[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIELD HEARING IN MISSOURI: MISSOURI RIVER
MANAGEMENT: DOES IT MEET THE NEEDS
OF SMALL BUSINESS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
AUGUST 21, 2013
__________
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Small Business Committee Document Number 113-035
Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-514 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE KING, Iowa
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
BLAINE LUETKEMER, Missouri
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina
SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
RICHARD HANNA, New York
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona
KERRY BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
YVETTE CLARKE, New York
JUDY CHU, California
JANICE HAHN, California
DONALD PAYNE, JR., New Jersey
GRACE MENG, New York
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RON BARBER, Arizona
ANN McLANE KUSTER, New Hampshire
PATRICK MURPHY, Florida
Lori Salley, Staff Director
Paul Sass, Deputy Staff Director
Barry Pineles, Chief Counsel
Michael Day, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Sam Graves.................................................. 1
WITNESSES
Kathy Kunkel, Clerk, Holt County, Oregon, MO..................... 3
Lanny Frakes, Owner, L & R Farms, Rushville, MO.................. 5
Jody Farhat, Chief, Missouri River Management Division,
Northwestern Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Omaha, NE...................................................... 7
Jason Gregory, Owner, Gregory Farm, Hemple, MO................... 9
Joel Euler, Attorney, South Side Levee District, Troy, KS........ 11
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Kathy Kunkel, Clerk, Holt County, Oregon, MO................. 31
Lanny Frakes, Owner, L & R Farms, Rushville, MO.............. 34
Jody Farhat, Chief, Missouri River Management Division,
Northwestern Division, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha, NE....................................... 37
Jason Gregory, Owner, Gregory Farm, Hemple, MO............... 41
Joel Euler, Attorney, South Side Levee District, Troy, KS.... 44
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
None.
MISSOURI RIVER MANAGEMENT: DOES IT MEET THE NEEDS OF SMALL BUSINESS?
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in St.
Joseph City Hall, 1100 Frederick Avenue, St. Joseph, Missouri,
Hon. Sam Graves [chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representative Graves.
Chairman Graves. I would like to thank everyone for being
here today, particularly to our witnesses. We are obviously
going to discuss the implications of the Missouri River
management and how that affects small businesses.
This is an official field hearing with the Small Business
Committee, and as Chairman of the House Small Business
Committee I do encourage field hearings throughout the United
States with our members, because it does allow members to get
outside of that bubble we call 17 square miles of logic-free
environment, which is Washington, D.C., and they get a chance
to hear the real concerns of small businesses and how they
operate in the real economy.
From the beginning of the late 19th century, the Federal
Government has taken an interest in developing our nation's
waterways in order to maximize the economic benefits of these
resources to the United States. The original federally
authorized purpose of the Missouri River System was to
facilitate navigation or navigable waters for interstate
commerce. Later, flood prevention, water supply, irrigation and
hydropower were added to the mix, again for the purposes of
maximizing the economic benefits of the river.
Unfortunately, managing the river for economic benefit has
become less important than facilitating other objectives of
little or dubious economic value.
Today, the lower Missouri River is often closed to
commercial navigation, reducing the opportunities for small
businesses to find the most cost-effective means for shipping
their goods. In addition, Corps programs to create shallow-
water habitat for fish, the pallid sturgeon in particular, and
the proposed Spring Pulse, could undermine the goal of flood
prevention.
Some claim that these are unavoidable tradeoffs between
balancing the potential economic benefits of the Missouri River
System with the goal of protecting the environment. I believe
that such thinking misses the point. Limiting the economic
utility of the river system based on dubious science doesn't
promote any objective.
What small business and rural community stakeholders need
is for management decisions to be based on accurate scientific
and engineering data. Unfortunately, all too often, decisions
with significant system-wide impacts appear to be based on a
whim. This reduces certainty and makes it difficult for small
businesses that rely on the Missouri River System for their
economic well-being to plan accordingly.
Before I yield for our opening statements, I would like to
acknowledge the presence of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
which are here. The Committee invited both the Corps and the
Fish and Wildlife Service to attend, but as we can see, only
the Corps decided to testify.
This is unfortunate for many reasons, none more so than the
fact that many of the regulations that complicate multipurpose
management of the Missouri River System originate or are
influenced by policies that are pursued by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. I think their absence speaks volumes about
their lack of concern for small businesses and the rural
communities that the river affects.
With that, I look forward to hearing from all of our
witnesses.
I would also like to kind of explain the way the light
system works. The way we do it is each person has 5 minutes to
give their opening statement, and when you get down to 1 minute
it turns yellow. The fact of the matter is, if you have
something to say, I want to hear it, so don't worry too much
about getting thrown out of the room if you go over your 5
minutes because it is not going to happen. This is about
hearing what folks have to say and about managing the river,
and that is what the importance of this is. So we have to do it
for Committee rules, so we have to have the lights. But
regardless, I want you to say it if you have anything to say.
So with that, we will start out with introductions. What we
will do is I will introduce each of our witnesses and they can
give their opening statement, and then we will move to the next
one, and then we will go on to questions.
But our first witness today is Ms. Kathy Kunkel from
Oregon, Missouri. Kathy currently serves as the Clerk of Holt
County. Among her responsibilities and goals is promoting
economic development in the county, especially small business
development. She has also worked with other rural communities
in discussing the impacts of Missouri River management in the
communities and economic development efforts.
Ms. Kunkel, again, thank you for appearing today, as you
have before, and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF KATHY KUNKEL, CLERK, HOLT COUNTY, OREGON,
MISSOURI; LANNY FRAKES, OWNER, L&R FARMS, RUSHVILLE, MISSOURI;
JODY FARHAT, CHIEF, MISSOURI BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
OMAHA, NEBRASKA; JASON GREGORY, OWNER, GREGORY FARMS, HEMPLE,
MISSOURI; JOEL EULER, ATTORNEY, SOUTH SIDE LEVEE DISTRICT,
TROY, KANSAS
STATEMENT OF KATHY KUNKEL
Ms. Kunkel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before the Committee today and be able to
provide for you, once again, a voice for the citizens of Holt
County, Missouri, as well as other rural communities that are
impacted by the Missouri River's management in our region. So I
will take a couple of minutes to provide my testimony.
I have the privilege to come before this body representing
the people of Holt County, Missouri. I am honored to share with
you the concerns of small businessmen and women who take great
pride in operating their farms and businesses in a rural area.
Situated between the urban hubs of Omaha and Kansas City,
Holt County is about as rural as it gets. Less than 4,700
people call Holt County home. There are 500 miles of gravel
roads and not one single stop light or flashing light in the
entire county, including the towns. Everyone knows one another.
It is small-town America at its best. Our small businesses
range from local grocery stores to a 30-million-gallon ethanol
plant. Each and every business in our area is dependent on the
well-being of agriculture.
Holt County has a wide floodplain, encompassing about 40
percent of the county's 456 square miles. It holds highly
productive farmland and five towns. At its widest point our
floodplain stretches 12 miles from bluff to bluff. It is criss-
crossed by transportation corridors connecting Missouri with
Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska by interstate and rail. It also is
home to Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge and Big Lake State
Park, as well as a patchwork of farmland and homesteads dating
back to early settlement.
The 2011 flood brought a focused spotlight to the
management practices of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and their responsibilities to the eight authorized
purposes of the Missouri River. Holt County was devastated by
the flooding that found water within our homes for up to 106
days. Interstate 29 was closed for nearly four months, and in
that time, small businesses that sat well outside of the
floodplain were closed due to a lack of commerce. You simply
cannot run a truck stop without interstate traffic. In one day,
40 people from Holt County lost their jobs due to flooding on
one of the highest hills in the county, miles from the
floodwaters.
County tax revenues are based on the economic viability of
the communities within the county boundaries. Commercial and
agricultural properties make up the real estate tax base. Those
businesses provide income for housing. Retail sales of goods
provide sales tax to support the county's services such as law
enforcement and road maintenance. Closed businesses and lost
crop production diminish sales tax returns, and county services
suffer.
The loss of Big Lake State Park ended tourist and vacation
revenues, as well. In 2011, over $100 million worth of corn and
soybeans were lost in Holt County. The lingering effects are
seen from the car dealership to the grocery store as citizens
have fewer dollars available for large and small purchases.
County sales tax revenue continues to show a downturn even in
2013, currently posting a 6 percent deficit.
After the 2011 flood, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that
the number of people living in Holt County had shrunk by nearly
300 citizens, now tallying 4,655. For our county, that is an
exodus. Small businesses simply cannot survive in an atmosphere
where the population is declining at a rapid rate, which in
this case was 5.2 percent in a two-year period.
As the population declines and farmlands are ruined by
repetitive flooding, the Corps of Engineers continues to pursue
purchasing land in Holt County for mitigation efforts designed
to widen the river, create shallow-water habitat, and erode
existing stabilized banks. Acquired land is then removed from
the tax rolls, and the land is removed from agricultural
production, further impacting the local economy and dollar
turnover that occurs within the county.
The Corps' water flow strategy has changed so significantly
that recurrent flooding is commonplace in our area now. The
Corps' focus has clearly shifted from a traditional flood
control and navigation focus, which we saw for years after the
bank stabilization and navigation project, to one of now an
environmental experiment, totally unproven and now proven to be
ineffective, while it has undermined agriculture in our
communities and devastated small businesses.
In Holt County, we have come together to explore what
alternatives might be available to our citizens to once again
bring our county to be a thriving place to live, work, and do
business. The county's levee and drainage districts have been
rebuilt using new designs providing protection for the land,
homes, and businesses within their watershed areas.
Partnerships have been formed between the varying districts to
provide greater protection in times of high water. The county
utilizes the National Flood Insurance Program to ensure that
homes are built above the base flood elevation to limit flood
damage. Numerous projects have been implemented, both publicly
and privately, to increase the height of the railroad,
roadways, and other essential infrastructure in an effort to
avoid or limit future damages.
A regional partnership is underway to provide strategic
planning with the states of Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and the
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska situated at White Cloud, to
plan for Missouri River management and small business needs for
navigation, port access, railway connectivity, and interstate
commerce.
It is essential that the United States Army Corps of
Engineers manage the Missouri River for flood control and
navigation interests to allow for small businesses in our
region to be able to survive. With the opening of the Panama
Canal, our region is now ready to provide bulk grain and other
products by barge to markets of the world. A United States
Department of Transportation Marine Highway Designation, M-29,
is crucial to establishing this region as a waterway
transportation route. The Corps must provide a reliable level
for navigation, which is necessary to minimize risk and make
small businesses successful. A minimal risk of flooding is
imperative for business expansion, crop production, and
tourism.
I appreciate your willingness to hear the voice of rural
America's citizens today. I would encourage you to define the
future of the Missouri River Basin with a focus on the 2011
flood's lasting impacts on the agricultural community and small
businesses of the lower Missouri River. Change in the
management practices for the Missouri River Basin must come
now, and with it must be a renewed focus on the people
utilizing the bounty of the floodplain with a specific focus on
flood control and navigation. Thank you.
Chairman Graves. Thanks, Ms. Kunkel.
Our next witness is Lanny Frakes. Mr. Frakes serves as the
Vice President of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association, a statewide organization that helps represent
landowners, small businesses and rural counties in issues
involving the Missouri River management.
