[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

SMALL WATERSHED INFRASTRUCTURE:
CONTINUING THE MISSION, BUILDING UPON SUCCESS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 13, 2017

__________

Serial No. 115-7

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-913 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
BOB GIBBS, Ohio JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas, Vice Ranking
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas Minority Member
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
DOUG LaMALFA, California CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MIKE BOST, Illinois DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JIMMY PANETTA, California
JAMES COMER, Kentucky DARREN SOTO, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DON BACON, Nebraska
JOHN J. FASO, New York
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas

______

Matthew S. Schertz, Staff Director

Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking
JEFF DENHAM, California Minority Member
DOUG LaMALFA, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
MIKE BOST, Illinois RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi FILEMON VELA, Texas

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Submitted report............................................. 85
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 4

Witnesses

Bramblett, Jimmy, Deputy Chief, Programs, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Emmons, Jimmy, President, Oklahoma Association of Conservation
Districts, Leedey, OK.......................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Burns, Hon. Kevin, Commissioner, Wise County, Texas, Decatur, TX. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Peterson, John W., Director of Government Relations, Land
Improvement Contractors of America, Burke, VA.................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Finney, John, President, Red River Management Board; Co-Chair,
Red River Retention Authority, Humboldt, MN.................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41

SMALL WATERSHED INFRASTRUCTURE:
CONTINUING THE MISSION, BUILDING UPON SUCCESS

----------

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Thompson, LaMalfa,
Allen, Bost, Abraham, Kelly, Conaway (ex officio), Fudge, Walz,
Kuster, Nolan, O'Halleran, and Peterson (ex officio).
Staff present: John Weber, Josh Maxwell, Patricia Straughn,
Rachel Millard, Stephanie Addison, Anne Simmons, Evan
Jurkovich, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, and Nicole
Scott.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA

The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation and Forestry entitled, Small Watershed
Infrastructure: Continuing the Mission, Building Upon Success,
will come to order. I recognize myself for an opening
statement.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing.
Nearly 70 years ago, our predecessors exhibited exceptional
foresight through their investment in watershed infrastructure
projects. The lasting benefits of those investments through the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, commonly
known as P.L. 83-566, have allowed the NRCS to partner with
local communities to provide technical and financial assistance
to build structures necessary to protect communities, allowing
them to thrive.
Since 1948, nearly 12,000 small flood prevention dams have
served local communities by providing both economic and
conservation benefits. It is unsettling to imagine the
destruction of property that would have taken place if these
investments had not been made.
While we celebrate the success of these programs, we cannot
overlook that their strategic infrastructure is aging and
requires upkeep. By the end of 2017, nearly 5,500 structures
will have reached the end of their intended life-span.
Maintaining and updating these structures is often unaffordable
for the communities that have benefited from the P.L. 83-566
program.
In 2000, understanding the urgency of this issue, I
introduced legislation to rehabilitate many of our watershed
projects through the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. At the
time, my message was simple: If we take no action to
rehabilitate, we will be left with the cost of removing these
structures or faced with constant threats to life and property
as these dams continue to age. And we would definitely watch
our $8.5 billion investment in the successful partnership wash
away.
Those concerns are as important today as they were 17 years
ago. I am confident that a modest investment now will pay off
greatly over the next 70 years, across rural America.
Both watershed construction and rehabilitation are
necessary and important to maintaining and expanding our rural
infrastructure, which is why I made those programs a priority,
helping secure several hard-fought gains over the past several
years.
For example, in the 2014 Farm Bill, we created partnership
opportunities to target and leverage Federal conservation funds
through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program.
Additionally, Congress agreed to $250 million in mandatory
funding for small watershed rehabilitation to address the
program backlog.
And, finally, I am pleased that the 2017 appropriations
language included funding for P.L. 83-566 also. While those
represent important steps in working towards the current
backlog of P.L. 83-566 programs, more work must be done. This
rural infrastructure may be largely out of sight, but it is of
critical importance to those communities affected.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today about the
success of these programs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
Nearly 70 years ago, my predecessors exhibited exceptional
foresight through their investment in watershed infrastructure
projects. The lasting benefits of those investments through the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program--also commonly known
as P.L. 83-566--has allowed NRCS to partner with local communities to
provide technical and financial assistance to build structures
necessary to protect communities, allowing them to thrive.
Since 1948, nearly 12,000 small flood prevention dams have served
local communities by providing both economic and conservation benefits.
It is unsettling to imagine the destruction of property that would have
taken place if these investments had not been made.
While we celebrate the success of these programs, we cannot
overlook that this strategic infrastructure is aging and requires
upkeep. By the end of 2017, nearly 5,500 structures will have reached
the end of their intended life-span. Maintaining and updating these
structures is often unaffordable for the communities that have
benefited from the P.L. 83-566 program.
In 2000, understanding the urgency of this issue, I introduced
legislation to rehabilitate many of our watershed projects through the
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. At the time, my message was
simple--if we take no action to rehabilitate, we will be left with the
cost of removing these structures or faced with constant threats to
life and property as these dams continue to age. And we would
definitely watch our $8.5 billion investment in this successful
partnership wash away. Those concerns are as important today as they
were 17 years ago.
I am confident that a modest investment now will pay off greatly
over the next 70 years across rural America.
Both watershed construction and rehabilitation are necessary and
important to maintaining and expanding our rural infrastructure, which
is why I made these programs a priority, helping secure several hard-
fought gains over the past several years. For example, in the 2014 Farm
Bill we created partnership opportunities to target and leverage
Federal conservation funds through the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP).
Additionally, Congress agreed to $250 million in mandatory funding
for small watershed rehabilitation to address the program backlog. And
finally, I was pleased the FY 2017 appropriations language included
funding for the P.L. 83-566 program.
While these represent important steps to working through the
current backlog of the P.L. 83-566 program, more work must be done.
This rural infrastructure may be largely out of sight, but it is of
critical importance to those communities impacted.
I look forward to hearing testimony today about the success of
these programs, and with that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any
opening remarks she would like to make.

The Chairman. And with that, I yield to the Ranking Member
for any opening remarks that she would like to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OHIO

Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Chairman Lucas, and thank
you for holding this hearing today. I know that watershed
programs are near and dear to your heart, and I am pleased to
hear more about them today.
The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program and
the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program are important tools
in our conservation toolkit. These programs play an important
role in preserving the viability of our farming communities and
landscapes.
One of the biggest benefits of the watershed programs is
the flexibility and engagement provided at the local level
through project sponsors. These projects are largely dictated
by local interests to help address resource concerns and the
health and productivity of individual watersheds.
With over 1,300 active or completed watershed projects,
this program has left a mark around the nation. As I learn more
about this program, I am amazed at the scope of the projects
that can be undertaken within this authority, from water
quality, to soil erosion control, to fish and wildlife
enhancement.
This program seems even more important as we acknowledge
the effects of climate change. Programs that help address flood
mitigation and drought for our farmers only become more
important with each passing day. These programs make our
watersheds more resilient in the face of escalating extreme
weather events.
As you may know, Lake Erie, where I live, faces challenges
from toxic algae blooms that wreak havoc on ecosystems and
taint drinking water for many Ohioans. As we discuss watershed
programs today, I hope to learn more about the advances to
improve water quality that may be beneficial to Ohio.
As we begin moving toward the next farm bill, I am looking
forward to hearing more about watershed programs and the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program which can utilize
P.L. 83-566 authority.
I would like to thank you all for being here again, and I
thank the witnesses for sharing your time. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady and I are pleased to note that both the full
Committee Chairman and the full Committee Ranking Member are
with us today.
Would the Chairman have any comments to make, sir?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

Mr. Conaway. Just to thank you and the Ranking Member for
holding this important hearing. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Does the Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, have any comments to
make?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. I do, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
and the Ranking Member for holding today's hearing.
I know these watershed programs, especially the Small
Watershed Rehabilitation Program, are important to you, as we
have discussed this over the years, and you have been a
longtime advocate and been part of including it in the farm
bill. I am glad that we can have other Members learn more about
these programs today.
I am pleased that John Finney, from my district in
Minnesota, is joining us at the witness table today. John is
the chair of the Red River Management Board, and I have had the
pleasure of working with him closely over the years. And thank
you to him and to the rest of the witness panels for being with
us today.
Watershed programs are incredibly important, as the
Chairman said, and part of our conservation toolbox. But,
unfortunately, a lot of folks are not really aware of the
programs themselves or the benefits that they provide, which is
why today's hearing is so useful. For example, a decade ago,
the Small Watershed Program relied on earmarks for funding,
which despite its broad support in Congress is what led to the
program's demise.
As part of the 2014 Farm Bill, we allowed project sponsors
to use P.L. 83-566 authorities under the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program. This was done to provide both communities
and projects the flexibility they need to be successful.
I expect that at this hearing you will hear and learn more
about the experience that local watershed districts have had,
and in my district, have had utilizing the RCPP P.L. 83-566
funding and the way they have been trying to find practical
solutions to expensive and controversial flood control
challenges.
I think that this is an important topic. A lot of folks
will be interested in learning about this. And I want to thank
you and the Ranking Member. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Conaway. Mr. Chairman, I was derelict in not
recognizing Kevin Burns from Wise County, Texas, a panelist on
the second panel, a longtime watershed advocate, and a near
constituent of mine. Please excuse me for that gross oversight
on my part.
The Chairman. The important observation is duly noted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And with that, the chair would request that other Members
submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses
may begin their testimony and to ensure that there is ample
time for questions.
I would like to welcome our witness to the table, Mr. Jimmy
Bramblett, Deputy Chief of Programs, NRCS, Washington, D.C.
As you can tell, we are a fan of this, Mr. Bramblett, so
you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JIMMY BRAMBLETT, DEPUTY CHIEF,
PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Bramblett. All right. Very good.
Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you all, actually, for the
opportunity to be here today to talk about the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and our watershed programs.
We appreciate the ongoing support this Subcommittee has
demonstrated for voluntary private lands conservation that help
us improve the nation's soil, water, and related natural
resources. But before I talk specifically about the watershed
programs, I would like to make a couple of comments about NRCS'
organizational structure and our mission.
We have 2,800 field offices fanned out across the country,
and that is important because these field offices provide
technical and financial assistance to local landowners. And as
you may know or may not know, more than 70 percent of land
ownership in this country is held by private landowners. Those
individuals make decisions every day that not only impact their
operation, but also impacts their neighbors, impacts their
watersheds, and impacts, in fact, the entire U.S. population.
Our Conservation Technical Assistance Program basically is
the backbone of offering that technical assistance to these
private landowners. Through CTA, in combination with our
delivery system, we invoke a conservation planning process that
basically helps us analyze local landowners' needs, interests,
desires, on their property, at their location, and in
combination with them develop a conservation plan of operations
to help them meet their objectives as well as to help improve
their natural resources and productivity for today and for
future generations, while at the same time complying with all
Federal, state, and local laws.
The sound science that we bring to these private landowners
on a daily basis not only helps improve the nation's natural
resources, it also informs policy development to make sure that
taxpayer investments and conservation achieve the greatest
return on investment as is possible.
So with that backdrop, the focus here today on the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is actually a
very enlightening conversation. The Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act not only helps us deliver that technical
and financial assistance to private landowners where they live,
on individual property, but it also gives us the authority to
work with communities and through eligible sponsors. And in
those communities, we can work with them and do conservation
planning for critical infrastructure activities that help also
address broader natural resource issues that may be realized
other than by what is happening on an individual farm or a
ranch.
The value of such an integrated approach has been
demonstrated over the past 80 years, and particularly over the
past 63 years with the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act. Since 1947, even with its predecessor, the
Flood Control Act of 1944, we have invested in over 2,000 local
projects with local sponsors and we have constructed almost
12,000 watershed dams to date.
And through this process, we are realizing on an annual
basis almost $2.3 billion a year in average annual benefits.
Some examples of those benefits include protecting 610,000
homes, 61,000 bridges, 46,000 businesses.
If you think about farms, an average farm being 200 acres,
the 180,000 farms that are being protected would equate to
roughly 36 million acres. That is about the size of the State
of Georgia, the largest state east of the Mississippi. And it
is not just the size of the State of Georgia, it is some of the
most productive cropland we all benefit from that is the size
of the State of Georgia.
But despite these successes, we are talking about manmade
infrastructure here. Manmade infrastructure does require
continued attention. And to date, NRCS has identified about
2,000 structures that are high-hazard structures needing
attention for public safety concerns. We estimate that it would
take approximately $7 billion to address some of those public
safety concerns.
And we also think investing in those upgrades today may
help us benefit by reducing the overall investment should we
continue to delay. Future investments for continued degradation
of these type of structures may require more investments in the
future.
Congress has also recognized this by continuing to fund
this program; recently, in this fiscal year, $150 million for a
variety of projects.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Subcommittee, as you can see, the Public Law 83-566 program is
a very beneficial program across this country. We have done a
lot of work with landowners at larger scales of the Mississippi
River Basin, the Chesapeake Bay. We have demonstrated
tremendous success at that scale.
But this 250,000 acre watershed scale gives us the ability
to really put a lot more focus and energy and attention in an
appropriate scale to realize the benefits to our natural
resources and to our local communities.
We are always working for ways to try to improve our
business practices, to help get more conservation on the
ground. Protecting our nation's small watersheds is no small
task, and when it comes to protecting lives through proper
maintenance and upkeep, it is something USDA does not take
lightly.
So with that, I would like to thank all of you for your
continued interest in the safety and functionality of our small
watersheds, for voluntary conservation, and, of course, for the
opportunity to be here today. And with that, I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bramblett follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jimmy Bramblett, Deputy Chief, Programs, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) watershed
programs. I appreciate the ongoing support and leadership this
Subcommittee has provided for voluntary, private lands conservation and
the improvement of our soil, water, and other invaluable natural
resources. Before I dig too deep into the NRCS watershed programs and
activities, I want to briefly provide some introductory comments on our
structure and mission that help to augment our critical watershed
activities.
NRCS provides technical and financial conservation assistance to
individual, private landowners. More than 70 percent of land in the
United States is held by private landowners. Decisions those landowners
make every day not only have an impact on their land, but that of their
neighbors, their watersheds, and ultimately the entire U.S. population.
A series of programs (i.e., Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program) have been created and revised through
the farm bill process to help NRCS facilitate its unique delivery
system, carried out through local field offices that provide assistance
to individual landowners across the nation. Through these programs,
NRCS has made tremendous strides in helping farmers, ranchers,
foresters, and other private landowners restore and enhance our
nation's natural resource base in a voluntary, incentive-based fashion.
Perhaps most importantly, the decisions surrounding the implementation
and prioritization of these programs and funding are made on the local
level, through Local Working Groups and State Technical Committees to
ensure local needs are addressed.
Proven Success
Our latest science-based modeling under the Natural Resources
Inventory (NRI) and assessment through the Conservation Effects
Assessment Program (CEAP) continues to show voluntary, incentive-based
conservation is effective. In the Chesapeake Bay, voluntary adoption of
conservation practices has led to reductions in erosion and
sedimentation by over 60 percent, and reductions in nutrient losses,
specifically of nitrogen, approached 40 percent. Through a landscape
focus to our conservation investments, some 80 percent of the Bay's
critical cropland acreage has had conservation measures implemented.
NRCS conservation investments in the Bay have resulted in a reduction
of 15.1 million tons of sediment per year, enough to fill 150,000 train
cars--which would stretch from Washington, D.C. to Albuquerque, New
Mexico. Improvements in water quality monitoring data and aquatic
habitat identified by external parties also confirms the positive
impact of these investments.
This science-to-solutions approach has been demonstrated to
positively affect critical wildlife species as well. Through another
targeted landscape initiative, our Working Lands for Wildlife
Initiative, NRCS has helped private landowners install appropriate
science-based conservation practices on over 6.7 million acres.
Wildlife species targeted for listing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Threatened and Endangered Species List have recovered to the
point where a pending listing decision is no longer being considered.
As a result, thousands of landowners will not face increased regulatory
pressures.
The sound science that NRCS brings to the table not only improves
our nation's natural resources, it also directs policy development to
ensure that taxpayers receive the greatest return on their conservation
investments. The aforementioned accomplishments have been realized
through our Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Program, the
backbone of our Agency's conservation delivery machine. Many customers
begin their relationship with NRCS through requests for technical
assistance that later evolve into conservation plans that may include
financial assistance through one of the farm bill programs. Our CTA
Program, in combination with our organizational delivery system,
affords us the opportunity to visit with landowners on their property,
to analyze their land, learn their objectives, and then collaboratively
formulate a plan to help them meet their objectives, comply with
Federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, sustaining their
operation for future generations.
Landscape-scale approaches are foundational to progress toward
meeting today's challenges. In addition to the Chesapeake Bay, and
Working Lands for Wildlife initiatives, NRCS is also collaborating with
others in critical landscapes to address water quality concerns in the
western portion of Lake Erie, water quantity efficiencies in
California's Central Valley and the Colorado River Basin; fisheries
improvements in the Pacific Northwest; acid mine drainage remediation
needs in Appalachia and the Intermountain West; and flood protection
for communities in the Central Plains and the Northeast.
Importance of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
In addition to demonstrated success in larger landscapes, NRCS's
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, authorized by the
Flood Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (Public
Law 83-566, also known as P.L. 83-566) encourages focused conservation
investments in smaller landscapes (i.e., watersheds) of 250,000 acres
or less. P.L. 83-566 gained support from successes of a preceding
program, the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). The Flood
Control Act placed a primary focus on watershed protection by
preventing floodwater damage and stabilizing stream channels,
tributaries, and banks to reduce erosion and sediment transport. P.L.
83-566 extended the authorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
capitalize on NRCS's flexibility for delivering additional conservation
investments beyond those focused solely on flood damages. Through P.L.
83-566, NRCS can offer conservation practices to individual landowners
and work with local communities to create vital infrastructure
protecting and restoring natural resources. The value of such an
integrated approach has resulted in significant positive contributions
to local economies and natural resources.
Since 1947, NRCS, through our watershed programs, has worked with
our watershed partners to:

Invest in over 2,000 projects within local communities for a
cumulative total investment of $6.2 billion.

Construct 12,000 watershed project dams.

Realize $2.2 billion in average annual benefits. Such
benefits come from:

610,000--homes protected.

46,000--businesses protected.

180,000--farms protected.

61,000--bridges protected.

28,000--domestic water supplies protected.

48,000,000--people benefited.

(Source: NRCS Program Operations Information Tracking System database).

Notwithstanding such success, both past and current, man-made
infrastructure requires continued attention. NRCS has identified a
current need of almost $7 billion to address public safety concerns for
some 2,000 structures that have been identified as high hazard. A
majority of NRCS watershed dams are over 50 years of age. Investing in
needed upgrades today may help mitigate against more expensive future
investments as these facilities continue to degrade. This investment
could also result in removal of public safety concerns and help to
avoid losing a portion of the aforementioned benefits.
The cyclical nature of P.L. 83-566 related funding for NRCS
watershed programs introduces a set of unique challenges for program
management of projects requiring a multi-year commitment on behalf of
eligible project sponsors, permitting agencies, and the private-sector
assisting with such work. For example, planning, design, and permitting
requires significant up-front non-Federal investments to conduct
environmental assessments, secure necessary land-rights, complete
requisite engineering designs, and obtain required permits. Non-Federal
partners have to make critical risk management decisions related to
financial commitments in the face of budget uncertainty for project
completion. For the past 4 fiscal years, funding for this program has
been:

FY 2014 = $260 million,

FY 2015 = $70 million,

FY 2016 = $12 million, [and]

FY 2017 = $150 million.

Because public safety cannot be ignored, NRCS has worked with a
number of organizations to develop tools and business practices
intended to mitigate against risks from limited investments in capital
improvements. One example of these efforts includes collaboration with
state dam safety officials to develop Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for
high hazard structures. The plans identify potential downstream hazards
and which emergency personnel are to be notified in advance of
undesirable conditions at any given location. These plans are
supplemented by annual emergency exercise drills for added
preparedness. Finally, NRCS has recently released DamWatch, which
quickly alerts essential personnel electronically through email, text
message, or pager when dams are experiencing a high rainfall or
earthquake event. These efforts allow for the agency's limited
resources to be directed to the right place at the right time.
Utilizing Watershed Funding
While these efforts to remain vigilant for public safety have
proven successful to date, Congress has also recognized the need for
continued conservation, and capital improvement, investments as well.
Through the FY 2015 appropriations process, Congress directed NRCS to
establish a long-term, multi-year plan to guide needed investments in
watershed surveys and planning, and watershed operations as authorized
under P.L. 83-566. While completing the plan, NRCS determined a
prioritized need to invest in 220 projects. These projects would
address a variety of issues, ranging from flood prevention and
watershed protection, to agricultural water management, to municipal
and industrial water supply. The total cost of these 220 projects is
estimated to be $1.4 billion from FY 2017 through FY 2020.
During the current fiscal year, Congress provided $150 million for
necessary expenses in accordance with P.L. 83-566 and related laws
relating to activities of the Department. This $150 million is to
remain available until expended, provided that $50 million be allocated
to projects and activities that can commence promptly.
NRCS is preparing to first address a project backlog, remediation
of existing structures, and then focus on new projects. Our agency has
done a good job of preparing for and prioritizing project work in the
face of cyclical funding realities. We use a risk index to identify a
combination of physical, economic, and social factors ensuring that
taxpayer investments address the highest risks first. Currently, the
following are in progress: 70 watershed plans, 80 engineering design
efforts, and 30 ongoing construction projects.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, P.L.
83-566 enables NRCS to bring all of the agency's technical, scientific,
and financial resources to bear at the appropriate geographic scale--
the small watersheds of 250,000 acres or less--where we can have the
greatest impact on our nation's resources. This program reflects our
commitment to local leadership on critical conservation issues and has
a reach that touches every Committee Member's District. NRCS
continually seeks to take responsible steps toward streamlining and
modernizing our operations, while maximizing opportunities to get more
conservation on the ground. Protection of our nation's small watersheds
is no small task and when it comes to protecting lives through proper
maintenance and upkeep, it is something USDA does not take lightly. I
would like to thank all of you for continuing to invest in the safety
and functionality of our small watersheds, voluntary conservation, and
of course for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I
would be happy to respond to any questions.

