A number of class-action lawsuits have been filed following the collapse of the Edenville dam that led to historic flooding.
One lawsuit is against the dam owner, Boyce Hyrdo. Plaintiff attorneys for a group of residents impacted by the flood say the company failed to perform necessary upkeep of the dam.
Federal regulators revoked the Edenville dams license to generate hydropower in 2018 after the owner repeatedly failed to increase spillway capacity.
Plaintiff attorney Frank Petosa said Boyce Hydro was well aware that repairs were needed to maintain the dam.
“They failed time and time again to undertake those necessary repairs to ensure the dam’s integrity was maintained in the case of excessive rains and to ensure that residents and business owners downstream would not have to deal with catastrophic flooding.”
Petosa said the dam collapse is an example that calls into question whether dams or other kinds of infrastructure, should be privately owned.
“What we’ve found time and time again is that these corporations are really bad actors. They don’t always share the relevant information with state and federal regulators. Sometimes they even hide information.”
But, Petosa said, if their investigation uncovers that state inaction contributed to the dam collapse they would pursue lawsuits against state regulatory agencies.
Boyce Hydro did not respond to our request for comment.
Attorneys are holding a virtual town hall tonight to explain the class action suit to impacted residents. You can find out more here: https://www.facebook.com/MMForthePeople
A second class-action lawsuit, this one against the state, claims not enough was done to require dam owners to conduct necessary improvements. After federal regulators revoked the dam’s licensure, state authorities took control.
And, the lawsuit points out, an initial state inspection of the dam in 2018 found it was in “fair” condition.
Hugh McDiarmid is with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. He said he couldn’t speak directly to the suit - but said an initial inspection of the dam did find it was in “fair” condition.
“The analogy I use is you can take your Ford Focus to a mechanic to a mechanic and they can look at the tires and engine and say this car is in fair condition. That doesn’t mean you can tow your boat and trailer with a Ford Focus. That requires a separate determination.”
McDiarmid said a more comprehensive inspection report of the dam was underway.
“That’s the report that would have assessed the dam’s spillway capacity, its ability to meet state safety standards. At that point, we would have had enough information to say hey this dam meets our standards or no this dam doesn’t meet our standards, and then we can demand corrective action.”
McDiarmid said the report was expected in March.
The state oversees roughly 1,100 dams. McDiarmid said it is unusual for the state to oversee a dam of this size and, he said, there are just two dam safety engineers.
“We were moving fairly aggressively on this and would have had a report in hand that would have allowed us to either require the dam operator to make fixes to meet state safety standards or find out that indeed it did meet state safety standards.”
The lawsuit also includes allegations made by Boyce Hyrdo’s owner who said the state sued them over water drawdowns behind the dam. Those drawdowns, according to the dam owner, were made out of concern for the “downstream community.”
McDiarmid called those comments “Monday morning quarterbacking.”
“There is no question it didn’t impact dam safety. Those drawdowns were in the winter when the spring rains were not a factor and the dam levels are set by the legal order of a circuit court.”
Plaintiff attorneys in this case did not respond to our request for comment.