Mr. Frakes, I want to thank you for coming in and I
appreciate your testimony, look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF LANNY FRAKES
Mr. Frakes. Thank you. Chairman Graves and members of the
United States House Committee on Small Business, thank you for
this opportunity to provide testimony regarding management of
the Missouri River and the needs of small businesses. As Vice
President of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association, I represent levee and drainage districts,
businesses, associations, and individuals interested in the
activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River and its
tributaries. I understand the importance of this Committee's
work as it relates to the protection of small businesses across
our country. I am honored to have this opportunity to provide
comments on behalf of the levee association's membership and
fellow Missourians who are impacted by the operation of the
Missouri River.
The bottomlands along the Missouri River include thousands
of acres of highly productive farmland. Many family farm
businesses rely on levees constructed by landowners, levee
districts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for protection
from flooding. One hundred thousand acres of Missouri
bottomland soil can produce enough calories to feed over 1
million people for an entire year. This productive soil makes
up the backbone of the local economy. As the bottomland farms
succeed, so does the local economy. There are spillover impacts
from the success of the farm businesses. Many small businesses
benefit from the production and operation of bottomland farms.
The purchases of tractors, trucks, and other machinery, along
with labor and other inputs, have ripple effects throughout our
economy.
I want to be very clear: it is the productive soils and the
land that provides the foundation for small business growth and
success throughout our agricultural communities. Without the
highly productive soil and land, the small businesses in the
fruitful Missouri River bottoms would be far less successful.
We have seen dramatic increases in farmland values over the
past several years. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, first quarter farmland values in the Kansas City
District have posted double-digit annual gains for three
straight years. While the general economy has struggled,
agriculture and small businesses tied to agriculture have held
their own. Agriculture will likely be the industry leading our
country out of its economic woes. It has held true in the past.
This is why it is vitally important to keep our best soils in
production, and this is why we should protect these soils from
flooding.
Flood control is vitally important to these businesses.
Small businesses in the economic chain, from the farmer to the
small businesses he impacts, rely on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to provide critical flood control along the Missouri
River. Flooding has huge impacts on small businesses and the
economy. Because floods are so devastating, flood control is
one of the greatest needs for communities and small businesses
impacted by Missouri River operations.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no longer
seems to share the same belief concerning the importance of
flood control for the small businesses impacted by their
operations. In fact, we rarely even hear the Corps talk about
flood control. The term ``flood control'' has all but been
stripped from their vocabulary. Instead of flood control, we
now hear the Corps talk about flood risk reduction. The Corps
of Engineers is working hard on programs designed to reduce the
Federal Government's risk and responsibility associated with
flooding and flood recovery. But there is very little focus on
actually reducing the risk of flooding.
The Corps' new approach to flood control has little to do
with keeping the River between its banks. Their emphasis is on
moving people and businesses out of the floodplain, buying
productive farmland, setting back or removing levees, and
allowing the river to run wild. This is not an approach to
flood control. It is a recipe for disaster.
We understand floods will happen, and we cannot control
every flood. But the goal should be to keep the river between
its banks and control flooding as much as possible. Even if we
were able to remove all infrastructure from the floodplains--
homes, businesses, roads, power lines, pipelines, bridges and
more--the remaining farmland is worth protecting with levees
and other flood control projects.
Members of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association have many concerns regarding the Corps' operation
of the river. Shallow-water habitat projects, dike notching,
the threat of a manmade spring rise each year and land
acquisition programs top the list of our concerns. The Corps'
levee inspection program and the FEMA levee certification
program also concern our members and will have impacts on small
business and the ability to provide proper flood control.
Finally, it is our hope your Committee and the United
States Congress will provide better oversight of the Corps of
Engineer's activities. Federal agencies with no oversight from
Congress have a long leash and a high level of arrogance. This
has been the case with the ongoing shallow-water habitat
projects. Even though the Missouri Clean Water Commission
decided not to provide a 401 certificate, the Corps of
Engineers has decided to dump dredged spoils from their
projects directly into the Missouri River. We believe this
shows a great lack of respect to the Missouri Clean Water
Commission and the stakeholders who overwhelmingly opposed the
soil dumping.
The work of your Committee is very important. I appreciate
your service to our nation and your willingness to hold this
hearing here today. I hope you will encourage the Corps of
Engineers to make flood control their number one priority and
provide the protection the small businesses need to grow and
prosper.
The land and productive soils along the Missouri River is
one of our country's greatest assets. Providing flood control
to the land is critical to small businesses throughout the
Missouri River Valley and the nation. The Missouri Levee and
Drainage District Association is ready and willing to help you
as we work together to protect our small businesses and grow
our economy, and I thank you.
Chairman Graves. Thanks, Mr. Frakes.
Our next witness is Jody Farhat. Since 2009, Ms. Farhat has
served as the Chief of the Missouri River Management Division
of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Northwestern Division.
Prior to her elevation to chief, Ms. Farhat served for 5 years
in the Hydrologic Engineering Branch of the Corps' Omaha
District, which is where I think I first became acquainted with
you or we first got acquainted.
Ms. Farhat, again, thank you for being here today. We
appreciate it very much, and the Corps, for coming in today,
and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JODY FARHAT
Ms. Farhat. Thank you very much, Chairman. As you said, I
am Jody Farhat. I am Chief of the Missouri River Basin Water
Management Office, part of the Northwestern Division of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss our roles and responsibilities, and efforts on managing
the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, and on the
importance of the river to small businesses and rural
communities.
Over the past several years, the Missouri River Basin has
experienced a wide range of climatic conditions, from the
record runoff in the upper basin in 2011, to flash drought in
2012. The Mainstem Reservoir System is comprised of six dam and
reservoir projects; hydroelectric power plants; levees, both
Federal and non-Federal; and a 735-mile navigation channel
extending from Sioux City, Iowa to the mouth near St. Louis,
Missouri. The Corps is charged with responsibly managing this
complex system for eight authorized purposes: flood control,
navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water quality control,
water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. In
addition, the operation of the system must also comply with
other applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements,
including the Endangered Species Act.
Cycles of flooding and severe drought have always been a
major part of basin hydrology. The reservoirs are designed to
capture and store runoff from the upper basin in the spring of
the year, providing flood protection for over 2 million acres
of land in the floodplain. Water stored in the reservoirs is
then utilized during the remainder of the year to serve the
other seven authorized purposes. The Bank Stabilization and
Navigation Project along the lower Missouri River keeps the
channel from meandering and makes it more reliable for
navigation, and an extensive system of levees from Omaha to St.
Louis provides a measure of flood risk reduction to the
adjoining developed land and nearby structures.
The Missouri River Master Manual is the guide used by the
Corps to regulate the six dams on the mainstem of the Missouri
River. The Master Manual was revised in March 2004 to include
more stringent drought conservation measures, and again in 2006
to include technical criteria for a spring pulse from Gavin's
Point Dam for the benefit of the endangered pallid sturgeon.
Neither the 2004 nor the 2006 revisions to the Master Manual
changed the volume of storage in the reservoir system reserved
for flood risk reduction or the manner in which that storage is
regulated.
The construction and operation of the six mainstem
reservoirs and other features of the system, along with the
presence of Federal and non-Federal levees, reduced the extent
of the natural floodplain and altered its ecosystem. Current
regulation of the system in accordance with the Master Manual
to serve authorized project purposes is dependent on the
successful implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's 2003 Amended Biological Opinion, or BiOp.
Implementation of the BiOp is accomplished through the
Missouri River Recovery Program, which includes the following
elements: habitat construction, including emergent sandbar
habitat and shallow-water habitat; flow modifications;
propagation and hatchery support; research, monitoring and
evaluation; and adaptive management. Stakeholder participation
in the recovery program is essential in order to ensure that
public values are incorporated into the decision process. To
that end, the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee
has been established in accordance with Section 5018 of WRDA
2007 and is comprised of a diverse group of advisory
stakeholders.
The Corps also considers input from affected interests and
other agencies when making water management decisions to best
serve the authorized purposes. An annual operating plan, or
AOP, is developed each year based on the water control criteria
contained in the Master Manual. Following the release of the
draft AOP each fall, public meetings are held throughout the
basin to review the plan, take comments, and answer questions.
After taking into consideration comments received on the draft,
the final is released, generally in December.
Communication with affected stakeholders continues
throughout the year via press releases, monthly basin update
calls, information sharing through our website, and meetings
with various stakeholders and interest groups.
The Corps strongly supports small businesses in the work we
do on the river, both for repair and maintenance of the Corps
facilities, including the work that was done following the
record 2011 flood, and construction activities required by the
recovery program. For example, maintenance work and repair of
the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project is often
contracted out to local small businesses. Even when the Corps
does this work in-house using our hired labor crews, a mix of
large and small businesses are still needed to provide
material, equipment, and fuel. Because the greatest portion of
this work and our offices are in rural areas, small businesses
benefit. Completed and ongoing projects within the Missouri
River Levee System have also been awarded to small businesses.
And in addition, as we develop recovery projects, we
coordinate with local land owners and levee districts upstream,
downstream, and on the opposite bank from the proposed project
to ensure we understand their concerns and requirements. It is
important to note that the recovery projects are designed and
constructed to be consistent with other uses of the river such
as navigation and flood control. Many of these projects are
built by small businesses.
We remain committed to operating the Mainstem System to
serve the authorized project purposes in a way that balances
the competing needs of the basin and to meeting our
responsibilities under the law. We will continue to work
closely with you and all the basin stakeholders in that effort.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look
forward to hearing the testimony of the small business leaders
and any ideas they have to improve our service to the basin.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman Graves. Thank you, Ms. Farhat.
Next I would like to introduce Mr. Jason Gregory. Mr.
Gregory is a fourth-generation farmer from Northwest Missouri,
and his operation consists of row crops and some feeder cattle.
He is testifying today on behalf of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
Mr. Gregory, thanks for being here.
STATEMENT OF JASON GREGORY
Mr. Gregory. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this field hearing.
Like you said, I am here on behalf of the Missouri Farm
Bureau Federation. I serve on the Buchanan County Farm Bureau
Board of Directors, and my wife Beth and I serve on the state
organization's Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee.
It comes as no surprise to you that the management of the
Missouri River is both complex and controversial. Widespread
agreement is elusive as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
attempts to manage for eight diverse congressionally authorized
purposes.
As you know, this area was hit hard by flooding in 2011 and
is extremely dry as we speak. To be honest, I am not sure what
a normal year is anymore.
My comments will touch on six important topics to those who
not only live along the Missouri River but are protected by the
system of levees constructed over the past several decades.
My first point is that the Water Resources Development Act,
or WRDA, is critical to the future of our inland waterway
system. Agricultural exports remain a bright spot, and it is
important that we remain competitive in world markets. Other
nations understand the concept of competitive advantage and are
moving quickly to upgrade their ports and waterways. We need to
modernize our locks and dams and provide shippers with
assurances that the navigation channels on the Mississippi,
Missouri, and other rivers are reliable. Congress needs to pass
WRDA this year.
Secondly, there must be adequate annual funding for the
Bank Stabilization and Navigation Program. The Missouri River
is highly engineered and thus requires ongoing maintenance.
Flood control remains paramount, and Congress must appropriate
sufficient funding to ensure the integrity of Federal and non-
Federal levees, flood gates, revetments, dikes and other
structures. Levees not only protect highly productive crop land
but also homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure such as
roads, bridges, railroad tracks, sewage treatment facilities,
water wells, and power plants.