The Chairman. Thank you, Deputy Director.
And the chair would like to remind Members that they will
be recognized for questioning in the order of seniority for
Members who were at the start of the hearing, and after that
Members will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate
Members' understanding, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Let's visit for a moment, Deputy Director, just in the
broad general sense about what we are talking about when we
discuss P.L. 83-566 projects. Many people, when they think of
dams, think of huge things from Hoover Dam on down, these giant
monstrosities designed and built and maintained by the Army
Corps of Engineers, a classic example in the general public's
mind.
But, P.L. 83-566 dams work under a different concept,
correct? Instead of giant structures, you have networks of
smaller earthen dams working in an interlocking fashion to
provide in many instances tremendous amounts of flood
protection, but not one big structure. Fair statement?
But that also means that from the agency's perspective and
the community's perspective, there are a lot more of these
facilities to maintain, correct?
Mr. Bramblett. That is correct. In general, you are exactly
correct on all fronts. These structures basically, when
originally planned, were put in the upper reaches of the
smaller watersheds to help catch some of that early rainfall.
And you are right, they are also positioned and laid out in
such a fashion to maximize flood prevention from an early
perspective.
The early rainfall, 100 year storms, basically individuals
downstream are not going to see any change in the channel,
because in addition to being a floodwater-retarding structure
and being strategically placed, they are designed for 10 day
drawdown. Most of them are designed for a 10 day drawdown,
which is where the real beauty and the benefit from these
structures come, because that is allowing not only the
mitigation of flood downstream, it is also allowing it to
dissipate at a rate that doesn't cause any damages.
The Chairman. And within 10 days be prepared for the next
event.
Mr. Bramblett. Exactly.
The Chairman. Whatever that may be.
And let's talk for a moment about the nature of the
structures themselves, the original technology dating back to
the 1940s. Science has improved that, the metals in the valve
works, the design works, the letdowns, the way we build
spillways.
I have had folks tell me in the field that these 50 year
designs that we originally went with, with the new technologies
and the new materials, while not rated for it, we might
potentially get a century's worth of good out of the
rehabilitation process. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Bramblett. That is a fair assessment. In fact, many of
the early structures that were built were built with a 50 year
design life. And even into the 1970s, some of that technology
was coming on board, and many of the later structures were
built with a 100 year design life.
Today, anytime we do a rehabilitation activity, we really
work toward trying to get that 100 year design life. And so not
only the new technology for the materials that we use, but the
way we do planning, the efficiencies that we can gain with some
business practices associated with that, help make for a much
more efficient delivery of conservation to individuals and to
landowners.
The Chairman. And I would note to my colleagues, there are
very few infrastructure projects the Federal Government is
involved in or partnering with other entities that have
potentially a century's life expectancy. Think of bridges.
Think of roads. Think of everything else. This is an exception
in that area.
Let's talk for a moment about the nature of the
Rehabilitation Program and how this is not just a Federal
effort, but the local entities are required to put up resources
to do things as a part of that rehabilitation cost coverage.
Mr. Bramblett. That is exactly right. That is one of the
beauties of basically all of the voluntary programs that NRCS
brings to bear. It is not just Federal taxpayer, the taxpayers
that are carrying the brunt of the investment.
NRCS, as I mentioned, works through a voluntary approach.
We operate off of a request for assistance. And many times when
we provide information to local sponsors as they articulate to
us their issues and their concerns, when we talk about the
flexibilities and the authorities of Public Law 83-566 and its
related legislation, they are willing, sometimes in the face of
budget uncertainties, to make some financial commitments on
their own to try to progress in addressing those resource
issues and concerns.
In the end, though, the way the authorities are set up,
generally NRCS provides 65 percent cost-share associated with a
lot of these activities and private eligible sponsors provide
the other 35 percent.
The Chairman. That said, of the number of projects that
could be completed, because we are only talking about a small
percentage of the potential sites in North America that could
be addressed in these projects, just off the top of your head,
if the resources were available, how many more structures are
there at some stage in the process, initial planning, initial
consideration on the new construction side, off the top of your
head, Director?
Mr. Bramblett. Right. We have roughly 30 projects in
construction today and roughly 80 projects in the design phase
and another 70 with watershed plans ready to move into the
design phase; and then many more in the assessment phase,
looking at these structures, looking at the downstream hazards
and trying to identify those to get those prepared for
planning. And so it is a sequence of preplanning, planning,
design, and construction.
The Chairman. It is fair to say, if a Member represents a
district that does not have any structures in place, whether in
rehabilitation or new construction, there are a number of
opportunities around the country where this technology, these
techniques could be used to apply to enhance the flood safety
issues.
Mr. Bramblett. That is exactly right. There is still an
opportunity with the authorities to address those issues and
concerns.
The Chairman. Thank you, Deputy Chief.
With that, my time has expired. I turn to the Ranking
Member and recognize here for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here as well.
Mr. Bramblett, in your written testimony, you comment on
how flexible P.L. 83-566 can be, particularly in delivering
additional conservation investments beyond those focused solely
on flood damage. Could you talk a bit about the scope and types
of projects other than those that directly address flood
damage?
Mr. Bramblett. Sure. Originally, in the 1954 legislation, a
lot of the work we did, land treatment, when I say land
treatment, I am talking about that one-on-one conservation
technical assistance we offer to private landowners to help
them plan and install conservation practices that will reduce
soil erosion, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat.
Some of the early work we did was primarily to make sure
that we reduced erosion that possibly could get into these
watershed structures and reduce sedimentation, siltation, and
try to extend the life of these structures.
As time moved on, the flexibility of this program grew in
popularity. And so from a water quality perspective, we had
more requests come to us, in addition to just the structural
measures, we had many community requests come to us asking for
us to address some of those soil erosion, water quality,
wildlife habitat-type resources alone. And we have been able in
later years to address those as resources have been available
to us.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana are currently leading a
national RCPP Program designed to reduce the chances of harmful
algae blooms developing in Lake Erie's western basin. How has
or might P.L. 83-566 be used within such a project?
Mr. Bramblett. P.L. 83-566 can do basically everything that
the programs our agency has to offer. That is why I talk about
the beauty of the integrated approach from P.L. 83-566.
Many of you are aware of our Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, our easement programs, as well as our RCPP
Conservation Stewardship Program. Through those programs, we
typically work one on one with landowners to address their
needs. Through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program,
we are looking at a geographic area. Generally, it is a larger
geographic area than the 250,000 acres outlined in Public Law
83-566.
As we work with those landowners, we have seen demonstrated
success even at those larger scales. In those larger scales,
basically what we are finding is we can remove a variety of
streams from EPA's 303(d) listing of impaired streams.
Some of the wildlife-focused activities we have done out
West, we have brought species back from being on the brink of
being listed on the threatened and endangered species list. And
what that has allowed is those landowners to avert potential
regulations associated with the Endangered Species Act that
they might otherwise face.
P.L. 83-566 gives us the ability to work with those private
landowners but at the same time work with those leaders in
local communities who also are seeing issues. Sometimes when we
are working with private landowners we can make a lot of
progress. But when community leaders get together and see
issues beyond individual farms in a collective fashion, then
through eligible sponsors we can connect with them, and then
they can help lead and guide some of that local prioritization
for conservation planning and conservation investments.
And so with this delivery network that I have talked about,
to me, that is one of the beauties of our delivery system, is
that we have local people in local communities who understand
the local soils, who understand the local climate, who
understand the local agriculture, the agricultural economy, the
limitations on individuals, and the limitations on communities.
From that integrated approach of both the community and the
individual landowner, P.L. 83-566 is a fantastic program to
bring to bear.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bost,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bramblett, in Illinois we don't have a lot of the small
watersheds, but we do face a lot of challenges with the
watersheds as they relate to the Mississippi, Ohio, and
Kaskaskia River in deep southern Illinois, which are huge
watersheds. That being said, P.L. 83-566, that is implemented
by the NRCS, how does this program function differently than
larger management systems that we do on these larger rivers?
Mr. Bramblett. Well, the authorities of P.L. 83-566 limit
us basically to 250,000 acres. The measures that the Corps of
Engineers might use on large watersheds, as the Chairman
identified, some of those larger structures that come to bear
in these larger watersheds, we can apply many of the same
structural measures in smaller watersheds of 250,000 acres or
less.
If you are thinking in terms of a levee or a dike or
something like that, we have installed those type of facilities
in smaller communities to help them be protected from flooding
on a smaller scale, exactly what you are describing on a larger
scale in the Mississippi River.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Also, on these watersheds a lot of things
that we face, it is sediment buildup, okay, particularly with
the Kaskaskia River, because of the agricultural area around
and as a large a watershed as it is. But what I am trying to
figure out is, if P.L. 83-566 is put in place up on the
watershed further up, and maybe it is disqualified because it
is all one plain, but would that stop that sediment as well?
Mr. Bramblett. No. That is actually a very good
illustration, and that goes back to the Chairman's observation,
about where we placed small watershed dams and watersheds.
Generally, we did those upstream in those watersheds to help
mitigate flooding originally. But with the land treatment
protections upstream of those structures even more, we also
prevented additional erosion and sedimentation from moving
downstream.
Even in a larger, broader watershed of beyond 250,000
acres, we can use P.L. 83-566 in such a means where we can
break up that watershed to smaller 250,000 acre increments
where these eligible sponsors have an interest, desire, and a
willingness to sponsor such projects and help alleviate the
larger, bigger issues that you might see on the Mississippi in
the situation like what you are describing.
Mr. Bost. Well, I appreciate that information.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman has touched on a very good
point. By building these interlocking systems, they benefit
everyone from the raindrop that hits the ground to the Atlantic
or the Pacific.
With that, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bramblett, did you read Mr. Finney's testimony?
Mr. Bramblett. No, sir, I sure did not.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Okay. Well, are you going to be
here to listen to it?
Mr. Bramblett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Okay. We have been struggling
with controlling the water in the Red River because it flows
north and it is flat and there are a lot of problems. And we
appreciate the help that we have gotten from NRCS.
And right now they are trying to spend $2.5 billion in
Fargo to run the water around Fargo-Moorhead because we haven't
been able to control it before it gets there. And we have had
problems with the Corps trying to recognize what we are doing
and so forth.
But one of the things that is in Mr. Finney's testimony is
one of the problems we are having out there is the way they
have implemented these cost-benefit deals. They do it by
individual watersheds. And what we are doing is we are trying
to manage the whole basin.
And the way this gets implemented, I guess, they don't take
into account the overall impact, the situation, and so it makes
it difficult to make these projects qualify. We tried to get
some changes when this RCPP thing was set up, but they weren't
completely implemented.
And so whatever you could do to help us work through this,
because the amount of money that has been wasted over the years
in the Red River Valley with the erosion that has happened and
everything else, all the money that we have spent on these
floods, we could have controlled all of this with that money
easily and been a much better situation for the environment.
We are caught up in it, because the P.L. 83-566 authorities
are limited to some certain amount of size and then they want
to limit the benefits to that size or something, but that
doesn't necessarily always make sense.
Whatever you could do to help us try to get through that
and try to have a more effective response it will save the
taxpayers money.
Mr. Bramblett. Yes, absolutely. While I am not familiar
with that situation, we are more than happy to look at it and
provide information back to this Committee and others about
what limitations we have within the existing authorities we
have and then what kind of potential remediations there might
be associated with that.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. See, and I don't know if there
are some limitations on your authority that preclude you from
doing what needs to be done. If there is, maybe there is a way
we could legislatively do something to give you those
authorities, because it just seems like a wasted opportunity
and a waste of resources to not address it.
Mr. Bramblett. Right. Again, not being familiar with the
specific case, it could be a situation with how the watersheds
were set up also. There could be some reconfiguration of the
250,000 acres in order to be able to try to achieve the cost-
benefit. Maybe that has already been attempted. But if there
are other limitations, we are happy to look at that and provide
feedback to let you know.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Yes, that is one of the issues.
We did look at trying to make it larger. We had one of the most
successful projects we have out there, the North Ottawa
Project, which was a subject of a press opportunity last week.
That got funded with all state money because it didn't qualify.
And just what it is doing is phenomenal, not only from
surrounding area being eliminated from flooding, but the
wildlife that has benefited and everything else that goes on
with it. If we had 30, 40 of those North Ottawa Projects, they
wouldn't have to spend $2.5 billion trying to protect Fargo-
Moorhead, whatever you could do.
Mr. Bramblett. Okay. We look forward to seeing that
information and providing a response.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Bramblett, for being here.
Question: Under the current statute, have you had any
problems partnering with any watershed projects that could
benefit a community?
Mr. Bramblett. At this point, we, as I mentioned earlier,
operate off of a request for assistance. And so being voluntary
in nature, and having a backlog, that kind of demonstrates that
we really haven't had a problem trying to partner with
communities.
Now, there are times when we are working and making
information associated with P.L. 83-566 aware to potential
sponsors. And so because, as we mentioned earlier, this is a
collaboration of Federal and non-Federal resources, sometimes
local sponsors work for years with us to try to find the means
to put up the non-Federal resources.
But from the P.L. 83-566 side of the equation, it is a very
well-received program, and I would have to say we have not had
any challenges trying to find partners or working with partners
out there across the landscape.
Mr. Abraham. Would you recommend any policy changes, or are
there any policy changes that need to be implemented to help
streamline the program?
Mr. Bramblett. Right. Well, as I mentioned, we are always
looking for improvement on business practices associated with
how we deliver the program in a streamlined fashion. We talked
about new technology of materials for construction and the
like.
Nowadays, we can use LiDAR to do a lot of the improvements
in conservation planning associated with these projects.
From a policy perspective, that is the privilege of the
Committee, however the authorities come to us and the resources
that come along with those authorities. We will work to
implement those as efficiently and as best we can.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair turns to the gentlelady from New Hampshire for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Thank you for being with us.
I wanted to talk about what is going on in New Hampshire,
which is a reaction to the changes in our climate, which are
rather dramatic. It is close to 100 in New Hampshire today,
which, in my lifetime, is a rare occurrence, and we are in for
another long, hot summer.
Last summer we had a drought for our farmers. But a few
years back, just a couple years ago, I have one community in
Keene, New Hampshire, that had the 100 year flood 2 out of 3
years. I am definitely concerned about flooding, and I am
particularly concerned about the budget cuts that are coming
down from the White House.
I appreciate the Chairman bringing this topic to us. I
support the programs, but I understand you have a tremendous
backlog. And I want to have a discussion, if we could, about
how we are going to address the backlog, how we are going to
help our farmers and ranchers, and create these dams and
preserve our communities from floods, given the cuts that we
are facing in your budget and other budgets across the
Agriculture Department.
Mr. Bramblett. Thank you so much.
In 2015, Congress asked NRCS to develop a multiyear plan
for addressing some of these aging infrastructures, and we
basically delivered that report in December 2015. I mentioned
in my verbal testimony that we have identified some 2,000
structures that need roughly $7 billion of investment for
public safety concerns.
As a big part of that report back to Congress there were
roughly 220 projects needing more or less $1.4 billion of
investments. And so we have a prioritization mechanism in
place. We call it a risk index. And what that does is it looks
really at what is downstream of these structures as far as
hazard concerns, what is the shape of that valley like
downstream, how many people might be impacted, what other kind
of utilities and what other kind of infrastructure might be
impacted, and then what is the likelihood that the sponsors are
going to be able to and willing to participate with us on a
collaborative effort to try to address those issues.
Through that process, this is how we have identified and
lined projects up in such a fashion where we have those that
are in construction right now, followed by those that are in
the design phase, followed by those that are in the planning
phase.
In New Hampshire, we have one project basically for rehab
that is current, but we also have in that preplanning phase
that I mentioned earlier 18 watershed structures where we are
looking at those assessments downstream to try to get them into
that process so we can address those local concerns as quickly
as we can.
Ms. Kuster. If we have bipartisan support on this Committee
that we support these projects and want to go forward, how many
communities are going to be put at risk when your funding is
cut or you don't have sufficient funding?
I mean, that is 18 communities in my state that I would
rather protect.
Mr. Bramblett. Right.
Ms. Kuster. We have had loss of life from floods. We have
had tremendous damage to property. We have had whole towns
washed away.
If you talk to Vermont that had never had a hurricane until
Hurricane Irene came through, millions of dollars, whole towns
were cut off, no roads, no bridges getting to them. I mean,
this is serious and we need to take care of this. And meanwhile
the budget that comes forward is cut. I don't understand how we
are going to protect our constituents.
Mr. Bramblett. From an NRCS perspective, what we are doing
is trying to take advantage of this integrated approach. And,
again, that is the beauty of P.L. 83-566.
Outside of P.L. 83-566, and we talked about bringing on new
technology, there is a lot of science just in natural resource
management that has unfolded since we started this whole
process of watershed protection and flood prevention.
Some of you may have heard of our Soil Health campaign as
an example. Soil Health is a mechanism whereby we are working
with private landowners to increase the organic matter and the
viability of their soils.
Every one percent increase in organic matter holds an
additional 27,500 gallons of water. And when you start to
multiply that out across all of the acreage above some of these
watershed structures, that is a big deal.
And not only does it hold more water for drought times and
from a climate change perspective, but also when you have
floods there is more aggregate stability, more structure, there
is more infiltration. That also helps reduce flooding as well.
Those are just a couple of examples of complementary
activities that we have with that individual landowner delivery
system that I keep talking about, along with the integrated
capacity of the community delivery system under P.L. 83-566.
When we can work with individuals, we can make a lot of
progress and we can do a lot of good things. When we can work
with communities and individuals, we can do a lot more.
Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you.
My time is up. I thank the chair for having the hearing.
And I hope you will use your clout with the Appropriations
Committee to get the funding we need. Thank you.
The Chairman. I promise my colleague every day in every
way.
The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now turns to the gentleman from Mississippi for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
again, for holding this important meeting.
Thank you for being here.
Seven, 8 years ago, I didn't understand the value of
watersheds and backwater levees, and I thought the Corps of
Engineers just handled all the flooding things. It was in 2013
when we had the Mississippi River flood in Mississippi. And as
a serving guardsman, I got to go down there and was shocked to
find out that the majority of the things that we were depending
on to save our citizens from a massive flooding and the levees
and dams breaking, it was not the Corps of Engineers. It was
these watershed projects and these backwater levees and all
those things. I came to really value the importance of those
things.
That being said, that 2013 flood stressed those levees and
those backwater levees and watersheds to the point that there
is damage done. When you stress something to that degree, it is
imperative that we continue to reinvest in this program
because, as most people say, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. If we don't put the money on the front-end, we
will pay for property damage on the back-end.
So that being said, Mr. Bramblett, you note in your
testimony that NRCS strives to not only preserve resources, but
also to make the taxpayers get the most out of their
investment. How does the collaborative approach stretch dollars
farther?
Mr. Bramblett. Through this program, as well as a lot of
other programs, but as has been highlighted earlier here, we
provide Federal resources but only to a certain extent. Non-
Federal resources come into play.
That way, not only do collectively we as Federal taxpayers
have an investment in these resources, but those who are living
in the local community and realize those benefits also have
that investment. And the other thing about that, it is not just
that investment. They have that ownership, that sense of
achievement, that success, that appreciation, that social
capital.
Everything that goes with being part of a project like this
is realized as we are successful in constructing, completing,
averting flood damages, improving soil quality, improving water
quality, reducing soil erosion, increasing productivity. All of
those things just make all local communities feel much better.
In addition to that, when we do these projects, not only
are we trying to make sure that there is that balance of
Federal and non-Federal resources that come to bear for the
investment part of it, but we pursue, as Mr. Peterson was
talking about, a pretty rigorous cost-benefit analysis to make
sure that whatever Federal taxpayer benefits are being
invested, there is a greater return on that investment than
what is actually put forth.
And then, finally, I would just point out that as we are
talking about some of the risk associated with these aging
infrastructures, we have mentioned this before, but it bears
mentioning again, and that is making sure that as we have this
backlog right now those structures and those situations that
have the highest risk are the ones that we invest in first as
well.
Mr. Kelly. And I also think people don't realize, we are
all pretty parochial in Congress or seem to be, but it matters
what Illinois does with their watersheds even though I am way
down in Mississippi, and it matters what Arkansas does and what
Mississippi does when it applies to New Orleans, because all
those run to the same headwater which runs into those places.
Mr. Bramblett, with the recent appropriation for P.L. 83-
566, how quickly will local communities be able to move forward
on construction for rehab of new projects?
Mr. Bramblett. As I mentioned, we have 30 dams in
construction right now, 80 in the design phase. With the
allocation that we recently received, we expect to expend all
of those funds within 12 months. That just shows you, as the
process continues to unfold, we continue to work with local
sponsors.
I mentioned that they often are making critical risk
management decisions from a financial perspective, many times
in the face of uncertain budget circumstances. But it is pretty
amazing to watch them work with us, enjoy, understand,
appreciate the process and the partnership between the Federal
and the non-Federal resources, and continue to work to a point
where they can be ready to go in helping put conservation
practices on the ground, works of improvement, other community
construction activities as soon as resources become available.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bramblett, first of all, I appreciate the work that the
agency does. It does an outstanding job given the funds it has.
I just want to briefly go over a couple things.
When you had indicated $7 billion to address public safety,
that is just for the 2,000 structures that are at very high
risk. Is that right?
Mr. Bramblett. That is correct.
Mr. O'Halleran. And then you go onto, they include the
5,400 structures by the end of 2017 that are at risk also but
at a lower level. And then we have unmet needs in new
construction on top of that. The $7 billion is not the real
number. There is an extended number past that. What is that
number?
Mr. Bramblett. Well, it is a dynamic system, and the
dynamic system in that every year we have more dams come out of
life, or rather meet their 50 year age requirement. Others are
meeting their end of design life. And then we have others that
still maybe need to be addressed because of high public safety
concerns.
For example, when we originally built these 12,000
watershed structures, only 970 of them were built as high
hazard structures. But being from Arizona, you understand the
urban sprawl of Phoenix, me being from Georgia, I understand
the urban sprawl of Atlanta, and so what we had originally
planned to have only 970 high hazard dams, now we have over
2,000, almost 2,100 high hazard dams.
And any day of the week, in any structure of these 12,000
structures across the country, someone can put a mobile home
below that structure and make it a high hazard dam. The exact
figure is constantly changing.
The best answer I can give you with respect to where we are
today is the report that we gave in December 2015 regarding the
2,000 for $7 billion we have 220 projects that are on a higher
critical need for $1.4 billion.
Mr. O'Halleran. And I believe that partnerships are
important in this process, but it appears that the current
Administration and two previous Administrations have all
decided that the burden should fall mostly on local government
and local organizations and not the Federal Government,
although we built many of these structures.
And it helps us to improve, as the gentleman from Louisiana
indicated, clearly the entire downstream process that is going
on, whether it is Federal lands or private lands that are
downstream from these structures.
I have 12 Native American Tribes in my district. I have a
tremendous amount of rural communities. I represent about \1/2\
the State of Arizona as far as landmass. And so drought is a
major concern to everyone across my district and across the
state.
What changes would you like to see in the next farm bill or
the budgeting process also to prioritize and enhance drought
tolerance?
Mr. Bramblett. As I mentioned before, some of the policy
ramifications come from this Committee and others in Congress.
If you have proposals that you would like us to react to, we
are more than happy to look at those and give you some feedback
on how that might mesh with the existing statute, how we
deliver that particular program.
Some of the other activities, I know it is a different
animal out West when we are talking about soil health and range
as it is in the East versus highly managed cropland versus
landscape situations in the West. But the principles of P.L.
83-566 have been applicable across the board, whether it is
agricultural water management, rural water supply. Some of
those authorities that this program has to offer are there to
come to fruition.
The challenge that we constantly face is the fact that we
do have a backlog and local communities and sometimes these
more expensive projects without the Federal investment would
have a hard time making those improvements in and of
themselves.
Mr. O'Halleran. You would agree that the Federal investment
prior to this equation cannot be just passed off to the side,
that we don't have any skin in the game, we need to have skin
in the game to protect those Federal lands that are also at
risk.
Mr. Bramblett. It has been my experience in 20+ years of
doing watershed planning at this scale that there are some
communities that without that Federal investment would not be
able to install those works of improvement themselves.
And in many cases, where they have not been able to, there
are other Federal resources below that, such as Federal
highways, Federal interstates, and other Federal public lands
as well that could sustain damages if those works of
improvements are not realized.
Mr. O'Halleran. And then the only other difference that I
can see, and this is just the scale of size in the West as far
as the watersheds and even sub-watersheds in relationship to
the current statute.
Mr. Bramblett. And that is a really good point. I was in
Colorado last week, and the first thing they asked me, are you
amazed about how wide open it is? And yes, I am always amazed
every time I go West about how wide open it is.
Having said that, with the current authorities that we
have, we do continue to try to construct projects or
multifaceted projects, if you will, to address scaling issues,
like those identified by Mr. Peterson or maybe some of the
things that you are facing in Arizona.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now turns to the gentleman from California for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bramblett, welcome today. Again, I have a lot of
interest in this DamWatch Program that you are speaking to us
about here today. And I have it is not really related as a
Federal project, but I have the Oroville Dam, right. I can see
it from my front window, so to speak. It is monitoring the
levee infrastructure, all that, extremely important.
Obviously, a project like that being a state project or
Federal ones, I imagine they are using a lot of the technology
that you are talking about here that can be used more on a
district basis or a private basis where you have levees and
dams on that smaller scale.
Can you walk us through how the collected information is
used when you receive that to allocate efforts, resources after
some type of alert has come across, or even if there is not an
alert situation, just how that would integrate into a regular
maintenance schedule? How is that information applied? It is
through an app, right?
Mr. Bramblett. Right. I need to give you a little bit of
background information to fully answer your question. And we
talked a lot about public safety, and we have talked about the
need for capital and investments for upgrades and improvements.
That said, public safety can't be ignored. And so we
continue to work with local sponsors, even though these
structures are their responsibility, to try to help them
address public safety issues and concerns.
One of the ways we do that is each year for these high
hazard structures we go out with them and do an operation and
maintenance inspection. And as a result of that, if we identify
issues and concerns, we alert them to those.
In some cases, they have the resources to try to develop
the designs for remediation, in other cases they depend on us
to develop designs. In some cases, they have the resources to
address it, in other cases they don't. We are talking almost
12,000 structures here.
In addition to having that annual operation and maintenance
inspection, we also have on these high hazard structures
developed what we call emergency action plans. And this is part
of the assessment activity and some of this preplanning effort
that I talked about a little bit earlier.
What we do as a part of that process is we look downstream,
and, God forbid, should there be a dam failure, we identify
what that flood zone would be. We call it a breach zone. That
emergency action plan is meant to identify what structures are
in play, what utilities, what bridges, who the local emergency
management personnel happen to be, what their phone numbers
are, what their contacts are.
This DamWatch system basically is a means of collecting all
that information along with the original designs associated
with these structures, so that if there ever is a situation
that we can get to and address in a quick fashion, we know the
original design information. That helps us more efficiently
address any kind of catastrophic event that may be unfolding.
So far, we have been fortunate, even though we have had
even in 2016 these high hazard structures, and this highlights
the public safety issue, we have had these emergency spillways
or the portion of this dam that flows water before it overtops,
54 of those flowed in 2016. It is happening out there.
What happens with DamWatch basically is we utilize USGS'
alert system for stream gauges, for seismic activity. And we
have all this information that I just described in this
DamWatch system. What DamWatch then helps us do is it helps us
send out electronic automated alerts to those critical
personnel that are identified in this emergency action plan.
Depending on the simulated rainfall, we will take that as
the example, depending on the simulated rainfall, there is a
certain stage of triggering that goes to these individuals to
begin monitoring the situation. That is not just local
emergency management officials. That is state emergency
management officials as well as Federal emergency management
officials.
Mr. LaMalfa. That is all in real-time then as you----
Mr. Bramblett. That is all real-time information. And it is
for all of our watershed structures, 11,000 of our watershed
structures, 11,000 of our 12,000 watershed structures right
now.
Mr. LaMalfa. With the preplanning you talked about here,
what if you had a very severe situation or lesser ones, use the
preplan, and then as the data comes in what is actually
happening there, you keep track of what water levels are
looking like. Is this going to reach some kind of an alert
stage where you have to start planning for something maybe a
little worse?
Mr. Bramblett. Right. We are taking the next rainfall from
Doppler Radar. We know based off of the soil information our
agency has and land use what the runoff is going to be like. We
can simulate what the water levels are going to be in these
structures.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me ask, does it look different for an
emergency event than it does for this ongoing maintenance?
Mr. Bramblett. Well, the difference between ongoing
maintenance and this type of activity, the ongoing maintenance
basically is trying to make sure that there is no large-scale
vegetation that appears on the embankments, the earthen
embankments, that there is regular mowing, that if there are
routine maintenance activities associated with a trash rack
that collects trash before it goes into the riser, needs to be
replaced. Those are examples of regular type of ongoing
maintenance. This type activity is more of a monitoring for
public safety.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir. I better cut off there.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Would the gentleman yield for one moment before we dismiss
our witness.
The discussion we have had today about all the planning and
the organization that is going into these structures, the
maintenance and the emergency plans and everything, it is
coordinated. The success of this program is really quite
astounding, whether it would be a Federal Government program or
anyone else's. But part of the problem we have historically had
is, in a body where all the grease goes to the squeaky wheel,
this works so well it is hard to get people's attention about
maintaining and expanding the success. That is the difficult
part.
The gentleman yields back. I yield back.
The chair and the Ranking Member wish to thank the Deputy
Chief for a very thorough presentation today. And you are
dismissed, sir.
Mr. Bramblett. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. And with that, we would like to, when they
are ready, welcome the next panel of witnesses to the table.
While our witnesses are coming to the table, I would like
to begin the introduction. Mr. Jimmy Emmons, President of the
Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, from Leedey,
Oklahoma. We also have Kevin Burns, Wise County Commissioner
from Decatur, Texas. We have Mr. John Peterson, Director of the
Government Relations, Land Improvement Contractors of America,
from Burke, Virginia. And Mr. John Finney, President of the Red
River Management Board from Humboldt, Minnesota.
And with that, whenever you are ready, Mr. Emmons, you may
begin. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JIMMY EMMONS, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, LEEDEY, OK

Mr. Emmons. Good morning. My name is Jimmy Emmons. I want
to thank the Committee, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge,
for this opportunity today. It is a great honor, and I do not
take it lightly.
I am a farmer and rancher from Dewey County in western
Oklahoma. My wife Ginger and I farm 2,000 acres of farmland,
run cattle on about 7,000 acres of rangeland. The Emmons home
place has been in our family since 1926.
I am speaking to you this morning because I serve on the
District Conservation Board there in Dewey County, the local
sponsor of two watershed program projects, 22 dams, multiple
land treatment practices associated with these projects. I live
and farm around these projects as we speak.
There are more than 600 of these flood protection dams
within a 75 mile radius of my farm. I am very passionate about
stewardship and conservation as it relates to our soil and our
water resources.
It would be easy for me to testify about the rich history
of the watershed programs in part because western Oklahoma and
the watershed programs go way back. I can recount one story my
grandfather told me about a small drainage ditch he started on
our farm in 1934 that became a gash 40 wide and 50 deep in
one night.
That ditch turned out to be a warning sign that we still
talk about 83 years later known as the deadly Hammond Flood,
which killed 17. That piece of our history is just one of the
reasons that Oklahomans now have 2,107 watershed program dams
and countless conservation practices. The USDA Small Watershed
Program changed the face of western Oklahoma, and when it did,
it changed our future.
When I became a grandfather, it sharpened my thinking about
my future. My 4\1/2\ year old grandson now is my motivation to
speak up about the watershed programs. The program represents
an estimated $15 billion investment in conservation
infrastructure.
As a local project sponsor, it is essential that we are
good stewards of this investment. This requires a healthy
Federal, state, local partnership that brings administrative,
technical, and financial assistance to bear on matters relating
to the watershed programs infrastructure.
If you travel on the county roads in my area and state
highways, even Interstate 40, some portion of that road is
protected by a watershed programs dam.
The local economy is driven in part by grain, cattle, oil,
and natural gas that relies daily on this protection. The roads
and bridges that carry our children to and from school are
protected by these dams. Our schools, along with other key
elements in the community, are protected by these dams. The
partnership between NRCS and local sponsors is critical in
keeping this protection in place.
Nationally, in 2018--we have talked about this, this
morning--will be a milestone of the watershed programs where
nearly \1/2\ of the 11,840 dams will reach their engineered
expected life that were constructed by SCS and NRCS. We are
reaching a critical point this coming year.
While nine out of ten Oklahomans live and work within 20
miles of the watershed program dams, many of these folks are
unaware of the solace that they do. If we let this investment
in protection slip away it won't take long for them to be
affected. The watershed programs needs Congressional attention
if the future Americans want to enjoy the same safety,
protection, benefits, and productivity the watershed programs
presently delivers.
In 2000, Representative Lucas led the development of the
rehabilitation legislation that ensured our nation's investment
in the watershed programs had the opportunity to continue. The
legislation gave the Congress the ability to reinvest in these
structures. Congress has taken the right step in the direction
with local sponsors. Statewide partners have responded with O&M
dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and other
financial assistance.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the Congress, the
USDA, and NRCS full partnership in the watershed programs.
In closing, where I live, we have something we call farm
sense. Farm sense is a good thing. Some folks have it; some
folks don't. Farm sense would tell me, if I invested $750,000
in a tractor, tillage and seeding equipment, and refused to
grease that and safely operate that before it goes to the
field, knowing that that equipment would have a significant
capital investment that I put into it and still would not
protect it.
We have invested $15 billion into conservation
infrastructure. It is no different. Farm sense tells me that
Congress needs to reinvest in this important conservation
program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emmons follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jimmy Emmons, President, Oklahoma Association of
Conservation Districts, Leedey, OK
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Good morning, my name is Jimmy Emmons, I want to thank the
Committee, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Fudge for the opportunity
to speak to you today. It is an honor and an opportunity I do not take
lightly.
I am a farmer and rancher from Dewey County in western Oklahoma
where my wife Ginger and I farm 2,000 acres of cropland and run cattle
on 7,000 acres of rangeland. The Emmons home place has been in our
family since 1926. I'm speaking to you this morning because I serve on
the Dewey County Conservation District board.
We are local sponsors of two USDA watershed program projects
(Barnitz Creek and Quartermaster Creek Watersheds) and the 22 project
dams and the multiple land treatment practices associated with these
watershed projects. I live and farm in and around these projects. Six
of the 22 flood control dams in Dewey County are considered high hazard
dams with the threat of loss of life if the dams were to fail. The
Dewey County Conservation District with the assistance of NRCS has
currently rehabilitated four of these dams. (Barnitz Creek Watershed
Dams No. 1, 5, 11 and 14).
There are more than 600 of these flood protection dams within a 75
mile radius of my farm. I am also deeply involved and committed to soil
and water conservation issues at the local, state and national levels.
I am passionate about stewardship and conservation as it relates to our
soil and water resources. I also currently serve as President of the
Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Watershed Dam Rehabilitation is a critical component of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. NRCS and its local
sponsors are responsible for over 11,800 flood control structures
nationwide. This flood control and conservation related infrastructure
affects 2,000 watersheds and they represent nearly \1/3\ of all dams
ever built by the Federal Government. Every year this system saves an
estimated $2 billion through flood damage prevention. Another way to
view these benefits is by the number of people and communities who
benefit directly from watershed projects. The existing projects are
protecting over 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000 farms and
ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies. As a
result, over 48 million people across the United States benefit from
the watershed program every year.
Many dams today are in a far different setting than when they were
constructed. Population has increased; residential and commercial
development has occurred upstream and downstream from the dams; land
uses have changed; sediment pools have filled; and concrete and metal
components have deteriorated. Many of these dams do not meet current
state dam safety regulations that have been enacted and revised with
more stringent requirements than when the dams were built. In addition,
many of these structures built by NRCS had a design life of only 50
years. Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940's to the
early 1970's, many of these dams are now past their design life and are
in need of rehabilitation.
Chances are as you travel in my area whether on county roads, State
Highways or Interstate 40 some portion of the road you travel receives
flood protection from an upstream USDA Small Watershed Program Flood
Control dam. The local economy that is driven in part by grain, cattle,
oil and natural gas relies daily on this protection. The roads and
bridges that carry our children to and from school are protected. In
several cases the school itself along with other key elements of
community are protected. Just as it is across much of the nation, the
water that these flood control lakes collect is also essential to our
economy and quality of life in western Oklahoma.
Many of our most productive farms and our healthiest soils are
located in these protected watersheds. There are many less obvious
benefits that come in the form of the prosperity and opportunity made
possible by these projects. The partnership between USDA and local
sponsors that brought us this protection is extremely important in
keeping it in place. CY 2018 will be a milestone year for the watershed
program when more than 50% of the 11,840 dams engineered and
constructed by SCS/NRCS will have exceeded their original evaluated
life.
Nine out of ten Oklahomans live or work within 20 miles of a
watershed program dam. These folks may be unaware of the watershed
program, but if we let this investment in protection slip away it won't
take long for them to be affected. I'm sure a similar statement could
be made for our neighboring states. The watershed program needs
Congressional attention if current and future Americans are to enjoy
the same safety, protection, benefits, and productivity the watershed
program has given us. Rehabilitation is necessary to ensure dams
continue to protect lives, businesses and homes. Failure to provide
rehabilitation of these dams could result in dam breaches which would
have catastrophic consequences. The flooding crisis and potential
failure of the Oroville Dam in California this past February
illustrates the need for infrastructure operation, maintenance and
repair of dams. While Oroville Dam is not an NRCS dam its does show
what could happen when dams are not properly repaired or maintained.
In 2000, Mr. Lucas led the development of rehabilitation
legislation that ensured the nation's investment in the watershed
program had the opportunity to continue into the future. Under the Dam
Rehabilitation Program, dams are selected for rehabilitation through a
competitive grant process and Federal are funds are limited to 65% of a
project's cost. This commitment from state and local partners is
necessary to ensure that sponsors are fully committed to a project.
This legislation gave us the pathway and the procedure for
reinvestment.
As the significantly invested local sponsors of watershed projects,
state and local partners have felt that we have suffered from an
inadequately funded Federal partner for much of the past decade. In my
opinion, Congress has taken a step in the right direction by wisely
investing through the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2017 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. Local sponsors and state watershed program
partners have responded with O&M dollars, rehabilitation matching
funds, technical and financial assistance. I cannot over emphasize the
importance of Congress and the USDA-NRCS as full partners in the
watershed program. We hope these recent investments are a signal to
USDA about the importance of these programs.
It would be easy for me to spend my time before you this morning
talking about the rich history of the watershed program in my part of
the world because western Oklahoma and the watershed program go way
back. I could recount the story my grandfather shared about a small
drainage ditch across our farm that in 1934 became a gash in the
landscape 40 wide and 25 deep literally overnight. Folks in the area
still talk about the deadly Hammon Flood that killed 17 Oklahomans.
That flood, that piece of our history, is just one of the reasons that
Oklahoma is now covered with 2,107 watershed program dams and countless
conservation practices. The USDA Small Watershed Program changed the
face of western Oklahoma and when it did . . . it also changed our
future.
When I became a grandfather it sure sharpened my thinking about the
future. My 4\1/2\ year old grandson, a budding farmer and rancher in
his own right, is my motivation to talk to you about the present and
the future as it relates to the benefits the watershed program
continues to bring to our nation. The program represents an estimated
$15 billion investment in conservation infrastructure. As responsible
citizens and local project sponsors, it is essential that we are good
stewards of this previous investment. This requires a robust Federal,
state and local partnership that brings administrative, technical and
financial assistance to bear on matters relating to this infrastructure
created by the watershed program. From routine operation, maintenance
and repairs to full-fledged dam rehabilitation each of the partners has
an important and specific role.
In closing, where I live there's something we call ``Farm Sense''.
Farm sense is a good thing. Some folks have it, some don't. A day or 2
on the farm quickly reveals who has a good measure of farm sense. A
person with farm sense wouldn't invest $750,000 in a new tractor and
tillage equipment and then refuse to grease the equipment every time it
goes to the field, fail to change belts, hoses, filters and fluids
regularly or leave it parked outside where the tires can dry rot in the
sun and the mice and packrats can devour the wiring. Knowing they
depend on that equipment and have lots of capital tied up in it they
would take care of it and do everything they could to hold its value
and protect the investment. A $15 billion investment in conservation
infrastructure is no different. Farm sense tells us its time for the
partnership to reinvest.
As the Subcommittee moves toward the next farm bill and the 2018
budget bill comes into focus I encourage you to support and provide
adequate funding for new watershed projects and for the rehabilitation
of aging watershed dams. Thank you.
Attachment
Flood Control Dams in Dewey County
Oklahoma has 2,107 flood control dams in 61 counties. These dams
have been constructed through local watershed project sponsors with
financial and technical assistance from the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) authorized through Public Law 78-534
(Washita River Watershed) and Public Law 83-566 Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Program. Twenty-two of these dams are in Dewey
County.
The primary purpose of flood control dams is to reduce flooding.
The secondary benefits of the dams address a myriad of public needs
such as water supply, water quality, soil health, water management,
wetland enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. Flood
control dams improve public safety, contribute to a healthy economy and
support a strong nation.
Watershed projects also include the installation of natural
resource conservation practices such as terraces, waterways, ponds,
gully repair, and pasture and rangeland plantings. These conservation
practices improve water quality and soil health and reduce
sedimentation into the lakes formed by the dams.
Operation and Maintenance of Dams
The annual operation and maintenance of dams is the responsibility
of project sponsors (local units of governments such as conservation
districts).
Operation is the administrative and management activities necessary
to ensure the dams function as designed and remain safe. Operation work
includes annual dam inspections and inspection immediately following
heavy rains.
Maintenance work includes removing trees from dams and spillways,
repairing erosion damage, repairing damage to the spillway and dams
after heavy rainstorms, and keeping the principal spillway inlet towers
cleared of debris.
Operation and Maintenance Needs
Operation and maintenance of dams can be expensive and labor
intensive. $4 million is needed to operate and maintain all 2,107 flood
control each year. Only through continued investment in operation and
maintenance will future generations enjoy the promise of safety these
dams offer.
Annual Benefits
The 2,107 flood control dams and conservation practices in
watershed projects provide $91 million in average annual benefits. The
table on the back of this page lists the annual benefits provided by
watershed projects in Dewey County.

Rehabilitation and Dam Safety
As dams age some will need rehabilitation to remain safe and
protect the people that live or work downstream.
At the conclusion of 2016, 260 flood control dams in the state have
been classified as high hazard. Of these 115 do not meet current state
or federal safety criteria. Approximately $300 million is needed to
upgrade the 115 dams.
Six of the 22 dams in Dewey County are classified as high hazard
and have the potential for loss of life if they should fail.
The number of high hazard dams will continue to increase as long as
residential and business development is allowed downstream of the dam
in the breach flood area.
NRCS can provide 65 percent of the rehabilitation costs and
technical assistance to rehabilitate high hazard dams. Local project
sponsors provide 35 percent of the cost and obtain any needed
additional land rights.
As of December 2016 thirty-five dams in the state have been
rehabilitated and 18 others are in various stages of planning, design
or construction.

Average Annual Watershed Benefits (Entire Watershed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands Reduced
Watershed Name Dams in Dams in Dewey Monetary Benefits Farms/Ranches Bridges Enhanced/ Sedimentation (tons
Watershed County * Benefited Benefited Created (acres) of soil)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnitz Creek 76 20 $716,340 225 25 1,734 520,184
Quartermaster Creek 36 2 $666,760 134 19 743 154,228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................. 112 22 $1,383,100 359 44 2,477 674,412
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monetary benefits include reduction in flood damages to crops, roads, bridges, fences, etc., and may include other benefits such as irrigation,
municipal and industrial water supply and recreation.

Conservation Districts are a primary sponsor of most watershed
projects in Oklahoma. Listed below is the conservation district located
in Dewey County that has watershed projects and other conservation
agencies that can be contacted for more information about the watershed
program.

Dewey County Conservation District,*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This Publication is issued by the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission as authorized by 65 O.S. 2001 3-110.
Copies have not been printed but are available on the agency
website. January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
306 S. Broadway,
Taloga, OK
deweyccd@conservation.ok.gov

The Oklahoma Conservation Commission is the lead state agency for
upstream flood control programs and provides assistance and guidance to
conservation districts.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the
Federal agency that administers the watershed program and provides
technical and financial assistance to the local project sponsors.

