Getmyboat analyzed National Inventory of Dams data from the Army Corps of Engineers to identify states with the most dams in poor condition in life-threatening areas.

Record rainfall pelted parts of Iowa for 12 hours straight in July 2010, sending 10 inches of rainwater draining toward Lake Delhi, Iowa, a popular recreation destination for decades since its construction in the 1920s.

Holding back 9 miles of lake water with more precipitation flowing in by the minute was the 80-year-old Lake Delhi Dam, constructed of hundreds of feet of earth, concrete, and steel. The water punched a 30-foot-wide hole in the dam wall, spewing floodwater into the surrounding region.

Emergency and state officials ordered evacuations in time to prevent any loss of life. For safety professionals, the failure underscored the threat posed to dams by climate change (increasing the risk of flooding events), the importance of regular maintenance and inspection, and the impact of human errors in dam construction on dam integrity.

Getmyboat analyzed National Inventory of Dams data from the Army Corps of Engineers to identify states with the most dams at risk of failure that pose the greatest potential threat to nearby residents. The public database allowing Americans to look up the conditions of nearby dams has grown to include more than 90,000 dams.

As more dams get added to the national inventory, analyses of this database reveal a growing number of dams in poor and unsatisfactory condition, some of which have the potential to be life-threatening should they fail—dams the inventory deems "high-hazard."

States in this analysis ranked by the share of high-hazard dams that could pose a danger to human life, including those assessed to be in "poor" or "unsatisfactory" condition, those that haven't received inspections, and those where the state agency that oversees them has not reported its conditions.

A designation of "poor" is given to inspected dams showing deficiencies that threaten the dam's integrity during normal operations. "Unsatisfactory" is given to dams that require "immediate or emergency remedial action," according to the Army Corps of Engineers. About 1 in 10 of the inventory's dam listings have no condition reported by state agencies.

"It is likely most of these dams should be listed at Not Rated, but we will work with the appropriate agencies to verify the information and update the NID accordingly," Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson Gene Pawlik said in a statement.

The names of dams accompanying each state in the analysis represent the largest dams by height that were in poor or unsatisfactory condition. The total number and concentration of high-hazard dams give a sense of the stakes involved with aging infrastructure in each state, though those figures don't factor into the ranking.

The Lake Delhi Dam was reconstructed and was last inspected in 2020, receiving a "satisfactory" grade. The dam is considered one risk level below high-hazard, "significant hazard." But its failure in 2010 provides an example of the high stakes communities living near large dams face when they fail.

Illinois ranks high on this list, mainly because of what is unknown about the conditions of its dams. The Army Corps of Engineers leaves it up to state agencies to decide what information it provides or withholds from the public database. Illinois only shares info on three of its dams deemed to be high-hazard. One of its engineers has previously said that it doesn't rate dam conditions because the process is too resource-intensive to justify.

Many state and federal agencies have chosen to keep data about those dams hidden, citing threats to national security. North Dakota and Oregon withhold data about around 40% of the dams in their states, making it difficult for locals to assess just how many are in good condition or need attention.

Other states rank poorly for their share of high-hazard dams that have gone without inspection. In Missouri, about 42% of these dams don't have a recorded date of last inspection. Another 24% were last inspected prior to 2000.

Read on to see how your state's riskiest dams fare based on publicly available data.



50. Wisconsin

50 Wisoncsin

  • Total high-hazard dams: 206 (3.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 8.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 1.0%
    • Condition withheld: 1.9%
    • Not inspected: 4.4%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): West Fork Kickapoo 1, Mlsna, Radigan
  • Major examples (poor condition): Rock Falls, Rice

49. Iowa

49 Iowa

  • Total high-hazard dams: 95 (3.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 11.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 1.1%
    • Condition withheld: 10.5%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Glen Oaks Country Club Dam

48. Louisiana

48 Louisiana

  • Total high-hazard dams: 41 (0.9 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 12.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 4.9%
    • Condition withheld: 4.9%
    • Not inspected: 2.4%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Kincaid Reservoir, Longville Lake

47. Connecticut

47 Connecticut

  • Total high-hazard dams: 274 (7.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 14.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 7.3%
    • Condition withheld: 5.8%
    • Not inspected: 1.5%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Crystal Lake Dam, Hartford Reservoir #1 Dam, Peat Swamp Reservoir Dam, Great Hill Reservior Dam