My third point is that common sense must prevail in the
Missouri River Recovery Program. Stakeholders from throughout
the Missouri River Basin are working with Federal and state
agencies to address management challenges. Dialogue is useful
but doesn't erase agendas. We will always fight the efforts of
those who ignore the importance of protecting infrastructure by
seeking to return the Missouri River to a perceived natural
state of an era long gone. This includes objecting to taxpayer
dollars being spent on unnecessary projects such as the
Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the Missouri
River Authorized Purposes Study. We applaud your efforts and
others, including Congressman Luetkemeyer, to defund these
programs.
My next point is the spring pulse should be permanently
shelved. Scientific studies have failed to prove the benefit of
these man-made spring rises, and there is no reason to
experiment with flow modification.
Fifth, the Congress should prevent soil dumping in
conjunction with the creation of shallow-water habitat.
Although not convinced of the scientific benefits of
constructing chutes along the Missouri River under any
circumstances, it makes no sense to pump mechanically excavated
soil directly into the Missouri River. This ignores best
management practices, contradicts enforcement actions taken by
EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and it
creates a nutrient-rich sediment flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.
We support Congressman King's efforts to prevent further soil
dumping and are pleased his amendment was adopted by the House
in its version of the Fiscal Year 2014 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act.
Finally, the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, should be
improved to better reflect the human and economic impacts of
listing decisions. The ESA is too rigid and relies on
regulation to protect imperiled species. Landowners and other
affected parties should be viewed not as the source of the
problem but as a part of the solution.
In conclusion, we don't need more experiments, mosquitoes,
or publicly-owned land in the Missouri River Basin. We must
minimize the effects of weather extremes by protecting lives
and infrastructure, make wise investments in the BSNP and the
inland waterway system, and manage flows for human needs; and,
where possible, enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today and would be happy to try to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
Chairman Graves. Thank you, Mr. Gregory. I appreciate it.
Our final witness is Mr. Joel Euler, who is an attorney and
represents the Southside Levee District here in St. Joe. In
addition to the Southside Levee District, Mr. Euler represents
other predominantly rural levee districts in Missouri and in
Kansas.
Mr. Euler, thank you for being here, appreciate you coming
in and looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOEL EULER
Mr. Euler. My pleasure.
Greetings. My name is Joel Euler, and I am an attorney with
an office located in Troy, Kansas. That is approximately 10
miles west of St. Joseph. I am here before you today as an
attorney for the South St. Joseph Drainage and Levee District,
which is one of several districts I represent along the
Missouri River. This district is located adjacent to the
Missouri River, south of United States Highway 36, on the
western edge of the City of St. Joseph and in Buchannan County,
Missouri. The district was established more than 40 years ago
and protects agricultural, residential, recreational,
commercial and industrial properties.
The district is operated by a five-member Board of
Directors who are elected officials who own real estate within
the confines of the district. The makeup of the Board of
Directors includes both individual and corporate
representatives. The district is responsible for the
maintenance and operation of the levee and drainage structures
in the district and, as such, plays a pivotal role in the
protection of the various entities behind the structure. In
2011, invested capital in the district totaled in excess of $2
billion.
In about 1998, the Corps of Engineers made a review of the
levee structure in the district and determined that
modifications were needed to allow the structure to maintain
its protective capability. Since that time, the district and
other local units of government have been working with the
Corps to finalize the modifications to be made. However,
progress is severely hampered because the Corps of Engineers is
unable to regularly obtain the funding necessary to complete
the design phase of the project and move the same into
construction. At present, it is my understanding that funds
have not been allocated for this project in the upcoming
budget.
I understand that the purpose of this hearing is to take
input with regard to the authorized purposes that the Corps of
Engineers uses to manage the Missouri River System and discuss
which purposes the district believes is most important.
Unequivocally, the district considers the most important
purpose to be flood control. Improper flood control has a
negative impact on every activity conducted behind the
structure. The individual who lives behind the structure must
maintain a constant vigil during times of flooding and high
water to ensure that his home and property are safe. This worry
is in addition to the everyday stresses which an individual
faces and often takes a heavy toll both financially and
emotionally on citizens.
The farmer who lives and works the ground behind the
structure is negatively affected when releases of water are
sustained for long periods. This causes saturation to the farm
ground, and during those times when the river level is so high
that the floodgates must be closed causes ponding of water
behind the structure which destroys crops and makes farming
operations difficult, if not impossible.
To the industrial and commercial businesses behind the
structure, the financial costs associated with continued high
water take a different form. Each time there is an extended
high water event or the threat of flooding, the business must
modify its operation to allow for potential evacuation and must
make preparations in the event of flooding. Preparations
include changing production schedules, removing raw materials
and products and equipment from the facility, and all
activities of a similar nature. In some instances during
sustained high water events, flood fighting operations restrict
traffic and rail flow, causing a shortage of raw materials
which cost not only production but profit for the company.
In addition, the condition of the levee and continued flood
threats take a toll on businesses in the form of increased
costs associated with flood fight preparation, flood and
business loss insurance, and other expenses associated with a
potential flood event. While the event may never occur, good
business practice requires planning for the event.
Potential business concerns about the operation of the
levee structure and the Missouri River System as a whole can be
a major consideration when determining whether or not to locate
within the district. While some companies might choose to try
to erect structures at a level where they will not be affected
by high water should the levee breach, this is cost prohibitive
in most instances and, as such, creates a negative impact on
business.
In essence, if continued high water events occur--floods--
they will act to chill the interest in locating within the
district and, as everyone is aware, competition for business is
already keen and communities cannot stand any negatives with
regard to their industrial areas.
With regard to the smallest businesses, the mom and pops,
these businesses are almost completely dependent on the work
that is derived from supporting the larger industry. The
businesses are often specialized, and once the larger business
leaves, the small ones have no customers to serve and, as such,
must close as well.
In closing, the district believes that unless flood control
is made the primary emphasis of the operation of the Missouri
River System, at some point flooding and high water events will
occur with such frequency and have such an impact on businesses
of all sizes that the real estate located behind the structure
will no longer be a viable location for businesses, thus
causing a negative impact on the community.
I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Chairman Graves. I thank all of you for coming in.
We will just jump right in. Most of my questions are
actually panel-wide, and if I ask a question specifically to
somebody and you have something to say, please jump in.
But my first question is pretty general, and I am going to
start with Ms. Farhat. Are we asking the Corps to do too much?
You have eight priorities that you are juggling and trying to
figure out how you prioritize each of those specific tasks you
have to manage the river with. I mean, are we asking too much?
Should we legislatively prioritize those for you? Because,
obviously, some of them have more economic impact than others
when it comes to managing the river.
Ms. Farhat. The system was authorized for those eight
project purposes, and many times they can be in conflict with
each other. For example, flood control requires empty space in
the reservoirs. All of the other project purposes require us to
either hold the water in the reservoirs or release it for
downstream use.
But I think that the reservoir system, if you look at its
historic operation up through today, continues to function as
it was designed. It provides tremendous benefit to the space in
all of those areas, and each and every one of the authorized
purposes benefits tremendously from the operation of the
reservoir system.
So I think it is a manageable system. It isn't designed to
maximize benefits for any one of those purposes. It is to
provide service to all eight.
Chairman Graves. Anybody else? Ms. Kunkel?
Ms. Kunkel. Chairman Graves, I certainly feel strongly that
we are asking the Corps to do too much. I do not believe, as I
travel on the river in a small fishing boat and look at eroded
banks, notched dike lines and structures that have been put in
place within my county, within the levee district that my
family farms, that I can see that we are not taking benefit
from the flood protection of that levee system that is
protecting the agricultural and business communities behind it
in an effort to meet an obligation of the Biological Opinion to
provide shallow-water habitat and to widen the top water
surface and slow the channel.
All of those functions to meet the BiOp are creating a
situation that threatens the flood control structure that has
been there and afforded those businesses, homes and families to
believe that they had the protection that they needed to
develop that basin.
And what I am seeing today behind a dike notching and a
shallow-water habitat is a low, warm-water pool of Asian carp,
not pallid sturgeon, and it is time that we stopped this,
dredged the channel, fixed the banks, and go back to moving
boats on barges up and down this river with commerce.
Chairman Graves. That kind of brings us to the Endangered
Species Act and the pallid sturgeons. The pallid sturgeon--I
don't know who can answer this question. I wish the Fish and
Wildlife Service were here. But is the pallid sturgeon, is it
endangered worldwide? Is it just endangered in parts of the
Missouri? Is it endangered throughout our river systems?
Ms. Farhat. I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service
has listed the pallid sturgeon endangered range-wide, and it is
listed in the Missouri River Basin, which requires us to
operate for it.
Chairman Graves. Okay. So let me ask you this question,
then. When it comes to management based on habitat as one of
the priorities, where do you get your directions from? I mean,
you are obviously going through the process of doing it, or the
Corps of Engineers is going through the process of doing
certain habitat reclamation, whatever you want to call it,
shallow water. It is the Jameson Island Project, which I am
familiar with. But my question is, does the Fish and Wildlife
Service direct you on what you will do in terms of--or the
Corps of Engineers? And when I say ``you,'' I guess what I am
saying is the Corps. But does the Fish and Wildlife Service
direct the Corps on what they will do, or does the Corps take
it upon themselves to move forward with that? Who makes those
decisions, and who is giving the marching orders?
Ms. Farhat. Well, the 2003 Biological Opinion lays out what
are called reasonable and prudent alternatives that the Corps
is to implement in order to meet the intent of the Biological
Opinion. So those reasonable and prudent alternatives are
designed to preclude jeopardy or the loss of that species. The
Biological Opinion in terms of habitat lays out some acreages
of habitat that the Corps is to build, to construct on the
river, and so that is part of the recovery program to do that.
And I think it is important to remember that the Corps has
chosen to comply with the Biological Opinion in this manner of
constructing shallow-water habitat on the river rather than
providing shallow-water habitat in other ways that we feel
would be more destructive to the basin, which would include
flow changes from the reservoir.
The other options are to provide larger spring rises in the
spring and low summer flows that could preclude navigation
during the summer period. So the Corps has decided, and worked
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, to enable us to construct
the habitat mechanically rather than providing it with flow. We
think that that best serves the overall needs of the basin.
Chairman Graves. Mr. Euler, did you have something?
Mr. Euler. No, sir, not yet.
Chairman Graves. Mr. Frakes?
Mr. Frakes. I would like to revert back to the original
comment. I think the Corps has too much responsibility in
trying to do all of these things and do them well. As Kathy
Kunkel here mentioned about the flood control, without flood
control, we don't have anything behind these levees. I mean,
you can have infrastructure--I remember as a young teenager my
father and grandfather talking about what an improvement it was
when a Federal levee was put in on part of the farm properties,
which was completed in 1952. We were all led to believe flood
control was going to be one of the predominant reasons these
levees were built. Infrastructure was built, highways were
built, businesses--I could go on and on--went back with the
reliability that this was going to reduce or prevent flooding,
and people built and followed that idea.
Things have changed. We need to improve these levee
systems, if it is build them taller or whatever. We set levees
back, we lose farmland. What in your life doesn't require
maintenance? Your health, your machinery, your car, your home.
We have not had any help, assistance, other than locally what
we have done to try to raise some of these non-Federal levees
to offer more protection. The flooding likelihood has become
more often due to more runoff. The weather seems more extreme.