Oklahoma Conservation Commission,
2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Suite 160,
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4210
(405) 521-2384
Web Page: http://www.ok.gov/conservation
Twitter: https://twitter.com/conservation_ok
Facebook: https://facebook.com/conservationok

Natural Resources Conservation Service,
100 USDA, Suite 206,
Stillwater, OK. 74074-2655
(405) 742-1204

The Chairman. Words well spoken, Mr. Emmons. And the
gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the Honorable Kevin Burns for 5
minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BURNS, COMMISSIONER, WISE COUNTY,
TEXAS, DECATUR, TX

Mr. Burns. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and other
Members, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak
today. I am Kevin Burns from Decatur, Texas. I have been
serving the citizens of Wise County for 15 years as County
Commissioner. I have been a teacher, a volunteer fireman,
small-business owner, small rancher. And I still raise some
cattle and hay crops in a small way in Wise County.
I am the past chair of the National Watershed Coalition. It
supports watershed sponsors with training through conferences,
materials, and then some boots-on-the-ground, hands-on training
in operation and maintenance in cooperation with NRCS, and I
have enjoyed that opportunity.
My written testimony contains some national facts and
figures about the benefits of the watershed programs, but what
I really want to share with you today is, and why I traveled
here, is just to talk about what happens on a daily basis in my
experiences in Wise County and what it means to us.
Wise County has 108 flood control structures in our little
900\2\ mile county. We have 85 dams that normally contain a
pool of water, and I learned today that that the slow release
was 10 days. I didn't know that until today. I just knew that
they worked very well. We have 23 grade stabilization
structures that are just small levees with V-cuts to either
slow or direct the flow of water.
I was lucky enough when I ran for Commissioner that the
late former Wise County Judge Charles Wilhite came see me. This
old family friend can to me with a little different attitude.
He wanted to give me a little education, telling me that at the
time we had 80 dams in the county. He also told me about a
regional multi-state drought that we had between 1950 and 1957.
Our economy in Wise County was mostly agricultural based,
so most of the folks had to move into the city to get a job.
Our economy was terrible. What little commerce was going on in
the county was killed overnight, or almost overnight, by
rainfall in 1957. It rained 24". It washed out 85 bridges in
the county. What little was going on came to a halt. That was
catastrophic.
The county had yet to invest anything locally in P.L. 83-
566. The problem was solvable, and they had chose, because of
budget, not to invest. It was in our best interest, obviously,
at the time, that we needed to start investing. In 1961 we
completed our first project and went on from there. We are well
protected now.
A major part of my responsibilities is roads. We have 990
miles in our county. I maintain 340 of them in my precinct.
Forty-six of those flood control structures are in my precinct
because of the highly erodible soils and the change of
elevation. They are near and dear to my heart.
The importance of those dams was exemplified in 2015, in
the spring. Our yearly average rainfall fell in the month of
May that year. We had nine washouts in my precinct.
Now, realize the difference here: 85 bridges washed out in
1957, and now just nine small washouts. And those nine small
washouts were in areas unprotected by P.L. 83-566 dams. They
are incredibly effective.
I have heard arguments that these P.L. 83-566 dollars, it
needs to be a local investment and not a national investment.
But we do put skin in the game. We put in conservation
practices above these dams. We get the right-of-ways. And it is
just not local benefits. Those benefits go downstream. There
are areas outside of our county, other counties. And the lakes
that are formed provide recreational opportunities, and two
major lakes downstream from my county provide the water
supplies for the City of Fort Worth and surrounding Tarrant
County.
The NRCS district really needs to plan and do some new
projects. We have several deficiencies in my county. My story
of this program benefiting my county is one of thousands across
the nation. I appreciate you letting me share it with you. As
you move forward in the 2018 Farm Bill, I encourage you to
provide adequate funding for this program. It is much needed.
And thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin Burns, Commissioner, Wise County,
Texas, Decatur, TX
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

4I'm Kevin Burns from Decatur, Texas. First, thank you all for the
opportunity to speak today. I've had the privilege of serving the
citizens of Wise County almost 15 years as County Commissioner. I've
been a teacher, a volunteer fireman, small business owner, and small
rancher prior to running for local office.
I serve the State of Texas on the Board of Directors for the
conference of urban counties. Wise County is not considered an urban
county having only about 70,000 people in 900\2\ miles, but our growth
rate and proximity to the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex qualify us to join
that group. I'm a past chair of the National Watershed Coalition, which
supports Watershed sponsors with training through regional conferences,
hands on training, and resource materials.
I still raise cattle and hay crops in rural Wise County near
Decatur, TX. I've never thought of myself as a conservationist, but I
was taught to maintain land that I owned or leased and to be conscious
that the practices we do on the land affects its productivity in the
future. That stewardship of our nation's resources is one of the things
I wish to talk to you about today.
While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be
better known for providing a financial safety net for farmers and
ranchers, USDA also provides an actual safety net for our rural
communities. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program (watershed
program) is a vital, but often overlooked, infrastructure program
within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) portfolio.
The watershed program authorizes NRCS to work with local units of
government, like conservation districts and city/county governments, to
install watershed protection and improvement projects that provide
communities with flood prevention, agriculture water management,
municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement, as well as public recreation development.
These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while
conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The
watershed program focuses on both the design and construction of
structural water control measures and on land treatment measures.
Watershed planning provides a basis for partnering at state and local
levels to identify and co-invest in projects reflecting the highest
priority needs.
Flood prevention and reliable water quality created by the
watershed program are essential to developing and maintaining strong
rural communities. Watershed projects not only protect lives, property
and reduce flood damages, but also create economic growth and
strengthen local economies. Flood protection is essential to prevent
the unnecessary loss of infrastructure and capital to developing
economies in rural America.
Investing in the watershed program expands opportunities for
natural resource conservation and provides important national economic
and environmental dividends for all Americans. There are countless
successful examples that verify the value the watershed program brings
to rural areas in the form of water supply, recreation, flood
protection, and sustainable economic development. Watershed program
projects are an economic engine that make participating communities
more productive places to live, work and play.
More than 11,800 flood control structures have been constructed in
2,000 watersheds nationwide and they represent nearly \1/3\ of all dams
ever built by the Federal Government. Every project requires that a
portion of the watershed must be covered with installed best management
conservation practices. Every year this system of flood control lakes
and conservation measures protects over 47 million Americans and saves
an estimated $2 billion through flood damage reduction.
In a recent report to Congress,\1\ NRCS estimates that this
program, by avoiding and reducing flood damages, annually provides more
than $352 million in benefits to agriculture and more than $462 million
in benefits to non-agricultural uses, such as roads, bridges, and
homes. Other benefits, such as erosion control, water conservation,
water quality improvement and irrigation efficiency, exceed $441
million on agricultural lands and over $957 million in recreation, fish
and wildlife, rural water supply, and municipal and industrial water
supply, annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report to Congress, USDA-NRCS, Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Program Multi-Year Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The watershed program also plays an important role in protecting
resources vital to the agricultural economy as well. Agricultural water
management includes measures that help to manage water supply for
agriculture and rural communities. Measures include drainage water
management, ground water recharge, irrigation management, water
conservation, water quality improvement, and rural water supply.
The watershed program is federally-assisted, but locally planned
and implemented. Local project sponsors use local resources to maintain
constructed project measures which contribute directly to a stronger
national economy and a responsible national environmental future.
Wise County has 108 flood control structures built under authority
of Public Law 83-566 established by the United States Congress in the
mid 1950s. We have 85 dams that normally contain a small pool of water
and a larger pool with a slow controlled release during flood
conditions. We have 23 grade stabilization structures that merely
retard or direct water flow. These dams protect our county roadways
which is a major portion of my responsibility as County Commissioner.
My county has 990 miles of road. I am responsible for the maintenance
of 340 miles in Precinct 2. Forty-six of those 108 dams are in my
Precinct.
I was lucky enough to be visited by the late former Wise County
Judge Charles Wilhite during my first campaign. Judge Wilhite stressed
the importance of the P.L. 83-566 program and gave me a short local
history lesson that I would like to share with you. There was a
regional/multi state drought from 1950 to 1957 that brought
considerable hardship to our region. Our local economy was mostly
agriculture based. It was tough to make a living, so a large portion of
population moved from the area to find jobs in the city. That drought
was relieved almost overnight in a flood in 1957.
What little commerce going on in the county was further hindered
due to that 24" rainfall over a weekend in 1957 that washed out 85
bridges in my county alone. Even though the population had dwindled and
revenues were low, the commissioner's court, the Wise County Water
Control and Improvement District, and the Wise County Soil and Water
Conservation District started investing local match funds and
participating in the P.L. 83-566 programs, with our first project
completed in 1961.
I am fortunate to live in an area in which there continues to be
cooperation between those and other entities to maintain our flood
control dams. The importance of those dams was exemplified in the
flooding in my county in the spring of 2015. We received more than our
yearly average of rainfall in the month of May that year. We had a 14"
rainfall in one afternoon in a small area of Precinct 2 and only had
nine road washouts that made roads impassable. Please note the
difference here; we had nine spots that were impassable opposed to the
85 bridges that were washed out prior to the dams being built. All of
those washouts were in watersheds not yet protected by P.L. 83-566
projects. All roads were passable in Precinct 2 in the drainage
protected by P.L. 83-566 dams.
I've heard arguments against funding the P.L. 83-566 program that
claim that it should be funded with local dollars. Local project
sponsors do provide their share of the cost of projects in providing
easements, right of ways, the cost of installing conservation
practices, cost of working with landowners and more. But the benefits
of these projects are not all local. These projects provide benefits
many miles downstream often in other counties or even other states.
These projects provide not just local benefits, but state and national
benefits. Many of the lakes formed by flood control dams provide
recreational areas, water supplies and hunting and fishing
opportunities that are utilized by people from many miles away.
Another benefit of the watershed program is the enhancement of
water quality in urban areas. We recently developed a relationship with
the Tarrant Regional Water District to help us maintain our dams and
install conservation practices. The water district serves an area
downstream from the watershed projects in Wise County that includes the
majority of the population in Congressional District 12 and a small
portion in District 13. Watershed projects and conservation practices
in Wise County help protect both water quantity and quality in two
major lakes downstream managed by the water district. These lakes
provide water supplies for the City of Fort Worth and other areas of
Tarrant County.
My passion for the program was cultivated when first taking office
by former Commissioner's Court members and conservation district
members that lived through the floods in 1957, but now it is reinforced
by the demonstrated benefits during my term in office. There are
opportunities to provide benefits to many more citizens in this country
through the P.L. 83-566 program.
The recently passed FY 2017 Appropriations bill acknowledges the
need for this important infrastructure program and appropriated $150
million for Watershed Operations. We thank Congress for that support.
As Members of Congress, you are key partners in extending the benefits
of the watershed program. Your support for the program is vital. Thank
you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, LAND IMPROVEMENT
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, BURKE, VA

Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
am representing the Land Improvement Contractors of America
today, and it is our contractors that have installed many of
these watershed dams throughout our nation.
In my previous years with the Soil Conservation Service I
also have planned projects, designed dams, constructed dams as
a project engineer, and directed the watershed programs
nationally. While serving as the Executive Director of the
National Watershed Coalition, I worked with Chairman Lucas as
he championed the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act.
I am now also Chairman of the Northern Virginia Soil and
Water Conservation District, and we have a watershed project in
our district that has had four dams rehabilitated.
There are about 2,100 watershed projects in the United
States covering 145 million acres of projects in every state;
11,845 dams have been constructed. The total average annual
benefits is nearly $2.3 billion.
Conservation practices are a vital part of each of these
projects. They also increase the service life of the dams by
reducing sediment accumulation. There are watershed dams in 218
Congressional districts. The watershed as the logical unit for
dealing with natural resource problems has long been
recognized.
In 1993, record flooding occurred across the Midwest, 50
deaths occurred, and damages approached $15 billion. I also
managed the emergency watershed programs then and was involved
in that disaster recovery.
After the floods passed, Iowa looked at their watershed
projects and the flood damage reports in four of their
counties, and the result was graphic. The areas that had
watershed projects installed requested far less disaster
assistance.
A program evaluation also demonstrated that the actual
benefits of costs in these projects was about 2.2:1, and the
studies showed that more benefits were obtained than had been
originally claimed. The actual adjusted economic benefits
exceeded those planned by 34 percent. And those numbers are
low, because many of these projects have exceeded their
evaluation life, and the benefits continue long after.
When properly maintained, these dams will provide benefits
indefinitely. In addition, there is more infrastructure
protected today than there was when the projects were planned.
Chairman Lucas' Oklahoma has been a leader in these
watershed projects. Oklahoma has 129 projects in 64 counties.
These projects contain 2,107 dams and provide Oklahomans with
$91.5 million in average annual benefits. Ranking Member
Fudge's Ohio has 27 watershed projects covering over 1.8
million acres; 77 dams have been built.
Ohio also has many nonstructural watershed projects
underway. Twenty-four of Ohio's 77 dams are high hazard, and
some need to be rehabilitated to meet current dam safety
standards.
I am also very proud of my own watershed Pohick project
just across the Potomac River. This was the first project
planned in the United States where the watershed was being
converted totally from rural to urban use. All the dams are
planned as high-hazard structures, and the project also
developed new guidelines for erosion and sediment control in
urban areas.
The Pohick project is operated and maintained by Fairfax
County, and I would invite your Subcommittee Members to come
over across the river sometime and visit us. We will give you a
tour, and you would be very impressed.
So why should the Federal Government be involved with these
watershed programs? Well, they are not federally owned but
federally assisted and locally owned. They are locally
initiated. They consider environmental values. They address the
needs of low-income and minority communities. And best of all,
they are programs people actually like.
Local conservation districts, the NRCS, and state
conservation agencies combine to make a very effective delivery
system for providing technical assistance to people. But that
delivery system is currently strained.
A healthy Federal partner is critical to this partnership.
A delivery system is in place, but by continually downsizing
NRCS, we are eroding the most effective and efficient means of
working with people that has ever been developed anywhere.
This system and its ability to produce food and fiber is
the envy of the entire world. In my view, these watershed
infrastructure programs are national priorities.
Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue recently wrote,
``According to a new Chamber poll, fully 70 percent of
Americans want the Federal Government to invest in
infrastructure.'' Our watershed project infrastructure should
be a major part of that investment.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

Prepared Statement of John W. Peterson, Director of Government
Relations, Land Improvement Contractors of America, Burke, VA
Opening
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John W. Peterson
from Burke, VA, and I am honored to be asked to testify on the value
and benefits of USDA's Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(P.L. 83-566), the Flood Control Act (P.L. 78-534), and the Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-472), representing The Land
Improvement Contractors of America (LICA). LICA Member contractors have
constructed many of our nation's flood control dams, and helped install
most of the other conservation practices on our farms and ranches. I
present this testimony in support of what I consider the most
beneficial water resource conservation infrastructure programs ever
developed in the United States. LICA understands full well the need to
use our tax dollars wisely. That makes the work of your Subcommittee
very important. It also makes it imperative that the Federal programs
we have are those that provide real benefit to society, and are not
programs that would be nice to have if funds were unlimited. LICA
believes these watershed programs are examples of those rare programs
that address our nation's vital natural resources infrastructure, do so
in a way that provide benefits in excess of costs, and are programs
that serve as models for the way all Federal programs should work.
I will admit my bias in support of these beneficial programs. In my
40 years with the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS), called the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) since 1994, I have
planned watershed projects in MN, OH, IN, and AZ; designed watershed
dams in MN, OH and IN, constructed watershed dams as a project engineer
in MN, and directed the watershed program nationally for USDA in
Washington, D.C. After retiring from USDA, and while serving as the
Executive Director of the National Watershed Coalition (NWC), I worked
with Oklahoma Representatives Lucas and Watkins, and the late Senator
Paul Coverdell (GA) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR), as Chairman Lucas
championed the passage the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of
2000, P.L. 106-472. A good friend, Dr. Dan Sebert from Pawnee, OK,
replaced me as the NWC Executive Director. He and the NWC are extremely
good watershed program references. Coming full-cycle, I am also now the
Chairman of the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District
(NVSWCD). Our District is the cosponsor of the Pohick Watershed
Project, along with Fairfax County. Four of our Pohick Watershed's six
flood-control structures have been rehabilitated in recent years, some
with assistance from the Rehabilitation Act. I believe my watershed
program experience has given me a perspective that I hope is helpful to
you.
General Watershed Program Observations
There are about 2,100 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
assisted watershed projects in the Unites States, covering 145 million
acres, with projects in every state. In 1,271 of these projects, 11,845
flood control (or floodwater retarding) dams have been constructed by
local watershed sponsors with NRCS assistance. In most cases, a local
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) is one of the local
sponsors. In some cases, they are assisted by other cosponsors such as
watershed districts or county government. The total average annual
monetary benefits these projects produce is $2,257,132,064 (2016
dollars). Nearly $2.3 billion. That is very significant! I have
attached a listing of the number of watershed dams located in each
state as attachment. In addition, over 282,000 acres of wetlands and
over 9 million acres of upland wildlife habitat has been created or
enhanced by watershed projects. Conservation practices that improve
water quality are a vital part of all watershed projects. Practices
such as terraces, waterways, grass buffers, strip cropping, and grade
stabilization structures, are used to prevent soil erosion and reduce
sediment. They also increase the service life of dams and their ability
to provide flood damage reduction. There are watershed project dams in
218 Congressional Districts across the nation.
Note that I called these flood control dams floodwater retarding
dams. I am sure you all remember the Great Midwest Flood of 1993. From
May through September of 1993 record flooding occurred across ND, SD,
NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, WI and IL. 50 deaths occurred and damages
approached $15 billion. I also managed USDA Emergency Watershed Program
then, and was involved in USDA's disaster assistance to the damaged
areas. This flood wasn't caused by a single rainfall event, but was
more of a prolonged hydro-meteorological event. The rains came to the
area, stalled, and stayed for months. One thing that flood event taught
me is that we humans don't really control floods. We are very good at
reducing flood damages, but we do not control floods. Since then I have
referred to these watershed dams as floodwater retarding dams, not
flood control dams.
However, the Great Midwest Flood also proved the many benefits of
the watershed programs. After the floods passed, my SCS colleagues in
IA, one of the states effected, looked at watershed projects and 1993
flood damage reports in four Iowa Counties, Crawford, Union, Mills, and
Decatur. The result was graphic. The areas that had watershed projects
installed requested far less disaster assistance.\1\ Roger Schnoor, who
at that time was the President of the Iowa Watersheds organization (now
disbanded) said ``These watershed projects stood out like protected
islands in a sea of damage.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An Iowa NRCS PDF showing Crawford, Union, Mills and Decatur
Counties entitled ``Watershed Projects and 1993 Flood Damage Reports in
Four Iowa Counties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just one of several such evaluations that occur across the
country that have demonstrated that watershed projects significantly
reduce the need for emergency recovery following major floods.
The USDA assisted watershed programs address multiple natural
resource objectives. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage
reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control), water
quality improvement, rural water supply, water conservation, fish and
wildlife habitat improvement, recreation, irrigation, water management,
groundwater recharge, etc. That is flexibility emphasizing multiple
uses.
People should understand these Federal watershed program funds are
only a part of the total that is committed to this vital national,
conservation purpose. The local project sponsors in these ``federally
assisted'' endeavors also have a tremendous investment. As a minimum,
they provide all the land, easements, and rights-of-way costs for
construction of the structures, as well as being responsible for 100%
of the operation and maintenance costs for the life of the structure.
Congress increasingly talks of wanting to fund those investments in our
nation's infrastructure that will sustain us in the future. Water
quality and watershed infrastructure management provide that
sustainability, and should be a national priority.
My colleagues on this panel have done an excellent job of telling
you about the programs themselves. I will concentrate on what these
projects have done, their benefits. And those benefits are very
substantial.
I will start by mentioning the results of a complete watershed
program evaluation. The most current program evaluation I know of,\2\
demonstrated the actual ratio of benefits to costs in all those
projects completed as planned, was approximately 2.2:1. And the study
showed that more benefits were obtained from these projects than had
been originally claimed. The actual adjusted economic benefits exceeded
the planned benefits by 34%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Evaluation of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program, USDA-SCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The watershed projects produce $2,257,000,000 in average annual
benefits (2016 dollars). And those benefits are low because many of
these projects have exceeded their ``evaluation life'' (the economic
evaluation that calculates when the anticipated benefits will have
repaid the projects costs), and when properly maintained, repaired, and
failing components replaced, those dams will continue providing
benefits indefinitely. In addition, there is considerably more
infrastructure being protected by these projects today than when they
were first planned. Properly maintained, our U.S. watershed program
dams will serve us far longer than their economic evaluated life. And I
would add that 2018 is a milestone year in the watershed program as
more than 50% of the projects dams will have exceeded their evaluated
life, and their benefits continue.
The evaluation also mentioned that the projects provided a wide
range of social benefits, benefits that enhance the quality of people's
lives. Many of these benefits are not included in the calculation of
monetary effects because of the difficulty in assigning monetary
values. Yet these social benefits cannot be ignored simply because
quantification is difficult. Some of these societal benefits are
reducing;

the threat of loss of life.

health hazards such as insect breeding pools, sewage
overflows, and chronic wet conditions that are particularly
hazardous to the elderly and children.

significant risk and inconvenience associated with damage to
roads and bridges.

disruption of necessary services such as police and fire
protection, and the need for emergency equipment.

pollution of drinking water.

pollution of water used for water-based recreation.

interruptions of utilities.

What if other Federal programs did so well? Recent budget proposals
to limit funding for the Watershed Operations and Watershed
Rehabilitation Programs which help communities improve water quality,
control erosion, reduce flood damages, protect people's lives, and
improve local infrastructure, is short sighted. There are also
proposals to reduce funding for USDA's Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA) Program, the very lifeblood of voluntary conservation
in the United States. These proposals would eliminate programs that
produce net benefits to society as a whole. That simply makes no sense.
We in the conservation community should talk more about how these
programs benefit all of society, not just in rural areas, but
everywhere.
One other national benefit worth mentioning is the availability of
DamWatch, a new web-based application that provides real-time
monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, stream flow, and seismic events that
could pose potential threats to dam safety. It will help watershed
project sponsors monitor and manage dams so they can better prevent and
protect against hazardous, costly and potentially catastrophic events.
Project Benefits in Select States
Chairman Lucas's Oklahoma has long been a leader in these watershed
programs. OK has 129 watershed projects in 64 counties. These projects
contain 2107 flood damage reduction dams, and provide Oklahoman's with
$91.5 million in average annual monetary benefits. And Chairman Lucas's
3rd Congressional District has 1,040 dams providing his district with
$34.5 million in average annual monetary benefits. Oklahoma is probably
the best state in having good watershed historical information. Much of
that is due to the work of a good friend Larry Caldwell, P.E. (NRCS
Retired), who has personally kept that information current. He also
keeps national information current.
Ranking Member Fudge's Ohio has also been active. There are 27
watershed projects in Ohio covering over 1.8 million acres. To date 77
floodwater retarding dams have been built. Ohio also has a number of
non-structural watershed projects underway. Twenty-four of Ohio's 77
dams are classified as high hazard, and some do need to be
rehabilitated to meet current dam safety standards. The current cost
estimate for upgrading all Ohio's watershed dams to meet Ohio Dam Law
is $6.3 million.
In my own Commonwealth of Virginia, NRCS has assisted sponsors with
construction of 109 single-purpose flood control dams and 41 multiple-
purpose structures. Dams have been installed in 35 watersheds within 27
counties across Virginia at an original cost of over $151 million. Over
time, the recreational benefits have exceeded the levels expected
during the planning process for many of the sites that were built. Of
the 41 multiple-purpose structures, 25 were built with recreation as a
purpose. Of those, 11 have public access recreational facilities. Ten
of the 15 structures built with water supply as the only secondary
purpose also have public recreation. The big surprise was that 16 of
the single-purpose flood control dams also have public recreation
facilities. Together, 25% of the dams have public access recreation.
Fishing, boating, camping, hiking, and bird watching are just a few of
the recreational benefits. From the social perspective, the dams have
become part of the fabric of the community. In several places, there
are lake-based events that bring tourism into the county. All of these
activities bring value to the community that is measured not only in
the associated economics, but in giving an appreciation of nature,
improving physical and mental health, and contributing to the quality
of life. NRCS can be proud of the way that the people have made these
reservoirs a part of their daily lives. In addition to flood damage
reduction, 15 of these structures provide community water supply and 37
are used for public recreation. Between 2005 and 2016, NRCS also helped
communities rehabilitate ten of those dams at a total project cost of
over $22.3 million.
A Very Unique Project, Pohick Watershed, Fairfax County, VA
I am very proud of a watershed project just across the Potomac
River in Fairfax, County, VA, in the shadow of our nation's Capital. It
is the Pohick Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Project
\3\ whose sponsors are my own Northern Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation District which I serve as Chairman, and Fairfax County,
represented by the Department of Public Works and Environmental
Services (DPWES), and County Park Authority (PA). The original Work
Plan calculated the b/c ratio to be 1.4:1. The watershed area is 22,690
acres, and the watershed population in 1965 was only 4,767 people. In
2000 the population had grown to 117,000, and it is about 150,000
today, in a County of nearly 1.2 million, about 14% of the state's
population and the most populous County in the Commonwealth. This
project planning began in 1965 when erosion from construction activity
had virtually destroyed several residential lakes. In addition, a
multimillion-dollar sewer referendum opened up the Pohick Watershed for
residential and commercial development. These circumstances caused
public concern that rapid conversion of land from rural to urban uses
was creating irreversible damage to streams and the pleasant hillsides.
Planning this watershed project resulted in many national firsts. This
was the first watershed project planned in a watershed being converted
totally from rural to urban land use. All the dams were planned as
high-hazard structures providing protection from the 100 year frequency
storms downstream. And the project brought forth new guidelines for
erosion and sediment control (land treatment) in urban situations. An
erosion and sediment control ordinance was passed by the county in
1967. That ordinance later became the model for the erosion and
sediment control law passed by the Commonwealth of VA in 1967. In
addition to dealing with urban erosion and sediment control, the
project contains six floodwater retarding dams. The County says the
major benefits of the project are that it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pohick Creek Watershed Work Plan, Fairfax County, VA. January
1967.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protects stream valleys from flooding.

Promotes orderly residential and commercial development.

Expands water based recreation opportunities for residents.

Protects wildlife habitat in flood plain areas.

Influenced the establishment of effective erosion and
sediment control ordinances.

Serves as a laboratory for new ideas on urban soil & water
conservation measures.

Reduces siltation in rivers and lakes.

Challenges developers and landowners to protect the natural
environment.

Preserves open space in stream valleys.

Eliminates unsightly and expensive concrete rip-rapped
channels.

Provides aesthetic backdrop for adjacent residential and
commercial development.

Provides improved storm water quality to the Potomac River
and & the Chesapeake Bay.

The Pohick Watershed Project is operated and maintained by the
County DPWES and PA, and they are one of the best project sponsors in
the entire United States. Our dams are impeccably maintained, and
constantly used for recreation by residents. I would invite any of you
Subcommittee Members to travel to Fairfax County for about 4 hours some
day, and I will arrange for County Officials to join me in giving you a
first-hand tour. You would be impressed.
I will share a comment from the Chairman of our Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors, Sharon Bulova, on how she feels about the Pohick
Watershed and the relationship the County has with NRCS.

The county would not have been able to upgrade the emergency
spillways on four of our P.L. 83-566 high hazard dams to comply
with current dam safety standards in a timely fashion without
the great partnership and funding through the NRCS. The
county's P.L. 83-566 high hazard dams can now safely convey the
storm water flows from a probable maximum precipitation event
which correlates to roughly 27" of rain in a 6 hour period as a
result of these recent upgrades. The lakes are considered a
valued asset by our community, providing flood protection for
many downstream residential and commercial properties, roadways
and a railroad while also serving as a recreational amenity.
These lakes also have been designed and serve to improve
downstream water quality in the Pohick Creek watershed, the
Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay by capturing sediment and
other pollutants. NRCS has made a positive impact on the
health, safety and welfare of Fairfax County.
Chairman Sharon Bulova, Fairfax County, VA.
Why Watershed Programs?
The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with natural resource
problems has long been recognized. P.L. 83-566 offers a complete
watershed management approach, and should have a prominent place in our
current Federal policy emphasizing watersheds and total resource
management based planning. Proper watershed management improves water
quality. Why should the Federal Government be involved with these
watershed infrastructure programs?

They are infrastructure programs whose objectives are the
sustaining of our nation's precious natural resources for
generations to come.

They are not federally owned, but federally assisted,
locally sponsored and owned, operated and maintained. They do
not represent the continued growth of the Federal Government.

They are locally initiated and driven. Decisions are made by
people affected, and respect private property rights.

They share costs between the Federal Government and local
people. Local sponsors pay between 30-40% of the total costs of
P.L. 83-566 projects.

They produce net benefits to society.

They consider and enhance environmental values. Projects are
subject to the discipline of being planned following the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Federal
``Principles and Guidelines'' for land and water projects. That
is public scrutiny!

They are flexible infrastructure programs that can adapt to
changing needs and priorities.

They are programs that encourage all citizens to
participate.

They can address the needs of low-income and minority
communities.

They are targeted to address the most serious resource
problems.

And best of all--they are programs the people like!

Every state in the United States has benefited from the Small
Watershed Program.
Some Suggestions
There are some suggestions I would like to make concerning this
very important watershed legislation. I believe the objectives of this
legislation should be expanded to include more non-structural water
quality practices, and allow the law to provide cost-sharing in
developing rural water supplies (without water there is no rural
development).
With the ``downsizing'' the NRCS has experienced, I would be remiss
if I did not express concern as to their ability to provide adequate
technical support to these watershed programs. NRCS technical staff has
been significantly reduced, and budget constraints have not allowed
that expertise to be replaced. Traditional fields of engineering and
economics are but two examples where expertise has been lost. I see
many states where NRCS capability to support their responsibilities is
seriously diminished. This is a disturbing trend that should be halted.
This downsizing has a very serious effect on state and local
conservation programs. Local Watershed and Conservation Districts and
the NRCS combine to make a very effective delivery system for providing
the technical assistance to local people--farmers, ranchers and rural
communities--in applying needed conservation practices and watershed
programs. But that delivery system is currently strained! A healthy
Federal partner is critical to this partnership success. Many states
and local units of government also have complementary programs that
provide financial assistance to land owners and operators for
installing measures that reduce erosion, improve water quality, and
maintain environmental quality. The NRCS provides conservation
districts, through agreement with the USDA Secretary of Agriculture,
``on the land'' technical assistance for applying these measures. The
delivery system currently is in place, and by downsizing NRCS, we are
eroding the most effective and efficient coordinated means of working
with local people to solve environmental problems that has ever been
developed. Our system and its ability to produce food and fiber is the
envy of the entire world. In my view, these watershed infrastructure
programs are most important in terms of our national priorities.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue recently
wrote, ``After years of talking about failing infrastructure, we
finally have the bipartisan buy-in, political will, and public support
to do something about it. The President has pledged to act on this
priority--and the public supports it. According to a new U.S. Chamber
poll, fully 70 percent of Americans want the Federal Government to
invest in infrastructure. By similar margins, the poll showed that
Americans understand that infrastructure investment will grow the
economy, help businesses, and create jobs.'' Our watershed project
infrastructure should be a major part of this infrastructure
investment.
The Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA) dates to 1951,
and represents those earthmoving contractors that have installed many
of the watershed dams and most of the conservation practices on our
nation's landscape over time. They work closely with Soil & Water
Conservation Districts and their motto is ``Dedicated to the
Professional Conservation of Soil & Water.'' The focus of LICA is to
encourage high standards of workmanship in resource management land
improvement practices, and to promote private enterprise in land
improvement contracting. Training and safety are key LICA activities.
They have also worked very closely with NRCS over the years.
Let me close by sharing the LICA Creed.

The LICA Creed

Land, the Foundation of the Nation,
the basis of all wealth,
the heritage of the wise, the thrifty and prudent,
the poor man's joy and comfort,
the silent partner of man,
the producer of food, fiber, and fuel.
The basis of factories,
the foundation of banks,
all that man builds is from the land.
We often take it for granted, or even abuse it,
and yet many unthinking and unknowingly pass the land by.
What man finally does with the land will be the deciding factor of his
survival.

LICA and I pledge our full support to you as you continue your most
important work. I have nearly sixty years' experience in natural
resource watershed infrastructure conservation, and would be pleased to
serve as a resource as needed, as would our contractor members.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity.
Respectfully submitted by:

John W. Peterson,
Director of Government Relations,
Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA).
Attachment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Funding Code Or Project Authorization
Accumulation By State Or ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total
Territory P.L. 83-566 P.L. 83-534 Pilot RC&D Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 100 0 0 7 0 107
Arizona 21 0 2 2 0 25
Arkansas 181 0 24 3 0 208
California 15 0 1 0 0 16
Colorado 87 0 55 3 0 145
Connecticut 29 0 0 1 0 30
Florida 10 0 0 0 0 10
Georgia 218 117 12 10 0 357
Hawaii 8 0 0 1 0 9
Idaho 3 0 0 0 0 3
Illinois 55 0 11 0 0 66
Indiana 132 0 0 2 0 134
Iowa 1,066 485 29 35 0 1,615
Kansas 800 0 14 17 0 831
Kentucky 182 0 17 1 0 200
Louisiana 35 0 0 0 0 35
Maine 16 0 0 0 0 16
Maryland 16 0 0 0 0 16
Massachusetts 29 0 0 1 0 30
Michigan 13 0 0 0 0 13
Minnesota 37 0 8 6 0 51
Mississippi 188 367 0 5 0 560
Missouri 1,148 0 30 25 0 1,203
Montana 16 0 0 3 0 19
Nebraska 619 0 106 13 0 738
Nevada 8 0 0 0 0 8
New Hampshire 24 0 0 0 0 24
New Jersey 19 0 0 1 0 20
New Mexico 75 0 2 2 0 79
New York 52 0 2 5 0 59
North Carolina 101 0 11 2 0 114
North Dakota 39 0 10 1 0 50
Ohio 48 0 16 0 0 64
Oklahoma 987 1,107 6 7 0 2,107
Oregon 6 0 0 0 0 6
Pennsylvania 82 0 0 9 0 91
South Carolina 97 0 7 1 0 105
South Dakota 33 0 2 21 3 59
Tennessee 133 0 9 1 0 143
Texas 697 1,242 60 4 0 2,003
Utah 40 0 3 2 0 45
Vermont 4 0 0 0 0 4
Virginia 118 29 3 0 0 150
Washington 3 0 0 0 0 3
West Virginia 77 81 7 4 1 170
Wisconsin 85 0 2 1 0 88
Wyoming 12 0 0 1 1 14
Puerto Rico 2 0 0 0 0 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................. 7,766 3,428 449 197 5 11,845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Finney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN FINNEY, PRESIDENT, RED RIVER
MANAGEMENT BOARD; CO-CHAIR, RED RIVER RETENTION AUTHORITY,
HUMBOLDT, MN

Mr. Finney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
Members of the Committee. My name is John Finney, and I serve
as the President of the Red River Watershed Management Board of
Minnesota and the co-Chairman of the Red River Retention
Authority. I farm with my brother Dan near the Canadian border
along the Red River up north where we experience frequent
flooding and extended inundation of floodwater on our land.
The Red River Retention Authority represents 22 Red River
watersheds and water resource districts in North Dakota and
Minnesota. The Retention Authority is a joint powers agreement
between the Minnesota Red Board and the North Dakota Red River
Joint Water Resources districts.
The mission of the Retention Authority is to implement the
long-term flood solutions plan set forth by the Red River Basin
Commission, and you have an attachment that would have that
report in it.
Since the devastating flood of 1997, the Red River Board
and the North Dakota Joint Board, the Retention Authority,
along with several partners, have implemented projects that
would provide over 185,000 acre-feet of flood storage upstream.
While this is significant, it is only about \1/5\ of the basin
goal.
These projects reduce flooding, improve water quality, and
enhance wildlife habitat and recreation. An acceleration of
these efforts has occurred with the initiation of 20 RCPP,
Regional Conservation Partnership Program, watershed planning
efforts throughout the Red River Basin.
During the development of the 2014 Farm Bill, the Retention
Authority worked with our Federal Congressional delegations in
Minnesota and North Dakota to modify existing policies and add
a cost-share funding component to implement retention projects.
A few key enhancements were suggested to modify the USDA P.L.
83-566 Program. These proposed modifications include
eliminating the requirement under economic and environmental
principles and guidelines for water resources and
implementation studies from cost ratio calculations based on
each individual project and instead allow flood control
projects to be based an overall basin plan.
Since our original suggestions to modify the P.L. 83-566
Program were not fully addressed, local watershed districts
have encountered challenges with identifying and calculating
the true and total benefits from implementing flood retention
and flood damage reduction and environmental enhancements
projects. Traditional benefit-cost analysis used by USDA for
water resource projects makes the likelihood of future Federal
funding to assist with retention project construction
difficult.
The priority of the Red River Board and the Retention
Authority and its member districts is to demonstrate that the
continued planning and implementation of these types of
projects will enhance the infrastructure of rural America,
improve water quality, and establish critical wildlife habitat
for all basin residents.
I propose that the Federal cost-share for the planning and
implementation of flood retention and flood damage reduction
projects should be based on their economic, ecological, and
social benefits provided to the entire Red River Basin,
comparable to the justification of various USDA conservation
programs. This approach would be a significant improvement to
the formula for Federal funding assistance that encourages the
public-private partnership for the Red River Basin watersheds.
For rural America to compete with this program, there needs
to be a modification of existing programs or new programs
created that allow partnerships to thrive and encourage project
implementation. These changes would assist in strengthening and
achieving the partnership goals identified in the RCPP program.
The 2014 RCPP program was an excellent start to assist
organizations like our Red River Board and the Retention
Authority to reach their goals. The foundation has been laid to
plan and build distributed retention projects to alleviate
local watershed and basin flooding problems while incorporating
environmental enhancements to improve water quality, wildlife
habitat, water supply, and recreation.
Collectively we must continue to assist one another in
achieving a safe and economical, productive Red River of the
North basin. Please consider implementing these proposed
changes to provide for USDA funds to be utilized for watershed
and water resource projects using a variable cost-share rate
based on true and identified needs not only of the RCPP
watersheds, but the entire Red River basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to you
today. We sincerely appreciate your continued efforts in
drafting the new farm bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finney follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Finney, President, Red River Management
Board; Co-Chair, Red River Retention Authority, Humboldt, MN
John Finney, President, Red River Watershed Management Board
(RRWMB), Minnesota and Co-Chair, Red River Retention Authority (RRRA),
farmer and resident of the Red River Basin.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Agriculture
Committee.
My name is John Finney and I serve as the President of the RRWMB of
Minnesota and as Co-Chair for the RRRA. I also farm with my brother,
Dan Finney, near the Canadian border along the Red River of the North
where we experience frequent flooding and extended inundation of
floodwater on our farm.
The RRRA represents 22 Red River of the North Basin watersheds and
water resource districts in North Dakota and Minnesota. The RRRA is a
partnership between the Minnesota RRWMB and the North Dakota RRJWRD.
The genesis of the RRRA is to implement the Long Term Flood Solutions
plan set forth by the Red River Basin Commission (see Attachment A).
The RRRA's basin wide goal is a 20% reduction in peak flows on the Red
River of the North main stem and to reduce local watershed flooding by
distributed watershed storage of floodwaters in upstream floodwater
retention projects.
Since the devastating flood of 1997, the RRWMB, RRJWRD and RRRA
along with many Federal, state and local partners have implemented
projects which have provided over 185,000 acre-feet of flood storage.
While this is significant, it's only about \1/5\ of the basin goal.
These projects reduce flooding to residents and properties, improve
water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat and recreation. An
acceleration of these efforts has occurred with the initiation of 20
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) watershed planning
efforts throughout the Red River of the North Basin. The RRRA secured
USDA RCPP funding in May of 2015. As a result, 20 small watershed plans
in thirteen major watersheds in the Red River Basin are currently being
developed throughout the basin (see Attachment B).
In the development of the 2014 Farm Bill, the RRRA worked
diligently with our Federal Congressional delegations in MN and ND to
modify existing policies and add a cost-share funding component to the
proposed farm bill to implement retention projects. A few key
enhancements were suggested to modify the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Small Watershed Protection program, or P.L.
83-566 program. The ``P.L. 83-566 watershed'' program could be much
more successful in the Red River basin if the suggested program
modifications were made to address basin-wide resource issues in
addition to the current local watershed resource issues.
These proposed program modifications include; eliminate the
requirement under economic and environmental principles and guidelines
for water resources implementation studies for individual benefit to
cost ratio calculations on each individual project and instead allow
flood control projects to be based upon an overall basin plan (see
Attachment C; pages 10 and 11: RRRA Consolidated Subcommittee reports
dated March 28, 2011 for other specific recommendations).
Since our original suggestions to modify the P.L. 83-566 program
were not fully addressed, local watershed districts working with their
consultants in planning the 20 RCPP watersheds have encountered
challenges with identifying and calculating the true and total benefits
from implementing flood retention and flood damage reduction and
environmental enhancement projects. Traditional benefit-cost analysis
used by USDA for water resource projects makes the likelihood of future
Federal funding to assist with retention project construction
difficult.
A priority of the RRWMB, RRRA and its affiliated member watershed
and water resource districts is to demonstrate that the continued
planning and implementation of projects will enhance the infrastructure
of rural America, improve water quality in lakes and streams, and
establish critical wildlife habitats for all Red River basin residents.
Determining the value of input costs of fertilizer or the revenue
generated from hunting can be calculated, but valuing societal benefits
of having adequate water quality and wildlife habitat is much more
subjective and controversial.
I propose that Federal cost-share for the planning and
implementation of flood retention and flood damage reduction projects
should be based on their economic, ecological and social benefits
provided to the entire Red River of the North basin from a programmatic
perspective comparable to the justification of various USDA
Conservation Programs. This approach would be a significant improvement
to the formula for providing Federal assistance that encourages a
``Public-Private-Partnership'' for the Red River of the North basin as
well as small watersheds. For rural America to compete with this
program, there needs to be modification of existing programs or new
programs created that allow partnerships to thrive and encourage
project implementation. These changes would assist in strengthening and
achieving the partnership goals identified in the RCPP program.
The 2014 RCPP was an excellent start to assist organizations like
the RRWMB and the RRRA, which I represent, to reach their goals. The
foundation has been laid to plan and build distributed retention
projects to alleviate local watershed and basin flooding problems while
incorporating environmental enhancements to improve water quality,
wildlife habitat, water supply and recreation. Collectively, we must to
continue to assist one another in achieving a safe and economically
productive Red River of the North basin.
Please consider implementing these proposed changes to provide for
USDA funds to be utilized for watershed and water resource projects
using a variable cost-share rate based on true and identified needs not
only of RCPP watersheds but the entire Red River of the North basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today. We
sincerely appreciate your continued efforts in drafting the new farm
bill.
[Attachment A]
Red River Basin Commission's Long-Term Flood Solutions for the Red
River Basin
Report Includes:

LTFS Executive Summary.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Action.