46. Michigan

46 Michigan

  • Total high-hazard dams: 162 (1.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 15.4%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 6.8%
    • Condition withheld: 1.2%
    • Not inspected: 4.9%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Secord Dam, Edenville Dam, Smallwood Dam, Sanford Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Cornwall Creek Dam, Little Black River Structure B, Trowbridge Dam, Manistique Papers Dam

45. Massachusetts

45 Massachusetts

  • Total high-hazard dams: 329 (4.7 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 16.1%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.1%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 7.3%
    • Condition withheld: 6.4%
    • Not inspected: 0.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Bel Air Dam, Bird Pond Dam, Moulton Pond Dam, Tremont Mill Pond
  • Major examples (poor condition): Notch Reservoir Dam, Haskell Pond Dam, Mount Williams Reservoir Dam, Damon Pond Dam

44. Minnesota

44 Minnesota

  • Total high-hazard dams: 55 (1.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 18.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 3.6%
    • Condition withheld: 9.1%
    • Not inspected: 5.5%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Lake Bronson, Pelican Rapids

43. Maine

43 Maine

  • Total high-hazard dams: 73 (5.3 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 19.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 6.8%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 12.3%
    • Condition withheld: 0.0%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Grand Falls, Josephine, Silver Lake, Lake Auburn
  • Major examples (poor condition): Woodland, Christina, Emery Mills, Grand Lake (Matagamon)

42. Delaware

42 Delaware

  • Total high-hazard dams: 57 (5.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 19.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 5.3%
    • Condition withheld: 0.0%
    • Not inspected: 14.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Millsboro Pond Dam, Shoals Branch Dam, Burton Pond Dam

41. New Jersey

41 New Jersey

  • Total high-hazard dams: 232 (2.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 20.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 20.3%
    • Condition withheld: 0.0%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Round Valley South Dam, Round Valley North Dam, Spruce Run Reservoir Dam, Round Valley Dike

40. Virginia

40 Virginia

  • Total high-hazard dams: 429 (4.9 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 22.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 10.0%
    • Condition withheld: 3.0%
    • Not inspected: 7.7%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Lake Monroe Dam, South River Dam #19, Lake Arrowhead Dam, Killarney Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Beaverdam Creek Dam, Little Creek Dam, Lunga Dam, Breckinridge Dam

38. Utah (tie)

38 Alaska

  • Total high-hazard dams: 266 (7.9 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 23.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 4.1%
    • Condition withheld: 19.2%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Tony Grove Lake Dam, Alton Reservoir, Palisades Lake, Red Pine

38. Alaska (tie)

38 Alaska

  • Total high-hazard dams: 30 (4.1 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 23.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 13.3%
    • Condition withheld: 6.7%
    • Not inspected: 3.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Wrangell Lower, Wrangell Upper, Alitak Cannery Dam #1, Explorer Glacier Pond Dam

37. Washington

37 Washington

  • Total high-hazard dams: 320 (4.1 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 23.4%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.3%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 11.3%
    • Condition withheld: 10.0%
    • Not inspected: 0.9%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Mossyrock, Mayfield, Yale Saddle Dam, Yelm Canal Dike
  • Major examples (poor condition): Lower Baker, Wells, Priest Rapids, Upriver Dam

36. North Carolina

36 North Carolina

  • Total high-hazard dams: 1533 (14.3 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 24.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 10.2%
    • Condition withheld: 1.2%
    • Not inspected: 9.8%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Simmons Fields Lake, Young'S Lake, Mcfayden Lake, Hutaff Lake
  • Major examples (poor condition): Santeetlah, Yadkin Narrows Bypass Spillway Control Structure, Mott Lake, Lake Lindsay

35. Pennsylvania

35 Pennsylvania : 15 West Virginia

  • Total high-hazard dams: 788 (6.1 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 24.4%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.4%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 17.0%
    • Condition withheld: 5.3%
    • Not inspected: 0.6%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Ryerson Station, Indian Run, Upper Castanea Reservoir, Bernhart
  • Major examples (poor condition): Little Pine Creek, Dehart, North Fork, Mill Run

