Hawaii to take over aging dam after failure scare prompted evacuations
Source: msn/The Independent
12h
Hawaii is set to acquire a 120-year-old dam that prompted thousands of residents to evacuate last week amid fears of catastrophic failure during heavy rains. The state's land board voted on Friday to acquire the Wahiawa Dam land from Dole Food Co., paving the way for state oversight. This will enable at least $20 million in crucial repairs and an expansion of its spillway.
Located north of Honolulu, the earthen structure was built in 1906 for sugar production by Waialua Agricultural Co., a former Dole subsidiary, and rebuilt after a 1921 collapse. The Department of Land and Natural Resources deems it "high hazard," warning its failure could have fatal consequences.
Residents worry the dam will fail during each substantial rain, said Kathleen Pahinui, who a week ago was among the 5,500 people ordered to evacuate from two communities on Oahu's North Shore, famous for big-wave surfing. Evacuation orders were lifted Saturday when water receded.
State control has long been supported by the governor's office, lawmakers, neighbors and farmers, making Friday's vote a foregone but welcome development, Pahinui said before the vote.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-to-take-over-aging-dam-after-failure-scare-prompted-evacuations/ar-AA1ZyZHh
dutch777
(5,068 posts)I get the now apparently dire safety aspect here but seems to me lax laws and/or long term lack of reasonable government oversight and enforcement encourages this sort of thing. And Hawaii, like most state and local governments, don't have lots of spare funds just laying around.
BumRushDaShow
(169,536 posts)'Nuff said. They owned who knows how much land for pineapples (plus one of the smaller islands).


The cousin of the Dole company founder was the administrator of Hawai'i after the U.S. carried out a coup to overthrow Queen Liliʻuokalani in the 1890s so they could take over the islands.
Igel
(37,526 posts)A lot of dams and levies in the US were built before Big Government took over a lot of local and state duties. Companies, communities, counties, states. And other entities. it suited them and usually benefited others in ways above and beyond simple "let's keep workplaces dry or safe. Ish."
They were deemed a public good. If a river/stream on XYZ's land would flood neighbors' (and XYZ's) land, the dam was Good with free benefits to the locals. They didn't need to build it--even if the law allowed it. And was the stream owner responsible for an "act of God"? No. Floods happened since forever, not since ownership deeds existed and applied, in this case, to HI. "Outsiders" benefited for many a year. Often a dam would provide irrigation for farming (jobs3), but often locals would use the water behind the dam. So this Dole dam, it did the damnable work of protecting locals for 120 years, free of charge. Perhaps they should bill for back possible-harm, plus interest?
When it stopped being of interest to XYZ or XYZ couldn't afford to maintain it, there should have been discussions. But that would increase public liability, or at least shift it. It was assumed the owner maintained the public good--but if it wasn't in the owners interest, why? They'd get an expense without even any acknowledgement that the evil corporation was doing something that benefited the public even as public rhetoric against corporations--all of which is comprised of people like you and me--ramped up from time to time. I mean, my response would be, "screw you. Why should I invest money for your good when all you do is diss me?!?"
Then again, there's institutional amnesia. After 100 years, something needing maintenance simply falls to the last 3 on the 'needs maintenance' list and the next year is just dropped. Esp. if uninteresting, unrewarding or unprofitable.
dave99
(8 posts)msongs
(73,727 posts)it has always been dole's plan to dump it off on the taxpayers