Funding Timeline for Project Implementation Costs: Along the
Red River of the North and Tributaries.

September 2011

Red River Basin Commission
Moorhead Office, Winnipeg Office,
119 5th St. S., Ste. 209, 410-112 Market Ave.,
P.O. Box 66, Winnipeg, MB
Moorhead, MN 56561-0066 R3B 0P4
218-291-0422 204-982-7250
218-291-0438 Fax 204-982-7255 Fax
1-866-629-4498 Toll Free
staff@redriverbasincommission.org www.redriverbasincommission.org

Vision
A Red River Basin where residents, organizations, and governments
work together to achieve basin-wide commitment to comprehensive
integrated water stewardship and management.
Mission
To create a comprehensive integrated basin-wide vision, to build
consensus and commitment to the vision, and to speak with a unified
voice for the Red River Basin.

Red River Basin Commission's Long-Term Flood Solutions for the Red
River Basin
The Red River Basin is an international, multi-jurisdictional
watershed of 45,000\2\ miles, with 80 percent of the basin lying in the
United State[s] and 20 percent in Manitoba, Canada. Eighteen Minnesota
counties and 22 North Dakota counties lie wholly or partially in the
basin. The economic impact of the basin, from both urban-generated
activity and a vibrant agricultural economy, is significant. This basin
is home to more than half a million people, and serves as a jobs,
education and medical hub, in addition to a world-renowned agricultural
producer.

Need for Action
The increase in frequency and magnitude of flooding in the Red
River basin is unmistakable. The spring flood of 1997 that decimated
the metro center of Grand Forks-East Grand Forks and gravely threatened
areas throughout the basin introduced a decade of flooding. Since 2000,
the basin has experienced damaging flooding in all but 2 years. Since
1997, most sites along the main stem have seen levels of flooding at or
close to 100 year levels, some in more than one flood event. And
tributary areas have experienced up to 500 year flood levels during the
past decade. We know today that larger floods are both possible and
probable.
The Impetus
Before the major flood waters of 2009 had even receded, state
legislators in North Dakota and Minnesota asked the Red River Basin
Commission (RRBC), as an international basin-wide organization, to
spearhead the effort to develop a comprehensive, proactive plan that
responds to and mitigates flooding throughout the watershed.
Corresponding with the legislative charge were appropriations of half a
million dollars from each state to execute the project. The RRBC was
uniquely positioned for this endeavor given its ongoing organized
effort to further commitment to shared land and water stewardship goals
in the basin, including the goal of flood damage reduction.
The Process
The LTFS study process brought together professional and citizen
water managers from all levels and from all the reaches of the basin.
In addition to hands on involvement from the RRBC Board of Directors,
umbrella committees were assembled (Policy, Technical) and specific
issue workgroups to dissect the issues and identify solutions. In
addition, a number of outside experts and agencies were contracted to
develop information and analysis for central questions addressed in the
study.
Most importantly, the study was a grass-roots effort. It was
launched with an extensive public engagement process of 21 public flood
forums held in the Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota portions of
the basin, with more than 1,000 attendees in total.
Citizens' experiences, problems and concerns with flooding in the
basin were solicited, together with suggestions for solutions. It was
this public input that helped shape the study's committees and issues
to explore. A second series of public meetings was held in spring of
2011 in order to gather feedback from citizens on the primary
directions and conclusions of the study. That feedback helped to guide
final conclusions and recommendations. The results of the overall study
findings are presented in this report to assist the basin's residents,
community leaders, water managers and policy makers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions for Future Conditions
Pertinent to the LTFS plan development
adopted by RRBC Board 2010

Components of the LTFS plan are intended to be developed and
implemented over the next 50 years. It is important to understand the
assumptions under which this plan was developed. The following describe
basic assumptions about several issue areas in the Red River basin that
are key to plan development.
Agriculture will continue to be the dominant land use through out
the basin. Adequate surface drainage has been and will continue to be
integral to maintaining productivity of cropland. Subsurface drainage
is likely to become increasingly popular.
Current development trends will continue into the foreseeable
future. The major urban centers and communities will continue in their
present locations. Major metro areas will continue to grow. Future
development will occur in compliance with floodplain management
regulations.
Floods will continue into the future. Floods larger than
historically experienced can be expected to occur.
Flood damage reduction will need to be implemented in the basin
based primarily on the identified needs of the basin residents and
their willingness to provide or seek the funding necessary to implement
the measures which they believe are appropriate, effective, and
justified. State and Federal agencies will support the implementation
of the various measures based on their policies, regulations and
availability of funding. Flood damage reduction is just one issue that
affects the sustainability of the region.
Other key resource issues need to be considered as this plan is
developed and implemented, including droughts, water supply, water
quality, recreation and other natural resource areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidelines for Protection in the Basin

Before the LTFS study, the only site protection guideline for levels
of protection was the Federal (FEMA) requirement that mortgaged
structures in 100 year floodplains (or lower) carry flood insurance.
The problem with these guidelines for the Red River basin is that 100
year flood levels have been experienced on most reaches of the main
stem and far surpassed in some tributary areas. RRBC developed baseline
goals for levels of flood protection during the project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level of Flood Protection Goals
The LTFS review of current local protection policies and practices
revealed that the basin lacks adequate guidelines on levels of
protection appropriate for various basin locations. The following goals
for levels of protection were developed as part of the study and
approved by the RRBC to serve as a guideline for the residents of the
Red River basin, its communities, and state/provincial and Federal
agencies, as they plan and implement future local protection projects
(see Appendix D, Table D-3). The intended outcome of the goals is to
provide a long-term objective for communities and sites that will
cumulatively reduce the risk of flooding and flood damages from
potential floods of larger size than the basin has experienced in the
recent past. The goals can help move the basin beyond a mode reactive
to the last large flood to a proactive mode of using risk and damage
assessments to put adequate protection into place to reduce flood risk
across the basin.

Level of Flood Protection Goals for the Red River Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Protected Estimated Recurrence Interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major urban/metropolitan areas 1 2, 500 year or greater
4
Critical infrastructure 1 2 500 year or greater
Cities/municipalities 1 2 200 year or greater
Rural residences & farmsteads 1 2 100 year or greater
Agricultural cropland: Summer flood 10 year or greater
Transportation 2 3 Critical 200 year or greater
transportation system and
emergency service links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Protection for urban areas, critical infrastructure, cities, rural
residences, and farmsteads should all have appropriate freeboard
(i.e., contingency or risk and uncertainty allowance) with any
projects designed to provide the specified level of protection.
\2\ If a flood of record has occurred which exceeds the specified level
of protection goal, the flood of record should be used in place of the
specified level of protection goal.
\3\ The critical transportation systems should be maintained passable
during a flood of the described level of protection to assure safe and
reliable transportation and provision of emergency services. The
transportation system should not increase flooding problems either
upstream or downstream.
\4\ Includes Fargo-Moorhead, Grand Forks-East Grand Forks, and Winnipeg.

The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a group of people working
together to achieve common goals for water protection and management
within the Red River Basin.

119 S. 5th St. PO Box 66 Moorhead, MN 56561 218-291-0422
410-112 Market Ave. Winnipeg, MB R3B 094 204-982-7250
staff@redriverbasincommission.org
See the full report on our website:
www.redriverbasincommission.org
Current Levels of Protection Versus Needs in the Basin
Although the strategy of local protection dates back many decades
in the basin, the extent of existing site protection is still modest.
The following table summarizes the levels of local site protection
currently in place at basin communities and then compares that with
RRBC's levels of protection goals to identify the gaps and the needs.
The table reveals that flood protection for events exceeding the 100
year level is an exception and that almost a third of the communities,
on the average, have no permanent protection. Of those communities
having permanent protection, fewer than half are protected to a 100
year level or higher.

Comparison of Existing Flood Protection with Recommended Guidelines for Level of Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Level of Protection Existing Protection meets RRBC
RRBC Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended
City/Location Guideline for Guideline for
Level of Flood 500 year 200 year 100 year Less than No Permanent Level of Flood
Protection 100 year Protection Protection?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Main Stem
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahpeton, ND 200 year X No
Breckenridge, 200 year X No
MN
Fargo, ND 500 year X No
Moorhead, MN 500 year X No
Perley, MN 200 year X No
Hendrum, MN 200 year X No
Halstad, MN 200 year X Yes
Nielsville, MN 200 year X No
Grand Forks, 500 year X No
ND
East Grand 500 year X No
Forks, MN
Oslo, MN 200 year X Yes
Drayton, ND 200 year X No
Pembina, ND 200 year X No
St. Vincent, 200 year X No
MN
Noyes, MN 200 year X No
Emerson, MB 200 year X No
Morris, MB 200 year X No
Winnipeg, MB 500 year X Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Tributaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgetown 200 year X No
Ada 200 year X No
Shelly 200 year X No
Climax 200 year X No
Crookston 200 year X No
Warren 200 year X No
Alvarado 200 year X No
Argyle 200 year X No
Hallock 200 year X No
Roseau 200 year X No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota Tributaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie 200 year X No
Valley City 200 year X No
Lisbon 200 year X No
Horace 200 year X No
West Fargo 500 year X Yes
Enderlin 200 year X No
Casselton 200 year X No
Mapleton 200 year X No
Harwood 200 year X No
Argusville 200 year X No
Devils Lake 200 year X No
Minnewaukan 200 year X No
Grafton 200 year X No
Neche 200 year X No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Routing Models

Using MIKE 11, a flow routing model, the LTFS study was able to use
the modeling information from sub-basins to predict the effect that
reduced flows due to additional floodwater storage sites from the
tributaries would have on various points on the main stem Red River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

20% Reduction Model
(Based on WMC MIKE 11 Model and tributary hydrologic models)
(cla 1/16/2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned by WSDs Original Allocation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tributar[y] Peak Flow Peak Flow Volume Volume Peak Flow Volume Volume
Areas Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
(cfs) (%) (%) (acft) (%) (%) (ac ft) Focus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Tributary Flow Reductions
1997 Spring Flood
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BdS R @ White 1,048 413%0 416%0 451,2190 20% 20% 61,760 Store early
Rock water
Rabbit R @ TH 75 1,425 431%0 839%0 847,6390 35% 26% 24,377 Peak flow
ung reduction
BdS ungaged 0 80%0 80%0 800 13% 9% 12,119 No reduction
Ottertail R @ 0 600 600 600 0% 0% 0 No reduction
Orwell
Ottertail ung 500 13% 12% 7,217 13% 12% 7,217 Peak flow
reduction
Wildrice ND @ 3,150 432%0 46%0 423,7020 35% 17% 57,908 Peak flow
Abercrombie reduction
Fargo ungaged 3,000 13% 13% 30,433 13% 13% 30,433 Store late
water
Sheyenne R @ 2,401 23% 11% 68,395 23% 11% 68,395 Peak flow
Harwood reduction
Rush R @ Amenia 508 35% 13% 4,324 35% 13% 4,324 Peak flow
reduction
Buffalo R @ 2,549 430%0 617%0 636,0910 35% 17% 38,158 Peak flow
Dilworth reduction
Wild Rice MN @ 2,315 423%0 620%0 676,5450 35% 20% 74,385 Peak flow
Hendrum reduction
Halstad ung 7,500 13% 13% 81,002 13% 13% 81,002 Store late
water
Goose R @ 2,820 35% 16% 35,356 35% 16% 35,356 Peak flow
Hillsboro reduction
Marsh R nr 135 43%0 48%0 46,8190 51% 18% 15,247 Peak flow
Shelly reduction
Sand Hill R @ 43 41%0 418%0 419,1840 35% 21% 22,161 Peak flow
Climax reduction
Red Lake R @ 5,200 418%0 48%0 474,8300 35% 13% 119,097 Peak flow
Crookston reduction
RLR ung 1,600 12% 10% 11,427 12% 10% 11,427 Store late
water
GF ungaged 4,400 12% 10% 32,015 12% 10% 32,015 Store late
water
Turtle Rnr 90 10% 13% 4,615 10% 13% 4,615 Store late
Arvilla water
Forest R @ Minto 300 14% 7% 5,875 14% 7% 5,875 Store late
water
Snake Rung 1,334 824%0 816%0 820,2100 16% 15% 17,128 Store late
water
Middle R @ 751 420%0 413%0 48,3710 35% 23% 15,067 Store late
Argyle water
Park R @ Grafton 2,422 847%0 831%0 840,7390 35% 20% 26,462 Peak flow
reduction
Tamarac R ung 1,150 824%0 813%0 811,5330 13% 12% 7,179 Store late
water
Drayton ung 1,370 8% 10% 22,208 8% 10% 22,208 Store late
water
S Br Two R @ 503 412%0 826%0 821,7350 27% 14% 15,208 Store late
Lake Bronson water
Tongue R @ Akra 50 7% 4% 1,580 7% 4% 1,580 Store late
water
Pembina R @ 1,900 13% 9% 51,113 13% 9% 51,113 Peak flow
Neche reduction
Emerson ung 3,000 7% 7% 23,364 7% 7% 23,364 Store late
water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Average/Total 17% 13% 817,540 22% 13% 885,177
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upstream Upstream
Upstream Peak Flow Peak Flow Upstream Tributary Tributary
Mainstem Locations Contributing Reduction Reduction Tributary Volume Volume
Drainage (cfs) (%) Volume (ac Reduction Reduction
Area ft) (ac ft) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Mainstem Flow Reductions
1997 Spring Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahpeton 4,010 2,723 621%0 801,206 106,075 13%
Fargo 6,210 5,459 619%0 1,425,717 160,209 11%
Halstad 15,430 14,236 620%0 3,307,686 426,566 13%
Grand Forks 21,690 14,985 414%0 5,149,686 606,198 12%
Drayton 20,679 416%0 5,912,194 719,749 12%
Emerson 25,861 620%0 6,915,848 817,540 12%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4Less than allocation or goal.0

6Meets allocation or goal.0

8Exceeds allocation or goal.0

Hydrologic models not completed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Retention Projects

From the Mike 11 modeling, individual watershed district can
identify potential sites to achieve their allocation towards the 20
percent reduction on the main stem Red River. Here, Minnesota's Bois de
Sioux Watershed District in the very southeast portion of the basin put
forth possible projects to be considered that would more than meet a 20
percent reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impoundment Sites included in Flow Reduction Strategy Bois de Sioux
Watershed District
4/19/2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRBC 20%
Gated Ungated Total plan
Storage (ac Storage Storage (ac Reduction
ft) (ac ft) ft) (ac ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Rock watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Path 13,100 3,100 16,200
Red Path West 5,501 545 6,046
Eldorodo 7 1,700 755 2,455
Big Lake 463 1,325 1,788
Moonshine Lake 2,723 686 3,409
Moonshine 13 1,520 328 1,848
Moonshine 4 885 322 1,207
Leonardsvi1,0461E 413 1,459
Dollymount 30 5,484 872 6,356
Leonardsvi1,5921W 350 1,942
Tara 12 3,071 843 3,914
Leonardsvi6,6302 1,031 7,661
Croke 17 2,142 605 2,747
Dollymount 24 1,499 552 2,051
Walls 36 1,897 850 2,747
Moose Head 1,622 896 2,518
Walls 30 3,831 937 4,768
Delaware 17 1,695 518 2,213
Everglades 1,965 890 2,855
Township Slough 3,802 950 4,752
South Dakota 8,771 2,193 10,964
site(s)
----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......... 70,939 18,961 89,900 61,760
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbit watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Ottawa 16,160 2,050 18,210
Brandrup S23 3,020 980 4,000
Bradford S34 3,042 627 3,669
Lawrence S5,892 1,061 6,953
Tintah S34 833 160 993
Daniels 867 223 1,090
----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......... 29,814 5,101 34,915 24,377
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bois de Sioux Ungaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......... 0 0 0 12,119
====================================================
Total BdS 100,753 24,062 124,815 98,256
watershed.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status of New Hydrologic Model Development (HMS) Using LiDAR Data
(all colored watersheds are underway)
Red River Watershed, North Dakota/Minnesota

Uncertainty of Storage Discharges Along The Red River of the North at
White Rock Dam for the 1997 and 2009 Floods

Potential Effects of Storage on Cities
The potential effects of flow reduction were evaluated in several
ways. In the following table, the approximate potential flow and stage
reductions from the 1997 flood are computed for each of six points on
the main stem using the proposed reduction allocations and proposed
storage for sub-basins upstream of each of the six sites (see Appendix
D, Table D-17). The resulting flow reductions range from 17% at Grand
Forks-East Grand Forks to 24% at Emerson. The resulting stage
reductions for the 1997 flood would have ranged from 1.3 near the
border at Emerson to 2.8 at Grand Forks-East Grand Forks.

Effects of Potential Additional Flood Storage on 1997 Flood Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Approx.
Volume of Peak Flow Potential Modified Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Stage
1997 of 1997 Additional Peak Flow Reduction Reduction Reduction
Upstream/Tributary Flood Flood Storage in with of of of
Drainage Areas (MIKE 11 (MIKE 11 Watershed Potential Potential Potential Potential
Model) Model) (ac ft) Storage Storage (ac Storage Storage
(ac ft) (cfs) (cfs) ft) (%) (ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bois de Sioux @ White Rock 7,820 78,900 6,770 1,050 13%
Dam
Rabbit River @ TH 75 4,570 34,900 3,140 1,430 31%
ungaged
Bois de Sioux ungaged 8,540 0 8,540 0 0%
Otter Tail River @ Orwell 1,500 0 1,500 0 0%
Dam
Otter Tail River ungaged 3,800 11,000 3,300 500 13%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahpeton/Breckridge..... 742,000 12,890 124,800 10,170 2,720 621%0 2.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Rice River @ 9,930 75,500 6,780 3,150 32%
Abercrombie
Fargo ungaged 23,000 42,000 20,000 3,000 13%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fargo/Moorhead.......... 1,450,000 28,570 242,300 23,110 5,460 619%0 2.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheyenne River @ Harwood 10,300 120,000 7,900 2,400 23%
Rush River @ Amenia 1,450 14,900 940 510 35%
Buffalo River @ Dilworth 8,370 63,000 5,820 2,550 30%
Wild Rice River @ Hendrum 10,150 118,000 7,840 2,310 23%
Halstad Ungaged (includes 57,000 142,000 49,500 7,500 13%
Elm River)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halstad................. 3,310,000 71,390 700,200 57,190 14,200 620%0 1.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goose River @ Hillsboro 8,060 62,000 5,240 2,820 35%
Marsh River near Shelly 4,070 0 3,930 140 3%
Sand Hill River @ Climax 4,370 39,000 4,320 50 1%
Red Lake River Croo28,980 270,000 19,580 9,400 32%
Red Lake River ngage13,600 20,000 12,000 1,600 12%
Grand Forks ungaged 36,400 56,000 32,000 4,400 12%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Forks/East Grand 5,130,000 110,750 1,147,200 91,750 19,000 817%0 2.8
Forks..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle River near Arvilla 930 11,500 840 90 10%
Forest River @ Minto 2,100 10,000 1,800 300 14%
Snake River ungaged 5,510 30,000 4,180 1,330 24%
Middle River @ Argyle 3,710 26,000 2,960 750 20%
Park River @ Grafton 5,110 50,300 2,690 2,420 47%
Tamarac River ungaged 4,820 13,000 3,670 1,150 24%
Drayton ungaged 17,170 39,000 15,800 1,370 8%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drayton................. 5,820,000 128,320 1,327,000 102,320 26,000 620%0 1.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Branch Two Rivers @ 4,060 27,000 3,560 500 12%
Lake
Bronson
Tongue River @ Akra 680 3,000 630 50 7%
Pembina River @ Neche 14,300 90,000 12,400 1,900 13%
Emerson ungaged 42,000 41,000 39,000 3,000 7%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson............... 6,740,000 129,800 1,488,000 98,800 31,000 424%0 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were exceeded.0

6Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were met.0

8Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were not met.0

Results of Complimentary Floodplain Management Approaches
Reducing flood risk in the Red River basin requires the working
together of the three complimentary approaches of floodplain
management: (1) nonstructural attention to the physical floodplain and
land use practices, both urban and rural, together with participation
in Federal programs such as NFIP; (2) local site protection for
vulnerable damage sites such as communities, urban centers and, as
possible, agricultural lands; and (3) reduction of peak flood flows
through a basin-wide effort.

Level of Protection at Cities along the Red River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future
Conditions Additional
Current Future Including Measures Peak Flow
City/Location RRBC Conditions Conditions Meets RRBC Planned Meets RRBC Needed to Meet Reduction of
Recommended Meets RRBC Including Recommended Upgrades plus Recommended RRBC Potential
Guideline Recommended Planned Guideline? Potential Guideline? Recommended Storage (%)
Guideline? Upgrades Upstream Flood Guideline?
Storage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Main Stem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahpeton, ND 200 yr 100-125 yr No 100-125 yr No <200 yr No Yes
Breckenridge, MN 200 yr 100-125 yr No 100-125 yr No <200 yr No Yes
Fargo, ND 500 yr <100 yr No >200 yr No >200 yr No Yes
Moorhead, MN 500 yr <100 yr No >200 yr No >200 yr No Yes
Georgetown, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No
Perley, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No
Hendrum, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No
Halstad, MN 200 yr 250 yr Yes 250 yr Yes >250 yr Yes No
Shelly, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No
Nielsville, MN 200 yr * No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes
Climax, MN 200 yr * No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes
Grand Forks, ND 500 yr 250 yr No 250 yr No >500 yr Yes No
East Grand Forks, MN 500 yr 250 yr No 250 yr No >500 yr Yes No
Oslo, MN 200 yr >200 yr Yes >200 yr Yes >200 yr Yes No
Drayton, ND 200 yr <100 yr No <100 yr No <100 yr No Yes
Pembina, ND 200 yr 100 yr No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes
St. Vincent, MN 200 yr <100 yr No >100 yr No 200 yr Yes No
Noyes, MN 200 yr 100 yr No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No permanent protection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Damages Prevented by Potential LTFS Projects

The following figure summarizes the estimated damages prevented by
the potential LTFS local protection projects, combined with a 20% flow
reduction on the Red River main stem. Prevented damages are estimated
for 100 year, 200 year and 500 year floods.
Prevented damages are computed for both (1) baseline hydrology, or
that currently used by the USACE and (2) wet period hydrology, or that
recommended by the current USACE feasibility study for Fargo-Moorhead
flood protection.
Depending on the hydrology used, damages prevented by the potential
LTFS projects will range from about $3 to [$]4 billion for a single 100
year flood, from $6.5 to [$]8 billion for a single 200 year flood, and
from $10 to [$]13 billion for a single 500 year flood.
Working together with sound, proactive floodplain management, the
potential LTFS projects can make a profound, measureable difference far
into the future for the Red River basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Prevented Damages of Potential LTFS Projects--Red River Basin

Part IV: Moving Ahead With Integrated Action
10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Action
The basin of the Red River of the North, historically subject to
widespread chronic flooding, regularly sustains millions of dollars in
economic damages for each flood event. The Red River Basin Commission
(RRBC) identified the following conclusions on structural and
nonstructural strategies needed for permanent flood solutions in the
basin and recommendations for action for states (individually and
collectively) and the Federal Government to consider as they fund and
implement Long Term Flood Solutions (LTFS) for the Red River Basin in
Minnesota and North Dakota. These recommendations are built around the
basin-wide LTFS ``Level of Protection Goals'' adopted by the RRBC in
2010 together with related flood risk reduction needs. The
recommendations aim to move basin leaders from the usual response of
reacting to the most recent major flood experience to a proactive,
long-term plan with appropriate protection levels basin wide. If
implemented, these recommendations will significantly reduce the risk
of flood damages, and minimize disruption and economic loss and thus
facilitate and expedite recovery after spring and summer floods.

These recommendations cannot be successful without the dedicated
local, state and Federal participation in funding and commitment to
implement.
1. Immediate Needs/Critical Risks: Fargo-Moorhead, Devils Lake
Under current conditions, the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan
area could get, in a major 500 year level flood, $9 to $10
billion or more in basin damages, according to the USACE.

Current levels of protection for Fargo-Moorhead are
inadequate. Protection should be increased to enable a
successful 500 year flood fight.

Protection measures for Fargo-Moorhead should be
economically viable and provide the least level of adverse
impacts to others.

A diversion of the Red River around Fargo-Moorhead would
provide the protection needed to endure a successful 500 year
flood fight if it were supplemented by retention and other
available options to achieve the RRBC's proposed LTFS level of
protection goals.

Retention to achieve the potential 20 percent flow reduction
on the main stem should be aggressively pursued upstream of
Fargo-Moorhead to decrease the duration, scope, and level of
floods in the Fargo-Moorhead area, downstream communities, and
rural areas.

Recommendation for Action 1.1

The flood protection trajectory that has increased protection in
the Fargo-Moorhead metro area since the 2009 flood should continue.
State and Federal funds, with local government cost share, should
continue supporting ongoing dike construction, property acquisitions,
flowage easements, and flood infrastructure projects to be able to
fight at least a 100 year flood, and upwards of a 500 year flood in the
long-term.

Recommendation for Action 1.2

Progress towards the proposed $1.77 billion diversion should be
continued utilizing local, state, and Federal funds so that, combined
with current flood protection strategies, this community will have the
capacity within 10 years to wage a successful flood fight equal to or
greater than the LTFS 500 year flood.

Recommendation for Action 1.3

Retention upstream of the Hickson and Abercrombie stream gage for a
flow reduction of 20 percent (minimum) should be advanced with shared
funding by the F-M flood Diversion Authority working with local and
joint water boards, using city, local, state, and Federal funds.

Recommendation for Action 1.4

Leaders in state government in North Dakota and Minnesota, along
with key local government officials and with input from the Diversion
Authority and Federal agencies, should convene by early 2012 to
determine the non-Federal cost share formula for the Locally Preferred
Plan ($1.77 billion) diversion, and related $3.5 million operational
estimates.

Rising levels of water in the Devils Lake region have
increased the potential for a natural overflow that could
discharge approximately 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
water into the Sheyenne River, triggering prolonged flooding
and catastrophic downstream water quantity and quality problems
in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. This crisis should continue to
be addressed with immediate local, state and Federal action.

Recommendation for Action 1.5

The recommendations developed by the Devils Lake Executive
Committee through the work of the Devils Lake Collaborative Working
Group should continue to be supported by the state of North Dakota,
local authorities, and Federal and Tribal governments to guard against
critical risks.

Recommendation for Action 1.6

The RRBC and IRRB should distribute information with downstream
interests and jurisdictions providing progress and timelines on Devils
Lake activities.

Recommendation for Action 1.7

A comprehensive model using real-time data to determine the effects
of releases of Devils Lake water via the various outlet channels on the
Sheyenne and Red Rivers should be examined by local leaders and state
and Federal agencies to determine needs and related costs. The
examination should include the integration of various models already in
use by the USGS, the NWS, the NDSWC, and the USACE and be facilitated
by the RRBC.
2. Cornerstone Solutions: Floodplain Management
2A Floodplain Management--Nonstructural Strategies

A majority of the basin population lives adjacent to the Red
River main stem and its tributaries at the lowest geographic
elevation subject to flooding with no comprehensive, basin-wide
approach to floodplain management, nor is there a mechanism to
align the variations in local, state, and Federal rules,
regulations, and approaches.

Nonstructural floodplain management strategies should be an
integral component of reducing flood damage risks in the basin.

The most effective overall technique for living with floods
is for basin citizens to take personal responsibility for their
own flood risk and for the sustainability of our natural
resources.

Minnesota and North Dakota should fund and administer flood
mitigation policy consistently throughout the Red River basin
so that a flood event in excess of the 100 year becomes the
benchmark for managing the risk of flooding, regulating
development in the floodplain, and for developing flood risk
reduction projects around existing and newly developed areas.

Recommendation for Action 2A.1

State floodplain regulations and local zoning ordinances should
contain criteria for new residential, commercial, industrial, and
agribusiness development that requires the largest of the following
protection standards:

100 year flood plus 3.

200 year flood plus 1.

flood of record plus 1.

Recommendation for Action 2A.2

Buildings located in at-risk areas where structural measures cannot
accomplish the recommended flood protection levels or are not
economically feasible should be publicly acquired and removed over the
next 3 to 5 years.

Recommendation for Action 2A.3

Local governments in the basin should update floodplain ordinances
in the next 3 years, not permit new development in areas of high risk
of flooding immediately adjacent to the Red River and tributaries, and
minimize the use of variances, unless protected by elevation or another
acceptable FEMA strategy.

Recommendation for Action 2A.4

A review of basic floodplain regulations and programs should be
undertaken by appropriate agencies and stakeholders of local, state and
Federal standards, to include:

2A.4.1 An evaluation of the appropriate standards and
regulations for development throughout the basin, including the
adequacy of the 100 year regulatory minimum standard (to
include FIRMS) and the consideration of future standards to
reduce losses;
2A.4.2 An analysis of community and state compliance with
the flood insurance program, to include an analysis of proposed
mandatory flood insurance for structures protected by dikes,
identification of impediments to, and potential tools and
resources for, participation in FEMA's community Rating System,
determination of the feasibility of insurance development, and
a strategy to prompt a basin-wide reduction in flood insurance
rates;
2A.4.3 An analysis of the use of variances by local
governments; the reasons for and consequences of using
variances for individuals, communities, and state; and most
effective way(s) to track and document the use of variances.

Recommendation for Action 2A.5

Every community and county in the basin should work toward joining
or improving their rating through the national FEMA Community Rating
System to achieve lower flood insurance premiums for their residents
(40-45 percent discounts) by 2015 as part of their mitigation plan
update.

Recommendation for Action 2A.6

A Floodplain Bill of Rights, to include a floodplain map and
flooding history, should be developed by RRBC with local government,
realtors, builders, developers, FEMA, and state agency participation
(2012).

Recommendation for Action 2A.7

RRBC should develop education materials on the floodplain related
to the floodplain, insurance, personal decisions, and the Floodplain
Bill of Rights, to be distributed to the public, realtors, lenders, and
others (2012).

Recommendation for Action 2A.8

The USACE nonstructural assessment of identified structures has
been completed for the F-M diversion project along the main stem in six
counties deemed economically feasible for nonstructural mitigation.

2A.8.1 The USACE should expand its assessment along the
entire main stem.
2A.8.2 A local sponsor should be identified to provide the
non-Federal cost share of 35 percent and implement the
mitigation in the next 3 to 5 years.
2A.8.3 Congress should authorize such a project and
appropriate approximately $12 million in funding for the 65
percent Federal cost share to mitigate.

Recommendation for Action 2A.9

Minnesota and North Dakota should use their respective state Silver
Jackets (Flood and Hazard Mitigation) teams to regularly communicate
issues regarding flood mitigation efforts in the Red River Basin.
Silver Jackets team members from Minnesota and North Dakota should
contribute to a collaborative interstate strategy for flood recovery
and projects for mitigation efforts for the Red River of the North
basin, to be coordinated with the RRBC and others as deemed
appropriate.

2B Floodplain Management--Raising Levels of Protection

Comprehensive and strategic level of protection goals are
needed for the entire basin. To this point, existing levels of
protection have been based most often on the most recent flood
experience, political will, and funding availability.
The Minnesota and North Dakota legislatures should use
the RRBC Level of Flood Protection Goals as a guide to future
basin flood risk reduction strategies. (See ``Level of Flood
Protection Goals'' adopted by the RRBC Board (2010) in LTFS
Report, Ch. 8. Analysis assumes required freeboard.[)]

Major Urban/Metropolitan Areas

Fargo-Moorhead (see Section 1. Biggest Risks).

Grand Forks-East Grand Forks. Over the next 20 to 25 years,
Minnesota and North Dakota should support increasing protection
to a 500 year flood level for Grand Forks-East Grand Forks by
improving the cities' current 200 to 250 year protection with
upstream retention that achieves the potential minimum 20
percent flow reduction on the Red River main stem at Grand
Forks.

Winnipeg has elevated its level of protection to 700 years
by recent expansion of their diversion following the 1997
flood. Since its construction and subsequent first use in 1969,
the floodway has operated over 20 times and prevented more than
$10 billion in flood damages. This model shows the importance
of long range planning to realize the protection required from
potential large floods.

Recommendation for Action 2B.1

Grand Forks and East Grand Forks should each request the 500 year
or greater level of protection through the appropriate state and
Federal legislative avenues. Planning should recognize the degree to
which the strategy of retention can assist in achieving this level of
protection for the two cities.

Recommendation for Action 2B.2

The RRBC shall facilitate an exchange between officials in
Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Fargo-Moorhead local government officials, the
F-M Diversion Authority, and the public for the purpose of sharing
Winnipeg's experiences and expertise on the development and expansion
of that city's diversion, including engineering, construction, and
operation and maintenance of the Red River Floodway.

Critical Infrastructure:

Critical infrastructure needs to be protected from flooding
to the greatest levels practical. If adversely affected by
flooding, infrastructure such as water and waste water
facilities, airports, hospitals, transportation, regional
communications facilities, or chemical storage sites can
experience major disruptions, resulting in harm to the people,
economy, and environment of the basin.

Recommendation for Action 2B.3

Over the next 3 to 5 years, state emergency management officers
shall facilitate the identification and documentation of at-risk
critical basin infrastructure and report to the state legislatures in
the annual LTFS update.

Small Cities and Municipalities:

By 2015, cities in Minnesota and North Dakota on the main
stem, tributaries, and in other flood prone areas should
achieve protection to the 100 year level or 3 of freeboard the
largest flood in their area plus 3 of freeboard, whichever is
greater.

Once cities have achieved this level of protection,
additional protection should be pursued towards achieving
greater than 200 year flood protection using upstream
retention. Flood flow reduction from upstream retention can
further complement the current levees and other strategies
underway or contemplated.

Recommendation for Action 2B.4

Community structural projects in collaboration with the RRWMB and
RRJWRD should be funded in the next state funding cycle for each
respective state. See attached funding timeline table D-31 and Level of
Protection Appendix D, D-3.1, p. 12 with state, local and Federal
funding.