But without rambling on and on, without having flood
control, we have nothing behind these levees. The highways are
closed. We can't get to the river crossings. Commerce is
stopped. Businesses can't operate. Flood control--Congress
needs to help with the Corps and flood control being a
priority. Not that Fish and Wildlife doesn't need some of these
dollars, but it is out of balance. Fish and Wildlife receives
way too much money as a percentage, out of the 100 percent. We
have to have flood control. Thank you.
Chairman Graves. Just going back to exactly what Mr. Frakes
said, I would be curious if you all agree with that, that
without flood control we don't have anything, and that would
include the changes that the Corps is doing when it comes to
habitat. I am assuming that if it floods, it damages those as
well. In some cases, you have to start all over again.
But do you agree with that?
Mr. Frakes. Well, I do.
Chairman Graves. Well, I know you do.
Mr. Frakes. Yes.
Chairman Graves. Because you said it.
Mr. Frakes. And in my particular area, even where we had
impounded waters where levees weren't overtopped or breached in
the case of a Federal levee, Hull's Levee, the wildlife left.
We had 106 days, I always say 100 days of this flooding outside
these levees, and the levees, the non-Feds that were breached
destroyed these homes. The wildlife is gone. It hasn't returned
to the field. I don't see many deer or pheasants, quail. You
know, it is just gone, because what could sustain 100 days?
That has just been two years ago. That is gone. I don't see the
fish and wildlife, the trees. It has killed trees on the
protected side of the levees I didn't think would ever die, big
cottonwoods and large trees that have been there for numerous
years. They are dead and gone, falling over and whatever. This
forestland and whatever is destroyed. Will there be re-growth?
I presume so. But it is going to be a long time. The flood
control protects everything.
Chairman Graves. It would seem to me that without the flood
control, because if it floods, you don't have recreation, you
don't have habitat, you don't have navigation, you don't have
any of the priorities.
Anybody else? Mr. Euler?
Mr. Euler. What I think that you encounter is if flood
control is no longer going to be the priority, what that
amounts to for local communities is an unfunded mandate for us
to try to make repairs or to make preparations to fight a flood
so that we can help the wildlife or enhance recreation. So if,
in fact, that is going to happen, what I think needs to go on
is that Congress needs to look at substantial funding towards
upgrade of the levee system in order to permit these other
activities to occur. I believe that when the levee system was
created, that it was created for flood control. I believe that,
as with all things, it evolved in that powers come and go, and
as that has happened, now you see an environmental focus on a
structure which was once designed for flood control, and the
two don't match because the system is not designed for arrays,
it is not designed to have the open area between the levee
structures filled with siltation or trees. And because of that,
the way the system was designed to operate, it doesn't operate
anymore.
What we locally are left with is how do we fix that. So we
start with the Corps of Engineers, which is, to me, I see them
in a positive light, but `97, `98, 15 years later we are still
waiting for our resolution to the problem. The problem is
nobody wants to give us any money. The government wants to
change the way the system operates because it is one of the
authorized purposes. They want to change the focus of the
authorized purposes. And when they change that, what we have to
do is react. Well, if you are going to change that with Federal
money, then let's have Federal money on the other side so the
drainage districts up and down the system can prepare to
operate. If you want to raise the levees and then you need a
rise, then you are ready.
But now what happens is you can't control the water, so you
have an event like 2011 and the water is impounded on the back
side of these levees that don't overtop, levees overtop and
breach, millions of dollars in damage. So FEMA comes in and we
pay Federal monies to rebuild that. But that is a band aid. You
just fixed a problem so the next time it happens we can fix it
again. If we are going to take these Federal monies, we might
as well apply them to working a systematic solution of what I
believe the issue is.
Ms. Kunkel. And I really believe that Mr. Euler hits the
nail on the head. Funding is the challenge. And I will tell you
that Mr. Euler in his levee district sat all of these years
waiting for funding to protect the people and the businesses of
St. Joe, in the same way that the levee districts in my
community sat waiting for the Corps to have money in early 2012
just to come assess the damage on the levee districts. And at
the same time, a contract was being let right across the river
here for the Dalby Bottoms Project. There were workers and
excavators running and dozers running to make chutes, much like
the Jameson Island chute. That project was funded and working
when we could not get funding to even look at the damage for
our levees.
So people were still out of their homes, county roads were
not fixed, MODOT highways were not fixed. We could not go back
to commerce and trade. But yet, excavators were running to dig
pallid sturgeon chutes. We have a misbalance in priorities. It
is totally ridiculous to believe that the City of St. Joe has
spent all of these years trying to get someone to listen to
their very legitimate concerns while over $600 million has been
spent to acquire land in these communities, take it off the tax
rolls, dig up good soil and dump it in the river for a fish.
Mr. Euler. One thing. It may be such a thing that the Corps
doesn't have too much to do but that they don't have enough to
do it with. In my business I had a guy who came to my dad one
time who was complaining because his work wasn't done quick
enough. My dad says I have too much to do. And the guy said,
you know, I raise tomatoes, and if I can't pick all the
tomatoes, I don't plant as many plants the next year. So we
either need to provide enough funding for these folks to do
what we want them to do, or we need to take something off their
plate.
I don't believe that the Corps, when they look at the
situation of the whole county, says that is a good thing that
we can't get there. I think it creates a conflict for them
because they can't do everything that they are supposed to do.
So the issue becomes if there is too much to do, let's get rid
of some of it. So you look at the eight purposes, and maybe it
is time for one of the eight purposes to go.
Chairman Graves. And that brings us to funding priorities.
When the Corps gets its funding, who makes that decision on--
how are those priorities determined in terms of how much money
you are going to use to purchase land? I understand there is
another round of--at least that is what the rumor is, there is
another round of buy-out letters that are going to go out to
landowners by the Corps, and I would be very curious, too, what
your thoughts on that are. That is another question altogether.
But who makes the determination on doing some of these
chutes or some of these shallow-water habitats, or fixing or
repairing levees, or doing whatever else there is out there?
How are those decisions made? Is it the Fish and Wildlife
Service that is making that decision, or is it you all that is
making that decision? Is it the Administration, the Department
of Interior making that decision?
Ms. Farhat. Well, the Corps gets funding for specific line
items in the budget. So money that is used to, for example,
maintain the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project or to
operate and maintain our dams comes under a different funding
stream than money that comes from the recovery projects, and
the Corps doesn't have the ability to move money between those
business lines or between those pots of money. Money that
Congress authorizes to be used for the recovery program must be
used for the recovery program.
Within the recovery program, the Corps does have latitude
on how we spend the money each year, whether we are buying land
or constructing chutes or emergent sandbar habitat, doing
research. But that money, all of that money is spent to do the
minimum we need to comply with the Biological Opinion. So we
look out over the years, and if we are going to continue to
meet our goals building shallow-water habitat, that means that
we have to purchase land along the river in advance of the time
that we need to build that shallow-water habitat.
But in that specific program, we work with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and we work with the Missouri River Recovery
and Implementation Committee to help decide how that money is
spread across the program, the Missouri River Recovery Program,
in order to comply with the Biological Opinion.
Chairman Graves. When you say we do the minimum amount
required to comply, who makes that decision on what is the
minimum amount?
Ms. Farhat. The Biological Opinion lays out a range of
activities that are necessary to preclude jeopardy to the
species. Many of the targets are long-term targets, looking out
over the next 10 to 20 years. So we are on a glide path to meet
those minimum habitat requirements, and to also complete the
other activities that are laid out in there. It is laid out in
the Biological Opinion.
Chairman Graves. When you say the biological community----
Ms. Farhat. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the biological
community.
Chairman Graves. So they are making the determination what
is the minimum amount----
Ms. Farhat. Yes.
Chairman Graves.--that is required to meet that? And again,
that is the money you all have discretion over, which they are
essentially dictating? Is the Fish and Wildlife Service
dictating to the Corps of Engineers, then, where they will
spend that money, since they are determining what the minimum
amount is?
Ms. Farhat. Well, the Biological Opinion lays out the
criteria that we have to meet to comply to avoid jeopardy to
the species. On each individual year, we work with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Basin stakeholders to decide how that
money is spent across those different features of the
Biological Opinion. So they aren't directing individual
projects, but they are directing the overall goal of the
program, which is to preclude jeopardy to the pallid sturgeon
and the least tern and the piping plover.
Chairman Graves. And we brought up WRDA. Mr. Gregory
brought up WRDA and Congress passing it, and just kind of some
background with WRDA now. WRDA is in a unique position in that
WRDA is the water resources bill, and it governs all of our
waterways and how we do it, and it is a project bill. Specific
projects are laid out in WRDA by Congress on how money will be
spent. The problem is that we have an earmark ban now, and we
can't figure out how to pass a bill that is a project bill that
we can't have projects in.
So what is happening or what will probably happen with
that, if we can't change what the definition of ``projects''
are, or infrastructure projects, is we will cede all that
authority to the Administration. So if we pass WRDA, the water
resources bill, with no projects in it, the Administration will
make all the decisions on how that money is being spent.
So if that is the case, then the Administration will have
total latitude, or Fish and Wildlife Service will have that
ability to dictate even further to the Corps of Engineers
exactly how they are going to spend that money, or again going
back to what the minimum amount required to protect that
habitat. Would you agree? I mean, it has to be frustrating to
you that we can't get a WRDA bill passed without specific
projects.
Did you like the system we had that specifically laid out
things we would do? I am asking you, Ms. Farhat. Or would you
rather see that authority going to what it would ultimately be,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, to determine?
Ms. Farhat. I think, in the case of the overall WRDA bill,
it would be more than the Fish and Wildlife Service. A lot of
local communities use the WRDA bill historically to get flood
control projects and other infrastructure projects funded. So I
think the Corps of Engineers always appreciates a WRDA bill. It
allows us to provide our mission of protecting the nation's
resources and providing flood protection.
Chairman Graves. And therein lies the problem, too, and you
are right, communities do utilize and tap into WRDA when there
are projects in it. But if we have a WRDA bill that has no
projects in it, that money will go to those agencies that
oversee that, and they will make the determination, which is a
frustration, a huge frustration when it comes to stuff like
that.
Let me ask you this. As far as the money to purchase land,
where does that come from? Does that come from direct
appropriations through the Corps appropriations through the
Department of the Interior, or is it----
Ms. Farhat. No. That comes through the line item in the
budget that pays for the Missouri River Recovery Program.
Chairman Graves. Okay.
Ms. Farhat. And that is not part of WRDA. That is a
separate line item in the budget.
Chairman Graves. I understand that.
Ms. Farhat. Yes.
Chairman Graves. So the amount of money that you determine
you are going to spend on purchasing land, that is completely
determined by you all, and again that goes back to the minimum
required by Fish and Wildlife down the road.
Let me ask you this. When is enough land going to be
purchased?
Ms. Farhat. Well, what the BiOp lays out is that we are to
construct--I believe the numbers are between 20,000 and 30,000
acres of shallow-water habitat from Gavin's Point Dam down to
the mouth of the St. Louis. I could have those numbers wrong,
but I think that is the right range. So we purchase land in
order to build the shallow-water habitat. There is also the
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program, where
Congress has directed the Corps to purchase 166,750 acres of
land along the Missouri River to mitigate the impacts of
building the dams and the Bank Stabilization and Navigation
Program. So that is the authority that the Corps is using to
purchase land along the river, and that is for mitigation.
Chairman Graves. How far along in that process are you?
What did you say, 100 and----
Ms. Farhat. One-hundred and sixty-six thousand is the
target, 166,750, and I believe we have purchased about 60,000
acres to date.
Chairman Graves. So you have another 100,000 acres to go?