34. Nevada

34 Nevada

  • Total high-hazard dams: 158 (5.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 24.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 15.8%
    • Condition withheld: 4.4%
    • Not inspected: 1.9%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Cat Creek, Bishop Creek Dam, Sierra Sage Ponds Dam, Home Ranch Canyon Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Cave Creek Dam, Eagle Valley Reservoir Dam, Eldorado Canyon Dam, Las Vegas Wash Upper Detention Basin Dam

33. Colorado

33 Colorado

Total high-hazard dams: 472 (8.1 per 100,000 residents)

  • Share potentially dangerous: 25.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 7.8%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 0.2%
    • Condition withheld: 14.2%
    • Not inspected: 3.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Sanchez, Narraguinnep - Main Dam, Miramonte, Stillwater #1
  • Major examples (poor condition): Trout Lake

32. South Carolina

32 South Carolina

  • Total high-hazard dams: 668 (12.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 25.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.1%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 19.5%
    • Condition withheld: 1.3%
    • Not inspected: 2.7%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Caldwell Lake Dam, Weston Lake, Arcadia Woods Lake Dam, Whisperlake Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Chattooga Lake Dam, Lake Lanier Dam, Silver Lake Dam, Finleys Lake Dam

31. Idaho

31 Idaho

  • Total high-hazard dams: 107 (5.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 26.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 1.9%
    • Condition withheld: 23.4%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Saint John
  • Major examples (poor condition): Fish Creek, Lost Valley

30. Nebraska

30 Nebraska

Total high-hazard dams: 151 (7.7 per 100,000 residents)

  • Share potentially dangerous: 27.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 7.3%
    • Condition withheld: 18.5%
    • Not inspected: 1.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Beaver Lake Dam, Gering Valley B, Willow Creek Dam, Spring Creek 19-B

29. Oklahoma

29 Oklahoma

  • Total high-hazard dams: 449 (11.2 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 28.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.2%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 6.5%
    • Condition withheld: 12.5%
    • Not inspected: 7.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Lake Ellsworth, Robert S. Kerr, Hominy Lake, Waxhoma Lake
  • Major examples (poor condition): Chimney Rock Pump Storage, Lake Carl Blackwell, Okmulgee Lake, Shell Creek Lake Dam

28. Maryland

28 Maryland

  • Total high-hazard dams: 101 (1.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 29.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 9.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 18.8%
    • Condition withheld: 1.0%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Liberty Dam, Piney Run Dam, Warner Gap Hollow Dam, Greenbrier State Park Dam & Dike
  • Major examples (poor condition): Druid Hill Lake Reservoir and Storage Tanks, Frostburg Reservoir, New Bald Eagle Road Swm, Woodlawn Railroad Embankment On Basin Run

27. Kansas

27 Kansas

  • Total high-hazard dams: 323 (11.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 31.3%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.6%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 8.4%
    • Condition withheld: 9.3%
    • Not inspected: 13.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Rogers Dam, Willow Lake
  • Major examples (poor condition): Lake Dabinawa, Lake Estates West, Bayer Pond Dam, Frd No T-4

26. California

26 California

  • Total high-hazard dams: 867 (2.2 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 32.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.2%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 2.2%
    • Condition withheld: 29.4%
    • Not inspected: 0.8%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Lake Hodges, Double U Fish Ranch
  • Major examples (poor condition): Castaic, El Capitan, Morena, Matilija

25. Vermont

25 Vermont

  • Total high-hazard dams: 62 (9.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 33.9%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 16.1%
    • Condition withheld: 9.7%
    • Not inspected: 8.1%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Waterbury, Sugar Hill, Windsor Upper, Institute Pond

24. New York

24 New York

  • Total high-hazard dams: 438 (2.2 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 37.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.4%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 21.5%
    • Condition withheld: 1.8%
    • Not inspected: 13.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Toronto, Seneca Falls, Stillwell, Lake Jefferson
  • Major examples (poor condition): Inghams Dam, Mill Brook Site 2 Dam, 60 Foot Dam, Deruyter Dam

23. Florida

23 Florida

  • Total high-hazard dams: 94 (0.4 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 39.4%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 7.4%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 3.2%
    • Condition withheld: 3.2%
    • Not inspected: 25.5%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Lake Asbury Dam, L.P.Hill Dam #3, L.P.Hill Dam 1, Herbert Hicks Dam 1
  • Major examples (poor condition): Lake Asbury South Dam, Lake Ryan Dam, Meadow View Lake Dam