Rural Residences and Farmsteads:

Funding ring dikes or elevating of buildings for rural residents
and farmsteads in flood prone areas should protect to 3 above the 100
year level or 3 above the largest flood in their area, whichever is
greater.

Recommendation for Action 2B.5

Structural projects identified in collaboration with the RRWMB and
RRJWRD for rural areas, including ring dikes and rural property
acquisitions, should be funded beginning in the next state funding
cycle through 2015 for each respective state. For those projects that
become necessary only after future floods, funding shall become
available in subsequent funding cycles. See attached funding table D-31
and Level of Protection Appendix D, D-3.1, p. 12.

Agricultural Cropland:

Agriculture is an economic mainstay of the basin, with basin
farms experiencing composite net returns of $3 billion or more
annually.

Adequate drainage, whether surface or tile, is crucial to
crop production in the basin.

Studies such as the timing analysis study suggest that
improvements to drainage systems in areas that contribute
consistently to the rising side of the Red River flood
hydrograph (early water) have the potential to help reduce Red
River flood peaks if they can move runoff through the system
ahead of flood peaks. (Minnesota Flood Damage Reduction
Workgroup Technical Paper No. 11)

At this time, no comprehensive, systematic approach exists
to coordinate the release of water in the current drainage
system based upon this timing analysis. Recent improvements in
modeling, flow data, and elevation data can be utilized to
better manage water to reduce flooding on the Red River.

The strategies that slow water or hold it on the land
slightly longer (while allowing for timely movement in the
drainage system) are best implemented through land use and
easement programs that take into account landowner impacts, as
well as benefits to the local area the main stem.

Potential exists to appropriate new Federal funding for land
management to the basin through the next U.S. farm bill that
will assist landowners in reducing runoff, reducing erosion,
and improving water quality. This effort will come through
programs administered by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service or its designee.

Recommendation for Action 2B.6

The RRRA, RRWMB, and RRJWRD, with appropriate state agencies, local
government, and commodity group participation and support, should
develop a multipurpose drainage strategy for agricultural land that
evaluates the following:

2.10.1 Designed and engineered for both private benefits and
public water management objectives.
2.10.2 Temporary detention (slowing down of water) by land
management practices and land use changes.
2.10.3 Side inlet controls for all ditches.
2.10.4 Use of drainage for peak flow reductions and erosion
control.
2.10.5 Rate and volume of water related to field and drain
capacity.
2.10.6 Timing and movement of water in an equitable manner.
2.10.7 Landowner incentives and needs.
2.10.8 Adding drainage components to hydrologic models.
2.10.9 Need for studies, strategies, moratoriums, and
additional information.

Recommendation for Action 2B.7

River channel maintenance such as snagging and clearing of trees,
including the removal of trees that have or are at risk of falling into
rivers and waterways, should be continued as necessary to maintain open
waterways systems. The two states should continue to fund this effort:
under current policies, North Dakota at its level of about $1 to $2
million, and Minnesota to restore its historic level of $150,000 per
year.

Recommendation for Action 2B.8

For purposes of achieving long-term flood retention and other
benefits, Minnesota should provide state funding through bonding of $10
million a biennium for the Red River basin through the Board of Water
and Soil Resources for Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) easements to match
or supplement Federal USDA conservation funding such as the Wetland
Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, EWP, and Environmental
Quality Assurance Programs to achieve long term flood retention to
leverage Federal funding in the next 5 year farm bill and for other
benefits.

Recommendation for Action 2B.9

A basin wetland bank whereby farmers/landowners can purchase and
exchange wetland credits should be developed by Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota in partnership with NRCS and the local joint
water resource districts in North Dakota and joint watershed districts
in Minnesota.

Recommendation for Action 2B.10

The following pilot projects, demonstrations, and studies should be
authorized and funded:

2B.10.1 Drainage as a Flood Reduction Tool Analysis: The
RRRA, with appropriate state agency support, shall initiate an
analysis of how to better utilize the surface drainage system
to lower spring flood hydrographs by removing water on the
rising side of the hydrograph consistent with the early,
middle, and late zones.
2B.10.2 Culvert Inventory: An analysis outlining the
advantages, disadvantages, benefits, and costs of a basin-wide
culvert inventory gathered at the local water board level
should be completed by RRBC and presented to the appropriate
local and state entities with recommended funding from local,
state, and Federal sources (2012).
2B.10.3 Culvert Size Demonstration Project: A demonstration
project in partnership with NRCS and affected local water
boards should be implemented to analyze the flow reduction
benefits of small distributed and culvert-sizing retention. The
project, estimated to cost about $1.5 million, should be 75/25
percent Federal/non-Federal cost shared (2012).
2B.10.4 Ag Damage Report: The 1980 and 2002 basin
agriculture flood damage reports should be updated and
documented in a continuously updated data base, with Federal
funds provided through USDA to provide local project benefit/
cost information to assist in local impoundment strategies at
the local landowner and water board level.
2B.10.5 Wetland Water Level Management Pilot Project: Within
the next 2 years, a pilot project should be funded by NRCS in
cooperation with the RRRA and other appropriate state and
Federal agencies to draw down wetlands in the autumn enabling
spring storage and determining benefits and impacts for habitat
and retention.
2B.10.6 Multi-Purpose Pilot Project: A demonstration project
with funding and participation from farm and commodity groups
and other interested parties should be developed and
implemented in 2012, with RRBC assistance, to gather data on
the timing and impacts on flooding from the following: tile
drainage, surface drainage, wetland restoration, early water
ditch drainage, and culvert sizing.
2B.10.7 Tile Drainage Study: A tile drainage analysis by the
RRRA through the Basin Technical and Scientific Advisory
Committee under the staff direction of the International Water
Institute should be funded by the RRWMB and RRJWRD and
completed in 2012.
2B.10.8 Buffer Strip: Buffer strips should be established
and enforced at the local level for all natural, altered, and
man-made waterways to a minimum of 16.5 (1 rod) and a maximum
of 50 or more with incentives provided to landowners to reduce
sediment for water quality and maintenance cost benefits and to
slow the flow of water into the waterways.

Recommendation for Action 2B.11

The rural flood control systems that protect agricultural
productivity and the economy from spring and summer floods should
continue to be implemented throughout the basin. The goal is to reduce
crop loss and to reduce planting delays by moving water off of land by
mid-May in the spring and maximize flood control designs for peak run
off for a 24 hour summer rainfall event with a 10 year reoccurrence
interval.

Critical Transportation System and Emergency Services:

The Red River basin covers approximately 45,000\2\ miles or
28 million acres, a majority directly in active agricultural
production, with an extensive system of highways, roads, and
bridges that provide for the movement of goods and people to
enhance the economic output of the region.

The RRBC should facilitate discussions with regional
organizations, state and Federal departments of transportation,
and EMOs, to identify a strategy for critical transportation
preservation including potential road elevations during 100,
200, and 500 year flood levels compatible with the LTFS level
of protection goals.

Critical transportation and emergency services throughout
the basin are inconsistent with each other and fail to operate
effectively for a typical flood event.

Recommendation for Action 2B.12

Minnesota and North Dakota should each explore the issues
surrounding dedicating a portion of state aid for highway funding for
culvert sizing and related road modifications that benefit basin flood
damage reduction strategies and introduce legislation to change state
law if necessary. The RRBC shall assist with facilitation the
discussion and analysis, by the end of 2013.

Recommendation for Action 2B.13

An analysis of planned and proposed road elevations for 100, 200,
and 500 year flood protection at township, county and state levels for
emergency, population sustainability, and agricultural and economic
production needs shall be developed. Engineering expertise funded and
directed by the RRWMB, RRJWRD, and appropriate state agencies should
identify needs by location and hydrologic impacts on flooding by change
of flows, elevation of the flood stage, and other related impacts using
the new LiDAR data.

Recommendation for Action 2B.14

Minnesota and North Dakota should develop through their Departments
of Transportation, a state and local funding strategy to assist in
county and township flood-related road repairs and implement additional
flood mitigation efforts once the protection goals are achieved and
Federal emergency aid under a disaster declaration is less likely.

Recommendation for Action 2B.15

The RRBC should facilitate discussions with relevant regional
organizations, state and Federal departments of transportation, and
emergency management offices to identify a strategy for critical
transportation preservation, including potential road elevations during
the 100, 200, and 500 year flood levels, and to identify state and
Federal funding needs.

2C Floodplain Management--Retention

No comprehensive, basin-wide strategy exists to implement
the LTFS minimum 20 percent flow reduction goal for the main
stem while achieving local tributary flood damage reduction.

The impacts of retention are often dependant on timing and
location. Not all sites are equally beneficial for local
tributary and basin main stem flood damage reduction.

Flow reduction through retention as demonstrated by modeling
can reduce flows and stages on the Red River main stem as well
as provide local benefits on tributaries. However, due to the
variability of flood events, retention must be used in
conjunction with other structural and non-structural measures
to achieve the LTFS goals that will result in basin-wide
improved levels of protection.

The minimum goal for flow reduction on the Red River main
stem at the international boundary for a 100 year flood equates
to around 1.5 million acre-feet of storage upstream accounting
for timing of flow and costing approximately $1.5 billion.

Retention using the minimum 20 percent flow reduction goal
basin-wide can be achieved over the next 20 years if local,
state, and Federal funds are leveraged to provide comprehensive
local, tributary and main stem benefits for residents,
property, and the environment.

Retention that will cumulatively achieve the basin minimum
20 percent flow reductions over the next 20 to 25 years should
be managed to improve flood control, improve water quality,
include natural resource enhancement opportunities, and provide
potential water supply during extended droughts.

Numerous small, aged P.L. 83-566 flood control dams
throughout the basin could provide additional capacity for
flood storage retention with refurbishment.

Recommendation for Action 2C.1

Federal funding should be provided for retention at $25 million per
year or $500 million over the next 20 years, with Minnesota, North
Dakota, and local governments providing cost share funding for
retention to achieve a minimum 20 percent reduction in peak flows on
the Red River.

Recommendation for Action 2C.2

Cost for retention projects should be shared among Federal (50 to
75 percent), states of Minnesota and North Dakota (25 to 35 percent),
and the RRWMB, RRJWRD and local water boards (10 to 25 percent) over a
period of 20 years staying within the current local joint board two mil
levy.

Recommendation for Action 2C.3

A review of federally operated reservoirs, identifying the
potential for increased storage during flood events, should be
conducted by USACE and state agencies, and Wildlife Management Areas by
the USFWS, reporting to relevant state agencies and the RRRA.

Recommendation for Action 2C.4

The newly formed RRRA should work with each water management board
to plan, design, and implement retention, to achieve 25 percent of the
retention goal every 5 years for their respective areas, with the goal
of achieving the minimum 20 percent flow reduction for the Red River
main stem over 20-25 years.

Recommendation for Action 2C.5

A project prioritization methodology for the use of Federal funds
reflecting local and main stem needs and benefits should be developed
by the RRRA by 2012.

Recommendation for Action 2C.6

The permitting process for water retention projects should be
coordinated by the RRRA and a Federal agency liaison in the basin
working with appropriate state and Federal agencies to help streamline
the process to decrease timelines for project implementation, allow a
one-stop permitting process, and provide general permits for certain
projects.

Recommendation for Action 2C.7

NRCS and/or the states of Minnesota and North Dakota should provide
$400,000 to expand the Project Planning and Permit Evaluation
demonstration project to the entire Red River basin through the
International Water Institute as part of the USACE Basin Watershed
Feasibility Study.

Recommendation for Action 2C.8

Public outreach on retention programs and a survey to determine
landowner interest in storing water on their land should be completed
in 2 years by the RRWMB and RRJWRD (or the RRRA) to assist in future
planning for retention projects and determine achievable timelines and
cost expectations that correspond to local participation.

Recommendation for Action 2C.9

Regarding the ongoing USACE Red River Basin-wide Feasibility Study:

2C.9.1 The current ongoing study shall be continued with
Federal funding at $1 million per year and corresponding $1
million non-Federal match.
2C.9.2 The updating of HMS (hydrologic modeling system) of
the remaining major watersheds should be completed by the end
of 2012. This modeling will provide the tools necessary to
identify retention projects on tributaries that provide local
benefits and cumulatively benefit the basin.
2C.9.3 Modeling of the remaining main stem Hydrologic
Engineering Centers River Analysis System HEC-RAS reach to the
Canadian border presently underway, including the work needed
to tie all the main stem reaches together into one model from
White Rock, South Dakota, to the Canadian border, should be
completed by the end of 2012.
2C.9.4 The HEC-RAS main stem model, in conjunction with the
new watershed HMS models, should be finalized in such a way
that they can be utilized to provide the basis for a RRRA
``Project Prioritization Process'' needed for evaluating
proposed projects, their effectiveness, and downstream impacts
in contributing to the RRBC's flow reduction goals on the major
tributaries and Red River main stem.

Recommendation for Action 2C.10

NRCS, in conjunction the RRRA, shall evaluate P.L. 83-566 and other
dams that have flood control capacity in the basin to determine the
feasibility of restoration for the purpose of adding potential flood
water retention storage, including the identification of specific
structures for rehabilitation, specific strategies and funding
necessary, and proposed timelines. NRCS shall issue its findings to the
RRRA by September 30, 2012. Federal funding of up to $6 million is
needed for the evaluation and an additional estimated $10-$15 million
for refurbishment.
3. Information and Tools for Maximizing Efforts Going Forward
The Red River Basin, a vast geographic area of three states
and one Canadian province, has great need for cooperation
across boundaries for uniform data and information gathering
efforts, an understanding of our differences, and a shared
vision of what needs to be accomplished.

The current local, state, and Federal partnership in
comprehensive flood risk reduction strategies is disjointed and
operates in a piecemeal fashion.

Each flood varies, creating unique issues regarding
preparation and protection needs.

Levels of protection recommended by RRBC for the LTFS Report
will provide the safety net needed and allow for variations in
floods, weather, and forecasting.

Further improvements in flood forecasting such as new data
sets, modeling improvements, and real time information to
account for variables related to precipitation and temperature
are needed to build upon those instituted after the 1997 flood.

Additional efforts and information are needed as a guide for
the future as updated needs become evident.

Recommendation for Action 3.1

The RRBC shall, for the next 10 years, conduct an annual evaluation
of flood mitigation progress towards the implementation of the LTFS
Report Recommendations. This evaluation shall be submitted to
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Manitoba.

Recommendation for Action 3.2

Jurisdictional Multi-Boundary Coordination should be implemented
wherever possible through the RRBC.

3.2.1 The Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
governors and the Manitoba Premier should meet at least once
every 2 years, along with the relevant legislative committee
chairs of the state and provincial governments, to receive an
update on progress towards the LTFS recommendations on flood
reduction strategies, water quality, water quantity, and other
relevant natural resource issues.
3.2.2 With the assistance of RRBC, the International
Legislators Forum among Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota legislators should be continued to discuss current
topics, including flood risk reduction strategies.
3.2.3 Minnesota should coordinate through the Board of Water
and Soil Resources and the state legislature the inclusion of
all subwatersheds on the Minnesota side as Watershed Districts
(Ottertail) and membership in the RRWMB (Ottertail and Buffalo-
Red Watershed District).
3.2.4 Federal agencies should utilize their regional
structures in innovative new ways to accommodate Red River
basin hydrologic boundaries.
3.2.5 When necessary, RRBC shall coordinate a jurisdictional
meeting of heads of state, legislative leaders, and key agency
officials to prompt dialogue and development of unified action
on such issues.

Recommendation for Action 3.3

LTFS should be expanded to include the entire Red River basin:

3.3.1 Manitoba should continue funding RRBC's efforts to
model the 20 percent flow reduction strategy in Manitoba and
also continue and accelerate the gathering of Light Detection
and Ranging (LiDAR) data, at $70,000 through 2012.
3.3.2 South Dakota and local leadership should determine the
feasibility of establishing watershed organizations in Roberts
and Marshall counties through the International Legislators
Forum within the next 2 years.

Recommendation for Action 3.4

RRBC should coordinate development of a basin-wide strategy and
identification of funding sources for improving flood forecasting
during 2012 among local, state, provincial, and Federal agencies.

3.4.1 The generation of relevant time appropriate data (real
time rain and snowmelt, soil moisture, frost depth information,
and other information) and improved modeling through a
volunteer network and the development of a real time network
shall be addressed.
3.4.2 The feasibility of establishing an on-site decision
support service to the region during spring and summer flood
events by hosting a U.S. National Weather Service hydrologist
in the basin shall be considered, as well as identifying a
funding source for such an effort.

Recommendation for Action 3.5

The USGS, RRWMB, RRJWRD, and their member water boards, NDSWC,
MNDNR, and other key stakeholders, should develop a stream gage
strategy by 2012 with associated costs and funders for the basin for
the main stem Red River and its tributaries that will support the new
hydrologic and hydraulic models that will provide a long term record
for accurate, timely, and consistent flow data for model development,
aid in flood reduction strategies, and include water quality modeling
needs in the next 2 years.

Recommendation for Action 3.6

RRBC should update the LTFS Report in 2021 with the inclusion of
Manitoba and South Dakota and shared funding from the four
jurisdictions.
4. Resources to Implement
Minnesota and North Dakota, cost-sharing with local, state,
and Federal funds, should implement actions consistent with the
LTFS to maintain the basin's social, economic, and
environmental welfare and protection from future large floods,
as this investment over the next 10 years will significantly
reduce the risk of $11-$13 billion in losses from a large flood
and protect the economic output of the basin.

Recommendations for Action 4.1

The States of Minnesota and North Dakota, cost-sharing with local
and Federal partners, should make a financial investment of about $3.54
billion over the next 10 years to immediately address flooding in the
basin with a structural approach.

4.1 Funding in Minnesota needed for the next 10 years is
$270.9 million, from local and state sources.
4.2 Funding in North Dakota needed for the next 10 years is
$536.4 million from local and state sources.
4.3 Local funding at the RRWMB and RRJWRD levels should be
increased and maintained at a two mil levy.

See attached funding timeline table D-31 and Level of
Protection Appendix D, D-3.1, p. 12 with state, local and
Federal funds.

Table D-31 Funding Timeline for Project Implementation Costs along the Red River of the North and Tributaries 6 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining Project Costs 1st Ten Years (Starts 1 July 2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Non- Remaining
Local Protection Projects Project Non- Non- Federal Federal Funding for Notes
Cost Total Federal Federal Funding in Funding in Future (After
Funding Funding Funding \1\ Minnesota North 2021)
Dakota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Main Stem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Farmstead and Rural Residence Ring Dikes $17.0 $3.2 $1.8 $0.4 $1.0 TBD \8\
Red Minnesota Rural Area Buyouts $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 TBD
Red North Dakota Rural Area Buyouts $7.0 $7.0 $3.6 $3.4 $0.0
Red Stanley Township, Cass County, ND Levees $4.0 $4.0 $4.0 $0.0
Red Breckenridge, MN $41.0 $0.7 $0.7 $0.0
Red Oxbow, ND $0.4 $0.0
Red Fargo/Moorhead Diversion Project $1,770.0 $1,770.0 $785.0 $985.0 $0.0 1, 6
Red Fargo, ND--Other Non-Diversion Projects $200.0 $200.0 $200.0 $0.0
Red Moorhead, MN--Other Non-Diversion Projects $70.0 $25.0 $25.0 $0.0
Red Oakport Twp, MN $33.0 $8.7 $8.7 $0.0
Red/Buffalo Georgetown, MN $3.2 $3.2 $3.2 $0.0
Red Perley, MN $2.7 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0
Red Hendrum, MN $2.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0
Red/Marsh Shelly, MN $3.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.0
Red Nielsville, MN $3.0 $1.8 $1.8 $0.0
Red/Sand Hill Climax, MN $3.0 $2.3 $2.3 $0.0
Red Oslo, MN $9.0 $9.0 $9.0 $0.0
Red Drayton, ND TBD
Red Pembina, ND $0.1 $0.0
Red St. Vincent, MN $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tributaries
Sheyenne/Maple/Rush Rivers (ND)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheyenne Valley City, ND $60.0 $60.0 $39.0 $21.0 $0.0
Sheyenne Fort Ransom, ND $2.8 $2.8 $0.0
Sheyenne Lisbon, ND $10.0 $10.0 $0.0
Sheyenne Kindred, ND $3.0 $3.0 $0.0
Sheyenne Horace, ND $0.0 \2\
Sheyenne West Fargo, ND $0.0 \2\
Sheyenne Reile's Acres, ND $0.0 \2\
Maple Enderlin, ND $0.3 $0.0
Maple Mapleton, ND $0.1 $0.0
Rush Amenia, ND TBD
Sheyenne Harwood, ND $0.0 \2\
Sheyenne Reed Township, Cass County, ND $4.5 $4.5 $1.8 $2.7 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Rice River (MN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh Ada, MN $9.4 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0
Felton Ditch Felton, MN $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $0.0
Wild Rice Buyouts $1.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Lake River (MN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cty Ditch 1 Thief River Falls, MN $1.0 $0.0
Red Lake Crookston, MN $40.0 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle/Snake Rivers (MN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake Alvarado, MN $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $0.0
Middle Argyle, MN $0.8 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park River (ND)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Grafton, ND $42.1 $41.0 $31.6 $9.4 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pembina River (ND)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pembina Neche, ND $3.0 $3.0 $1.9 $1.1 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roseau River (MN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roseau Roseau, MN $40.0 $20.0 $14.0 $6.0 $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devils Lake (ND)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devils Lake Devils Lake, ND (City of) $150.0 $0.0
Devils Lake Minnewaukan, ND $10.5 $0.0
Devils Lake Fort Totten, ND $120.0 $120.0 $120.0 $0.0
Devils Lake Tolna Coulee--Control Structure $14.0 $13.4 $9.9 $3.5 $0.0 \3\
West End Outlet TBD $0.0 \6\
East End Outlet $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $0.0
Gravity Outlet $17.0 $17.0 $17.0 $0.0
Buyouts TBD $0.0
Raise Federal aid roads $190.0 $190.0 $190.0 $0.0
Raise township roads TBD $0.0
Raise railroads $97.0 $97.0 $64.7 $32.3 $0.0 \4\
Increase Upper Basin Storage $75.0 $75.0 $75.0 $0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Local Protection--In United $3,166.3 $2,812.4 $1,338.2 $985.0 $92.9 $380.4 $0.0
States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Storage Projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Upstream Storage Projects $1,463.0 $700.0 $350.0 $175.0 $175.0 $763.0 \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Flood Related Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot Projects $10.0 $5.0 $2.5 $1.3 $1.3 $5.0
Decision Support Network $4.0 $4.0 $2.0 $1.0 $1.0 $0.15/yr
Forecasting $2.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.15/yr
FEMA Flood Plain Mapping with LiDAR data TBD
Transportation Upgrades TBD
404 Retention Permitting Coordination $1.0 $1.0 $0.5 $0.3 $0.3 $1.0
Drainage TBD
Conservation Program Funding TBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Other Flood Related Activities $17.0 $12.0 $6.0 $0.0 $3.0 $3.0 $6.0
=================================================================================================
Total for United States in Red River Basin $4,646.3 $3,524.4 $1,694.2 $985.0 $270.9 $558.4 $769.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD To be determined.
Notes:
\1\ The estimated amounts of the Federal and non-Federal Fargo/Moorhead LPP Diversion project total costs are based on the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan
Area Flood Risk Management project Supplemental Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, April 2011. Final cost-sharing amounts
between the non-Federal partners have not yet been determined.
\2\ Additional local protection included as a part of the Fargo-Moorhead LPP North Dakota diversion project cost listed under Fargo and Moorhead at the
top of this table.
\3\ Tolna Coulee cost includes $14 million for the control structure to prevent significant erosion in case of a natural overflow.
\4\ Cost-sharing for raising railroad embankment at Devils Lake estimated to be \1/3\ cost-shared by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, \1/3\ by
Amtrak, and \1/3\ by the North Dakota Department of Transportation through a U.S. Department of Transportation grant.
\5\ Federal participation in potential upstream storage projects is assumed to be available through future U.S. farm bill at approximately 50 percent
cost-sharing; however, actual Federal funding availability and cost-sharing amounts is uncertain. Also, implementation of projects in each state is
assumed to be at comparable levels, however this will depend on project implementation schedules by each state.
\6\ Operation and maint[enance] (O&M) costs of projects are not included in this tabulation, even though in some cases the O&M costs may be substantial.
O&M costs are typically a non-Federal or local responsibility and should also be considered in the implementation decision for a project.
\7\ Information on specific projects at individual communities can be found on the City Assessment tables in Appendix C.
\8\ Funding for farmstead and rural ring dikes depend on the number of landowners requesting assistance. A rough estimate based on funding from recent
years is included.

Barr Factor Arc GIS 10.0. 2011-09-27 11:23 File:
15Client\St.Paul_DistrictCorps\Work_Orders\Red_River_Basin_Wide_

Feasibility_Study\Maps\ReportMap\MapA-1GeneralLocationMap.mod.
User ID: TJA.
[Attachment B]
Red River Basin of the North RCPP Watershed Project Areas

[Attachment C]
Red River Retention Authority Consolidated Subcommittee Reports
March 28, 2011
Retention Committee
Water Management Sub-committee
Chair: Gary Peterson
New Farm Bill Funding[:]

Continue further study on the viability of tiling as a water
retention practice[:]

Collaborate with the RRRA Basin Technical and Scientific
Advisory Committee on water retention strategies,
specifically ag water management for both surface and sub-
surface water.

Utilize the NRCS Conservation Innovative Grants program in
a pilot watershed to provide scientific findings on the
potential of using tile systems to retain water in the soil
profile.

Develop a cooperative agreement with USDA Agricultural
Research Service, Cooperative Extension Service, and the
land grant universities from University of Minnesota, North
Dakota State University, and South Dakota State University
to:

Continue research on the impact of tiling on water
retention.

Continue to evaluate the impacts of tile drainage on
water quality and wet-
land health.

Provide Red River of the North Basin financial assistance
through Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) and
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) for bundled agricultural
water management practices[:]

Nutrient management.

Pest management.

Erosion control.

Buffer and filter strips.

Water control structures on tile outlets.

Downstream retention ponds.

Based on scientific research, continue to provide low
interest rate loans through the ``Conservation Loan Program''
administered through the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to implement
ag water management systems through the NRCS (drain tile).

Prioritize Red River of the North Basin Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP) sub-program financial assistance for
the design and installation side water inlet structures.

Wilkin County, Minnesota side water inlet.

Sub-committee observations:

Tile has potential to be used as a water management tool in the Red
River Basin. Experts from North Dakota State University, the Energy and
Environmental Research Center, the tiling industry, International Water
Institute and private landowners have conducted or are working on
short-term studies on this type of water management. The preliminary
findings show a need for further evaluation and study.
There appears to be the potential to gain efficiencies in water
retention, protect public safety, improve soil health and water
quality. There are some studies indicating the soil can hold more water
in the spring, but these studies are not conclusive. Many of the
reports on water management efficiencies are anecdotal and need to be
further studied by the scientific community. The potential is real, but
we need to be certain we are not solving one water resource issue while
creating another.
Retention Committee
Permitting Sub-committee
Chad L. Engels, Chairman
Sub-Committee Recommendations:

EPA Guideline Change[:]

EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines, set out in 40 CFR section
230 (LEDPA)--404(b)(1) states a permit will not be issued
``if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed
discharge which would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have
other significant adverse environmental consequences.'' Our
subcommittee has identified LEDPA as a significant obstacle
to building retention projects in terms of time and money.
A solution would be to replace The Least Environmental
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) requirement with a
simple environmental mitigation requirement for the
proposed project.

SAMP[:]

EPA 404 Nationwide Permit/Regional Permit--Currently,
retention projects must be permitted as individual
projects. Our subcommittee has learned that many categories
of projects are permitted under what are called
``Nationwide Permits'' or ``Regional permits''. These
permit categories speed the process significantly by having
a common ``Purpose and Need'' and ``Description of Proposed
Alternatives and No Action Alternative'' in the EIS
requirements for flood retention projects covered by this
national or regional permit. Therefore, our subcommittee
will likely recommend that a Nationwide Permit (preferable)
or Regional General Permit (second choice) be developed for
three categories of retention projects in the Red River of
the North Watershed. These project categories include Off-
Channel projects like North Ottawa, dry mainstem projects
like the Maple River Dam, and wetland retention projects
that temporarily store water above the delineated wetland
boundary.

Consistency--The USACE should establish an interagency
agreement whereby one office assumes regulatory control of
retention projects within the entire Red River of the North
Watershed.

Funding--The Federal Government should fund a USACE
regulatory position dedicated solely to processing Federal
permits for retention projects in the Red River of the
North Watershed.

Involvement--The USACE should be a committed, active,
and involved participant in the ``Flood Damage Reduction
Work Group--Watershed District Project Teams'' process for
developing retention projects in Minnesota. Additionally,
the USACE should be involved at the ground level, if
requested, for retention projects developed in North Dakota
and South Dakota.

Corps Rule 40 CFR Change[:]

NEPA Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Comment
Period--would recommend that Corps rules be changed so that
under no circumstances can the three comment periods
required under an EIS be extended beyond 30 days for the
Notice of Intent, 45 days for the Draft EIS, and 30 days
for the Final EIS.
Retention Committee
Easement Sub-committee
Chair: Jon Roeschlein
Farm Bill Changes[:]

514.13--Ineligible Landowners--We recommend that Watershed
Districts, Water Resource Districts, and the Red River
Retention Authority in the Red River of the North Basin be
eligible to enroll lands into the WRP. This provision would
expedite the implementation of flood water retention projects.

514.14--Land Eligibility--It is recommended that all hydric
soils including non-drained retention areas located in the Red
River of the North Basin are eligible lands for the WRP.

[] 514.14d--Consideration should be given to add a new focus
area like that done for the Devils Lake area. Potential
language:

Section 1237, Wetlands Reserve Program
(c) Eligibility.

Add (2)(C) Other land of an owner where the
Secretary determines wetland functions and
values can be established on such land.

514.20 Ranking Criteria--It is a recommendation of this
committee that the Red River Retention Authority in cooperation
with the three State Conservationists develop WRP ranking
criteria specific to the Red River of the North Basin.

Spring 2010 North Ottawa Impoundment.

514.41b--Definition of Restoration--We have come to
agreement on short-term definition that we are restoring the
value and function of wetland complexes that have been degraded
since settlement of the area. Long-term, there is a need to
provide clarification that allows for the establishment of
wetlands and wetland complexes that provide the same or better
functions and values as enhanced, rehabilitated or restored
wetland functions and values. If managed properly, the
functions and values should far exceed those of most naturally
occurring wetlands and those wetlands that are restored but not
managed.

Structure C North Ottawa Impoundment.

WRP Acreage Cap--State Conservationists be allowed to waive
the County Cropland Reenrollment limitations in the Red River
of the North Basin for purpose of water retention projects.
Also suggest a separate acreage limit for WRP and CRP. [(]i.e.,
CRP 25%, WRP 25%[)].

FSA Regulation change[:]

Buffer widths--Eligible buffer strip widths should be
increased to fully encompass the 100 year floodplain adjacent
to the channel or the floodway adjacent to the channel or up to
1,000.

CRP Acreage Cap--State Executive Director be allowed to
waive the County Cropland Reenrollment limitations in the Red
River of the North Basin for purpose of water retention
projects. Also suggest a separate acreage limit for CRP and
WRP. i.e., CRP 25%, WRP 25%.

Vegetation Management--There should be provisions added
where the State Executive Director could waive the payment
reduction on CRP and CCRP for biofuels harvesting or haying or
grazing when part of an approved management plan. It does not
make sense to use burning as the only viable option for
vegetative management on these sites targeted for water
retention projects and penalize the landowner for more
reasonable and practical management options.

NRCS Policy change or farm bill change?

Multiple Easement Categories--It is recommended the EWP-FPE
allow for continued cropping of portions of the easement under
an approved conservation management plan.

Enhancement--It is recommended that EWP-FPE include
enhancement and allow retention in addition to restoration of
the floodplain.
Retention Committee
Farm Bill Programs Sub-committee
Chair: Rob Sando
NRCS Policy Changes[:]

Encourage sidewater inlets/outlets as retention features in
EQIP/AWEP

Change NRCS ranking criteria with ``Encourage and
Prioritize'', to emphasize the installation and operation
of sidewater inlets/outlets with traps as higher priority
in the ranking process.

Encourage and emphasis Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) and
Natural Resource Enhancement (NRE) in NRCS ranking process.

Encourage landowners through local EQIP/AWEP applications
to refrain from draining water on property with traps on
sidewater inlets/outlets until the water in the drain or
stream recedes thus resulting in a higher score on their
eligibility status. This could be done by having landowners
sign an agreement resulting in a higher NRCS ranking score.

Minnesota Red River Valley side water inlets.

New Farm Bill Funding[:]

Increase the amount of funding for Technical Service
Providers in the Red River of the North Basin (practice design,
application and checkout).

Establish FEMA or public private partnership, or USDA Rural
Development to be used for protection of small agricultural
rural community (population less than 3,000) ring dike (50
percent to total project costs).

Establish FEMA or public private partnership, or USDA Rural
Development to be used for culvert sizing projects that provide
for distributed flood water retention in targeted/prioritized
areas as part of a sub-watershed plan. This would provide
landowner incentives for keeping the water where it lands as
part of the goal of reducing downstream flood peaks.

Provide AWEP funding to construct levees and dikes to manage
10 year frequency for overland flooding on agricultural land.

Increase EQIP/AWEP funding for forestry practices.

Utilize forestry management products and activities for
excess moisture.

Biomass Crop Assistance practice.

No Federal cost-share or incentive payment should exceed 75%
of the cost of installation

P.L. 83-566 and EWP Change[:]

Where it is not practical for technical reasons to construct
ring dikes for a farmstead provide P.L. 83-566 and Emergency
Watershed Protection Program funds for relocation or buy out of
some or all of the farmstead at 50 percent cost-share.

No Federal cost-share or incentive payment should exceed 75%
of the cost ofinstallation.
Retention Committee
P.L. 83-566 Sub-committee
Chair: Dan Money
Committee Recommendations:

Increase watershed size limit from 250,000 acres to
1,000,000 acres, and use only the upstream contributing area to
determine eligible size, not any downstream areas.

Increase the single site storage volume from 12,500 acre-
feet to 75,000 acre-feet.

Increase the total project storage volume from 25,000 acre-
feet to 250,000 acre-feet.

Increase the eligible construction cost-share from 0 percent
to 75 percent Federal cost-share for natural resource
enhancements.

Add language to alter the eligible technical assistance
cost-share to make technical assistance costs associated with
natural resource enhancement portions of the project eligible
for 75 percent cost-share.

Add language to limit the total project sponsor cost-share
(non-Federal) to 25 percent. Also, amortize the future expected
operations-maintenance-repair-replacement-rehabilitation costs
to a present value and allow the local sponsor to use this
obligation towards the max of 25 percent cost-share on initial
construction.

Increase project cost/timing approval by Congress
requirement from projects that exceed $5 million and/or 4,000
acre-feet to:

(1) allow approval by the NRCS State Conservationist for projects
up to $25
million (or 25,000 acre-feet), and

(2) allow approval by the NRCS Chief for projects up to $50
million (or 50,000
acre-feet). Approval by Congress would be required for
projects over $50
million/50,000 acre-feet.

Eliminate the requirement under economic and environmental
principles and guidelines for water resources implementation
studies for individual benefit to cost ratio calculations on
each individual project and instead allow flood control
projects to be based upon an overall basin plan.

Designate the Red River Retention Authority as the unit of
government who will develop the benefit to cost ratio to be
used collectively for all projects within the Red River of the
North basin. Projects that fall under the basin plan will not
need to meet an individual cost benefit ratio criteria, but
will need to meet the basin cost benefit criteria.

Under technical services contracting, issue a Request for
Proposals for a multiple award of indefinite delivery/
indefinite quantity contract for planning, design, and
implementation of flood control planning focused specifically
for the Red River of the North Basin.

