Public safety crisis: Budget cuts may cause US dams to fail
Lives, homes and livelihoods hang in the balance, even as dam safety oversight and funding are being eliminated in the current Congress.
May 31 is National Dam Safety Awareness Day — a moment to remember the people who have died in dam failures and to urge action to ensure no more lives are lost in unnecessary and avoidable catastrophes. It should also be a wake-up call. The threat is not theoretical, it is reality. And the harsh reality is, it is getting worse and our elected leaders have yet to respond.
There are more than half a million dams obstructing rivers and streams in all 50 states and in almost every community. Ownership and associated liability in the event of dam-breaks spans private owners, localities, states and the federal government, which controls some of the largest and most dangerous dams.
Dams are infrastructure, and infrastructure fails. When dams fail, a wall of water surges downstream, destroying everything in its path. In the U.S. alone, thousands have died from dam failures. Even low head dams — smaller dams that typically have water continuously flowing over the dam crest — can be deadly, having entrapped and drowned 1,400 people in their hydraulic churn over the years.
Dam failures are not tragedies of the distant past. Nearly 80 percent of emergency incidents and dam failures have occurred in the last 20 years. In 2019, for example, the Spencer Dam in Nebraska failed during a winter storm and drowned a man. Just last year the Rapidan Dam in Minnesota failed during a flood, swallowing a riverside home. The dam was known to be in a state of disrepair, and the dam owner had been weighing the decision to repair or remove the structure.
Hurricane Helene, which dumped an unprecedented amount of rainfall onto the Southeast, pushed dams beyond their limit. Dozens of state-regulated dams failed or were severely damaged in record-breaking flooding. Many others were further degraded — leaving them compromised as the 2025 hurricane season begins.
The majority of our nation's dams are beyond their design lifespan. With the average age across the nation surpassing six decades, it should be unsurprising that they were not built to withstand the storm and flood intensities that we are seeing now. Many are accidents just waiting to happen, especially as the funding and staff that maintain or upgrade these antiquated structures are being cut.
The U.S. has put far too little investment into fixing this underappreciated public safety crisis, leading the American Society of Civil Engineers to give our dams a grade of D+. And a failing grade may well be around the corner.
In the last two years, Congress has made major cuts to dam safety programs at dam-owning agencies and massive cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Dam Safety Program funding. This program provides critical support to state dam safety offices and for dam owners voluntarily seeking to repair or remove dams with high hazard potential. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 provided an influx of funds, but more than half of those dedicated funds were subsequently cut in the 2024 and 2025 spending bills.
Restoring and sustaining sufficient funding and staffing to the FEMA National Dam Safety Program is crucial to addressing the dam safety crisis. Lack of funding will leave communities, regardless of who they voted for, having to pay the price when dams break.
At the state level, dam safety offices need the staffing, funding and programmatic infrastructure to hold dam owners responsible for the safety of their dams. Loopholes that allow some dam owners — even those owning high-hazard dams — to avoid safety regulation, must be closed. Unsafe dams that are not serving a critical purpose should be removed, and funding should be made available to support those removals.
It is currently estimated that it would cost $165 billion to rehabilitate all non-federal dams. The longer dams are allowed to deteriorate, the higher that price tag grows.
However, as the adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. More than half of dams on the landscape are obsolete, no longer serving the purpose they were built to provide. An investment to remove them instead of patching them up for another day may be a cost-efficient way of eliminating safety risks and expediently restoring water quality, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
Our nation's outdated 20th Century dams are buckling under 21st century weather extremes. They are quickly becoming ticking time bombs without the budget to diffuse them. This is not just an infrastructure issue — it is a public safety emergency. And Congress is on the verge of failing its most basic responsibility: to protect the American people.
Members of Congress need to put public safety first and approve dedicated funding for the regular upkeep, rehabilitation and removal of dams.
Tom Kiernan is president and CEO of American Rivers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Market Structure Proposals May Not Capture Crypto Momentum In Congress
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 18: U.S. President Donald Trump, surrounded by lawmakers, signs the 'GENIUS ... More Act' into law during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House July 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. The act, formally known as the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, was passed this week by the U.S. Congress. (Photo by) The cryptocurrency industry has achieved its most significant win in Congress to date, winning passage of the GENIUS Act, which would regulate stablecoins, earlier this month. Now, lawmakers and lobbyists are looking to capitalize on the momentum to pass other bills into law. However, the targets for doing so, with the most notable measure being a bill to formalize digital asset market structure rules, are likely to prove tougher to send to President Donald Trump's desk. Support from Senate Democrats for the cryptocurrency means there is a chance of doing so, but the process is likely to take several months and could stretch into legislation was always perceived as the low-hanging fruit for Congress on crypto, making its passage a key bellwether for the amount of bipartisan support for digital assets legislation. Market structure legislation, on the other hand, is seen as a much more complex undertaking. This is in part because some of the divides between lawmakers concern building-block definitions of the proposals, such as which tokens are considered commodities and which are securities. The answer to this question will determine whether the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will be responsible for overseeing a given addition to debates over the text, there are possible political issues that could slow the progress of market structure legislation. One of these hurdles was on display during the House's crypto week in July, when conservative Republicans held up proceedings to advocate for the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, a measure that divides lawmakers along party lines, to have a path to law. The concession, as reported by Punchbowl News, was for the House to include the proposal in its draft of the annual defense policy bill. However, it could still be stripped out by the Senate and reignite this debate when future crypto legislation is considered. Another challenge will be Trump's crypto businesses, with some early Democratic supporters of stablecoin legislation in the Senate, such as Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), expressing reservations about the market structure bill in a recent hearing due to the president's involvement in the cryptocurrency there are reasons for optimism that the current Congress will be able to pass crypto market structure legislation, even