Ms. Farhat. Yes. If we were to purchase all the land that
was authorized by the mitigation program, there would be about
another 100,000 acres to go.
Chairman Graves. And that is what the Fish and Wildlife
Service determines as the minimum amount required to----
Ms. Farhat. No. This is a separate program, the mitigation
program. We use the authority provided by the mitigation to
allow us to implement the Biological Opinion. But the
mitigation is a separate requirement and a separate authority.
Many times when we buy land and we build shallow-water habitat
for the endangered species, it also counts towards that
mitigation requirement. But it is separate from the Biological
Opinion.
Chairman Graves. What are we mitigating? That is just for--
so we have two programs, right?
Ms. Farhat. Yes.
Chairman Graves. Okay. One program is going to purchase
another 100,000 acres, and that is the mitigation program.
Ms. Farhat. Right.
Chairman Graves. And the other program, let's go back to
that. You said 30,000?
Ms. Farhat. I believe the number is between 20,000 and
30,000 acres of shallow-water habitat.
Chairman Graves. Where are we at in that program?
Ms. Farhat. I don't have the exact number, but I think it
is around 4,500 acres.
Chairman Graves. Forty-five hundred acres?
Ms. Farhat. Yes. I can get you the exact numbers.
Chairman Graves. So we have at least another 20,000 to
25,000 acres.
Ms. Farhat. Fifteen to 25,000.
Chairman Graves. How many acres--go ahead.
Ms. Kunkel. In Holt County, there are five of these
mitigation projects that touch the county from north to south--
Deroin Bend, Thurnau Conservation Area, Rush Bottoms, Wolf
Creek Bend, and Hare. Several of them are partnerships between
the Missouri Department of Conservation as well as Corps on the
ground that the Conservation Department is managing for them.
In addition to that, we have Squaw Creek National Wildlife
Refuge, which is almost 10,000 acres. So acres-wise, there is a
lot of this mitigation if the early purchases are within the
county boundaries of Holt County, and we have certainly seen
those properties come off the tax roll, and we have worked very
diligently with the Corps to work on some cash land management
for state and agriculture production, and some alternative
attempts to keep some dollars in the economy.
But what we would really like to see--and we have been
working with Congressman Luetkemeyer as well--is credit for
other Federal holdings that are in wetland-type programs,
Wetland Reserve Program. Big Lake State Park has a large
wetland area that is around the park itself. None of those
river basin wetland areas are being included in this additional
100,000 acres that still needs to be met to return to native
pre-channelization habitat, and we feel it is important that
there be a full assessment done from Gavin's to St. Louis of
all the Federal land holdings that are considered some version
of a wetland-type project, whether they are private holdings
with leases, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, state conservation, state
D&R, all of those things. A full inventory needs to be done to
see if we are close to that 100,000, or does the Corps need to
continue to purchase those acres.
And then, of course, it is a continued issue on the
shallow-water habitat. We would like to see that habitat not be
aimed and working itself towards levees. In many cases, if
people aren't familiar with what the chutes are, with Bank
Stabilization and Navigation you have the traditional channel
with traditional banks, and then you have a setback, and then
you have a levee system. So what is happening is, if the Corps
purchases ground between the levee system and the river, then a
dredge is being used to channel out little side chutes off of
the main portion of the channel between the levee and the
channel itself to create a shallow or a backwater habitat.
In times of high flood water, that entrance was designed
originally to take about 10 percent of the flow off of the
river and backwater it to provide that habitat. But, of course,
in 2011 what we saw, particularly on Wolf Creek Bend, was that
that mouth widened extensively. There was a loss of control of
the water that was coming into the chute, very similar to
putting your thumb on a garden hose and forcing a lot of the
current to go to the side. So, of course, it forced the water
back at the Federal levee system, and the Corps had to spend an
unbelievable amount of resources--my understanding is over $3
million--to maintain the Federal levee there from eroding away
because of damage coming from the chute.
But in the long run, what we then see is an acquisition
letter asking those landowners to sell their land and a march
for the levee to continue to move backwards as the river gets
spread out of that channel. So it is a significant issue for
us, and we do not want to see additional land acquisition. We
would actually like to see projects back in WRDA that would let
us work with the Corps, Conservation, D&R and the other
stakeholders to really study and look at a good project on land
that they already own and figure out a way to get a balance so
that we can get the chutes repaired, make them feasible to meet
the Biological Opinion, keep some agriculture on that
particular land, and protect the levee system. But without
earmarks, we can't really ask for a specific project.
Chairman Graves. How much ground is between the levee and
the river?
Ms. Kunkel. It depends based on the levee district.
Chairman Graves. I understand that. But by county, do you
know?
Ms. Kunkel. On Pick-Sloan Levee, it is a quarter mile, a
half mile at some times. But with a traditional non-Federal
levee, it may only be a few hundred yards.
Chairman Graves. Yes.
Mr. Frakes. A comment I would like to make, Congressman
Graves made a statement: How much is enough? Jody's answer to
that, that what you are required to do, in visiting with
Congressman Graves' staff, Melissa Rowe here, a couple of
months ago about these purchases of land and maybe some
compensation from the Corps and tax monies or whatever, I guess
I come from a farmer that has land, from the '93 flood or the
2011 flood, that has 10 feet of sand on it, and it is
financially probably not feasible to reclaim this land for
farming, I guess I can see maybe that being developed for
shallow-water habitat or something done. But in my area, the
Benedictine Bottom on the Kansas side of the river and this
Dalby Bend were both pretty much prime farmland that was
purchased with these monies and literally destroyed for any
agricultural production. These side chutes have been put in. I
understand that the Fish and Wildlife requires this.
It seems to me that the Fish and Wildlife has too much
control with the Corps in regard to this. This Dalby Bend area
was 1,600 acres of average to slightly above-average farmland
that will no longer produce anything. It is off the tax rolls.
It will not support any small businesses that those farm owners
bought chemicals, fertilizers, whatever. There is no income to
the local economy there. I can't see anybody coming in there
that any monies are going to support Atchison County, Kansas in
either one of these projects to any large extent.
So I guess this can't be changed, this 100,000 acres that
they have to quarry yet? I keep reverting to that point, and
excuse me, but how much is enough? Haven't we got enough to
satisfy Fish and Wildlife? Do we have to have everything
outside the levees? There is prime farmland out there, and it
is inside the levees. The farm ag levee was there. There is
nothing there now. I just think we are overboard.
Chairman Graves. I would be very curious to know how much
ground is outside the levee. I mean, if it is a half mile
between the levee and the river, that means it is two miles to
get 640 acres.
Mr. Euler. It would vary. It would vary based on the
structure.
Chairman Graves. I understand that.
Mr. Euler. Right, and probably the Corps could tell you on
our system, on every system up, how much is outside, lay
outside the levees. I would guess they have that figure.
Chairman Graves. It has to be literally thousands of miles
along the river that would be bought up. Do you have any idea,
Ms. Farhat?
Ms. Farhat. No, I don't. What I can say is the mitigation
program was designed to re-create some of the habitat that was
lost when the dams and the bank stabilization project were
built. When those were built, it is estimated that 522,000
acres of wetlands area and habitat was lost. So the purpose of
the mitigation program is to reconstruct a portion of that,
roughly a third of that land. So that is where the number, the
166,000, came from.
Chairman Graves. And that is purely--that is for habitat?
Ms. Farhat. It is to mitigate the effects of the Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project.
Chairman Graves. I guess the next question, it kind of
comes back to priorities. The Endangered Species Act--and I
will just ask you straight up. Does the Endangered Species Act
take priority over everything else when it comes to management
of the river? And that would have a direct implication,
obviously, on habitat reclamation, obviously.
Ms. Farhat. Well, we manage the reservoir system to serve
the authorized purposes while also complying with the
Biological Opinion. And as I mentioned before, we believe that
the best way to comply with the Biological Opinion is to build
this habitat that is required by using mechanical means to
purchase land and mechanically build habitat rather than doing
it with flow adjustments.
So if we didn't have this program in order to buy land and
construct these habitat features, we would have to go back and
re-consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and then you
have an opening there for other requirements of us, and some of
them may be less palatable than what we have today.
Chairman Graves. So the Fish and Wildlife Service has more
power than you do when it comes to managing the river?
Ms. Farhat. Well, we are required to comply with the law.
Chairman Graves. But they have more power, obviously, in
determining what the minimum is, and they dictate to the Corps
exactly what you will do in terms of the minimum?
Ms. Farhat. What they do is they tell us the objective that
we have to meet, and there is more than one way to meet that
objective. We have chosen to meet it by constructing habitat
mechanically. If we choose not to do that anymore, if the Basin
decides that is not the right way to go, there are other ways
to meet that objective. But again, they might include aspects
of managing the reservoirs that are less palatable than
constructing habitat.
Chairman Graves. Does the Corps ever say, no, we don't
think that is going to work, we don't think you are correct?
Ms. Farhat. Absolutely. There are times that we do not
operate for the benefit of the species. During the 2011 flood,
for example, we suspended all of our operations throughout the
Basin for endangered species. We were in complete flood
operations. It was the one and only priority. We had a record
amount of runoff. We hadn't planned to run a spring rise that
year anyway because we had high flows on the river before the
major flood started. But once the flood got started, we did not
do any operations for the endangered birds or the pallid
sturgeon. We do operate for those purposes, and the Endangered
Species Act many times takes a back seat for operating for
those other purposes.
Chairman Graves. And I will say this straight up. I do
applaud the efforts that the Corps made to get the--I mean, you
had a perfect winter for repair work, but you did move pretty
rapidly on that.
That brings me to another question. So, what happened? Did
Fish and Wildlife, or did you all get sued by anybody over
diverting money from habitat reclamation into levee repair?
Ms. Farhat. We did not divert money from habitat to levee
repair.
Chairman Graves. But you didn't spend any money on habitat
repair during the 2011 incident when we did all the levee
repair. Or what did you say? I guess I got it wrong.
Ms. Farhat. Well, work for the recovery program continued
through the 2011 flood. There are a lot of other things that
are going on each year besides building shallow-water habitat.
There is an extensive science program that is going on that
includes research with biologists at universities and other
agencies, state agencies.
Chairman Graves. But you suspended just about everything?
Ms. Farhat. We suspended the reservoir operations for the
flood. But the other work of the recovery program continued on.
Chairman Graves. So the habitat reclamation or reclaiming
or the mitigation, it continued.
Ms. Farhat. Well, actually, as Kathy mentioned, some of it
started after the flood waters had receded. During the actual
flood event, there was no construction on the river.
Chairman Graves. Well, you couldn't. It was underwater.
Ms. Farhat. Yes, right. But the money that the Corps spends
to, for example, reconstruct levees after the flood does not
come in the same funding line as the recovery program, and we
cannot move money from the recovery program into things like
levee repair.
Chairman Graves. What are the proportions in terms of what
I would consider flood control, and that would be levee repair,
maintenance, as opposed to what we spend on habitat,
mitigation, whatever you want to call it, saving the fish?
Ms. Farhat. The recovery program, since its inception in, I
believe, 2006, has averaged $67 million per year. And the
Corps, across all business lines--navigation, flood control,
the environmental lines, hydropower, water supply--spends about
$110 million on operation and maintenance of the reservoirs and
the bank stabilization and flood protection measures in the
Basin.
Chairman Graves. So $110 million is everything other than,
and the $67 million was just habitat?
Ms. Farhat. Yes, for the recovery program.