Under dam rehabilitation, utilize Section 313 of Public Law
106-472 to provide dedicated funding for rehabilitation
projects in the Red River Basin where the primary purpose is
the development of gated flood storage. The intent is to
retrofit existing P.L. 83-566 projects that have little or no
storage to be able to build into them a storage component where
possible.
Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District

P.L. 83-566 Off Channel Floodwater Impoundment Site.

P.L. 83-566 Diversion Channel.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Finney.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burns, you are exactly right about the droughts of the
1950s. Granted, I was not around at the time, but the effect in
the Southwest, Oklahoma and Texas, when it broke, starting in
1957, 1958, and 1959, the deluge was just amazing, according to
records and my parents' accounts. It did drive forth the
process to accelerate this.
First, let me turn to Mr. Emmons for a question.
You are not just a conservation activist. You are an all-
around conservation-focused farmer. Expand for a moment, Jimmy,
about how all this intertwines together, good stewardship of
the soil, of the water retention structures, making these
investments, the environment, if you would for just a bit.
Mr. Emmons. Yes. It is a very intricate partnership from
local producers, from there downstream. We have to worry about
catching the first raindrop, get it in the soil. We have to
worry about coming into the small watersheds, the release out
of that, down through there.
It is an intricate system of how we control the water when
it comes. Where it is range management, Mr. Bramblett talked
about cover crop systems above streams, all that helps with
water quality as it moves down into the watersheds.
But we still have to have those watersheds there to catch
the heavy rainfalls like we were just talking about and also
releasing that slowly out of that 10 day interval there. And so
it takes a lot of O&M, operation and management, inspections on
the dams to make sure that they are very functional.
The Chairman. And it is worth reinforcing the point that
the protection is provided from that let down pipe all the way
to the ocean.
Mr. Emmons. Oh, yes.
The Chairman. It is not just on the farm or the neighbor
down the road or the county road. It is all the way to the
Atlantic if you live in Oklahoma, or it is all the way to the
Pacific if you are on the west side of the Rocky Range.
Mr. Emmons. Yes. What happens on my farm affects clear
downstream to the ocean.
The Chairman. Mr. Peterson, you have been involved in the
process a good long time, clearly.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you have observed and been a big part of
the progress that we have made. There is always more to do.
Expand for a moment on that.
Mr. Peterson. Well, as Mr. Bramblett told you, he told you
a little bit about the backlog and the things they are facing
in NRCS.
I happen to believe Public Law 83-566 in these watershed
programs is one of the best tools ever invented that not only
do conservation work on the land, but flood management, flood
damage reduction work. And it is just unlimited how many
benefits we can get in this country from installing watershed
kinds of activities throughout the United States.
And as we mentioned, in Ranking Member Fudge's state, they
are even doing a lot of land treatment projects now that don't
have structures there, but we are addressing all those land
treatment conservation measures.
It is unlimited how much we could accomplish if we had the
ability to do so. And that ability is somewhat limited not just
by funding, but by the people available to do the work. But to
me this is one of the best authorities we have ever had.
The Chairman. Mr. Burns, in your community where the
programs have been successfully implemented, do the citizens
understand and appreciate that?
Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do. But, citizens
downstream probably are better served than the local citizens.
Now it is 348 miles from my home to the Gulf of Mexico, and the
downstream partners, and I call them partners because they are
downstream of me, benefits greatly.
The Tarrant Regional Water District is a partner of ours in
the maintenance of our structures and land treatments, and that
is incredibly beneficial to them. They say that a penny
invested saves them a dollar. They get a hundred-fold on the
investments they put in my county.
The Chairman. Mr. Emmons and I come from a community that
was the center of the abyss of the Great Depression and the
drought of the 1930s. And this is a legacy issue, not just a
current issue, but a legacy issue, for both of us, in that we
had an activist by the name of Red Males, my family's banker
from 1924 until 1989, who was a big proponent after the 1934
flood in helping drive Members of Congress in Oklahoma in this
direction.
It is important, right, Jimmy, that we continue to work on
that great legacy laid down by our predecessors?
Mr. Emmons. Oh, it is very important. I mean, that was an
unprecedented flood back then and lots of loss of life. And as
I allude to, in my family farm, I mean, it sheared off the top
soil as deep as granddad had plowed it, and that is hard, hard
to replace.
But it also affects water quality downstream. And that is
what you really need to think about in legacy here is, like you
said, all the partners from my farm downstream that were
affected by what we do there on my farm.
So, yes, it is very, very important that we continue that
legacy to protect our citizens, protect our roadways, and
protect our soil.
The Chairman. And to share these accomplishments with the
country as a whole, the opportunities that prevail.
Mr. Emmons. That is correct.
The Chairman. With that, my time has expired.
I turn to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you all for your testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge. The Trump Administration budget does not request
any funding for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program for
Fiscal Year 2018 citing that maintenance, repair, and operation
of these dams are the responsibility of local project sponsors.
Mr. Emmons, you mentioned farm sense in your testimony.
Please speak to the importance of this federally assisted but
locally planned and implemented program.
Mr. Emmons. Well, the farm sense part of it, it is very
important that we protect these assets. We are challenged in
Oklahoma with reduced budgets too where we have a lot of
conservation districts now that either are not staffed or have
a part-time staff, and we are trying to share with other
districts to get people out on the ground to physically inspect
these dams and do regular maintenance on them.
So it is very challenging. But still, the farm sense side
of it tells me that we must protect these investments and
protect our people, our livestock, our communities, and our
roads and infrastructure down through that. Without that, then
we have nothing.
And Mr. Burns talked about how the protection of these
watersheds has greatly increased from washing out lots of
different structures in 1950 to a very few. That tells us that
the system is working, but that doesn't mean that we need to
ignore the system, because we have to maintain it. Whether it
is a house or a dam, it has to have regular maintenance, and it
has to be updated.
From the pipes that go through the structures that could
deteriorate and crack, to the embankments to the spillways, all
has to be maintained. And that takes people on the ground. And
it is very challenging. A lot of these conservation districts
have reduced budgets.
You talked about the Federal budget being reduced. That is
a fact that we can't give up. We must stress the importance of
that, how important it is to manage the investment. We would
never in farming country put that kind of investment out and
ignore it.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burns and Mr. Peterson, if you could just quickly say
what you believe the effect on your communities and our nation
would be if we do not continue to fund these programs.
Mr. Burns. Could I----
Mr. Peterson. Go ahead.
Mr. Burns. I was very apprehensive coming up here. It made
me very nervous to do this. And I was thinking about it on the
way up here, driving up the interstate, that this system is
like an interstate. There is local investment, but I can't
invest in an interstate highway all the way to D.C. with local
tax dollars even though I need it.
If that makes sense to you, it gives you a little analogy
about this. I can't afford the investment all the way to the
Gulf of Mexico. But the benefits are there, and it is important
to keep that up.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to make a comment also, and I
appreciate that question. I am probably going to demonstrate to
many in the room that I am not a good economist, although I
have worked with them all my life.
But the fact of the matter is, when I talked about 2,100
watershed projects throughout the nation and the $2.3 billion
of average annual benefit, if you are a strict economist, I
have worked with many who would say: Well, those are all
regional projects, that only the people in that region need to
fund them and work with them, but when you add all of those up
that have been constructed throughout the United States, think
of the national benefit. And that is the way I look at it.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
Committee for 5 minutes, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Finney, after the discussion I had with Mr. Bramblett,
you folks, the Retention Authority, did your people raise these
issues with NRCS?
Mr. Finney. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. And they told you that we had to
change the law. Is that what they----
Mr. Finney. Exactly.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. They didn't have any flexibility
on the cost-benefit without----
Mr. Finney. Not really. The cost-benefit thing has been
kind of a problem to us in the basin specifically because we
have a plan that is put forward that is a comprehensive plan of
bringing together several of these projects to alleviate the
total flooding on the main stem of the Red River.
And for those of you that are not familiar with the Red
River, we are one of the very few that flows to the north. We
thaw out from the south to the north. Our river ends up
eventually in the Hudson's Bay.
That kind of tells you what kind of a problem we have.
Downstream, 200 miles from us, the spring thaw occurs, and us
poor schleps up on the Canadian border are sitting there froze
up for the next 3 weeks. It gets to be kind of a problem.
That is what we are looking for, this comprehensive
approach to water management, these upstream retention
structures. And the cost-benefit, of course, is when you do
each individual little area, we aren't able to meet the
criteria established by the Federals. It doesn't mean that we
are going to discontinue our efforts to move forward. We will
try to use the P.L. 83-566 as best as we can. But we will
continue moving forward with both local and state money.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. I think it is fair to say that
the 250,000 acre limitation is really out of date. It hasn't
been changed since the program was created.
Mr. Finney. In our mind it is, Mr. Peterson. The main
reason is we live in a very flat river valley, up from 12 miles
to 250 miles wide, and there are only so many prime sites that
we can use to store these kinds of projects.
P.L. 83-566 limits us into the fact that, like I said, we
have to pick off the plums. We want to use the best that we
can. If we could get a little more capacity or if we could,
make these kinds of things work, it would be better off for us.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. And just for our Members, one of
our big problems we have had is dealing with the Corps and
trying to get permits and that bogged us down. But this fight
goes back to the Corps not wanting us to be doing this. They
want to run all of these projects. And that is part of the
reason why we don't get an increase in the acreage size.
But if you want to make sure that the project costs three
or four times what it should, then put the Corps of Engineers
in charge, and you will accomplish it.
I don't know what we do to simplify this system. But as I
said earlier, we are wasting a lot of money because we could be
doing stuff out there. And it is not just the Corps. We have
had trouble with the local DNR not approving things. It is just
one thing after another.
But one of the things, I have this list here, so I don't
know what you are doing in Oklahoma, Mr. Chairman, but
according to this list, you have 987 P.L. 83-566 projects, and
we only have 37 in Minnesota. Either you are doing really good,
or we are doing really bad.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if you lived through the Great
Depression and drought from the 1930s, you would do everything
you could to hold the water and soil in place.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. I don't know if any of you folks
that have been around this for a while, but can you explain to
me why Iowa has 1,066, Missouri has 1,148, Oklahoma has 987,
Texas, 697, and then these other states have 16 or 35? What is
going on here? Why is that occurring?
Mr. Burns. It is due to catastrophic weather events,
likely.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. The what?
Mr. Burns. The likelihood of catastrophic weather events in
those locales. That is what I attribute it to.
Mr. Peterson. I think there is more to it than that,
though. It is local leadership that is part of it, because
local leaders had to recognize the program could assist them,
and they reached out and adopted it. Many states still haven't.
Mr. Emmons. Yes. It is locally-led conservation, the
passionate from-the-heart people that puts it in place and
tries to protect their soil and their water.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Well, we are hoping to catch up
with you guys. That is our goal.
Right, John.
Mr. Finney. That is right.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to share the
good news with everybody. Absolutely. Let's get after it.
With that, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for your comments and being here
today to talk about these issues.
I represent the 12th District of Georgia, and I have heard
it said many times by our state leaders, of course, we have
water wars with other states. But Georgia does not have a water
problem. We get 51" of annual rainfall a year. We have a water
management problem in Georgia, which is the subject that we are
talking about today.
But then we do have some dry times in Georgia. At least all
of our corn is irrigated, or it better be. And, of course, they
are sucking that water out of those caverns, and then that
causes problems downstream.
Nobody wants to solve this issue more than our folks in
Georgia and our neighboring states.
In the Corps, we have found that is an issue. But going
back, you have the Federal Government and then you have all our
state governments. And somehow there seems to be some problem
working together.
Could you elaborate, anybody on the panel, as far as how in
the world we could fix that and allow the Federal Government to
do its role in conjunction with the state and local? As we
said, this is a local problem, particularly the maintenance of
these properties.
Mr. Emmons, could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Emmons. Well, that is not an easy problem. You would
think that people could come together for the common good. We
have seen that challenging in the past. We have been blessed
that we had some Federal dollars for rehab in Oklahoma, thanks
to Congressman Lucas, in the 2014 Farm Bill. The big challenge
is state matching funds of that to get the dams in rehab.
With state budgets shrinking, that becomes very, very hard.
We were very blessed this year that we did get some increase in
dollars for that rehab. It was a very hard-fought battle to get
that money in a $900+ million deficit budget. It took a lot of
people from our districts working at the state capital to get
that done. And we think this is just the beginning. We think
that will grow.
But it really comes back down to locally-led and getting
the people that vote out to speak to the ones that are making
the decisions and share our passion about how we go about
protecting their lives.
It was talked about earlier, when people build below these
structures without even thinking. And then in 2015, we had a
flood in a town south of me, Elk City. We were very fortunate
that day to be able to fly with the National Watershed
Coalition in a helicopter. And the significant flooding the day
after that where these dams were flowing out the spillways, we
had some issues there that those dams need to be rehabbed
because they are past their life expectancy.
To answer your question is we have to work with our
legislators and get the people that vote, that care, to realize
the importance of these structures and the land practices.
It is not all about the structures. You talked about in
Georgia, it is about managing the land above that, whether it
be range management, like myself, I do a lot in cover crop
practices. And it is very important that we manage that
rainfall when it comes to infiltrate. I would love to have 50"+
in western Oklahoma.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Right. Yes. The Corps' answer to that flood
problem is they always lower our lakes in the wintertime. But
that is very disturbing for our recreational users. I mean,
what are your thoughts on that as far as management goes? Any
other thoughts from the other members of the panel about what I
brought up as far as working together?
Mr. Peterson. Could I make a comment on the difference in
philosophy, maybe, between the Corps and NRCS? I respect the
Corps quite a bit. They are marvelous technicians. They do what
they feel like they are directed to do.
But there is a book that I would recommend for your late-
night reading called, Big Dam Foolishness written by a
gentleman named Elmer Peterson from Oklahoma. It talks about
the difference in philosophies and how one program went one way
and one went another. It is a marvelous book on the background
and philosophies between the two agencies.
Mr. Allen. Okay. Good.
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield to for me for a
moment?
Mr. Allen. Yes.
The Chairman. There is an additional issue to consider. The
actual structures, when they are on a farm, really doesn't add
to the quality of life for the landowner. Only one in 30, 40,
maybe 50 actually ever hold, in these typical structures,
enough water to be called a fishing hole. Otherwise they are
dry-weather ponds.
You have this earthen structure. You have changed the lay
of the land. The landowner is helping his or her neighbors
downstream. They really don't gain that much from it. From
them, it is a sense of being a part of the common good to start
with, and then it cascades down.
These structures were never condemned. The properties were
allowed to be constructed after easements were signed,
permission given by landowners dating back to the 1940s.
Mr. Allen. We are talking about dry ponds here?
The Chairman. That is basically most of the structures in
my core area.
Mr. Allen. When we have a flood in these dry ponds, then we
are washing out these dams?
The Chairman. No. No. The upstream flood control dams are a
series of small dams. When you have a flood, each of the dams
catches the water that comes from above it.
As the Deputy Chief pointed out earlier, the 10 day goal is
then to meter the water out. They act as a shock absorber.
Instead of this deluge going down the creek and down the river
and building, they slow it down, they meter it out so it is
manageable within the existing stream banks, which protects
wildlife, too, by the way, as well as domesticated livestock.
Mr. Allen. The subject we are talking about here today is
the Federal Government actually doing what it is supposed to be
doing as far as that relief downstream.
The Chairman. How the system has worked is why we have this
match between local entities and the Federal Government,
because the local entities can't pay for it. And typically it
wouldn't benefit them, the protection given from 3 miles below
the dam all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. But by the Federal
Government participating, we set up these networks that protect
everybody below the stream.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
The Chairman. In a 100 year targeted goal.
Mr. Allen. You all want to comment on that?
Mr. Burns. Eighty-five of my structures are usually between
1 acre and 5 acres. They do retain some water, and most of the
time if does last all summer. Prior to 2015, we had another 6
or 7 years of drought, and most of those were dry. The
landowner nor any of the locals that like to fish there were
benefiting at all.
Mr. Allen. Well, I hope we can get this figured out, and I
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say I have been working with conservation
districts now for 20+ years, and it has been such a pleasure.
And it is really good to have some folks here, and I want to
compliment the Chairman on having folks who have real-life
experience in this stuff, because it is hard to understand out
there. And especially bringing in special interest people in
here. No thanks. I like people from rural America that know
what their land is all about. This Committee is one of those
committees where we all share these types of common values.
But if we were going to look at rural America as we should,
as our breadbasket, our natural resources, where they all come
from, where our power plants are, how we are going to survive
as a society, that is the bedrock, whether it is a rural
America or Native American reservations, across that whole
spectrum.
But life is different out there from a tax standpoint. Life
is different out there as far as being able to find cooperation
and be able to build these types of structures without Federal
help. And it is also different in maintaining them over time.
And so that is why this partnership is so important.
And if we don't do that, it is actually a waste of the
prior expenditures that we have put into it. And fiscally, that
doesn't make much sense at all to me. And it is a legacy issue.
We did build these. Whether there are 5,000 of them out there
that have to have work on them, it is our responsibility to
work with partners to get that done. And I am hoping as we go
through the farm bill or through the budget process, that we
are going to be able to get this issue away from the zero
number into somewhere much more meaningful to get the work
done.
But we also have to take into account the ongoing
activities in the local area. What we are building downstream
from these areas, what climate is or isn't doing to the
process, and making sure that--I don't even know if the
assessment of the dams right now takes into account the
differences in climate from 20 years ago.
But what happens if we don't do something? The impacts to
rural America are tremendous, just tremendous. We have
increased flood risk. We have a public health risk. I mean,
health and safety, deaths, American citizens, loss of economic
potential, increased FEMA floodplains, impact on family
investments, the lack of maintenance of irrigation districts,
irrigation into canals, the loss of water resources, water
quality. You could go on and on and on.
So in these couple of minutes that are remaining, I would
like to hear from you about how you feel about these types of
losses and what you feel we can do about them to make sure we
go in the right direction here.
Mr. Emmons. Well, my work that I have done with land and
range management is, if you look at the Mississippi River flow
since the very first monitoring that was done in the
Mississippi, it was very consistent back before we plowed the
prairie up. There were some ups, a little downs, but it was
pretty flat. As the native prairie started being tilled up and
put in production, we started seeing bigger swings. And the
more we tilled, the worse that got, because it gets back to the
point Mr. Bramblett brought up a while ago about organic matter
in the soil. We can't capture the water in the soil as that
organic matter was depleted.
I think that it makes a lot of good sense that we start
putting more land management practice with the cover crops and
range management to get our organic built back up so that for
every one percent we can catch 27,500 gallons of water per
acre.
Now, if you do the math, and I have done a presentation on
this, in the Mississippi Delta flow region, if we would
increase our infiltration rates at \1/2\", that is 83 days of
the water that goes over Niagara Falls. Get it in the soil,
keep it in the soil, and that will lessen the effect
downstream.
Mr. O'Halleran. I was just down in Galveston over the
weekend at the commissioning of the USS Gabrielle Giffords. And
I was looking at the beach. And the Congressman from Texas
tells me, he says: ``Well, the water changes color down further
south in Texas because up here we have all the sediment coming
out of the Mississippi River, still down in Galveston. It is
still changing color. And it gets blue and green further
south.''
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognized the gentleman from Mississippi for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, witnesses, for being here. I apologize for
walking out not hearing your testimony, but we have an Armed
Services hearing that is going on simultaneously.
Mr. Peterson, our witnesses today have all successfully
made the case for the economic benefits of flood control dams.
However, the conservation value remains in how it protects and
in some cases expands our resources. In addition to the
traditional watershed programs, how has RCPP furthered the
progress on watershed issues?
Mr. Peterson. I must admit, I am not the expert on RCPP. I
do know about the program, and my conservation district is not
using it necessarily right now. But if any program or program
dollars are able to put some watershed protection on the
ground, I am certainly supportive of that. But maybe one of my
colleagues up here has more experience with RCPP directly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
And I would open that to any of you who have a comment.
Mr. Burns. My own local water control improvement district
and soil and water conservation district are basically all
volunteers. It is very tough to get through that process
without a grant writer. It is not that it is unavailable to us,
but we have yet to take advantage of it because it adds a small
amount of complication to the process that we haven't
experienced in decades past. But it is still a good program,
and it works well on a region-wide basis.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
And, Mr. Emmons, like you, the people of Mississippi
understand the value of the stewardship of the land. And
conservation programs and watershed infrastructure really are
vital to many of my constituents.
As someone who has engaged in some innovative practices
over the year, what recommendations do you have for this
Committee when addressing watershed-wide issues?
Mr. Emmons. Well, like I stated earlier, we have to put
some more practices on the ground above the structures to
infiltrate that water, increase the organic matter. But it
still comes down to the local people in the conservation
districts there managing that resource that we put out there in
those structures and ensuring that they work right. But it is
still very important that we manage that land above them and
below them so that we can slow that water. Ranking Member Fudge
talked about the water quality downstream that will be greatly
enhanced if we can do that.
Mr. Kelly. And I would just say that the watershed programs
do so much for the local communities, many of the people who
don't even realize the value that it gets for them.
I thank all you gentlemen for what you have done in this
program.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and for the
panelists for traveling here today.
Mr. Peterson, on the issue, I hear it from farmers and
ranchers back home, with NRCS. And people are pretty happy
overall, but the real frustration is with implementation of the
projects. The actual folks who get out on the ground and do the
engineering and the staff work needed out in the field is what
I hear mostly about. That was mentioned early on in your
testimony.
Aside from budgets, what structural change do you think
would be helpful to NRCS' program to stock it with the right
people who can do more--well, I won't prejudice the question.
What do you think needs to be done to move the projects along
faster and have that be a stronger focus perhaps, please?
Mr. Peterson. Well, the answer to that is fairly easy as
far as I am concerned, and that is stop cutting professional
staff in the agency. If you go back to the agency's highest
employment time, it was probably in the 1970s with 18,000
people. Now they are down around 10,500 people with far more
program responsibilities than they used to have. And here we
are trying to implement a lot of these programs that require
competent professional staff. The agency, from the time I left
it 25 years ago until today, has lost a great deal of the
people that we need to manage these programs properly, and I
would just like to see that stopped.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, so no more cuts. But what is the ratio
of people that are able to actually implement the projects
versus those that are----
Mr. Peterson. That question probably would have been better
asked of Mr. Bramblett when he was here, because he had all the
current information on projects in the backlog.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We ran out of minutes on that, as it goes
up here.
Anybody else on the panel wish to touch on that.
Mr. Peterson. I can touch on one fact, that the permitting
process is quite lengthy, even though there is a section 404
process, and there are some practices that are put on the
ground that require mitigation. And I believe----
Mr. LaMalfa. Now, this is mitigation for doing things that
are positive environmentally.
Mr. Peterson. Exactly. And these projects should be
receiving the credits for the mitigation rather than having to
give them, if that makes sense, because it is----
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you feel it is outside of the law where
there are clear exemptions for a lot of agriculture, other
activities that were pretty clear as Congress wrote them, and
then they have been overtaken by interpretations that are----
Mr. Peterson. I believe you are correct.
Mr. LaMalfa. What do you think we should be doing about
that?
Mr. Peterson. Streamline it in some way. But I am sorry, I
don't have the specific answers for you. But like I say, that
permitting process for these small structures needs to be----
Mr. LaMalfa. Kind of frustrating now, because it is
permitting the slowing down of things that are positive
environmentally given that.
Mr. Burns. Absolutely.
Mr. LaMalfa. Win-win, isn't it?
Anybody else on the panel.
Mr. Emmons. Yes. I mean, talking about your original
question and to that question, we see reduced staffing at NRCS.
And they have several programs, the EQIP Program, CSP Program,
all are very cumbersome. CSP has just come through another
revised step, requires more time for the local NRCS.
Mr. LaMalfa. Where did that step come from?
Mr. Emmons. Upstream. It came from here.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We are here to help, right?
Mr. Emmons. Yes. As these programs have become more
cumbersome and more time-consuming for that local conservation
that is less time that he has to come out and help us with the
structures for our land practices. Very good programs, very
good programs, but very cumbersome. And with RCPP, that is
another example, a very good program that, once you get it on
the ground you can do great things, but it is very cumbersome
to get it implemented.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, we need checks and balances so you don't
do rampant projects without proper review. But I guess we need
help understanding here or attacking the core problem of when
is too much permitting, where is the line between just enough
permitting, just enough review, and this cumbersome business
you are talking about here, because, yes, you want to have
guidelines, but you also want the rubber to meet the road in
getting projects done.
Mr. Burns. Probably some bracketing as far as acreage
covered or size of the structure and then possibly some
exemption to a portion of that, if it meets some criteria.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Mr. Emmons. And you have to have some trust that the local
people that own the land have the greatest passion for the
land. Don't make it so hard that we can't implement the
practices.
Mr. LaMalfa. I am a little over time here, but do you find
that the folks on the ground at NRCS know what to do, but they
are getting again their regional office or D.C. a signal that
frustrates them? Is that pretty common?
Mr. Emmons. Yes.
Mr. Burns. That is very common.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And anymore
follow-up you would like to send anybody or me, we would love
to have that and be able to attack this.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now turns to a fellow Subcommittee Chairman on
the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you to all the members of the panel for being here,
bringing your experience and expertise on important issues of
small watersheds.
I have a question I just want to throw out in general to
all four of you, if you would feel inclined to respond.
Basically, infrastructure and job creation typically go hand in
hand. Has that been the case with what we have been able to
stimulate or facilitate with Public Law 83-566?
Mr. Emmons. Yes, I would start with that. We are in Dewey
County on our fourth rehabilitation project. There are three of
those dams within eyesight of my house. Yes, we saw that the
amount of dollars that turns over in the local community is
very significant. We have contractors come in, they had
lodging, they buy fuel, they buy food. Plus, all the technical
staff that puts that project together prior to construction.
And then afterwards, before the district takes back over,
NRCS does some more on-the-ground assessments to make sure
everything is just right before the district takes back over.
We have seen a great number of dollars influx into the
local communities when we are doing them rehab projects.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Any other of the gentlemen have
experience with that?
Mr. Burns. We see the same benefits. Some local contractors
get bids on these projects when there are rehabilitation
projects or other projects that are emergency watershed
protection where there is some lake by it or some kind of
damage to the dam that is contracted out. And we also use some
local resources for gabion stone and things like that that
support other businesses. There is a good trickle down for that
that are utilized in the communities.
Mr. Burns. I am sure the NRCS today can tell you about how
many jobs are created with these construction projects that
they have. I know in my day we could do that. We made some
estimates of that. But I can tell you that there is job
creation as a result of this construction.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
Mr. Finney, RCPP was one of the largest changes in the
conservation title in the last farm bill. It was designed to
address conservation concerns on a landscape level. Now that it
has been fully implemented, how has it worked in conjunction
with Public Law 83-566 and the rehab program?
Mr. Finney. I can't exactly speak to the rehab program. But
the planning that we are doing with the P.L. 83-566, the RCPP
has allowed development of conservation practices upstream of
our proposed projects as well as protecting the local drainage
systems. We have been able to implement these kinds of
practices to avoid soil erosion as well wind erosion and also
protect the waters coming down from upstream to downstream into
our retention projects.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlemen yields back.
Before we adjourn, the chair would like to thank the second
panel for your insights and real-world experiences. Just as in
our first panel, it has been very insightful in every way.
And with that, I would turn to the Ranking Member to make
any closing comments that she would make.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for this hearing today.
I thank you all for your testimony.
I thank the Members for participating at the level that we
have today. It was very productive, very insightful, and I
thank you all.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
And this is the first of, no doubt, of a long series of
discussions as we work through the next farm bill process.
Nothing can be more important than protecting our natural
resources, the lives of our fellow citizens, our domesticated
livestock, and wildlife too. And in these programs, we cover
all of those important, critical areas.
With that, under the Rules of the Committee, the record for
today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
receive additional material and supplemental written responses
from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Report by Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Report to Congress_USDA-NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program Multi-Year Plan
December 2015

Contents
Preface
Introduction
Background
A Federal-State-Local Partnership
Authorized Purposes
Stakeholder Input
Agency Assessment of National Needs
Process for Prioritizing Watershed Project Proposals
Summary
References
Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016-2020
Appendix B: Watershed Operations Appropriations, 1947-2015
Appendix C: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act--P.L. 83-
566
Preface
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2015, included the following
Congressional directive:

``Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Plan.--The
Committee directs NRCS to establish a long-term, multi-year
plan to guide needed investments in watershed surveys and
planning and watershed operations as authorized under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.L. 83-566. The
plan should establish a process for setting and ranking
watershed operations and flood prevention priorities,
reflecting the agency's mission, goals, and requirements;
consideration of existing investment in planning,
infrastructure, and land treatment; and future needs for
investment to improve watershed condition or prevent or
mitigate watershed impairments. The plan should also include
estimated funding requirements. As the agency develops the
plan, the Committee encourages it to provide interested parties
an opportunity to provide input. The agency is directed to
develop the plan and report to Congress within 90 days after
enactment of this Act.''

The following plan is provided by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in response to this request.
Introduction
The watershed program established through the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (Public Law 83-566)
(watershed program) authorizes the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to work with local sponsors to install watershed
protection and improvement projects (see Appendix C for P.L. 83-566
language). These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while
conserving and protecting natural resources and contributing to local
economies.
The watershed program was designed to address the critical
challenges facing rural water resource protection and management. The
watershed program initially focused on the design and construction of
structural water control measures. Projects starting in the late 1970s
focused on watershed plans and a greater emphasis on land treatment
measures. Watershed planning also provides a basis for partnering at
state and local levels to identify and co-invest in projects reflecting
the highest priority needs.
Watershed scale approaches are foundational to progress toward
today's challenges such as reducing nitrogen and phosphorus transport
to Lake Erie, Gulf of Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay. Other water
management challenges that will be best addressed at the watershed
scale include agricultural irrigation efficiency in California's
Central Valley and in the Colorado River Basin; water management
improvements to protect and restore environmentally and economically
significant fisheries in the Pacific Northwest; acid mine drainage
remediation needs in Appalachia and the Intermountain West; and flood
protection for infrastructure and communities in the Central Plains and
Northeastern States.
These and other benefits are well-founded in scientific research.
For example, thirteen watershed scale projects summarized by Osmond, et
al. (2012) not only demonstrated the effectiveness of watershed scale
planning for improving water quality; but those studies also provided
identification of critical source areas of nutrients and sediment
(Meals, et al., 2012b); important socioeconomic drivers for enhancing
conservation adoption at a watershed scale; best measures for
quantifying outcomes; and numerous other parameters for successful
watershed scale planning and implementation (Meals, et al., 2012a).
This multi-year plan describes near-term needs including the
existing approved project backlog, remediation of existing structures,
and emerging needs, along with a process for guiding future investments
to improve watershed condition. The watershed program can provide a
valuable tool for agriculture and rural communities across the nation
to address serious water management threats from extreme drought to
unprecedented flooding.

The vision is a Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program delivered in partnership with local sponsors to protect
and enhance agriculture and the environment through measures
that provide landscape resilience, flood prevention, and water
quantity and quality benefits for individuals and communities.
Background
Over the past 6 decades the nation has invested $6.2 billion
(nominal dollars) through the watershed program to install over 2,000
projects across the country (Fig. 1) to create and protect vital
infrastructure while conserving and protecting natural resources and
contributing to local economies (see Appendix B for a table of
historical appropriations). The objectives of many of the original
projects were to reduce flooding, improve drainage, and increase
irrigation efficiencies. In the 1960s, high priority was placed on
projects that provided jobs to combat poverty and encourage rural
development; many of these projects involved establishing recreation
areas. In later years projects focused on land treatment measures to
solve natural resource problems, such as substandard water quality and
loss of wildlife habitat.
Figure 1: Watershed Projects Funded, 1947-2010
Watershed Operation Projects--Number of Projects Funded

These watershed projects continue to deliver benefits that are
increasingly important as population and food security demands rise,
and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events increase
(Cai, et al., 2014). By avoiding and reducing flood damages, NRCS
estimates that this program annually provides over $352 million in
benefits to agriculture and over $462 million in benefits to non-
agricultural uses, such as roads, bridges, and homes. Other benefits
such as erosion control, water conservation, water quality improvement
and irrigation efficiency exceed $441 million on agricultural lands and
over $957 million from recreation, fish and wildlife, rural water
supply and municipal and industrial water supply, annually. In total,
as a result of installed watershed projects made possible through the
investment from NRCS and local sponsors, the watershed program provides
an estimated $2.2 billion in average annual benefits across the nation
(Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Watershed Program Benefits--Average Annual Monetary Benefits
(2014 Dollars)
Watershed Operation Projects--Average Annual Benefits

Another way to view these benefits is by the number of people and
communities who benefit directly from watershed projects. The existing
projects are protecting over 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000
farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies
(Fig. 3). As a result, over 48 million people across the United States
benefit from the watershed program every year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Benefit estimates presented here are drawn from the benefit
cost analyses that are completed for each watershed project prior to
implementation, and which monetize the estimated annual benefits for
the project. Projects must have a greater than 1:1 benefit-cost ratio
for approval. The estimates presented here have been adjusted for
inflation and are considered conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3. Watershed Program Benefits--Number of People Benefitting
Watershed Operation Projects--Average People Benefitting

A Federal-State-Local Partnership
At the core of the watershed program is a unique Federal-state-
local partnership with project sponsors. Local sponsors identify needs,
provide funding, and commit to operating and maintaining the completed
projects over the long-term. The amount of funding and related
arrangements depends on the type of project being implemented.
Historically, local sponsors have provided an average of 60 percent of
the total project funding. The non-Federal contributions include local
and state in-kind contributions and funding for construction, permits,
easement acquisition, and operations and maintenance for the project
life. Working in cooperation with local sponsoring organizations, NRCS
prepares detailed watershed plans that outline soil and water
management resource concerns and alternatives to address them,
including estimated benefits and costs, cost-share funding and
arrangements, and operation and maintenance arrangements. Projects are
locally driven, addressing critical needs for the community and
delivering multiple streams of benefits.

Secretary Ezra Taft Benson wrote in the 1955 [Y]earbook of
Agriculture, ``The new watershed protection program (P.L. 83-
566) clearly should not be looked upon as some miracle coming
out of the Federal treasury. If it is successful, it will be
because local people working through their organizations with
the help of their state government assume and maintain
principle initiative.''

The watershed program provides the authority to carry out
Cooperative River Basin Studies and Watershed Surveys and Planning
Program activities. The Cooperative River Basin Studies authorities
include cooperative river basin studies, floodplain management studies,
flood insurance studies, and interagency coordination and program
formulation. These combine the efforts of Federal, state, and local
agencies to establish a basis for the development of coordinated water
resource programs. Investigation and survey reports serve as guides for
the development of water, land, and related resources in agricultural,
rural, and urban areas within upstream watershed settings. They also
serve as a basis for coordination with major river systems and other
phases of water resource management and development. Watershed Surveys
and Planning allows NRCS and local partners to plan actions to address
identified resource concerns within a watershed.
NRCS provides Federal financial assistance to project sponsors for
the installation costs of land treatment measures to achieve
environmental and public benefits such as surface and groundwater
quality improvement, water conservation, and flood mitigation.
As of December 2014, the Federal Principles, Requirements, and
Guidelines (PR&G) superseded the Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies (P&G) to guide the formulation and evaluation of all water
resources projects. The PR&G are intended to ensure proper and
consistent planning by Federal agencies in the formulation and
evaluation of water and related land resources implementation studies.
Benefits and costs are estimated using the best current techniques and
are calculated accurately, consistently, and in compliance with other
economic evaluation requirements.
Prior to implementation of the project, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires NRCS to analyze the environmental impacts of
such actions and make the analysis available to the public before
decisions are made and actions are taken unless the action is
categorically excluded.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Environmental Assessments
(EA) address ecological conditions such as water and air quality,
watershed or ecosystem health, species diversity and richness. In
addition, aspects for the economic and social, historical and cultural,
political, and many other factors that may influence major changes in
land use or management of the soil, water, air, plant, or animal
resources are considered. Impacts of the future population centers and
transportation infrastructure are also included.
Authorized Purposes
The authorized purposes for watershed projects are wide-ranging,
and mutually supportive:

Flood prevention--Flood prevention measures reduce flooding
and damage caused by floodwater, including reducing runoff,
erosion and sediment. These measures may include structural
measures, such as dams or levees; nonstructural measures, such
as easements, flood proofing, or infrastructure relocation; or
a combination of both types of measures (Fig. 4).