22. Texas

22 Texas

  • Total high-hazard dams: 1587 (5.3 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 43.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 5.8%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 6.1%
    • Condition withheld: 2.2%
    • Not inspected: 29.4%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Williamson Dam, Chambers Creek WS SCS Site 42 Dam, Lake Comanche Dam, Hamilton City Lake Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Amistad Dam, Robert Lee Dam, Sorrells Reservoir Dam, Livingston

20. Mississippi (tie)

20 Mississippi

  • Total high-hazard dams: 347 (11.8 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 43.8%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 17.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 23.1%
    • Condition withheld: 2.3%
    • Not inspected: 1.4%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Indian Creek WS Str Y-9a-14 Dam, Lake Hilda, Big Sand Watershed Structure Y-32-11 Dam, Chuquatonchee WS Str 07 Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Kelly Greenwood Lake Dam, Second Creek WS Str #6a Dam, Second Creek WS Str #7 Dam, Big Sand Watershed Structure Y-32-10 Dam

20. New Hampshire (tie)

20 New Hampshire

  • Total high-hazard dams: 160 (11.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 43.8%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 34.4%
    • Condition withheld: 8.1%
    • Not inspected: 1.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Baker River Site 6a Dam, Baker River Site 5 Dam, Lake Gloriette Dike, Weare Reservoir Dam

19. Indiana

19 Indiana

  • Total high-hazard dams: 281 (4.1 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 44.1%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.7%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 31.7%
    • Condition withheld: 4.6%
    • Not inspected: 7.1%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Upper Peoga Lake Dam, Log Cabin Lake Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Eagle Creek Reservoir Dam, Twin-Rush Creek Dam #3, Hood Lake Dam, Delaney Creek Dam #1

18. Georgia

18 Georgia

  • Total high-hazard dams: 542 (5.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 45.2%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.7%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 36.3%
    • Condition withheld: 4.2%
    • Not inspected: 3.9%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Butler Reservoir, Cochran Lake Dam, Aug. Canal Left Embkmnt + Structures (Below + Bulkhead Structure), Gordon Lake
  • Major examples (poor condition): Bartletts Ferry, Main Dam, Tallulah Falls, Tara Lake Dam, Talking Rock Creek WS Str #13

17. Ohio

17 Ohio

  • Total high-hazard dams: 425 (3.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 47.1%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 30.6%
    • Condition withheld: 13.9%
    • Not inspected: 1.6%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Southern Silica Pond No. 1 Dam, Upper Shaker Lake Dam, Shreve Lake Dam, Blanchester Reservoir No. 4 Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Marge Schott Lake Dam, Apple Valley Lake Dam, Barnesville Reservoir No. 3 Dam, Rocky Fork Lake Dam

16. Arizona

16 Arizona

  • Total high-hazard dams: 162 (2.2 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 47.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 3.1%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 6.8%
    • Condition withheld: 34.0%
    • Not inspected: 3.7%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Fredonia, Cook Reservoir, Green Road Basin, Maricopa Road Basin
  • Major examples (poor condition): Frye Mesa, Jaques, Black Canyon, Fool Hollow

15. West Virginia

15XJZ3

  • Total high-hazard dams: 419 (23.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 47.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 6.7%
    • Condition withheld: 11.9%
    • Not inspected: 29.1%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Horton Dam, Lake Stephens Dam, Elk Two Mile #14 Dam, Upper Smith Dam

14. Montana

14 Montana

  • Total high-hazard dams: 206 (18.3 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 48.1%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 12.1%
    • Condition withheld: 26.2%
    • Not inspected: 9.2%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Melstone Detention Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): West Fork Bitterroot (Painted Rocks), Kootenai Dvlpmnt Impoundment Dam, Newlan Creek Dam, Willow Creek Dam

13. Tennessee

13 Tennessee

  • Total high-hazard dams: 274 (3.9 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 51.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 0.4%
    • Condition withheld: 20.4%
    • Not inspected: 29.2%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Fall Creek Falls, Radnor, Leisure Lake, Pressmans Home
  • Major examples (poor condition): Grundy #1