Chairman Graves. For the recovery program.
Ms. Farhat. Right.
Chairman Graves. And $110 million is everything else?
Ms. Farhat. Right.
Chairman Graves. So $67 million is for one priority? Would
that encompass one priority of the eight?
Ms. Farhat. It allows us to comply with the Biological
Opinion.
Chairman Graves. Okay. And $110 million is for the other
seven priorities.
Ms. Farhat. That is correct.
Chairman Graves. Okay.
Mr. Frakes. If I could, Congressman, this might be a
comment or maybe a question for Jody. All this money that has
been spent for mitigation, shallow-water habitat, purchase of
these lands, developing the lands to the design that you want
them to be, all those monies that have been spent, there hasn't
been much proven results that I am aware of. I would like for
you to comment on that.
Chairman Graves. Actually, that was one of my questions,
just out of curiosity, too. Is it working? Do we know if there
are more pallid sturgeon as a result, or piping plovers, or
least terns?
Ms. Farhat. Okay. I am not the recovery program expert, but
I will tell you what my understanding is. We have constructed
shallow-water habitat along the lower river. We have not seen
at this point a direct, one-on-one increase in the number of
pallid sturgeons, but we do know that these shallow-water
habitats are providing good variety in habitat along the river.
Other species are beginning to use those. We see the
invertebrates in those shallow-water habitats, and all those
things are important for the pallid sturgeon.
The pallid sturgeon are a rare fish. They are very
difficult to find, and we believe that as we continue to
construct this habitat, that it is very important for their
life cycles and that it will pay off in the long run. We are
just at the stage that we are continuing to learn through both
the science that we are doing and the monitoring of these
habitats that we have constructed.
Chairman Graves. Did Fish and Wildlife get an accurate
count of--after the flood waters receded last year--and I went
out and saw them--there was a lot of wildlife that were left
over in those--I don't know what you would want to call them--
those squirrel holes which dried up and everything in there
died. I remember there were sturgeon, and I don't know if they
were pallid sturgeon or not, but there were sturgeon in there,
and every one of them died, and I went out there and looked at
that. But did you get an accurate count? Did Fish and Wildlife
get an accurate count of the impact that the flood had on the
wildlife that it is supposed to be protecting? I mean, flood
control has an effect on the efforts that you are doing in
terms of the recovery.
Ms. Farhat. I know a lot of all varieties of fish were
stranded on the flood plain. I don't know if there was anyone
out there counting them. I do know that they have recorded, in
the fish that they have caught, that the fish in general
responded very well to the high-water year in 2011, because
there was a lot of connectivity and a lot of food source going
into the river. So, in general, fish species did well during
the flood.
Chairman Graves. But, I mean, you know that for a fact? I
mean, it is hard for me to understand just exactly--I don't
think we know what is in the river, but I guess that is a
layman's point of view, somebody who has lived along the river
their whole life.
Mr. Frakes. To add to the question, if I might add to that,
do we know that had none of the shallow-water habitat been
done, that there wouldn't have still been these same results
somewhat? You mentioned that it is not really completely proven
that it has been successful. As we talk about small businesses
here, as a farmer, if I try some project that costs money and
there are not results, I will soon be broke. But you seem to
have ample monies coming for this, but we need it for flood
control, as the Congressman talked about, to protect this
environment.
I have a problem. Is this actually doing anything? And we
have another 100,000 acres to acquire. Do we just keep doing
this for X number of years and then we decide, oh, that didn't
work. That is a lot of money.
[Applause.]
Mr. Frakes. I mean, we went so far, and I don't believe we
have got any proven results right now that we can really put
our hands on; you know, there is the fish, and that resulted
from spending X number of dollars. I don't think we have that.
So we just keep doing this, then?
Mr. Gregory. I would say that we also--oh, I am sorry.
Chairman Graves. Go ahead, Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Gregory. I would say that that also ties into Ms.
Kunkel's statement of if we continue to keep purchasing this
land, it is continuing to take money out of the tax base for
the counties, and that is going to continue to hurt other small
businesses throughout the Basin.
Chairman Graves. And we haven't even gotten into that, and
unfortunately we are not going to have enough time. But I do
know that Ms. Kunkel talks to me about that all the time. When
we do take land off the tax rolls, it has a huge impact on a
county like Holt County, which is a smaller county to begin
with, and that obviously has a direct impact on small
businesses and on the way the county is run and services that
are provided.
Mark pointed out to me that the Endangered Species Act does
require mitigation and protection to be based on best science,
and I guess that comes back to determining what is best
science. It isn't necessarily accurate science. It is what they
consider, and I guess it comes down to what Fish and Wildlife
considers best science because they are dictating to you all
how you will do this, as was pointed out, because they tell you
what you are going to do as the minimum with these programs,
the mitigation program and the recovery program.
Ms. Farhat. If I might interject here?
Chairman Graves. Sure.
Ms. Farhat. The Corps is embarking on what we are calling a
management plan, looking at the science that we have been
collecting on the river over the last decade and looking at how
the recovery program and the mitigation program work together
to accomplish the needs. So this is a three-year program. It
will result in an environmental impact statement, and one of
the things that we want to come out of that is another look at
the items that are listed in the Biological Opinion to make
sure that we are doing the correct things.
So it is an opportunity to step back and look at the
science that has been gathered and make sure that all of these
things that we are spending money on today are actually
providing a benefit, and to ensure that we are not spending
money in areas that are not providing benefit to the species.
So that is going on now. There are scoping meetings coming
up in September. We encourage folks to participate in those,
and we should have a refreshed look at all of these aspects of
the recovery program when that study is complete.
Chairman Graves. Well, essentially, the river is a lab
experiment, that is what it is, to see if this is going to
work. And the unfortunate part is--and I am going to give each
of you a chance to say something before we finish up. But it is
having an impact on people's lives and livelihoods who live up
and down the river, and not just along the Missouri River. It
has huge implications on interior drainage as well. Every river
that drains into the Missouri, when we have flooding issues, it
backs up and it floods inland as well and creates a massive
amount of damage.
But it is, it is having a huge impact, and the unfortunate
part is--and I am curious, too. And I guess this comes to
another question. Are there groups out there that threatened to
use the Corps or Fish and Wildlife if they don't comply
explicitly, or what they determine is explicit compliance, with
the Endangered Species Act, threaten you or the Federal
Government, threatening the Federal Government with court
action if you weren't following Endangered Species? I guess
that comes back to the Endangered Species Act really taking
precedence over everything else, it appears.
Ms. Farhat. I am not aware of any pending lawsuits.
Chairman Graves. But I think we can determine for a fact,
though, that obviously recovery and habitat gets the bulk of
the money that you all are able to expend when it comes to all
of those eight priorities in the river. That is obvious. You
have $177 million, and $67 million of it is going to one
priority, which is frustrating to me.
I think we have also found something else that is very
interesting and which was brought up. I mean, is there any
reason why? Do we need a change in law? I am assuming, if we
take, for instance, the land at Squaw Creek National Wildlife
Refuge, which is 10,000 acres, why couldn't that be used as
part of the mitigation process? Obviously, it is protected
area. It is wetlands. But is there a reason why that ground up
and down the river couldn't also be used or included in that as
part of that overall plan?
Ms. Farhat. I am not familiar enough with that subject to
reply.
Chairman Graves. That is something I am very interested in
looking into and is something I am glad was brought up.
But before we finish, I will give each of you an
opportunity to close.
Ms. Kunkel?
Ms. Kunkel. Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Graves. Take as much time as you want.
Ms. Kunkel. Thank you for the opportunity to come today. As
you very well know, I am very passionate about this issue. I
came and saw you in your office in D.C. in March of 2008, long
before the 2011 flood was on either of our radars, because at
that time we had seen changes in the Missouri River already
based on the Corps' need to comply with the BiOp.
In Holt County, we saw a flood in May of 2007, in June of
2008, in April and in June of 2009--neither of those were
presidentially declared and were by local rainfall flooding--
for two months, for June and July of 2010, and for four months
in 2011. We had not had a flood from 1993 to 2007, and I don't
think that it is a coincidence that that is the year after the
last of the adjustments were made to the management of the
river.
That being the case, we have stepped up to make our levees
better, to do better things in Holt County, to be better
protected, because we know it is a flood plain. And, as Mr.
Frakes said, we expect that periodically that flood plain is
going to flood, and the farmers and the people that live there
know that, understand that, and accept the risk that goes with
that.
But what we are having is not commonplace. Climate change,
droughts, floods, whatever you want to blame on the issue, we
have got to look at the Corps' priorities, and they have to
come back to flood control, navigation, and water quality for
drinking systems, end of story. We have to make a balance in
that money, and then let's take the land that they already own,
let's meet the environmental needs, and let's do it well, and
let's study that and be certain that the land that they own is
being used to its very best ability to meet the needs of the
environmental concerns that are out there. They already own
that land; let's use it, and let the rest of us farm, live, and
work in our communities with a reasonable protection from
flooding. Thank you.
Chairman Graves. Mr. Frakes?
Mr. Frakes. Well, a few comments. I would like to commend
the Corps. Most of us in here are probably involved with the
Kansas City District under Public Law 84-99. Our levees were
repaired in pretty much of a timely fashion. A few were a
little slow, but the major work got done, and I commend the
Corps for that.
But I would like to see more money spent on this flood
control and let's not have to use all these monies from the
Corps and FEMA and SEMA. These are Federal tax dollars, state
tax dollars that come in and repair after a flood. As Kathy
mentioned, and I made remarks in my testimony, we can't
eliminate every flood. We know that. But if we can minimize the
amount of this flooding, we can save a lot of tax dollars by
improving these levees, and they would be raising them some--I
know that hasn't been done for a long time--and protect all
this infrastructure that is sitting behind here. Farmland is
not the only thing that is protected. There are lots of other
things there.
I will revert back to the '93 flood and the Galloway Report
here stated that the flood damages were $12 to $16 billion.
Agriculture accounted for over half of the damages. It says
reservoirs and levees prevented more than $19 billion in
potential damages. That kind of tells us that levees and flood
control work. We prevented $19 billion. I have not seen any
figures on the 2011 flood, but I guess I keep banging the drum
on this flood control.
I think there is enough mitigated lands. Evidently, there
is not in Fish and Wildlife. Joel Euler here made the comment
that maybe the Corps has too much to do. It is like you are
trying to farm 10,000 acres with a four-row planter. You can't
do it all. You are greasing the squeaky wheel. You just don't
do a good job anywhere you are at, or as good as you could. The
Corps has the expertise to build levees and protect these
lands. Let them do that. I don't believe they need to be
saddled with another job of developing all this fish and
wildlife habitat.
I think we are very fortunate here that Congressman Graves
is being the chairman of this Committee, having an ag
background and understand how all these systems work. This
inundated, ponded water is a tremendous problem when we have
floods. It gets more backed up ``upland.''
So I thank you for having us here today and the opportunity
to testify.
Chairman Graves. Ms. Farhat?
Ms. Farhat. Chairman, I also thank you for the opportunity
to testify here today.
You know, the role of the Corps is to execute the will of
the American people, as directed by Congress and the
Administration, and by the courts. So our job is to operate the
reservoir system to meet those eight authorized purposes while
complying with the environmental laws and other regulations
that are put before us.
The reservoir system does provide a tremendous benefit to
this nation and to this basin. It provides, on average, about
$1.8 billion in annual benefits through those authorized
purposes--navigation, flood control, hydropower production,
water supply. So it does provide a tremendous benefit.