if the process is longer than some lawmakers would like. Notably, the House version, the CLARITY Act, attracted support from nearly 80 Democrats, a sign of the bipartisan interest in addressing the issue. Additionally, some of the newer Senate Democrats, including Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), appear to be potential supporters, with some having backed the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act last year. These members are joined by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who has been leading Democratic support in the upper chamber this year. At least seven Democrats will need to support the measure for it to pass the Senate, with this group of lawmakers likely to be among those Republicans look to for the House having passed its version of market structure legislation, the fate of the bill is now in the Senate's hands. However, the upper chamber does not appear to plan to take up the House-passed version simply, which Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, voiced concerns about in a recent hearing. Instead, leading Senate Republicans released a discussion draft, accompanied by a request for industry feedback, earlier this week. The text includes some differences from the House proposal, such as the creation of a new category of digital tokens called 'ancillary assets.'Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has said he hopes to pass the measure in the upper chamber by the end of September. However, pushback from Democrats could delay this process, even if the bill can be passed by the committee before then. Scott had pushed for a similarly ambitious timeline for the stablecoin bill, aiming to pass it within the first 100 days of Trump's presidency, and, likely, he will again miss this target. A more realistic goal could be the passage of market structure legislation in the Senate by the end of the year, but achieving this will depend on the ability to garner support from Democrats, as none are currently sponsoring the will ultimately get sent to Trump's desk is more likely to resemble whatever the Senate ends up passing, making it a process well worth following closely. When lawmakers return in September after the August recess, committee action in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee will offer critical insight into just how likely Democratic support is and what it may take to garner the votes needed for market structure legislation to reach Trump's desk.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
NPR editor-in-chief Edith Chapin resigning amid attacks from Trump administration
This week, NPR's editor-in-chief and acting chief content officer, Edith Chapin, announced she is stepping down — a decision she says was entirely her own. But the timing couldn't feel more symbolic. Her resignation comes just days after Congress voted to eliminate all $500 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS. And while NPR itself doesn't rely heavily on federal dollars, the same can't be said for its member stations — especially in rural areas where these grants keep the lights on. This isn't just a media story. It's a story about who gets to stay informed — and who gets left behind. Let's start with Chapin. During her time at NPR, she didn't just hold a title — she elevated the newsroom. She led the charge to hire senior editors specifically tasked with ensuring fairness, accuracy, and balance across NPR's reporting. In a time when media bias has become a political football, Chapin doubled down on journalistic standards. She once said, "We need to hear from all kinds of people — and that is our job. And we need to be as clear and transparent as we possibly can, and our audiences can decide how useful we are for them." Her departure is a loss for public journalism at a moment when it is already under siege. Now, let's talk about that funding cut. It's a move that's small-minded and shortsighted. Here's why: First, rural communities will be hit the hardest. Small stations don't have the same access to donors or corporate sponsors as big-city outlets. Without federal funding, they risk shutting down entirely — cutting off essential access to local news, weather alerts, and educational programming. Second, public media is a lifeline, not a luxury. Nearly three in four Americans rely on public radio for public safety updates. It's also the home of beloved shows like "Sesame Street" and "Daniel Tiger," especially for families who can't afford streaming platforms. Third, not everyone has Wi-Fi. Lawmakers arguing that public media is 'obsolete' forget that rural broadband is still unreliable in many parts of the country. Radio is still a reliable source of information that many Americans are using. This funding cut also defies the original purpose of public broadcasting, which was meant to provide unbiased, educational content for all Americans. Stripping it away because of perceived political slights? That's retaliation — not policy. So yes, Edith Chapin may have chosen to leave. But we all lose something when a principled journalist walks away in the shadow of a system that's being dismantled. And what's at stake isn't just news — it's access, it's education, and it's equity. Lindsey Granger is a News Nation contributor and co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising.' This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Uses Unhinged MAGA Math in Bonkers Drugs Brag
President Donald Trump has promised to reduce American drug prices by mathematically impossible figures of up to '1400 percent.' Speaking during a White House event attended by Republican members of Congress and his Cabinet, Trump said he would tackle the long-running issue of high medication costs in the U.S. But Trump did not set any achievable targets for that aim, instead outlining a range of percentages which would yield negative prices, meaning drug companies would have to pay people to take their medications. 'We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000 percent by 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600,' Trump said. 'Not 30 or 40 or 50 percent, but numbers the likes of which you've never even dreamed of before.' Trump added that his numbers were previously 'not even thought to be achievable,'—mainly because they aren't—but he believes he can somehow pull it off because 'I've used a certain talent that I have and convinced the drug companies that you have no choice.' Trump's threat involves warning European countries that they will no longer be able to sell cars in the U.S. unless their pharmaceutical companies lower their drug prices. 'You're no longer allowed to have Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen or any of the other many cars and they will say, 'Oh, I love the idea of lower drug prices for America.'' Trump's bragging about how much he claims he will lower drug costs in the U.S. has been widely mocked after a clip of his remarks went viral on social media. 'Hard to imagine this guy was found liable of fraud for making up numbers,' the liberal media company MeidasTouch posted on X. Justin Wolfers, economist and professor at the University of Michigan, added: 'Thank goodness this guy isn't negotiating the percentages we pay in tariffs.' In May, Trump announced his plans to 'almost immediately' cut drug prices by the actually theoretically possible figures of between 30 percent and 80 percent. Trump said the move would be one of the 'most consequential' executive orders in the country's history. During his Tuesday speech, Trump repeated a story about how one of his friends who takes the 'fat drug' Ozempic complained to him about how he paid $88 for it in London, whereas it would cost him $1,300 in New York. 'I explained to him that that's the way it's been for many, many years,' Trump said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.