12. Oregon

12 Oregon

  • Total high-hazard dams: 171 (4.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 55.6%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 7.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 9.4%
    • Condition withheld: 38.0%
    • Not inspected: 1.2%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Smith, Hosler (Reeder Gulch, Clear Branch, Willow Creek 3 (Malheur)
  • Major examples (poor condition): Bear Creek, Currant Creek, Mercer, Walch Dam

11. Wyoming

11 Wyoming

  • Total high-hazard dams: 108 (18.6 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 57.4%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.9%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 12.0%
    • Condition withheld: 25.9%
    • Not inspected: 17.6%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Laprele, Snyder Creek Det Dam X
  • Major examples (poor condition): Upper Van Tassell, Hawk Springs, Leavitt, Cardine Keith

10. South Dakota

10 South Dakota

  • Total high-hazard dams: 88 (9.7 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 64.8%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 15.9%
    • Condition withheld: 36.4%
    • Not inspected: 12.5%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Marindahl, Richmond, Rank Dam, Lake Corsica Dam

9. Kentucky

09 Kentucky

  • Total high-hazard dams: 275 (6.1 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 65.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 4.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 27.6%
    • Condition withheld: 33.5%
    • Not inspected: 0.4%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Rice Lake Dam, Elkhorn Lake Dam, Melvin Stinson Lake, Otter Lake Dam No 2
  • Major examples (poor condition): Cranks Creek Lake Dam, Cedar Creek Dam, Willisburg Lake Dam, Red Lick Creek FRS 2

8. North Dakota

08 North Dakota

  • Total high-hazard dams: 54 (6.9 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 66.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 18.5%
    • Condition withheld: 38.9%
    • Not inspected: 9.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Senator Young Dam, Matejcek Dam, Olson Dam, Bylin Dam

7. New Mexico

07 New Mexico

  • Total high-hazard dams: 222 (10.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 68.0%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 1.4%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 45.5%
    • Condition withheld: 20.7%
    • Not inspected: 0.5%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): San Mateo Lake Dam, Gardner Dam, Power Lake Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Mcclure Dam, Lake Maloya Dam, T Or C Site 8c Dam, Nichols Dam

6. Missouri

06 Missouri

  • Total high-hazard dams: 1493 (24.2 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 69.9%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 2.3%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 0.1%
    • Condition withheld: 0.9%
    • Not inspected: 66.7%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Fletcher Tailings Dam, Gun Club Lake Dam, Upper Little Black D-2, Lake Waukomis Dam
  • Major examples (poor condition): Sterling Hollow

5. Rhode Island

05 Rhode Island

  • Total high-hazard dams: 95 (8.7 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 74.7%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 55.8%
    • Condition withheld: 0.0%
    • Not inspected: 18.9%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Gainer Memorial, Woonsocket Reservoir #1, Lawton Valley Reservoir, Harris Pond

4. Hawaii

04 Hawaii

  • Total high-hazard dams: 120 (8.3 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 77.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 12.5%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 64.2%
    • Condition withheld: 0.0%
    • Not inspected: 0.8%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Puu Lua Reservoir, Ku Tree Reservoir, Wailuku Water Reservoir 10, Twin Reservoirs
  • Major examples (poor condition): Wahiawa Dam, Horner Reservoir, Waikoloi Reservoir, Kahoma Reservoir

3. Alabama

03 Alabama

  • Total high-hazard dams: 228 (4.5 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 89.9%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.4%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 0.4%
    • Condition withheld: 5.7%
    • Not inspected: 83.3%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): Cone Reservoir
  • Major examples (poor condition): Logan Martin

2. Arkansas

02 Arkansas

  • Total high-hazard dams: 194 (6.4 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 98.5%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 1.0%
    • Condition withheld: 13.4%
    • Not inspected: 84.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): Paris Dam, Broadmoor Lake Dam

1. Illinois

01 Illinois

  • Total high-hazard dams: 252 (2.0 per 100,000 residents)
  • Share potentially dangerous: 98.8%
    • Assessed to be an immediate threat: 0.0%
    • Assessed to be in poor condition: 0.0%
    • Condition withheld: 98.8%
    • Not inspected: 0.0%
  • Major examples (immediate threat): None
  • Major examples (poor condition): None available