And in 2011, despite the fact that we had this tremendous
flooding, record flooding, record runoff, the reservoir system
and the levees and the emergency measures that were put in
place prevented $8.2 billion worth of damages in this basin.
So I think the Corps is trying to serve all of these
purposes and doing the best that we can, and I assure you that
our changes to the Master Manual to allow us to operate for the
endangered species has not changed either the volume of storage
that we have reserved for flood control or the way that storage
is operated. Many times, especially when you get as far south
as Missouri, the flooding that occurs is the result of local
rainfall runoff, and what my office does when that occurs is we
reduce the releases from the reservoir and we store water in
the reservoir.
That has always been what we have done, it has not changed
over time, and the recovery projects allow us to operate the
reservoirs in a manner that continues to provide service to
those eight authorized purposes.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Chairman Graves. Mr. Gregory?
Mr. Gregory. I think it all boils down to we need to look
back at our purposes of the river, of the river system.
Obviously, I believe the main priority should be flood control,
as well as being able to use the river for transportation of
goods and services. Other countries are understanding that
infrastructure equals jobs and better opportunities for
everybody. Other countries are racing to get their
infrastructure built so they can compete against us. We need to
be taking the same approach and really taking a hard look at
what our infrastructure needs and work towards getting it back
to snuff.
The marine highway was brought up, making the stretch
between Kansas City and Sioux City a designated marine highway.
I believe it is my understanding that that would also make more
funding available for this stretch that would give people,
Missouri River and basin-wide, a better advantage to moving
their goods and services to world markets.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Graves. Mr. Euler?
Mr. Euler. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you
today about these issues.
Once again, if the district would just state that if flood
control is not the priority any longer of the authorized
purposes, then we would ask that funding be provided to allow
these drainage districts to react to the actions that are taken
by the Corps of Engineers so we can continue to provide the
safety and the economic benefits behind the levee structure
that the levees were designed for.
I appreciate the opportunity.
Chairman Graves. With that, I once again want to thank all
of our witnesses for appearing today.
Ms. Farhat, you touched a nerve actually in your closing,
and I agree with you that local rainfall has a huge impact when
it comes to flooding downstream.
But the fact of the matter is, too, and this comes into
management of the reservoirs and how much you are keeping the
reservoirs to, snowmelt has an impact too, and we don't know
what the rainfall is going to be downstream, but we do know
what the snowmelt is going to be, and that is a fact. I think
it has to be managed, and the decisions by the Corps have to
take that into account, and I think that was a colossal
mismanagement of the reservoirs in terms of knowing what that
snowmelt was going to be and hoping that we had normal
rainfall. There is no such thing as normal rainfall in the
Midwest. It is either going to be a lot or less, and it has a
huge impact on those folks up and down the river.
And I know you know that, and I hope you and your staff
take away from this a little bit better understanding maybe,
but I hope that you continue to be acutely aware of how this
affects businesses and farmers and lives and homes and
livelihoods.
But I particularly want to thank you for appearing here
today, and all of the witnesses for appearing here today. I am
very disappointed in the fact that Fish and Wildlife ducked
this hearing, and that is exactly what they did. I am very
frustrated by that. But what we will do is take the proceedings
today, and we will obviously use them to move forward when it
comes to appropriations bills and to possible pieces of
legislation that directly affect how things are done in the
future, and we will also turn this over to the Resources
Committee, all of our information, and what we have done in the
past as well.
But with that, I would ask unanimous consent that members
and the public have five legislative days to submit additional
comments and materials for the record. Without objection, that
is so ordered.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82514.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82514.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82514.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82514.004
Chairman Graves and members of the United States House
Committee on Small Business:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
regarding management of the Missouri River and the needs of
small businesses. As Vice-President of the Missouri Levee and
Drainage District Association, I represent levee and drainage
districts, businesses, associations and individuals interested
in the activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River and
its tributaries. I understand the importance of this
committee's work as it relates to the protection of small
businesses across our country. I am honored to have this
opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the levee
association's membership and fellow Missourians who are
impacted by the operation of the Missouri River.
The bottomlands along the Missouri River include thousand
of acres of highly productive farmland. Many family farm
businesses rely on levees constructed by landowners, levee
districts and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for protection
from flooding. 100,000 acres of Missouri bottomland soil can
produce enough calories to feed over 1 million people for an
entire year. This productive soil makes up the backbone of the
local economy. As the bottomland farms succeed, so does the
local economy. There are spillover impacts from the success of
the farm businesses. Many small businesses benefit from the
production and operation of bottomland farms. The purchases of
tractors, trucks, and other machinery, along with labor and
other inputs have ripple effects throughout our economy.
I want to be very clear; it is the productive soils and the
land that provides the foundation for small business growth and
success throughout our agricultural communities. Without the
highly productive soil and land the small businesses in the
fruitful Missouri River bottoms would be far less successful.
We have seen dramatic increases in farmland values over the
past several years. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, first quarter farmland values in the Kansas City
District have posted double-digit annual gains for three
straight years. While the general economy has struggled,
agriculture and small businesses tied to agriculture have held
their own. Agriculture will likely be the industry leading our
country out of its economic woes. It has held true in the past.
This is why it is vitally important to keep our best soils in
production and this is why we should protect these soils from
flooding.
Flood control is vitally important to these businesses.
Small businesses in the economic chain, from the farmer to the
small businesses he impacts, rely on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to provide critical flood control along the Missouri
River. Flooding has huge impacts on small businesses and the
economy. Because floods are so devastating, flood control is
one of the greatest needs for communities and small businesses
impacted by Missour River operations.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no longer
seems to share the same belief concerning the importance of
flood control for the small businesses impacted by their
operations. In fact, we rarely even hear the Corps talk about
flood control. The term flood control has all but been stripped
from their vocabulary. Instead of flood control, we now hear
the Corps talk about flood risk reduction. The Corps of
Engineers is working hard on programs designed to reduce the
federal government's risk and responsibility associated with
flooding and flood recovery. But there is very little focus on
actually reducing the risk of flooding.
The Corps' new approach to flood control has little to do
with keeping the River between its banks. Their emphasis is on
moving people and businesses out of the floodplain, buying
productive farmland, setting back or removing levees and
allowing the River to run wild. This is not an approach to
flood control. It is a recipe for disaster.
We understand floods will happen and we cannot control
every flood. But the goal should be to keep the River between
its banks and control flooding as much as possible. Even if we
were able to remove all infrastructure from the floodplains,
(homes, businesses, roads, power lines, pipe lines, bridges and
more), the remaining farmland is worth protecting with levees
and other flood control projects.
Members of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association have many concerns regarding the Corps' operation
of the River. Shallow Water Habitat projects, Dike Notching,
the threat of a manmade Spring Rise each year and land
acquisition programs top the list of concerns. The Corps levee
inspection program and the FEMA levee certification program
also concern our members and will have impacts on small
business and the ability to provide proper flood control.
Finally, it is our hope your committee and the United
States Congress will provide better oversight of the Corps of
Engineer's activities. Federal agencies with no oversight from
congress have a long leash and high level of arrogance. This
has been the case with the ongoing Shallow Water Habitat
projects. Even though the Missouri Clean Water Commission
decided not to provide a 401 certificate, the Corps of
Engineers has decided to dump dredged spoils from their
projects directly into the Missouri River. We believe this
shows a great lack of respect to the Missouri Clean Water
Commission and the stakeholders who overwhelmingly opposed the
soil dumping.
The work of your committee is very important. I appreciate
your service to our nation and your willingness to hold this
hearing here today. I hope you will encourage the Corps of
Engineers to make flood control their number one priority and
provide the protection the small businesses need to grow and
prosper. The land and productive soils along the Missouri River
is one of our country's greatest assets. Providing flood
control to the land is critical to small businesses throughout
the Missouri River Valley and the nation. The Missouri Levee
and Drainage District Association is ready and willing to help
you as we work together to protect our small businesses and
grow our economy.
Thank you,
Lanny Frakes, Vice-President
Missour Levee and Drainage District Association
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
JODY FARHAT, P.E.
CHIEF, MISSOURI RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
BEFORE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
``Missouri River Management:
Does It Meet the Needs of Small Business?
AUGUST 21, 2013
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jody
Farhat, Chief of the Missouri River Basin Water Management
Division of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). I am pleased to be here today to discuss our
roles, responsibilities, and efforts on managing the Missouri
River Mainstem Reservoir System and on the importance of the
river to small businesses and rural communities.
Over the past several years, the Missouri River basin has
experienced a wide range of climatic conditions, from the
record runoff in the upper basin in 2011, to flash drought in
2012. Although a drought still affects much of the basin,
conditions have improved during the spring and summer of 2013,
but reservoir levels behind the large upper three dams remains
drawn down: Fort Peck is currently drawn down over 8 feet;
Garrison, over 2 feet; and, Oahe over 5 feet. Currently, all
authorized purposes for the System are being served at reduced
levels except for flood control, which is enhanced when
reservoir levels decline due to drought.
The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System is comprised
of six dam and reservoir projects; hydroelectric power plants;
levees (both federal and non-federal); and a 735-mile
navigation channel extending from Sioux City, Iowa to the mouth
near St. Louis, Missouri. The Corps is charged with
responsibility managing this complex and extensive system for
eight authorized purposes: flood control, navigation,
irrigation, hydropower, water quality control, water supply,
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. In addition,
operation of the System must also comply with other applicable
federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including the
Endangered Species Act. All of the citizens we serve in the
Missouri River Basin benefit in one or more ways from this
system.
Cycles of flooding and severe drought have always been a
major part of the Missouri River Basin hydrology. The six Corps
dams on the mainstem of the Missouri River from the largest
system of reservoirs in the United States. The reservoirs are
designed to capture and store mountain snowpack, plains
snowpack, and rainfall runoff from the upper Missouri River
Basin in the spring of the year providing flood protection for
over two million acres of land in the floodplain. Water stored
in the reservoirs is then utilized during the remainder of the
year to serve the other seven authorized purposes. The bank
stabilization and navigation project along the lower Missouri
River downstream of Ponca State Park, Nebraska keeps the
channel from meandering and make it more reliable for
navigation. For example, an extensive system of levees (most
non-federal) has been constructed from Omaha, Nebraska to St.
Louis, Missouri, with levees on one or both banks for nearly
the entire reach. These levees provide a measure of flood risk
reduction to the adjoining developed land and nearby
structures.
The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual (Master
Manual) is the guide used by the Corps to regulate the six dams
on the mainstem of the Missouri River: Fort Peck, Garrison,
Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point. First published
in 1960 and subsequently revised during the 1970s, the Master
Manual was revised in March 2004 to include more stringent
drought conservation measures, and again in 2206 to include
technical criteria for a spring pulse from Gavins Point Dam for
the benefit of the endangered pallid sturgeon. Neither the 2004
nor the 2006 revisions to the Master Manual changed the volume
of storage in the system reserved for flood risk reduction or
the manner in which that storage is regulated. The Corps does
not store water in the reservoirs specifically for the
endangered and threatened species and the Master Manual storage
allocations were not altered to facilitate the spring pulses.