Watershed protection--Watershed protection includes onsite
treatment of watershed natural resource concerns, such as water
quality or water quantity. Project measures may target controls
for offsite floodwater, erosion, sediment and agriculture
related pollutants (Fig. 5).

Agricultural water management--Agricultural water management
includes measures that help to manage water supply for
agriculture and rural communities. Measures such as drainage
management, groundwater recharge, irrigation management, water
conservation, water quality improvement, and rural water supply
are included (Fig. 6).

Municipal and industrial water supply--Municipal and
industrial water supply includes measures necessary to provide
storage capacity in reservoirs to increase the availability of
water for present and future use (Fig. 7).

Fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation
development--Fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation
development are often companion purposes in watershed projects.
These project purposes may be included in a watershed plan when
the sponsor agrees to operate and maintain a reservoir or other
area for public recreation or fish and wildlife access (Fig.
8).

The following figures provide examples of existing watershed
projects and the types of benefits delivered.
Figure 4. Watershed Project, Virginia

This project includes structural (dam) and nonstructural
measures to manage water for this community, providing flood
prevention, water quality, and recreation benefits.
Figure 5. Watershed Project, Tama, Iowa

This project combines terraces, buffer strips, and grass
planting measures to address local water quality natural
resource concerns.
Figure 6. Grade Stabilization, Gracemont, Oklahoma

This project in Kickapoo Creek, Oklahoma reduces streambank
erosion and improves water quality.
Figure 7. Three Mile Lake, Union County, Iowa

This project provides water supply, flood prevention and
recreation benefits.
Figure 8. Watershed Project, Western Missouri

This project provides water supply and recreational
opportunities.
Stakeholder Input
In preparing this multi-year plan, NRCS reached out to stakeholders
on priority needs and recommendations for program implementation.
Several national organizations provided comments, which are summarized
below.
Focus investments on agricultural water supply and resilience to
climate change. Commenters encouraged USDA-NRCS to specifically
recognize the threats to agriculture from climate change, specifically
the anticipated impacts on water supply for agriculture and the related
impacts on food supply, prices, and producer financial risk. Commenters
recommended that the priority for watershed program investments be on
agricultural water supply and resilience to climate change impacts.
Future investment decisions should be guided toward agricultural
viability, resilience, and reducing vulnerability. Commenters
recognized that this approach may drive a focus toward new projects as
a result of emerging vulnerabilities from climate-induced stresses to
water supply and management.
Include forest restoration on private lands to protect water
supplies as a priority. Commenters encouraged USDA-NRCS to recognize
the significant threat to water supplies that is posed by loss of
forested lands. The commenters noted that an estimated 53 percent of
water supply in the contiguous 48 states originates on forestland and
that western forests are particularly at risk, many of which are
privately owned and play a significant role in water supply and water
quality. Restoration of forests on private land to improve their
resilience helps to reduce wildfire risks for private and adjacent
public forestlands.
Align investments with other agencies where possible to maximize
impact. One commenter recommended that USDA-NRCS provide priority for
projects that complement or align with work being conducted by other
agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service) to amplify benefits. For example
prioritizing projects that would restore private forestland where
Federal land management agencies are conducting similar activities on
adjacent public lands.
Establish a continuing review and ranking of watershed projects.
Recognizing that a significant backlog exists in previously authorized
watershed projects and that some may no longer be of local interest,
commenters recommended that USDA-NRCS assess all previously authorized
yet uncompleted projects. It was recommended that the resulting list of
projects should be prioritized in conjunction with partners, and the
priority setting process include a ``readiness criteria test'' for
implementation. In addition, commenters recommended that projects in
queue be reviewed and re-ranked annually to allow the program to be
responsive to changing conditions.
Advocate for legislative changes to streamline implementation.
Commenters noted that circumstances have changed significantly since
the watershed program was authorized (1954) and opportunity exists to
streamline and improve operations. These recommendations for
legislative changes, outside the scope of this plan, focused on:
broadening and balancing program purposes and eligibility; removing
structure size limitations; improving data and benefits information;
harmonizing program with similar authorities in other agencies;
addressing cost-share rates; eliminating unused authorities and lower
priority purposes; and improving clarity and intent.
Agency Assessment of National Needs
In addition to invited comments, NRCS also evaluated specific
watershed protection and flood prevention project needs and associated
costs as part of this plan development. This included a review of the
existing authorized but unfunded projects, existing projects needing
remediation, and potential new projects. Through this process, 220
projects were identified; addressing a variety of purposes from flood
prevention and watershed protection to agricultural water management
and municipal and industrial water supply. The total cost of these
projects was estimated at nearly $1.4 billion from FY 2016 through 2020
(Fig. 9), which includes the share that would be contributed by the
state or local partners, generally about 25 percent of total costs.
Appendix A provides greater detail on project locations, purposes, and
estimated costs.
Figure 9. Estimated Funding Need for Watershed Projects, by State,
2016-2020
(Over $1.4 billion in funding needed)

Estimated funding needs to complete projects vary by fiscal year
reflecting differences in the project status, length of time to
complete, and complexity of the project. Figure 10 shows the level of
estimated funding and number of active projects by fiscal year. The 220
identified projects cover more than one fiscal year; the project
numbers presented in the figure below reflect projects that would be
underway at that time and are not additive across fiscal years.
Figure 10. Estimated Funding Need and Active Projects, by Fiscal Year

The majority (\2/3\) of projects focus on one of four single
purposes--Flood Prevention, Agricultural Water Management, Land
Treatment, or Water Quality (Fig. 11). Flood Prevention accounted for
over 80 percent of these single-purpose projects and was identified as
a shared purpose in another 19 percent of projects, making it the most
common objective of the identified needs.
Figure 11. Estimated Funding Need by Number of Project Purposes

Projects were also identified in terms of the type of activity to
be conducted. Most project needs focused on completing construction of
previously planned and designed components. Less than five percent of
identified funding is for remediation needs--existing projects where
measures are needed to correct oversights in structural designs or
construction. Table 1 shows the number of projects and estimated
funding by the stage of the project.

Table 1. Number of Projects by Stage and Associated Estimated Funding
Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Stage Estimated Funding Number of Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remediation $61,147,500 49
Planning $23,295,000 12
Planning/Design $1,000,000 1
Design $26,746,700 13
Design/Construction $403,388,640 81
Construction $128,202,000 32
Planning/Design/ $760,238,600 32
Construction
-----------------------------------------------
Grand Total........... $1,404,018,440 220
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process for Prioritizing Watershed Project Proposals
The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program
provides technical and financial assistance to states, local
governments and Tribes (project sponsors) to plan and implement
authorized watershed project plans for the purpose of:

watershed protection.

flood mitigation.

water quality improvements.

soil erosion reduction.

rural, municipal and industrial water supply.

irrigation.

water management.

sediment control.

fish and wildlife enhancement.

hydropower.

In order to be approved, projects must (1) be publicly sponsored,
(2) be 250,000 acres or less, and (3) have at least 20 percent of
benefits related to agriculture, including rural communities. In
addition and in accordance with statute, projects that will exceed $5
million in Federal contributions or with single structures holding more
than 2,500 acre-feet require Congressional approval.
Sponsor capacity is an essential project element; sponsors must
demonstrate capacity to implement, operate, and maintain the project,
including possessing the necessary authorities; funding; acquisition of
easements or other rights needed; and demonstrated capability to
operate and maintain the project upon completion.
Pursuant to Congressional guidance, the agency process for
prioritizing watershed projects must consider (1) the agency's mission,
(2) existing investment in watershed projects, and (3) future needs for
improving watershed condition and mitigating the potential for
watershed impairments.
Agency Mission
NRCS' Mission Statement is ``Helping People Help the Land,'' which
highlights the agency's role in developing and delivering high quality
products and services that enable people to be good stewards of the
nation's soil, water, and related natural resources on non-Federal
lands. The vision is a landscape where working farms, forests, and
ranches are in balance with a healthy environment. This mission
statement aligns seamlessly with the purposes of the watershed program
and the agency's emphasis on assisting agricultural producers and
communities address the dual challenges of adapting to and mitigating
the effects of climate change.
Existing Investment
To guide investment in existing watershed projects, NRCS will focus
on those projects where remediation is required. These are projects
where the engineering design or related aspects of implementation are
not operating as intended, as evaluated and verified through
inspection. An estimated 49 projects in eight states are in need of
remediation at an estimated $55 million, or four percent of total needs
for the period 2016-2020. Based on funding availability, NRCS will
allocate an appropriate level to address remediation needs on an annual
basis.
Future Needs
To guide investment in future needs for improving watershed
condition and mitigating potential for watershed impairments, NRCS is
establishing a process based on state and national priorities. The
process will include an annual announcement program funding (APF) that
will outline the specific state and national priorities to be
emphasized in the funding year. This allows the agency to focus funding
effectively, while providing flexibility over time to accommodate
emerging watershed protection priorities. NRCS will evaluate and rank
potential projects for funding annually based on alignment with program
priorities established at the state and national levels to be locally
responsive, and nationally consistent:

1. State priorities--State Conservationists identify state watershed
project priorities with advice from the State Technical
Committee. Priorities will consider current conditions and
threats such as the effects of climate change, and the
major natural resource challenges facing agriculture and
rural communities, such as water supply or flooding.

2. National Priorities--National priorities focus on durability and
equity. Project proposals will be ranked based on the
following:

Partner leverage and contributions.

Positive return on investment and higher benefit-cost
ratio.

Contributions to a regional water management need or
concern.

Benefits in high-poverty or historically under-served
communities.

Durability of water management solutions for the
benefitted area (e.g.,
economic benefits exceed estimated operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs
for the long-term; local O&M assured; success of the
project is not depend-
ent on environmental or economic factors outside the
project area).

This annual process and the associated ranking factors will result
in prioritizing projects that will address a locally important,
pressing natural resource issue in a timely manner.
Sponsors would be expected to respond to the APF for any project
proposed for funding, including those needs outlined in this report and
detailed in Appendix A. This proactive process ensures that funding
will be directed to those projects best positioned for immediate
implementation.
Summary
Many challenges that face our nation's food security, water
quality, water supplies, wildlife habitat, rural economies, and
communities are most cost-effectively and efficiently addressed at a
watershed scale. The USDA-NRCS watershed program is authorized to
address these and related challenges. Historic droughts, floods, and
other extreme weather events in recent years have demonstrated the
value of previous investments in this program--nearly $2.2 billion in
benefits each year accrue as a result of these investments. Today, the
watershed program offers the opportunity to address pressing water
management issues facing agriculture and communities.
In preparing this multi-year plan NRCS conducted an assessment of
current needs. Through that process nearly $1.4 billion in estimated
funding needs for 2016-2020 were identified. In addition, NRCS sought
input from stakeholders on priorities for the program, going forward.
Recommendations were used to help shape a priority setting process that
accommodates local needs and national priorities. NRCS will use the
prioritization process outlined in this plan to focus funding on the
highest priority projects for improving watershed condition and
building landscape resilience and preserving, protecting, and improving
the nation's land and water resources and quality of the environment.
References
Cai, W., S. Borlace, M. Lengaigne, P. vanRensch, M. Collins, G.
Vecchi, A. Timmermann, A. Santoso, M. McPhaden, L. Wu, M. England, G.
Wang, E. Guilyardi, and F. Jin. 2014. Increasing frequency of extreme
El Nino events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change. 4:
111-116. doi:10.1038/nclimate2100.
Fischer, E., and R. Knutti. 2015. Anthropogenic contribution to
global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes.
Nature Climate Change. 5: 560-564. doi:10.1038/nclimate2617.
Meals, D., D. Osmond, D. Hoag, M. Arabi, A. Luloff, G. Jennings, M.
McFarland, J. Spooner, A. Sharpley, and D. Line. 2012a. Lessons learned
from the NIFA-CEAP: Developing agricultural watershed projects. NC
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Meals, D., A. Sharpley, and D. Osmond. 2012b. Lessons learned from
the NIFA-CEAP: Identifying critical source areas. NC State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Osmond, D., D. Meals, D. Hoag, and M. Arabi. (Eds.) 2012. How to
build better agricultural conservation programs to protect water
quality: the National Institute of Food and Agriculture--Conservation
Effects Assessment Project experience. Soil and Water Conservation
Society. Ankeny, IA.

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible Project Estimated
State Project Name Purpose(s) Status Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Big Nance FP Remedial $500,000
Creek Site
4
Mush Creek FP Remedial $500,000
Site 2
Powell Creek FP Remedial $1,000,000
Site 3
Powell Creek FP Remedial $1,000,000
Site 4
Arizona Fredonia FRS FP Remedial $23,000,000
Arkansas AWM Design $125,000
Bayou Meto
Departee FP Construction $750,000
Creek
Departee FP Design $150,000
Creek
Grand AWM Design $125,000
Prairie
California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, M&I Planning $300,000
Lower Llagas FP, LT, AWM, Design $500,000
Creek M&I, WQ, F&W
Lower Silver FP, LT, WQ Planning $500,000
Creek
McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $500,000
Colorado 6 Mile St. LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000
Charles
Highland LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000
Breaks
Holbrook LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000
Lake Ditch
Limestone- LT, WQ Construction $500,000
Graveyard
Creeks
Georgia Bull Creek 3 FP, LT Remedial $400,000
North Broad FP, LT Remedial $150,000
River 33
Hawaii Lahaina FP, LT Design/ $9,900,000
Constructio
n
Upcountry AWM Design/ $2,550,000
Maui Constructio
n
Indiana Muddy Fork FP, F&W, M&I Planning $250,000
of Silver
Creek
Prairie FP, WQ Planning $300,000
Creek
(Daviess)
Iowa Clarke AWM Design/ $3,315,000
County Constructio
Water n
Supply
West Fork of FP Design/ $411,800
Big Creek Constructio
n
Kansas Doyle Creek-- FP Construction $879,000
Site 11
Elk Creek-- FP Design $39,000
Site 4
Grasshopper FP Design $37,000
Coal--Site
29
North Black FP Construction $445,000
Vermillion-
-Site 201
South Fork FP Construction $939,000
Wolf--Site
12-26
Kentucky Pike County-- FP Planning $1,000,000
Floodplain
Easement
Rockhouse FP, LT, F&W Planning $350,000
Creek
South Fork FP, LT Planning $1,000,000
Little
River
West Fork FP Planning $750,000
Mayfield
Creek
Massachuse Allen Site FP, LT, F&W Remedial/ $200,000
tts Dam Design
Cape Cod LT, F&W, WQ Planning/ $3,000,000
Water Design
Resources
Restoration
Project
Deerfield LT, WQ Planning $300,000
River
Great Marsh LT, F&W, WQ Planning $225,000
Restoration
Project
Minnesota Rice Lake WQ Planning/ $345,000
Design
Mississipp Abiaca Dam 3 FP Remedial $250,000
i (Y-34-03)
Byhalia FP Remedial $200,000
Creek
Watershed
Dam 4
Long Beach FP Construction $2,500,000
Canal 1
Phase 1
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Upper
Tallahatchi
e
Piney Creek LT Construction $750,000
GCS
Sabougla LT Construction $500,000
Watershed
Town Creek FP Remedial $200,000
Town Creek FP Construction $2,500,000
Dam 5
Yazoo--Arcab LT Construction $500,000
utla Creek
Yazoo--Skuna LT Remedial $200,000
Structure
No. 6
Missouri East Locust AWM, FP, F&W Planning/ $5,000,000
Creek Design
Little Otter AWM, FP, F&W Construction $2,000,000
Creek
N. Mariana FP, LT, AWM Design/ $1,250,000
Islands Constructio
Kagman n
Watershed
Nebraska Papio Creek FP Planning $600,000
S-5, S-22,
D-31, D-78
New Jersey Assunpink FP, F&W Remedial $90,000
Site 19
New York Ashokan LT Design/ $30,000
Constructio
n
Lower LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Moonda/ FP Planning $200,000
Saterly
Creek
Neversink LT Design/ $10,000
Constructio
n
Newtown FP Design $100,000
Hoffman
Site 18
Pepacton LT Design/ $180,000
Constructio
n
Roundout LT Design/ $20,000
Constructio
n
Schoharie LT Design/ $100,000
Constructio
n
Upper LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
North Red River FP, LT, WQ Planning/ $1,000,000
Dakota Detention Design
Oklahoma Bear 3 FP Remedial $750,000
Bear 5 FP Remedial $125,000
Boggy Creek FP Remedial $225,000
25
Calvary 12 FP Remedial $120,000
Fast Runner FP Remedial $50,000
3
Lower Bayou FP Design $450,000
12
Lower Red FP Design $475,000
Rock 1
Middle Deep FP Design $510,000
Red Run 7A
Sugar Creek FP Design $395,000
(Binger
Site)
Sugar Creek FP Design $325,000
Drop REM
Turkey Creek FP Design $425,000
9
Upper Blue FP Design $425,000
River 46
Upper Blue FP Design $375,000
River 48
Upper Blue FP Design $375,000
River 48
Oregon Alder Slope AWM, WQ Construction $275,000
Irrigation
Arnold AWM, M&I, WQ, Design/ $1,516,000
Irrigation F&W Constructio
District n
Central AWM, M&I, WQ, Design/ $8,791,820
Oregon F&W Constructio
Irrigation n
District
Champoeg AWM, WQ Planning $275,000
Watershed
Mud Springs-- WQ, AWM Design $160,200
NUID
Lateral 58--
11
North Agency WQ, AWM Planning $217,500
Plains
North AWM, WQ, LT Construction $1,100,000
Prairie
Creek
Irrigation
North Unit AWM, M&I, WQ, Design/ $730,000
Irrigation F&W Constructio
District n
Ochoco AWM, M&I, WQ, Design/ $595,000
Irrigation F&W Constructio
District n
Swalley AWM, M&I, WQ, Planning $295,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Three AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $2,580,000
Sisters F&W
Irrigation
District
Tumalo AWM, M&I, WQ, Design/ $2,000,000
Irrigation F&W Constructio
District n
Twilight WQ, AWM Design $80,000
Water
Quality
Upper Grande LT, WQ Planning $365,000
Ronde
Watershed
Vale Bench WQ, AWM Planning $165,000
Lateral 227
Pennsylvan Bentley FP Planning $20,000
ia Creek
Little Toby WQ Planning $20,000
Creek
Mill Creek WQ Planning $50,000
Rhode Pocasset FP Planning $150,000
Island River Flood
Mitigation
Project
Tennessee Bear Creek FP Design $200,000
(Scott)
Texas Big Creek FP, M&I, F&W Design $500,000
(Tri-
County)
Choctaw FP Design $500,000
Creek
Ecleto Creek FP Design $800,000
Elm Creek FP Design $1,000,000
(1250)
Elm Creek FP Design $1,000,000
(Cen-Tex)
Lakeview FP Remedial $500,000
Trinity--Big FP Design $500,000
Sandy Creek
Trinity--Gra FP Remedial $200,000
ys Creek
Utah Anabella AWM, FP Design $4,200,000
Canal
Cottonwood FP, AWM Design $3,200,000
Canyon
(Anabella)
Flat Canyon FP, AWM Design $8,500,000
DB
Marion Canal AWM, FP Planning $1,500,000
Willow Creek FP, AWM Design $350,000
Virginia North Fork LT, WQ Design/ $1,000,000
Powell Constructio
River n
West Big Sandy-- FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000
Virginia Dry Fork
Potomac--Los FP, M&I Construction $35,000,000
t River 16
Wyoming Kaycee FP Design $350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Camp Branch LT, WQ Design/ $396,000
Constructio
n
Harrison LT, WQ Design/ $225,000
Mill/ Constructio
Panther n
Creek
Northeast LT, WQ Design, $1,878,500
Yellow Constructio
River n
Pates Creek LT, WQ Design/ $228,000
Constructio
n
Alaska Delta FP Construction $13,000,000
Clearwater
Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000
Big Slough FP Design $250,000
Site 7
Departee FP Design $125,000
Creek
Grand AWM Construction $6,250,000
Prairie
California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, Planning $300,000
M&I
Lllagas FP, LT, AWM, Planning $127,250,000
Creek M&I, WQ
Lower FP, LT, AWM, Planning $1,750,000
Calaveras-- M&I, WQ
Mormon
Lower Llagas FP, LT, AWM, Design $500,000
Creek M&I, WQ, F&W
Lower Silver FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000
Creek
McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000
Mill FP, LT, AWM, Planning $1,190,000
M&I, WQ
Oasis FP, LT, WQ Planning $1,000,000
Upper FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,870,000
Calaveras M&I, WQ
Upper Deer-- FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,590,000
Upper White M&I, WQ
Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, Planning $980,000
M&I, WQ
Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,030,000
M&I, WQ
Colorado 6 Mile St. LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000
Charles
Highland LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000
Breaks
Holbrook LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000
Lake Ditch
Limestone--G LT, WQ Construction $500,000
raveyard
Creeks
Hawaii Lahaina FP, LT Construction $6,800,000
Lower AWM, LT Design/ $500,000
Hamakua Constructio
Ditch n
Upcountry AWM Design $600,000
Maui
Wailuku--Ale FP Design $300,000
naio
Indiana Muddy Fork FP, F&W, M&I Planning $250,000
of Silver
Creek
Prairie FP, WQ Planning $300,000
Creek
(Daviess)
Iowa Clarke AWM Design/ $13,150,000
County Constructio
Water n
Supply
Twelve Mile FP Design/ $235,000
Creek Constructio
n
West Fork of FP Design/ $514,600
Big Creek Constructio
n
Kansas Elk Creek-- FP Design $40,000
Site 12
Elk Creek-- FP Construction $463,900
Site 4
Grasshopper FP Construction $435,000
Coal--Site
29
Squaw Creek FP Design $35,000
Lower Wolf--
Site 5-9
Squaw Creek FP Design $44,000
Lower Wolf--
Site 6-4a
Kentucky Pike County-- FP Plan/ $1,000,000
Floodpain Implement
Easement
Rockhouse FP, LT, F&W Design $700,000
Creek
South Fork FP, LT Design $700,000
Little
River
West Fork FP Design $300,000
Mayfield
Creek
Massachuse Allen Site FP, LT, F&W Remedial $500,000
tts Dam
Cape Cod LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/ $4,000,000
Water Constructio
Resources n
Restoration
Project
Deerfield LT, WQ Planning $300,000
River
Great Marsh LT, F&W, WQ Planning $225,000
Restoration
Project
Minnesota Rice Lake WQ Construction $1,915,000
Mississipp Long Beach FP Construction $2,500,000
i Canal 1
Phase 2
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Upper
Tallahatchi
e
Piney Creek LT Construction $750,000
GCS
Town Creek LT Construction $500,000
Yazoo--Arcab LT Construction $500,000
utla Creek
Yazoo--Skuna LT Remedial $250,000
Yoda Creek
Structure
Missouri Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000
Hurricane
Ck
East Locust AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000
Creek
Upper Locust FP Construction $1,000,000
Creek
West Fork of FP Construction $1,000,000
Big Creek
N. Mariana Kagman FP, LT, AWM Design/ $650,000
Islands Watershed Constructio
n
Nebraska Papio S-22 FP Design $200,000
Papio S-5 FP Design $500,000
New York Ashokan LT Design/ $30,000
Constructio
n
Lower LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Moonda/ FP Planning $200,000
Saterly
Creek
Neversink LT Design/ $10,000
Constructio
n
Newtown FP Design $50,000
Hoffman
Site 18
Pepacton LT Design/ $180,000
Constructio
n
Roundout LT Design/ $20,000
Constructio
n
Schoharie LT Design/ $100,000
Constructio
n
Upper LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Oklahoma Dry Creek 17 FP Remedial $75,000
Little Deep FP Remedial $95,000
Fork 20
Lower Bayou FP Construction $1,300,000
12
Lower Red FP Remedial $150,000
Rock 16
Middle Deep FP Construction $1,400,000
Red Run 7A
North Deer FP Remedial $142,500
Creek 1
Quawpaw 27 FP Remedial $110,000
Sugar Creek FP Remedial $210,000
Drop
Sugar Creek FP Remedial $2,500,000
Drop
Upper Black FP Remedial $125,000
Bear 36
Upper Blue FP Design $450,000
River 35
Upper Blue FP Design $450,000
River 36
Upper Blue FP Construction $850,000
River 46
Upper Blue FP Construction $950,000
River 48
Oregon Alder Slope AWM, WQ Construction $962,000
Irrigation
Arnold AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $2,060,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Central AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $3,649,220
Oregon F&W
Irrigation
District
Champoeg AWM, WQ Design $495,000
Watershed
Mud Springs-- WQ, AWM Construction $150,000
NUID
Lateral 58--
11
North Agency WQ, AWM Design $217,500
Plains
North AWM, WQ, LT Construction $2,200,000
Prairie
Creek
Irrigation
North Unit AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $880,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Ochoco AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,230,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Swalley AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $510,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Three AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,846,000
Sisters F&W
Irrigation
District
Tumalo AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $2,000,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Twilight WQ, AWM Design $160,000
Water
Quality
Upper Grande LT, WQ Planning $380,000
Ronde
Watershed
Vale Bench WQ, AWM Planning $275,000
Lateral 227
Pennsylvan Bentley FP Design $1,200,000
ia Creek
Little Toby WQ Design $200,000
Creek
Mill Creek WQ Design $350,000
unnamed FP Planning $200,000
watershed
Rhode Pocasset FP Design $1,530,000
Island River Flood
Mitigation
Project
Tennessee Bear Creek WQ Construction $2,000,000
(Scott)
Hurricane FP, M&I Design $750,000
Creek
North Fork FP Remedial/ $800,000
Forked Deer Design
Texas Big Creek FP, M&I, F&W Design/ $5,000,000
(Tri- Constructio
County) n
Choctaw FP Construction $6,000,000
Creek
Elm Creek FP Design/ $4,000,000
(1250) Constructio
n
Trinity--Big FP Construction $6,000,000
Sandy Creek
Trinity--Cha FP Remedial $3,000,000
mbers Creek
Trinity--Pil FP Remedial $3,000,000
ot Grove
Trinity--Ric FP Remedial $3,000,000
hland Creek
Utah Cedar Ridge FP, AWM Design $3,800,000
Coyote Gulch FP Planning $2,800,000
Wash
(Ivins)
Gould's Wash FP, AWM Design $4,500,000
DB
St. George FP Planning $3,200,000
DBs
Vigin FP Planning $1,500,000
Virginia North Fork LT, WQ Design/ $500,000
Powell Constructio
River n
Wyoming Kaycee FP Construction $1,235,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Whitewater LT, WQ Design/ $114,000
Creek Constructio
n
Wilkerson LT, WQ Design/ $396,000
Creek Constructio
n
Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000
Big Slough FP Construction $1,250,000
Site 7
Departee FP Construction $5,500,000
Creek
Grand AWM Construction $6,250,000
Prairie
California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, Design $500,000
M&I
Lllagas FP, LT, AWM, Planning $10,000,000
Creek M&I, WQ
Lower FP, LT, AWM, Planning $1,750,000
Calaveras-- M&I, WQ
Mormon
Lower Llagas FP, LT, AWM, Construction $3,000,000
Creek M&I, WQ, F&W
Lower Silver FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000
Creek
McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000
Mill FP, LT, AWM, Planning $1,190,000
M&I, WQ
Oasis FP, LT, WQ Planning $750,000
Upper FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,870,000
Calaveras M&I, WQ
Upper Deer-- FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,590,000
Upper White M&I, WQ
Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, Planning $980,000
M&I, WQ
Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, Planning $2,030,000
M&I, WQ
Colorado 6 Mile St. LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000
Charles
Highland LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000
Breaks
Holbrook LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000
Lake Ditch
Limestone--G LT, WQ Construction $500,000
raveyard
Creeks
Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Planning $100,000
Lower AWM, LT Design/ $1,500,000
Hamakua Constructio
Ditch n
Wailuku--Ale FP Construction $1,100,000
naio
Waimanalo AWM Planning/ $200,000
Design
Indiana Muddy Fork FP, F&W, M&I Design $470,000
of Silver
Creek
Prairie FP, WQ Design $330,000
Creek
(Daviess)
Iowa Clarke AWM Construction $5,634,600
County
Water
Supply
East Fork of FP Design/ $1,259,000
the Grand Constructio
River n
West Fork of FP Construction $514,600
Big Creek
Kansas Elk Creek-- FP Construction $467,500
Site 12
Middle FP Design $100,000
Creek--Site
11
Squaw Creek FP Design $58,000
Lower Wolf--
Site 5-8
Squaw Creek FP Construction $414,000
Lower Wolf--
Site 5-9
Squaw Creek FP Construction $523,000
Lower Wolf--
Site 6-4a
Kentucky Pike County-- FP Implementati $500,000
Floodpain on
Easement
Rockhouse FP, LT, F&W Construction $4,500,000
Creek
South Fork FP, LT Construction $5,000,000
Little
River
West Fork FP Construction $5,000,000
Mayfield
Creek
Massachuse Cape Cod LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/ $8,000,000
tts Water Constructio
Resources n
Restoration
Project
Deerfield LT, WQ Planning $300,000
River
Mississipp Ellison LT Remedial $250,000
i Creek GCS 1
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Upper
Tallahatchi
e
Piney Creek LT Construction $750,000
GCS
Town Creek LT Construction $200,000
Yazoo--Arcab LT Construction $250,000
utla Creek
Yazoo--Skuna LT Construction $500,000
River
Missouri Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000
Hurricane
Ck
East Locust AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000
Creek
East Yellow FP Construction $1,000,000
Creek
Upper Locust FP Construction $1,000,000
Creek
West Fork of FP Construction $1,000,000
Big Creek
N. Mariana Kagman FP, LT, AWM Construction $4,500,000
Islands Watershed
Nebraska Papio D-31 FP Design $200,000
Papio S-22 FP Design $200,000
Papio S-5 FP Construction $4,000,000
New York Ashokan LT Design/ $30,000
Constructio
n
Lower LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Moonda/ FP Design $100,000
Saterly
Creek
Neversink LT Design/ $10,000
Constructio
n
Newtown FP Construction $300,000
Hoffman
Site 18
Pepacton LT Design/ $180,000
Constructio
n
Roundout LT Design/ $20,000
Constructio
n
Schoharie LT Design/ $100,000
Constructio
n
Upper LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Oklahoma Bear 44 FP Remedial $210,000
Brushy FP Design $425,000
Peaceable 5
Cotton Coon FP Design $425,000
Mission 12A
Cotton Coon FP Design $425,000
Mission 12B
Jack Creek 6 FP Design $400,000
Lower Black FP Remedial $175,000
Bear 21
Lower Red FP Construction $2,500,000
Rock 1
Middle Deep FP Construction $1,250,000
Red Run 7A
Turkey Creek FP Construction $2,100,000
9
Uncle John 5 FP Remedial $225,000
Upper Black FP Remedial $150,000
Bear 28
Upper Black FP Remedial $180,000
Bear 28
Upper Blue FP Construction $1,100,000
River 48
Upper Red FP Design $375,000
Rock Site 7
Oregon Alder Slope AWM, WQ Construction $176,000
Irrigation
Arnold AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,491,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Central AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $3,810,000
Oregon F&W
Irrigation
District
Champoeg AWM, WQ Construction $550,000
Watershed
North Agency WQ, AWM Construction $298,100
Plains
North AWM, WQ, LT Construction $550,000
Prairie
Creek
Irrigation
North Unit AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,880,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Ochoco AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,210,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Swalley AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $230,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Three AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $2,010,000
Sisters F&W
Irrigation
District
Tumalo AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,900,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Twilight WQ, AWM Design $162,500
Water
Quality
Upper Grande LT, WQ Planning $415,000
Ronde
Watershed
Vale Bench WQ, AWM Planning $220,000
Lateral 227
Pennsylvan Bentley FP Design $300,000
ia Creek
Little Toby WQ Design $100,000
Creek
Mill Creek WQ Design/ $950,000
Constructio
n
unnamed FP Planning $200,000
watershed
Rhode Pocasset FP Construction $51,000,000
Island River Flood
Mitigation
Project
Tennessee Hurricane FP, M&I Construction $2,500,000
Creek
North Fork FP Design $250,000
Forked Deer
Texas Big Creek FP, M&I, F&W Construction $5,000,000
(Tri-
County)
Caney Creek FP Construction $5,400,000
Elm Creek FP Construction $11,000,000
(1250)
Elm Creek FP Construction $12,000,000
(Cen-Tex)
Utah Green River AWM Planning $6,000,000
Canal
Helper City FP Planning $2,500,000
Virginia North Fork LT, WQ Design/ $500,000
Powell Constructio
River n
West Big Sandy-- FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000
Virginia Tug Fork--
Elkhorn
Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000
Grand AWM Construction $6,250,000
Prairie
California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, Construction $3,500,000
M&I
Lllagas FP, LT, AWM, Design $10,000,000
Creek M&I, WQ
Lower FP, LT, AWM, Design $1,750,000
Calaveras-- M&I, WQ
Mormon
Lower Llagas FP, LT, AWM, Construction $3,000,000
Creek M&I, WQ, F&W
Lower Silver FP, LT, WQ Construction $7,000,000
Creek
McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Construction $11,500,000
Mill FP, LT, AWM, Design $1,190,000
M&I, WQ
Oasis FP, LT, WQ Design $7,000,000
Upper FP, LT, AWM, Design $2,870,000
Calaveras M&I, WQ
Upper Deer-- FP, LT, AWM, Design $2,590,000
Upper White M&I, WQ
Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, Design $980,000
M&I, WQ
Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, Design $2,030,000
M&I, WQ
Colorado 6 Mile St. LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000
Charles
Highland LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000
Breaks
Holbrook LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000
Lake Ditch
Limestone--G LT, WQ Construction $500,000
raveyard
Creeks
Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Design $100,000
Upcountry AWM Construction $5,350,000
Maui
Wailuku--Ale FP Design $700,000
naio
Indiana Muddy Fork FP, F&W, M&I Construction $4,700,000
of Silver
Creek
Prairie FP, WQ Construction $3,300,000
Creek
(Daviess)
Iowa East Fork of FP Design/ $1,259,000
the Grand Constructio
River n
Turkey Creek FP Construction $118,000
Kansas Middle FP Construction $1,186,500
Creek--Site
11
Squaw Creek FP Construction $690,500
Lower Wolf--
Site 5-8
Upper Black FP Design $33,000
Vermillion-
-Site 14
Upper Black FP Design $38,000
Vermillion-
-Site 227
Kentucky Pike County-- FP Implementati $500,000
Floodplain on
Easement
Rockhouse FP, LT, F&W Construction $3,000,000
Creek
South Fork FP, LT Construction $2,000,000
Little
River
West Fork FP Construction $1,000,000
Mayfield
Creek
Massachuse Cape Cod LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/ $7,000,000
tts Water Constructio
Resources n
Restoration
Project
Mississipp Ltl LT Construction $500,000
i Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Upper
Tallahatchi
e
Piney Creek LT Construction $750,000
GCS
Sabougia LT Construction $500,000
Watershed
Yazoo--Arcab LT Construction $500,000
utla Creek
Yazoo--Skuna LT Construction $500,000
River
Missouri Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000
Hurricane
Ck
East Locust AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000
Creek
Upper Locust FP Construction $1,000,000
Creek
West Fork of FP Construction $1,000,000
Big Creek
N. Mariana Kagman FP, LT, AWM Construction $1,800,000
Islands Watershed
Nebraska Papio D-31 FP Design $200,000
Papio D-78 FP Design $400,000
Papio S-22 FP Construction $3,500,000
New York Ashokan LT Design/ $30,000
Constructio
n
Lower LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Moonda/ FP Construction $1,000,000
Saterly
Creek
Neversink LT Design/ $10,000
Constructio
n
Pepacton LT Design/ $180,000
Constructio
n
Roundout LT Design/ $20,000
Constructio
n
Schoharie LT Design/ $100,000
Constructio
n
Upper LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Oklahoma Bear Creek 2 FP Remedial $175,000
REM
Boggy Creek FP Remedial $175,000
21 REM
Boggy Creek FP Remedial $200,000
3 REM
Cotton Coon FP Construction $2,500,000
Mission 12A
Cotton Coon FP Construction $2,500,000
Mission 12B
Cotton Coon FP Design $450,000
Mission 14
Kickappo FP Design $375,000
Nations 8
South FP Remedial $110,000
Clinton Lat
2 REM
South FP Remedial $110,000
Clinton Lat
7 REM
Sugar Creek FP Construction $1,250,000
(Binger
Site)
Turkey 8 REM FP Remedial $250,000
Upper Blue FP Construction $2,100,000
River 35
Upper Blue FP Construction $1,750,000
River 36
Upper Blue FP Design $450,000
River 47
Upper Muddy FP Design $410,000
Boggy 19
Upper Red FP Construction $2,250,000
Rock Site 7
Oregon Alder Slope AWM, WQ Construction $176,000
Irrigation
Arnold AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,725,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Central AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $3,810,000
Oregon F&W
Irrigation
District
Champoeg AWM, WQ Construction $660,000
Watershed
North Agency WQ, AWM Construction $217,500
Plains
North AWM, WQ, LT Construction $330,000
Prairie
Creek
Irrigation
North Unit AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,870,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Ochoco AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,310,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Swalley AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $105,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Three AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $1,580,000
Sisters F&W
Irrigation
District
Tumalo AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $2,070,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Twilight WQ, AWM Design $162,500
Water
Quality
Upper Grande LT, WQ Planning $365,000
Ronde
Watershed
Vale Bench WQ, AWM Planning $20,000
Lateral 227
Pennsylvan Bentley FP Construction $4,500,000
ia Creek
Little Toby WQ Construction $350,000
Creek
Mill Creek WQ Construction $600,000
unnamed FP Planning $200,000
watershed
Tennessee Hurricane FP, M&I Construction $300,000
Creek
North Fork FP Design $1,800,000
Forked Deer
Texas Choctaw FP Construction $18,300,000
Creek
Ecleto Creek FP Construction $10,000,000
Trinity--Cha FP Remedial $3,000,000
mbers Creek
Trinity--Pil FP Remedial $3,000,000
ot Grove
Virginia North Fork LT, WQ Design/ $500,000
Powell Constructio
River n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000
Grand AWM Construction $6,250,000
Prairie
California Lllagas FP, LT, AWM, Construction $127,250,000
Creek M&I, WQ
Lower FP, LT, AWM, Construction $21,500,000
Calaveras-- M&I, WQ
Mormon
Lower Llagas FP, LT, AWM, Construction $3,000,000
Creek M&I, WQ, F&W
Lower Silver FP, LT, WQ Construction $7,000,000
Creek
McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Construction $11,500,000
Mill FP, LT, AWM, Construction $14,060,000
M&I, WQ
New Site FP, LT, AWM, Construction $3,400,000
M&I, WQ
Oasis FP, LT, WQ Construction $91,250,000
Upper FP, LT, AWM, Construction $36,380,000
Calaveras M&I, WQ
Upper Deer-- FP, LT, AWM, Construction $32,660,000
Upper White M&I, WQ
Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, Construction $11,270,000
M&I, WQ
Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, Construction $25,220,000
M&I, WQ
Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Construction $800,000
Lower AWM, WQ Design/ $1,500,000
Hamakua Constructio
Ditch n
Wailuku--Ale FP Construction $2,600,000
naio
Waimanalo AWM Construction $800,000
Iowa East Fork of FP Construction $1,257,000
the Grand
River
Mill Creek LT Design/ $353,000
Constructio
n
Mosquito of FP Design/ $118,000
Harrison Constructio
n
Kansas North Middle FP Design $27,900
Forks Wolf--
Site 15-4
North Middle FP Design $29,500
Forks Wolf--
Site 15-5
North Middle FP Design $24,300
Forks Wolf--
Site 19-8
Upper Black FP Construction $393,000
Vermillion-
-Site 14
Upper Black FP Construction $446,500
Vermillion-
-Site 227
Massachuse Cape Cod LT, F&W, WQ Construction $3,000,000
tts Water
Resources
Restoration
Project
Mississipp Ltl LT Construction $500,000
i Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Oaklimet
er
Ltl LT Construction $500,000
Tallahatchi
e--Upper
Tallahatchi
e
Piney Creek LT Construction $750,000
GCS
Town Creek LT Construction $250,000
Yazoo--Skuna LT Construction $500,000
River
Missouri Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000
Hurricane
Ck
East Locust AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000
Creek
East Yellow FP Construction $1,000,000
Creek
West Fork of FP Construction $1,000,000
Big Creek
N. Mariana Kagman FP, LT, AWM Construction $250,000
Islands Watershed
Nebraska Papio D-31 FP Construction $1,500,000
Papio D-78 FP Construction $1,500,000
New York Ashokan LT Design/ $30,000
Constructio
n
Lower LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Moonda/ FP Construction $1,000,000
Saterly
Creek
Neversink LT Design/ $10,000
Constructio
n
Pepacton LT Design/ $180,000
Constructio
n
Roundout LT Design/ $20,000
Constructio
n
Schoharie LT Design/ $100,000
Constructio
n
Upper LT Design/ $330,000
Cannonsvill Constructio
e n
Oklahoma Bear Creek FP Design $500,000
Site 1
Brushy FP Construction $2,250,000
Peaceable 5
Cotton Coon FP Construction $2,100,000
Mission 14
Cotton Coon FP Design $525,000
Mission
Site 13
Jack Creek 6 FP Construction $2,500,000
Kickappo FP Construction $1,900,000
Nations 8
Little FP Design $475,000
Washita
River Site
37
Oak Creek 9 FP Remedial $175,000
Stillwater FP Remedial $250,000
35
Turkey 11 FP Remedial $210,000
Upper Black FP Remedial $310,000
Bear 51
Upper Blue FP Construction $2,100,000
River 47
Upper Muddy FP Construction $2,250,000
Boggy 19
Upper Muddy FP Remedial $125,000
Boggy 26
Upper Muddy FP Design $500,000
Boggy 30
Upper Red FP Remedial $250,000
Rock 42
Upper Red FP Construction $1,750,000
Rock Site 7
Wildhorse FP Design $475,000
Creek Site
88
Oregon Alder Slope AWM, WQ Construction $176,000
Irrigation
Arnold AWM, M&I, WQ, Design $800,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Central AWM, M&I, WQ, Design $1,700,000
Oregon F&W
Irrigation
District
Champoeg AWM, WQ Construction $660,000
Watershed
North AWM, WQ, LT Construction $110,000
Prairie
Creek
Irriga[ti]o
n
North Unit AWM, M&I, WQ, Design $850,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Ochoco AWM, M&I, WQ, Design $650,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Swalley AWM, M&I, WQ, Planning $50,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Three AWM, M&I, WQ, Construction $750,000
Sisters F&W
Irrigation
District
Tumalo AWM, M&I, WQ, Design $1,000,000
Irrigation F&W
District
Twilight WQ, AWM Design $30,000
Water
Quality
Upper Grande LT, WQ Planning $40,000
Ronde
Watershed
Pennsylvan Bentley FP Construction $300,000
ia Creek
Little Toby WQ Construction $50,000
Creek
Mill Creek WQ Construction $50,000
unnamed FP Planning $1,000,000
watershed
Tennessee North Fork FP Construction $2,000,000
Forked Deer
Texas Big Creek FP, M&I, F&W Construction $10,000,000
(Tri-
County)
Big Creek FP, M&I, F&W Construction $10,000,000
(Tri-
County)
Middle FP Construction $2,700,000
Colorado--S
outhwest
Laterals
Middle FP, M&I, F&W Construction $5,400,000
Colorado--U
pper Pecan
Bayou
Trinity--Ric FP Remedial $3,000,000
hland Creek
Virginia North Fork LT, WQ Design/ $500,000
Powell Constructio
River n
West Big Sandy-- FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000
Virginia Pond Creek
----------------
Grand $1,404,018,440
Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible Purpose Key:

FP--Flood Prevention.
LT--Land Treatment/Watershed Protection.
F&W--Public Recreation.
AWM--Agricultural Water Management.
M&I--Municipal and Industrial Water Supply.
WQ--Water Quality Management.

Appendix B: Watershed Operations Appropriations, 1947-2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Amount Funded Fiscal Year Amount Funded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1947 $2,100,000 1982 $176,611,000
1948 3,000,000 1983 181,295,000
1949 6,000,000 1984 175,000,000
1950 9,500,000 1985 175,325,850
1951 10,315,000 1986 176,691,000
1952 6,559,600 1987 161,182,000
1953 7,750,000 1988 161,679,000
1954 12,000,000 1989 161,797,400
1955 14,732,000 1990 161,855,000
1956 22,000,000 1991 163,163,000
1957 29,500,000 1992 173,885,000
1958 38,720,000 1993 187,162,000
1959 43,500,000 1994 199,236,000
1960 40,750,000 1995 70,000,000
1961 56,370,000 1996 100,000,000
1962 78,787,000 1997 101,036,000
1963 86,702,200 1998 101,036,000
1964 89,072,000 1999 91,643,000
1965 97,602,000 2000 99,443,000
1966 91,973,000 2001 99,224,000
1967 95,826,100 2002 106,590,000
1968 96,156,000 2003 109,285,000
1969 82,132,000 2004 86,487,000
1970 90,770,000 2005 74,971,000
1971 100,334,000 2006 75,000,000
1972 132,099,000 2007 0
1973 115,675,500 2008 29,790,000
1974 121,674,000 2009 24,289,000
1975 109,641,600 * 2009 145,000,000
1976 167,076,000 2010 30,000,000
1977 129,649,000 2011 0
1978 143,280,000 2012 0
1979 148,107,000 2013 0
1980 152,244,000 2014 0
1981 177,024,000 2015 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funding................................... $6,207,297,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (ARRA).

Appendix C: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act--P.L. 83-566
Section 1001. Declaration of policy.
Section 1002. Definitions
Section 1003. Assistance to local organizations.
Section 1003a. Cost share assistance.
Section 1004. Conditions for Federal assistance.
Section 1005. Works of improvement.
Section 1006. Cooperative programs.
Section 1006a. Loans or advancements for financing local share of
costs; repayment; interest; maximum amount.
Section 1006b. Territorial application.
Section 1007. Authorization of appropriations.
Section 1008. Notification of Secretary of the Interior of approval
of assistance; surveys and investigations; report and
recommendations; consideration; cost of surveys, investigations and
reports.
Section 1009. Joint investigations and surveys by Secretary of the
Army and Secretary of Agriculture; reports to Congress.
Section 1010. Data.
Section 1011. Watershed restoration and enhancement agreements.
Section 1012. Rehabilitation of structural measures near, at, or
past their evaluated life expectancy.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Sec. 1001. Declaration of policy.

Erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the
rivers and streams of the United States, causing loss of life and
damage to property, constitute a menace to the national welfare; and it
is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should cooperate
with states and their political subdivisions, soil or water
conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and
other local public agencies for the purpose of preventing such damages,
of furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal
of water, and the conservation and utilization of land and thereby of
preserving, protecting, and improving the nation's land and water
resources and the quality of the environment.

Sec. 1002. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall mean:

The ''Secretary''--the Secretary of Agriculture of the United
States.
``Works of improvement''--any undertaking for--

(1) flood prevention (including structural and land
treatment measures),
(2) the conservation, development, utilization, and
disposal of water, or
(3) the conservation and proper utilization of land,
in watershed or sub-watershed area not exceeding two
hundred and fifty thousand acres and not including any
single structure which provides more than twelve
thousand five hundred acre-feet of floodwater detention
capacity, and more than twenty-five thousand acre-feet
of total capacity. No appropriation shall be made for
any plan involving an estimated Federal contribution to
construction costs in excess of $5,000,000, or which
includes any structure which provides more than twenty-
five hundred acre-feet of total capacity unless such
plan has been approved by resolutions adopted by the
appropriate Committees of the Senate and House of
Representatives: Provided, That in the case of any plan
involving no single structure providing more than 4,000
acre-feet of total capacity the appropriate Committees
shall be the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives and in the case of any
plan involving any single structure of more than 4,000
acre-feet of total capacity the appropriate Committees
shall be the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives,
respectively. Each project must contain benefits
directly related to agriculture, including rural
communities that account for at least 20 percent of the
total benefits of the project. A number of such sub-
watersheds when they are component parts of a larger
watershed may be planned together when the local
sponsoring organizations so desire.

``Local organization''--any state, political subdivision
thereof, soil or water conservation district, flood prevention
or control district, or combinations thereof, or any other
agency having authority under state law to carry out, maintain
and operate the works of improvement; or any irrigation or
reservoir company, water users' association, or similar
organization having such authority and not being operated for
profit that may be approved by the Secretary; or any Indian
Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 450b of
title 25, having authority under Federal, state, or Indian
Tribal law to carry out, maintain, and operate the works of
improvement.

Sec. 1003. Assistance to local organizations.

In order to assist local organizations in preparing and carrying
out plans for works of improvement, the Secretary is authorized, upon
application of local organizations if such application has been
submitted to, and not disapproved within 45 days by, the state agency
having supervisory responsibility over programs provided for in this
chapter, or by the Governor if there is no state agency having such
responsibility--

(1) to conduct such investigations and surveys as may be
necessary to prepare plans for works of improvement;
(2) to prepare plans and estimates required for adequate
engineering evaluation;
(3) to make allocations of costs to the various purposes to
show the basis of such allocations and to determine whether
benefits exceed costs;
(4) to cooperate and enter into agreements with and to
furnish financial and other assistance to local organizations:
Provided, That, for the land-treatment measures, the Federal
assistance shall not exceed the rate of assistance for similar
practices under existing national programs;
(5) to obtain the cooperation and assistance of other Federal
agencies in carrying out the purposes of this section;
(6) to enter into agreements with landowners, operators, and
occupiers, individually or collectively, based on conservation
plans of such landowners, operators, and occupiers which are
developed in cooperation with and approved by the soil and
water conservation district in which the land described in the
agreement is situated, to be carried out on such land during a
period of not to exceed 10 years, providing for changes in
cropping systems and land uses and for the installation of soil
and water conservation practices and measures needed to
conserve and develop the soil, water, woodland, wildlife,
energy, and recreation resources of and enhance the water
quality of lands within the area included in plans for works of
improvement, as provided for in such plans, including watershed
or sub-watershed work plans in connection with the eleven
watershed improvement programs authorized by section 13 of the
Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and
supplemented. Applications for assistance in developing such
conservation plans shall be made in writing to the soil and
water conservation district involved, and the proposed
agreement shall be reviewed by such district. In return for
such agreements by landowners, operators, and occupiers the
Secretary shall agree to share the costs of carrying out those
practices and measures set forth in the agreement for which he
determines that cost-sharing is appropriate and in the public
interest. The portion of such costs, including labor, to be
shared shall be that part which the Secretary determines is
appropriate and in the public interest for the carrying out of
the practices and measures set forth in the agreement, except
that the Federal assistance shall not exceed the rate of
assistance for similar practices and measures under existing
national programs. The Secretary may terminate any agreement
with a landowner, operator, or occupier by mutual agreement if
the Secretary determines that such termination would be in the
public interest, and may agree to such modifications of
agreements, previously entered into hereunder, as he deems
desirable to carry out the purposes of this paragraph or to
facilitate the practical administration of the agreements
provided for herein. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary, to the extent he deems it desirable to
carry out the purposes of this paragraph, may provide in any
agreement hereunder for (1) preservation for a period not to
exceed the period covered by the agreement and an equal period
thereafter of the cropland, crop acreage, and allotment history
applicable to land covered by the agreement for the purpose of
any Federal program under which such history is used as a basis
for an allotment or other limitation on the production of any
crop; or (2) surrender of any such history and allotments.

Sec. 1003a. Cost-share assistance.

(a) Easements.--The Secretary may provide cost-share assistance to
project sponsors to enable such sponsors to acquire perpetual wetland
or floodplain conservation easements to perpetuate, restore and enhance
the natural capability of wetlands and floodplains to retain excessive
floodwaters, improve water quality and quantity, and provide habitat
for fish and wildlife.
(b) Amount.--The Secretary shall require that project sponsors of
watershed projects provide up to 50 percent of the cost of acquiring
easements under subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 1004. Conditions for Federal assistance.

The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal
assistance for the installation of works of improvement that local
organizations shall--

(1) acquire, or with respect to interests in land to be
acquired by condemnation provide assurances satisfactory to the
Secretary that they will acquire, without cost to the Federal
Government from funds appropriated for the purposes of this
chapter, such land, easements, or rights-of-way as will be
needed in connection with works of improvement installed with
Federal assistance: Provided, That when a local organization
agrees to operate and maintain any reservoir or other area
included in a plan for public fish and wildlife or recreational
development, the Secretary shall be authorized to bear not to
exceed \1/2\ of the costs of (a) the land, easements, or
rights-of-way acquired or to be acquired by the local
organization for such reservoir or other area, and (b) minimum
basic facilities needed for public health and safety, access
to, and use of such reservoir or other area for such purposes:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall be authorized to
participate in recreational development in any watershed
project only to the extent that the need therefore is
demonstrated in accordance with standards established by him,
taking into account the anticipated man-days of use of the
projected recreational development and giving consideration to
the availability within the region of existing water-based
outdoor recreational developments: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall be authorized to participate in not more than
one recreational development in a watershed project containing
less than seventy-five thousand acres, or two such developments
in a project containing between seventy-five thousand and one
hundred and fifty thousand acres, or three such developments in
projects exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres:
Provided further, That when the Secretary and a local
organization have agreed that the immediate acquisition by the
local organization of land, easements, or rights-of-way is
advisable for the preservation of sites for works of
improvement included in a plan from encroachment by
residential, commercial, industrial, or other development, the
Secretary shall be authorized to advance to the local
organization from funds appropriated for construction of works
of improvement the amounts required for the acquisition of such
land, easements or rights-of-way; and, except where such costs
are to be borne by the Secretary, such advance shall be repaid
by the local organization, with interest, prior to construction
of the works of improvement, for credit to such construction
funds: Provided further, That the Secretary shall be authorized
to bear an amount not to exceed \1/2\ of the costs of the land,
easements, or rights-of-way acquired or to be acquired by the
local organization for mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat
losses, and that such acquisition is not limited to the
confines of the watershed project boundaries;
(2) assume--

(A) such proportionate share, as is determined by the
Secretary to be equitable in consideration of national
needs and assistance authorized for similar purposes
under other Federal programs, of the costs of
installing any works of improvement, involving Federal
assistance (excluding engineering costs), which is
applicable to the agricultural phases of the
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of
water or for fish and wildlife development,
recreational development, ground water recharge, water
quality management, or the conservation and proper
utilization of land: Provided, That works of
improvement for water quality management shall consist
primarily of water storage capacity in reservoirs for
regulation of streamflow, except that any such storage
and water releases shall not be provided as a
substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of
controlling waste at the source, and shall be
consistent with standards and regulations adopted by
the Water Resources Council on Federal cost-sharing for
water quality management, and
(B) all of the cost of installing any portion of such
works applicable to other purposes except that any part
of the construction cost (including engineering costs)
applicable to flood prevention and features relating
thereto shall be borne by the Federal Government and
paid for by the Secretary out of funds appropriated for
the purposes of this chapter: Provided, That, in
addition to and without limitation on the authority of
the Secretary to make loans or advancements under
section 1006a of this title, the Secretary may pay for
any storage of water for present or anticipated future
demands or needs for municipal or industrial water
included in any reservoir structure constructed or
modified under the provisions of this chapter as
hereinafter provided: Provided further, That the cost
of water storage to meet future demands may not exceed
30 per centum of the total estimated cost of such
reservoir structure and the local organization shall
give reasonable assurances, and there is evidence, that
such demands for the use of such storage will be made
within a period of time which will permit repayment
within the life of the reservoir structure of the cost
of such storage: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall determine prior to initiation of construction or
modification of any reservoir structure including such
water supply storage that there are adequate assurances
by the local organization or by an agency of the state
having authority to give such assurances, that the
Secretary will be reimbursed the cost of water supply
storage for anticipated future demands, and that the
local organization will pay not less than 50 per centum
of the cost of storage for present water supply
demands: And provided further, That the cost to be
borne by the local organization for anticipated future
demands may be repaid within the life of the reservoir
structure but in no event to exceed fifty years after
the reservoir structure is first used for the storage
of water for anticipated future water supply demands,
except that--

(1) no reimbursement of the cost of such
water supply storage for anticipated future
demands need be made until such supply is first
used, and
(2) no interest shall be charged on the cost
of such water-supply storage for anticipated
future demands until such supply is first used,
but in no case shall the interest-free period
exceed 10 years. The interest rate used for
purposes of computing the interest on the
unpaid balance shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of section 1006a
of this title.
(3) make arrangements satisfactory to the
Secretary for defraying costs of operating and
maintaining such works of improvement, in
accordance with regulations presented by the
Secretary of Agriculture;
(4) acquire, or provide assurance that
landowners or water users have acquired, such
water rights, pursuant to state law, as may be
needed in the installation and operation of the
work of improvement;
(5) obtain agreements to carry out
recommended soil conservation measures and
proper farm plans from owners of not less than
50 per centum of the land situated in the
drainage area above each retention reservoir to
be installed with Federal assistance; and
(6) submit a plan of repayment satisfactory
to the Secretary for any loan or advancement
made under the provisions of section 1006a of
this title.

Sec. 1005. Works of improvement.

(1) Engineering and Other Services; Reimbursement; Advances.--At
such time as the Secretary and the interested local organization have
agreed on a plan for works of improvement, and the Secretary has
determined that the benefits exceed the costs, and the local
organization has met the requirements for participation in carrying out
the works of improvement as set forth in section 1004 of this title,
the local organization may secure engineering and other services,
including the design, preparation of contracts and specifications,
awarding of contracts, and supervision of construction, in connection
with such works of improvement, by retaining or employing a
professional engineer or engineers satisfactory to the Secretary or may
request the Secretary to provide such services: Provided, That if the
local organization elects to employ a professional engineer or
engineers, the Secretary shall reimburse the local organization for the
costs of such engineering and other services secured by the local
organization as are properly chargeable to such works of improvement in
an amount not to exceed the amount agreed upon in the plan for works of
improvement or any modification thereof: Provided further, That the
Secretary may advance such amounts as may be necessary to pay for such
services, but such advances with respect to any works of improvement
shall not exceed five per centum of the estimated installation cost of
such works.
(2) Federal Construction; Request by Local Organization.--Except as
to the installation of works of improvement on Federal lands, the
Secretary shall not construct or enter into any contract for the
construction of any structure: Provided, That, if requested to do so by
the local organization, the Secretary may enter into contracts for the
construction of structures.
(3) Transmission of Certain Plans to Congress.--Whenever the
estimated Federal contribution to the construction costs of works of
improvement in the plan for any watershed or sub-watershed area shall
exceed $5,000,000 or the works of improvement include any structure
having a total capacity in excess of twenty-five hundred acre-feet, the
Secretary shall transmit a copy of the plan and the justification
therefore to the Congress through the President.
(4) Transmission of Certain Plans and Recommendations to
Congress.--Any plans for works of improvement involving an estimated
Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of $5,000,000 or
including any structure having a total capacity in excess of twenty-
five hundred acre-feet

(a) which includes works of improvement for reclamation or
irrigation, or which affects public or other lands or wildlife
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior,
(b) which includes Federal assistance for floodwater
detention structures,
(c) which includes features which may affect the public
health, or
(d) which includes measures for control or abatement of water
pollution, shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, respectively, for his views and recommendations at
least thirty days prior to transmission of the plan to the
Congress through the President. The views and recommendations
of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, if
received by the Secretary prior to the expiration of the above
thirty-day period, shall accompany the plan transmitted by the
Secretary to the Congress through the President.

(5) Rules and Regulations.--Prior to any Federal participation in
the works of improvement under this chapter, the President shall issue
such rules and regulations as he deems necessary or desirable to carry
out the purposes of this chapter, and to assure the coordination of the
work authorized under this chapter and related work of other agencies,
including the Department of the Interior and the Department of the
Army.

Sec. 1006 Cooperative Programs.

The Secretary is authorized in cooperation with other Federal and
with states and local agencies to make investigations and surveys of
the watershed of rivers and other waterways as a basis for the
development of coordinated programs. In areas where the programs of the
Secretary of Agriculture may affect public or other lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture
in the planning and development of works or programs for such lands.

Sec. 1006a Loans or advancements for financing local share of
costs; repayment; interest; maximum amount.

The Secretary is authorized to make loans or advancements

(a) to local organizations to finance the local share of
costs of carrying out works of improvement provided for in this
chapter, and
(b) to state and local agencies to finance the local share of
costs of carrying out works of improvement (as defined in
section 1002 of this title) in connection with the eleven
watershed improvement programs authorized by section 13 of the
Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and
supplemented: Provided, That the works of improvement in
connection with said eleven watershed improvement programs
shall be integral parts of watershed or sub-watershed work
plans agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
concerned state and local agencies. A loan or advance under
this section shall be made under a contract or agreement that
provides, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate, for the repayment of the loan or advance
in not more than 50 years from the date when the principal
benefits of the works of improvement first become available,
with interest at a rate not to exceed the current market yield
for outstanding municipal obligations with remaining periods to
maturity comparable to the average maturity for the loan,
adjusted to the nearest \1/8\ of 1 percent. With respect to any
single plan for works of improvement, the amount of any such
loan or advancement shall not exceed $10,000,000.

Sec. 1006b Territorial application.

The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Sec. 1007. Authorization of appropriations.

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, such sums to
remain available until expended. No appropriation hereafter available
for assisting local organizations in preparing and carrying out plans
for works of improvement under the provisions of section 1003 of this
title or clause (a) of section 1006a of this title shall be available
for any works of improvement pursuant to this chapter or otherwise in
connection with the eleven watershed improvement programs authorized by
section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended
and supplemented, or for making loans or advancements to state and
local agencies as authorized by clause (b) of section 1006a of this
title.

Sec. 1008 Notification of Secretary of the Interior of approval of
assistance; surveys and investigations; report and recommendations;
consideration; cost of surveys; investigations and reports.

When the Secretary approves the furnishing of assistance to a local
organization in preparing a plan for works of improvement as provided
for in section 1003 of this title:

(1) The Secretary shall so notify the Secretary of the
Interior in order that the latter, as he desires, may make
surveys and investigations and prepare a report with
recommendations concerning the conservation and development of
wildlife resources and participate, under arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary of Agriculture, in the
preparation of a plan for works of improvement that is
acceptable to the local organization and the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(2) Full consideration shall be given to the recommendations
contained in any such report of the Secretary of the Interior
as he may submit to the Secretary of Agriculture prior to the
time the local organization and the Secretary of Agriculture
have agreed on a plan for works of improvement. The plan shall
include such of the technically and economically feasible works
of improvement for wildlife purposes recommended in the report
by the Secretary of the Interior as are acceptable to, and
agreed to by, the local organization and the Secretary of
Agriculture, and such report of the Secretary of the Interior
shall, if requested by the Secretary of the Interior, accompany
the plan for works of improvement when it is submitted to the
Secretary of Agriculture for approval or transmitted to the
Congress through the President.
(3) The cost of making surveys and investigations and of
preparing reports concerning the conservation and development
of wildlife resources shall be borne by the Secretary of the
Interior out of funds appropriated to his Department.

Sec. 1009 Joint investigations and surveys by Secretary of the Army
and Secretary of Agriculture; reports to Congress.

The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Agriculture, when
authorized to do so by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate or the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, are
authorized and directed to make joint investigations and surveys in
accordance with their existing authorities of watershed areas in the
United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and to prepare
joint reports on such investigations and surveys setting forth their
recommendations for the installation of the works of improvement needed
for flood prevention or the conservation, development, utilization, and
disposal of water, and for flood control and allied purposes. Such
joint reports shall be submitted to the Congress through the President
for adoption and authorization by the Congress of the recommended works
of improvement: Provided, That the project authorization procedure
established by this chapter shall not be affected.

Sec. 1010 Data.

The Secretary shall collect and maintain data on a national and
state by state basis concerning--

(1) expenditures for the individual flood control and
conservation measures for which assistance is provided under
this chapter; and
(2) the expected flood control or environmental (including
soil erosion) benefits that will result from the implementation
of such measures.

Sec. 1011. Watershed restoration and enhancement agreements.

(a) In General.--For Fiscal Year 1997 and each fiscal year
thereafter, appropriations made for the Bureau of Land Management may
be used by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of entering
into cooperative agreements with the heads of other Federal agencies,
Tribal, state, and local governments, private and nonprofit entities,
and landowners for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish
and wildlife habitat and other resources on public or private land and
the reduction of risk from natural disaster where public safety is
threatened that benefit these resources on public lands within the
watershed.
(b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The Secretary of the
Interior may enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement
agreement--

(1) directly with a willing private landowner; or
(2) indirectly through an agreement with a state, local, or
Tribal government or other public entity, educational
institution, or private nonprofit organization.

(1) the agreement shall--

(A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed
to by the Secretary and the landowner;
(B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit
the fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on
public land in the watershed;
(C) authorize the provision of technical assistance
by the Secretary in the planning of management
activities that will further the purposes of the
agreement;
(D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing
the agreement among the Federal Government, the
Landowner, and other entities, as mutually agreed on by
the affected interests; and
(E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary
pursuant to the agreement is determined by the
Secretary to be in the public interest; and

(2) the Secretary may require such other terms and conditions
as are necessary to protect the public investment on private
lands, provided such terms and conditions are mutually agreed
to by the Secretary and other landowners, state and local
governments or both.

Sec. 1012. Rehabilitation of structural measures near, at, or past
their evaluated life expectancy.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:

(1) Rehabilitation.--The term ''rehabilitation'', with
respect to a structural measure constructed as part of a
covered water resource project, means the completion of all
work necessary to extend the service life of the structural
measure and meet applicable safety and performance standards.
This may include:

(A) protecting the integrity of the structural
measure or prolonging the useful life of the structural
measure beyond the original evaluated life expectancy;
(B) correcting damage to the structural measure from
a catastrophic event;
(C) correcting the deterioration of structural
components that are deteriorating at an abnormal rate;
(D) upgrading the structural measure to meet changed
land use conditions in the watershed served by the
structural measure or changed safety criteria
applicable to the structural measure; or
(E) decommissioning the structure, if requested by
the local organization.

(2) Covered water resource project.--The term ''covered water
resource project'' means a work of improvement carried out
under any of the following:

(A) This chapter
(B) Section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944
(Public Law 78-534; 58 Stat. 905).
(C) The pilot watershed program authorized under the
heading ''Flood Prevention'' of the Department of
Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1954 (Public Law 156; 67
Stat. 214).
(D) Subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and
Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451 et seq.; commonly
known as the Resource Conservation and Development
Program).

(3) Structural measure.--The term ''structural measure''
means a physical improvement that impounds water, commonly
known as a dam, which was constructed as part of a covered
water resource project, including the impoundment area and
flood pool.

(b) Cost-Share Assistance for Rehabilitation.--

(1) Assistance authorized.--The Secretary may provide
financial assistance to a local organization to cover a portion
of the total costs incurred for the rehabilitation of
structural measures originally constructed as part of a covered
water resource project. The total costs of rehabilitation
include the costs associated with all components of the
rehabilitation project, including acquisition of land,
easements, and rights-of-ways, rehabilitation project
administration, the provision of technical assistance,
contracting, and construction costs, except that the local
organization shall be responsible for securing all land,
easements, or rights-of-ways necessary for the project.
(2) Amount of assistance; limitations.--The amount of Federal
funds that may be made available under this subsection to a
local organization for construction of a particular
rehabilitation project shall be equal to 65 percent of the
total rehabilitation costs, but not to exceed 100 percent of
actual construction costs incurred in the rehabilitation.
However, the local organization shall be responsible for the
costs of water, mineral, and other resource rights and all
Federal, state, and local permits.
(3) Relation to land use and development regulations.--As a
condition on entering into an agreement to provide financial
assistance under this subsection, the Secretary, working in
concert with the affected unit or units of general purpose
local government, may require that proper zoning or other
developmental regulations are in place in the watershed in
which the structural measures to be rehabilitated under the
agreement are located so that--

(A) the completed rehabilitation project is not
quickly rendered inadequate by additional development;
and
(B) society can realize the full benefits of the
rehabilitation investment.

(c) Technical Assistance for Watershed Project Rehabilitation.--The
Secretary, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
may provide technical assistance in planning, designing, and
implementing rehabilitation projects should a local organization
request such assistance. Such assistance may consist of specialists in
such fields as engineering, geology, soils, agronomy, biology,
hydraulics, hydrology, economics, water quality, and contract
administration.
(d) Prohibited Use.--

(1) Performance of operation and maintenance.--Rehabilitation
assistance provided under this section may not be used to
perform operation and maintenance activities specified in the
agreement for the covered water resource project entered into
between the Secretary and the local organization responsible
for the works of improvement. Such operation and maintenance
activities shall remain the responsibility of the local
organization, as provided in the project work plan.
(2) Renegotiation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), as part of
the provision of financial assistance under subsection (b) of
this section, the Secretary may renegotiate the original
agreement for the covered water resource project entered into
between the Secretary and the local organization regarding
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project
when the rehabilitation is finished.

(e) Application for Rehabilitation Assistance.--A local
organization may apply to the Secretary for technical and financial
assistance under this section if the application has also been
submitted to and approved by the state agency having supervisory
responsibility over the covered water resource project at issue or, if
there is no state agency having such responsibility, by the Governor of
the state. The Secretary shall request the state dam safety officer (or
equivalent state official) to be involved in the application process if
state permits or approvals are required. The rehabilitation of
structural measures shall meet standards established by the Secretary
and address other dam safety issues. At the request of the local
organization, personnel of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
of the Department of Agriculture may assist in preparing applications
for assistance.
(f) Ranking of Requests for Rehabilitation Assistance.--The
Secretary shall establish such system of approving rehabilitation
requests, recognizing that such requests will be received throughout
the fiscal year and subject to the availability of funds to carry out
this section, as is necessary for proper administration by the
Department of Agriculture and equitable for all local organizations.
The approval process shall be in writing, and made known to all local
organizations and appropriate state agencies.
(g) Prohibition on Certain Rehabilitation Assistance.--The
Secretary may not approve a rehabilitation request if the need for
rehabilitation of the structure is the result of a lack of adequate
maintenance by the party responsible for the maintenance.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to provide financial and technical
assistance under this section--

(1) $5,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2001;
(2) $10,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2002;
(3) $15,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2003;
(4) $25,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2004; and
(5) $35,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2005.

(i) Assessment of Rehabilitation Needs.--The Secretary, in concert
with the responsible state agencies, shall conduct an assessment of the
rehabilitation needs of covered water resource projects in all states
in which such projects are located.
(j) Recordkeeping and Reports.--

(1) Secretary.--The Secretary shall maintain a data base to
track the benefits derived from rehabilitation projects
supported under this section and the expenditures made under
this section. On the basis of such data and the reports
submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prepare and
submit to Congress an annual report providing the status of
activities conducted under this section.
(2) Grant recipients.--Not later than 90 days after the
completion of a specific rehabilitation project for which
assistance is provided under this section, the local
organization that received the assistance shall make a report
to the Secretary giving the status of any rehabilitation effort
undertaken using financial assistance provided under this
section.

[all]