
Based on a property owner recommendation, the POA board interviewed another firm (GeoSyntec) in the summer of 1998. This firm had considerable experience in California designing structures to withstand earthquakes. In August 1998, the POA requested that the Safe Dams Program approve a change in consultants from JJG to Geosyntec. The agency was very reluctant to do so because JJG’s reputation was well know to the agency, while GeoSyntec was an unknown. The agency finally agreed to the change on the condition that the POA would agree to retain JJG to prepare an Emergency Action Plan specifically designed for Big Canoe, and that the POA would keep the plan up-to-date and conduct annual exercises following Plan procedures. The POA agreed, and GeoSyntec was retained. Ultimately GeoSyntec determined that the dam was not defective. They concluded that excess water in the dam at times was not due to infiltration from the lake, but instead from rainwater that seeped into the dam from the top of the berms on the downstream face of the dam. While they found that the dam met the Program specifications at the current time, they did recommend that additional soil be added to the very lowest portion of the downstream face in order to assure that the dam would meet, or exceed, the new specifications being adopted. This would not be a sufficient build out to require relocation of the existing road at the foot of the dam. GeoSyntec estimated that the cost of additional engineering and construction to accomplish their recommendations would be in the range of $385,000 to $715,000.
A formal presentation was forwarded by GeoSyntec to the State Safe Dams Program in late 1998, giving the agency their proposal as well as the technical data and documentation justifying their proposal. In January 1999, after learning that some of GeoSyntec’s analysis techniques were beyond the comprehension of the Safe Dams Program, the POA wrote to the agency advising that GeoSyntec would be asked to prepare a “white paper” providing additional background materials on the technologies used. The same letter advised the agency that the POA was delaying detailed design efforts until the State had blessed GeoSyntec’s proposed approach, and assured the State that the POA was eager to proceed with implementing these improvements during 1999. In the spring of 1999, the POA learned that the state had turned the proposal over to a consulting firm for review because the state had no one competent to understand the “state of the art” analysis performed by GeoSyntec.
No further word was received from the State during 1999, 2000, or 2001. During 2002 the State submitted a list of questions regarding the matter to the POA for answering, and the POA in turn had GeoSyntec provide the answers. To the date of this writing, the State has never approved or disapproved GeoSyntec’s proposal in behalf of Big Canoe. The Safe Dams Program continues to perform annual inspections of the dam, and there have been no further negative findings. POA maintenance personnel continue to take readings from monitoring devices placed in “deep wells” on the dam. These devices measure the stability of the dam, and all readings have indicated that the dam is completely stable. Subsequent to 2003, a representative from the consulting firm hired by the State visited Big Canoe, and verbally reported to the POA’s Director of Operations that GeoSyntec’s findings were totally accurate, and that the dam met all State specifications in its current condition.
-
About This Site
This site is presented as a resource for use by Big Canoe property owners. Information found on this site will often differ from that which is presented by the POA Board, the current administration, and some of the committees. Much of what you will see here is opinion, but the opinions will be formed from the best available information.
As property owners and users of this site, you are urged to bring attention to the good things you see as well as the bad. You are particularity urged to bring attention to acts by our employees when those actions exceed your expectations.
Property owners have strongly held views and they are encouraged to express their views on this forum. Please refrain from name-calling or attacking individuals. Keep in mind that the goal is to effect change, not create enemies. -
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- Chris Beechler: This proposed R&R Reserve Fund plsn needs some clsrificsation for it to be meaningful to me. Here...
- F Shead: Congratulations, very well done.
- F Shead: Must address no-bid contracts. There must be wording added to stop multi-million dollar “no-bid”...
- Larry Grizzle: I would like to think that everyone involved in this process feels they’re doing the right thing...
- DAVID KELLY: My fear is that the POA Board will turn around and increase the monthly assessment to generate the funds...
- Don Wyeth: My numbers as to homes and lots may be slightly inaccurate but are close enough to establish a point....
- mark sementilli: So this is the new and improved CIF? What a dissapointing outcome. I don’t want to appear as...
- Don Wyeth: By now most of you are aware that the POA Board has , after great consideration , come up with a new plan...
- mark sementilli: Doug, The one area or your letter that strikes me as truly amazing is the purported spiking of the...
- Doug Piggott: “Corporate” Board – Fact or Fiction? You decide. Some would have us believe that this term...