The construction and operation of the six mainstem
reservoirs and other features of the System, along with the
presence of federal and non-federal levees and other measures
by local interests, reduced the extent the natural floodplain
and altered its ecosystem. Current regulation of the System in
accordance with the Master Manual to serve authorized project
purposes is dependent on successful implementation of the US
Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 Amended Biological Opinion,
BiOp. Implementation of the BiOp is accomplished through the
Missouri River Recovery Program which includes the following
elements: habitat construction including emergent sandbar
habitat and shallow water habitat, flow modifications,
propagation/hatchery support, research, monitoring and
evaluation, and adaptive management. Stakeholder participation
in the Missouri River Recovery Program is essential in order to
ensure that public values are incorporated into the decision
process. To that end, the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee has been established in accordance
with Section 5018 of WRDA 2007 and is comprised of diverse
group of advisory stakeholders.
The Corps also considers input from affected interests and
other agencies when making water management decisions to best
serve the authorized project purposes. An annual operating
plan, or AOP, is prepared each year, based on the water control
criteria contained in the Master Manual, in order to describe
potential reservoir regulation of the System for the current
operating year under a variety of water supply conditions.
Following the release of the draft AOP each fall, public
meetings are held throughout the basin to review the plan, take
comments and answer questions. Attendees at our public meetings
include state, Tribal and local government officials,
interested citizens, and a variety of small business including
farmers, marina operators, navigators and more. After taking
into consideration comments received on the draft, the final
annual operating plan is released, generally in December.
Communication with affected stakeholders continues
throughout the year via press releases, monthly basin update
calls, information sharing through our website, and meetings
with various stakeholders and interest groups at their request.
The Corps strongly supports small businesses in the work we
do on the river, both for repair and maintenance of the Corps
facilities, including the work that was done following the
record 2011 flood, and construction activities required by the
Missouri River Recovery Program.
For example, maintenance work and repair of the Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project is often contracted out to
local small businesses. Even when the Corps does this work in-
house using our hired labor crews, a mix of large and small
businesses are still needed to provide material, equipment and
fuel. Most if not all the funding for the operation and
maintenance of the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project
thus finds its way back to the local economies. Because the
greatest portion of this work and our offices are in rural
areas, small businesses benefit.
Completed and ongoing projects within the Missouri River
Levee System have been awarded to small businesses.
As we develop Missouri River Recovery projects, we
coordinate with land owners and levee districts upstream,
downstream and on the opposite bank from the proposed project
to ensure we understand their concerns and requirements. It is
important to note that Missouri River Recovery projects are
designed and constructed consistent with other uses of the
river such as navigation or flood control. Many of these
projects are built by small businesses.
We recognize that the operation of the Missouri River
Mainstem Reservoir System impacts the lives and livelihoods of
those who work and live along the river. We remain committed to
operating the Mainstem System to serve the authorized project
purposes, in a way that balances the competing needs of the
Basin, and to meet our responsibilities to federally recognized
Tribes and comply with environmental laws including the
Endangered Species Act. We will continue to work closely with
you and all the Missouri River Basin stakeholders in that
effort.
We appreciate having the opportunity to be here today, and
I look forward to hearing the testimony from small business
leaders, and any ideas they may have to improve our service to
the citizens of the Missouri River Basin.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the Members of the
Committee might have.
Testimony of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation
Before the
House Committee on Small Business
``Missouri River Management: Does It Meet the Needs of
Small Business Stakeholders?''
August 21, 2013
Presented by: Jason Gregory
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Small
Business Committee. My name is Jason Gregory, and I am a fourth
generation farmer. My wife, Beth, and I raise corn, soybeans,
feeder cattle and children (Bailey and BreAnne) near Easton in
northwest Missouri. I am speaking on behalf of the Missouri
Farm Bureau Federation. I serve on the Buchanan County Farm
Bureau Board of Directors, and my wife and I serve on the state
organization's Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee.
Thank you for holding this field hearing. It comes as no
surprise to the Chairman, or other members of the Small
Business Committee, that management of the Missouri River is
both complex and controversial. Widespread agreement is elusive
as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) attempts to manage
for eight diverse Congressionally authorized purposes (flood
control, navigation, water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric
power, water quality, recreation and fish/wildlife).
The Missouri River is 2,341 miles long with a basin
covering 529,350 square miles in ten states (Nebraska, Montana,
Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado,
Minnesota and Missouri). Elevation of the Missouri River drops
from 14,000 foot peaks to about 400 feet at its confluence with
the Mississippi River in St. Louis. We could talk all day about
our recent experiences with both floods and droughts. As you
know, this area was hit hard by flooding in 2011 and is
extremely dry as we speak. To be honest, I'm not sure what a
``normal'' year is anymore.
My comments will touch on several topics important to hose
who not only live along the Missouri River but are protected by
the system of levees constructed over the past several decades.
While you aren't likely to read this in a paper or hear it on
the news, construction of the main stem reservoirs and
implementation of the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Program
(BSNP) are a success story. Over the 1938-2001 period,
estimated accumulated flood control damages prevented by the
system are $24.8 billion.
There are six areas in which I will provide brief comments:
1. Passage of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) is critical to the future of our inland waterway
system. Agricultural exports remain a bright spot and
it's important we remain competitive in world markets.
Other nations understand the concept of competitive
advantage and are moving quickly to upgrade ports and
waterways. We need to modernize our locks and dams and
provide shippers with assurances that navigation
channels on the Mississippi, Missouri and other rivers
are reliable. Congress needs to pass WRDA this year.
2. There must be adequate annual funding for the Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Program. The Missouri
River is highly engineered and thus requires ongoing
maintenance. Flood control remains paramount and
Congress must appropriate sufficient funding to ensure
the integrity of federal and non-federal levees, flood
gates, revetments, dikes and other structures. Levees
not only protect highly productive crop land but also
homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure such as
roads, bridges, railroad tracks, sewage treatment
facilities, water wells, and power plants.
3. Common sense must prevail on the Missouri River
Recovery Program (MRRP). Stakeholders from throughout
the Missouri River Basin are working with federal and
stage agencies to address management challenges.
Dialogue is useful but doesn't erase agendas. We will
always fight the efforts of those who ignore the
importance of protecting infrastructure by seeking to
return the Missouri River to a perceived natural state
of an era long gone. This includes objecting to
taxpayer dollars being spent on unnecessary projects
such as the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan
and the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study. We
applaud the efforts of Chairman Graves, Congressman
Luetkemeyer and other members of the Missouri
Congressional delegation for leading efforts to defund
these programs.
4. The spring pulse should be shelved permanently.
Scientific studies have failed to prove the benefit of
these man-made spring rises and there is no reason to
experiment further with flow modification.
5. Congress should prevent soil dumping in
conjunction with the creation of shallow water habitat.
Although not convinced of the scientific benefits of
constructing chutes along the Missouri River under any
circumstances, it makes no sense to pump mechanically
excavated soil directly into the Missouri River. This
ignores best management practices, contradicts
enforcement actions taken by the Missouri Clean Water
Commission and increases nutrient-rich sediment flowing
to the Gulf of Mexico. We support Congressman King's
efforts to prevent further soil dumping and are pleased
his amendment was adopted by the House in its version
of the FY2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
6. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be
improved to better reflect the human and economic
impacts of listing decisions. The ESA is too rigid and
relies on regulation to protect imperiled species.
Landowners, and other affected parties, should be
viewed not as the source of the problem but as a part
of the solution.
In conclusion, we don't need more experiments, mosquitoes
or publicly-owned land in the Missouri River Basin. We must
minimize the effects of weather extremes by protecting lives
and infrastructure, make wise investments in the BSNP and the
inland waterway system, and manage flows for human needs, and
where possible, enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Prepared Statement of Joel R. Euler
Given to the Committee on Small Business
on Wednesday August 21, 2013, at the
City of St. Joseph City Hall,
St. Joseph, Missouri
Greetings
My name is Joel Euler and I am an attorney with an office
located in Troy, Kansas, approximately 10 miles west of St.
Joseph. I am here before you today as an attorney for the South
St. Joseph Drainage and Levee District, which is one of several
districts I represent along the Missouri River. The District is
located adjacent to the Missouri River South of United States
Hwy. 36, on the western edge of the City of St. Joseph and in
Buchannan County, Missouri. The District was established more
than 40 years ago and protects agricultural, residential,
recreational, commercial and industrial properties.
The district is operated by a five-member Board of
Directors who are elected by individuals who own real estate
within the confines of the district. The makeup of the
Directors includes both individual and corporate
representatives. The District is responsible for the
maintenance and operation of the Levee and drainage structures
in the district and as such plays a pivotal role in the
protection of the various entities behind the structure. In
2011, invested capital in the district totaled in excess of Two
(2) billion dollars.
In about 1998, the Corps of Engineers made a review of the
levee structure in the district and determined modifications
were needed to allow the structure to maintain its protective
capability. Since that time the District and other local units
of government have been working with the Corps of Engineers to
finalize the modifications to be made, however, progress is
severely hampered because the Corps of Engineers is unable to
regularly obtain the funding necessary to complete the design
phase of the project and move the same to construction. At
present it is my understanding that funds have not been
allocated for this project in the upcoming budget.
I understand that the purpose of this hearing is to take
input with regard to the authorized purposes that the Corps of
Engineers uses to manage the Missouri River System and discuss
which purpose the District believes is most important.
Unequivocally the District considers the most important purpose
to be flood control. Improper flood control has a negative
impact on every activity conducted behind the structure.
The Individual who lives behind the structure must maintain
a constant vigil during times of flooding and high water to
ensure that his home and property are safe. This worry is in
addition to the everyday stresses which an individual feels and
often takes a heavy toll both financially and emotionally on
citizens.
The Farmer who lives and works the ground behind the
structure is negatively affected when releases of water are
sustained for long periods. This causes saturation to the farm
ground and during those times when the river level is so high
that the floodgates must be closed causes ponding of water
behind the structure which destroys crops and makes farming
operations difficult, if not impossible.
To the Industrial and Commercial businesses behind the
structure, the financial costs associated with continued high
water on the river take a different form. Each time there is an
extended high water event or the threat of flooding the
business must modify its operation to allow for potential
evacuation and must make preparations in the event of flooding.
Preparations include changing production schedules, removing
raw materials, products and equipment from the facility and
activities of a similar nature. In some instances during
sustained high water events, flood fighting operations restrict
traffic and rail flow causing a shortage of raw materials which
cost not only production but profit for the company.
In addition, the condition of the levee and continued flood
threats take a toll on businesses in the form of increased
costs associated with flood fight preparation, flood and
business loss insurance and other expenses associated with a
potential flood event. While the event may never occur, good
business practice requires planning for the event.
For Potential business concerns about the operation of the
levee structure and the Missouri River System as a whole can be
a major consideration when determining whether or not to locate
in the District. While some companies might choose to try to
erect structures at a level where they will not be affected by
high water, should the levee breach, this is cost prohibitive
in most instances and as such creates a negative impact on
business. In essence, if continued high water events occur they
will act to chill the interest in locating within the District
and as everyone is aware, competition for business is already
keen and communities cannot stand many negatives with regard to
their industrial areas.
With regard to the smallest businesses, the mom and pops,
these businesses are almost completely dependent upon work that
is derived from supporting the larger industry. The businesses
are often specialized and once the larger business leaves the
small businesses have no customers to serve and as such, close
as well.
In closing, the District believes that unless flood control
was made the primary emphasis of the operation of the Missouri
River System, at some point flooding and high water events will
occur with such frequency and have such an impact on businesses
of all sizes that the real estate located behind the levee
structures will no longer be a viable location for businesses
to locate thus causing a negative impact to the community.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joel R. Euler
Attorney for the South St. Joseph Drainage and Levee
District